Kettlebell Strenght Aerobics v. LSD - difference in adaptations.

[watchnerd]

Not sure what to make of this . . .

It's what you do on an out of warranty fire safe that can't be opened and a lock smith says he can't unlock.

It was actually a lot of fun.

Took me 5 minutes -- use wood chisels to remove the hinge pins, hammer crow bar into door edge gap, crack it open a few mm, slide in 6 foot digging bar, then use leverage till it pops.

 

[vegpedlr]

Well, @watchnerd ’s larcenous training program aside and back to the OP, I really think Strength Aerobics done with one or two bells, and/or combined with loaded carries could be brilliant for a minimalist/generalist. Someone who wants to be ready to go at a variety of outdoor activities without needing a high level of any particular quality.

I’d love to hear people’s anecdotal experience with this program, or something like it.

 

[Fred64]

I've been thinking a bit about venous return... Pavel wrote somewhere that one reason for moving around during rest periods between sets is that standing still puts too much stress on the heart and that moving is necessary since the squeezing of the calves is needed to help with returning blood to the heart. If you stand still, the heart needs to press the blood all the way from the heart down to the lower limbs and then back to the heart. If you move, the venous return system will help out. If that is right, then that would probably affect what results you get from LSD and/or Strength Aerobics, depending on what activity you choose. A certain heart rate stretches the left ventricle the same, no matter what activity you do, but if you choose to double pole on skis instead of running, maybe you will get a stronger (thicker) heart by double poling since you are not really moving your legs. Something like that. I would guess that the best way to stretch the heart while avoiding "strengthening" it, would be to move your feet. Like walking or running. Strength aerobics (if you stand still) would therefore not give the same heart adaption as running. Even at the same heart rate. Just a theory.

 

[Anna C]

I've been thinking a bit about venous return... Pavel wrote somewhere that one reason for moving around during rest periods between sets is that standing still puts too much stress on the heart and that moving is necessary since the squeezing of the calves is needed to help with returning blood to the heart. If you stand still, the heart needs to press the blood all the way from the heart down to the lower limbs and then back to the heart. If you move, the venous return system will help out. If that is right, then that would probably affect what results you get from LSD and/or Strength Aerobics, depending on what activity you choose. A certain heart rate stretches the left ventricle the same, no matter what activity you do, but if you choose to double pole on skis instead of running, maybe you will get a stronger (thicker) heart by double poling since you are not really moving your legs. Something like that. I would guess that the best way to stretch the heart while avoiding "strengthening" it, would be to move your feet. Like walking or running. Strength aerobics (if you stand still) would therefore not give the same heart adaption as running. Even at the same heart rate. Just a theory.

I think this is exactly right. I've always thought that rowing, such as on a C2, would be very different from walking/running or many other types of aerobic exercise for this reason. Rowing on a C2 isn't that much different than continuously snatching a light-to-moderate kettlebell, IMO. Or as you describe, double poling on skis.

Edit/Add: But perhaps for all of these examples, the the contraction isn't complete or forceful enough to impede blood flow, as a more strength-building exercise would be.

 

[Erik Hournou]

I think this is exactly right. I've always thought that rowing, such as on a C2, would be very different from walking/running or many other types of aerobic exercise for this reason. Rowing on a C2 isn't that much different than continuously snatching a light-to-moderate kettlebell, IMO. Or as you describe, double poling on skis.

Edit/Add: But perhaps for all of these examples, the the contraction isn't complete or forceful enough to impede blood flow, as a more strength-building exercise would be.

Maybe the snatching of the bell would produce more contraction of the calves compared to rowing due to weight transfer from one foot to the other and rooting.

 

[John K]

Frank starling mechanism has been pretty well established at this point. “Weighted cardio” is unlikely to have the same physiological effects as aerobic work, especially when it comes to expanding and stretching the ventricle.

 

[Anna C]

Frank starling mechanism has been pretty well established at this point. “Weighted cardio” is unlikely to have the same physiological effects as aerobic work, especially when it comes to expanding and stretching the ventricle.

I wasn't familiar with that term, thanks.

I agree, but what's interesting about this discussion is that there is a spectrum, and there's not clear dividing line between exercise with external weight and exercise without it.

 

[Pasibrzuch]

I've been thinking a bit about venous return... Pavel wrote somewhere that one reason for moving around during rest periods between sets is that standing still puts too much stress on the heart and that moving is necessary since the squeezing of the calves is needed to help with returning blood to the heart. If you stand still, the heart needs to press the blood all the way from the heart down to the lower limbs and then back to the heart. If you move, the venous return system will help out.

The information about calf contraction is amazing, I would never think of that. Thank you for contributing!

I deliberately stressed the cardiac side of the coin. Of course different activities would result differently when it comes to muscle memory and fast/slow twitch engagement ratio. The cardiac aspect was yet unfathomed to me, a large thank you to everybody for calrifying the picture!

The emerging thought I have is it's amazing how general health depends on maintaining structural balance between dualities: work and rest, push and pull, slow twitch and fast twitch, and now preload and afterload. Of course dichotomies are mental simplifications of more complex processes, but they can offer fast and frugal heuristics for achieving your goals, in this case staying healthy.

 

[John K]

I wasn't familiar with that term, thanks.

I agree, but what's interesting about this discussion is that there is a spectrum, and there's not clear dividing line between exercise with external weight and exercise without it.

Very true! Like most things it’s easy to be overly reductionistic, and I might be here as well, but this in my process, taking our knowns and unknowns. We know what’s required to stretch the left ventricle - there needs to be low pressure, high venous return, and the heart rate cannot be to fast. Heart rate too high, lower stroke volume because the ventricle doesn’t have time to completely fill; increased pressure (a la valsalva for instance, or in the case of a muscular contraction increasing blood pressure) or decreases venous return (a la muscles contracted), and there might not be enough blood to fill the ventricle fully. These all suggest - to me - that unweighted “classic cardio” done at lower intensities (heart rate sweet spot if you will) are the “sure thing” for the stated goal (stretching the left ventricle).

As soon as we add weights, we might change the balance of the system. Like you said, we don’t know where one stops and the other starts - is rucking considered unweighted cardio or weighted cardio? - but it would suggest to me there’s going to be “diminishing returns” as we increase the weight, increase the time under tension, and increase the peak heart rate. Likewise even with classic cardio the longer we spend with an overly elevated heart rate the less likely we’ll see the development we’re looking for. Sadly I don’t have a better picture than what I’ve just described, including what that heart rate is - although I suspect it to be one that is at or below our aerobic threshold.

To be clear, I am not a physiologist. I do have a degree in zoology but it is relatively unrelated. Most of what I’m saying is how I approach this idea based on information I’ve digested over the past decade from much much much more knowledgeable people on this subject. I love discussing this and anything I have wrong or may be missing I’d love to learn.

 

[Anna C]

Very true! Like most things it’s easy to be overly reductionistic, and I might be here as well, but this in my process, taking our knowns and unknowns. We know what’s required to stretch the left ventricle - there needs to be low pressure, high venous return, and the heart rate cannot be to fast. Heart rate too high, lower stroke volume because the ventricle doesn’t have time to completely fill; increased pressure (a la valsalva for instance, or in the case of a muscular contraction increasing blood pressure) or decreases venous return (a la muscles contracted), and there might not be enough blood to fill the ventricle fully. These all suggest - to me - that unweighted “classic cardio” done at lower intensities (heart rate sweet spot if you will) are the “sure thing” for the stated goal (stretching the left ventricle).

As soon as we add weights, we might change the balance of the system. Like you said, we don’t know where one stops and the other starts - is rucking considered unweighted cardio or weighted cardio? - but it would suggest to me there’s going to be “diminishing returns” as we increase the weight, increase the time under tension, and increase the peak heart rate. Likewise even with classic cardio the longer we spend with an overly elevated heart rate the less likely we’ll see the development we’re looking for. Sadly I don’t have a better picture than what I’ve just described, including what that heart rate is - although I suspect it to be one that is at or below our aerobic threshold.

Sounds just right to me!

To be clear, I am not a physiologist. I do have a degree in zoology but it is relatively unrelated. Most of what I’m saying is how I approach this idea based on information I’ve digested over the past decade from much much much more knowledgeable people on this subject. I love discussing this and anything I have wrong or may be missing I’d love to learn.

Same here.

 

[watchnerd]

Now I'm thinking how my wood chopping routine fits in to this model.

Lift round to stump, chop with maul until it splits into four pieces (the most cardio intensive part), throw pieces into pile, carry pieces to wood shed (50 yards).

 

[wespom9]

@Coyotl I think you're spot on with your comments.
Of course, once we start asking where on the continuum things change, we also have to start asking ourselves how much do we value the pure cardio adaptation (in terms of health, improving the cardiac parameters like heart volume etc), and in terms of fitness) and how much time do we want to devote to developing that at the cost of other qualities/time. So many questions!!

For what it's worth, here's how I think of this:
I walk the dog, low pace, HR likely barely 100 every day for 15-20 minutes. I'm fairly active in my job (less so now that many of my programs are run virtually instead of in person exercise coaching but the point stands). From a health standpoint, I'm confident I do enough to get good cardiac adaptation

my primary goals in training are to be "strong enough" to have no problems living life, and get better at my sport hobbies of golf and tennis. From the paragraph above, I don't think I need excess training for pure cardio adaptations. Low volume strength (slow gain or maintenance), regular A+A (whether that is pure A+A, S&S, Q&D, whatever) where I train alactic capacity with aerobic recovery (helps contribute to the above health goals) and simultaneously improve my "one shot power" (golf) and repeat power endurance (tennis). Seems to me to be the best of all worlds.

 

[Erik Hournou]

@Coyotl I think you're spot on with your comments.
Of course, once we start asking where on the continuum things change, we also have to start asking ourselves how much do we value the pure cardio adaptation (in terms of health, improving the cardiac parameters like heart volume etc), and in terms of fitness) and how much time do we want to devote to developing that at the cost of other qualities/time. So many questions!!

For what it's worth, here's how I think of this:
I walk the dog, low pace, HR likely barely 100 every day for 15-20 minutes. I'm fairly active in my job (less so now that many of my programs are run virtually instead of in person exercise coaching but the point stands). From a health standpoint, I'm confident I do enough to get good cardiac adaptation

my primary goals in training are to be "strong enough" to have no problems living life, and get better at my sport hobbies of golf and tennis. From the paragraph above, I don't think I need excess training for pure cardio adaptations. Low volume strength (slow gain or maintenance), regular A+A (whether that is pure A+A, S&S, Q&D, whatever) where I train alactic capacity with aerobic recovery (helps contribute to the above health goals) and simultaneously improve my "one shot power" (golf) and repeat power endurance (tennis). Seems to me to be the best of all worlds.

I think you can develop all the qualities simultaneously but it requires a lot of patience and a looong years of consistency.

 

[wespom9]

@Erik Hournou I got nothing but time haha

 

[Erik Hournou]

@Erik Hournou I got nothing but time haha

You and me both hahaah