all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Swings and Crawls - The 'true' program minimum?

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Seems like what is being said is this:

Crawling is good
Get ups are good
Get ups =\= crawling
Which is better depends on the goal

Do what works for your body and your goals. If you don’t know what that is yet, stick with tried and tested programs like S&S
 
watchnerd said:
Well, let's unpack GPP a little bit and how we could connect it to longevity.

First of all, it's contextual, as it is a prelude to SPP (specific physical preparedness), i.e. GPP is general "physical fitness" for whatever specialized training one is about to do.

General physical preparedness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

GPP is also not something you do in perpetuity. It's an 'off season' activity to prepare you for the more targeted (and usually harder) later training to reach your objective.

Your stated objective is: "overall health and longevity".

When it comes to reducing all cause mortality and increasing health-span, the typical areas discussed are:

1. Maintaining reasonable body fat
2. Cardiovascular health
3. Musculoskeletal health & strength
4. Stability, mobility, and balance.

So if we then say our SPP is to create a training plan to improve these qualities, one could end up with a program consisting of:

1. Diet and nutrition
2. Zone 2 cardio, with occasional zone 5
3. Progressive resistance training
4. Core work, mobility and balancing work

Of these, crawling doesn't do much to help prepare us for doing SPP to address #1-3.

Crawling might help with #4 a bit, but as a biped, the balance that really matters and may save you from falling injuries is what you can do on 2 feet.

So, no, I wouldn't place crawling as well-suited for the highest level of GPP for longevity, unless it is as a extreme regression for somebody who is infirm or otherwise unable to do more.

And even then, it would be something we'd want to progress beyond as soon as we're able.

If one is fit enough to do KB swings, one shouldn't be in the category of someone who needs crawling as a regression.

If you do, then KB swings are probably too challenging.

My 79 year old mom would fit into this category -- not fit enough for KB swings, so could start with crawling, so she's far from the "highest level."
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Let's go over it, shall we?

If you think a GPP program can't consist of two movements, I'd suggest you look around and see where you are posting.

If you think that long sessions of A+A swings with a heavy kettlebell can't deliver, see above.

And if you don't understand that the muscles and systems worked in a good crawl (loaded or not) are an excellent counterbalance to powerful posterior chain work, I'd strongly suggest you research that.

My initial question was about GPP with an eye to longevity. Which involves mitochondrial health. Are 'A+A swings' Good for this? I think I may have read that somewhere.

It is not nice, or productive to scoff, throw shade, or act like you know more than others. People come here to share ideas and offer knowledge in good faith.

Hope you are well. Have a good one.
 
JR47 said:
I disagree.

Let's go over it, shall we?

If you think a GPP program can't consist of two movements, I'd suggest you look around and see where you are posting.

If you think that long sessions of A+A swings with a heavy kettlebell can't deliver, see above.

And if you don't understand that the muscles and systems worked in a good crawl (loaded or not) are an excellent counterbalance to powerful posterior chain work, I'd strongly suggest you research that.

My initial question was about GPP with an eye to longevity. Which involves mitochondrial health. Are 'A+A swings' Good for this? I think I may have read that somewhere.

It is not nice, or productive to scoff, throw shade, or act like you know more than others. People come here to share ideas and offer knowledge in good faith.

Hope you are well. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Of course you can do only 2 movements if you like.

But I don't think having crawling as 1 of only 2 moves is remotely the highest level GPP for longevity.

As far as "look around and see where you are posting" -- as others have said, we already have a minimalist program:

Swings + TGU

If we only get 2 moves, I don't see how crawling beats TGUs and the ability to progressively overload get ups.
 
Last edited:
rwleonard said:
Neupert writes about things like dragging 200lbs of chain, crawling up stairs, etc. Just because one doesn't "see" something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, especially when one hasn't looked.
Click to expand...

It's certainly different.

But is it superior to the TGU progressions that have been honed over a few decades in the kettlebell community?
 
watchnerd said:
If we only get 2 moves, I don't see how crawling beats TGUs and the ability to progressively overload get ups.
Click to expand...

I haven't practiced crawling. (In fact, I am one of those ~10% of people who didn't crawl as a child, rather I started walking at 10 months.)

But I have watched Tim Anderson (of Original Strength) do a 135 lb barbell getup without training it. There is a great value and wisdom in Tim's approach to things, and that opinion is shared by many in the StrongFirst community including many members of this forum.

My impression is that crawling can be done as a strength-endurance exercise, increasing the time one can perform different kinds of crawling.

Videos | Original Strength will find videos to watch.

Note/disclaimer. At the first CK-FMS certification - 2007? - we worked in small groups. My group was three people - me, Tim Anderson, and Dan John. On the FMS test, where 21 is a "perfect" score, Tim was either a 20 or a 21 depending on how we scored one of the movements. Tim and Dan are among the kindest and smartest people I know and I always give serious consideration to any exercise advice either of them has to offer.

JMO, YMMV. I don't know if "beats" is necessary here - I think crawling has proven itself to be a successful approach for some people.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
JMO, YMMV. I don't know if "beats" is necessary here - I think crawling has proven itself to be a successful approach for some people.
Click to expand...

I mean, if it's a hypothetical program minimum (as posited in the OP) with only 2 exercises, that only lets you pick one, you kind of have to choose, right?

You can always crawl on variety days, sure, but that's different.

One of the things that is intellectually interesting (and challenging) about minimalist program design is the triage of training priorities, what is willing to give up in trade for something else.

But, agree, that's not a matter of "beat", though. It's mapping to priorities and objectives.
 
Last edited:
Adachi said:
this is where I would go for a minimum. after a round or two of Q&D 044 - I've found the snatch just covers so much ground.
Click to expand...
LoL. That's what I just asked you ☺️
I just realized that this thread is a year old, not just a month old.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to give *my* "last word" here.

Having been active and actively benefitting from this remarkable forum for the last year: for GPP it really comes down to what you enjoy and feels good. And that may be legit different next month - or you may stick with "it" for a lifetime.
As we proceed with our lives, we will discover weak points to fix, and goals will also change.

Try, evaluate, tweak, keep growing.
 
1. Z2run/hike
2. snatch.
I can't imagine a GPP program without Z2 cardio. . It's the stability of the HR at 130bpm which is important. A+A, Iron Cardio aren't Z2, but alactic intervals. Hemodynamics and metabolic pathways are very different. Even if the average HR is 130 the effort isn't the same as running constantly at 130bpm.
 
watchnerd said:
I mean, if it's a hypothetical program minimum (as posited in the OP) with only 2 exercises, that only lets you pick one, you kind of have to choose, right?

You can always crawl on variety days, sure, but that's different.

One of the things that is intellectually interesting (and challenging) about minimalist program design is the triage of training priorities, what is willing to give up in trade for something else.

But, agree, that's not a matter of "beat", though. It's mapping to priorities and objectives.
Click to expand...

I see your points, but two things, please.

There is the matter of how one perceives a goal. Mine exist on many levels, and I think (although I cannot say for sure) that most other people's do, too. My goal is to live my best life - my lifting goals are less important than that but I choose them because they serve my larger purpose. ("Strength has a higher purpose.") This perspective can make a goal seem a bit fuzzy but at the same time, it can make a goal become much more clearly defined because the goal lies within the big picture of even larger goals.

And there is the matter of accepting that multiple approaches can be valid, e.g., perhaps getups are more efficient than crawling but perhaps someone enjoys spending the extra time crawling and, assuming that crawling would get them to the same place (which I don't know about but that's another discussion) then the less efficient choice may be the better one. A type of strength training that doesn't result in as much strength may serve the broader picture of a person's aspirations in life. ("We don't say you're wrong ...") As a teacher, I'm always looking at what I think is best for a student in light of what the student says are their priorities and objectives and those are often conflicting things.

I guess what I'm saying is that "mapping to priorities and objectives" isn't always as simple as that way of expressing it sounds to me.

Today I am Philosophical Phriday Phreides. :)

-S-
 
Last edited:
Steve Freides said:
I see your points, but two thngs, please.

There is the matter of how one perceives a goal. Mine exist on many levels, and I think (although I cannot say for sure) that most other people's do, too. My goal is to live my best life - my lifting goals are less important than that but I choose them because they serve my larger purpose. ("Strength has a higher purpose.") This perspective can make a goal seem a bit fuzzy but at the same time, it can make a goal become much more clearly defined because the goal lies within the big picture of even larger goals.

And there is the matter of accepting that multiple approaches can be valid, e.g., perhaps getups are more efficient than crawling but perhaps someone enjoys spending the extra time crawling and, assuming that crawling would get them to the same place (which I don't know about but that's another discussion) then the less efficient choice may be the better one. A type of strength training that doesn't result in as much strength may serve the broader picture of a person's aspirations in life. ("We don't say you're wrong ...") As a teacher, I'm always looking at what I think is best for a student in light of what the student says are their priorities and objectives and those are often conflicting things.

I guess what I'm saying is that "mapping to priorities and objectives" isn't always as simple as that way of expressing it sounds to me.

Today I am Philosophical Phriday Phreides. :)

-S-
Click to expand...
I very much appreciate Philosophical Phriday Phreides ;-)
As always, your contributions are well though out and thought provoking. Thankyou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom