Kettlebell Swings/snatches vs. C2 rower

[Kettlebelephant]

1. Lifting weights faster results in a thickening of the heart wall and decreases left ventricle volume as a result, because there is no stretching of the heart chamber.

2. Traditional cardio such as running and swimming enlarges the left ventricle by stretching it and as a result makes the heart wall thinner.

3. Using rowing enlarges the left ventricle AND strengthens/thickens the heart wall which counteracts the stretching and you get the same thickeness as before.

Any proof of that and explanation why?
I'm not a scientist, but have basic understanding of training stimuli and their effect on the human body, but I can't see why running a 5k would lead to different adaptions than rowing a 5k.
The only thing I can think of is different training methods, like e.g. rowers usually train in intervals and runners don't (just an example), but then it would be the method that leads to different adaptions and not the "movement".

Is that all discussed in his books Viking Warrior Conditioning & Cardio Code?

Bonus question : Does the "rowing effect" also apply to the C2 SkiErg/Cross-Country skiing?

 

[offwidth]

What is your pace, steps per minute?

Usually I don't try and bust a gut. I try to keep within MAF guidelines (sometimes)
I aim for 1000' in less than 50 min. Sometimes I can push to 1,200' but that's for sure not gonna be MAF for me. Usually wearing a 12kg pack, and wearing boots.

 

[Al Ciampa]

I'd like to point out one thing here to those of you who are concerned about heart health, but first, I commend Jay for trying to tease out the scientific literature. It is not an easy task to complete a jigsaw puzzle with so many pieces missing.

The only comments we can make about physiology come from interpretation of scientific research, which itself is limited by the technology used. In his book, about the literature, he states:

“The lack of matched control groups in some of the studies looking at improvements in cardio-vascular function following x-number of weeks of training is highly problematic, as we actually do not know if the improvement observed is significantly different because of the effect of the training or the variation across subjects and time.

This is not to be mistaken for a review of the current literature, as I have not set any criteria in terms of research methodology to be included in the listing. The reason for this is that for some of the categories, the research is fairly limited. The listed studies are more meant as examples of what has been done in the research of cardio-vascular exercise and specific activities. Some of the studies are on the lower end of the quality scale, but most are of a high or very high quality, which makes attacking the lower quality studies somewhat easy. Nevertheless, the studies (high and low quality both) confirm basic physiology concepts. I have, however, tried to find studies that include as many participants as possible. One major problem with research in exercise and training (strength training, cardio-vascular training) is the numbers of participants are usually on the low side, making variation with the group significant.”

Excerpt From: Kenneth Jay. “The Cardio Code.” iBooks. The Cardio Code by Kenneth Jay on iBooks

I applaud him for being transparent... most authors take a more vested interest in their interpretations and conclusions. This shows that even if you have a sound study, it only means that this particular piece of the puzzle is "less blurry". It doesn't change the fact the puzzle is still missing more pieces than you actually have in front of you... many of which might be too blurry to place.

W/r to the cardiac physiology, short of butchering live athletes and controls, the only way to gain insight on heart adaptations is through echocardiograph. In reference number 12, they did just this... and what they conclude agrees with Jay's commentary in the book.

But when you reference this study... and luckily is was available in full text for free... you'll find two simple charts that nicely report the findings in a very easy manner to read. The two charts report that LV thickness (the thing everyone seems afraid of) is highest in cyclists and swimmers, then strength/power athletes, then basketball players, then paddlers and runners. Note that only the very high results are "statistically different" from the controls (the couch potatoes). You need to read up on statistical significance as used in statistics... it will make you a non-believer. Anyway, the mean control LV thickness is 0.364 as compared to 0.418 in strength/power athletes, and 0.383 in runners. I could not find the units used, but unless this is yards or meters, I'm not sure this so much of difference to be concerned about. Moreover, this was estimated using an average difference in dimensions, as the heart is beating while they are watching it. And further, since the authors admit to body size affecting heart size, they performed additional mathematics to even out the formula.

The chart reporting LV diameter is even more interesting: strength/power athletes and basketball players were only slightly lower than the controls at 37.6, 37.2, and 37.9 respectively. Runners came in at 41.1 and paddlers at 39.4. Again, if the units were yards and meters, I'd admit a large difference.

So, the numbers support Jay's commentary. But if I were you, I'd just do some exercise, as we know it is better than doing none at all. Choosing something you enjoy will lead to compliance, which is probably more important than KBs, C2 rowers, running, or DLing.

You heart is going to fail you one day anyway... my goal is just to be able to wipe my own a#@ on that day.... YMMV ;]

 

[GeoffreyLevens]

The stuff about the thickening of the heart walls really kinda unnerves me when I read his work. So, is he on to something or is he planting his flag on his own niche?

There is a lot of stuff on the interwebs about need medically to differentiate between athletic enlarged heart which is NOT pathological and never causes symptoms (and is very common) vs pathological enlarged heart which can indeed cause you to drop dead.

 

[GeoffreyLevens]

"Your heart is going to fail you one day anyway... my goal is just to be able to wipe my own a#@ on that day.... "

Having a clumsy day w/ the quote function but you nailed it for me. Thanks Al!

 

[MikeTheBear]

@Kettlebelephant I subscribe to KJ's emails. In the one below he talks about how rowers get both the heart thickness and increase in LV volume, but really doesn't explain why. My guess is because of the power outputs required in rowing require a fair amount of strength.




Why is rowing different than any other cardiovascular activity?
Rowing is a beast. if you´ve ever done a 2k race you know exactly what i am talking about. Rowing a hard 2k is like sprinting for 6-8 minutes going hard right out of the start, pacing or “red lining it” for 1500-1700m and then sprinting to the finish line often with blood and muscle lactate levels so high that the pain is unbearable surpassing anything you could ever imagine. Indeed, rowers are known for their incredible lactate tolerance ability! Additionally, the power outputs and force generation during a 2k race are mind boggling! Just imagine how it feels to do about 200 strokes with forces averaging around 100-150kg per stroke done so fast that the power generation is 400-500watts over the entire race! The muscular effort required by is equivalent of doing 200 reps consecutively or deadlift to upright row hybrid with 100-150kg and on top of that air ventilation is 140-180L or 40-50 gallons per minute (just imagine what kind of volume that is every single minute), heart rate at maximal and oxygen uptake turned all the way up at the limit for pretty much the entire race. This is of course the elite but the effect on the system whether you are a novice, intermediate or at an advanced level is exactly the same- just at a scaled level.


Rowing is: The Pain Tolerance Project in full effect!


If you wanna see what the deadlift to upright row hybrid looks like check it out here.

All of the above attests to the notion that rowers are extremely tough people able to handle excruciating pain but there is one more fact in the physiology of rowers that also makes them the healthiest- at least when looking at the cardiovascular system. With rowing you will get an increase in left ventricular internal diameter which is a measurement of how much blood your heart can eject per heart beat. This also happens to cyclists, runners and skiers but NOT to people solely lifting weights. The increase, or expansion of the heart to hold more blood is incredibly healthy and it increases your performance ability but there is one other factor that's just as important for heart health and that is the thickness of the heart musculature. As the rower’s heart expands the heart wall also thickens in a perfectly balanced ratio to the expansion. This does not happen in cyclists or runners. They get the expansion but is left with a thinner heart wall, which is not optimal for health or performance. Conversely, the weightlifter will ONLY get the thickness increase and not the expansion which is even worse and can lead to heart failure, hypertension, heart attacks, stroke, embolisms etc. This happens because the heart wall grows inward and as it thickens, it looses its elasticity. The rower does not have any of these problems. A rower's heart has both in the PERFECTLY BALANCED RATIO! Thus making rowing come close to the perfect activity for heart health!

…and by the way did I mention that the characteristics of the rower is lean, muscular and powerful?

Rowing, even if it is not professionally but on a rowing machine such as the Concept 2 rower you can build the heart and body of the rower if you and/or your trainer knows how!

So here is to rowing and building a powerful and aesthetically beautiful physique that you can be proud of!

 

[Kettlebelephant]

Thanks @MikeTheBear
So like I was assuming at least part of the adaption comes from the method and not the movement itself.
All of this kind of makes sense, but it's still lacking a lot.
If I'd like to argue against that I'd say that he just says that rowers have thick and large LVs ergo rowing makes your LV bigger and thicker. But what if rowers have that adaptation because they combine heavy strength training and rowing?
You'd need completely untrained individuals and then train them with rowing exclusively to see whether the adaptation comes from the rowing itself or not.
Long distance runners and swimmers usually don't do much strength training. Rowers on the other hand do that. So maybe it is that combination of strength work and "cardio" that leads to the adaption in elite rowers and maybe you would get the same effects in a runner if you were to train him in the same fashion.

 

[Paul_Cole9]

I always assumed that the skeletal muscular contractions in rowing are harder and longer in duration that running which means the heart has to pump with more force to get the bloo through those contracted muscles, which leads to heart wall thickening.

 

[Darren Best]

But what if rowers have that adaptation because they combine heavy strength training and rowing?

This right here is probably the reason.

But how to prove it?

 

[ali]

sprinting for 6-8 minutes going hard right out of the start, pacing or “red lining it” for 1500-1700m and then sprinting to the finish line often with blood and muscle lactate levels so high that the pain is unbearable surpassing anything you could ever imagine.

.....thanks @MikeTheBear not your quote but quoting from Kenneth Jay's book.......

Begs the question, what about cellular health?
So if all that good pumping action going on is good for the heart, yet the glycolytic system is in overdrive, could that be detrimental? Maybe not in terms of athletic performance but health? Overtime, that is.
Cardiovascular health is important obviously but chasing it from only a heart centric viewpoint misses other contributing systems, doesn't it? Could it be that all that blood being pumped around, however efficiently it is done so by the heart, has to have efficient cellular adaptations to utilise the blood's maximum use of oxygen because if it can't then the heart is working harder than it needs to and to fulfil the body's energy demands at cellular level glycolysis fills the gaps. A bit like oxygen resistance, if such a thing exists. So although the heart dimensions can be measured and compared, .....what about the cell's status? In other words, there has to be a match between the oxygen being delivered to how it is used for energy production. If a cell is dysfunctioning so what if you have a monster heart? All that oxygen but the body can't process it and so goes off into anaerobic territory and, as quoting, high lactate. A supercharged delivery system maybe but what is it feeding? And potential metabolic issues down the road? I dunno, just thinking out loud. Former GB gold medalist rower Steven Redgrave was diagnosed with diabetes. I remember an interview with him saying that hard training and high carb came at a cost. For him there was also a genetic issue too, so I'm aware anyway. Got nothing against rowing by the way, certainly in a boat on a river or in the great outdoors but treadmills/machines give me the heebeejeebees.

 

[Paul_Cole9]

I think Redgrave partly attributes his diabetes to way too many energy drinks. Carbs eaten as whole foods won't give you diabetes.

 

[ali]

He used to keep packets of sugar on hand, taped to the sides of his boat. This whilst being diabetic, rather than pre diabetic, to ward off hypos in Sydney 2000. My point is the line between health and performance, bit fuzzy, be it rowing, running, cycling or kettlebell lifting or climbing. All systems of the body need to be optimal, no? In isolation a highly functioning optimised cardiac function is a fine and necessary attribute and goal to achieve but at what expense?

 

[offwidth]

He used to keep packets of sugar on hand, taped to the sides of his boat. This whilst being diabetic, rather than pre diabetic, to ward off hypos in Sydney 2000. My point is the line between health and performance, bit fuzzy, be it rowing, running, cycling or kettlebell lifting or climbing. All systems of the body need to be optimal, no? In isolation a highly functioning optimised cardiac function is a fine and necessary attribute and goal to achieve but at what expense?

Totally correct from my perspective also. There can be a fine line or a wide gap between health and performance

 

[GeoffreyLevens]

Rowing is: The Pain Tolerance Project in full effect!

That vs "cellular health: really all depends on how you program it. I use roughly Maffetone HR range and mostly perceived effort and cruise for about an hour. Rather than coming anywhere "red line" what I do very much makes me think of some hunter-gatherer 20,000 years ago, dog-trotting across savanna chasing after a deer he shot but did not kill, following tracks, blood drops etc. No idea if I will need to continue for an hour or 5 hours so pace, pace, pace... When done, rather than feeling beaten up and blown I feel energized and pumped like I could continue for another hour or more (well pending boredom!). Different goals, different programming, different outcomes, same piece of equipment/exercise

 

[ali]

@GeoffreyLevens, get your point but would imagine a hunter gatherer in the dry plains of the Savannah not getting very far in a boat! Haha.

 

[GeoffreyLevens]

Sure, just put wheels on it and pole it along...

 

[Paul_Cole9]

One thing I don't understand is how lifting weights at whatever pace) doesn't lead to the same cardiac adaptations as rowing, bearing in mind the strength/force requirements KJ outlines.

 

[MikeTheBear]

One thing I don't understand is how lifting weights at whatever pace) doesn't lead to the same cardiac adaptations as rowing, bearing in mind the strength/force requirements KJ outlines.

I can't seem to access my copy of the Cardio Code on my Mac - it's gone. So I'm working off of memory and Andrew Read's review of the book.

In a nutshell, here is why traditional forms of cardio differ from weight training (from Andrew's review):

During weight training, regardless of the lifts used, you simply can’t engage your muscles quickly enough to cause the action that takes place during traditional cyclic forms of cardio. When muscles are engaged for long periods they actually cut off blood flow, which lowers the amount of oxygen able to pass through them and decreases the intensity of work you’re doing when compared to your VO2 max. In other words, just having a high heart rate is not indicative of getting a cardio workout.

From what I remember reading in the book, when lifting heavy, the intense muscle contractions put pressure on your blood vessels which causes an increase in blood pressure which causes the heart to work harder. This is not pathological because it's not like have high blood pressure all the time. However, over time, this causes the heart wall to thicken and lose elasticity without increasing the volume of the LV. An increase in volume of the LV happens only with traditional cardio. Why does this happen? Because it happens. It's how our bodies work. Unfortunately our bodies don't work how we would like them to work. The good news is that adding traditional cardio will undo some of this loss of elasticity and increase the volume of the LV to hold more blood.

What about a high rep snatch protocol like in Viking Warrior Conditioning? The reason high rep snatches can produce heart muscle adaptations similar to traditional cardio is that the weight used will be light or relatively light for the trainee. This means that the muscle contractions do not result in the same blood occlusion that comes from lifting (relatively) heavy. I've inserted the word "relative" here because it depends on the person. I've watched Ivan Denisov do 238 snatches in 10 minutes with a 32 kg. I have no idea whether that type of effort was "cardio," but I can say for sure that no one can lift for 10 minutes non-stop and rely only on the ATP-CP energy system and probably could not rely solely on the glycolytic energy system. Some of his effort was aerobic, which meant he needed blood flow to his muscles in order to bring oxygen to those muscles.

So it's not that it's completely impossible to do cardio with weights, it's that the parameters need to be specific. If you think about it, all traditional forms of cardio involve "lifting weight" to some degree. It's just that the weight is our own bodyweight plus some equipment such as a bike for cyclists. The amount of force needed to move our bodies in traditional long-effort cardio training is fairly low which allows the blood to flow through our muscles. If you were to try and duplicate this effort with weights you would be using a very light weight and lifting for several minutes straight. This is different from most circuit training programs which have you go through any where from 2 to 4 exercises doing 8 to 15 reps. The weight used is too heavy and the duration is not long enough. Most circuit training programs will increase work capacity but will not allow for an increase in LV volume.

 

[MikeTheBear]

@Kettlebelephant I would agree with you that running plus regular weight training will likely result in the same heart muscle adaptations seen in rowers. I also agree that it's a causation vs. correlation problem. Does rowing cause the favorable heart muscle adaptation or do rowers have this adaptation because they tend to do more weight training than other endurance athletes? A good question. Having said all that, I do not regret purchasing my rowing machine because rowing is just a great full-body low impact exercise IMO.

 

[El Cid]

Personally, if I had to choose a product from Concept 2 I would utilize their Ski Ergometer rather than their rower. Primarily due to the postural dysfunction concerns that were mentioned by others. It's a killer one-two punch when matched with KB snatches or swings. In some sense they almost balance each other out in terms of hip and should action as the KB ballistics forcefully open the anterior kinetic chain while the ski erg forcefully closes it. I used to follow a program of 3 sessions per week of light "aerobic" snatches paired with the Ski Erg in target heart rate zone and felt a lot of benefit from it.

If cost isn't an issue, the rower or the ski erg are a great addition to KBs. I miss the days when I had consistent access to Concept 2 Rower and Ski Ergometer. The aerobic work I do now when I can't believe r don't want to get outside is a constantly shifting mix of light Kettlebell swings/snatches, step ups on a box, rope skipping, and marching/shuffling around my garage. I'm constantly shifting the mix as I seek to perfect how to read my body to get in the correct heart rate zone.

I also think it's comparing apples to oranges when looking at Kettlebells vs C2 Rower. The rower is IMO suited mainly to cardio respiratory concerns and Kettlebells musculoskeletal concerns (that's of course not to say there's isn't a musculoskeletal benefit to rowing or cardio respiratory benefit to Kettlebells because there is...its just that I feel they are different "categories" of training if that makes sense).