all posts post new thread

Old Forum T-Nation 400 lb swing

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
HerrMannelig,

Thanks for finding that study.  It says the subjects were random and used a 16 kg.  To me that suggests mostly untrained people.  They had 26 degrees of lumbar flexion at the start.  I can't quite visualize this, but it doesn't sound good.  In that case, yes there are shear forces and yes it could cause injury.

I wish they wrote about the shear forces on Pavel.  I think that in the stable spine/hip hinge hardstyle swing the shear forces must be low.

I'll speculate that my 2/3 bodyweight ceiling would hold true even if I was crazy strong.  That's for honest, active negative, crisp hardstyle 2-hand swings.  The world will never know.
 
Without enough data, we cannot be sure. But shear forces are not a bad thing, they are just part of the movement. And I think anybody attempting to swing over bodyweight is likely an experienced lifter already and knows a thing or two about their own bodies.

So the question is “are they effective?”? I personally think if a person is swinging that much, they are better off doing another movement. A person swinging that much is doing it for a reason, and there are no swing contests, so the swing is probably not the lift to do for that kind of goal.
 
I think the issue is not just safety, but efficacy. A swing may be good for some things, but for particular goals, exactly what a swing is doing should be evaluated.  

I think there are many reasons to do swings, in fact I can't think of many reasons NOT to do swings.  I write about 7000 workouts per year and it is pretty safe to say that a large majority of those have the swing in there in some manner.  I don't work in the "fitness" industry but the strength gains and fat loss from the swings are very common.  I live in world of sports performance and movement restoration.  I use the swings for all of my athletes to improve power and I can't even count the number of athletes I've retrained to jump after significant injuries with the swing.  In all that time, knock on wood, not one single back injury.  Lots of calluses, a couple stubbed toes, and one case of turf burn on the forehead  but no back injuries.

Do heavy swings have their place? Yes.  Just like light swings, walking swings, 1 arm swings, 2 arm swings, and any other variation of the swing that is out there.  What people miss is that it is the correct application of an exercise, not the exercise itself, that is good or bad.
Click to expand...
 
For some reason, that last post got formatted wrong - the first paragraph was supposed to be quoted and the rest was supposed to be normal.  So, exactly the opposite of how I did it - still getting thru my first cup of coffee this morning.
 
I think there are many reasons to do swings, in fact I can’t think of many reasons NOT to do swings.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of many reasons not to do pullups, pushups, squats, lunges, long jumps, high jumps, etc either.

But, while we are diversifying the topic a bit, I think the term "swing" is somewhat abused. If we examine everything called a "swing" in good faith, we'll see such a diversity, that any statement about "swings" could be true or false depending on the type of swing.

In particular, the weightlifting swing, the swing of history and done as a lift by strongmen and weightlifters such as Arthur Saxon to John Grimek, was extremely different from a GS swing, which seems to share origins with the hardstyle swing. To a GS athlete, the hardstyle swing is "not a swing", and to a weightlifter, a kettlebell swing is "not a swing".

This greatly complicates discussion of swings. When everybody is on the same page, it is easy, but we are not. We are, after all, on a thread about an article advocating extremely heavy swings, on a forum whose community generally recommends 1/3 bodyweight two handed swings with high tension as the "basic" swing, derived from a sport where the swing is strictly a one handed low tension movement. And where outside of kettlebell lifting, the swing is an overhead lift in a manner most would call a "snatch".

This is a bit unique for a singular lift. It does show the great versatility and application of training principles to a fundamental human movement.

That video and the text was interesting, but I do not think this manner of swinging is going to be practiced at large.

To me, the kettlebell swing seems to be primarily a conditioning or grip exercise, or to train for other lifts which use the movement as their initiation (particularly in GS).
 
HerrMannelig - I kind of have to disagree with you.  I think pretty much everyone on here is speaking the same language when it comes to the swing.  This is the StrongFirst forum which advocates the hardstyle swing, therefore "the swing" here is the hardstyle swing.  The weightlfilting, GS, overhead swings all have their place in discussion.  In regards to the video, Max is doing a hardstyle swing with slightlyl more knee flexion than is standard, but as Rif pointed out is needed for the load.  He happens to swinging plate weights bc there are no kettlebells that heavy. 

I would also venture to argue that the weightlifting swing came after either the GS or the HS swing, since we didn't start to see weight lifting plates until the mid-20th century.  Any heavy swing is going to have to be a hardstyle swing, doing a heavy swing GS style is not going to end well.

While I agree that heavy swings aren't going to be practiced at large, I do think that there is a right way and a wrong way to do them.

I also think you are selling the swing (and your training) short if you rely on on it as only a conditioning and grip drill.
 
I would also venture to argue that the weightlifting swing came after either the GS or the HS swing, since we didn’t start to see weight lifting plates until the mid-20th century.  Any heavy swing is going to have to be a hardstyle swing, doing a heavy swing GS style is not going to end well.
Click to expand...
Plate loaded dumbbells and barbells existed at the beginning of the 20th century. Arthur Saxon's book, published in 1905, shows him using such equipment and demonstrating the dumbbell swing.

Also, the book contains ads for plated loaded barbells and dumbbells.

GS, as a sport, did not really develop until significantly after this time period. The kettleweights used by weightlifters were shot loaded. Russian GS was quite specific to Russia.
I also think you are selling the swing (and your training) short if you rely on on it as only a conditioning and grip drill.
Click to expand...
The best results come from consistent practice, and making the best out of the swing is not a bad thing, but I think the emphasis on it is a little extreme. When all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but for athletic training, we have to be more critical.

I think barbell hip thrusts or glute bridges would be better than an extremely heavy swing, and barbell deadlifts, cleans, and snatches would be better for max strength or power.

Kettlebell training takes a lot of skill, and consistent practice leads to many results. However, I do not see kettlebell training leading to extremes, but results on many levels. That, I think, is the "selling" point of kettlebell training, that people can get stronger, leaner, conditioned, more mobile and flexible, and have fun with a single tool and training method.

Unlike many people, I started as a boy, when I was 12, with calisthenics and then to lifting iron weights. By the time I tried kettlebells, I could easily swing over 100 lbs, clean, press, and "snatch" the 24 kg bell (the heaviest one I had access too when learning), and at the time, the Turkish Get-Up was not in the Program Minimum so I never tried to do that. I did not, at that time, find kettlebell training to be particular challenging or that effective for my goals (in particular, I had to use a different foot position than my deadlift and snatch) and I could lift heavier weights than I could get in kettlebells and they were quite expensive at that time. So, I stopped after trying them. I did not enjoy them, and it took some time and practice to get the skills necessary to use them, when I could be lifting much heavier dumbbells and barbells.

Recently (a few months ago), I tried a Turkish Get-Up after looking into Strong First, and I could easily do them with a respectable weight despite having no instruction and some awkwardness in the unfamiliar movement (I have always trained on my feet or hanging from a bar). In hindsight, when trying out a new movement, I think it would be advisable to learn the movement before holding a heavy weight over one's face, as my focus was not on getting up, but on stability in an unfamiliar movement.

So, there are many ways to strength, and I think consistency is the key, and for those who do not have a necessity, personal enjoyment is very important.

And more recently, I have re-evaluated my goals as I am getting older (not "old", but looking more long term than immediate personal records), and have stopped all lifting of iron and focus exclusively on calisthenics and strand pulling.

For those who are curious why someone so much of an "outsider" of the StrongFirst community is here, when I was 15, one of Pavel's books greatly assisted me in overcoming some problems I was having.

Strength is for everyone and everybody will benefit from being stronger, no matter how one gets there.

 

 
 
HerrMannelig,

I'm also an "outsider" -- I haven't met any of the instructors or other forum members.  I was also doing quite well with my own fitness in the nineties, before websites, Pavel, or kettlebells.  With no group mentality or financial motivation I can say that my views on training fall within the general consensus of this forum, valuing the quality of strength, with a very high regard for the tool called kettlebell.  I also marvel at what a good exercise the hardstyle swing is.

Glad to read your posts.  I like intelligent contrarians.
 
For me, form degrades at the point where the prime mover isn't able to maintain its dominance and synergists take a larger brunt of the stress. If I perform a "sort-of max" at about ten pounds less than my true max on most lifts, it doesn't become a problem.
 
So, now we are getting somewhere - to the root of this disagreement.  I agree 100% about when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.  I make a living training athletes.  Everyone does swings.  Everyone does barbell deadlifts, everyone does a type of pull up, and everyone carries things - beyond that everything else is based on the person I'm training.  We use barbells, bodyweight, olympic lifts, kettlebells, medicine balls, foot ladders, and a lot of other stuff.  But, everyone does swings.  From an athletic standpoint, there are very few other moves that are as "athletic" as the swing.  It's not perfect, but it is a great builder of a foundation.  I'm done selling the swing.

But here is the thing that many people overlook - StrongFirst isn't about the kettlebell.  I vividly remember Pavel saying this at my first cert and it got my attention.  It's the principles of StrongFirst that make it different than other styles out there.  That is why the same instructors can teach at a Level I cert, a bodyewight cert, or a barbell cert.  The message is the same, the tools that the individuals leave with are the difference.
 
Glad to read your posts.  I like intelligent contrarians.
Click to expand...
That is perhaps the highest compliment anybody has ever paid me on the Internet. Thank you.

My view on kettlebells is that the measurable results they give are real, but there is a lot of marketing and hype surrounding their use, and that this can get in the way of productive training. Training tools should be evaluated, and many times, people will prefer what they enjoy or know best. That is perfectly alright and preferable for continued progress, but it should be recognized.

For someone who does not enjoy kettlebell training, kettlebell training is actually overly technical and boring. The shape of a cast iron kettlebell is an accident and it is not designed to be an efficient strength tool. Compared to precision machined ball bearing rotating sleeves, they are crude, and much time goes into just learning how to handle them without getting hurt. Arthur Saxon writes that the shape of a kettleweight reduces the amount of pounds which can be lifted overhead (the trade off was that a shot loaded bell was very cheap and flexible compared to more expensive equipment).

For sports specific training, the use of kettlebells or kettlebell techniques will highly depend on the goals. Pavel wrote:
There are many ways to develop general endurance.  In my experience, kettlebell quick lifts are second to none and the most efficient.
Click to expand...
(http://www.strongfirst.com/what-is-conditioning/)

The recommendation of the kettlebell for other purposes is without a very clear reason, but it exists here:
Regardless of your goals, your entry point into strength ought to be the kettlebell.  Not only because of the additional conditioning, flexibility, and health benefits, but because the kettlebell, when professionally used, teaches priceless movement lessons that prepare one for safe and effective barbell and bodyweight strength training.  Even if you have paid your dues on the barbell or the pullup bar, enter the kettlebell and you will become a much better barbell lifter or bodyweight strength athlete than before.  I guarantee it.
Click to expand...
Besides selling the "professional" instruction, the kettlebells, and the prominent place in kettlebell training in the USA, there is no real qualification for this statement. I would say that the best way to start is through calisthenics, not getting professional instruction on handling a "not cheap" piece of iron.

One could put almost any other system of training and tool into that paragraph and have it hold the same amount of authority.

Mark Rippetoe would surely write that the entry point out to be barbell lifts.

Compare Mark and Pavel, their experiences, personal abilities, and training of others, who is "right"? Is Pavel's article on kettlebell use and conditioning better than Mark's on conditioning being a sham, and kettlebell lifting being useless for strength?

But, aside from "mission critical" training (for professional athletes, primarily), the question does not really matter. What matters is getting stronger and more capable, and to do that, consistency is more important than the theoretical ideal.

For me, I would say that calisthenics is the first and only necessary way to train to be strong. To me, it does not matter what a person can lift, if they cannot move their own bodies first. That is what was done through time, from ancient times to modern armies (and Pavel states that pullups are the test for upper body strength in the Soviet special forces), what is the basic measure of human movement and ability (cannot be considered strong if one can lift heavy weights, but cannot move their own body properly), and requires nothing to be bought, sold, or produced.

Calisthenics only strength training is gaining in popularity, and the results of the best are impressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5APvEfUPPk

That man in the video has videos and instructions on how to train progressively, and I think everybody here would find his abilities to be extremely impressive. They don't have much hype or lore, just impressive abilities.
 
The point, for this thread, is that a 400 lb swing and extremely heavy swings may be trying to milk a movement for goals which are better served with another tool and training movement, such as the barbell hip thrust or glute bridge. There is no need to shoehorn one's preferred methods/tools into everything, especially when the goal is specific.
 
HerrMannelig- all the reasons you give for disliking KB training can be made for your love of calisthenics.  Boring, not enough of a challenge, all marketing driven hype.
There is no need to shoehorn one’s preferred methods/tools into everything, especially when the goal is specific.
Click to expand...
If my goal is to conceive a child with a barbell, I may buy the barbell a nice dinner some wine and make my move with a nice barbell hip thrust.  If my goal is explosive hip extension with the intent of carryover to sport it will not happen with that move.  (Jason Lake has a nice research article showing the relationship between the swing and running) Movement patterns are position specific - meaning hip extension in supine and hip extension in standing are not the same.  Otherwise the development of the human species would happen in a much different manner than it does.  Now, you do have to have supine hip extension to move forward developmentally, but you must move forward with it.  Bridging is awesome.  For an athlete that is healthy and has no movement asymmetries it may not be the best use of their time -  a great drill on a recovery day or part of their warm up, but little carryover to what they do on the field of play.  It's like crawling, once you've got it move on to something else.
 
HerrMannelig- all the reasons you give for disliking KB training can be made for your love of calisthenics.  Boring, not enough of a challenge, all marketing driven hype.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

The difference is that calisthenics does not have the hype or marketing.

And another difference is that I think calisthenics is to some degree strictly necessary as it is just movement of the body alone. But it isn't necessarily a necessary component of training.
 
Dragondoors PCC cert.

TacFits FlowFitI and FlowFitII, plus others

Primal Move

Animal Flow

These are just the first that came to my mind that I'm familiar with.  There is as many -if not more- calesthenic based programs out there as there are KB based.  Few people use the term calesthenics though.
 
I am aware of the courses and training, but I was referring to marketing and hype. But this is off topic.

I found a more indepth article about the study I referenced earlier, and it addresses the study in more detail and its possible deficiencies: ttp://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2013/01/21/kettlebells-low-back-pain/

It does note that the form used in the subjects was less than ideal and that they were untrained. As such, the results may not be applicable to proper kettlebell training itself. But, the results are worth studying nonetheless. They should try to do the same type of study with a better range of subjects.

If one's chosen way of training gives the results one wants and one enjoys it, then I fully support it. I have nothing to say against those who train with kettlebells and are happy with them.
If my goal is to conceive a child with a barbell, I may buy the barbell a nice dinner some wine and make my move with a nice barbell hip thrust.  If my goal is explosive hip extension with the intent of carryover to sport it will not happen with that move.  (Jason Lake has a nice research article showing the relationship between the swing and running) Movement patterns are position specific – meaning hip extension in supine and hip extension in standing are not the same.
Click to expand...
I actually do not do hip thrusts or glute bridges, and I am relying on the experiences and studies of other people.

And regardless of the training, the hip extension is not in itself the goal usually. The person with the heaviest snatch, deadlift, swing, hip thrust, long jump, fastest sprint, etc will not be the best in other hip hinge activities, although, there definitely will be carry over. So, to make gains in a specific activity, the primary training will almost always be in that activity and all else is secondary.

 
 
Have you read the study or the summary of the study that Bret put out?  It is a decent study, but there are several limitations.  Bret pointed out how the pictures representing the swing didn't depict a hip hinge swing.  What the subjects appeared to be doing were the squat style swings which will increase low back pain.  Kenneth Jay put out an article in 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21107513) using a group of untrained subjects and showed a significant decrease in low back pain.  The design of KJ's study was really good, much better than this particular McGill study, and much more representative of how people learn and progress with the swing.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom