Kettlebell VWC questions

[Ryan T]

This would be N=1 for VWC + S&S. If you're following two programs at the same time, you can't attribute any of the results to one of them.

That's true, but KJ says in the book that you need to continue or maintain your strength training and gives outlines in the book on different ways to incorporate the two based on your goals and what works best for you. He doesn't say exactly what the strength training is. Perhaps he means just pressing and squats. S&S is the "strength" training that I'm doing right now so I figured it fit the bill.

 

[Anna C]

The sweet spot for a given bell is 7 or 8.

Thanks, @Steve W. ! That make sense. Based on that description I'm already virtually positive that the 12kg is going to be the 7 or 8 for me. Given that I don't have a 10 or a 14, and the 16 would put me around 5 or 6 (typically a cadence of 24/min in a 5-min test), I'm going to try it with the 12. But it's good to know how to find the correct size.

 

[banzaiengr]

You said "HIT training whether it be 20 rep squats as compared to a complex of barbell exercises" -- I wouln't call these HIT or HIIT myself, and besides that, what type of loading, timing, exercises are we talking about? It's just not defined to be anything we could meaningfully compare to VWC. Or to Tabata. Or to CF Metcon. Or maybe I am must misunderstaning what you are trying to compare... ?

20 Rep Squats were the original HIT.

 

[Anna C]

20 Rep Squats were the original HIT.

So, something like what's described in this article? That's strength training. VWC is conditioning. Yes, energy systems are used in both, but if you're asking what's the difference in outcome -- with the first, the target adaptation is stronger legs/hips/back. With the second, the targeted adaptations are cardiovascular and energy systems.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I may be totally misguided here, but couldn't you do the VWC using light weight Zircher squats or some other whole body lift?

I understand there would be some differences but the conditioning aspect aught to be similar with a shift in muscle adaptations specific to whatever lift you use.

 

[Antti]

Being the squat lover that I am, I feel like I have to get into this discussion.

I realize that the tension affects the cardiovascular system differently than a more relaxed choice of exercise would do. I understand that some see that this has negative effects, although I also understand that there are many merited critics who do not see any negative effects from this kind of practice.

However, nothing takes my breath away like the 20 rep squats. Nothing makes me feel like I've taxed my body like they do. And they deliver results, both in conditioning and in strength adaptations. And I think having both from the same, relatively short bout of exercise, is a great deal.

There was a question of weight. Weight is necessary. 20 bodyweight squats really don't do the same thing. I think something near 50% 1RM is a good starting point.

When it comes to HIIT, I think looking at the original Tabata study as canon is misleading. It's a study, yes, and it proved the method worked. However, there are plenty of other ways to do it. The keywords are intensity and interval. Even if we only stick to the traditional cardio modalities, the periods of work and rest can be different.

 

[Al Ciampa]

Someone tapped me here, so I'll give my thoughts:

Strength training: nothing beats trudging along for years at 65-80% of max for lasting results.
Endurance training: see above; it's the same formula, ironically.
Capacity: the result of the above two strategies used intelligently. Some lactate work will maximize this but only for a short period of time, IOW, to peak.

Note the continuum: loading and duration are inversely proportional. Capacity work is trying to do both. Note velocity of movement as an additional, and oft overlooked variable--the third dimension.

These are the hardened truths that have worked for centuries, far before "exercise science" began looking through the microscope. I'm with Steve W as I can care less about the physiology that has nothing to do with the outcomes we seek--it's a black box. I'll look there if I need personal question answered, but I no longer argue that crap on a forum. E.g., why does A+A maintain aerobic capacity after you quit? It shouldn't in theory, but it seems to in practice. I've looked into this and think I have the answer, which is where it will stay... because it won't change that observation if someone slings a paper at me in contrast.

To the discussion, with VWC, Jay was trying to mimic running for an audience that was against running. Instead of debating the physiology, that we will never understand well, what is your goal? Maybe you just need to run?

I think Bret could have done a better job of prepping for A+A, but his choice of VWC wasn't even near the worst, and he learned a lot.

Underpinning this discussion is that some folks can absorb a lot more training stress than others. It's both genetic and environmental. Anti-glycolytic training is a responsible approach as a recommendation and message to a population, but if you got a guy who can absorb a lot, throw it at him.

I get it that a lot of us here are just interested in the nuts and bolts, but too often y'all forget that its the practical outcomes that matter, and these outcomes--your state of health--can only be changed through your practice.

Are you really trying to grow your LV without removing its integrity, or are you trying to wipe your own a#@ on your last day? Do you think the two have anything to do with each other?

Have a strong day ;]

 

[Ryan T]

Someone tapped me here, so I'll give my thoughts:

Strength training: nothing beats trudging along for years at 65-80% of max for lasting results.
Endurance training: see above; it's the same formula, ironically.
Capacity: the result of the above two strategies used intelligently. Some lactate work will maximize this but only for a short period of time, IOW, to peak.

Note the continuum: loading and duration are inversely proportional. Capacity work is trying to do both. Note velocity of movement as an additional, and oft overlooked variable--the third dimension.

These are the hardened truths that have worked for centuries, far before "exercise science" began looking through the microscope. I'm with Steve W as I can care less about the physiology that has nothing to do with the outcomes we seek--it's a black box. I'll look there if I need personal question answered, but I no longer argue that crap on a forum. E.g., why does A+A maintain aerobic capacity after you quit? It shouldn't in theory, but it seems to in practice. I've looked into this and think I have the answer, which is where it will stay... because it won't change that observation if someone slings a paper at me in contrast.

To the discussion, with VWC, Jay was trying to mimic running for an audience that was against running. Instead of debating the physiology, that we will never understand well, what is your goal? Maybe you just need to run?

I think Bret could have done a better job of prepping for A+A, but his choice of VWC wasn't even near the worst, and he learned a lot.

Underpinning this discussion is that some folks can absorb a lot more training stress than others. It's both genetic and environmental. Anti-glycolytic training is a responsible approach as a recommendation and message to a population, but if you got a guy who can absorb a lot, throw it at him.

I get it that a lot of us here are just interested in the nuts and bolts, but too often y'all forget that its the practical outcomes that matter, and these outcomes--your state of health--can only be changed through your practice.

Are you really trying to grow your LV without removing its integrity, or are you trying to wipe your own a#@ on your last day? Do you think the two have anything to do with each other?

Have a strong day ;]

Wow, this is an outstanding response. We do get caught up in the mechanics a lot. I'm prone to this and trying to find the "perfect" program before embarking. Many times, just starting with something and being responsible with it is better. As @Bret S. has said in other posts, he tries to work intuitively, using himself as the experiment and assessing the impacts. Respect there.

One of the reasons I went towards trying VWC was it was something different and I wanted to get back into snatching. I had been snatching 20kg and 24kg last year and due to unconsciously keeping my forearm flexors active during the drop, I developed a solid case of golfer's elbow. So even though it sounds crazy to do the volume of VWC, the lighter load has helped me groove the drop and keep a better hook grip and initiate the hinge at the right moment to keep my elbow protected and translate the force into my hips and load the hamstrings. Does this translate directly to heavier snatch work? Nope, but I'm hoping that down the road when I venture into that territory (and beyond) again, I'll have a little more confidence and internalized patterning. Would practicing singles slowly be better? Maybe, not sure. If this reasoning is flawed then I'm always open to suggestions.

We're all students of strength and therefore we're always learning. All great leaps in knowledge across any domain are combination of imagination, creativity and testing. As I said before, although the variables are not strictly controlled there's a lot of crowd sourcing here that benefits us all.

 

[Bret S.]

Strength training: nothing beats trudging along for years at 65-80% of max for lasting results.
Endurance training: see above; it's the same formula, ironically.
Capacity: the result of the above two strategies used intelligently. Some lactate work will maximize this but only for a short period of time, IOW, to peak.

Pure GOLD

I think Bret could have done a better job of prepping for A+A, but his choice of VWC wasn't even near the worst, and he learned a lot.

Thanks Al, I have learned a lot and continue to sponge it up. I'm learning that very basic stuff, not the shiny, new, complicated... is the answer. IOW the answer hides in plain sight, maybe we miss it because we seek something 'special' and high tech or maybe we just avoid the day to day practice grind using the excuse of 'I know there's something better, I just have to work harder at finding it'.

Are you really trying to grow your LV without removing its integrity, or are you trying to wipe your own a#@ on your last day? Do you think the two have anything to do with each other?

I'll take the wipe part as I want to finish this thing on my feet

I get it that a lot of us here are just interested in the nuts and bolts, but too often y'all forget that its the practical outcomes that matter, and these outcomes--your state of health--can only be changed through your practice.

I feel like a floundering fool sometimes, @Harald Motz sits over in Germany and plods along with his program getting stronger and more fit slowly, methodically and above all consistently. The results are beyond words..
Here I am in San Diego running around like a chicken trying to peck a few seeds off the ground while huge piles of seed sit right under my nose, I just couldn't see them.
Maybe all these gyrations have a purpose in wading thru the clutter, I feel like I'm stepping out of the trees and seeing the forest finally.

 

[banzaiengr]

Or maybe I am must misunderstaning what you are trying to compare... ?

Yep

I'm sure there's a difference in outcome.

I'm saying metabolically there isn't.

We've been discussing the differences in snatch protocols, VWC and A+A. At least there we're talking about the same exercise (KB snatch). The differences are in weight, timing (work and rest), effort, cadence. That's still a lot, and different adaptations are targeted. So there's some discussion to have.

No actually we've been discussing VWC. Other's compared it to A+A since someone is using VWC to prepare for A+A. A+A doesn't have to be the snatch. Originally the swing was used. I'm not comparing VWC to A+A, I'm comparing it to other forms of what everyone wants to call met-con and I don't see that many differences. Take a look; weight- that would be an individual difference depending on the trainee. timing- work and rest not that much difference between VWC and other HIIT methods. effort- no difference if you want results. cadence- VWC is 7-9 reps per 15 sec. HIIT is as fast as you can go, HIT is slower but they all produce HR's at or near 90-95% max if it's done correctly.

Adaptions; I don't think you can ever say that the adaptions are going to be the same since everyone is so different. Do a Jones HIT workout and you'll see hypertrophy and increased aerobic function. 20 rep squats will not just target the posterior chain, they will change the entire organism. Tabata, increased anaerobic function along with stronger legs if done on a bike. VWC, increased VO2 max according to Jay but they also claim fat loss and I'm not sure there wouldn't be some hypertrophy depending on the background of the trainee.

But the biggest adaption may be how long will the individual be able to train in such a way and the jury just seems to still be out on that.

You said "HIT training whether it be 20 rep squats as compared to a complex of barbell exercises" -- I wouln't call these HIT or HIIT myself, and besides that, what type of loading, timing, exercises are we talking about? It's just not defined to be anything we could meaningfully compare to VWC. Or to Tabata. Or to CF Metcon.

Wow, I'm done here. But again, metabolically my thought is that it's all the same. Just my opinion and since I'm not a trainer, SFG, or even educated for that matter take it with a grain of salt. I've just spent a lot of time under the iron and was doing a lot of this stuff when some of you were in grade school.

 

[North Coast Miller]

But again, metabolically my thought is that it's all the same.

Overall I agree - the whole ball of wax is managing intensity with duration and having rest intervals that allow the HR to drop back to an elevated baseline. They are more similar than different (VWC, HIIT).

I think the odd man out are the Jones metcons. All the others balance intensity with recovery intervals. From what I understand the only recovery in the Jones metcon is by moving the effort from one end of the body to the other.

 

[Ryan T]

Overall I agree - the whole ball of wax is managing intensity with duration and having rest intervals that allow the HR to drop back to an elevated baseline. They are more similar than different (VWC, HIIT).

I think the odd man out are the Jones metcons. All the others balance intensity with recovery intervals. From what I understand the only recovery in the Jones metcon is by moving the effort from one end of the body to the other.

Sounds miserable.

 

[Bret S.]

Sounds like a black box question, I have many questions for that thing. I don't pretend to know anything meaningful on black box internal workings and if there's one thing I'll take away from all the discussion here is that I can only do what Al says, 'practice' and pay attention to what you can control.

I don't need to know the internal programming of the ECM on my car engine to know whether it's running strong or not. So I change spark plugs, filters, oil and so forth because this is the practice that will keep my engine running strong until it doesn't anymore..

 

[Harald Motz]

I feel like a floundering fool sometimes, @Harald Motz sits over in Germany and plods along with his program getting stronger and more fit slowly, methodically and above all consistently. The results are beyond words..

haha yes Bret, I like to sit here amidst Germany a lot, meditating or musing about this.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Sounds miserable.

I don't do them anymore myself, but do use the concept of PHA (peripheral heart action) by pairing my exercises into high/low supersets. Really seems to help with recovery - 2x in the same amount of active training time.

I probably wouldn't be able to train the way I do if I hadn't adopted this.

 

[banzaiengr]

I feel like a floundering fool sometimes, @Harald Motz sits over in Germany and plods along with his program getting stronger and more fit slowly, methodically and above all consistently. The results are beyond words..

haha yes Bret, I like to sit here amidst Germany a lot, meditating or musing about this.

I realize you are not really comparing yourself to Harald but don't. There are cats like him that are just freaks. I wonder what he'll do when they no longer make KB's big enough for him. Then I remember that he makes his own.

Oh, and Harald would you please change that avatar pic where you look like a professor. It doesn't work anymore, most of us have figured you out. : )

 

[Bret S.]

I don't do them anymore myself, but do use the concept of PHA (peripheral heart action) by pairing my exercises into high/low supersets. Really seems to help with recovery - 2x in the same amount of active training time.

I probably wouldn't be able to train the way I do if I hadn't adopted this.

I've not heard of PHA and always have supersetted opposing muscle groups

 

[North Coast Miller]

I've not heard of PHA and always have supersetted opposing muscle groups

You can do opposing groups, as a superset. I train squat or hinge opposite push or pull, and not as a true superset since I take 60-90 seconds between movements.

Traditionally this would be done in longer strings per Jones, but I just use to help with recovery. I blast the intensity fairly often, I'd be standing around forever if I did my lifts in traditional sets per.

 

[Bret S.]

You can do opposing groups, as a superset. I train squat or hinge opposite push or pull, and not as a true superset since I take 60-90 seconds between movements.

Traditionally this would be done in longer strings per Jones, but I just use to help with recovery. I blast the intensity fairly often, I'd be standing around forever if I did my lifts in traditional sets per.

This makes sense especially if you're pushing loads in the 80%+ range, as it doubles the rest time for ATP recharge. Reminds me of a chain as you can spread the pain, the only caveat might be recovery as I could see myself doing more work than I realize (until it's too late)

 

[Harald Motz]

@Bret S. and the truth is I don't have a program and don't need one. All I need for my personal programming are some practical guidelines I can put into practice and play my version of this to interweave them. What I "need" is a pull and a press, a grind and ballistic and some easy breathing steady locomotion work. More specifically the snatch, bent press, deadlift, row, run. with the lifts I have my goldilocks I can build up some serious volume, with the locomotion work I know my heart rates and exertion I can also build up some volume. It is all fairly boring basic stuff and I am dumb enough to stick with things...