all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Why is S&S boring?

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
As a weightlifter, I'm always dubious when people try to apply methodologies from weightlifting to things that aren't weightlifting.

Context matters.

There is a massive difference between pro athletes training 2 times a day, with weights multiples over their own bodyweight being lifted over and over again, and how this taxes the system vs modest KB weights done by some mostly sedentary office worker with far less physical demands training for 30 min, once a day.
Sure.
There are absolutely massive differences in how to treat a trainee at different points of development with different amounts of intensity applied.

I'm experiencing a shift in what I can and can't do with my Deadlift since my max moved from ~300 to ~365. my base working weight going from 225 ~ 275 to a range of 275 ~ 305 (based on my experience ) hit me a lot harder, and (I think) gave me a little taste of the geometric or exponential changes along the intensity/volume curve; or, at least the nonlinear nature of what I was facing.

I can check later about the reference provided (I'm still trying to remember more accurately how this was presented in the strong endurance manual) - but, I'll speculate a bit, here, for sake of argument: maybe there's a claim that could be made about how there is still a relevant similarity in chasing incremental increase no matter where you are in the spectrum. some of the frameworks may not be optimized - but may still be useful across the multiple phases of development from novice to intermediate to advanced.

maybe we could agree that holding an upper limit of 100 reps can be a useful part of a program at many stages of development; while not optimized for all ranges of training, in many cases. the word compromise comes up more than once in Q&D with regard to the programming. maybe this speaks to not letting the perfect be the winning enemy of the good.

as a person who works around engineering - all designed systems of all sorts are by definition composed of some number of compromises, between cost shape size time, etc. an exercise program is no different. sometimes, good enough - is by definition - good enough. And you should stop trying to improve something that works. if 100 reps works, why not use it?
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
as a person who works around engineering - all designed systems of all sorts are by definition composed of some number of compromises, between cost shape size time, etc. an exercise program is no different. sometimes, good enough - is by definition - good enough. And you should stop trying to improve something that works. if 100 reps works, why not use it?

Well, from an engineering / science POV:

100 reps for swings might be correct.

But claiming one can derive this from studies done on weightlifters, and not people using kettlebells, is scientifically problematic.
 

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
Well, from an engineering / science POV:

100 reps for swings might be correct.

But claiming one can derive this from studies done on weightlifters, and not people using kettlebells, is scientifically problematic.
Yeah, I agree that misapplications of concepts can and do happen.
and getting that application wrong can cost you.

I look forward to going through the strong endurance manual - but this phrasing might be more interesting to you about where this is coming from.

1669911441930.png

If they're basing it off of the taxation of the CP system, or a calculated exposure time of the CP systems to do work that might make more sense across ranges of ability and weight.
 

Adachi

Level 6 Valued Member
Well, from an engineering / science POV:

100 reps for swings might be correct.

But claiming one can derive this from studies done on weightlifters, and not people using kettlebells, is scientifically problematic.
So, I did go back and check the manual. And, apparently volkov's research inferred a few things.
  1. 10mmol blood lactate was one point where they started seeing more bad signs than good for muscle development.
  2. 10-20s bouts keeps you in the minimal range of hydrogen ion accumulation.
  3. In repeat training the 10-20s bouts yielded a 10mmol blood lactate accumulation after 8-10 repeats.
So, 10x10 fits inside those parameters.

To avoid the hydrogen ion accumulation per set and avoid the lactate accumulation per session for the muscles being worked.

Paying a low biological cost to train the muscles involved.

Why pay full price if you can get it on sale?
 
Last edited:

HarryBergers

Level 2 Valued Member
As a weightlifter, I'm always dubious when people try to apply methodologies from weightlifting to things that aren't weightlifting.

Context matters.

There is a massive difference between pro athletes training 2 times a day, with weights multiples over their own bodyweight being lifted over and over again, and how this taxes the system vs modest KB weights done by some mostly sedentary office worker with far less physical demands training for 30 min, once a day.
Other than repeating until strong, isn't the point of the swings in S&S and the interval training in Q&D is development of the mitochondria in the fast twitch fibers for improved general metabolic fitness and benefits to overall health and longevity in a Simple ( ;3 ) training program. Q&D being targeted to the sport specific trainee looking for a minimum-maximum supplement to sport specific training, as advertised.

It would seem that the office worker would benefit more, yes? Given that they haven't come close to plateauing, let alone training for maximal strength and power, and with a shorter training career? Considering the diminishing returns from training are inversely proportional to the length of training career of the trainee(+/- novelty effects), anybody not getting significant results from S&S... in a year are simply not trying hard enough to follow the program as prescribed. Elite athlete or complete novice alike. This isn't to say that S&S is the training recommended for any goal.
I remember something about this from the Strong Endurance Manual - I'd have to double check it later - but the way I recall it was that this limitation was derived from experience, and was at the very least a useful guideline in their methods of programming.

View attachment 19894

I believe it was a matter of them finding out that for their goals, more is not better, it's just more.
 

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
Other than repeating until strong, isn't the point of the swings in S&S and the interval training in Q&D is development of the mitochondria in the fast twitch fibers for improved general metabolic fitness and benefits to overall health and longevity in a Simple ( ;3 ) training program. Q&D being targeted to the sport specific trainee looking for a minimum-maximum supplement to sport specific training, as advertised.

It would seem that the office worker would benefit more, yes? Given that they haven't come close to plateauing, let alone training for maximal strength and power, and with a shorter training career? Considering the diminishing returns from training are inversely proportional to the length of training career of the trainee(+/- novelty effects), anybody not getting significant results from S&S... in a year are simply not trying hard enough to follow the program as prescribed. Elite athlete or complete novice alike. This isn't to say that S&S is the training recommended for any goal.

No offense, but I don't understand how that relates to anything I said.
 

Suxatkettlebell

Level 3 Valued Member
Figured I'd chime in. I'm scatterbrained. I program hop. My attention is always on the move. When I need an anchor, or something to recalibrate discipline, I choose S&S.

And admittedly, it exposes areas where I didn't pay enough attention, e.g., my form isn't quite as great as it should be, I'm not strong or balanced where I thought I was...

You won't win a physique contest doing S&S, but you will have strength and athleticism, especially as the weight gets heavier. I'm 45, I have a precocious and quite active two-year-old at home who doesn't need me to be "swole" but he does need a dad who can be disciplined, focused, and who can keep up.

Yes S&S is boring at times, but there is a certain elegance in its simplicity that can be very rewarding.
 

marvinthemartian

Level 5 Valued Member
For sure. Nothing more unmotivating than spending a year doing S&S and looking like you just stepped into a planet fitness a week ago.
I think thats a fair point. And I don't understand why there is no SF KB beginner book that isn't so minimalist. But as someone who works for a small company with mostly 20-40 year old dudes in an office tower with a gym on the ground floor that is well attended I can say that timed Simple is actually pretty good for gen pop fitness.
 

Archer

Level 5 Valued Member
This is me with higher volume kettlebell ballistics and squatting. I hate doing them because I'm not particularly good at them. One of the big reasons I respect s&s is because it gives you 100 swings and 15 squats everyday. There's a reason for that number, Pavel didn't just make it up.
100’swings, 10 getups.
 
Top Bottom