I am getting so tired of reading that kbs are too light to develop "true power" and that once you can snatch a 32 kg bell you can't derive any more benefit from the kb. What a bunch of crap. What about doing sets and reps with the bell? What about doing multiple sets of 5-10 reps with a heavy bell and keeping the rest periods down and the bell speed up? Someone needs to attach a tendo unit to the bell and see how quickly the bell slows down( and with that, power procuction) once fatigue sets in.
I would be willing to bet real money that none of these people who are saying the bell is too light for Hardstyle force production can do ten plus sets of 5/5 with the bulldog and NOT lose any speed on the bell. Especially not with a short rest period.And if they are that studly that they can there is always the Beast. And if they can do that, then they are in such a small minority that it makes their argument meaningless.
If one uses max force on their swing or snatch( or jerks)with relatively low reps and keeps the rest periods short they will work their explosive strength, speed strength( or strength speed depending on how strong they are)rate of force production, starting strength and overall power endurance.Not a bad little workout.
I would be willing to bet real money that none of these people who are saying the bell is too light for Hardstyle force production can do ten plus sets of 5/5 with the bulldog and NOT lose any speed on the bell. Especially not with a short rest period.And if they are that studly that they can there is always the Beast. And if they can do that, then they are in such a small minority that it makes their argument meaningless.
If one uses max force on their swing or snatch( or jerks)with relatively low reps and keeps the rest periods short they will work their explosive strength, speed strength( or strength speed depending on how strong they are)rate of force production, starting strength and overall power endurance.Not a bad little workout.
.jpg)
23 comments:
Rif, when you say:
"What about doing sets and reps with the bell? What about doing multiple sets of 5-10 reps with a heavy bell and keeping the rest periods down and the bell speed up? Someone needs to attach a tendo unit to the bell and see how quickly the bell slows down( and with that, power procuction) one the fatigue sets in."
You move out of the realm of "power" production and into the realm of "power-endurance." You know this. You also know that lactic acid inhibits the development of the purest for of explosiveness. This is why throwers and OLers don't jog.
When you say this:
"If one uses max force on their swing or snatch( or jerks)with relatively low reps and keeps the rest periods short they will work their explosive strength, speed strength( or strength speed depending on how strong they are)rate of force production, starting strength and overall power endurance.Not a bad little workout."
You are neglecting the fact that to improve those factors, you need to increase the resistance.
I'm not saying you are unable to improve these qualities, because you will be able to, I'm just saying that adaptation will catch up to the kettlebell, and those qualities will cease to improve.
Also, maybe for you it's different, but if I use max force while snatching a 32kg kettlebell it's going to go flying behind me. There is an inherent "braking" involved in this sort of work, and you know damn well that instinctively you will stop producing force at the point where the force is unnecessary.
Shaf
Shaf,
thanks for stopping by. I dont go to the "bad place" anymore. It's a no win situation for me.
I disagree that you move out of the realm of power production and into power endurance with sets of 5 or even 10 reps.at 2 seconds a swing that's only 10-20 seconds of work. barely into lactic acid zone.
Louie does multiple sets of 3's for power and you can swing the kb even faster than you can squat a bar, so how is that different?
How many total sets one needs or is productive would depend on what you are trying to get a carryover for. Just as in wsb you would stop when the bar slows down, or lower the weight. thereby lactic acid comes into play very minimally if at all.
I dont put the kb as the primary tool of the strength athlete but as an excellent way to increase work capacity and gpp as special workouts and assistance exercises. it enables one to continue to work all those qualities with little risk of injury.
But for the average person( and I am one of them now), who is using kbs as a stand alone method(people that I see every day in the studio) it is SUPERIOR,imo to every other method for the AVERAGE person to get leaner, stronger, more powerfull and more coordinated. ANd kbs have a unique back stabilization effect in my experience as well as a caloric buring effect that is totally unique.
And again, when one swings or snatches and uses CAT they will get more out of their swing than they would if they didnt use CAT.That simple.More force = more work and more work = higher work capacity. Whether it is enough force to cause an 'ultimate' adaptive response depends on many factors.
You can also increase intensity by decreasing rest times;you don't always have to increase the resistance to increase the load.Increased velocity produces increased force.
Dont tell me you can swing or snatch the beast as fast as you can with the 24 kg?When you can then yes, it is no longer enough weight for you. That wont apply to many.
as to you using the 32 and me the difference is bodymass. If you weigh 230 the 32 kg is 31 % of your weight.31 percent of my weight is 49 pounds and yes I could throw that around pretty fast.
You might need the 40 kg to challenge your speed and power although again, if you do multiple sets with short rest periods you can achieve the same effect with less load.as well as not using the shortest range of motion in the movement but the longest(eg box squat)
You could also just do swings with bands if it moves too quickly for you with snatches. I think swings are a better exercise for max force production anyway as there is definitely a 'float 'period in the snatch although once can still apply more doward force through the legs throuhout the 'float'.
again, just a training modality not an end in itself.
ANd part of proper training as well is to get you to do what you need to do NOT what you do instinctively.
CAT training is not natural but I dont see how that matters.
I cant squat or dl anymore but I can swing and snatch. this is the same for my clients and they get great carryovers to their activities and sports of daily living. this is what matters most to me, not optimal athletic performance,although kbs certainly have their place there as well.
thanks again for stopping by, I wanted to have this conversation with you.
An interesting debate. I have total respect for Shaf - his vblobs are funny and motivating.
The bit that stands out for me from the debate is what you say about the average person. I am not convinced that kbs exclsivley are the ultimate training method - there are other useful things - but it is this focus on the average person that is helpful.
As I've written before the foundation of what I want to do is to be functional in everyday life. Something that is only appreciated when you are injured. Some of this I believe is about having the right mental outlook and minimising stress, but I think training should also support it.
That is not to negate the need for this sort of debate - and its value - for those who are more advanced than I.
chris,
I hae never said kbs are the ultimate system for an athlete to use.As we all know,especially for athletes,specificity is EVERYTHING.If you want to lift heavy barbells you have to lift a lot of heavy barbells, if you want to be a great grappler you better spend most of your time on the mat.
But, as my story of 'coming back from the dead' speaks to, as well as my wifes story and my many clients experiences, the RKC system as a stand alone,baseline training method is unbeliebably great to produce strength, endurance, leaness power and speed with just a few exercises and techniques.
I have never argued the OL should use kbs instead of barbell for power production.
Hi Rif,
I hope everything is going great.
Re: "I dont go to the "bad place" anymore. It's a no win situation for me."
As I'd expect you know, there is a new forum in town. Seems to be very positive, with room for free exchange of competing ideas. I hope you visit.
All the best,
Eddie
I would agree with Shaf that reps in the 5-10 range is moving into the strength/power endurance range.
Here's how I think about it: If one can barely dead snatch (from the floor) the bulldog (40kg)...then that's too heavy for power training...let's call it the 1RM. Power training is optimal in the 60-80% 1RM range...so our athlete should do his doubles and triples from the floor with the, 24,28 and 32kg bells (60%,70% and 80% of 1RM respectively)...I like to do ladder/chains for these:
1/1x24, 1/1x28, 1/1x32. Then 2/2x24,2/2x28, 2/2x32 etc. Repeat the ladders a couple of times and you have nice power based workout.
Or let's say you have a 1RM double KB snatch from the floor of 32kg each bell. The percentages aren't perfect, but doubles and triples with 16,20 and 24kg bell in a ladder/chain format would be appropriate.
I prefer floor or dead hang snatches for power training. Jason C. Brown does dead snatches from boxes of varying heights...killer.
Also, it's not just the bell speed that matters. The speed of the bell is a reaction of how powerfully the feet are jammed into the floor-the action.
Just my take,
Randy
P.S. The above percentages are based on movements that are already power movements (snatche, cleans, jerks, push presses etc)...absolute strength movements (squats, benches etc) require lesser percentages to train for power (45-60% range)
Randy
Randy,
thanks for the response. I guess I should preface the remarks by saying I dont think using kbs as the sole or ultimate source for power production is the ideal situation for athletes.
I do however think that for those of us using it as a stand alone system, or those athletes who are using it as an adjunct or as extra workouts for GPP they power produced in a HS form is greater and more effective than a GS approach.IF one wants more power than endurance.
Power vs power/endurance is splitting hairs in this instance as if you are truly interested in power production you should be box squatting with bands and doing box jumps.
I also think that if one approaches their swings and or snatches with the approach that they will try to to static stomp( or root or whatever) to increase force output they are on the right path to increase force output as well as power.
thanks for the comments randy.
Eddie,
somehow I dont think I would be quite welcome there either, lol.
Thanks Rif, that clarifies things.
Randy,
another thing; let's assume one is going to use the basic kb movements for their training:
one arm swing, two hand swing, snatch, cleans. Now, one has a choice over HOW to perform those basic movements, with the HS approach or the efficiency approach. If one wants to increase their basic strength, power and speed they would choose the HS method and if they want maximum endurance the efficiency method.
Not to say that HS for swings is the ultimate power tool for developing max power but that compared to a gs approach one will get stronger faster and more power with HS than HS, all other things being equal.
to me this is core of the debate.
chris you are welcome.
Rif,
Guess I wasn't clear...what part of a dead hang or floor snatch, single KB or double KB at 70-80% 1RM wouldn't qualify as "hard style"? These were simply examples of what one can do if one wanted to use kettlebells for power training.
I certainly didn't raise the issue of GS vs Hard Style
"Power" is just a measurement and as you know a high force/high speed effort generates more power than a low force/high speed effort or a maximal force/low speed effort or a low force /low speed effort... for real power training (high force/high speed) anything over 3-4 reps (and in my view over 1-2 reps)crosses into a hybrid realm and if you can do more than 3-4 reps with a given resistance then you are probably going too slow or too light for your effort to qualify as optimal power training.
Just my take on it,
Randy
Rif
I know that this is in a different context from the idea of efficiency in a RKC vs GS debate, but when you wrote:
"the RKC system as a stand alone,baseline training method is unbeliebably great to produce strength, endurance, leaness power and speed with just a few exercises and techniques."
that makes it sound like a pretty efficient system.
I think the use of bands on some of the lifts is an appropriate tool. Add some bands to a one pood for presses or a much heavier bell. It is a whole new world and it represents and cheap, simple, training tool. Very good disussion by the way.
chris
I truly beleive that.Most people that arent training for competition just want a method that is gives the bigest bang for the buck. Yes you can lift wieghts for strength and muscle, do the tread mill or bike for cardio, take yoga for flexibility or you can learn the rkc methods for getting all that with the kettlebell and some very basic movements.
and since you learn how to effectively use momentum you can really turn up the volume just by swinging heavier bells faster and with more intent.
tom,
thanks man and I agree, the combo of bands and kbs is scary hard.just having done some swings with minibands attached I was amazed at how fast things moved and how much strength and power it took to work against the band on the ascent and how fast they pulled the bell down on the descent.
but I am really thinking about the non athletic person from 30-60 that wants the easiest way to get s fit as possible as fast as possible.
the fact that kbs are relatively easy to learn is great. the fact that as you get stronger and better you can learn to use them "harder" is even better.
I can't beleive what has happened to my clients that didnt respond to 'regular weight training' when they got into kbs. amazing changes.
top athletes or wanna be's are a tiny section of the real fitness market.
randy I agree,
all parts of those movements would qualify as hardstyle. what I am taling aobut is taking the basic moves and making them "hardstyle" by applying as much force to the ground for the longest time possible and flexing the body as hard as possible when you do so.
I see trying to maximize force production as hardstyle.
Just like in Wsb whenever your squat bench or dl you ALWAYS try to move th bar as fast as possible. ALWAYS.
But again I am thinking aobut this more for taking a fitness method and increasing the corce and power output of that then looking for the ultimate method of force production.
all this talk aobut how the kb was 'designed' to be moved a certain way is the point. one can move it as fast as one can or just enough to cover the range of motion desired.as one moves it faster, power goes up. thats all.
for my clients and myself, who are very limited in how much power moves we can do this is a great thing to be able to do.
On a side note...Randy I'm printing out your "ladder/chain" comment.
Great stuff!
And Rif once again your site provides some of the best information on the web.
Thanks,
Eric
thanks for the kind words eric they are very much appreciated and it's good to know some people are getting good info or inspiration here.
Gone a while, so I was unable to respond. Lots of action.
Fundamentally, I'm not sure our opinions differ so much.
Like I posted on IGx, after a lot of thinking and consideration, and watching videos, I like the strong, crisp movements and positions of the RKC movements. I like the efficiency and fluidity of the GS movements. I have a very hard time excluding one or the other from the list of viable techniques, given that the reasons behind doing it one way or another are understood.
If you are going to be lifting big kbs, then you are going to be using one kind of technique, and if you are going to be doing a long cycle, then you certainly better use another.
One point I would like to make is that GS is still relatively new. If you dredge the old turn of the century literature about kettlebells, you'll find that they were used much as they are today as taught by the RKC...a variety of movements for exercise purposes, not for a purpose like GS.
Occasionally, I have to remind myself it's about learning, and exchanging ideas, not about being right.
Shaf,
yes! I think we are basically on the same page.I have NOTHING against GS. I have tons of admiration for those guys and gals.I think if I had decent shoulders and lower back integrity I would be decent at it as I seem to be built like some of those guys.
But it is a sport and not a fitness training system and thats what I like about the RKC. Its a fitness method and as a professional, full time trainer it works wonders for me and my clients.
I like your description of the rkc style,crisp.I think what form you use almost certainly depends on how many reps you want to do.ANd I also agree that 'old school' gs, the kind I'm sure pavel used, was much closer to hs than current gs techniques.
I know the gymnastics techniques I used in 1977 are nothing compared to what they are doing now.
I appreciate your open mind on this situation, good discussing this with you.
if you are into GS, there is a great video of lots of snatches at
http://www.straighttothebar.com/2007/02/valery_fedorenko_kettlebell_vi.html
Post a Comment