I'm going to keep this short. And I'm going to return to my series on Core Programming tomorrow.
Kettlebells have legitimate uses. I actually went to Sports Authority yesterday specifically to buy one or two. They were going to fill a small niche in my strength training 'tool bag'.
My main problem with kettlebells is that they are over-hyped. And some will say that's not a reason itself to object to them. But . . .
I found an 8 kg (17.6 lb) bell at the Sports Authority. It didn't have a price tag. I took it up to the register where it rang up for $59.99!
That's almost four dollars a pound. For a single piece, cast hunk of metal. And that's what being over-hyped does that is objectively bad.
A kettlebell can be made from cheap, crap, pig iron, it can be made from impure, mixed, recycled or whatever as long as it's mostly iron. It just does not matter. And the store brand bell, at a discount store, was nearly 4 dollars a pound.
Compare that to the Olympic plates. The Oly plate is made from multiple materials and has to withstand more extreme use, so higher grade materials are a must. It must be precision milled to fit other equipment and still move freely. These are less than 2 dollars a pound at the same Sports Authority.
I walked out of there empty handed. It was a waste of my time.
And that's why over hyped stuff bugs me.
Showing posts with label kettlebells. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kettlebells. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
Doing Each Thing Well
I was once again thinking about how to explain why I don't like kettlebells. But don't worry, this isn't just a rant against kettlebells.
This has do to with making sure that each component of our Strength & Conditioning program is done well. By doing each component well we will get the best results. I think this is obvious, once I write it down, but if you want me to explain further just mention it in the comments.
This idea is present throughout my approach to training, not just the S&C part. I'm going to use a few examples below and draw the examples towards HEMA training to illustrate the general idea.
Basically, I don't like exercises that mix different components, like power and stability. At least not as the primary part of my program. And for a person new to strength training, the primary exercises are their only exercises. (I recently argued with someone about kettlebells for strength training; only to realize that he was an advanced lifter and using them as assistance exercises. He just didn't think of them as assistance exercises.)
A kettlebell snatch mixes several different components, while a dumbbell snatch focuses on power development. The dumbbell snatch is unilateral and asymmetric, so it's a bit of stability and core work, but it's mostly about the power. An exercise that is mostly one component (e.g. power or strength or conditioning) and a bit of another is a good thing. It's a good thing for the secondary exercises in a program. The primary exercises should each focus on one component and maximize that piece.
The kettlebell snatch has an off-center weight thereby increasing the stability demand of the exercise - limiting the weight. Limiting the weight I can move limits my power development - so it's not a good snatch. Limiting power development limits the acceleration training of the exercise; and acceleration is how the snatch is relevant to martial arts and combat sports.
Additionally, the KB snatch is technically demanding, because otherwise you break your arm. This means you have to progress slowly and develop the technical skill for this lift. And that is time taken away from technical training for HEMA. A KB jerk eliminates the risk of breaking your, but still has the above problem of limiting weight, and therefore power development.
But if I do 100 lunges for conditioning purposes then I'll have crappy lunge form. To get a good conditioning stimulus, I have to do lunges at such a tempo and intensity that making them technically excellent is impossible. This is why conditioning exercises are normally limited to those that can be done at huge volumes and remain sound, like running.
I can't do both. I can't have technically excellent lunges and good conditioning. I can't do explosive power and conditioning. Pick one, work on it. Then the next day, pick the other and work on that.
The advantage of such a drill is primarily that you can get large numbers of repetitions out of it. And this leads some to approach these drills as a way to involve a conditioning component into the drilling part of class.
But I disagree. As we push the drill to a level that it's conditioning then we lose technical form. And that's a problem. The drill then begins to lose it's relevance to martial arts training. Either by being sloppy or by decreasing the intensity below that which is used in fighting just to get more time or reps done.
Some coaches do this because they want to make a class that does everything. A one-stop approach to strength, conditioning and technical training. But this means that there are limits on how well each component can be done.
I prefer to set a high bar. I am up front with students that if they want to reach their personal best then they need to be putting the time in outside of class to do the strength work; to do the conditioning work. Class is for technical development.
This has do to with making sure that each component of our Strength & Conditioning program is done well. By doing each component well we will get the best results. I think this is obvious, once I write it down, but if you want me to explain further just mention it in the comments.
This idea is present throughout my approach to training, not just the S&C part. I'm going to use a few examples below and draw the examples towards HEMA training to illustrate the general idea.
Basically, I don't like exercises that mix different components, like power and stability. At least not as the primary part of my program. And for a person new to strength training, the primary exercises are their only exercises. (I recently argued with someone about kettlebells for strength training; only to realize that he was an advanced lifter and using them as assistance exercises. He just didn't think of them as assistance exercises.)
A kettlebell snatch mixes several different components, while a dumbbell snatch focuses on power development. The dumbbell snatch is unilateral and asymmetric, so it's a bit of stability and core work, but it's mostly about the power. An exercise that is mostly one component (e.g. power or strength or conditioning) and a bit of another is a good thing. It's a good thing for the secondary exercises in a program. The primary exercises should each focus on one component and maximize that piece.
The kettlebell snatch has an off-center weight thereby increasing the stability demand of the exercise - limiting the weight. Limiting the weight I can move limits my power development - so it's not a good snatch. Limiting power development limits the acceleration training of the exercise; and acceleration is how the snatch is relevant to martial arts and combat sports.
Additionally, the KB snatch is technically demanding, because otherwise you break your arm. This means you have to progress slowly and develop the technical skill for this lift. And that is time taken away from technical training for HEMA. A KB jerk eliminates the risk of breaking your, but still has the above problem of limiting weight, and therefore power development.
Lots of Lunges
Whew, now I'm done talking about kettlebells. Why not do lots of lunges, like a hundred? It's a good conditioning workout, right? Sure, but it's crappy technical training for lunges. Out of 100 lunges I'll get good, explosive power out of the first 10-15. After that it'll be lower intensity lunges. Lunges that won't hit in fight because they aren't fast enough.But if I do 100 lunges for conditioning purposes then I'll have crappy lunge form. To get a good conditioning stimulus, I have to do lunges at such a tempo and intensity that making them technically excellent is impossible. This is why conditioning exercises are normally limited to those that can be done at huge volumes and remain sound, like running.
I can't do both. I can't have technically excellent lunges and good conditioning. I can't do explosive power and conditioning. Pick one, work on it. Then the next day, pick the other and work on that.
Cyclical/Flow/Parry-Riposte Drills
This same reasoning applies to this kind of drilling. These drills have different names, but they usually involve a technically simple pairing of an attack and defense. They are partner drill where the roles constantly reverse. I attack - you defend. You attack - I defend. And the attack and defense don't change.The advantage of such a drill is primarily that you can get large numbers of repetitions out of it. And this leads some to approach these drills as a way to involve a conditioning component into the drilling part of class.
But I disagree. As we push the drill to a level that it's conditioning then we lose technical form. And that's a problem. The drill then begins to lose it's relevance to martial arts training. Either by being sloppy or by decreasing the intensity below that which is used in fighting just to get more time or reps done.
Some coaches do this because they want to make a class that does everything. A one-stop approach to strength, conditioning and technical training. But this means that there are limits on how well each component can be done.
I prefer to set a high bar. I am up front with students that if they want to reach their personal best then they need to be putting the time in outside of class to do the strength work; to do the conditioning work. Class is for technical development.
What Instead?
I will tell students to push these drills at high-intensity until their form breaks a little bit, and then they step back. Ideally, each week your students can do a few more reps than last week before they break down - but that's not always possible where power is relevant. However, that's going to come mostly from outside conditioning work and growing technical skill - it is a marker not the cause.Conclusion
The basic take away piece is that I will always encourage excellence. And that means each component needs to be done well. I can do a kettlebell workout that is part strength and part conditioning and a little bit of power. But it won't do any of those things well. And that does not satisfy me.Thursday, April 4, 2013
No, Not Kettlebells!
Kettlebells are not a good training tool for HEMA. Let's start there.
They are a perfectly good tool for burning calories and meeting generalized fitness goals, but not for meeting the needs of a fighter.
I do want to get out of the way one point: I'm not opposed to kettlebells. Their are two minor quibbles I have with them, neither of which is significant enough that I'd tell somebody, "don't use them". But I sure can't recommend them.
1) They cost more. For the same amount of money you can buy a larger amount of weight in dumbbells and the DBs will be adjustable at that cost, but the KBs aren't. So, I would tell people not to buy kettlebells.
2) The handles don't rotate. Many KB exercises involve the bell rotating in your hand. This will cause, and then rip open, callouses more than other weight lifting tools. So that's not good. The problem isn't awful, it's annoying, and but it can get in the way of training on those days when your hands are messed up. And that's a problem for people who train with weapons.
The best kind of strength training for HEMA is something that I've covered before. The important aspect is that good strength training for fighters is going to have one of three aspects: max force, max power or max velocity. Kettlebells are not heavy enough to elicit either maximum force or maximum power from the muscles. And they are too heavy for you to be able to generate max velocity.
Working in and around these maximums - force, power or velocity - produces the greatest benefit for the amount of time spent working out.
Max Force - Exercises which require high force production will recruit the largest motor units and the greatest proportion of your muscle fibers. This is the result of the Size Principle, and what it means is that low load exercises will simply not ever trigger the use of your biggest motor units. When you use your biggest motor units they get bigger, stronger, faster and are more easily turned on by other actions. As you train at high loads you will use your big muscles more in your fighting, so you will produce more force and power.
Max Power - Maximum power is generated in between 30% and 70% of maximum force. Different studies have found different ranges of values that elicit max power and it varies with the particular exercise and muscle groups being used. The highest power output exercises are the Olympic lifts: Clean & Jerk and Snatch. At their peak these exercise can be measured in Horsepower, with elite athletes producing over 7 horsepower. Seven horses! Kettlebells can't even get close to that. Kettlebells just aren't heavy enough. Even a small person, at 100 lbs. would need KBs around 50-60 pounds to generate max power and that person could easily train until they need over 100 pounds to elicit max power.
And their are lot's of other good reasons to do Olympic lifts, too.
Power is relevant because it is a measure of how quickly force is produced. The same amount of force in a shorter period of time is higher power output. As strikes happen faster than the muscles ability to reach maximum force the faster that force is produced the more effective the attack. (And max force still matters because in a given amount of time your muscle will produce a percentage of max force).
Max Velocity - Velocity of action drops off quickly as weight goes up. Enough so that above double-weight you get a steep drop-off in the carry-over from training to fighting. Therefore training velocity with tools above 4-6 pounds (for longsword) doesn't work well. This is why kettlebells don't do a good job of working velocity. Furthermore, velocity training is more movement pattern specific than the other two categories, so common KB exercises like swings just aren't relevant to fighting.
The better training tool for combining strength with velocity is an overweight waster (and heck, it's even historical).
You can also do a variety of plyometric medicine ball exercises for the upper body and trunk. These are best with a light med ball (again 4-6 lbs. for longsword) that bounces well.
Conditioning is not Strength Training
This is a key caveat to everything I've said so far, which has been about strength training. For conditioning purposes kettlebells can be just as good as other approaches but not with typical KB programs. Most KB programs are geared towards increasing the amount of time or number of repetitions in a fixed period of time or a fixed number of repetitions in decreasing time. These kinds of programs are usually lacking in that they do not match the energy demands of a fight particularly closely.
A typical fight involves long periods of low intensity, while the fighters jockey for position and wait for a good tempo to attack. Then there is a brief period of maximum intensity. Each exchange usually lasts no more than a few seconds (if there's no grappling). Exchanges not infrequently last less than one second.
If your kettlebell program looks like that then great. But it probably doesn't. I've talked about conditioning before. And I'll go into more detail in the future.
They are a perfectly good tool for burning calories and meeting generalized fitness goals, but not for meeting the needs of a fighter.
I do want to get out of the way one point: I'm not opposed to kettlebells. Their are two minor quibbles I have with them, neither of which is significant enough that I'd tell somebody, "don't use them". But I sure can't recommend them.
1) They cost more. For the same amount of money you can buy a larger amount of weight in dumbbells and the DBs will be adjustable at that cost, but the KBs aren't. So, I would tell people not to buy kettlebells.
2) The handles don't rotate. Many KB exercises involve the bell rotating in your hand. This will cause, and then rip open, callouses more than other weight lifting tools. So that's not good. The problem isn't awful, it's annoying, and but it can get in the way of training on those days when your hands are messed up. And that's a problem for people who train with weapons.
The best kind of strength training for HEMA is something that I've covered before. The important aspect is that good strength training for fighters is going to have one of three aspects: max force, max power or max velocity. Kettlebells are not heavy enough to elicit either maximum force or maximum power from the muscles. And they are too heavy for you to be able to generate max velocity.
Working in and around these maximums - force, power or velocity - produces the greatest benefit for the amount of time spent working out.
Max Force - Exercises which require high force production will recruit the largest motor units and the greatest proportion of your muscle fibers. This is the result of the Size Principle, and what it means is that low load exercises will simply not ever trigger the use of your biggest motor units. When you use your biggest motor units they get bigger, stronger, faster and are more easily turned on by other actions. As you train at high loads you will use your big muscles more in your fighting, so you will produce more force and power.
Max Power - Maximum power is generated in between 30% and 70% of maximum force. Different studies have found different ranges of values that elicit max power and it varies with the particular exercise and muscle groups being used. The highest power output exercises are the Olympic lifts: Clean & Jerk and Snatch. At their peak these exercise can be measured in Horsepower, with elite athletes producing over 7 horsepower. Seven horses! Kettlebells can't even get close to that. Kettlebells just aren't heavy enough. Even a small person, at 100 lbs. would need KBs around 50-60 pounds to generate max power and that person could easily train until they need over 100 pounds to elicit max power.
And their are lot's of other good reasons to do Olympic lifts, too.
Power is relevant because it is a measure of how quickly force is produced. The same amount of force in a shorter period of time is higher power output. As strikes happen faster than the muscles ability to reach maximum force the faster that force is produced the more effective the attack. (And max force still matters because in a given amount of time your muscle will produce a percentage of max force).
Max Velocity - Velocity of action drops off quickly as weight goes up. Enough so that above double-weight you get a steep drop-off in the carry-over from training to fighting. Therefore training velocity with tools above 4-6 pounds (for longsword) doesn't work well. This is why kettlebells don't do a good job of working velocity. Furthermore, velocity training is more movement pattern specific than the other two categories, so common KB exercises like swings just aren't relevant to fighting.
The better training tool for combining strength with velocity is an overweight waster (and heck, it's even historical).
You can also do a variety of plyometric medicine ball exercises for the upper body and trunk. These are best with a light med ball (again 4-6 lbs. for longsword) that bounces well.
Conditioning is not Strength Training
This is a key caveat to everything I've said so far, which has been about strength training. For conditioning purposes kettlebells can be just as good as other approaches but not with typical KB programs. Most KB programs are geared towards increasing the amount of time or number of repetitions in a fixed period of time or a fixed number of repetitions in decreasing time. These kinds of programs are usually lacking in that they do not match the energy demands of a fight particularly closely.
A typical fight involves long periods of low intensity, while the fighters jockey for position and wait for a good tempo to attack. Then there is a brief period of maximum intensity. Each exchange usually lasts no more than a few seconds (if there's no grappling). Exchanges not infrequently last less than one second.
If your kettlebell program looks like that then great. But it probably doesn't. I've talked about conditioning before. And I'll go into more detail in the future.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Olympic Lifts v. Kettlebells
A recent journal article(1) on kettlebells initiated another round of discussion on the merits and/or advantages of the kettlebell. I want to talk about that, and I will in a moment, but just to be clear: I have nothing against kettlebells. My objection is when folks think they are better than another tool at everything, as opposed to using them for what they do well and using the correct tool for other objectives.
First, the results of the study: conventional weightlifting was superior to the kettlebell training.
Now, listen to how the results are described by the authors,
In all three tests (power clean and back squat 1RM and vertical jump) the conventional training produced larger gains. In the vertical jump and power clean the gains were close enough to each other that the differences were not statistically significant.
Which brings me to the next point: significance. The fact that the test for statistical significance was "passed" does not mean the results are significant in any other way. The increase in jump height for the KB group was less than 2mm. This is not telling, not meaningful, not important, not momentous, not compelling, or frankly even suggestive (yup, I used a thesaurus).
True, the conventional protocol produced jump height gains of just under a centimeter, so it wasn't any of those synonyms either.
On to the conversation! There have been numerous blog posts about this already. And there are two criticisms of the study that I've seen multiple times, so I'd like to address them.
A. The test procedures. Others have criticized the selection of tests on the grounds that they don't test what the kettlebell training trains or the tests are more similar to the weightlifting exercises so of course that group got better.
The tests selected for this study are standard tests. This has two advantages. First the results of this test can be compared to other studies that used the same test. Second, there is already a body of literature demonstrating that these tests correlate to actual measures of athletic performance. Both of these point are important for useful science.
If the conventional weightlifting exercises and tests are more similar, doesn't that tell us that the specificity of those exercises is higher? Remember, correlation between those test and athletic performance have already been demonstrated.
And while kettlebell exercises can be useful, one characteristic they don't possess is a high degree of movement specificity to many sport actions. (They are instead good for metabolic specificity etc.)
B. Another criticism was that the weights used for the KB protocol were too light. For the KB protocol everyone used a 16kg bell. For the conventional training 80% of 1RM was used, which was substantially higher. Some argued that the KB group should have used the same weight as the conventional group.
There are two problems with this criticism. The typical KB program uses the same weight or a narrow range and the objective is to increase reps not weight. The KB protocol used in this study looks like others I've seen suggested for kettlebell training.
But the sillier part is that the researchers couldn't have used kettlebells heavy enough for 80% of 1RM. They would have needed a set of KB's that went from around 60kg to 150kg. The largest I could find online was 48kg. And a blog post that a manufacture was planning to go up to 100 kg. So weights that size would've been impossible to get.
And why? Because KB training isn't done that way. The researchers compared a typical KB approach to a typical Olympic lifting approach. That's reasonable.
Lastly, a pet peeve of mind when it comes to discussing kettlebells. There were no kettlebell exercises done as part of this study. There were exercises done with kettlebells. All of the KB protocol could have been done with dumbbells. And for cheaper
1. Otto WH 3rd, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, volume 26(5),1199-202
First, the results of the study: conventional weightlifting was superior to the kettlebell training.
Now, listen to how the results are described by the authors,
The principle finding of the present study was that short-term kettlebell training significantly increased vertical jump, and that the gain in vertical jump performance was equivalent to that achieved with a combination of [Olympic] weightlifting and traditional heavy resistance training exercises.
Both kettlebell and training and weightlifting increased back squat 1RM.
The results of the present study indicated that both weightlifting and kettlebell movements are effective in improving back squat and power clean 1RM as well as vertical jump ability; however, weightlifting exercises are more effective for strength development.Does this sound like the weightlifting was superior?
In all three tests (power clean and back squat 1RM and vertical jump) the conventional training produced larger gains. In the vertical jump and power clean the gains were close enough to each other that the differences were not statistically significant.
Which brings me to the next point: significance. The fact that the test for statistical significance was "passed" does not mean the results are significant in any other way. The increase in jump height for the KB group was less than 2mm. This is not telling, not meaningful, not important, not momentous, not compelling, or frankly even suggestive (yup, I used a thesaurus).
True, the conventional protocol produced jump height gains of just under a centimeter, so it wasn't any of those synonyms either.
On to the conversation! There have been numerous blog posts about this already. And there are two criticisms of the study that I've seen multiple times, so I'd like to address them.
A. The test procedures. Others have criticized the selection of tests on the grounds that they don't test what the kettlebell training trains or the tests are more similar to the weightlifting exercises so of course that group got better.
The tests selected for this study are standard tests. This has two advantages. First the results of this test can be compared to other studies that used the same test. Second, there is already a body of literature demonstrating that these tests correlate to actual measures of athletic performance. Both of these point are important for useful science.
If the conventional weightlifting exercises and tests are more similar, doesn't that tell us that the specificity of those exercises is higher? Remember, correlation between those test and athletic performance have already been demonstrated.
And while kettlebell exercises can be useful, one characteristic they don't possess is a high degree of movement specificity to many sport actions. (They are instead good for metabolic specificity etc.)
B. Another criticism was that the weights used for the KB protocol were too light. For the KB protocol everyone used a 16kg bell. For the conventional training 80% of 1RM was used, which was substantially higher. Some argued that the KB group should have used the same weight as the conventional group.
There are two problems with this criticism. The typical KB program uses the same weight or a narrow range and the objective is to increase reps not weight. The KB protocol used in this study looks like others I've seen suggested for kettlebell training.
But the sillier part is that the researchers couldn't have used kettlebells heavy enough for 80% of 1RM. They would have needed a set of KB's that went from around 60kg to 150kg. The largest I could find online was 48kg. And a blog post that a manufacture was planning to go up to 100 kg. So weights that size would've been impossible to get.
And why? Because KB training isn't done that way. The researchers compared a typical KB approach to a typical Olympic lifting approach. That's reasonable.
Lastly, a pet peeve of mind when it comes to discussing kettlebells. There were no kettlebell exercises done as part of this study. There were exercises done with kettlebells. All of the KB protocol could have been done with dumbbells. And for cheaper
1. Otto WH 3rd, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, volume 26(5),1199-202
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Interesting Links
A couple of other blog posts I've liked:
On CrossFit and General v. Specific training http://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=90
On Kettlebells http://skinnybulkup.com/kettlebells-are-inferior-to-dumbbells/
In both cases there are little things I disagree with, but overall they are worth reading.
On CrossFit and General v. Specific training http://maxwellsc.com/blog.cfm?blogID=90
On Kettlebells http://skinnybulkup.com/kettlebells-are-inferior-to-dumbbells/
In both cases there are little things I disagree with, but overall they are worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)