kettlebell cardio

[mc]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Jay

for us mere mortals we have to go maximal more frequently because our total training is not even close to that of a professional athlete. that is why I recommend hitting 100% VO2max several times per week.

Kenneth, this is really cool. And let me preface the following with the point that i do VO2max intervals, as i've said elsewhere; i've taken doing so as a staple for general health and fitness and body comp to recommend resistance, cardio and HIIT, and the latter usually 3x's a week - as you do.

But honestly while i've seen most agreement about 4 days a week being too much for proper recovery - if you're using a bike and doing legs work for instnace - but

i haven't seen good rationales for 3 HIITs rather than 2, say,

Your statement is the closest i've seen though as to what's still kinda unanswered: when you say: "we have to go maximal more frequently [than elite athletes]"

I bet this seems just duh so obvious to you, so forgive me, but may i ask: could you clarify why? in order to achieve what? What is this assertion based on?

You do such a great job about describing protocols that do blood profusion stretch rather than thickening, could you do likewise for this point on why 3 is the sweet spot and for what?

Also, how are you sure the KB protocol is stretching rather than thickening? that's fascinating. Is this based on a theoretical or tested results?

thanks so much, KJ, for your work in this space, and for clairfying a bit more about your approach.

best
mc

[DanMartin]

When you think of lengthening the heart, think rower (crew) rather than runner.

[Kenneth Jay]

Originally Posted by mc

Kenneth, this is really cool. And let me preface the following with the point that i do VO2max intervals, as i've said elsewhere; i've taken doing so as a staple for general health and fitness and body comp to recommend resistance, cardio and HIIT, and the latter usually 3x's a week - as you do.

But honestly while i've seen most agreement about 4 days a week being too much for proper recovery - if you're using a bike and doing legs work for instnace - but

i haven't seen good rationales for 3 HIITs rather than 2, say,

Your statement is the closest i've seen though as to what's still kinda unanswered: when you say: "we have to go maximal more frequently [than elite athletes]"

I bet this seems just duh so obvious to you, so forgive me, but may i ask: could you clarify why? in order to achieve what? What is this assertion based on?

You do such a great job about describing protocols that do blood profusion stretch rather than thickening, could you do likewise for this point on why 3 is the sweet spot and for what?

Also, how are you sure the KB protocol is stretching rather than thickening? that's fascinating. Is this based on a theoretical or tested results?

thanks so much, KJ, for your work in this space, and for clairfying a bit more about your approach.

best
mc

mc,

an elite endurance athlete spends maybe 4-6 hours per day training. if they spend that much time under maximal stress- no doubt they will overtrain. Doing 3-4 sessions of the MVO2 protocol per week is not even close to that. Recovery time from the microtrauma to the heart and muscles is around 36-48hrs and the glycogen replentishment is even faster if you eat correctly (12-24 hrs.)

The thickining of the heart muscle during resistance training is textbook and so is the expansion of the heart chamber during VO2 training.
Doing kb snatches is that wonderful blend of them both just like rowing is, for instance.. this is related to the use of the Valsalva Maneuver or bacing of the midsection if you will during each repetition. the pressure will create resistance to the heart which it has to overcome making it grow thicker while simultaneously each repetition is fast enough to let the heart chamber expand. because each repetition (cycle of movement) is fast the pressure on the heart is also relieved fast. that is why the 20 rep breathing squat has nothing to do with cardiovascular training- the body is constantly loaded which is creating sustained resistance to the heart along with sustained resistance in the muscle tissue.

/KJ

[mc]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Jay

mc,

an elite endurance athlete spends maybe 4-6 hours per day training. if they spend that much time under maximal stress- no doubt they will overtrain. Doing 3-4 sessions of the MVO2 protocol per week is not even close to that. Recovery time from the microtrauma to the heart and muscles is around 36-48hrs and the glycogen replentishment is even faster if you eat correctly (12-24 hrs.)

Kenneth,

thans again for having this conversation. and i'm sorry if my questions are not clear enough:

no doubt that the volume you describe for normal people is significantly less than for elite athletes, or even folks on college teams.

What i have asked however, is why does a normal person *need* as i read you to say 3 sessions of VO2max in particular? - rather than any other protocol - especially if they're already training 5hours+ a week as part of a regular mixed regimen? and also with the knowledge that the benefit of VO2max work per se tends to taper off after a period of time
(see Gibala MJ, McGee SL. Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2008 Apr;36(2):58-63. - which may be why interval training on teams has intuitively been cycled?)

That's what i'm trying to get at: why 3 in particular for normal people?

As indicated, i've been a fan of anaerobic intervals, cardio, resistance as a steady diet for some time, but i'm recently questioning, based on articles like the above, and my own experience training x-country, where VO2max training goes for periods rather than constant.

The thickining of the heart muscle during resistance training is textbook and so is the expansion of the heart chamber during VO2 training.

ok

Doing kb snatches is that wonderful blend of them both just like rowing is, for instance.. this is related to the use of the Valsalva Maneuver or bacing of the midsection if you will during each repetition. the pressure will create resistance to the heart which it has to overcome making it grow thicker while simultaneously each repetition is fast enough to let the heart chamber expand.

right. this is your hypothesis then: that the ingress and egress of blood through the heart is sufficiently fast for stretching not thickening. it's not an hypothesis you've tested in your work is it? or is it that any pumping will definitely effect this er effect?

Also - an aside - with respect to mitochondria due to hypoxia in the speed of the V02max training, my understanding from the literature is that this is why lower to moderate intensity below VT should be done to increase mitochondria hyperplasia. Also text book, but still supported by recent research? or have i misunderstood this?

that is why the 20 rep breathing squat has nothing to do with cardiovascular training- the body is constantly loaded which is creating sustained resistance to the heart along with sustained resistance in the muscle tissue.

ok.

Thanks again for engaging. it's nice to get into some of the nitty gritty.

/KJ[/QUOTE]

[DanMartin]

Originally Posted by mc

Kenneth,

thans again for having this conversation. and i'm sorry if my questions are not clear enough:

no doubt that the volume you describe for normal people is significantly less than for elite athletes, or even folks on college teams.

What i have asked however, is why does a normal person *need* as i read you to say 3 sessions of VO2max in particular? - rather than any other protocol - especially if they're already training 5hours+ a week as part of a regular mixed regimen? and also with the knowledge that the benefit of VO2max work per se tends to taper off after a period of time
(see Gibala MJ, McGee SL. Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2008 Apr;36(2):58-63. - which may be why interval training on teams has intuitively been cycled?)

That's what i'm trying to get at: why 3 in particular for normal people?

As indicated, i've been a fan of anaerobic intervals, cardio, resistance as a steady diet for some time, but i'm recently questioning, based on articles like the above, and my own experience training x-country, where VO2max training goes for periods rather than constant.




ok


right. this is your hypothesis then: that the ingress and egress of blood through the heart is sufficiently fast for stretching not thickening. it's not an hypothesis you've tested in your work is it? or is it that any pumping will definitely effect this er effect?

Also - an aside - with respect to mitochondria due to hypoxia in the speed of the V02max training, my understanding from the literature is that this is why lower to moderate intensity below VT should be done to increase mitochondria hyperplasia. Also text book, but still supported by recent research? or have i misunderstood this?


ok.

Thanks again for engaging. it's nice to get into some of the nitty gritty.

/KJ

[/quote]

Trying to fit all your workouts into a 7 day week is tough. For example: You do a VO2 Max snatch workout, then you wait two full days or even three full days until your next one. Then you do it again. Maybe this time you only wait two full days. Then you do it again. Then another two day rest. Given your ability to recover, you string a lot of sequences like that together. Your results will be from months of good sessions and adjustments, rather than weeks. The calendar is a time measurement tool that is constricting rather than freeing.(IMO)

[mc]

Trying to fit all your workouts into a 7 day week is tough. For example: You do a VO2 Max snatch workout, then you wait two full days or even three full days until your next one. Then you do it again. Maybe this time you only wait two full days. Then you do it again. Then another two day rest. Given your ability to recover, you string a lot of sequences like that together. Your results will be from months of good sessions and adjustments, rather than weeks. The calendar is a time measurement tool that is constricting rather than freeing.(IMO)

That makes a lot of sense, but
if just days of the week is the issue, Dan, i'll be keen to hear that - that it's trying to get the most high intensity work in without overdoing it. That would suggest though that three is a Max. i don't hear kj saying that. He's actually saying "several".

My question is *why* 2 or 3 rather than one? why 2 not 3? in order to achieve what?

Consider that there/s a 33% difference between 2 and 3. That *should* mean a significant difference in some effect. Does it? how do you measure that? how has that been measured?

For whom is 2 appropriate; for whom 3?

For instance,
KJ mentioned the program constraints of elite athletes who train for hours a day only being able to do "1 or 2" but since we aren't elite, we need to do "several" - again, to achieve what benefit? relative to what?

It's also interesting in another elite athlete example that it wasn't just a time/workout constraint. It was that in the billiat work, 1 session had the same performance benefit as 3.

Now according to KJ, someone who is well trained would need MORE effort at 100% max than a Normal to see an effect. And yet, as i read it, that wasn't the case here. It was the same for these guys at 1 and at 3

Hence my desire to see a trial for normals like us doing a 1 vs 3 comparison of kj's snatch protocol.

Now, why i generally do HIIT regularly given all the above is not to improve my dead lift or to be able to snatch for an hour. It's body composition and just general fitness as part of a fitness regimen. why? besides the fact that i like to eat, it's an effective way to balance steady state parasympahetic work and HIIT to keep my metabolism revving along sufficiently (sympathetic work) to get to a place where i'm happy with the results, and none of it is so high volume that it would compromise any mass gaining efforts i'd undertake.

as sited above, if the effects of VO2max repeats kinda top out after a month, to keep doing them is not necessarily for constant improvement of vo2max, but at least for me, another kind of efficiency. As pavel's pointed out with Milo's cow, we can't/don't KEEP getting significantly stronger perpetually. And i don't constantly see my recovery rate on my bike get significantly lower and lower and lower.

KJ has not recommended these protocols for body composition but for cardiovascular improvement.
So that's why i'm still curious since KJ is an expert as to why 3 sessions are recommended "for us mere mortals we have to go maximal more frequently because our total training is not even close to that of a professional athlete."

so here's the blank for me, which is likely blindingly obvious, and i'm just not getting it

"for us mere mortals we have to go maximal more frequently"

[in order to achieve what that would otherwise not occur with say one session? has that been tested with "normals" - or for that matter with a posse of RKC instructors?]

"because our total training is not even close to that of a professional athlete."

it's that last clause that's throwing me, no doubt.

anyway, your time argument makes good sense dan, just want to understand what else is under the hood.

best
mc

[DanMartin]

Like I posted earlier, think rower rather than runner. HIIT, generally, involves some sort of hip/thigh/leg based activity (running) and the VO2 Max kettlebell snatch protocol involves the hips/lower back/torso.

If you are going to improve your VO2 Max via the kettlebell, you need to rethink your weight training activity.

[mc]

Originally Posted by DanMartin

Like I posted earlier, think rower rather than runner. HIIT, generally, involves some sort of hip/thigh/leg based activity (running) and the VO2 Max kettlebell snatch protocol involves the hips/lower back/torso.

If you are going to improve your VO2 Max via the kettlebell, you need to rethink your weight training activity.

Dan sorry i don't get the point you're making or how that relates to the physiology etc of the KB's.

I also don't think KJ is claiming that there's anything special or different about kb vo2max vs any other protocol on the heart that gets to vo2maxfor intervals - that cycling is 1 a week and KB is 3 a week for insnance. my understanding is that it is about getting to 100% of VO2max with appropriate reovery. This can be done in a number of ways, not just kbs. so the question is why do 100% vo2max intervals 1:1 for 20 mins, 3 times a week?

best
mc

[DanMartin]

Originally Posted by mc

Dan sorry i don't get the point you're making or how that relates to the physiology etc of the KB's.

I also don't think KJ is claiming that there's anything special or different about kb vo2max vs any other protocol on the heart that gets to vo2maxfor intervals - that cycling is 1 a week and KB is 3 a week for insnance. my understanding is that it is about getting to 100% of VO2max with appropriate reovery. This can be done in a number of ways, not just kbs. so the question is why do 100% vo2max intervals 1:1 for 20 mins, 3 times a week?

best
mc

To the contrary, he does make a point specifically concerning the kettlebell snatch and the Valsalva maneuver.

[mc]

Originally Posted by DanMartin

To the contrary, he does make a point specifically concerning the kettlebell snatch and the Valsalva maneuver.

Sorry sport,

i'm not arguing that putting more effort into an upper body workout rather than legs will have an impact on training schedule for resistance of those parts effected - it's hard to do a good legs workout AFTER intervals - even the day after - if that's what you mean. But that's not my question. Mine is more generic, and i'd love to hear kenneth's understanding. i'm not sure if you're saying KB's are more like rowing than running - i find them pretty full body in where the aches are the next day if i go too heavy

but the point of my query is simply this. KJ says VO2max training (not training with kettlebells, but generically) 3x's a week.
based on his specification, that it is an effort to achieve 100% vo2max for the maneuver during the interval. Classically this is done on a cycle; kj is transferring it to a KB. He says that he can get a great flush of 100% in x sets in about 20mins which he says is "- optimal for VO2max stimulation" - and i'll take his word on that.

He recommends doing this 3x's a week and situates that as relative to the fitness levels of elite athletes.

My question is simple: why? to achieve what, exactly, is it necessary or relevant to work at this volume? based on what? and for how long?

What i'm looking for is something like - unless you do this three times a week, no matter what else you're doing, you will not improve your endurance. If you leave it to one session a week unless you're training x hours per day, your whatever will drop so no benefit will accrue.

i'm not expecting a statement like that but there HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC reason somebody says 1 rather than 2 or 3. Otherwise, what's the point?

It could be "i've trained a hundred RKC's and i've seen that when they do three rather than 1 session a week their C&P goes up significantly faster (p<.05) " or something.

That's what i'm looking for.

I hope i've understood what you've said, and i hope you understand what i'm asking


mc