kettlebell cardio

[Britt Buckingham]

Originally Posted by mc

Sorry sport,

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.

mc

MC...
as always you bring up some good questions. I am also curious about some of this protocol too. I do not have the DVD some much of this may be addressed there but...
1) If the prescribed training time is 20 minutes "optimal" I wonder why people are setting a benchmark of 80 sets (40 Minutes).
2) given all the back and forth about the instensities needed for increasing VO2Max, Im curious how many who routinely do this training closely monitor those intensities.
3) this is interval training. Nothing new in the concept there. It is no doubt hard work, but continued for #2 is there really a way to impliment this as VO2 increase training outside a lab where you have the necessary equipment monitor all gas exchanges, HR, etc??
4) Wonder for the general KBer in their garage... if any increase in VO2 max isnt simply from weightloss? I see many posts about 40 Minutes with a 24kg etc. Not bad if so, just not as scientificaly(sp) sexy.

Only 20 Minutes 3 times a week....That sounds so familiar..oh yeah, Bowflex, Total Gym, Butt-O-Matic

[Kenneth Jay]

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

because you will be recovered from the previous session in tems of glycogen and microtrauma before the next session. I don't know how to say any clearer than that.

If a person is doing additional stuff that always have to be considered in the recovery time and if that is insufficient you have to modify.
mc, there is no universal rule that everybody can follow. In the planning of training you have to consider a ton of variables which can differ between people so of course an athlete training 10 hrs per week for some other sport has a different recovey strategy than a person only doing 3 sessions of 30-40 min. per week.- it goes without saying. you also have to consider that rotation of volume can go a long way. I know several athletes that rotate volume for their recovery instead of dropping the intensity. my athletes is one example and if my memory serves me correctly this is also a strategy used by eastern european weightlifters...


A recommendation of 3-4 sessions of MVO2 is based on 1) the time it takes for glycogen replentishment, 2) microtrauma recovery (heart and muscle tissue) 3) volume is rotated or backed off occasionally 4) feedback from the athlete donig the work- if he/she feels fatigued then back off regardless of what your "plan" tells you to.

Like i told you before in an Email: "S&C is just as much an ART as it is a science."

for instance Mark O. Madsen the olympic wrestler I coached only did 1-2 MVO2 snatch sessions per week but he also had about 10 hrs of S&C + 15-20 hrs of wrestling to do every week. The goal here is of course to make him better on the mat and not better at MVO2 snatches and if I had had him do 4 sessions of MVO2 snatches per week· his wrestling trainnig would have suffered. but again this is not a "normal" persons training. A person with no other extra strenous activities can easily benefit from 3-4 sessions of the MVO2.

Everything you have your clients do has to be related to them and not just a universal guideline.

ight. 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?

No, kb snatches does both does both that is the hypothesis. this is based what is clinically proven with rowers and the comparison of the physiological and biomechanical analysis of the similarities and differences to the kb snatch. There is not enough material in this subject to run a full experiment when you have such a close link between the mechanics of snatches and rowing.

the rapid execution of a row in an ergometer vs. high candence kb snatches:
1) there is enough muscle mass involved in both to have the potential to reach MVO2
2) the cycle of one rep is fast enough to allow high blood perfusion rate for both
3) the breathing rhytm is physiological rather than anatomical for both- meaning that the body is pressureized during the most strenous effort- valsalva manouver (causing the thickining of the heart- concentric hypertrophy)


/KJ

[brian.goldstein]

KJ -
Great and informative series of posts!

I have one series of interelated questions. I understand the need to stimulate increases in MVO2, but with that comes the attendant thickening of the heart's walls and valves. If this protocol is not appropriate for someone (because of detrainedness) would that actually increase their cardiac risk factors (i.e. athlete's heart)? and If it isn't appropriate would they be better off focusing more on longer, slower efforts in Z1 and Z2 to improve cardiac capacity (Z1)/cardiac power (Z2) first?

Second - with maximal and supramaximal endurance efforts we're put into an hypoxic state. Hypoxia destroys mitochondrial density, no? understanding that mitochondrial density isn't the golden calf, but still very important to endurance generally, do you think it wise to apply the MVO2 protocol for someone who is not looking to improve their SSST score or glycolitic capacity, but endurance more generally?

My questions are about applicability and appropriateness of the protocol, not of its' efficacy or elegance. I think your work is nothing short of genius. The question at the root is "Who is MVO2 appropriate for, and who should look elsewhere, and why?"

[Oldboy]

KJ,

When can we anticipate the release of your new book? I know I'm looking forward to it. Thanks.

[mc]

Originally Posted by brian.goldstein

KJ -
Great and informative series of posts!

I have one series of interelated questions. I understand the need to stimulate increases in MVO2, but with that comes the attendant thickening of the heart's walls and valves. If this protocol is not appropriate for someone (because of detrainedness) would that actually increase their cardiac risk factors (i.e. athlete's heart)? and If it isn't appropriate would they be better off focusing more on longer, slower efforts in Z1 and Z2 to improve cardiac capacity (Z1)/cardiac power (Z2) first?

Second - with maximal and supramaximal endurance efforts we're put into an hypoxic state. Hypoxia destroys mitochondrial density, no? understanding that mitochondrial density isn't the golden calf, but still very important to endurance generally, do you think it wise to apply the MVO2 protocol for someone who is not looking to improve their SSST score or glycolitic capacity, but endurance more generally?

My questions are about applicability and appropriateness of the protocol, not of its' efficacy or elegance. I think your work is nothing short of genius. The question at the root is "Who is MVO2 appropriate for, and who should look elsewhere, and why?"

Hi
this is a long thread, so you may have missed that these questions were raised earlier.
As KJ notes, the protocol is designed to avoid thickening.
As for cardiac risk factors, any detrained trainee - depending on out of conditionness - will not be a candidate for doing a long intense vo2max protocol. On the other hand, KJ's protocol is gated such that it would be rather hard to over do it if you're cleared to train.

That said, basically, the main goal of the beginner is to build up their base of cardio strength. VO2max is not a beginner protocol.

On mitochondria, i've also asked about this with respect to hypoxia in VO2max. As far as i can tell from the literature, reviewed here, 80%maxHR is still appropriate or WAY over at wingate test levels for mitochondria development for endurance.

best with your training.

mc

[brian.goldstein]

thanks for the summary

[Kenneth Jay]

Originally Posted by Britt Buckingham

MC...
as always you bring up some good questions. I am also curious about some of this protocol too. I do not have the DVD some much of this may be addressed there but...
1) If the prescribed training time is 20 minutes "optimal" I wonder why people are setting a benchmark of 80 sets (40 Minutes).
2) given all the back and forth about the instensities needed for increasing VO2Max, Im curious how many who routinely do this training closely monitor those intensities.
3) this is interval training. Nothing new in the concept there. It is no doubt hard work, but continued for #2 is there really a way to impliment this as VO2 increase training outside a lab where you have the necessary equipment monitor all gas exchanges, HR, etc??
4) Wonder for the general KBer in their garage... if any increase in VO2 max isnt simply from weightloss? I see many posts about 40 Minutes with a 24kg etc. Not bad if so, just not as scientificaly(sp) sexy.

Only 20 Minutes 3 times a week....That sounds so familiar..oh yeah, Bowflex, Total Gym, Butt-O-Matic

20 min refers to ACTUAL work time which is 40 min total time.
the way intensity is monitored is by working at the velocity that elicits VO2max. So it is very easy to control.
by dropping weight you will increase your vo2max:weight ratio but the absolute value will not change

[PookDo]

After reading all the posts I am left wondering how many pro sports teams use or implement the V02 Max protocal

[DanMartin]

Originally Posted by PookDo

After reading all the posts I am left wondering how many pro sports teams use or implement the V02 Max protocal

Less than zero.

[mc]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Jay

because you will be recovered from the previous session in tems of glycogen and microtrauma before the next session. I don't know how to say any clearer than that.

If a person is doing additional stuff that always have to be considered in the recovery time and if that is insufficient you have to modify.
mc, there is no universal rule that everybody can follow. In the planning of training you have to consider a ton of variables which can differ between people so of course an athlete training 10 hrs per week for some other sport has a different recovey strategy than a person only doing 3 sessions of 30-40 min. per week.- it goes without saying. you also have to consider that rotation of volume can go a long way. I know several athletes that rotate volume for their recovery instead of dropping the intensity. my athletes is one example and if my memory serves me correctly this is also a strategy used by eastern european weightlifters...



A recommendation of 3-4 sessions of MVO2 is based on 1) the time it takes for glycogen replentishment, 2) microtrauma recovery (heart and muscle tissue) 3) volume is rotated or backed off occasionally 4) feedback from the athlete donig the work- if he/she feels fatigued then back off regardless of what your "plan" tells you to.
[snip]
A person with no other extra strenous activities can easily benefit from 3-4 sessions of the MVO2.

Thanks Kenneth,
That last sentence gets at what i was really looking at.

As i said last night (UK time) to Dan,
i totally get that 3 (or 4) is about the max you can do in a week to allow adequate recovery. And Dan, if you're reading, thar ya go, KJ has reaffirmed what you suggested.

Still, that's a rationale for the MAX you can do and recover; less why you WOULD choose to do the MAX of this particular effort.

What i did not get before was WHY would someone want to be doing the Max possible in a week?

You get at that by saying "A person with no other extra strenous activities can easily benefit from 3-4 sessions of the MVO2."

Ok.
still have lots of questions but this is most helpful to get this perspective.

No, kb snatches does both does both that is the hypothesis. this is based what is clinically proven with rowers and the comparison of the physiological and biomechanical analysis of the similarities and differences to the kb snatch. There is not enough material in this subject to run a full experiment when you have such a close link between the mechanics of snatches and rowing.

the rapid execution of a row in an ergometer vs. high candence kb snatches:
1) there is enough muscle mass involved in both to have the potential to reach MVO2
2) the cycle of one rep is fast enough to allow high blood perfusion rate for both
3) the breathing rhytm is physiological rather than anatomical for both- meaning that the body is pressureized during the most strenous effort- valsalva manouver (causing the thickining of the heart- concentric hypertrophy)

/KJ

This is an interesting comparison. Have you written this up?

I admit i'm a little perplexed about the valsalva maneuver here: i'd thought that was forcibly exhaling against a closed airway? I don't tend to hold my breath in snatching or in rowing. i must be misinterpreting this.


Thanks again for staying with this. Good luck with your thesis,
mc