The world’s premier network for those seeking to share and discuss high-impact,high results, super practical information for the developmentof superiorphysical performance.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    David C. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    498

    Default

    That's funny, I just finished a blog post about Denisov.
    Denisov was suspended from competition for competing at the WKC championships (i.e., competing outside the "official" organization). It was a political thing. It sounds like this cross training may have just been him taking a break from GS since he could not compete at major competitions.
    I don't know what portion of this was to pass the time while he was suspended, what portion was for GPP, and what was done for sport prep.

    I do know that Denisov plays on his city basketball team and that he runs marathons. Here is a video of him completing a recent marathon:
    http://youtu.be/iG9s-NPF8sY
    [URL]http://southernkettlebeller.blogspot.com/[/URL]

  2. #12
    shmathews is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,263
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David C. View Post
    Hey. Think of it in these terms:
    The 5k is the running event equivalent of GS (roughly speaking; WR 5k time is 12:37; GS event is limited to 10:00).
    What is the correlation between maximal squat strength and 5k running times? Minimal, if anything. Probably zero.
    In this blog post I cited this article by Rudnev and Lopatin. Remember, Lopatin is a multiple world record holder in GS, but he cannot meet the minimum generally accepted maximal strength standards for a beginner GS athlete. Rudnev and Lopatin's findings turned conventional GS wisdom upside down. But they are what they are. To my knowledge, their findings have not been disputed, and Rudnev is one of the most respected GS coaches and competitors in Russia. Many would argue that he is the top GS coach in Russia.
    To me, the most startling finding in their research was the lack of correlation of strength endurance to GS. I was not expecting that.
    It took reading their study several times for me to fully grasp the import of their findings.
    David,
    Thanks again for posting this. I have just reviewed the data briefly, and something jumped out at me. Voropaev published a list of standards that he thought kettlebellers should be able to pass. These included minimum poundages on the three powerlifts, a 32k kettlebell press, and a middle to long distance run. Lopatin obviously proves that Voropaev's assumptions are faulty, since he is a world champion kettlebeller who cannot meet Voropaev's standards. Why?

    I think this gets back to my original question about the olympic barbell lifts. Voropaev is using grinds (bench, dead, squat, press) to make predictions about strength endurance in two ballistic lifts. Voropaev is comparing apples to oranges, and that's why his theory falls apart. You seem to make this assumption when you compare a 1rm squat to a 5k. Power strength (O Lifts) is different than grinding strength (powerlifts). The original poster asked about combining barbell lifts with kettlebell lifts, so I think that the O lifts are a relevant subject under this heading.

    I think that a better comparison would be the impact of one's 100m or 200m sprint time on his 5k time. If you can run faster, you can run faster. A jerk is a jerk, with kettlebells or barbells (of course there are technical differences, but the mechanics are quite similar: supporting the weight on the frame, the dip, the drive and triple extension, the catch and support of the weight overhead) A jerk is certainly not a squat, a press, or a deadlift. Likewise with the snatch- the pull, triple extension, lockout, etc. The kettlebell snatch is much more like a barbell snatch than like any of the barbell powerlifts.

    I think it is probably clear that one's strength in the powerlifts has a minimal impact on his endurance in the ballistic lifts. That's why I asked about the O lifts. So, back to my original question: do you think that greater strength in the barbell snatch and jerk would have any impact on one's GS score, all else being equal? I think it makes sense that it should, for reasons I expressed in my previous post- specifically, the kettlebells represent a smaller percentage of maximum strength.

    Any thoughts?
    Shmathews

    "Remember too, that I seek neither your approval nor to influence you towards my way of thinking."-- Bruce Lee, [I]Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate[/I]

  3. #13
    johnbeamon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    805
    Blog Entries
    97

    Default

    I've read the Rudnev/Lopatin article and the Denisov interview before. Denisov trains high volume with light bells to perfect technique, using competition weight or heavier for around 20% of his volume. He's strong enough to launch the bells at will, so his focus is on timing, breathing, and speed. His challenge is raising 170 jerks to 175 in 10min. He worked out the timing with 12's and 16's before ever applying it to 32's. It was never about launching a heavy weight once or 10 times; it was about launching the weight at hand for a 10min period.

    I compete 16's, but I learned everything I know about breathing with 12's. I use 20's for strength and lockout training, but I'll probably compete 16's until I can hit 10min with them. I could move up to 20's, but I'd be training and competing on the edge of failure.
    [B][URL="http://ironflinger.blogspot.com"]John Beamon[/URL][/B]
    [SIZE=1]
    [SIZE=2] My thread "Guest User? Really" prompted some 6 pages of discussion on why Pavel's user account had been changed to "Guest User" status. John Du Cane answered in a forthright manner, and I thanked him for his professionalism in this very forum.

    That entire thread was removed from the forum on or around August 26. I've been an HKC and an active, outspoken member in good standing for some 3yrs now, but I don't support this sort of censorship. Look for me on the public web.

    -j
    [/SIZE][/SIZE]

  4. #14
    David C. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shmathews View Post
    I think that a better comparison would be the impact of one's 100m or 200m sprint time on his 5k time. If you can run faster, you can run faster. A jerk is a jerk, with kettlebells or barbells (of course there are technical differences, but the mechanics are quite similar: supporting the weight on the frame, the dip, the drive and triple extension, the catch and support of the weight overhead) A jerk is certainly not a squat, a press, or a deadlift. Likewise with the snatch- the pull, triple extension, lockout, etc. The kettlebell snatch is much more like a barbell snatch than like any of the barbell powerlifts.

    I think it is probably clear that one's strength in the powerlifts has a minimal impact on his endurance in the ballistic lifts. That's why I asked about the O lifts. So, back to my original question: do you think that greater strength in the barbell snatch and jerk would have any impact on one's GS score, all else being equal? I think it makes sense that it should, for reasons I expressed in my previous post- specifically, the kettlebells represent a smaller percentage of maximum strength.

    Any thoughts?
    Sprinters stink at distance events. Distance runners stink at sprinting. (I remember Evander Holyfield outrunning Carl Lewis in an 800m race in 1989, by the way).

    You can take any Olympic lifter, and they will do fine with 2x32....for maybe 2 or 3 minutes. Drop them down to 2x24kg, and they'll do fine....for 3 or 4. Once you reach 5 minutes? Forget about it. The fastest motor boat is really slow on land. They are not in their element, like Lewis vs. Holyfield.

    There may be some reasons for GS athletes to lift heavy. GPP encompasses a lot. One possible reason to lift heavy for GS is to keep your body strong and healthy and protect it from the beating you'll take from the sport. But its not to be stronger and thereby get more reps from that strength. There simply is no correlation.
    [URL]http://southernkettlebeller.blogspot.com/[/URL]

  5. #15
    shmathews is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,263
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David C. View Post
    You can take any Olympic lifter, and they will do fine with 2x32....for maybe 2 or 3 minutes. Drop them down to 2x24kg, and they'll do fine....for 3 or 4.
    If this is true, then it makes my point pretty well, I think. I don't know of very many powerlifters or other non-gs athletes who could jerk 2 32k's for 3 minutes without training in gs, or 2 24k's for 4 minutes. Figure 10 jerks a minute as a decent pace, and this is 30-40 reps out of the gate, just on the benefit of the O lifts. If what you say is true, then the strength gained through the Olympic lifts is 30-40% of what is needed for GS. Pretty impressive.

    Of course, success in GS requires training in GS. My point was that, all else being equal, a GS athlete who is strong in the O lifts will probably do better in GS than one who is not. Not that strength in the O lifts automatically means GS success.

    If strength were not a factor in GS, women would be competing with 32's, and women would put up numbers to rival the men. Men use heavier weights because they are stronger. Granted, many women put up very high numbers because they focus on technique. Strength, technique, and conditioning all play into this, in varying degrees. It seems quite counter-intuitive to say that being very strong is not an advantage in GS. I can see how having an impressive bench press does not contribute greatly to GS success, but to say "there is simply no correlation" between strength and GS sounds crazy.
    Last edited by shmathews; 06-02-2011 at 12:28 PM.
    Shmathews

    "Remember too, that I seek neither your approval nor to influence you towards my way of thinking."-- Bruce Lee, [I]Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate[/I]

  6. #16
    David C. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shmathews View Post
    If this is true, then it makes my point pretty well, I think. I don't know of very many powerlifters or other non-gs athletes who could jerk 2 32k's for 3 minutes without training in gs, or 2 24k's for 4 minutes. Figure 10 jerks a minute as a decent pace, and this is 30-40 reps out of the gate, just on the benefit of the O lifts. If what you say is true, then the strength gained through the Olympic lifts is 30-40% of what is needed for GS. Pretty impressive.

    Of course, success in GS requires training in GS. My point was that, all else being equal, a GS athlete who is strong in the O lifts will probably do better in GS than one who is not. Not that strength in the O lifts automatically means GS success.

    If strength were not a factor in GS, women would be competing with 32's, and women would put up numbers to rival the men. Men use heavier weights because they are stronger. Granted, many women put up very high numbers because they focus on technique. Strength, technique, and conditioning all play into this, in varying degrees. It seems quite counter-intuitive to say that being very strong is not an advantage in GS. I can see how having an impressive bench press does not contribute greatly to GS success, but to say "there is simply no correlation" between strength and GS sounds crazy.
    Sure, you have to have a baseline amount of strength in order to compete in GS. But that baseline is much much lower than previously assumed, and with most folks is better built by endurance training with a smaller size kettlebell. The "no correlation" is still accurate. There is no study showing that the higher a person's clean and jerk, the higher their rep total for 10:00 of Long Cycle. Just the opposite; the world record holder could not pass the traditional strength "entrance requirements" for the sport. Think about it. Rudnev and Lopatin found that even strength endurance, the ability to complete an activity for 1-3 minutes, was not a determining factor for GS. It may have helped, but not after the 5:00 mark. The 5:00 mark is really what separates the men from the boys. A lot of confidence disappears between minute 5 and minute 10. And the bells feel a whole lot heavier then...unless your endurance is up for it. R&L did find that general endurance was very very important, and noted the GS success of rowers, cross country skiers, and distance runners. Those guys are used to racing for the finish line. That's what GS is. Who is pushing it hard in minutes 9 and 10 to beat the other guy. In minute 9 it does you absolutely no good to have looked really impressive at minute 2. Minute 9 feels like the last mile of a marathon.
    By the way, I don't have a lot of competition experience, but I have noticed that a lot of folks who who have half my numbers on the platform are way, way stronger than me, and lift the heavier bells with a lot more ease. I'm just an amateur but I noticed that.
    [URL]http://southernkettlebeller.blogspot.com/[/URL]

  7. #17
    shmathews is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,263
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David C. View Post
    Sure, you have to have a baseline amount of strength in order to compete in GS. But that baseline is much much lower than previously assumed, and with most folks is better built by endurance training with a smaller size kettlebell. The "no correlation" is still accurate. There is no study showing that the higher a person's clean and jerk, the higher their rep total for 10:00 of Long Cycle. Just the opposite; the world record holder could not pass the traditional strength "entrance requirements" for the sport. Think about it. Rudnev and Lopatin found that even strength endurance, the ability to complete an activity for 1-3 minutes, was not a determining factor for GS. It may have helped, but not after the 5:00 mark. The 5:00 mark is really what separates the men from the boys. A lot of confidence disappears between minute 5 and minute 10. And the bells feel a whole lot heavier then...unless your endurance is up for it. R&L did find that general endurance was very very important, and noted the GS success of rowers, cross country skiers, and distance runners. Those guys are used to racing for the finish line. That's what GS is. Who is pushing it hard in minutes 9 and 10 to beat the other guy. In minute 9 it does you absolutely no good to have looked really impressive at minute 2. Minute 9 feels like the last mile of a marathon.
    By the way, I don't have a lot of competition experience, but I have noticed that a lot of folks who who have half my numbers on the platform are way, way stronger than me, and lift the heavier bells with a lot more ease. I'm just an amateur but I noticed that.
    David,
    Thanks for carrying on this conversation- I'm getting a lot out of it. You have more time under the bells than me, and I have a lot to learn. I have already seen that you are right about the mental toughness aspect of GS- you have to want it badly enough to endure the pain and keep going.

    That said, I stick to my original contention: all else being equal, a GS competitor who is strong in the O lifts will have an advantage. I'm not saying that being good at the O lifts automatically means GS success, but that being strong is better than being weak. Both mentally and physically. I can't think of any athletic activity that will not be improved by regularly snatching and clean and jerking a barbell. I've seen the difference my very limited experience with the barbell lifts has made in my Taekwondo, my shot putting, and my kettlebell lifting. Not to mention my overall flexibility and resiliency.

    The original poster wanted to know about combining barbell and kettlebell lifts. I think that if he wants to combine the two, the O lifts are better than the powerlifts (and certainly better than bodybuilding), because they instill many valuable athletic qualities, and they are similar in many ways to their kettlebell counterparts. They are also easier to recover from.

    I have also noticed in my career, my academic studies, and life in general that what is the accepted wisdom today will often be proven wrong tomorow. Voropaev is a shining example of that- he made an assumption, and a great athlete came along and showed that V's assumption did not apply universally. There is always more research waiting to be done.

    My final word is this: I have watched the video of Marty Farrell earning his Master of Sport rank in long cycle several times. In the video, I think he weighs 160 pounds, or so, and he cleans and jerks 141 pounds almost 60 times. That's almost 90 percent of his bodyweight, picked up and thrown overhead for 10 minutes. This is a classic display of guts, endurance, willpower, technique, and, yes, strength. You just can't do that, no matter how badly you want it, or how far you can run, if you are not strong enough. I'll never see the logic in saying that being strong is not an advantage in lifting a lot of weight many times.
    Shmathews

    "Remember too, that I seek neither your approval nor to influence you towards my way of thinking."-- Bruce Lee, [I]Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate[/I]

  8. #18
    David C. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Well, I'd rather be strong than weak, I'll say that.
    I think the sticking point for me is this:
    Most of us have very limited time to train. Few of us have the time to actually do it "right". Our training program is already abbreviated when compared to the guys who are actively competing on a high level. So the question comes down to what is most important?
    Special endurance, general endurance, and technique. Once you have those things, then, and only then, should you look at strength as the limiting factor.
    I don't know if you read Cate Imes' blog post that I referenced in mine, but its worth noting that she wrote a post Do You Need More Strength in 2008, then felt compelled to write a follow up in 2011 because folks were so resistant to believe what she has learned and experienced. Like she said in 2008:

    The argument will always be that more strength will not hurt you in your sport. I would propose that folks learn to properly utilize their existing strength by learning when and how to apply it in concert with all of the other attributes. What good are super strong legs for a 10 minute set if you haven't developed the speed and timing to get under the bells on a Jerk? Your legs won't be what fails you. It will be your shoulders and your arms.

    What good is a great grip if you don't have the timing and quickness on the snatch for a crisp (stop on a dime) lockout? A good lockout ensures the bell lands in the right spot. If you are pacing yourself, this position is critical to utilize the skeletal system. That is the way we support the weight of the bell overhead; grip will get taxed overhead-not just on the downswing. This position is also critical for longevity since it builds shoulder stability.

    Why do I say all of this? Because there are only 24 hours in a day. Most of us have jobs and limited time to train. If your goal is to improve your numbers in these lifts, then you may be spinning your wheels if you try to inject pure strength training into your regimen in hopes that it will be a silver bullet. For one thing, your CNS can only handle so much. If you are still trying to build the other attributes, that construction may be hampered by supplemental training (that may be unnecessary).

    So, am I saying to not do it? No. What I'm saying is that you need to understand the role of it in the sport. You need to know if it is really what you need or if you are choosing to do it because it is what you like to do or because you are good at doing it and it makes you feel better about yourself Ultimately, if it keeps you from addressing your weaknesses, then I would say it shouldn't be in your regimen if your primary goal is to improve your numbers.

    Now, if you've got very good technique and possess all the aforementioned attributes and you want to focus on maximal strength, knock yourself out as long as it doesn't set you back. Who knows, then it may be the thing that you need or at least a good mental break. However, most of us are not yet in that position. We are plenty strong. We are just slow or inflexible or both

    Its worth noting that Cate's numbers did not really take off until she gave up heavy stuff and focused on technique. Her strength plummeted, but her numbers went up.
    [URL]http://southernkettlebeller.blogspot.com/[/URL]

  9. #19
    Reinhardt is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    171

    Default

    I have the time and the desire to lift barbells. Even if it´s "only" good for gpp.

    What do you think is the point of diminishing returns in the
    back, front and overhead squat
    incline bench and press
    jerk from racks
    power clean?

  10. #20
    David C. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reinhardt View Post
    I have the time and the desire to lift barbells. Even if it´s "only" good for gpp.

    What do you think is the point of diminishing returns in the
    back, front and overhead squat
    incline bench and press
    jerk from racks
    power clean?
    There are a couple ways to approach this.
    I've found that regular GS work eliminates (at least for me) the need for other ballistic work for GPP. So I would not do barbell jerks or power cleans.
    If you feel like you need more "power" work, the baseline recommendation is one armed jerks with a the kettlebell one size up from your training bell. So if you are working with the 16's for your GS sets, do OAJ's with a 20kg or 24kg. I'd do one set per workout after finishing whatever snatches, jerks, or long cycle sets you are doing for the day.

    If you feel like you need more pulling work, then I'd recommend one heavy set of one-armed swings, again with the kettlebell one size up from your training bells, once I had finished my snatches for the day.

    That brings us to squats. Do whichever one you prefer. I typically do one set of back squats, butt to floor, at the end of each workout (5-6 days per week). I don't go very heavy, just heavy enough to keep a decent amount of strength in a full range of motion. This is more for GPP than for the sport. Anything more than 1 set per day is un-necessary and counterproductive. (I will add: if you can make Rank I with the 24's, then consider dropping the OAJ's and add a set or two of jump squats instead, in addition to your full squat set. The jump squats should be very high rep).

    Its not on you list but I would do 1-2 sets of pullups per workout (similar in intensity to the squat sets), and I would hang from the bar between kb sets, just stretching out the arms and spine. I've been told hanging from the bar between sets is very effective for preventing elbow tendinitis, and its highly recommended.


    If you want to do some kind of bench press, I would not do more than 1 set per day, 5-6 days per week. Even with that low volume, you are in danger of over-training given the volume of kb work.

    So, one set per workout, 5-6 days per week of deep squats, pullups (plus bar hangs), and bench press. Any more than that is probably too much.
    This is based on my own personal experience and research. YMMV, and there are plenty of GS coaches (I'm not even a coach, just an amateur lifter) who are much more knowledgeable than me. I will add that some Russians do a GPP circuit that includes barbells. These are essentially supersets or complexes. I don't know all the details, but I know they keep the heart rate up and more resemble crossfit than strength building.
    Lastly, I'll leave you with this:
    VF has told a student that in the beginning, more of the student's KB progress would come from running than anything else. Something to consider.
    Good luck,
    D
    [URL]http://southernkettlebeller.blogspot.com/[/URL]

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Free Course
Close