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 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 181
  1. #1
    David Whitley, RKC Guest

    Default How many calories can you burn doing swings?

    500 an hour?

    750?

    More??

    Yes
    I use my heart rate monitor to find the answer.....
    http://irontamerblog.com/using-a-hea...lebell-swings/

    This rate of burn is TYPICAL for me. I do this 4-5 times each week from 20-75 minutes and the number of calories oxidized is consistently between 24 and 28 per minute.

  2. #2
    Future is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Very interesting, thanks for posting Dave. I think I will dust off my HRM and see if it has those functions you spoke of, I particulary like the idea of having the thing beep at me when my heart rate gets below a certain number encouraging me to start the next set.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    come from the no place, return to the no place
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Whitley, RKC View Post
    500 an hour?

    750?

    More??

    Yes
    I use my heart rate monitor to find the answer.....
    http://irontamerblog.com/using-a-hea...lebell-swings/

    This rate of burn is TYPICAL for me. I do this 4-5 times each week from 20-75 minutes and the number of calories oxidized is consistently between 24 and 28 per minute.
    The ACE study done at University of Wisconsin, La Crosse (based on the Dane of Pain's Viking Warrior Conditioning) showed a top calorie burn 13.6 calories per minute (unadjusted for lactate) doing snatches, which are generally considered more strenuous than kettlebell swings.

    HRM calorie readouts are notoriously innaccurate. (And they do not measure lactate) They tend to be even less accurate estimating calorie burn for strength based workouts since the monitor can't distinquish between how much muscle is being used to get the heart rate up.(The more muscle used the higher the energy expenditure, hence heavy curls can get your heart rate up, but the calorie burn won't be as great at the same heart rate doing light squats. Neither movement will approach the expenditure of cross country skiing on a flat surface)

    While a kettlebell swing is a compound exercise, 24kg swings are not nearly as cardiovascularly taxing as hauling your carcass's bodyweight out for a run. (Which is why most top GS athletes include running in their programs, it's more fully cardio) Your heart rate will elevate doing swings for sure, but the swing motion does not use as much of the body as a run or a sprint so the energy burned doing swings will be less than the energy used for running when performed at the same heart rates.

    Since your calorie burn results are nearly double that of the ACE study and you are using a less strenuous exercise, I suspect your HRM might be too generous.

    But the bigger question might be, why would you care about calorie expenditure anyway?
    Last edited by poodnhead wilson; 07-03-2011 at 02:28 PM.

  4. #4
    David Whitley, RKC Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poodnhead wilson View Post
    The ACE study done at University of Wisconsin, La Crosse (based on the Dane of Pain's Viking Warrior Conditioning) showed a top calorie burn 13.6 calories per minute (unadjusted for lactate) doing snatches, which are generally considered more strenuous than kettlebell swings.

    HRM calorie readouts are notoriously innaccurate. (And they do not measure lactate) They tend to be even less accurate estimating calorie burn for strength based workouts since the monitor can't distinquish between how much muscle is being used to get the heart rate up.(The more muscle used the higher the energy expenditure, hence heavy curls can get your heart rate up, but the calorie burn won't be as great at the same heart rate doing light squats. Neither movement will approach the expenditure of cross country skiing on a flat surface)

    While a kettlebell swing is a compound exercise, 24kg swings are not nearly as cardiovascularly taxing as hauling your carcass's bodyweight out for a run. (Which is why most top GS athletes include running in their programs, it's more fully cardio) Your heart rate will elevate doing swings for sure, but the swing motion does not use as much of the body as a run or a sprint so the energy burned doing swings will be less than the energy used for running when performed at the same heart rates.

    Since your calorie burn results are nearly double that of the ACE study and you are using a less strenuous exercise, I suspect your HRM might be too generous.

    But the bigger question might be, why would you care about calorie expenditure anyway?
    My HR monitor says that sitting around working on my computer that I burn 3cals per minute on average. am i to assume that it 2x too high as well?.

    Try this: go run. do vwc with a 16kg. do 750 swings w/ 28kg in 45:00. then tell me which one is more strenuous. This is the difference between theory and practice.

  5. #5
    rifstonian Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Whitley, RKC View Post
    My HR monitor says that sitting around working on my computer that I burn 3cals per minute on average. am i to assume that it 2x too high as well?.

    Try this: go run. do vwc with a 16kg. do 750 swings w/ 28kg in 45:00. then tell me which one is more strenuous. This is the difference between theory and practice.
    Pavel did 24 kg swings on a force plate and got TEN TIMES the face value of the bell in terms of force produced( 530 pounds per REP). The difference is in the acceleration that you do with the bell, as well as all the work necessary to reduce and reverse those forces into the next rep.

    There is nothing like Kettlebell ballistics for sheer ability to produce and do work;especially for average person.

    and as far as how taxing 24 kg swing are, that depends entirely on HOW you are doing those swings. with as little effort as possible or as much as you can generate?

    Nice work David. We both know how effective this style of training is.

  6. #6
    Rich in Nor Cal is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    525

    Default

    The number of kcals you listed sounds way too high for a sustained activity. What size kb are you swinging, and how many swings a minute?

  7. #7
    JasonL.Ac. is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    709
    Blog Entries
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poodnhead wilson View Post
    ... which are generally considered more strenuous than kettlebell swings. ]

    By who is this generally considered? Everything I'm familiar with would suggest the opposite.



    [While a kettlebell swing is a compound exercise, 24kg swings are not nearly as cardiovascularly taxing as hauling your carcass's bodyweight out for a run. (Which is why most top GS athletes include running in their programs, it's more fully cardio) ]

    Again, source for this? Does not match my experience. And the GS athletes I have talked to or read interviews with give different reasons for why they incorporate running or other non-kettlebell training.


    [Your heart rate will elevate doing swings for sure, but the swing motion does not use as much of the body as a run or a sprint ]

    No, it uses more.

    [so the energy burned doing swings will be less than the energy used for running when performed at the same heart rates.]

    Why is the comparison using the same heart rates?

    [Since your calorie burn results are nearly double that of the ACE study and you are using a less strenuous exercise,...]

    see above. Note also the weight of the bells involved.

    [But the bigger question might be, why would you care about calorie expenditure anyway?
    Shrug. I don't care myself, but for those that are interested, why not?

  8. #8
    MI_KB'r is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    258
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    According to a study by the American Excercise Council, a routine of swings performed 15 on 15 rest for 20 minutes burned 272 kcals. The next closest excercise was cross country skiing @10 minutes the same 170lb man burned 106 kcals.
    Here is the link http://su.pr/2kLAnT which I can't verify since I'm at work, so sorry if it's incorrect.
    Last edited by MI_KB'r; 07-03-2011 at 06:35 PM.

  9. #9
    bwwm is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Desert South West USA
    Posts
    1,302
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I don't think anybody is arguing with the premise that 750 swings of the 28kg bell in 45 min is a butt kicker (plus more was done with a slightly lighter bell to complete the hour). You did a heck of a workout David!

    From what I understand, the calories are calculated in the heart rate monitor based on empirical correlations for running, and biking for example. What is not known is what the correlation would be for KB swings, and what the error bars would be around that estimate. Maybe only 1200 calories were expended, maybe 2000 calories were expended. These correlations can only infer what was actually burned, since they can't measure the complete energy balance of the human body, nor do they have more real-time information to make a better inference (as was done in the ACE study).

  10. #10
    AndrewR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    Forest. Trees. Learn to distinguish between them.

    What you've all missed, among the minutiae of whether or not the HR monitor is 100% accurate, the difference in lactate levels measured or any of that other stuff.

    The point is - he burnt a lot of stored energy. The exact amount doesn't actually matter. That kind of training, as most on here should know, is very beneficial to developing many qualities of fitness simultaneously while also being very helpful in changing body composition. When you consider it was the corner stone of a whole section of 4 Hour Body, The Rifs have two DVDs about the Swing, Bud Jeffries used the Swing in large volumes to drop 1 huge proportion of bodyweight...

    You guys are all missing the point. Go do a lot of swings like Dave has and you'll likely figure out the semantics aren't important. The swings are.

Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast

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