Showing posts with label cardio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cardio. Show all posts
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Possible role for Heart Rate Monitors in Kettlebell Strength Training or Total Eclipse of the Heart
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Heart rate monitors (HRM) have become a familiar accoutrement of the triathlete/running set 
for some time. Athletes use these devices to tune their endurance efforts for maximal aerobic threshold work and optimal effort to recovery ratios. Sounds like that makes sense.
In the Iron Gym, HRM's are far less regularly seen. After all, lifting weights is lifting weights. Where the heck would a Heart Rate Monitor come into play?
Lately, i've been exploring this question: to see if HRMs might also help tune effort and recovery for optimal training. This post isn't the ultimate finding of that exploration, but a description of how this exploration is being set up, and especially the rationale for it.
Maybe before addressing that one, it would be useful to take a step back and say why/when a heart rate monitor at all? And THEN take a look at an approach for exploring its use in weights work. (if you know all this stuff about R-R distances, how/what HRM's monitor and calculate, just skip scroll to re-enter RTK for the resistance application...)
What do we actually "monitor"?
We are electric plastic people. We pulse. Electrically. And because of that, those pulses - electrical impulses moving through the muscle of the heart in this case, but like any electrical activity, can be detected- in this case via conductors on the skin. Once the pulse is detected, a signal that represents the pulse can be transmitted and communicated to a device that does so much more now that just count the beats, but beat counting is no small thing.
In a way, all we know explicitly from a heart rate monitor is that there is a pulse. The computer in the HRM translates this into a frequency of beats per minute, relatively accurately - close enough for most healthy people's purposes, and especially the higher end models like the Suunto T6C, you'll see used in research papers as the measuring device in studies. These heart rate monitors track the specific measurements between the big peeks in the heart rate pulse - the R to R distance (seen above) - we'll come back to this and why being able to note the differences in distances is so valuable for training.
The rather impressive thing is that, from the miracle of statistics, we can use readily knowable values like age, gender, height, weight and max heart rate to figure out all sorts of things about energy systems being taxed, our capacity to use oxygen, and more recently, based on load and effort, a more clear picture of how long we'll need to recover from the type of work we've done, so that we can specifically focus our training on making the whole of us get stronger. All that from the simple lub dub moving the blood, pushing the o2, saying we're alive.
The first thing to measure from the measure: Max Heart Rate
In order to take best advantage of a heart rate monitor, a key value to get is the Maximum Heart Rate. Max Heart Rate (MaxHR) is pretty much the greatest number of beats one's heart is capable of generating in a minute. It's age, gender and ethnicity effected. But that said, it's also individual as well as being somewhat device-specific. Consequently, Max Heart Rate is a pretty important value to get right because so many other measures take this limit as a critical part of the calculations. There are a bunch of ways to get at that, some more than others.
Statistical Approaches. Max heart rate is often simply calculated based on equations derived from stats of various populations. These equations (many examples here) often provide an ok ball park but LOADS of people have heart rates that are higher or lower than the calculation, so i don't want to give the equation.
Maximal or Near Maximal Tests. I'd like to suggest you get it measured. There are many ways to self test or get a Real Test. If your doc has cleared you to work out, check if you can do a MaxHR test; if not there are ways to do partial max exertion tests to get a good enough approx till you're more fit.
Device Sorta Specific. Also, quick note, besides the fact that there are a bunch of ways to figure out your max heart rate, they vary by device you're using. I can crank out a good five beats more on an evil elliptical than i can on a bike, and the bike's higher than the rower, and the rower is higher than kettlebells. THis is pretty normal based on amount of big muscles used in any given activity.
The First Use of MaxHR: Zones of the Heart
The next thing that comes up in heart rate monitor use is figuring out whether we're staying aerobic or going anaerobic in our efforts - and how long in either zone. The border crossing from aerobic to anaerobic is pretty much 85% max. It is not unusual, howerver, to have multiple "zones" defined in the aerobic area as well to indicate at least a kind of degree of effort.
Load and Recovery. This sense of effort can be important for planning effort levels, effect on the central nervous system (CNS) and recovery. For instance, not every day would one want to work for an hour at the anaerobic threshold, or only do cardio work at 60% of effort if one is a healthy, mobile person. So checking what zone one has been training in may help with understanding if one has been working sufficiently to promote a desired adaptation.
Why Else is this Zoning important? Energy systems.
Before going anaerobic, we're primarily using fat for fuel. Good-o right? And fat is generally converted to fuel in the presence of oxygen. Breath in and out. Cook a calorie. Yodelayheehoo. SO aerobic, which means in the presence of oxygen, is a good thing. Sleeping is aerobic. Running so that you can carry on a conversation is aerobic. Quite a range.
But (a) oxidising a gram of fat gives off a hefty 9kcals of energy and that's grand, because fat oxidation is not what you'd call a fast process. So relatively speaking only a certain amount of muscle can be turned on at once since there's only so much fuel available.
When we pump up the demand - to sprint, or lift heavy - when we have to recruit more muscle to get that extra power, we need a burst of fuel for that. And a burst is about all we'll get from the phosphate system (anaerobic) which can do a good burst but only for a moment (well, 30sec), and then there's sugar in the muscle and bloodstream, if it's there to be had - it can only do so much more - for maybe a minute or so. Imagine a 400 yard dash. And then it's gone.
The goal in most endurance training is to be able to raise the threshold at which we can take advantage of the plentiful fuel resources in the O2/fat equation. So you'll see folks with their heart rate monitors working on Time - being able just to work longer at a given aerobic heart level. So they're watching their heart rate to stay in that "i can still talk while i'm running mode"
And then there's the pushing the envelop - the anaerobic/aerobic envelop. Here, the goal is to tax the upper end of the system - to push into the anaerobic for brief or longer periods with recovery spurts (to rebuild those rarer energy system resources) back in the aerobic world to drive up the aerobic threshold.
The more power we can generate with Fat/O2 the better.
Total Eclipse of the Heart Rate Monitor: Cardio. The above more or less explains the fundamental uses (not all, but the basics) of HRM's for endurance work generally. There's a lot more to current heart rate training and high end heart rate monitors than what i've just described. Current approaches calculate EPOC, heart rate variability, vo2 capacity, and something called "training effect" that is very cool to be able to see to what degree one's workout really *is* pushing one's training to cause an adaptation, or just keep one at the same level.
Shifting to Resistance Training
How does this monitoring apply to resistance training? i bet there's lots of ways, but i'm afraid here it gets a bit personal. Indeed, it's rather a challenge to find any papers that have a person using a heart rate monitor throughout a training session, rather at most, before and after the session. Why is this? Maybe it's because using a HRM in resistance training is stupid; or maybe it just hasn't been looked at. So why am i? Where am i?
I'm using an HRM to test
RE-enter the Return of the Kettlebell
I have been following Return of the Kettlebell since the fall - this has light, medium and heavy days in order to allow suitable amounts of volume, recovery and load to promote an hypertrophic adaptation. Part of the protocol is progressive increase in load over time, but the way to progress load is first to get the speed up for a set completion, and time down between (and within) the max number of reps & sets ( 5 ladders of 5 rungs each) before moving onto a new weight.
In doing this work, i became curious as my times were going down, what kind of work i was doing - what kind of effort i was putting in - how much of the work was happening especially on heavy days in the aerobic zone as opposed to pushing into the anaerobic - where power is supposed to take place.
Hypertrophy vs Power. Part of the challenge in this protocol is that it's not a power protocol, per se, but an hypertrophy protocol. That means it's more reps with less recovery than power - much closer to endurance than power (as best we understand hypertrophy). So, really, most work *would* be in the aerobic zone - though perhaps towards the higher end of the MaxHR. At least that's how i've been looking at it.
Ramping Up the Heart: Warm ups for Work, Revisisted
This may be stating the obvious, so forgive me, but even if working quite hard, it can take time to get the heart rate up to working level. By working level, i simply mean where one is working at a level of effort to induce an effect on work capacity (O2 capacity) would take place. This is one reason perhaps to consider doing a warm up on a bike for ten minutes.
Why bother? why care? Well personally, i haven't. I've used my initial sets in RTK to warm up. What that means is that by the time the workout is done 20 or 30 mins later - only half to a third of that effort has been working my heart outside of MAINTAINING my current level of endurance strength, and letting me advance it's training.
Now, there's a caveat here: not EVERY workout ever should be or needs to be in that higher region of the heart. But looking at my heart rate let me know that i was not taking advantage of the training opportunities i could be just by doing some preliminary warming up. I had sauce left for more VOLUME, and volume is king.
This kind of thinking for a warm up is not the norm to me, but it's been revelatory. Indeed, as if to underline this, Coach Hauer the other day, looking at some vid of my snatch work, commented that my second long sets were consistently stronger than the first ones (i didn't warm up before these sets). Second sets are definitely the ones pushing into training effect rather than maintenance when i look at the logs. Hmm. And they seem stronger? Hmm. "So warm up before you do your snatch test?" was the suggestion. Just warm up.
The logs i'm looking at are of my heart rates at points throughout the sets.
The above image for example is RTK medium day, five sets of five ladders, concluding with two sets of double kb squats, then, seeing i had more time/energy, finishing with the 5*20s double swings.
What the lower panel shows is a combined EPOC (the line going up) and calculated cumulative training effect (the colored bands) of the workout. Training effect here - is how long one might need for recovery before doing another workout of this intensity. This one was a TE of 3.1 - meaning that (a) the workout was causing more than a maintenance of current training, but was pushing slightly into the realm of causing an adpatation/improvement. That also means however, that there's a recommended 1-3 days break before doing this kind of workout again. We'll look at how to get more precise below.
Inter-Set Recovery
Another thing i've been checking with an HRM is where the reasonable recovery is between sets. Now on the one hand, one usually "just feels" when it's appropriate to get back, or one takes recommendations of how long to pause based on the type of effort one is performing.
Two things happen in RTK: pavel initially recommends two minutes between ladders, but he also suggests trying to get time between reps in sets down with the goal of seeing how quickly one can get the time down for the workout to use as a gate for moving up to the next weight.
I have recently been using an HRM to see if the way i "feel" about readiness to start the next set is mapped at all to a given heart rate level - if i'm trying to keep my heart working. What i've learned is that i can still perform well without pooping out by the end of the set if i start a little less recovery than i had been wont to give myself. In other words, when i've pushed myself to start say ten beats higher than my normal "feel" it's been ok; it hasn't cost me performance of good reps. In other words, the HRM has let me check where to reset "feel" to start again to push my training adaptation a bit more without pushing too far and too hard.
Record
Right now, using an HRM in resistance is mainly a way for me to keep track of the fact that
a) i did my workout
b) i put some good effort into it
c) give me a visual comparison of the same workouts within a given block or blocks over time
and to use that to see patterns of adaptation or not to see what else i might want to do with my training.
For instance it was checking my total training effect (a measure of heart rate variability to determine fatigue and time needed for recovery) from RTK that let me know i was probably ok to do the snatch practice work i've been doing on the days between RTK (lots of snatching in prep for the snatch re-test at RKC II end of feb). That's been great to have.
Calories and High Heart
I also admit that i like to see how many calories a workout burns - relative to the given accuracy of the calculations on the HRM. For instance, 10 mins of swings at the end of an RTK session burns as many calories as 20+ minutes of pressing. Wow. so that's just another bit of motivation to say ya do the few extra swings - get a few extra calories and a bit more effort on the heart too. I like to see about getting my heart rate up with 15 or 20 heavy swings, 15 sec pause and then more swings with clean reps "can i get it up a few beats higher" mayn't be the smartest thing in the world, but it's brief and fun and well, it's again, something i'll be looking at over time - if there are changes in swing volume to achieve the same thing, measuring fatigue and so on.
Biofeedback again? Heart Rate Varability Fatigue and Recovery
There's some work that suggests monitoring those R-R distances can also be used for very specific training tuning. I'm looking forward to trying this in march - you need ten days of non-training to get a base line - time i don't have to take away from prep work right now. But from this, and some nifty math, one can get a simple number that if one is above it, don't train; below it, go ahead.
I'll come back to this after i've played with it for awhile, but if you go for it, let me know. Fatigue has been desperately challenging to get a handle on. Partially because we tend not to notice it's got us until it's too late - the dreaded overtraining problem.
i'm intrigued by the fact that a phyiscal device far less subtle than ourselves may actually be able to help us learn to re-listen to ourselves - to be able to correlate our own daily experience with what the device is saying is our state. For instance on a day this approach might say "don't do a heavy day" - do i notice that ya, i'm not feeling like i could take on the world? or is there something else at play, that i might begin to learn to be more aware of?
This kind of biofeedback is reminiscent to me of another way that folks like Mike T Nelson, Adam Glass and Frankie Fairies are looking at immediate ways to test readiness for a particular move in any workout.
This kind of training - of finding ways to see and listen to our bodies - learn what the data is giving us - who knows? may just help us to move better, stronger, easier for longer.
For me, this heart rate tracking is new, so i don't have enough data yet to draw conclusions, but so far it's opened up more possibilities to get more volume safely into my workouts, and that seems to be good so far.
Related Posts
for some time. Athletes use these devices to tune their endurance efforts for maximal aerobic threshold work and optimal effort to recovery ratios. Sounds like that makes sense.In the Iron Gym, HRM's are far less regularly seen. After all, lifting weights is lifting weights. Where the heck would a Heart Rate Monitor come into play?
Lately, i've been exploring this question: to see if HRMs might also help tune effort and recovery for optimal training. This post isn't the ultimate finding of that exploration, but a description of how this exploration is being set up, and especially the rationale for it.
Maybe before addressing that one, it would be useful to take a step back and say why/when a heart rate monitor at all? And THEN take a look at an approach for exploring its use in weights work. (if you know all this stuff about R-R distances, how/what HRM's monitor and calculate, just skip scroll to re-enter RTK for the resistance application...)
What do we actually "monitor"?
We are electric plastic people. We pulse. Electrically. And because of that, those pulses - electrical impulses moving through the muscle of the heart in this case, but like any electrical activity, can be detected- in this case via conductors on the skin. Once the pulse is detected, a signal that represents the pulse can be transmitted and communicated to a device that does so much more now that just count the beats, but beat counting is no small thing.
R-R distances
What we know from this measure.In a way, all we know explicitly from a heart rate monitor is that there is a pulse. The computer in the HRM translates this into a frequency of beats per minute, relatively accurately - close enough for most healthy people's purposes, and especially the higher end models like the Suunto T6C, you'll see used in research papers as the measuring device in studies. These heart rate monitors track the specific measurements between the big peeks in the heart rate pulse - the R to R distance (seen above) - we'll come back to this and why being able to note the differences in distances is so valuable for training.
The rather impressive thing is that, from the miracle of statistics, we can use readily knowable values like age, gender, height, weight and max heart rate to figure out all sorts of things about energy systems being taxed, our capacity to use oxygen, and more recently, based on load and effort, a more clear picture of how long we'll need to recover from the type of work we've done, so that we can specifically focus our training on making the whole of us get stronger. All that from the simple lub dub moving the blood, pushing the o2, saying we're alive.
The first thing to measure from the measure: Max Heart Rate
In order to take best advantage of a heart rate monitor, a key value to get is the Maximum Heart Rate. Max Heart Rate (MaxHR) is pretty much the greatest number of beats one's heart is capable of generating in a minute. It's age, gender and ethnicity effected. But that said, it's also individual as well as being somewhat device-specific. Consequently, Max Heart Rate is a pretty important value to get right because so many other measures take this limit as a critical part of the calculations. There are a bunch of ways to get at that, some more than others.
Statistical Approaches. Max heart rate is often simply calculated based on equations derived from stats of various populations. These equations (many examples here) often provide an ok ball park but LOADS of people have heart rates that are higher or lower than the calculation, so i don't want to give the equation.
Maximal or Near Maximal Tests. I'd like to suggest you get it measured. There are many ways to self test or get a Real Test. If your doc has cleared you to work out, check if you can do a MaxHR test; if not there are ways to do partial max exertion tests to get a good enough approx till you're more fit.
Device Sorta Specific. Also, quick note, besides the fact that there are a bunch of ways to figure out your max heart rate, they vary by device you're using. I can crank out a good five beats more on an evil elliptical than i can on a bike, and the bike's higher than the rower, and the rower is higher than kettlebells. THis is pretty normal based on amount of big muscles used in any given activity.
The First Use of MaxHR: Zones of the Heart
The next thing that comes up in heart rate monitor use is figuring out whether we're staying aerobic or going anaerobic in our efforts - and how long in either zone. The border crossing from aerobic to anaerobic is pretty much 85% max. It is not unusual, howerver, to have multiple "zones" defined in the aerobic area as well to indicate at least a kind of degree of effort.
Load and Recovery. This sense of effort can be important for planning effort levels, effect on the central nervous system (CNS) and recovery. For instance, not every day would one want to work for an hour at the anaerobic threshold, or only do cardio work at 60% of effort if one is a healthy, mobile person. So checking what zone one has been training in may help with understanding if one has been working sufficiently to promote a desired adaptation.
Why Else is this Zoning important? Energy systems.
Before going anaerobic, we're primarily using fat for fuel. Good-o right? And fat is generally converted to fuel in the presence of oxygen. Breath in and out. Cook a calorie. Yodelayheehoo. SO aerobic, which means in the presence of oxygen, is a good thing. Sleeping is aerobic. Running so that you can carry on a conversation is aerobic. Quite a range.
But (a) oxidising a gram of fat gives off a hefty 9kcals of energy and that's grand, because fat oxidation is not what you'd call a fast process. So relatively speaking only a certain amount of muscle can be turned on at once since there's only so much fuel available.
When we pump up the demand - to sprint, or lift heavy - when we have to recruit more muscle to get that extra power, we need a burst of fuel for that. And a burst is about all we'll get from the phosphate system (anaerobic) which can do a good burst but only for a moment (well, 30sec), and then there's sugar in the muscle and bloodstream, if it's there to be had - it can only do so much more - for maybe a minute or so. Imagine a 400 yard dash. And then it's gone.
The goal in most endurance training is to be able to raise the threshold at which we can take advantage of the plentiful fuel resources in the O2/fat equation. So you'll see folks with their heart rate monitors working on Time - being able just to work longer at a given aerobic heart level. So they're watching their heart rate to stay in that "i can still talk while i'm running mode"
And then there's the pushing the envelop - the anaerobic/aerobic envelop. Here, the goal is to tax the upper end of the system - to push into the anaerobic for brief or longer periods with recovery spurts (to rebuild those rarer energy system resources) back in the aerobic world to drive up the aerobic threshold.
The more power we can generate with Fat/O2 the better.
Total Eclipse of the Heart Rate Monitor: Cardio. The above more or less explains the fundamental uses (not all, but the basics) of HRM's for endurance work generally. There's a lot more to current heart rate training and high end heart rate monitors than what i've just described. Current approaches calculate EPOC, heart rate variability, vo2 capacity, and something called "training effect" that is very cool to be able to see to what degree one's workout really *is* pushing one's training to cause an adaptation, or just keep one at the same level.
Shifting to Resistance Training
How does this monitoring apply to resistance training? i bet there's lots of ways, but i'm afraid here it gets a bit personal. Indeed, it's rather a challenge to find any papers that have a person using a heart rate monitor throughout a training session, rather at most, before and after the session. Why is this? Maybe it's because using a HRM in resistance training is stupid; or maybe it just hasn't been looked at. So why am i? Where am i?
I'm using an HRM to test
- energy system taxed,
- overall work of a workout,
- effective recovery between sets
RE-enter the Return of the Kettlebell
I have been following Return of the Kettlebell since the fall - this has light, medium and heavy days in order to allow suitable amounts of volume, recovery and load to promote an hypertrophic adaptation. Part of the protocol is progressive increase in load over time, but the way to progress load is first to get the speed up for a set completion, and time down between (and within) the max number of reps & sets ( 5 ladders of 5 rungs each) before moving onto a new weight.In doing this work, i became curious as my times were going down, what kind of work i was doing - what kind of effort i was putting in - how much of the work was happening especially on heavy days in the aerobic zone as opposed to pushing into the anaerobic - where power is supposed to take place.
Hypertrophy vs Power. Part of the challenge in this protocol is that it's not a power protocol, per se, but an hypertrophy protocol. That means it's more reps with less recovery than power - much closer to endurance than power (as best we understand hypertrophy). So, really, most work *would* be in the aerobic zone - though perhaps towards the higher end of the MaxHR. At least that's how i've been looking at it.
Ramping Up the Heart: Warm ups for Work, Revisisted
This may be stating the obvious, so forgive me, but even if working quite hard, it can take time to get the heart rate up to working level. By working level, i simply mean where one is working at a level of effort to induce an effect on work capacity (O2 capacity) would take place. This is one reason perhaps to consider doing a warm up on a bike for ten minutes.
Why bother? why care? Well personally, i haven't. I've used my initial sets in RTK to warm up. What that means is that by the time the workout is done 20 or 30 mins later - only half to a third of that effort has been working my heart outside of MAINTAINING my current level of endurance strength, and letting me advance it's training.
Now, there's a caveat here: not EVERY workout ever should be or needs to be in that higher region of the heart. But looking at my heart rate let me know that i was not taking advantage of the training opportunities i could be just by doing some preliminary warming up. I had sauce left for more VOLUME, and volume is king.
This kind of thinking for a warm up is not the norm to me, but it's been revelatory. Indeed, as if to underline this, Coach Hauer the other day, looking at some vid of my snatch work, commented that my second long sets were consistently stronger than the first ones (i didn't warm up before these sets). Second sets are definitely the ones pushing into training effect rather than maintenance when i look at the logs. Hmm. And they seem stronger? Hmm. "So warm up before you do your snatch test?" was the suggestion. Just warm up.
The logs i'm looking at are of my heart rates at points throughout the sets.
The above image for example is RTK medium day, five sets of five ladders, concluding with two sets of double kb squats, then, seeing i had more time/energy, finishing with the 5*20s double swings.
What the lower panel shows is a combined EPOC (the line going up) and calculated cumulative training effect (the colored bands) of the workout. Training effect here - is how long one might need for recovery before doing another workout of this intensity. This one was a TE of 3.1 - meaning that (a) the workout was causing more than a maintenance of current training, but was pushing slightly into the realm of causing an adpatation/improvement. That also means however, that there's a recommended 1-3 days break before doing this kind of workout again. We'll look at how to get more precise below.
Inter-Set Recovery
Another thing i've been checking with an HRM is where the reasonable recovery is between sets. Now on the one hand, one usually "just feels" when it's appropriate to get back, or one takes recommendations of how long to pause based on the type of effort one is performing.
Two things happen in RTK: pavel initially recommends two minutes between ladders, but he also suggests trying to get time between reps in sets down with the goal of seeing how quickly one can get the time down for the workout to use as a gate for moving up to the next weight.
I have recently been using an HRM to see if the way i "feel" about readiness to start the next set is mapped at all to a given heart rate level - if i'm trying to keep my heart working. What i've learned is that i can still perform well without pooping out by the end of the set if i start a little less recovery than i had been wont to give myself. In other words, when i've pushed myself to start say ten beats higher than my normal "feel" it's been ok; it hasn't cost me performance of good reps. In other words, the HRM has let me check where to reset "feel" to start again to push my training adaptation a bit more without pushing too far and too hard.
Record
Right now, using an HRM in resistance is mainly a way for me to keep track of the fact that
a) i did my workout
b) i put some good effort into it
c) give me a visual comparison of the same workouts within a given block or blocks over time
and to use that to see patterns of adaptation or not to see what else i might want to do with my training.
For instance it was checking my total training effect (a measure of heart rate variability to determine fatigue and time needed for recovery) from RTK that let me know i was probably ok to do the snatch practice work i've been doing on the days between RTK (lots of snatching in prep for the snatch re-test at RKC II end of feb). That's been great to have.
Calories and High Heart
I also admit that i like to see how many calories a workout burns - relative to the given accuracy of the calculations on the HRM. For instance, 10 mins of swings at the end of an RTK session burns as many calories as 20+ minutes of pressing. Wow. so that's just another bit of motivation to say ya do the few extra swings - get a few extra calories and a bit more effort on the heart too. I like to see about getting my heart rate up with 15 or 20 heavy swings, 15 sec pause and then more swings with clean reps "can i get it up a few beats higher" mayn't be the smartest thing in the world, but it's brief and fun and well, it's again, something i'll be looking at over time - if there are changes in swing volume to achieve the same thing, measuring fatigue and so on.
Biofeedback again? Heart Rate Varability Fatigue and Recovery
There's some work that suggests monitoring those R-R distances can also be used for very specific training tuning. I'm looking forward to trying this in march - you need ten days of non-training to get a base line - time i don't have to take away from prep work right now. But from this, and some nifty math, one can get a simple number that if one is above it, don't train; below it, go ahead.
I'll come back to this after i've played with it for awhile, but if you go for it, let me know. Fatigue has been desperately challenging to get a handle on. Partially because we tend not to notice it's got us until it's too late - the dreaded overtraining problem.
i'm intrigued by the fact that a phyiscal device far less subtle than ourselves may actually be able to help us learn to re-listen to ourselves - to be able to correlate our own daily experience with what the device is saying is our state. For instance on a day this approach might say "don't do a heavy day" - do i notice that ya, i'm not feeling like i could take on the world? or is there something else at play, that i might begin to learn to be more aware of?
This kind of biofeedback is reminiscent to me of another way that folks like Mike T Nelson, Adam Glass and Frankie Fairies are looking at immediate ways to test readiness for a particular move in any workout.
This kind of training - of finding ways to see and listen to our bodies - learn what the data is giving us - who knows? may just help us to move better, stronger, easier for longer.
For me, this heart rate tracking is new, so i don't have enough data yet to draw conclusions, but so far it's opened up more possibilities to get more volume safely into my workouts, and that seems to be good so far.
Related Posts
- Does cardio interfere with strength training? how bout no?
- Kettlebell article index
- general fitness index
- when to use calorie counting for weight loss - another device to encourage biofeedback
PDF
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Return of the Kettlebell Swing. Awesome Endurance Strength, Full Body, Technique Rich Finisher via Running the Bells
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
What to do when your practice/training/work session is not quite as long as you'd like it to be but you just can't keep going with your main effort? For me, the hardstyle kettlebell Swing is the Answer, and in particular, running the bells with the swing is becoming a great finisher - at least for me. Here's an example scenario you may find useful.
Recently, in an effort to improve my endurance strength and get my overall workout volume up a bit, i've been adding in 15/15 Viking Warrior Conditioning (review) days as a complement to my Return of the Kettlebell work (some experiences with the RTK protocol documented here).
As folks who get into snatching a kb a lot know, this can be grief-ful for one's hands as technique and adaptation occur. Rather than going all out, therefore, i've been gating my sets by my hands: if a callus starts to get that dread gonna tear dry pully feeling, i quit. Yesterday, i likely should have rowed instead to give my hands a break, but taped one hand instead, and did the work. Quit when the hand actually got sore in the callus area. Pain is a signal for change. Ok. I'll change. But to what?
Stopping sooner than the rest of me might wish with the snatches, what to do to keep the heart rate up into that working level similar to the VWC and get in a full time work set? The approach i've come up with is one variant of running the bells.
Running the bells, described previously, is a thing i think i may have originated for simulating hills workouts: one lines up bells of different sizes and goes from lighter to heavier back and forth nonstop.
In this variant, drawing on Pavel's love of ladders, i thought i might try that with a Run.
TO that end, i lined up a 20, 12 and 16, and did a back and forth run with the 20 as the increment marker. The 12 in the middle became a nice recovery set where i could focus on technique and overspeed work. So the sets went like this
280 swings, i'm guessing about 10-12 minutes work (100 swings takes me about 3-4 mins i think)
Obviously there are other ways to vary this - add in another bell; keep adding rungs, whatever.
Progress towards Owning my Swing.
What i find kinda nice with this short session/finisher is that it lets me focus on the swing. I've written before i think about how in order to keep my heart rate up between RTK sets, and DOMS down (more about cardio=reduced doms), i use a really light bell, and do 50 swings (about 2 mins) for active recovery between ladders. This has let me focus on technique with such a small load. It's been great to have this as the swing is otherwise not at this point a core part of my diet. But it is such a beautiful move.
So what i've found with a short session of running the bells this way is that each weight brings attention to a different technique aspect. The 20 seems to get focus on lower lats, keeping these open and hip drive. The 12, as said, is mainly speed and pelvic rotation (i'll come back to that latter point in another post), the 16 is general connected form. That's nice. It's really an interesting practice to do these small bursts of focused attention on the distinct challenges of particular loads. Likewise there's sufficient load effort overall with the ladders for real work to be done, if heart rate is an indicator.
Advantages, Heart rate stays up, it's a kind of interval work because of the recovery in the lighter load reps, pretty much all aspects of the double handed swing get worked, including strengthening my hands/grip which will help for the snatch.
I like it. If you give it a go as a finisher for one of your sets, please let me know.
Related Posts:
Recently, in an effort to improve my endurance strength and get my overall workout volume up a bit, i've been adding in 15/15 Viking Warrior Conditioning (review) days as a complement to my Return of the Kettlebell work (some experiences with the RTK protocol documented here).
As folks who get into snatching a kb a lot know, this can be grief-ful for one's hands as technique and adaptation occur. Rather than going all out, therefore, i've been gating my sets by my hands: if a callus starts to get that dread gonna tear dry pully feeling, i quit. Yesterday, i likely should have rowed instead to give my hands a break, but taped one hand instead, and did the work. Quit when the hand actually got sore in the callus area. Pain is a signal for change. Ok. I'll change. But to what?Stopping sooner than the rest of me might wish with the snatches, what to do to keep the heart rate up into that working level similar to the VWC and get in a full time work set? The approach i've come up with is one variant of running the bells.
Running the bells, described previously, is a thing i think i may have originated for simulating hills workouts: one lines up bells of different sizes and goes from lighter to heavier back and forth nonstop.
In this variant, drawing on Pavel's love of ladders, i thought i might try that with a Run.
TO that end, i lined up a 20, 12 and 16, and did a back and forth run with the 20 as the increment marker. The 12 in the middle became a nice recovery set where i could focus on technique and overspeed work. So the sets went like this
First Rung: 20*10swings 12*10swings 16*10swings 12*10swings ---- 40swings | Second rung 20*15swings 12* 15swings 16* 15swings 12* 15swings ------------- 60 swings | Third Rung 20*20swings 12*20swings 16*20swings 12*20swings -------------- 80 swings | Fourth Rung 20*25swings 12*25swings 16*25swings 12*25swings ------------ 100 swings |
280 swings, i'm guessing about 10-12 minutes work (100 swings takes me about 3-4 mins i think)
Obviously there are other ways to vary this - add in another bell; keep adding rungs, whatever.
Progress towards Owning my Swing.
What i find kinda nice with this short session/finisher is that it lets me focus on the swing. I've written before i think about how in order to keep my heart rate up between RTK sets, and DOMS down (more about cardio=reduced doms), i use a really light bell, and do 50 swings (about 2 mins) for active recovery between ladders. This has let me focus on technique with such a small load. It's been great to have this as the swing is otherwise not at this point a core part of my diet. But it is such a beautiful move.
So what i've found with a short session of running the bells this way is that each weight brings attention to a different technique aspect. The 20 seems to get focus on lower lats, keeping these open and hip drive. The 12, as said, is mainly speed and pelvic rotation (i'll come back to that latter point in another post), the 16 is general connected form. That's nice. It's really an interesting practice to do these small bursts of focused attention on the distinct challenges of particular loads. Likewise there's sufficient load effort overall with the ladders for real work to be done, if heart rate is an indicator.
Advantages, Heart rate stays up, it's a kind of interval work because of the recovery in the lighter load reps, pretty much all aspects of the double handed swing get worked, including strengthening my hands/grip which will help for the snatch.
I like it. If you give it a go as a finisher for one of your sets, please let me know.
Related Posts:
- cardio workouts with KB's
- does cardio interfer with strength training? how bout no?
- Why not train through pain?
Tracy Reifkind Showing How the Hard Style Swing is Done, Cooked, and Served Up
Tweet
Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, October 4, 2009
B2D General Fitness Practice Article Index
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Thinking about general fitness from mobility work to 
deadlifting to how freeing your feet is one of the best things we can do for our well being. What does the research tell us about dealing with DOMS, or about optimizing the mitochondrial benefits of cardio, or about warm ups (and whether we need one). This index will stay current with these and other topics touched on in b2d.
The idea is just to have a page that makes it easy to scan through headers of articles b2d has covered in this space.
One on nutrition will be coming soon to complement the others listed below on
If you have a question about general physical well being and training practice not discussed here, and you think it might be good for a b2d article, please leave a comment at the bottom of this post. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Muscle Building, Hypertrophy and THE PUMP - what is it?
How many reps for hypertrophy: why that's the wrong question.
Z Health: What is It
Atheletic Body Type: Check Your Goal Which one is yours? The day this article was posted it became the most hit page ever in one day on b2d. I'm not sure why.
Respect the Fat - a quick review of how fat gets used for fuel in the body.
The P90X critique and alternatives series.
Really my goal in this was less about a critique of P90X than how to think about whether or not a particular program will match one's goals. And how to assess if what's on the label is what's in the tin
"The Pump" - what is it, how to get one and what does it/might it do?
DOMS part 1 - what is delayed onset muscle soreness and what doesn't work (you may be surprised.
DOMS part 2 - what works to offset what parts of DOMS
Warm Ups: what are they and (why) do we need one?
Arthrokinetic Reflex: the eyes have if for fast strength improvements.
Rannoch's 100's - it's always possible to find 100.
Lance Armstrong Dynamic Simple Strength Training.
Bones and Pistols
Lance Armstrong training
6mins to fitness 1 - research
6mins to fitness 2 - application
Icing - safe and effective for what?
Running Shoe types - any effect on injury? how bout no?
Occlusion training - benefits for strength training - but super for rehab?
Electrical Magnetic Stimulation - for rehab and muscle adaptation
Elite Fitness Rings - gymnastic rings make pull ups FUN
Stand up or Lie down to work out
Plastic vs Elastic - two different attributes that support human performance
Renegade Rows - awesome excercise
How and Why to FREE YOUR FEET!!
Pull Ups, how to do One or 101
Does Cardio interfere with strength? how 'bout "no"?
Colds - Dealing with one before and after it starts
Sunscreen Will Kill You - and other single factor myths.
Rest and Recovery Periods: How Long and What For?
Exercise Doesn't Work Without Diet - Really
Deadlift Resources
Yoga for Back Care, References
Warrior Diet: Reviewing its Science Claims
Myth Busting: Women are afraid of Bulking Up.
Related Posts
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
deadlifting to how freeing your feet is one of the best things we can do for our well being. What does the research tell us about dealing with DOMS, or about optimizing the mitochondrial benefits of cardio, or about warm ups (and whether we need one). This index will stay current with these and other topics touched on in b2d.The idea is just to have a page that makes it easy to scan through headers of articles b2d has covered in this space.
One on nutrition will be coming soon to complement the others listed below on
- kettlebells
- vibram fivefingers (what can i say?)
- z-health neurological mobility training
If you have a question about general physical well being and training practice not discussed here, and you think it might be good for a b2d article, please leave a comment at the bottom of this post. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Muscle Building, Hypertrophy and THE PUMP - what is it?
How many reps for hypertrophy: why that's the wrong question.
Z Health: What is It
Atheletic Body Type: Check Your Goal Which one is yours? The day this article was posted it became the most hit page ever in one day on b2d. I'm not sure why.
Respect the Fat - a quick review of how fat gets used for fuel in the body.
The P90X critique and alternatives series.
Really my goal in this was less about a critique of P90X than how to think about whether or not a particular program will match one's goals. And how to assess if what's on the label is what's in the tin
- part 1: considers muscle confusion and the various X workouts - should they be X'd? do their names really mean what's under the label?
- part 2: getting ripped and what that means in terms of 1) getting lean and 2) getting defined. We also consider who can "get ripped" when following the p90x and does one really need P90X's 7 hours a week+ to achieve that goal?
- part 3: alternatives to p90x (a) diet & p90x (b) workouts.
"The Pump" - what is it, how to get one and what does it/might it do?
DOMS part 1 - what is delayed onset muscle soreness and what doesn't work (you may be surprised.
DOMS part 2 - what works to offset what parts of DOMS
Warm Ups: what are they and (why) do we need one?
Arthrokinetic Reflex: the eyes have if for fast strength improvements.
Rannoch's 100's - it's always possible to find 100.
Lance Armstrong Dynamic Simple Strength Training.
Bones and Pistols
How to develop bones and pistols - both inspired by Adam T. GlassMovement Assessment: what it is and why have one
This one's looking at an assessment to help address movement-related pain, but can equally apply to checking movement for general performance benefitWhat if we were no longer how we defined ourselves - like strong?
Lance Armstrong training
6mins to fitness 1 - research
6mins to fitness 2 - application
Icing - safe and effective for what?
Running Shoe types - any effect on injury? how bout no?
Occlusion training - benefits for strength training - but super for rehab?
Electrical Magnetic Stimulation - for rehab and muscle adaptation
Elite Fitness Rings - gymnastic rings make pull ups FUN
Stand up or Lie down to work out
Plastic vs Elastic - two different attributes that support human performance
Renegade Rows - awesome excercise
How and Why to FREE YOUR FEET!!
One of the most important things i've found about health improvement. Considering a quarter of the bones of our body are in our feet, letting them move turns out to be a good idea.
Pull Ups, how to do One or 101
This article looks at the muscles in pull ups as well as the various approaches that have been used to help people get their first or multiple pull ups - there's bound to be an approach that will work for you.
Does Cardio interfere with strength? how 'bout "no"?
Colds - Dealing with one before and after it starts
Sunscreen Will Kill You - and other single factor myths.
Rest and Recovery Periods: How Long and What For?
This is an article i did for Dragon Door on how rest periods relate to the type of strength one wants to develop - or the type of muscular adaptation one wants to foreground - as much as reps or load do.Complexity is Not Evil
Exercise Doesn't Work Without Diet - Really
Deadlift Resources
Yoga for Back Care, References
Warrior Diet: Reviewing its Science Claims
Myth Busting: Women are afraid of Bulking Up.
Related Posts
- b2d VFF article index for experience fitting and wearing Vibram FiveFingers
- b2d Z-Health article index relating to Z-Health from R-phase to 9S:Sustenance and in between
- b2d Kettlebell article index from lat firing to the perfect rep to double kb work
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Does Cardio Interfere with Strength Training? How 'bout "no."
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
A question that strength trainees ask at some point:
doesn't endurance (cardio) training interfere with strength training?
Great Question: Initially, starting in 1980 with Hickson, continuing through the 90's, as described in this super review by Andrew Burne, the answer was pretty much "yes."
Even more recent literature still seems to show that there is some interference effect, depending on volume/intensity of the types of training. More recently (2006) there has been a super article that says, ok, based on the findings that more consistently than not show an impact on explosive resistance training, let's consider what the molecular mechanisms are that may be involved to better tune training.
There's a couple new studies, however, lead by Davis [1][2] that revisits this issue of assumed "interference." These studies are interesting on their own, but are particularly useful for reviewing the key ideas around when and how interference happens, if it happens, and why keeping that VO2max KB work in with the strength program is a Good Thing - though there's some other mixes that may have awesome results, too.
Davis is the researcher who in Jan 2008 showed that the effect on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) can be mitigated by doing some cardio between sets (consider accelerated fast and loose) rather than just resting. He and his group seem to be applying similar protocols to strength training. That is, in the first Davis study, he had a group do serial concurrent exercise protocols (CE = strength and endurance) and what he defines as "integrated." Serial means that the group did their resistance training, then they did their aerobic stuff. The participants rested between sets of their lifts. Pretty standard prescription.
In the "integrated" version, participants did their aerobic work *during* their lifts, effectively between sets. Their heart rates were significantly higher across the complete period of their resistance trainng than their serial colleagues. This is not standard. How many times have you heard "leave your cardio till after your workout; you'll tire yourself out and won't be able to lift"
Here's the kicker: the results. First, the cool thing is we're talking well conditioned participants, not newbies (what i don't know is if they're new to resistance though), but second, the results will surprise you: the mean lower body strength of the serial group went up 17.2%. Not bad at all. The mean lower body strength of the integrated group, however, went up 23.3%. Intriguingly, gains in UPPER body strength were higher in the Serial group than the integrated. As for Endurance, both groups made big improvements; the integrated made more. As for body composition, not surprisingly perhaps, the integrated group was significantly better: 3.3% for integrated, vs 1.8% for serial.
The main take away, according to the authors, is that when compared to single mode training for strength, the concurrent exercise, both serial and integrated, made as good or better gains than single mode. So take that, interference ideas. Also, that by going "integrated" the gains across every marker (but upper body strength), were better in integrated practice.
A cool thing also shown is that there seems to be considerable benefit to strength by adding a Range of Motion cool down, rather than just strength work alone (if you don't have ROM work, consider some zhealth (overview of Z)).
The overview of interference by the authors:
Ok, i'll go along with the study showed that there were benefits of adding vigorous cardio (and ROM cool down) to strength. Great. It's also pretty clear that keeping your heart rate up (not resting between sets) is also a benefit to strength. This approach well supports and advances what Pavel's written about not sitting down between sets but keeping your heart up (see Enter The Kettlebell (review) as an example with its discussion of what to do between sets), though the rationale there was not particularly because it *improved* strength gains or reduced DOMS (as far as i recall, anyway).
What i don't quite see tested, and so not supported in the article is the critical issue of frequency. The authors claim that their work is "consistent" with other research on frequency. Which? the work that has shown that negative impacts with more days a week vs fewer days a week? or work that showed even low doses were troubling? The authors picked a nice middle-of-the-road protocol of 3 days a week for training and ONLY three days a week and got nice results.
We do know, that for whatever the myriad of factors, total density of training is a factor in any training plan, balancing recovery and effort, as Kenneth Jay keeps telling me, more an art than a strict science. It's not hard to believe, therefore, that tagging on additional effort to an already loaded program, could have a negative impact, whether resistance or cardio.
So why might the "integrated" approach be a goodie? Davis et al don't know. They have a really neat hypothesis, though, related to their earlier work on "cardioaccleration" and DOMS (remember, they found doing cardio between sets reduced DOMS).
When the DOMS article first came out, colleagues said they wouldn't want to sacrifice performance just to reduce DOMS - in other words the cardio during resistance would take away from the effort they could put in - they hypothesized. This latest study shows the reverse seems to be the case.
What does this CE result mean for our training?
So for folks who have been mixing up or integrating strength and intense cardio already (see the end of the Cardio/VO2Max article for examples of such protocols), this research just seems to add more support for the value of the approach for strength. What this result means for the rest of us? Well balanced CE programs are better for strength than strength training alone. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
doesn't endurance (cardio) training interfere with strength training?
Great Question: Initially, starting in 1980 with Hickson, continuing through the 90's, as described in this super review by Andrew Burne, the answer was pretty much "yes."
Even more recent literature still seems to show that there is some interference effect, depending on volume/intensity of the types of training. More recently (2006) there has been a super article that says, ok, based on the findings that more consistently than not show an impact on explosive resistance training, let's consider what the molecular mechanisms are that may be involved to better tune training.There's a couple new studies, however, lead by Davis [1][2] that revisits this issue of assumed "interference." These studies are interesting on their own, but are particularly useful for reviewing the key ideas around when and how interference happens, if it happens, and why keeping that VO2max KB work in with the strength program is a Good Thing - though there's some other mixes that may have awesome results, too.
Davis is the researcher who in Jan 2008 showed that the effect on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) can be mitigated by doing some cardio between sets (consider accelerated fast and loose) rather than just resting. He and his group seem to be applying similar protocols to strength training. That is, in the first Davis study, he had a group do serial concurrent exercise protocols (CE = strength and endurance) and what he defines as "integrated." Serial means that the group did their resistance training, then they did their aerobic stuff. The participants rested between sets of their lifts. Pretty standard prescription.
In the "integrated" version, participants did their aerobic work *during* their lifts, effectively between sets. Their heart rates were significantly higher across the complete period of their resistance trainng than their serial colleagues. This is not standard. How many times have you heard "leave your cardio till after your workout; you'll tire yourself out and won't be able to lift"
Here's the kicker: the results. First, the cool thing is we're talking well conditioned participants, not newbies (what i don't know is if they're new to resistance though), but second, the results will surprise you: the mean lower body strength of the serial group went up 17.2%. Not bad at all. The mean lower body strength of the integrated group, however, went up 23.3%. Intriguingly, gains in UPPER body strength were higher in the Serial group than the integrated. As for Endurance, both groups made big improvements; the integrated made more. As for body composition, not surprisingly perhaps, the integrated group was significantly better: 3.3% for integrated, vs 1.8% for serial.
The main take away, according to the authors, is that when compared to single mode training for strength, the concurrent exercise, both serial and integrated, made as good or better gains than single mode. So take that, interference ideas. Also, that by going "integrated" the gains across every marker (but upper body strength), were better in integrated practice.
A cool thing also shown is that there seems to be considerable benefit to strength by adding a Range of Motion cool down, rather than just strength work alone (if you don't have ROM work, consider some zhealth (overview of Z)).
The overview of interference by the authors:
- Many studies have postulated that training frequency is a variable as to whether or not interference occurs. There's nothing conclusive: "Evidence for the training frequency hypothesis is therefore suggestive but equivocal."
- Poor (untrained) physical condition of participants in studies has also been suggested as a factor for interference (or not) "Most studies cited here that report interference from CE used untrained or sedentary subjects, whereas most studies cited here that report absence of interference or synergy used well-trained subjects. Studies reporting absence of interference or synergy in medium- to high-frequency concurrent training protocols invariably used well-conditioned subjects" Most of these studies looked at effects on endurance athletes, it seems, not the other way around, and that's where the money is for most strength athletes like hard style kettlebellers.
- The usual hypothesis that timing of aerobic vs resistance work is a key factor, eg aerobics before, after or during resistance, isn't well established either. "The few studies that have evaluated exercise timing and sequence during concurrent training therefore suggest a possible effect, but its nature and prerequisites are unclear."
Ok, i'll go along with the study showed that there were benefits of adding vigorous cardio (and ROM cool down) to strength. Great. It's also pretty clear that keeping your heart rate up (not resting between sets) is also a benefit to strength. This approach well supports and advances what Pavel's written about not sitting down between sets but keeping your heart up (see Enter The Kettlebell (review) as an example with its discussion of what to do between sets), though the rationale there was not particularly because it *improved* strength gains or reduced DOMS (as far as i recall, anyway).
What i don't quite see tested, and so not supported in the article is the critical issue of frequency. The authors claim that their work is "consistent" with other research on frequency. Which? the work that has shown that negative impacts with more days a week vs fewer days a week? or work that showed even low doses were troubling? The authors picked a nice middle-of-the-road protocol of 3 days a week for training and ONLY three days a week and got nice results.
We do know, that for whatever the myriad of factors, total density of training is a factor in any training plan, balancing recovery and effort, as Kenneth Jay keeps telling me, more an art than a strict science. It's not hard to believe, therefore, that tagging on additional effort to an already loaded program, could have a negative impact, whether resistance or cardio.
So why might the "integrated" approach be a goodie? Davis et al don't know. They have a really neat hypothesis, though, related to their earlier work on "cardioaccleration" and DOMS (remember, they found doing cardio between sets reduced DOMS).
[T]he time course of DOMS reduction and elimination in both men and women trained in the integrated CE protocol is similar to the known time course of skeletal muscle angiogenesis, which may increase muscle perfusion during resistance exercise in the integrated CE group. The same mechanism could account for the apparent synergy of strength and endurance training in the integrated CE group. DOMS signifies contraction-induced muscle damage and consequent reduced capacity to generate muscular power for up to 72 hours (60), implying reduced responsiveness to strength training even in low-frequency (2 days per week) training protocols, whereas enhanced muscle perfusion increases muscle performance by up to 20% (44). The elimination of DOMS and consequent faster muscle recovery combined with enhanced muscle perfusion in the integrated CE protocol could therefore increase training adaptations compared with the serial CE protocol, as found in the present study, perhaps through the mechanism of enhanced postactivation potentiation of muscle responses to resistance exercises (11,12).In other words, their integrated approach is reducing DOMS which means faster recovery, which means accelerated growth/performance.
When the DOMS article first came out, colleagues said they wouldn't want to sacrifice performance just to reduce DOMS - in other words the cardio during resistance would take away from the effort they could put in - they hypothesized. This latest study shows the reverse seems to be the case.
What does this CE result mean for our training?
Enhanced training adaptations from integrated CE, combined with the potentially related elimination of DOMS (15) and consequent faster muscle recovery (21), therefore have the potential to improve training and clinical outcomes in exercise programs at all levels.It's worth looking at the article for exactly what intensity is being described in the CE protocol. Saying that, one of the big takeaways from the study is that, if the frequency is right (don't overdo your training. duh), and if you're already well conditioned, intense cardio + resistance are better for strength than strength work alone. If you want to take these benefits further, and enhance recovery, there's an opportunity to "integrate" resistance and "vigorous" / intense cardio.
So for folks who have been mixing up or integrating strength and intense cardio already (see the end of the Cardio/VO2Max article for examples of such protocols), this research just seems to add more support for the value of the approach for strength. What this result means for the rest of us? Well balanced CE programs are better for strength than strength training alone. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Cardio Workouts with Kettlebells vs VO2max KB workouts
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There's been some discussion on the DD forum of late of what constitutes Cardio workouts, and what are optimal KB routines for cardio. It may be that we need to get our terms agreed. There's a difference between high intensity interval work (like Kenneth Jay's VO2max Protocols, such as the
original, below
and now included in KJ's book, Viking Warrior Conditioning, reviewed here) that has great benefit for the cardio vascular system, and workouts that are considered "cardio" because they themselves work *in* an energy zone that is aerobic (like the Running the Bells routine that can work through a few energy systems)
The goal of this post is to go over
Going beyond that heart rate means that we go anaerobic (without oxygen - which is kinda a misnomer because we're always using oxygen while we're breathing, or we'd be dead in short order). Going anaerobic means that we're taxing other energy systems than the oxidative. Depending on the effort, this is either privileging the glycolytic (the value of carbohydrates) or phosphagen (think creatine as important in this mix).
Aerobic Test. Here's a test to see if you're in that kinda effort if you don't feel like wearing a monitor. Can you keep up a conversation without sucking for air? Why is this a test? If you can talk WHILE doing you're activity, you're in a zone using air predominantly for effort. And that's a state most athletes desire: more work from the oxidative system.
Glycogen Sparing. What all these energy systems have in common is producing energy to enable muscles to contract. Different intensities of effort call upon different systems, but all of them are working to create the compound ATP which enables muscle contractions. As said, the primary fuel for the oxidative system is fat; the primary/preferred fuel for the glycolytic is carbs (sugars). We have more stored fat in our bodies than carbs/sugars. Pinch an inch and you'll see this is so. Sugars get stored mainly in our muscles, blood and liver. Fat is well, everywhere: it surrounds us. So wouldn't it be great if we could push the threshold at which we had to use those precious carbs further off, if we could do more work in fat world than sugar world?
There's several ways that folks work to achieve this. Two are (a) doing cardio work (often also called endurance training) in the aerobic zone in order to build up mitochondria, and (b) doing anaerobic intervals at the VO2Max threshold to keep nudging that threshold further off - to enable the amount of work that can be done in Fat Burning world to be greater before flipping over to tapping into Sugar use. Note the distinction between these two approaches: cardio effort means staying in a heart rate that is aerobic; Vo2Max intervals is anaerobic, meaning we're working the anaerobic systems. *BOTH* have benefit for the cardio system, but only ONE is working out in the aerobic system.
VO2Max. Given the above distinction between anerobic and aerobic efforts, Kenneth Jay's VO2max protocol is NOT a cardio workout per se because its intervals are designed of necessity to be anaerobic (on a heart rate monitor this would look like 85% of maximum). It has great benefit to the CV system because it is working VO2max levels to improve how much work can happen aerobically. It is also focused (and used to be strongly tied with) Lactic Acid threshold work: the higher the VO2max capacity, the greater the ability to process lactic acid. If lactic acid builds up beyond the point it can be used, it gets in the way of ATP production, causing fatigue, cramps and any number of issues that affect performance.
But CV workouts - or workouts that ARE CV oriented usually mean workouts that keep a person in a cv region, 70-80% of MaxHR. That's work.
Aerobic Workouts - Workouts that stay using the Aerobic/Oxidative system. These kinds of workouts are particularly useful if you're goal is to lose weight since they're spending time and energy in the fat burning heart rate range (privileging fat for fuel rather than glucose/lactic acid/phosphates). It's also been argued by folks like Casandra Forsythe and Alwyn Cosgrove that they're also great to do *after* a HIIT session for both recovery and to burn off some of the fat that's been mobilized but not used by the HIIT session itself.
If weight loss is not your goal, some folks suggest you may not need to spend as much time doing CV, as there's a lot of value in HIIT work for endurance/cardio. Even if you are doing weight loss work, according to John Berardi, blending lower rates of cardio into high intensity work is good for balancing calls on our nervous system:
Also, as said above, another benefit of cardio work is to enhance mitochondria. These are the little elements of cells that DO that aerobic energy work with the O2. Going beyond 80% MaxHR - going outside the aerobic zone - has not been seen as optimal for mitochondria focus. My understanding is that there's an hypoxic effect on mitochondria when going anaerobic, and that impacts mitochonrdria hyperplasia (the reproduction of these cells).
Again, mitochondria are key tools for fat burning/fat loss, so developing them is a Good Idea. They're also great for endurance work: more mitochondria, it seems, less lactate production. More mitochondria doesn't mean much enhancement to V02Max. But better V02max doesn't mean necessarily better performance. Isn't that interesting. As George Brooks and Co. put it in Exercise Physiology, if better Vo2max meant better performance, competitions could just be held in labs.
To be as cutting edge as possible, there's some very recent work on SIT or Sprint Interval Training that's shown some interesting mitochondrial effects. I'm still parsing through the study, but the initial claim is that all out sprints against resistance for 30secs (Wingate Test), repeated 3 times (around 500watt power output) three times a week, was equivalent to 40-60 mins at around 120watts 5 days a week.
While this sounds very intriguing, it's important to remember that Wingates are *not* VO2max intervals. VO2max - especially as Kenneth Jay sets them up, are very cadence specific to keep you within the VO2max zone. 85% of MaxHR rather than 80%, for instance of that upper aerobic zone. Wingate/sprints are *all out* efforts that push to the real heart thumping, way past lactate threshold level. They are focused on testing anaerobic rather than aerobic capacity. That means they're hard. Brutal is a word often used to describe them, because they are at the edge of capacity. Folks doing three REPEATS of these three times a week would already need to be in Very Good shape. Incredible shape. I know athletes who after one of these tests are fried for the next day or two - understandably so.
Also, the authors acknowledge that they're not clear on what's going on at this extreme effort space that's causing this particular oxidative adaptation that's only been seen before in ET
So if you're thinking about oxidative benefit, and don't care about personally wanting/needing to burn more fuel to lose weight (the volume of work in this protocol was a tenth the KJoules (calories) burned in the trad ET protocol), and have the capacity to go extreme repeatedly and not collapse (spending the time you would on the bike on a faceplant in the carpet, for instance), this may be an approach for you, but that does seem to mean getting onto a stationary bike rather than swinging a kettlebell since thinking about form while thinking about intensity to get that level of heart pounding may be a bit of a challenge.
Who would want to do this extreme protocol? you may ask. Well, one scenario would be if you're an endurance athlete, putting miles on your body already, reducing time/volume on training may be a plus. Or another scenario: you want to begin competition as an endurance athlete and want to build up that oxidative capacity without putting in the usual training time to get that endurance effect. Right now, transfer of this experiment to practical training is likely largely speculation. The above is very much bleeding edge research. Other labs are looking at other protocols like shorter intervals (thank god), so this is a space to watch.
And just an aside about intervals - there's a real passion in some KB circles for Vo2Max intervals. I mention, just in passing, that some researchers working with elite athletes have shown that 1V02max Session/week is just as beneficial to performance as 3 (nice overview here). So far, to my knowledge, Vo2max KB intervals have not been equally evaluated. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or any lack of anecdotal praise, just that they haven't been peer reviewed, so we don't know how they compare with other V02Max methods, or with 1 vs three sessions per week, or or or. Likewise there's a very well sustained critique of intervals as the be-all-end-all of cardio at Lyle McDonald's blog (see this summary of these potsts), in particular how they will fit in with other training. There's also some interesting finds in cycling that show that for sport performance, intervals are great training for well, intervals. So maybe high level steady state has a role, too? Now i'm a passionate interval-er for fat loss and general perfomance, but i'm also open to less or other may be more, too. Just a thought.
Update: The McDonald work is largely a critique of the obsession with HIIT intervals as the main way to lose fat, not a critique of the benefit/effectiveness of intervals per se.
Also important to note that when we talk about "intervals" we aren't ALWAYS talking about VO2Max efforts. Indeed, it seems one doesn't have to work at 100% VO2max, like Kenneth's protocols do, to have an effect on VO2Max, nor are intervals the only way to impact VO2max. Over a 6 week period, people who worked out at 50% of their V02 reserve (a measure of VO2 capacity equivalent to Heart Rate Reserve) had a 10% increase in their VO2Max. This was with steady state and intervals at these intensities. Now, that said, the OPTIMAL impact on VO2Max was the interval group with "near maximal" (at 95% VO2R) effort. Here's the poop:
So HIIT, in any case, has a at least a few roles in heart health, though the benefit is not restricted to having to do super high intensity efforts. Which brings us to the roles of aerobic efforts.
KB's and Cardio
All the above has been pretty much by way of preamble to address the question: what's a great way to do CARDIO work with kettlebells?
By now, it's clear the answer to this question breaks down into two parts, stemming from "what do you mean by cardio?"
Snatches, Swings, Possible Overuse Considerations. On the DD forums, for Cardio (of the steady state/aerobic type) lots of folks have said either do lots of snatches or lots of swings.
Yes that will certainly break a sweat, but that's also very eccentric contraction focused. And if you're powering the down stroke on the swing/snatch, it's lots of overspeed eccentric focused work. That's where the money is, as KJ will tell you.
Now, too much of any one action has historically been shown eventually to lead to problems like RSI, arthritis, joint injury etc. The KB community in the US hasn't been going long enough to correlate such problems - but overuse is overuse - and we only get one body, and we see such overuse problems in other sports, and it might be folly to see KB'ing as any different. What's the equivalent of Tennis Elbow in the KB world?
With respect to eccentric-oriented exercise, a meta study of the research literature around eccentrics shows that they can actually increase insulin resistance. Whether this is the case in KB's overspeed eccentrics, well that hasn't been tested. BUT there are some interesting patterns out there. And just by way of background, again, to stay lean and mean and hormonally sound, insulin resistance is NOT a good thing.
As said, Kenneth maps Rowing and KB (snatching?) as biomechanically similar. I've asked if the overspeed eccentrics of KB snatching as described above mayn't be a distinguishing marker, so am keen to hear back, since if this is a difference, we can't assume rowing = kb'ing.
Variety is the Spice of KB Cardio. So, just a thought - why not think about ways to add a variety of moves for KB cardio rather than focusing on sessions that are eccentric dominant?
If you look at the vids on Tracy's blog, you'll see that as the Queen of Weight Loss with KB's, she goes for that kind of variety: swings, snatches, squats, presses - all mixed up getting good range of motion on the joints rather than over repetition of any one approach. Likewise Mike Mahler's High Octane Cardio (HOC) mixes up kettlebell moves with running, skipping, pull ups. Awesome.
If you feel like paying money to have a collection of some great Cardio/Strength KB routines put together in one nice package that you can follow along, here's a review of an Art of Strength workout, also lots of variety that will keep your heart pumping and give you a solid workout, too.
Update: there's a followup to this integrated intense cardio/resistance blend in a new blog post "does cardio intefere with strength training? how 'bout no?"
Combined of course with some joint mobility like ZHealth drills (what are these?) to balance out joint work for full ROM, add in some NEPA's, and you're rocking. BONUS: Indeed, the new post in the update above has research that shows ROM work supports/enhances strength training. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
There's been some discussion on the DD forum of late of what constitutes Cardio workouts, and what are optimal KB routines for cardio. It may be that we need to get our terms agreed. There's a difference between high intensity interval work (like Kenneth Jay's VO2max Protocols, such as the original, belowand now included in KJ's book, Viking Warrior Conditioning, reviewed here) that has great benefit for the cardio vascular system, and workouts that are considered "cardio" because they themselves work *in* an energy zone that is aerobic (like the Running the Bells routine that can work through a few energy systems)
The goal of this post is to go over
- what it means to be working IN the aerobic or anaerobic zones
- How VO2Max fits into this scheme
- Where aerobic efforts fit in
- where all out anaerobic efforts way beyond VO2max may fit in
- why variety rather than just swings or just snatches (eccentrics) may be important for routines
- some inspiration for rich cardio KB routines
Going beyond that heart rate means that we go anaerobic (without oxygen - which is kinda a misnomer because we're always using oxygen while we're breathing, or we'd be dead in short order). Going anaerobic means that we're taxing other energy systems than the oxidative. Depending on the effort, this is either privileging the glycolytic (the value of carbohydrates) or phosphagen (think creatine as important in this mix).
Aerobic Test. Here's a test to see if you're in that kinda effort if you don't feel like wearing a monitor. Can you keep up a conversation without sucking for air? Why is this a test? If you can talk WHILE doing you're activity, you're in a zone using air predominantly for effort. And that's a state most athletes desire: more work from the oxidative system.
Glycogen Sparing. What all these energy systems have in common is producing energy to enable muscles to contract. Different intensities of effort call upon different systems, but all of them are working to create the compound ATP which enables muscle contractions. As said, the primary fuel for the oxidative system is fat; the primary/preferred fuel for the glycolytic is carbs (sugars). We have more stored fat in our bodies than carbs/sugars. Pinch an inch and you'll see this is so. Sugars get stored mainly in our muscles, blood and liver. Fat is well, everywhere: it surrounds us. So wouldn't it be great if we could push the threshold at which we had to use those precious carbs further off, if we could do more work in fat world than sugar world?
There's several ways that folks work to achieve this. Two are (a) doing cardio work (often also called endurance training) in the aerobic zone in order to build up mitochondria, and (b) doing anaerobic intervals at the VO2Max threshold to keep nudging that threshold further off - to enable the amount of work that can be done in Fat Burning world to be greater before flipping over to tapping into Sugar use. Note the distinction between these two approaches: cardio effort means staying in a heart rate that is aerobic; Vo2Max intervals is anaerobic, meaning we're working the anaerobic systems. *BOTH* have benefit for the cardio system, but only ONE is working out in the aerobic system.
VO2Max. Given the above distinction between anerobic and aerobic efforts, Kenneth Jay's VO2max protocol is NOT a cardio workout per se because its intervals are designed of necessity to be anaerobic (on a heart rate monitor this would look like 85% of maximum). It has great benefit to the CV system because it is working VO2max levels to improve how much work can happen aerobically. It is also focused (and used to be strongly tied with) Lactic Acid threshold work: the higher the VO2max capacity, the greater the ability to process lactic acid. If lactic acid builds up beyond the point it can be used, it gets in the way of ATP production, causing fatigue, cramps and any number of issues that affect performance.
But CV workouts - or workouts that ARE CV oriented usually mean workouts that keep a person in a cv region, 70-80% of MaxHR. That's work.
Aerobic Workouts - Workouts that stay using the Aerobic/Oxidative system. These kinds of workouts are particularly useful if you're goal is to lose weight since they're spending time and energy in the fat burning heart rate range (privileging fat for fuel rather than glucose/lactic acid/phosphates). It's also been argued by folks like Casandra Forsythe and Alwyn Cosgrove that they're also great to do *after* a HIIT session for both recovery and to burn off some of the fat that's been mobilized but not used by the HIIT session itself.
If weight loss is not your goal, some folks suggest you may not need to spend as much time doing CV, as there's a lot of value in HIIT work for endurance/cardio. Even if you are doing weight loss work, according to John Berardi, blending lower rates of cardio into high intensity work is good for balancing calls on our nervous system:
high intensity work stimulates the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight) while low intensity work stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (rest and digest).
Also, as said above, another benefit of cardio work is to enhance mitochondria. These are the little elements of cells that DO that aerobic energy work with the O2. Going beyond 80% MaxHR - going outside the aerobic zone - has not been seen as optimal for mitochondria focus. My understanding is that there's an hypoxic effect on mitochondria when going anaerobic, and that impacts mitochonrdria hyperplasia (the reproduction of these cells).Again, mitochondria are key tools for fat burning/fat loss, so developing them is a Good Idea. They're also great for endurance work: more mitochondria, it seems, less lactate production. More mitochondria doesn't mean much enhancement to V02Max. But better V02max doesn't mean necessarily better performance. Isn't that interesting. As George Brooks and Co. put it in Exercise Physiology, if better Vo2max meant better performance, competitions could just be held in labs.
To be as cutting edge as possible, there's some very recent work on SIT or Sprint Interval Training that's shown some interesting mitochondrial effects. I'm still parsing through the study, but the initial claim is that all out sprints against resistance for 30secs (Wingate Test), repeated 3 times (around 500watt power output) three times a week, was equivalent to 40-60 mins at around 120watts 5 days a week.
While this sounds very intriguing, it's important to remember that Wingates are *not* VO2max intervals. VO2max - especially as Kenneth Jay sets them up, are very cadence specific to keep you within the VO2max zone. 85% of MaxHR rather than 80%, for instance of that upper aerobic zone. Wingate/sprints are *all out* efforts that push to the real heart thumping, way past lactate threshold level. They are focused on testing anaerobic rather than aerobic capacity. That means they're hard. Brutal is a word often used to describe them, because they are at the edge of capacity. Folks doing three REPEATS of these three times a week would already need to be in Very Good shape. Incredible shape. I know athletes who after one of these tests are fried for the next day or two - understandably so.
Also, the authors acknowledge that they're not clear on what's going on at this extreme effort space that's causing this particular oxidative adaptation that's only been seen before in ET
While the present study demonstrates the potency of SIT to elicit changes in muscle oxidative capacity and selected metabolic adjustments during exercise that resemble ET, the underlying mechanisms are unclear. From a cell signalling perspective, exercise is typically classified as either 'strength' or 'endurance', with short-duration, high-intensity work usually associated with increased skeletal muscle mass, and prolonged, low- to moderate-intensity work associated with increased mitochondrial mass and oxidative enzyme activity (Baar, 2006). Given the oxidative phenotype that is rapidly up-regulated by SIT, it is possible that metabolic adaptations to this type of exercise could be mediated in part through signalling pathways normally associated with traditional ET.In other words the 02 deficit may be SO HIGH after this effort your body may up-regulate O2 consumption afterwards, which impacts the aerobic system. So it might be the rest intervals during and post the effort where the aerobic ET-like adaptation is occurring. Dunno. Speculation.
So if you're thinking about oxidative benefit, and don't care about personally wanting/needing to burn more fuel to lose weight (the volume of work in this protocol was a tenth the KJoules (calories) burned in the trad ET protocol), and have the capacity to go extreme repeatedly and not collapse (spending the time you would on the bike on a faceplant in the carpet, for instance), this may be an approach for you, but that does seem to mean getting onto a stationary bike rather than swinging a kettlebell since thinking about form while thinking about intensity to get that level of heart pounding may be a bit of a challenge.
Who would want to do this extreme protocol? you may ask. Well, one scenario would be if you're an endurance athlete, putting miles on your body already, reducing time/volume on training may be a plus. Or another scenario: you want to begin competition as an endurance athlete and want to build up that oxidative capacity without putting in the usual training time to get that endurance effect. Right now, transfer of this experiment to practical training is likely largely speculation. The above is very much bleeding edge research. Other labs are looking at other protocols like shorter intervals (thank god), so this is a space to watch.
And just an aside about intervals - there's a real passion in some KB circles for Vo2Max intervals. I mention, just in passing, that some researchers working with elite athletes have shown that 1V02max Session/week is just as beneficial to performance as 3 (nice overview here). So far, to my knowledge, Vo2max KB intervals have not been equally evaluated. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or any lack of anecdotal praise, just that they haven't been peer reviewed, so we don't know how they compare with other V02Max methods, or with 1 vs three sessions per week, or or or. Likewise there's a very well sustained critique of intervals as the be-all-end-all of cardio at Lyle McDonald's blog (see this summary of these potsts), in particular how they will fit in with other training. There's also some interesting finds in cycling that show that for sport performance, intervals are great training for well, intervals. So maybe high level steady state has a role, too? Now i'm a passionate interval-er for fat loss and general perfomance, but i'm also open to less or other may be more, too. Just a thought.
Update: The McDonald work is largely a critique of the obsession with HIIT intervals as the main way to lose fat, not a critique of the benefit/effectiveness of intervals per se.
Also important to note that when we talk about "intervals" we aren't ALWAYS talking about VO2Max efforts. Indeed, it seems one doesn't have to work at 100% VO2max, like Kenneth's protocols do, to have an effect on VO2Max, nor are intervals the only way to impact VO2max. Over a 6 week period, people who worked out at 50% of their V02 reserve (a measure of VO2 capacity equivalent to Heart Rate Reserve) had a 10% increase in their VO2Max. This was with steady state and intervals at these intensities. Now, that said, the OPTIMAL impact on VO2Max was the interval group with "near maximal" (at 95% VO2R) effort. Here's the poop:
It should be noted that although interval training groups spend some of their training time at a very high intensity, a similar amount of time is spent at a lower intensity, and therefore the mean intensity of training may not be any higher than that of a continuous training program. In the current study, the interval training group used 5 min each for the work and the recovery phases of the intervals and had an average intensity of 72% HRR, which is slightly less than the 75% HRR of the vigorous [the steady state -mc] group. The work-recovery periods of Helgerud et al.[16] were 4 min at ∼93% HRmax and 3 min at 70% HRmax, for a mean intensity of 83% HRmax in the interval group, whereas one of the continuous groups used 85% HRmax. Warburton et al.[37] used 2 min at 90% HRR and 2 min at 40% HRR for the work and the recovery phases, yielding a mean intensity of 65% HRR in the interval group, and had the continuous training group use 65% HRR. Wisloff et al.[38] used 4-min work phases at ∼93% HRmax and 3-min recovery phases at 60% HRmax, for a mean intensity of 79% HRmax in the interval group, and used ∼73% HRmax in the continuous training group. Despite the similarity of mean intensity between the interval and the continuous training groups, the interval groups in all of these studies experienced greater improvements in aerobic fitness after training. Therefore, although intensity is a key variable in cardiorespiratory training (as shown by comparing the two continuous training groups in this study), the mean intensity may not be as important as the highest intensity that is used for a significant portion of the training. A topic for future research is to determine what portion of training should be done at high intensities and using what work-recovery periods to obtain the greatest results [emphasis -mc].And another interesting find in support of high intensity intervals - though again not necessarily VO2max (no info in the study on that point), is a recent study on rowing (an activity that KJ argues is similar to KB'ing). It shows that doing endurance work is actually pretty important if doing resistance work for the heart - to keep it elastic (endurance benefit) rather than thickening it (effect of heavy resistance work). Their rowers, they said, did 65% of their work at "high-intensity" - though that's not further defined. The conclusion is, "Our results suggest that simultaneously performed endurance training may negate the stiffening effects of strength training."
So HIIT, in any case, has a at least a few roles in heart health, though the benefit is not restricted to having to do super high intensity efforts. Which brings us to the roles of aerobic efforts.
KB's and Cardio
All the above has been pretty much by way of preamble to address the question: what's a great way to do CARDIO work with kettlebells?By now, it's clear the answer to this question breaks down into two parts, stemming from "what do you mean by cardio?"
- If your goal is to improve the max amount of oxygen you can use before going anaerobic, you're likely doing ANAEROBIC intervals for VO2Max training to have the side effect of increasing AEROBIC work capacity by pushing out out the VO2Max threshold
- If your goal is to enhance mitochondrial density to improve oxidative capacity for energy/endurance and/or for fat burning, you'll likely want to be doing work in the CARDIO/AEROBIC zone throughout the workout
Snatches, Swings, Possible Overuse Considerations. On the DD forums, for Cardio (of the steady state/aerobic type) lots of folks have said either do lots of snatches or lots of swings.
Yes that will certainly break a sweat, but that's also very eccentric contraction focused. And if you're powering the down stroke on the swing/snatch, it's lots of overspeed eccentric focused work. That's where the money is, as KJ will tell you.
Now, too much of any one action has historically been shown eventually to lead to problems like RSI, arthritis, joint injury etc. The KB community in the US hasn't been going long enough to correlate such problems - but overuse is overuse - and we only get one body, and we see such overuse problems in other sports, and it might be folly to see KB'ing as any different. What's the equivalent of Tennis Elbow in the KB world?
With respect to eccentric-oriented exercise, a meta study of the research literature around eccentrics shows that they can actually increase insulin resistance. Whether this is the case in KB's overspeed eccentrics, well that hasn't been tested. BUT there are some interesting patterns out there. And just by way of background, again, to stay lean and mean and hormonally sound, insulin resistance is NOT a good thing.
As said, Kenneth maps Rowing and KB (snatching?) as biomechanically similar. I've asked if the overspeed eccentrics of KB snatching as described above mayn't be a distinguishing marker, so am keen to hear back, since if this is a difference, we can't assume rowing = kb'ing.
Variety is the Spice of KB Cardio. So, just a thought - why not think about ways to add a variety of moves for KB cardio rather than focusing on sessions that are eccentric dominant?
If you look at the vids on Tracy's blog, you'll see that as the Queen of Weight Loss with KB's, she goes for that kind of variety: swings, snatches, squats, presses - all mixed up getting good range of motion on the joints rather than over repetition of any one approach. Likewise Mike Mahler's High Octane Cardio (HOC) mixes up kettlebell moves with running, skipping, pull ups. Awesome.
If you feel like paying money to have a collection of some great Cardio/Strength KB routines put together in one nice package that you can follow along, here's a review of an Art of Strength workout, also lots of variety that will keep your heart pumping and give you a solid workout, too.
Update: there's a followup to this integrated intense cardio/resistance blend in a new blog post "does cardio intefere with strength training? how 'bout no?"
Combined of course with some joint mobility like ZHealth drills (what are these?) to balance out joint work for full ROM, add in some NEPA's, and you're rocking. BONUS: Indeed, the new post in the update above has research that shows ROM work supports/enhances strength training. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
