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
PDF
Thursday, November 27, 2008
How much Rest between Sets and Why Strong Side First
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Quick common questions, quick answers, and more detail available:
What side to i start? Strong or Weak? It may seem counter intuitive, but when doing work with weights, one side at a time, start with your STRONGer side first. Here's more on why over at IAMFIT.
How Long should i Rest Between Sets: This is a common question. The answer, as usual, is "it depends"
There are pretty well-studied relationships between load, rep volume, rest and muscular effect (strenght/power, hypertrophy, endurance). In an article for DD (editor Pavel and Brett Jones), i walk through some of what the consensus in the literature is about rest between sets.
Overview based on energy systems:
What side to i start? Strong or Weak? It may seem counter intuitive, but when doing work with weights, one side at a time, start with your STRONGer side first. Here's more on why over at IAMFIT.
How Long should i Rest Between Sets: This is a common question. The answer, as usual, is "it depends"
There are pretty well-studied relationships between load, rep volume, rest and muscular effect (strenght/power, hypertrophy, endurance). In an article for DD (editor Pavel and Brett Jones), i walk through some of what the consensus in the literature is about rest between sets.
Overview based on energy systems:
- Strength/Power - Phosphagen System mainly -
full recharge needs 2-5 minutes based on a high load few rep set.
Can add volume (no. of sets) without changing rep scheme or break length - Muscle Fiber Building/Hypertrophy or just want to get to somewhat longer sets.
Taxing Glycolytic system and growht hormone triggering -
recovery is not full recharge
6-10 reps at 75% load-ish, 30sec - 1.5 mins rest - Endurance - want to just keep going.
Tapping into oxidative system with
50%'ish RM loads (or less) lighter loads, longer sets, less breaks - 10-15 reps with 30 secs breaks, max, if trained; longer if not.
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
Friday, November 21, 2008
Coming back to Kettlebell Front Squat Form: head, eyes, sequencing strength
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Awhile ago i posted a vid of Will Williams demo'ing the kettlebell front squat for particular emphasis on Will's breathing. That breathing pattern demonstrates what Pavel's presented as "power breathing" to optimize the stiffening of the core to get the optimal leverage for heavy lifts to build strength. Breath is not held. And that's the rather tricky part in a repetitious move like a front squat series, which Will does so well (another variant of breathing for heavy lifts in particular is something called the Valsalva Manouver which i touch on for reference only, and where breath is held).
Also in that discussion of the Front Squat, i noted a concept learned from ZHealth (overview) that Eric Cobb calls Bone Ryhthm, with a video and discussion by Mike T. Nelson demonstrating with a DL. In brief, the idea of bone rythmn applied to a front squat would be that the movement of the knees forward finishes with the butt back. Looking at Will's vid, the knees finish moving before the hips are down at parallel.
In practicing with folks, getting bone rythmn in the front squat to happen generally means speeding up the descent of the hips so that the hips come down in time with the movement of the knees: both joints at the end of the same bone finish their movement together. When balancing the joints on each end of the bone like this, it's like the body gets in phase with itself, and that synergy of the lever timing (joint at knees; joint at hips, like the way an oil well pumps) seems to effect more power.
So let's say we have breathing down, and we have rhythm down. I've been experimenting with another concept learned from Eric Cobb on spine alignment and eye position.
A core concept in Zhealth is "tall spine." Tall spine means, if i have heard it right, keeping the spine in neutral alignment, and thinking about the vertebrae having spaces between them - not getting crushed or squished, but free to move through their full range of motion. The idea in Z is to keep the spine in that tall *neutral* (not over extended) position throughout athletic activities.
Head Position What does that "tall spine" mean in the KB Front Squat? Well i dunno about
you, but when i'm in the decent position, with my butt down, my head sorta tilts back, which rather squishes the vertebrae in the neck, or the cervical spine, as they go into extension (see middle pane of xray image below). This squishing is NOT good for strength.
In fact, i've seen a compelling demonstration of a hamstring muscle test where someone with their head in neutral, with strong hamstrings then cocks their head back, and it's like those hamstrings go to zero. Not kidding.
This effect of strengthening/weakening has been dubbed the arthrokinetic reflex. This means something is happening around a joint. Arthrokinematics refers to the possible movements of joints. So the arthrokinetic reflex research has looked at connexions between joint mobilization and muscular strength.
Applied to the front squat, this means there's benefit to that tall spine position, as that's a position of optimal mobility - nothing's squished. Now, i find if the head position stays in neutral to keep the spine aligned in neutral, i feel like i'm looking a bit down when in the down position of the KB front squat. And that's ok; that's aligned. Trying a few sets trying to remember to keep my head neutral did in fact feel smoother and streonger in the Front Squat. Felt a little funny at first, but i've found it's worth the practice.
There's one more thing that can benefit this refined strength practice: eye position.
Eye Position. Again, from the ZHealth R-Phase Certification, one of the things we learned is that eye position corrolates with muscle action: flexion is enhanced by looking down; extension by looking up. Cobb has writen about this over at DragonDoor:
Sequencing What to Learn First There's a lot to take in for this simple move of going up and down with a kettlebell or two: bone ryhthmn, breathing, head position, eye movement. When learning these moves, where does one start? Well, again, drawing on ZHealth and its emphasis on efficiency, it puts it this way:
Maybe we should switch the focus around a little bit. The above four steps provide a set of heuristics for a coach or individual to check in with in their own practice. Is bone ryhthm in the front squat locked in? What about head and eye position? if not why, not stay with a weight that will not compromise form (ie cause a lot of breathing requirements to lift the weight; cause a lot of tension to be called into play).
There's LOTS of work that can be done while getting right with that form (to
say nothing of the enduring value of bodyweight work). Indeed, something i've been trying in a Grease the Groove (GTG) kind of way, is just to do a lot of body weight front squats, focusing on feeling the rythmn and keeping my head/eyes position working. These reps can be done anytime/anywhere. And reps=habits, or the ability to execute a pattern without conscious thought. I want to be able to get in sufficient form reps to have as a base for the more challenging heavy work or longer sequences for strength/power work where breath/tension/relatxation become more critical.
Indeed, as part of that work, and to complete the cycle from form to tension, Pavel comments: " On the "tall spine": make sure that the emphasis on the cue does not inhibit the lats and the diaphragm."
If you are practicing any of these components of the front squat, let me know how it's going. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Also in that discussion of the Front Squat, i noted a concept learned from ZHealth (overview) that Eric Cobb calls Bone Ryhthm, with a video and discussion by Mike T. Nelson demonstrating with a DL. In brief, the idea of bone rythmn applied to a front squat would be that the movement of the knees forward finishes with the butt back. Looking at Will's vid, the knees finish moving before the hips are down at parallel.
In practicing with folks, getting bone rythmn in the front squat to happen generally means speeding up the descent of the hips so that the hips come down in time with the movement of the knees: both joints at the end of the same bone finish their movement together. When balancing the joints on each end of the bone like this, it's like the body gets in phase with itself, and that synergy of the lever timing (joint at knees; joint at hips, like the way an oil well pumps) seems to effect more power.
So let's say we have breathing down, and we have rhythm down. I've been experimenting with another concept learned from Eric Cobb on spine alignment and eye position.
A core concept in Zhealth is "tall spine." Tall spine means, if i have heard it right, keeping the spine in neutral alignment, and thinking about the vertebrae having spaces between them - not getting crushed or squished, but free to move through their full range of motion. The idea in Z is to keep the spine in that tall *neutral* (not over extended) position throughout athletic activities.
Head Position What does that "tall spine" mean in the KB Front Squat? Well i dunno about
you, but when i'm in the decent position, with my butt down, my head sorta tilts back, which rather squishes the vertebrae in the neck, or the cervical spine, as they go into extension (see middle pane of xray image below). This squishing is NOT good for strength.This effect of strengthening/weakening has been dubbed the arthrokinetic reflex. This means something is happening around a joint. Arthrokinematics refers to the possible movements of joints. So the arthrokinetic reflex research has looked at connexions between joint mobilization and muscular strength.
Applied to the front squat, this means there's benefit to that tall spine position, as that's a position of optimal mobility - nothing's squished. Now, i find if the head position stays in neutral to keep the spine aligned in neutral, i feel like i'm looking a bit down when in the down position of the KB front squat. And that's ok; that's aligned. Trying a few sets trying to remember to keep my head neutral did in fact feel smoother and streonger in the Front Squat. Felt a little funny at first, but i've found it's worth the practice.Eye Position. Again, from the ZHealth R-Phase Certification, one of the things we learned is that eye position corrolates with muscle action: flexion is enhanced by looking down; extension by looking up. Cobb has writen about this over at DragonDoor:
How does [eye position] apply to your lifts? It's quite simple, really. The small nerve endings in the extraocular muscles actually create full body muscular responses to help guide movement. Practically speaking, what this means is that if your eyes are moved up, the small nerve endings in the extraocular muscles facilitate the extensor muscles of the body, creating a simultaneous inhibition of the flexor muscles. Conversely, the eyes down position will create flexor facilitation and extensor inhibition. Put simply, the eyes lead the body.Applied to the front squat, this means while doing the descent, the eyes look down to support leg flexion. When coming UP, keeping the head neutral, but eyes looking UP enhances the extension of the legs. Try it and see if that feels stronger, smoother, less effortful.
Sequencing What to Learn First There's a lot to take in for this simple move of going up and down with a kettlebell or two: bone ryhthmn, breathing, head position, eye movement. When learning these moves, where does one start? Well, again, drawing on ZHealth and its emphasis on efficiency, it puts it this way:
- Perfect Form - hitting the target - so in the kettlebell front squat for me this would be getting teh KB into the correct position and going down and up with bone rythmn. Picking a weight that lets me get in lots of reps or sets of reps to get form drilled in. One might also say head and eye position is part of this Perfect Form, and it complements bone rythmn.
- Dynamic Postural Alignment - in atheletic moves this does mean keeping tall/neutral spine throughout actions - resetting to neutral. In the front squat, as part of perfect form, this DPA is achieved with the head/eye position work.
- Synchronize Respiration - no. 3 in the cycle is breathing. In the front squat, this breathing practice becomes more important as weight goes up, to ensure proper stability of the trunk. So the take away here is: get the physical form perfected first, then, work in breathing.
- Balance Tension and Relaxation - in kettelbell practice tension and relaxation balance are constant themes. Intriguingly, in this sequence this is also a crucial relationship, but not a primary focus: it's fourth, after form, alignment, and breath. In the hardstyle kettlebell world that would mean that the move towards strength ("tension is strength" to quote Pavel) comes only AFTER the form.
Maybe we should switch the focus around a little bit. The above four steps provide a set of heuristics for a coach or individual to check in with in their own practice. Is bone ryhthm in the front squat locked in? What about head and eye position? if not why, not stay with a weight that will not compromise form (ie cause a lot of breathing requirements to lift the weight; cause a lot of tension to be called into play).
There's LOTS of work that can be done while getting right with that form (to
say nothing of the enduring value of bodyweight work). Indeed, something i've been trying in a Grease the Groove (GTG) kind of way, is just to do a lot of body weight front squats, focusing on feeling the rythmn and keeping my head/eyes position working. These reps can be done anytime/anywhere. And reps=habits, or the ability to execute a pattern without conscious thought. I want to be able to get in sufficient form reps to have as a base for the more challenging heavy work or longer sequences for strength/power work where breath/tension/relatxation become more critical.Indeed, as part of that work, and to complete the cycle from form to tension, Pavel comments: " On the "tall spine": make sure that the emphasis on the cue does not inhibit the lats and the diaphragm."
If you are practicing any of these components of the front squat, let me know how it's going. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Stand UP (or lie down) to work out
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Over at iamgeekfit, there's a wee piece on why just about any position besides seated is a good idea for working out - especially if you're concerned about your low back health.
Now you might say well rowing is seated, but back researcher stuart mcgill has an article that should be out soon on this point relative to spine work:
Indeed, the inspiration for the above post is McGill's work in the Ultimate Back Fitness book about the problems with being seated - for anything. What we may take from McGill's work on sitting=bad is that for resistance training and sports work, there are so many alternatives to sitting, that it begs the question, why *train* seated? There seem to be way more benefits overall to carrying out those military presses standing rather than seated; that chest press prone, rather than seated, that considering the issues with the posture, it's hard to defend.
And for any posture, if you have pain, please don't move into it. There are alternatives! may i recommend dynamic joint mobility work like zhealth?
Happy training! Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Now you might say well rowing is seated, but back researcher stuart mcgill has an article that should be out soon on this point relative to spine work:Fenwick, C.M.J., Brown, S.H.M., McGill, S.M. (accepted March 2008) Comparison of different rowing exercises: Trunk muscle activation, and lumbar spine motion, load and stiffness. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.And let's face it, rowing's most common complaint/injury is the lower back. Cycling too? Well most experts who work with cyclists/rowers may tell you the problems there are poor technique or overuse rather than something fundamental to the posture.
Indeed, the inspiration for the above post is McGill's work in the Ultimate Back Fitness book about the problems with being seated - for anything. What we may take from McGill's work on sitting=bad is that for resistance training and sports work, there are so many alternatives to sitting, that it begs the question, why *train* seated? There seem to be way more benefits overall to carrying out those military presses standing rather than seated; that chest press prone, rather than seated, that considering the issues with the posture, it's hard to defend.
And for any posture, if you have pain, please don't move into it. There are alternatives! may i recommend dynamic joint mobility work like zhealth?
Happy training! Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
