Sunday, December 7, 2008
Why "Fire the Lats" in a Kettlebell swing?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
When swinging a kettlebell in the RKC Hardstyle, you will regularly hear an RKC instructor say "fire the lats" as an aid to "pack the shoulder" or to keep the shoulder from flying out of its socket
(is Lance, pictured left, firing those lats?? aren't those shoulders a bit high?)
When i saw my first RKC and heard this, i had no idea what the above instruction meant or to feel whether or not i was achiving it. Much tough love was administered in an effort to trigger the phenomena.
At the RKC cert, lat firing was realized, along with many other refinements to the swing, such that i understood Pavel's idea of the swing firing down and INTO THE GROUND rather than out. The nirvana moment happened for me when i felt/got that with "lats fired" the kettlebell swing could barely reach chest height - the arms just did not go higher.
Didn't really think about the causes of that effect, but have tried since then to instill it as a heuristic in the folks i coach: when that big side muscle is working, the shoulders stay in the sockets and the arms just will not go more than chest height - individual variation will be a bit below (like me) or maybe a bit above (haven't seen that as much).
So why, you might ask, would the lats being ON have what i've called a "braking effect" on the apogee or top point of a swing?
We can go back to the pull up as a lat exercise to put this picture. As i wrote there:
So, the lat works on the shoulder, or in particular the shoulder joint, by its connection on the upper arm. Firing it will therefore brake the top arc of the swing, and maintain the shoulder control when the arm adducts or crosses slightly in front of the body to do two handed or one handed swings.
You can try this out yourself without a kettlebell. Lock your elbow and first start with your arm at your side, relaxed, and just try raising your arm by moving your arm in front of you and all the way up so your upper arm is close to your ear (if you can't get it to your ear we have another thing to talk about). Look at how great the arc is of that arm. from your side all the way up, like 180 degrees.
Now get your arm by your side and try flexing the muscles you feel along your sides. When you have that "grr" tight feel, now see how high you can raise your arm comfortably. Somewhere around 90 degrees, give or take?
In other words, and here's what at least to me seems so amazing, the muscle is not working within the shoulder to hold it back in its socket, but is actually using this mass of back muscle tied into the inside of the upper arm, to put a brake the arm action forward when it's flexed, and THAT the main action keeping the shoulder "packed" in the swing.
One more visualization: imagine someone tied a thick jump band to the inside of your arm, and held it going under your armpit and across your back. Initially when the band is relaxed, you can move your arm up in a full arc. If that person tightens that elastic up, that's going to limit the degree of the arc the arm can now be raised (this may also help reinforce why the lats are so big in pull ups: that lat muscle wants to get that arm down and back, in the direction of the muscle fiber).
SO the arm is kept from flying up (or out) of the socket with the help of the lats that both hold it back and limit its arc / range of motion when the muscle is flexed.
What is the shoulder socket or glenohumeral joint? If we talk about "packing the shoulder" in the swing, therefore, we are talking about a joint - the shoulder joint. A joint is where two bones come together to act as a lever. In the shoulder joint, the top of the upper arm bone or humerous, connects with the scapula, or shoulder blade.
The way the lat is connected to the upper arm, therefore, pretty literally, helps keep the arm in its socket.
It's not the only muscle acting on the shoulder joint. There are a bunch of muscles stabilizing the shoulder like the rotator cuff set, but beyond these stabilizers, there are three main actors on the shoulder: the delts, which take the arm to the sides, the pecs which helps bring the arm up (think bench press) or forward (baseball throw) and the lats.
In the swing, while the deltoids and pecs do some work, the major action on the shoulder is the lat. Remeber, the swing is not a pull (from the pec). The swing is carried forward on momentum from the hips. The lat acts first like a brace and then a brake, as said, to keep that momentum from throwing the arm out. This effect is reminiscent of the action of the hamstrings when sprinting: the hamstring acts as a brake so that the leg doesn't go flying out from all that quad power: it wants to pull that leg back down into extension.
The second action is bringing the bell down, keeping the shoulders packed with lats fired, lets one accelerate it beyond what gravity/momentum allows if the arms just come down with the descent of the swing. Pavel demonstrated this powerful pull down into the ground rather than way out in front at the cert using a super light (8K) bell, saying with the right form/muscle work, you should be able to get that power drive acting on any size bell you can swing - even tiny ones. The difference in feel is that the energy of the bell is coming down into the ground. As we practiced this over the cert weekend, many of us started to find ourselves being propelled backwards in our swings just at the end of the swing, showing heel skid marks in the sand.
Note: as RKC Randy Hauer points out, the down phase of the swing is initiated with the hips flexing (hinge at the hips). My point is that in the upper body part of this move, the flexed lats keep that move solid. Thanks for the clarification, Randy.
Putting the muscle together with the movement
By seeing how the lat is connected to the arm, and knowing that a flexed muscle means a muscle that is being shortened in the contraction, you can probably see how that muscle - again with all that muscle mass along the back of the lat working - is going to be able to support the transfer of power from the hips and out through the arms without the arms projectiling out of the shoulder. Likewise, keeping those lats fired and the arms stable while coming down with the bell insures the same protection coming down again, whether with gravity alone at 32m/s/s or overspeeding down.
Summary
By considering both how/where the lat is connected to the arm and how it operates on the shoulder joint has helped me understand why "firing the lats" supports excellent form in the swing, as doing so:
Bonus benefit to lat firing? Spine stabilization. Look at that lat images above: the lat's knit through so much of the spine, right into the butt, you get that working both sides, that spine is gonna be solid through the swing. ya ya, there are all the erectors and stuff in the lumbar spine too, and good thing, but look at that lat go! Thanks to Dev Chengkalath for reminding me that the lats connet to and affect the spine as well as the shoulder in the swing. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
When swinging a kettlebell in the RKC Hardstyle, you will regularly hear an RKC instructor say "fire the lats" as an aid to "pack the shoulder" or to keep the shoulder from flying out of its socket(is Lance, pictured left, firing those lats?? aren't those shoulders a bit high?)
When i saw my first RKC and heard this, i had no idea what the above instruction meant or to feel whether or not i was achiving it. Much tough love was administered in an effort to trigger the phenomena.
At the RKC cert, lat firing was realized, along with many other refinements to the swing, such that i understood Pavel's idea of the swing firing down and INTO THE GROUND rather than out. The nirvana moment happened for me when i felt/got that with "lats fired" the kettlebell swing could barely reach chest height - the arms just did not go higher.
Didn't really think about the causes of that effect, but have tried since then to instill it as a heuristic in the folks i coach: when that big side muscle is working, the shoulders stay in the sockets and the arms just will not go more than chest height - individual variation will be a bit below (like me) or maybe a bit above (haven't seen that as much).
So why, you might ask, would the lats being ON have what i've called a "braking effect" on the apogee or top point of a swing?
We can go back to the pull up as a lat exercise to put this picture. As i wrote there:
... [the Lats] enable the trunk to be pulled up via shoulder (or glenohumeral joint) extension. How does that work? The lat is like a big triangle of tough stretchy stuff that is nailed down along the spine from the middle of the back, just under the shoulder blade, right down into the butt at the sacrum. That's a lot of back. So the mid (or thoracic) spine is one point on the triangle; the sacrum (at the butt) is the second, and the third is in the arm, on the "medial side of the intertubercular groove of the humerus"
The lat connected in this way supports four movements of the shoulder joint: extension (movement of the humerus straight, posteriorly), bringing it across and in front of the body (adduction); internal rotation (putting your lower arm behind your back); bringing your arm up and around so that you can grab the opposite shoulder to the upraised arm (horizontal abduction).
So, the lat works on the shoulder, or in particular the shoulder joint, by its connection on the upper arm. Firing it will therefore brake the top arc of the swing, and maintain the shoulder control when the arm adducts or crosses slightly in front of the body to do two handed or one handed swings.You can try this out yourself without a kettlebell. Lock your elbow and first start with your arm at your side, relaxed, and just try raising your arm by moving your arm in front of you and all the way up so your upper arm is close to your ear (if you can't get it to your ear we have another thing to talk about). Look at how great the arc is of that arm. from your side all the way up, like 180 degrees.
Now get your arm by your side and try flexing the muscles you feel along your sides. When you have that "grr" tight feel, now see how high you can raise your arm comfortably. Somewhere around 90 degrees, give or take?
In other words, and here's what at least to me seems so amazing, the muscle is not working within the shoulder to hold it back in its socket, but is actually using this mass of back muscle tied into the inside of the upper arm, to put a brake the arm action forward when it's flexed, and THAT the main action keeping the shoulder "packed" in the swing.
One more visualization: imagine someone tied a thick jump band to the inside of your arm, and held it going under your armpit and across your back. Initially when the band is relaxed, you can move your arm up in a full arc. If that person tightens that elastic up, that's going to limit the degree of the arc the arm can now be raised (this may also help reinforce why the lats are so big in pull ups: that lat muscle wants to get that arm down and back, in the direction of the muscle fiber).
SO the arm is kept from flying up (or out) of the socket with the help of the lats that both hold it back and limit its arc / range of motion when the muscle is flexed.
What is the shoulder socket or glenohumeral joint? If we talk about "packing the shoulder" in the swing, therefore, we are talking about a joint - the shoulder joint. A joint is where two bones come together to act as a lever. In the shoulder joint, the top of the upper arm bone or humerous, connects with the scapula, or shoulder blade.
The way the lat is connected to the upper arm, therefore, pretty literally, helps keep the arm in its socket.
It's not the only muscle acting on the shoulder joint. There are a bunch of muscles stabilizing the shoulder like the rotator cuff set, but beyond these stabilizers, there are three main actors on the shoulder: the delts, which take the arm to the sides, the pecs which helps bring the arm up (think bench press) or forward (baseball throw) and the lats.
In the swing, while the deltoids and pecs do some work, the major action on the shoulder is the lat. Remeber, the swing is not a pull (from the pec). The swing is carried forward on momentum from the hips. The lat acts first like a brace and then a brake, as said, to keep that momentum from throwing the arm out. This effect is reminiscent of the action of the hamstrings when sprinting: the hamstring acts as a brake so that the leg doesn't go flying out from all that quad power: it wants to pull that leg back down into extension.
The second action is bringing the bell down, keeping the shoulders packed with lats fired, lets one accelerate it beyond what gravity/momentum allows if the arms just come down with the descent of the swing. Pavel demonstrated this powerful pull down into the ground rather than way out in front at the cert using a super light (8K) bell, saying with the right form/muscle work, you should be able to get that power drive acting on any size bell you can swing - even tiny ones. The difference in feel is that the energy of the bell is coming down into the ground. As we practiced this over the cert weekend, many of us started to find ourselves being propelled backwards in our swings just at the end of the swing, showing heel skid marks in the sand.
Note: as RKC Randy Hauer points out, the down phase of the swing is initiated with the hips flexing (hinge at the hips). My point is that in the upper body part of this move, the flexed lats keep that move solid. Thanks for the clarification, Randy.
Putting the muscle together with the movement
By seeing how the lat is connected to the arm, and knowing that a flexed muscle means a muscle that is being shortened in the contraction, you can probably see how that muscle - again with all that muscle mass along the back of the lat working - is going to be able to support the transfer of power from the hips and out through the arms without the arms projectiling out of the shoulder. Likewise, keeping those lats fired and the arms stable while coming down with the bell insures the same protection coming down again, whether with gravity alone at 32m/s/s or overspeeding down.
Summary
By considering both how/where the lat is connected to the arm and how it operates on the shoulder joint has helped me understand why "firing the lats" supports excellent form in the swing, as doing so:
- holds the arm into the shoulder joint socket (packs it in) and thus protects the shoulder during the momentum up of the swing
- acts to brake the upper motion of the swing for optimal moment of the down stroke
- supports that big in front of the body DOWN pull on the arms during that hip hinge down stroke of the swing
Bonus benefit to lat firing? Spine stabilization. Look at that lat images above: the lat's knit through so much of the spine, right into the butt, you get that working both sides, that spine is gonna be solid through the swing. ya ya, there are all the erectors and stuff in the lumbar spine too, and good thing, but look at that lat go! Thanks to Dev Chengkalath for reminding me that the lats connet to and affect the spine as well as the shoulder in the swing. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Friday, December 5, 2008
More On the Perfect Rep Quest: Volume + Integrated Cardio
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
I don't usually log my actual workouts here, but with growing interest in the perfect rep/strength development, thought it might be worth logging an experiment.
One of my current goals is to increase the size of the kettlebell i can press (i have dreams of the 24). Right now i'm pressing 3 of the 16 on the right and 1 of the 16 on the left.
The strategy:
So with the goal of getting in about 200 perfect rep presses a side, i set the timer for 15, pressing 5 on one/ 5 on the other. Recovery. During the recovery, i did 10 body weight perfect form DLs - this actually keeps the heart pumping without taxing the shoulders. Using the DL also lets me practice bone rhythm, breathing, head posture, eye movement in my DL. Every second used.
Now i confess, when i got to a scant 45 reps with the 12KB (8 sets of 5), i had to drop to the next size down (8KB) in order to maintain form. So yes i sacrificed pressing the weight to focus on form. But i did not care. The lighter bell at this rate/volume was still effortful while letting me get that pattern engrained.
I did two 15 min "zones" as Staley calls them. Total, 175 reps/arm (17 sets zone one; 20, zone 2).
What was fun: concentrating on the form. With KJ's approach i feel like i've been given permission to do these lighter weigths just to think about form.
Fringe Benefit? By adding in the fast BW DL's between pressing sets, the presses, amazingly, felt smoother - easier even. I wasn't expecting that.
Now whether and how these cycles will lead to strength is of course the other key part of this equation. But for today, this integrated resistance/vigorous cardio felt great, let me focus on form for TWO moves, and strength benefits promised to come. ya hoo.
The next day:
that many bodyweight DL's - am somewhat aware of my hamstrings today - but perhaps that DOMS effect of vigerous cardio is making it less intense than it would be otherwise? hmm.
Part Two of this series continues here: volume and the perfect rep: it seems to be working. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
One of my current goals is to increase the size of the kettlebell i can press (i have dreams of the 24). Right now i'm pressing 3 of the 16 on the right and 1 of the 16 on the left.
The strategy:
- try integrated cardio in strength work
- part 1: kenneth jay's High Volume/Low Volume, discussed here.
- part 2: integrating vigerous cardio between sets, as per Davis, discussed here.
- part 3: using Timed sets rather than absolute numbers of sets, a la Charles Staley's EDT. If you're not familiar with EDT, there's some great articles on t-nation. here's one.
So with the goal of getting in about 200 perfect rep presses a side, i set the timer for 15, pressing 5 on one/ 5 on the other. Recovery. During the recovery, i did 10 body weight perfect form DLs - this actually keeps the heart pumping without taxing the shoulders. Using the DL also lets me practice bone rhythm, breathing, head posture, eye movement in my DL. Every second used.Now i confess, when i got to a scant 45 reps with the 12KB (8 sets of 5), i had to drop to the next size down (8KB) in order to maintain form. So yes i sacrificed pressing the weight to focus on form. But i did not care. The lighter bell at this rate/volume was still effortful while letting me get that pattern engrained.
I did two 15 min "zones" as Staley calls them. Total, 175 reps/arm (17 sets zone one; 20, zone 2).
What was fun: concentrating on the form. With KJ's approach i feel like i've been given permission to do these lighter weigths just to think about form.
Fringe Benefit? By adding in the fast BW DL's between pressing sets, the presses, amazingly, felt smoother - easier even. I wasn't expecting that.
Now whether and how these cycles will lead to strength is of course the other key part of this equation. But for today, this integrated resistance/vigorous cardio felt great, let me focus on form for TWO moves, and strength benefits promised to come. ya hoo.
The next day:
that many bodyweight DL's - am somewhat aware of my hamstrings today - but perhaps that DOMS effect of vigerous cardio is making it less intense than it would be otherwise? hmm.
Part Two of this series continues here: volume and the perfect rep: it seems to be working. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Perfect Rep - and the role of volume with form.
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
This post is a reflection on one aspect that contributes to the experience of the perfect rep: high volume. It's only one part, but i'd like to unpack a bit of why that part, at least for myself, and a rather new understanding of "volume" is becoming such a key part of "perfect."
One of the first things that struck me in reading Pavel's work like Enter the
Kettlebell is the emphasis on "the perfect rep." Don't go to failure; don't do so many reps that form goes to hell. Stay fresh. Make every rep perfect.
But what is the "perfect rep"? And how do we know if we have one?
This may not be your experience, but i've interpreted this "perfect rep" thing as getting the form right mechanically, and executing with the correct weight for the correct sets and moving on, eg doing the ladders for ETK's ROP. Upon reflection, though, that progression doesn't sound much like an experience of "perfection," does it? Sure one feels good after doing the workouts, and yes progress most emphatically occurs. But is it "perfection?" And why is experiencing perfection so important? would i know it if i did encounter it?
Some time ago i wrote about how seeing Will Williams doing the kettlebell front squat - in particular the breathing to go with that move - stopped me in my tracks as seeming effortless and perfect. I'd described it as what i'd understood art to be about, when a move goes from the mechanistic to the graceful.
The parts of perfection. Last week or so, looking at the kettlebell front squat, i came back to the front squat, going over how zhealth breaks down the concept of efficient movement into four parts that seems to be a recipe for the perfect rep:
What's been hitting me of late as a key feature of even getting into step one - hitting the target/perfect form - is volume by repetition. In other words, tons of reps. Which means lighter weights.
What's a Rep, really? Generally speaking, i've thought of reps as simply reps within a set, and that volume is just whatever you get from the total reps x mass for a particular workout. Increasing reps, especially when focusing on strength, has seemed just the wrong way to think about it, too: loads of reps is endurance strength, not power strength, heh we want POWER to PRESS. And it seems many protocols for strength reinforce this. For instance, in Charles Staley's excellent Escalating Density Training, in your 15 min. blocks, once you get 70reps inside a set, pretty much time to up the weight. What more is there to volume than that? Over the weekend, talking with Suleiman Al-Sabah about our mutual pressing goals, Al encouraged me again to think about doing "lots of reps" and reminded me of Kenneth Jay's part of the RKC manual on building strength. So i went to have a bit of a re-read.
The rationale for volume by rep: Kenneth talks about the need to do lots and lots of reps at a weight that can be readily sustained for lots and lots of reps to build up the neurological patterns of what that move is. The caveat to this volume, of course, is that you have to know what the correct form is to be repeated. See that RKC instructor.
Assuming that instruction has taken place, the rationale here for upping volume as half the strategy to strength is that this repetition neurologically groves the pattern of performance for building up the weight. To this end, Kenneth has Low Volume and High Volume days: lost of reps at lighter weight for grooving the pattern vs fewer (perfect) reps at higher weights to develop load.
Patterning is important. I've been focusing on the importance of patterning within z health practice - in terms of healing movement patterns, and taking those patterns from the level of conscious effort to unconscious habit. Over the weekend, i'd decided to focus just on my suitcase dead-lift form with KB's, using the EDT 15 min approach: the sDL's for the first exercise; floor presses for the second. For the sDL's I used a weight about half of what i usually use for such sets, just to focus on rep quality. The main points of concern, like that front squat for hitting the target meant correct head and eye position throughout the move, correct knee position, correct hip hinge, correct butt backness, and doing all this with bone ryhthmn. That's a lot to do. The cool thing that happened was that when everything was firing together, the rep simply felt better: more effective, more efficient, like all the parts working as one thing rather than as a bunch of joints and muscles trying to achieve something. Sadly by the time i was actually finished the 15 mins, and the sets of 5 reps were starting to really connect, (a) the time was up but (b) i was just starting to feel fatigued. Good time to stop, right? And keen desire to do it again. Oh, and i felt that workout the next day, too.
It's funny how when you need to hear something, you keep hearing it over and over, eh? At least i find this. It's like the opposite of a nightmare where you keep having the same monster, only bigger, until you stop turn around and look at the monster and say "can i help you?"
An Example of Rep Volume in Action. The Sneaky sneaky Way of the RKC. It was in the afternoon, after this morning workout, that i had the meet with Al and his recommendation of "lots of reps" and a reread of Kenneth Jay. And in rereading that section, i recollected one of the most profound experiences of the RKC cert: connecting with the swing. Indeed, i had a revelation of what the hardstyle swing form was, compared to how i'd interpreted and executed previous instruction. I felt i *got it* from "firing the lats" to getting the energy down into the ground. it was ah ha, ah ha, ah ha. I left the cert feeling pretty good about that swing, and could hardly wait to share these refinements with others.
How did that happen? Repeated instruction i'd thought and such attention on form over several days, but - i see it all now - the other key ingredient: lots and lost of reps. LOTS. Sneaky sneaky. Every 20mins over three days a timer went off and we were doing swings. And those were just the regularly scheduled ones. Any opportunity for pause was filled with swings, using a bell weight that enabled a perfect rep from first to last. So combine that volume with constant supervision to tweak and correct form, yes we'd better leave with a dang good sense of the swing. The other day i was quietly delighted when i was demo'ing a swing, the trainee laughed. I asked why. He said "well it's so right - the swing - that's what it's supposed to look like." With the instruction, it's the reps, isn't it.
Putting it together: More Reps Are Alright, Jack.
It's taken me till today to put it together that it's just this type of volume with focus on form that, ya, does embed the move in the body. And more, it does provide the basis for increasing the load, just as KJ and Pavel have said. As proof positive, half way through the cert, with the encouragement of team assistant instructor Lynda Angeles, i was double swinging 24s with proper form. That effort with that load would not have been possible - it was certainly not imaginable - prior to this halfway point in the three days of swings marvelous swings.
The take away at least for this first step towards a perfect rep, of Hitting the Target, is indeed doing what it takes to get in the volume of reps. This is not using a sissy weight. Pavel would not have let us get away with this during the RKC, but as KJ says in the RKC manual talking about presses: using a weight you can do for 5-15 reps, and if you're doing 15 reps, your high volume day better be 200/side.
I used to think of light days as just a way to keep effort alive and not burn out from higher work volume. Ho hum. I now find myself energized and looking forward to these high volume lighter weight days as an opportunity to have that form *click* in those moves where i've had instruction, and can monitor myself to feel that connection.
Hope if you've had questions about the role of volume of reps, these reflections might help you too experience where the path to the perfect rep, after instruction and knowledge of proper form, is aided immensely by rep volume.
Note: do look at Mike's comments below on fascial adaptation - and the recommendation to change up trunk positions for HIGH volume (thanks Mike).
Book Plug: Kenneth Jay in the New Year.
Now if you don't have an RKC certification manual to read up on Kenneth's approach to the press, fear not. A book is coming in the new year to focus says Kenneth on, perhaps not surprisingly, the perfection of the press, the pistol and the pull up. In the meantime, happy repping.
update: the quest for the perfect strength rep through volume continues, charting the course here. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
One of the first things that struck me in reading Pavel's work like Enter the
Kettlebell is the emphasis on "the perfect rep." Don't go to failure; don't do so many reps that form goes to hell. Stay fresh. Make every rep perfect.But what is the "perfect rep"? And how do we know if we have one?
This may not be your experience, but i've interpreted this "perfect rep" thing as getting the form right mechanically, and executing with the correct weight for the correct sets and moving on, eg doing the ladders for ETK's ROP. Upon reflection, though, that progression doesn't sound much like an experience of "perfection," does it? Sure one feels good after doing the workouts, and yes progress most emphatically occurs. But is it "perfection?" And why is experiencing perfection so important? would i know it if i did encounter it?
Some time ago i wrote about how seeing Will Williams doing the kettlebell front squat - in particular the breathing to go with that move - stopped me in my tracks as seeming effortless and perfect. I'd described it as what i'd understood art to be about, when a move goes from the mechanistic to the graceful.
The parts of perfection. Last week or so, looking at the kettlebell front squat, i came back to the front squat, going over how zhealth breaks down the concept of efficient movement into four parts that seems to be a recipe for the perfect rep:
- perfect form - hitting the target
- dynamic postural alignment.
- synchronized respiration
- balance tension and relaxation
What's been hitting me of late as a key feature of even getting into step one - hitting the target/perfect form - is volume by repetition. In other words, tons of reps. Which means lighter weights.
What's a Rep, really? Generally speaking, i've thought of reps as simply reps within a set, and that volume is just whatever you get from the total reps x mass for a particular workout. Increasing reps, especially when focusing on strength, has seemed just the wrong way to think about it, too: loads of reps is endurance strength, not power strength, heh we want POWER to PRESS. And it seems many protocols for strength reinforce this. For instance, in Charles Staley's excellent Escalating Density Training, in your 15 min. blocks, once you get 70reps inside a set, pretty much time to up the weight. What more is there to volume than that? Over the weekend, talking with Suleiman Al-Sabah about our mutual pressing goals, Al encouraged me again to think about doing "lots of reps" and reminded me of Kenneth Jay's part of the RKC manual on building strength. So i went to have a bit of a re-read.
The rationale for volume by rep: Kenneth talks about the need to do lots and lots of reps at a weight that can be readily sustained for lots and lots of reps to build up the neurological patterns of what that move is. The caveat to this volume, of course, is that you have to know what the correct form is to be repeated. See that RKC instructor.
Assuming that instruction has taken place, the rationale here for upping volume as half the strategy to strength is that this repetition neurologically groves the pattern of performance for building up the weight. To this end, Kenneth has Low Volume and High Volume days: lost of reps at lighter weight for grooving the pattern vs fewer (perfect) reps at higher weights to develop load.
Patterning is important. I've been focusing on the importance of patterning within z health practice - in terms of healing movement patterns, and taking those patterns from the level of conscious effort to unconscious habit. Over the weekend, i'd decided to focus just on my suitcase dead-lift form with KB's, using the EDT 15 min approach: the sDL's for the first exercise; floor presses for the second. For the sDL's I used a weight about half of what i usually use for such sets, just to focus on rep quality. The main points of concern, like that front squat for hitting the target meant correct head and eye position throughout the move, correct knee position, correct hip hinge, correct butt backness, and doing all this with bone ryhthmn. That's a lot to do. The cool thing that happened was that when everything was firing together, the rep simply felt better: more effective, more efficient, like all the parts working as one thing rather than as a bunch of joints and muscles trying to achieve something. Sadly by the time i was actually finished the 15 mins, and the sets of 5 reps were starting to really connect, (a) the time was up but (b) i was just starting to feel fatigued. Good time to stop, right? And keen desire to do it again. Oh, and i felt that workout the next day, too.
It's funny how when you need to hear something, you keep hearing it over and over, eh? At least i find this. It's like the opposite of a nightmare where you keep having the same monster, only bigger, until you stop turn around and look at the monster and say "can i help you?"
An Example of Rep Volume in Action. The Sneaky sneaky Way of the RKC. It was in the afternoon, after this morning workout, that i had the meet with Al and his recommendation of "lots of reps" and a reread of Kenneth Jay. And in rereading that section, i recollected one of the most profound experiences of the RKC cert: connecting with the swing. Indeed, i had a revelation of what the hardstyle swing form was, compared to how i'd interpreted and executed previous instruction. I felt i *got it* from "firing the lats" to getting the energy down into the ground. it was ah ha, ah ha, ah ha. I left the cert feeling pretty good about that swing, and could hardly wait to share these refinements with others.
How did that happen? Repeated instruction i'd thought and such attention on form over several days, but - i see it all now - the other key ingredient: lots and lost of reps. LOTS. Sneaky sneaky. Every 20mins over three days a timer went off and we were doing swings. And those were just the regularly scheduled ones. Any opportunity for pause was filled with swings, using a bell weight that enabled a perfect rep from first to last. So combine that volume with constant supervision to tweak and correct form, yes we'd better leave with a dang good sense of the swing. The other day i was quietly delighted when i was demo'ing a swing, the trainee laughed. I asked why. He said "well it's so right - the swing - that's what it's supposed to look like." With the instruction, it's the reps, isn't it.
Putting it together: More Reps Are Alright, Jack.
It's taken me till today to put it together that it's just this type of volume with focus on form that, ya, does embed the move in the body. And more, it does provide the basis for increasing the load, just as KJ and Pavel have said. As proof positive, half way through the cert, with the encouragement of team assistant instructor Lynda Angeles, i was double swinging 24s with proper form. That effort with that load would not have been possible - it was certainly not imaginable - prior to this halfway point in the three days of swings marvelous swings.
The take away at least for this first step towards a perfect rep, of Hitting the Target, is indeed doing what it takes to get in the volume of reps. This is not using a sissy weight. Pavel would not have let us get away with this during the RKC, but as KJ says in the RKC manual talking about presses: using a weight you can do for 5-15 reps, and if you're doing 15 reps, your high volume day better be 200/side.
I used to think of light days as just a way to keep effort alive and not burn out from higher work volume. Ho hum. I now find myself energized and looking forward to these high volume lighter weight days as an opportunity to have that form *click* in those moves where i've had instruction, and can monitor myself to feel that connection.
Hope if you've had questions about the role of volume of reps, these reflections might help you too experience where the path to the perfect rep, after instruction and knowledge of proper form, is aided immensely by rep volume.
Note: do look at Mike's comments below on fascial adaptation - and the recommendation to change up trunk positions for HIGH volume (thanks Mike).
Book Plug: Kenneth Jay in the New Year. Now if you don't have an RKC certification manual to read up on Kenneth's approach to the press, fear not. A book is coming in the new year to focus says Kenneth on, perhaps not surprisingly, the perfection of the press, the pistol and the pull up. In the meantime, happy repping.
update: the quest for the perfect strength rep through volume continues, charting the course here. 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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
