Kettlebell Workouts... do they really burn more?
Theoretically, a kettlebell workout could burn more calories than a
standard workout. Given the majority of kettlebell workouts incorporate
full-body exercises (swings, cleans, snatches) with periods of higher
intensity exercise, the potential to burn more calories exists in the
same time frame when compared to a standard barbell or dumbbell workout.
HOWEVER, if one were to perform barbell complexes or super / giant sets
with minimal rest, a similar training effect could occur. An ACE Study
showed an equivalent calorie burn to a 6 minute mile
(http://prn.to/1eC0hOR).
As a training tool, especially for somebody that needs to develop
muscular endurance or that wants to have the body composition benefits
as well as cardiovascular benefits, performing kettlebell workouts are a
great addition to your training program.
Does it matter, weight versus reps, if enough muscle fiber is engaged?
Like all other answers for training questions, it depends on the goal.
Quick science, there are 3 types of muscle fibers (Type I, Type IIa,
Type IIb) that are trained during our workouts. Type I fibers are the
slow twitch, or endurance fibers. Type IIa fibers are a "hybrid" fiber
that can demonstrate both slow twitch and fast twitch properties. Type
IIb are fast twitch and prone to fatigue quickly.
One of the first principles of training explained to me was simple, "the
body will only use as many muscle fibers as it needs to." Sounds simple
enough, right? The second was "a muscle is either on or off." The body
uses the smallest fibers first (that's Type I) before moving to larger
fibers. So when we lift a weight, the body does just enough to lift the
weight, whether it's 1 rep or 20 reps. This creates the dilemma about
weight versus reps and maximal muscle engagement. Old school convention
says heavier weight is the only way for more muscle engagement. However,
our fast twitch fibers exhaust quickly, which means training with heavy
weights for higher reps isn't possible, which provides little training
stimulus for the Type I fibers.
So can we get recruit our largest fibers (Type IIb) along with the Type
IIa and Type I fibers? Thankfully, somebody with far more knowledge
confirms my belief that we can. Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli, of the Human
Performance Laboratory at Adelphi University did an exhaustive review of
the scientific literature regarding muscle fibers and weight and
reported his findings in the Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness,
volume 6, number 2, 2008. One of his main points discussed that effort
of action is the key factor in determining the number of muscle fibers
recruited. Carpinelli's conclusion was simple, whether it was a 5, 10,
or 20 rep max, the most important factor in maximal muscle recruitment
is being at "maximal-or near maximal-effort" at the end of each set.
And back to the "it depends" part of my answer. If I am training for a
competition, whether it's weightlifting, powerlifting, rowing, or
cycling, it will be more beneficial to train in a way that mimics your
event. On the other hand, if training to be healthier. I would recommend
a variety of weight and rep schemes following the principle of near
maximal effort at the end of each set.
Follow up from last month: I've been reading "periodization training for
sports". In reading about the maximum strength phase it suggests that
the maximum load method should not be used before a minimum of 2 years
of general strength training. Of the ms methods reviewed this seems like
the only one accessible to me. How hard and fast is this rule? Is there
another alternate maximum strength method I can use in the interim? I've
only been lifting for about six months and during that time only in a
somewhat body building style. Finally the edition of this book I have is
from 2005. Is it totally outdated?
The 2005 edition is the 2nd edition of the book, so while some parts may
have been updated, I don't believe the book could be considered
"outdated."
Here's where I disagree and my experience working with youth and new-
to-training athletes effects my perspective. I don't believe you need to
train for 2 years in general strength before attacking maximum strength.
While I do believe there is a prerequisite level of experience and
conditioning to be met, I don't believe it has to take 2 years. Training maximal strength takes a toll on the body and developing a solid base is key to avoid preventable injuries that come from jumping in too fast.
The NSCA Periodization model (http://bit.ly/1FoaFZx) also contains the
same basic cycles. A deeper explanation of the block methodology can be found on
EliteFTS (http://bit.ly/1ChzyRP) with Jeremy Frey's videos. While there
is a lot of information directly related to powerlifting, it is easily
applied to multiple disciplines. And here's another link to explore
(http://bit.ly/1HpvOCq) about maximal strength training through
periodization.
I honestly believe if you have a high enough level of GPP you can do
block periodization. If you feel you need more GPP, I recommend training
at least 6 weeks with the focus purely on GPP. So that begs the
question, what is "enough"? For each person it is different and there
are millions of opinions. For me, GPP is being able to complete an
entire workout without needing 10 minute rest periods on non-ME days or
being able to run a sub-10 minute mile or sprint and change direction
like playing a sport. For others it may be different, like running 6
minute miles or swimming 500m, or performing 100 kb swings, unbroken.
