Article on Kettlebell Swing instead of traditional "cardio"

[Steve Frei]

This article by me was recently added to the DragonDoor site,
which hosts many good articles, all of them free. (As a former
runner and someone who sometimes replies to things
cross-posted to both the weight lifting newsgroups and
rec.running, I'm posting this to rec.running as well.)

http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/412/?kbid=1022

-S- http://www.kbnj.com

[Elflord]

On 2007-02-09, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com>
wrote:
> This article by me was recently added to the DragonDoor
> site, which hosts many good articles, all of them free. (As
> a former runner and someone who sometimes replies to things
> cross-posted to both the weight lifting newsgroups and
> rec.running, I'm posting this to rec.running as well.)
>
> http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/412/?kbid=1022

It seems odd to post this to a running group since it doesn't
have anything to do with running.

I don't buy that this provides "the same" benefits as exercise
like running in any sense. You haven't shown that at all.
"Health benefits" are hard to measure, and I'm not sure what a
low RHR proves -- but I know that I can run quite a bit faster
than you with a much higher RHR.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

[Steve Frei]

"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnespl55.ju6.abuse@panix3.panix.com...
> On 2007-02-09, Steve Freides
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> This article by me was recently added to the DragonDoor
>> site, which hosts many good articles, all of them free. (As
>> a former runner and someone who sometimes replies to things
>> cross-posted to both the weight lifting newsgroups and
>> rec.running, I'm posting this to rec.running as well.)
>>
>> http://www.dragondoor.com/articler/mode3/412/?kbid=1022
>
> It seems odd to post this to a running group since it
> doesn't have anything to do with running.

It has to do with other ways to achieve some of the same
health and fitness goals some people are trying to achieve by
running. The running boom of a few decades ago didn't start
because people all of a sudden wanted to cross their local 5k
finish lines faster but because they wanted to be, overall, in
better health.

> I don't buy that this provides "the same" benefits as
> exercise like running in any sense. You haven't shown that
> at all. "Health benefits" are hard to measure, and I'm not
> sure what a low RHR proves

Yes, health benefits are hard to measure. I have offered
one measure of health but I did not claim it is
universally useful; nothing is. Still, resting heart rate
is an often-cited figure, at least in my reading, as a
measure of fitness.

> -- but I know that I can run quite a bit faster than you
> with a much higher RHR.

No doubt but that's not the point. I train primarily for
strength now and there are people who can deadlift more than I
can, too, and if I still ran regularly, no doubt my 5k time
would be faster than it is now.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car.

Sport-specific training is, by definition, specific, and
general fitness is, by definition, general. You are interested
in running fast. I am interested in being strong because it
helps tremendously with my bad back in a way running never
did. Many people are, however, interested in neither, only the
elusive "get into some kind of shape" and many of those people
run regularly and read rec.running. I hope to have given them,
not you, something new to think about.

Cheers to you, too.

-S- http://www.kbnj.com

> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord

[Kaz Kylhek]

On Feb 9, 8:18 pm, "Steve Freides"
<s...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> If, e.g., someone posted an article on a weight lifting
> newsgroup specifically about ways to achieve some of what
> weightlifting does for people but without lifting
> weights, no one would say it's off-topic, and a
> discussion would follow.

In ironic reality, this is exactly the opposite of what
happens in misc.fitness.weights whenever Steve posts yet again
about his kettlebull.

Fact is, nobody cares about kettlebells because normal
dumbbells work just fine.

Changing to a differently shaped weight won't do anything. If
you aren't making progress in resistance training, it's
because of incorrect training, poor diet, or a bad attitude
in general.

In principle, /anything/ which is convenient to handle and
has enough mass for 6 to 12 reps of lifting can be used to
build strength.

The reason that symmetric dummbells, which consist of a pair
of equal weights attached to the ends of a bar, are
immensely popular is because that's the best design for an
exercise weight. It allows the object to be gripped
precisely around its center of mass, which allows for the
best handling with minimal stray inertial or gravitational
moments about the center.

People are going to continue to build great physiques with
these weights without ever coming near a kettlebell. There
will, of course, always be the unsuccessful types who are
willing to try every gimmick other than hard work and the
correct approach.

I run, and I lift normal weights, with rational success.

I don't want want to read about weightlifting in rec.running,
nor about running in a weight lifting newsgroup, nor about
bicycles in an automotive newsgroup, etc.

People who /do/ want to read about bicycles in an automotive
newsgroup are not should instead learn how to use the topics
of newsgroups to find a bicycle newsgroup. It's not okay to
simply postulate that such people exist, and then try to
address them by means of the automotive newsgroup.

[Barry]

"Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171083022.254292.163260@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 8:18 pm, "Steve Freides"
> <s...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> If, e.g., someone posted an article on a weight lifting
>> newsgroup specifically about ways to achieve some of what
>> weightlifting does for people but without lifting weights,
>> no one would say it's off-topic, and a discussion would
>> follow.

People don't want to hear your stupid opinion about someone
else's opinion either.

[Kaz Kylhek]

On Feb 10, 9:56 am, "Barry" <Barr...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
> anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the
> early 90's in this group.

The primary message I'm getting here is that after some 15
years of Usenet experience, you still reply to cross-posted
threads thinking they are in ``this'' newsgroup.

[Andrzej Ro]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia
2007-02-09 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2007-02-09, Steve Freides
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>> It has to do with other ways to achieve some of the same
>> health and fitness goals some people are trying to achieve
>> by running. The running
>
> But you haven't demonstrated that it does this.
>
> I don't buy that swinging some weights around will do that
> much for aerobic fitness.
>
> And I don't think you've shown that the health benefits are
> "the same", or even commensurate.

Not so long ago I posted a link to a study which showed that
indeed weight lifting did provide some of the benefits of
traditional cardio. Both groups (cardio group and weights
group) achieved similar success in body recomposition (similar
decrease in body fat percentage) and both groups increased
their VO2max, hence Steve is simply right that some of the
benefits of cardio can be achieved by lifting heavy stuff.

I'll find a study again if you want to read it.

> [snip]
>> Yes, health benefits are hard to measure. I have offered
>> one measure of health but I did not claim it is universally
>> useful; nothing is. Still, resting heart rate is an
>> often-cited figure, at least in my reading, as a measure of
>> fitness.
>
> It's not a very good one. Aerobic fitness is multi
> factorial. RHR is a very coarse indicator of one of many
> factors. I don't buy that all of those factors (two
> examples would be changes in mitochondria, and plasma
> volume but there are more) are responsive to swinging heavy
> stuff around.

If weight lifting can improve your heart health, improve your
body fat percentage and improve your VO2max, the question is
"Who cares about mitohondria?!".

> [snip]
>> Sport-specific training is, by definition, specific, and
>> general fitness is, by definition, general.
>
> But you're not going to get "general endurance" by doing
> "general strength" training.

Why not?

>> You are interested in running fast. I am interested in
>> being strong because it helps tremendously with my bad back
>> in a way running never did. Many people are, however,
>> interested in neither, only the elusive "get into some kind
>> of shape" and
>
> There are a lot of ways to "get into some kind of shape",
> because there are a lot of different things "get into some
> kind of shape" can mean. Take a pro bodybuilder, distance
> runner, olympic lifter, shot putter, gymnast, high jumper,
> and a swimmer. All are in "some kind of shape", but in very
> different ways.
>
> So I can say with some certainty that swinging those things
> around *will* get one into "some kind of shape". To say that
> it provides similar or commensurate results with an
> endurance regimen is misleading though.

Only if someone does care about mitohondria and plasma volume.
Most people just want to look and feel better and for all of
them it may not matter a one iota.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

[Andrzej Ro]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia
2007-02-10 I2Run napisa³(a):
>
> "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnesq1e3.2nj.abuse@panix3.panix.com...
>| I don't buy that swinging some weights around will do that
>| much for
> aerobic
>| fitness.
>|
>| And I don't think you've shown that the health benefits are
>| "the same", or even commensurate.
>
> I am 100% with Donovan on this. These balls are a modified
> version of dumbbells.

Rather the other way around.

> If anything, swinging them hard would mess up your joints.

It may, if you'll do it in a wrong or stupid way. Otherwise
they should make your joints stronger. How about injury rates
among endurance athletes? I did this stuff twice in my life
and ended up "messing with my joints" both times.

> One way of getting aerobic workout is using

You got it wrong. Lifting weights is not aerobic workout. It's
definitely anaerobic workout. It simply works fine if someone
wants to become a slimmer and fitter version of himself.

> light free weights and 100's of repetitions per set. I had
> been on that path for many years before started running. Any
> kind of aerobic fitness I got from doing weights is
> negligible compared to running or even hiking.

Sure. If you want aerobic endurance, you need aerobic
workouts. If you want to be slimmer and fitter, you have a
choice though.

> The weights do have their purpose, strength training.

Let's add fat loss, bone density, posture correction, joint
and tendon health, body recomposition and heart illness
prevention and we have a chance of mentioning at least some of
possible reasons why one would want to do resistance training.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

[Andrzej Ro]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia
2007-02-10 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>> "Similar?" Perhaps yes but I'm willing to agree to "no"
>> here, although I will argue "better" for my program.
>
> If you're coming here to tell us we should quit running and
> swing balls around instead, then in my opinion, you are
> trolling

I believe that he's telling you, that if you run for the sake
of your heart health, you can "get there" by swinging balls
around too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

[Elflord]

On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com>
wrote:

> You are still missing the point because you are making one
> flawed assumption, namely that I am addressing _you_. I am
> addressing the entire newsgroup, which consists of both
> those who post and those who

For example, it includes me.

But OK, I know what you mean -- you mentioned that anyone who
runs more than 20 minutes 3x/week is not just in it "for
health reasons". If you were more attentive, you'd realise
that even our beginner posters are logging more than that.

So I'm not quite sure who you're addressing -- because your
post does not speak to a substantial number of the posters who
are for the most part training for marathons. Perhaps you
presume that there is some invisible army of lurkers who find
you interesting (remeniscent of "the lurkers song" if you
remember that).

I can't prove that they *don't* exist -- but I know that the
people who do post here are not even slightly interested in
quitting running and swinging balls around.

[snip]
> Last but not least, rec.running and most other newsgroups
> are unmoderated and some deviation from the group's titular
> subject is certainly well within reason.

Perhaps if you had a better understanding of the generally
accepted etiqutte, your posts would be more well received.
Different groups have different levels of tolerance. But
even in misc.fitness.weights, which is very permissive, you
drew a fairly hostile reception. It's not just about
topicality, it's about appropriateness of conduct. There are
two issues here: one is that, as I said, going into a group
about (X) and telling them to quit (X) for (Y) is generally
considered trolling. Let me fill out the template to help
illustrate my point:

java advocacy in comp.lang.c++ is trolling advocating for
chiropractors in a physiotherapy professionals forum is
trolling advocating christianity in a dharma discussion forum
is trolling going to a bible study meeting to promote islam is
trolling giving out bibles in a mosque is trolling (and a bit
dangerous, at least where I live)

The other aspect of this, and what made you unpopular in mfw,
is that your posts are received as self-promoting.

> If, e.g., someone posted an article on a weight lifting
> newsgroup specifically about ways to achieve some of what
> weightlifting does for people but without lifting weights,
> no one would say it's off-topic,

I hope I've explained why your posts are considered violations
of etiquette whereas these other posts might not be. It's
ultimately not for me or you to decide whether your posts are
violating the local etiquette -- that is up to the readers to
decide. And I believe that they have.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

[Barry]

"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnesrtoa.bo8.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>
> I hope I've explained why your posts are considered
> violations of etiquette whereas these other posts might not
> be. It's ultimately not for me or you to decide whether your
> posts are violating the local etiquette -- that is up to the
> readers to decide. And I believe that they have.

His posts aren't a violation of etiquette at all. Hell, even
Doug's periodic love obsession of Dubya isn't met with the
anal retentive vitriol that Steve's ball swinging is by you.
You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the early
90's in this group.

>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord

[Steve Frei]

"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnesrtoa.bo8.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>> You are still missing the point because you are making one
>> flawed assumption, namely that I am addressing _you_. I am
>> addressing the entire newsgroup, which consists of both
>> those who post and those who
>
> For example, it includes me.
>
> But OK, I know what you mean -- you mentioned that anyone
> who runs more than 20 minutes 3x/week is not just in it "for
> health reasons". If you were more attentive, you'd realise
> that even our beginner posters are logging more than that.
>
> So I'm not quite sure who you're addressing -- because your
> post does not speak to a substantial number of the posters
> who are for the most part training for marathons. Perhaps
> you presume that there is some invisible army of lurkers who
> find you interesting (remeniscent of "the lurkers song" if
> you remember that).

Yes, that is about what I have said. But let me clarify one
point - I don't assume anyone finds what I have to say
interesting. I say what I do where and when I do because I
hope to contribute something to someone's knowledge and
therefore to their choices. If I choose to post a message that
might only be of "interest" to 10 people out of 1000, that is
my right. You are not my keeper.

> I can't prove that they *don't* exist -- but I know that the
> people who do post here are not even slightly interested in
> quitting running and swinging balls around.

You do not know who reads the newsgroups, and while you have
the right to make assumptions, your assumptions are not more
valide than mine. There is ample evidence to support my
contention that, in general, many more people read electronic
forums than participate in them.

> [snip]
>> Last but not least, rec.running and most other newsgroups
>> are unmoderated and some deviation from the group's titular
>> subject is certainly well within reason.
>
> Perhaps if you had a better understanding of the generally
> accepted etiqutte, your posts would be more well received.
> Different groups have different levels of tolerance.

Your personal level of tolerance, I confess, is not of much
interest to
me. You have no right to speak for rec.running.

> But even in misc.fitness.weights, which is very permissive,
> you drew a fairly hostile reception. It's not just about
> topicality, it's about appropriateness of conduct. There are
> two issues here: one is that, as I said, going into a group
> about (X) and telling them to quit (X) for (Y) is generally
> considered trolling. Let me fill out the template to help
> illustrate my point:

I do not care if you, or some people in mfw, do not like what
I have to say. It is a public, not private, forum, and this is
not a popularity contest . If you don't like that, look
elsewhere for your conversation about running. There are
plenty of moderated forums on the Internet. Usenet is not such
a place, and rec.running is a part of Usenet, as is mfw.

You are again putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I
suggested that anyone quit running in favor of swinging a
kettlebell. If you or anyone else wishes to run, be my guest.
You seem passionately opposed to someone suggesting an
alternative, however, and I am glad to stand at odds with you
on that score.

> java advocacy in comp.lang.c++ is trolling advocating for
> chiropractors in a physiotherapy professionals forum is
> trolling advocating christianity in a dharma discussion
> forum is trolling going to a bible study meeting to promote
> islam is trolling giving out bibles in a mosque is trolling
> (and a bit dangerous, at least where I live)
>
> The other aspect of this, and what made you unpopular in
> mfw, is that your posts are received as self-promoting.
>
>> If, e.g., someone posted an article on a weight lifting
>> newsgroup specifically about ways to achieve some of what
>> weightlifting does for people but without lifting weights,
>> no one would say it's off-topic,
>
> I hope I've explained why your posts are considered
> violations of etiquette whereas these other posts might not
> be. It's ultimately not for me or you to decide whether your
> posts are violating the local etiquette -- that is up to the
> readers to decide. And I believe that they have.

Last time I looked, no one had appointed you police,
president, or otherwise in charge of enforcing your
interpretation of the rules on Usenet in general and
rec.running in particular. You are entitled to your opinion of
the ideas I suggested, which you have expressed, by why you
choose to go on and on about the rest of this is beyond me.

All you have done so far is try to twist a benign attempt to
suggest an alternative to what you do into something
malignant, which is what not and is not. I still run
occassionally, and I enjoy running when I do
mf. You will find me on the list of finishers at our local
5k because I run with one of my kids, and I have served
as a bicycle pacer for the wheelchair racers in the
local 10k for the last several years as well. I belong
to both the local running club and the local bicycling
club even though I do not train at either sport
regularly any longer because I want to lend my support,
even if that's just by paying my dues and being counted
on the membership roles, to these activities which I
believe to be very beneficial to most people. I used to
swim a mile or more three times per week, and now swim
once a week for about 10 minutes before my stint as a
volunteer swimming instructor at the local YMCA. I still
teach swimming because I feel that, like running and
bicycling, all exercise is better than sitting on the
couch. I do wish you would stop trying to portray me as
someone I'm not.

I happen to have found other things that work better for me as
a my regular way of staying in good shape and good health. If
you don't like that I post about that once in a while on
rec.running, and it is indeed rare that I post on rec.running
these days, then that's just your tough luck.

If you'd like to continue to waste everyone's bandwidth
on this now silly conversation, be my guest - the last
word is yours.

-S- http://www.kbnj.com

> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord

[Elflord]

On 2007-02-10, Barry <Barry41@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnesrtoa.bo8.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>> On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides
>> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I hope I've explained why your posts are considered
>> violations of etiquette whereas these other posts might not
>> be. It's ultimately not for me or you to decide whether
>> your posts are violating the local etiquette -- that is up
>> to the readers to decide. And I believe that they have.
>
> His posts aren't a violation of etiquette at all. Hell,
> even Doug's

Again, I refer you to my points regarding appropriateness of
advocacy. I'm sure you don't wander into mosques and hand
out bibles.

> periodic love obsession of Dubya

Topic drift is one thing, initiating off-topic, cross-posted
threads is another. It would be more analogous if Doug
initiated a political thread and cross posted it to
alt.politics, *and* did so to promote a political blog. I
would suppose that this would probably be met with similar
reactions to Steve's posts.

> isn't met with the anal retentive vitriol

Ironic, as I don't make it personal, whereas you often do.

> that Steve's ball swinging is by you.

Steve's ball swinging is met by much less friendly reactions
than mine, both here and even more so in misc.fitness.weights

> You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
> anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the
> early 90's in this group.

As I argued before, I simply don't buy the view that
advocacy of quitting running is appropriate material in a
forum for runners.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

[Barry]

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message >
> I happen to have found other things that work better for me
> as a my regular way of staying in good shape and good
> health. If you don't like that I post about that once in a
> while on rec.running, and it is indeed rare that I post on
> rec.running these days, then that's just your tough luck.
>

Believe me Steve, I have found your posts to be more
insightful and thoughtful than those criticizing you.
Indeed, the thought police don't want you to challenge any
common notions of running and will take it to mean that you
advocate heresay. Post all you like and understand that
others of us find it more interesting than the stupid little
tidbits of stale running tales that one could google anytime
they felt like it.

> If you'd like to continue to waste everyone's bandwidth on
> this now silly conversation, be my guest - the last word
> is yours.
>
> -S- http://www.kbnj.com
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Elflord

[Barry]

"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrness3fc.gjo.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2007-02-10, Barry <Barry41@earthlink.com> wrote: Steve's
> ball swinging is met by much less friendly reactions than
> mine, both here and even more so in misc.fitness.weights
>

By all means, report it to his ISP as I have never seen such
heresay promoted on this NG.

>> You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
>> anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the
>> early 90's in this group.
>
> As I argued before, I simply don't buy the view that
> advocacy of quitting running is appropriate material in a
> forum for runners.

If you don't agree with his point, don't follow it. But don't
try to censure it.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord

[Barry]

"Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171137093.190117.99630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 10, 9:56 am, "Barry" <Barr...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>> You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
>> anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the
>> early 90's in this group.
>
> The primary message I'm getting here is that after some 15
> years of Usenet experience, you still reply to cross-posted
> threads thinking they are in ``this'' newsgroup.

Then your comprehension levels are lower than I thought.
Swinging heavy balls around may pertain to various aspects of
fitness including cardio, strength ect. It isn't for you to be
a policeman nor our friends from New York.

[Andrzej Ro]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia
2007-02-10 Elflord napisa³(a):
> On 2007-02-10, Barry <Barry41@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnesrtoa.bo8.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>>> On 2007-02-10, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope I've explained why your posts are considered
>>> violations of etiquette whereas these other posts might
>>> not be. It's ultimately not for me or you to decide
>>> whether your posts are violating the local etiquette --
>>> that is up to the readers to decide. And I believe that
>>> they have.
>>
>> His posts aren't a violation of etiquette at all. Hell,
>> even Doug's
>
> Again, I refer you to my points regarding appropriateness of
> advocacy. I'm sure you don't wander into mosques and hand
> out bibles.

Running or swinging balls of iron is *NOT RELIGION*. It's a
mean to an end. Some people among runners can be interested in
knowing that some of their ends can be achieved by using
different mean.

[...]
>> You might not enjoy ball swinging (I wouldn't do it) but
>> anything discussing fitness has been accepted since the
>> early 90's in this group.
>
> As I argued before, I simply don't buy the view that
> advocacy of quitting running is appropriate material in a
> forum for runners.

Oh, do it by running, if you like it. Steve mainly says that
anaerobic training will work. Let's pretend that he wrote
about interval sprints instead of kettlebells, pretty please.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

[Dz]

Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
> Barry <Barry41@earthlink.com> wrote:
>> His posts aren't a violation of etiquette at all.
>
> I'm sure you don't wander into mosques and hand out bibles.

This analogy isn't working. A person wouldn't typically accept
both religions simultaneously. But the same can't be said
about KBs and running. In certain countries from my distant
past, infantry officers in training would start their morning
with a few miles of running followed by exercises in a
minimalist outdoor setting with pullup bars and the ubiquitous
KBs laying around in the mud. People like to make fun of Steve
and KBs. I personally stopped using them because of their
coarsening and thickening effect on the hair; and also because
their radioactive core makes yer head fuzzy (http://www.drago-
ndoor.com/images/workshops/convention/sstest01.jpg). But there
is no need for all the animosity.