Re: Power Training with Kettlebells?

[Guest guest]

Mel,

I appreciate your comments, and especially your encouragement. It is

always welcome.

The author of the Dead Snatch article wrote it as an endorsement of

an exercise that he had found beneficial. He may not have been

technically correct on why it worked, but hopefully it will bring

attention to the exercise so that others can try it and see if it

makes a positive addition to their indivual training regime.

I actually made a few suggestions to him on ways to alter the Dead

Snatch to emphasize different strength qualities, such as extending

the pull by standing on blocks or shortening the pull by starting

from a bench, block or a dead hang. He declined to change the

content of his original article. There are many ways to modify

Olympic lifts, most of which apply to Kettlebell lifts as well, so

hopefully we will give these further exploration in later issues.

Mel, I am especially curious what you and other list-members think of

the Greg Glassman interview, also in Issue 5. He has quite a few

interesting things to say, many of which bring into question some of

the most basic principles of training. If you have a chance to read

it I would love to know your thoughts.

Also, on an unrelated note, how can I purchase your new Supertraining

Sampler eBook? You sent me an email about it, but it did not say how

to actually pay for the book. Any information would be very much

appreciated.

Thanks!

Tyler Hass

Seattle, WA

---------

Mel Siff wrote:

> Recently we were invited to read the Girevik online magazine at:

> http://www.girevikmagazine.com/

>

> Well, in the section entitled " The Dead Snatch " , there are matters which

> deserve some scrutiny (sorry, but if we are encouraged to read anything on

> this list, some of us might be very analytical):

>

> <The Kettlebell Dead Snatch in my opinion is the best exercise that can be

> used to develop power. Power which is also regarded as starting strength or

> explosive strength is necessary for the sporting world. Having explosiveness

> is the most important motor quality for sports and this can only be attained

> by training your posterior chain muscle group, which consists of the

> glutes,hamstrings, and spinal erectors.>

> *** First of all, power is NOT starting strength or explosive strength -

> these are very different motor qualities, as has been discussed on this list

> on several occasions ( see " Supertraining " Ch 2.2). Explosiveness is not

> necessarily the most important motor quality for sports, assuming that such

> an entity even exists. All motor qualities are very important in sport, but

> the exact balance depends entirely on the precise sport concerned. Moreover,

> the contribution played by each different motor quality changes from moment

> to moment so that it is meaningless to proclaim any single motor quality as

> being THE most important of them all. Incidentally, would you state that

> motor skill is less important than explosiveness in any sporting action?

>

> Note very carefully that there are several different types of power that

> relate to sporting action: Maximal power, mean power and power at a given

> instant (during a movement). Does this statement imply that kettlebell

> snatches is the best way to develop ALL forms of power?

>

> So explosiveness " can only be attained by training your posterior chain

> muscle group, which consists of the glutes,hamstrings, and spinal erectors " -

> I suppose we can assume that this refers solely to sports which rely largely

> on the lower extremities. Does this mean that you can train all those

> " posterior chain " muscles and largely neglect the muscles of the " anterior

> chain " (such as the quadriceps) in order to develop overall explosiveness?

>

> As a matter of fact, misconceptions and misapplications of biomechanics and

> physics is not unique to this article; they are very widespread indeed in

> almost every fitness organisation and among most fitness professionals,

> especially those who proclaim themselves to be 'experts' in biomechanics and

> kinesiology even though they have no specialised higher level education in

> those fields. While it may be very tempting for someone with a fitness

> certification (even with distinction) or a Physics 101 course to write

> articles on the mechanics of movement, especially on stability, spinal

> modelling, posture and gait analysis, it really does require a good few more

> years of advanced study and research in physics, engineering or biomechanics

> to do the subject some more credit. If you do not have that background, then

> simply co-author that sort of article with someone who really does know the

> subject a little more thoroughly.......

>

> On the other hand, the Girevik article on Bodyweight Conditioning Programs

> was most useful, as evidenced by the following excerpt:

>

> <It does not become a matter of weights vs. no weights, but a matter of

> application. The last argument is that bodyweight exercises develop

> stabilizer muscles. They pass on this image of stabilizers as some tiny,

> internal muscles that are vital to our existence. " You cannot lift a bag of

> groceries or walk properly without stabilizers! " First of all, any muscle

> can be a stabilizer; it simply depends on the movement taking place. Core

> stabilization is the most popular myth out there today. Swiss balls are

> selling like hot cakes because everyone thinks they need a stable core. Try

> lifting a heavy weight over your head without a stable core. Is prior Swiss

> Ball training necessary to ensure stability in such a motion? Probably not,

> thus forget about the stabilizer argument and simply pick exercises that

> challenge your coordination....>

>

> Thus, any magazine is a mixture of the good with the not so good, but it is

> always helpful to elicit constructive criticism in order to improve the

> material.

>

> Best wishes with the progress of your magazine!

>

> Dr Mel C Siff