art icles.e lit ef t s.co mhttp://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/the-flexible-periodization-method-program-design-with-kettlebells-part-2/

The Flexible Periodization Method: Program Design withKettlebells (Part 2)

In the previous column, The Flexible Periodization Method: Program Design with Kettlebells (Part 1), Ireviewed some of the research studies on the ef f ects of the Kettlebell Swing.

In this column, I will f inish this review and provide more guidelines on how to apply this inf ormation tothe training of your athletes.

Here is the review of the last two articles:

Study #5:

Thirty healthy males with at least one year of resistance training experience (but no individuals with KB trainingor Olympic weightlif t ing experience participated in this study). All subjects were f amiliarized with KB lif ts andOlympic lif ts and then assigned to either a KB training group or a weightlif t ing training group. 1RM power clean,1RM back squat, and vertical jump (VJ) were tested both bef ore and af ter six weeks of training, twice per week.In both programs speed of movement was emphasized throughout the six weeks.

KB program:

Week 1-3 Week 4-6

KB Swing 3 x 6 (16kg) 4 x6 (16kg)

Accelerated Swings 4 x 4 (16 kg) 6 x 4 (16kg)

Goblet Squat 4 x 6 (16kg) 4 x 6 (16kg)

Weightlif t ing:

Week 1-3 Week 4-6

High Pull 3 x 6 (80% 1RM) 4 x6 (80% 1RM)

Power Clean 4 x 4 (80 % 1RM) 6 x 4 (80% 1RM)

Back Squat 4 x 6 (80 % 1RM) 4 x 6 (80% 1RM)

Results: Both groups experienced signif icant increases in VJ to a similar extent. Both groups also increased1RM Back Squat, but the weightlif t ing group improved signif icantly more than the KB group. Both groupsexperienced signif icant improvements in the power clean with no dif f erence between groups.(1)

Discussion: The authors discuss that both KB lif ts and weightlif t ing exercises involve power developmentsimilar to a VJ. A clear dif f erence is the external load used, which f avours strength gains f or the weightlif t inggroup. A f actor af f ecting the results of this short study might be the complexity of the KB lif ts vs. the weightlif ts. KB lif ts are simpler and might have allowed the group of beginners to practice them more ef f ectivelycompared to the weightlif t ing group. It is also worth noting that KB and weight lif ts may have improved the VJf or dif f erent reasons. The KB Swing involves a stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), challenging the subjects tobuild up f orce rapidly during an eccentric contraction (a key f or VJ perf ormance). On the other hand, the highpull and power clean are characterized by the power development during the concentric phase.

Take away message: If you are short on time, or if resources to instruct or supervise training are an issue,KB Swings might be an alternative to Olympic Lif ts in order to develop power. If you are planning acomprehensive program to develop power, combining Olympic lif ts with KB swings may ensure stimulus of boththe eccentric and concentric components of the SSC.

If you are short on time, try the Swing Squat/Clean Pull—an exercises that stresses both the knee extensors(eccentric only) and the hip extensors (eccentric-concentric). See Video 2 below. If the athlete has never triedthis exercise bef ore, you might want to introduce the Swing Squat First:

Video 2: Swing Squat/Clean Pull

A variation very that can f ollow af ter the Swing Squat/Clean Pull is the Swing Squat/Regular Swing (see below)

Study #6:

Sixteen physically active men with at least six months of KB, Back Squat, and Jump Squat experienceperf ormed two sets of 10 two-handed swings with single 16-, 24-, and 32-kilo KBs. The subjects wereinstructed to move the load as quickly as possible. At the conclusion of the KB Swings, 1RM Half Squat wasestablished. Four to seven days later, the subjects perf ormed two back squats with 20, 40, 60, and 80% oftheir 1RM and two jump squats with no additional load, 20, 40 and 60% of the 1RM on a f orce platf orm. Duringthe squat session the subjects were instructed to control the decent phase, but to perf orm the concentricphase as quickly as possible.

Results: Peak and mean f orce, impulse, and peak and mean power were maximized with the 32-kilo KBcompared to the 24- and 16-kilo KB, and the dif f erences tended to be signif icant. Peak and mean velocity f orthis group were the largest during swings with the 16-kg KB. Net impulse recorded during the 32-kg KB Swingstended to be signif icantly greater than during both the back squat and squat jump. Peak and mean f orcestended to be greater during the back squat and jump squat compared to swings with any load. Power valuesduring swings with the 32-kg KB tended to be greater than during back squats and similar to the jump squatconditions. (2)

Discussion: From their study, the authors’ conclusion is that KB swings do not provide a suf f icient stimulus toimprove maximal strength because the measured f orce levels in the test sessions were lower during the KBSwings than the back squat lif ts. Study #5 indicated that KB training could improve maximal strength—but notto the same extent when compared to weightlif t ing. It is worth noting that if the researchers in Study #5 hadmeasured ground reaction f orces, then they would likely have seen a similar pattern as in Study #6 (with lowervalues during swings compared to weightlif t ing). Taken together, Study #5 and Study #6 highlight that theconclusion derived f rom a training study may dif f er based on the applied measurement and testing.

Take away message: As your athletes reach higher levels of training, they should swing the heavierkettlebells. KB Swings are an option in a program to develop peak power. However, KB Swings might not be thebest tool to stimulate cardiorespiratory f itness, and KB Swings might not be the best tool to stimulate poweror maximal strength. Yet, KB Swings might be a tool that provides a signif icant stimulus on cardiorespiratoryf itness, power, and strength—a great “three- in-one package!”

With each study, I have provided “take-away messages” that you hopef ully have f ound helpf ul. Below are someadditional, yet related guidelines f or applying KB Swings into the training of your athletes.

1. Ensure that your athletes meet the basic prerequisites for effect ively training with KBSwing, including:

Normal hamstring f lexibility as a f oundation f or the hinge pattern (bending f rom the hip, not the spine)

Build the bending pattern with a low velocity, low f orce movement like Dowel Rod Good mornings (seebelow)

Build lower abdominal strength and endurance to protect the back.

Build back endurance with simple exercises.

I have f ound, f rom experience, that progressing athletes too f ast of ten slows down the long-term progressbecause 1) the athletes are practicing exercises they can’t perf orm with optimal f orm, and 2) the athletes havean increased risk of overuse injuries. Instead of progressing too f ast, I see much better results by starting withsimpler exercises (not easy!), providing specif ic bench-marks f or each exercise, and progressing the athlete assoon as he hits a bench-mark.

2. Build Shear stability with high rep sets of part ial swings

High Rep Partial Swings are a way to gradually prepare the athlete to stabilize the spine against the shear-f orce that is created with the KB Swings.

I have good results with progressing through the f ollowing stages:

1. Swings to hip/waist height

2. Swings to bellybutton height

3. Swings to ribcage

4. Swings to shoulder height (Please see Have No Emotional Attachments to Any Exercise or Any Piece ofEquipment – PART I)

Begin with a load that allows the athlete to swing to hip/waist height f or 60 seconds straight with perf ect f orm.Perf orm sets of one to two minutes. When the athlete can perf orm swings to a certain height f or two minutesstraight, then it is recommended to progress the athlete to the next height. The init ial goal is to perf orm swingsto shoulder height f or two minutes straight.

3. Progressing on height of swing vs. progressing on rate of swings

Swinging the same load higher increases the muscular demands (strength/power) to accelerate (in the lif t ingphase) and also to decelerate the weight (in the lowering phase). However, swinging the weight higher alsoreduces the number of swings per unit of t ime (the f requency of swings).

It is shown with boxing that the heart increases with the f requency of the punches. (3) Currently, there seem tobe no studies that investigate the ef f ect of swing f requency on heart rate. However, if we assume that thesame dynamic would be seen with KB swings, then you would want to progress the f requency when you use KBSwings in order to improve cardiorespiratory f itness. The way to progress the f requency is to keep the swingsat about shoulder height but to pull the KB back down instead of “just” lett ing it f all. (See Have No EmotionalAttachments to Any Exercise or Any Piece of Equipment – PART I)

In contrast, you would f ocus progressing the load and/or height if you use KB Swings to develop power. Twogood benchmarks above shoulder height are to swing at the level of the f ace or swing above the level of thehead. (See Have No Emotional Attachments to Any Exercise or Any Piece of Equipment – PART I )

4. Interval Structure

Each study reviewed in Part 1 showed a slightly dif f erent protocol with dif f erent pros and cons.

“As many swings as possible in 12 minutes”:

Pacing issues: starting too hard or too easy

Could be overwhelming f or some

Might not be the most ef f ective solution if the goal is cardiorespiratory conditioning

More “open ended” as f ar as progression. An athlete could, within these parameters, progress f rom (f orexample) one minute of continuous swings to f ive minutes of continuous swings.

Ten sets of 30 seconds with 25 seconds of rest/10 sets of 30 seconds with 30 seconds of rest inbetween:

These two programs most obviously point to the option of making progress by reducing the rest periodsbetween sets and, by the same token, the work:rest ratio. Here is how that could work:

Begin with 8 to 12 x 30 seconds of swings to shoulder height, with 30 seconds of rest between sets.Teach the athletes to “pull” the KB down to maximize the number of swings within each interval. Establisha target number of swings f or each interval, of ten in the range of 12 to 15. Choose a load that bringsthe average HR to 80 or 90% of the Max (equivalent to 8 to 9 RPE on the Borg Scale to 10).

When the athlete can perf orm 12 intervals maintaining the target number of swings and achieving thetarget heart rate, then the rest period is reduced by f ive seconds. If reducing the rest period by f iveseconds af ter all sets is “too much” (result ing in premature f ailure), then the 25-second intervals areused f or as many intervals as possible. When needed, the “original” 30 seconds of rest is used.

This pattern can be repeated until 12 sets with 10 seconds of rest can be accomplished.

5. Using KB Swings as a part of a program to improve vert ical jump

Vertical jump perf ormance is determined by the total torques produced by the toe-f lexors, plantar- f lexors,knee-extensors, hip extensors, and shoulder- f lexors. KB Swing is def initely a hip-dominant exercise and mayalso improve the arm swing. Thus, you would combine the KB swing with both strength and power exercisesthat target the other areas. Here is a very simple example:

Front Squats with bands (f or maximal strength, knee dominance)

KB Swings (peak power, hip dominance)

Calf Raises in leg press machine (maximal strength)

Unloaded or lightly loaded (weight vest) vertical jumps with vertec.

The reviewed studies have pointed to an ef f ect on vertical jump with both higher and lower reps. For the moreadvanced athlete, you want to use lower reps (as in Study #4) and choose a load that, when maximallyaccelerated, the KB would not go much higher than the head.

A f ew weekends ago I taught one of my two-day workshops on The Flexible Periodization Method. Onestudent was a relatively new trainer and I asked him, “Do you have a lot of questions when you designprograms f or your clients?”

“Yes,” he said.

“How do go about getting answers to those questions,” I asked.

“I look in my books, go on the internet, or ask the more experienced trainers,” he said. “But the experiencedtrainers can’t seem to give advice outside their own style.” (CrossFit, powerlif t ing etc).

Let’s work on a style that is about results, not about particular exercises. The Flexible Periodization Method ismore about the WHY (what is best f or the particular athlete) and less about the WHAT (particular exercises,methods, etc.).

In the past two installments of this column, you have seen what the research has indicated about the ef f ect ofKB Swings and you have seen various opportunit ies f or practical application. If , by applying this knowledge, Ireach the conclusion that KB Swings would be the best choice of exercises in a particular situation, it isobviously important that I am open-minded enough to make that choice regardless of personal pref erences.

References

1. Otto WH, III, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA. Ef f ects of Weightlif t ing vs. Kettlebell Training on VerticalJump, Strength and Body Composition. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1199-1202. 2012

2. Lake JP, Lauder M. Mechanical Demands of Kettlebell Swing Exercise. J Strength Cond Res 26(12): 3209-3216. 2012

3. Kravitz L, Greene L, Burkett Z, Wongsathikun J. Cardiovascular Responses to Punching Tempo. JStrength Cond Res. 17(1): 104-108. 2003

Related Articles:

The Flexible Periodization Method: The Decision-Making Process

The Flexible Periodization Method: Program Design with Kettlebells (Part 1)

An Introduction to the Sport of Kettlebell Lift ing