Buy-in/Cash out:
Stretching. Lots. I hurt everywhere from yesterday's Bear, so I devoted lots of time to stretching today.
Workout:
- 5 rounds
- 10 walking lunge steps (5L/5R)
- 15 KB swings (Russian)
- all w/ 20K 'bell (44#)
This made my lungs bleed. First three rounds of lunges, I cleaned the KB and held it in the rack. Fourth round, I held it by the horns. Fifth round, I just made sure I held onto it any way I could. And yes, I did Russian swings. I always do Russian swings, to eye level. I like CrossFit's American swings just fine. I think they're fun. But in a met-con, I can swing faster (power swing, even) and use a heavier KB if I go communist.
And now, I'd like to introduce a little feature where I talk about exercise theory without being totally sure that my points are factually valid. Readers, proceed with caution.
Byers KB Lecture Series, Volume 1: "Workload - Russian vs. American swing"
There are those who claim the Russian swing is half the work of the American swing, because the KB only goes up half as high. Upon first glance, this sounds about right... half the distance, therefore half the work. However, I respectfully disagree.
The American swing, done properly, is nothing but a powerful Russian swing with a slight arm tug at the apex of the kettlebell's ascent. It's still a HIP DRIVEN movement. Your hips drive the 'bell as high as possible - to the same height, in fact, as the top of a Russian swing. Then, at the top of the swing (when the KB hangs almost weightless) you give just a small tug with the arms to bring it overhead.
The vast majority of the American swing movement is STILL coming from the hip drive - NOT the arms. And since the hips are doing just as much work in a Russian swing as they do in an American swing, I assert that one Russian swing is closer to 75% of the "work" of one American swing.
So why this assertion that the workload is cut in half by not taking it overhead? My theory - it's because most people I see doing American swings are doing them wrong. They engage the arms WAY early, and muscle the kettlebell overhead. (Ever see someone at the top of an American swing, with their kettlebell listing forward instead of standing straight up? That is the direct result of not enough hip drive and too much arm action.) I suspect that is why some CrossFitters think the American swing is twice the work - because if they're using that much arm to get it overhead, it IS twice as hard.
So using my math, my 15 x 5 Russian swings were equivalent to about 11.25 x 5 American swings. But since I used a 44# KB (instead of the Rx'd 35#), I'd venture to say I came out about even, work-wise.
End of lecture. So, these mini-articles are me attempting to put my own training experience together with KB theory. I'm going to need to be able to answer questions like these from my clients effectively and accurately, so I figured I'd practice on the general public here first. And if I'm dead wrong here, that's okay... but if that's the case, somebody needs to give me the correct information so I can pass THAT along to my clients. So I'm calling for opinions on this subject from the real KB experts. Paging blog readers Jason Struck, Chris Bloom, Max Lewin, and anyone else who would kindly weigh in... drop a comment, would you?
That's a pretty limp hunk of iron - but dare I criticize Nicole Carroll's hip drive?!? (Photo: CrossFit East Bay)
24 people drop some props (leave a comment here):
By no means do I consider myself an expert, nor would I ever criticize anything about Nicole Carroll. Here's how I'm weighing in: I agree with you on the energy expenditure (Russian = about 75%). That's not based on anything but perceived exertion and personal opinion, but I do disagree on your definition of the American Swing ... you state: "The American swing, done properly, is nothing but a powerful Russian swing with a slight arm tug at the apex of the kettlebell's ascent. It's still a HIP DRIVEN movement. Your hips drive the 'bell as high as possible - to the same height, in fact, as the top of a Russian swing. Then, at the top of the swing (when the KB hangs almost weightless) you give just a small tug with the arms to bring it overhead." I would argue that the American swing does require more hip drive than the Russian swing and that there should be NO arm tug at the top. The difference in power expenditure of the American swing is the small amount of further distance travelled and the extra hip drive responsible for that. My two cents! Nicely put Article Byers ... I agree with everything else and prefer the Russian swing myself.
It's my favorite CrossFit North Shore trainer, Danny Veeeee! Follow-up question for you - I take my Russian swings all to eye level, minimum. In that instance, do you still say the American swing requires even MORE hip drive than that?
As do I, may even start calling it the Russian-American swing just to mess with people, haha ... maybe its a bit of a follow through at the end, but I definitely feel there is a bit more hip drive. Its really not much different ... I'd love to see some kind of a measurement, but my definition of the American Swing definitely doesn't include a pull of the arms. The bell should be pointing up if there is no pull.
I'm no scientist, but I suspect Newton would call shenanigans. It doesn't matter where the force originates: if you are moving the same amount of mass twice the amount of distance, you are performing twice the amount of work.
Now, that said, it's not really TWICE the distance, is it? The kettlebell doesn't start from straight down, but is typically swung from BEHIND the legs. And on the other side of the spectrum, most American swings don't really make it all the way to directly overhead, due to (sensible, in my view) caution on the part of the swinger in not wanting to swing too far and drop the bell either on the floor (bad) or the head (worse).
So it's not a purely vertical 180-degree arc - we're adding some on the bottom and subtracting some on the top. The difference between eye-level and "overhead" isn't really 50% of the total arc. It's also probably not 25%, so I would say your 75% estimate is low...but probably closer to the truth than 100%.
Mary Kate & Ashley...now that was funny!
Gold Jacket, Green Jacket, who gives a shit
Hey guys, since it hasn't been mentioned so far I thought I would point you all towards the CF Journal piece regarding this issue. They do the analysis and the american swings comes out on top.
It's a Sept. 1st 2004 article titled "The Kettlebell Swing" (in case my link fails)
http://journal.crossfit.com/2004/09/post-1.tpl
Wicked time on the WOD!
Byers
I remember reading that Journal article a long time ago and it refutes what you are saying pretty soundly. We can discuss it more when you buy me a drink(s) this weekend. :)
The short story is that American swings are 1) more work 2) more demanding on flexibility and ROM and 3) better at developing what you want to develop.
The first two are pretty obvious. By your own admission the Russian swing is less work...so why argue any further?
My third point is not as obvious. The concentric phase of the KB swing is important and even if by your definition (which is wrong by the way) the same amount of hip drive is used concentrically, the American swing has a greater eccentric component because now the same load will come down from a greater height with greater momentum and velocity. Therefore, the posterior chain has to work harder eccentrically in the decent to slow and stop the weight and then concentrically to drive the bell back up for the following rep.
So even though we usually only measure "work" in the concentric phase, the Ass Kicking Potential (AKP) of the American Swing is far superior to the Russian or, as I call it, the half swing.
Well put Keith.
Melissa;
the kool-aid kids are right about your kinematics. Fxd doesn't really care where F comes from.
And they're right about eccentrics and AKP.
And they're right about journals. There are certainly articles in the CFJ explaining the superiority of Crossfit. To everything. On everything.
Do you want AKP? Do you want the soreness that comes with enhanced eccentrics? Do you need to ROM in that capacity? Do you value the benefits more than you fear the risks? Does your go-to swing method currently serve your sport specifically for your other lifts? (You, unlike almost all crossfitters, probably have much more of handle on why Gireviks, or 'halfers', do the one handed swing to eye level to cross train for a ten minute long cycle)
In short, if you think you're answer is right, or worse yet, simply 'feel' your answer is right, just don't show your work next time. With nit-pickers, there's no partial credit.
Interesting to read about the American swing vs Russian swing. However, the picture of the woman swinging doesn't look like strong hip drive to me. She is skipping up on her left toe, her hips are tilted anterior, and it doesn't look like her glutes are firing. The body of the bell is lower than the handle... it is just a picture, but the picture looks like she is using her arms to jerk the bell up. I could to totally wrong, but that is what it looks like to me.
I would argue that the concentric movement of the swing is the upward movement of the kettlebell... that is when you are firing (contracting) more muscles. Eccentric would be the downward part of the swing as you load your hips and hamstrings.
As for kettlebells over head... if my students are blasting the kettlebell higher than chest height, I suggest either using a heavier bell or stopping the upward assent manually. Stopping the assent of the kettlebell is a great way to train core (hate that word) strength.
As for kettlebells overhead... that is what snatches and presses are for. jmho....
""As for kettlebells overhead... that is what snatches and presses are for. jmho....""
amen sister
Jason's reference to kinematics is a subtle but powerful point to this discussion. Y'all should check it out.
Reading this article a long time ago caused me to spit out a little kook-aid. It's also what clued me in to the fact that Coach had ghostwriters. A math guy, which he is, would never produce this.
First of all, this "proof" ignores dynamic forces and assumes uniform circular motion.
Second, the calculus of force in KB swings (in the article) ignores hip rotation and lateral hip displacement, not to mention leg extension. Those are easier to measure than the tension on the posterior chain in the loading phase, the action of the ankles, and all the other minutiae that, frankly, become quite important when evaluating a system with this many moving parts. We also have to consider gravity, inertia, and the force curve in relation to angular velocity.
Finally, the $.99 protractor I just bought at Walgreens tells me that the KB is 20 degrees behind vertical (using vertical as zero) (if you're thinking that the mere act of letting the KB "fall" and do a pendulum swing-with no outside force on it-to about 18 degrees on the other side, you're right), so there's 38 degrees before our hip comes into play. Her Russian swing comes up to 110d from vertical, and the American swing is 170d from vert. The grand total of these trips is 130d for the Russian swing vs. 190d for the American swing. 60d difference, yet the article proclaims that the American swing travels over 2x the distance and therefore produces 2x the force? Bullshit and bullshit.
I don't know the inner workings of Kettlebellistan, but I know faulty proofs when I see them.
PS Annie is a great model. So consistent. I miss her.
PPS Do what you like, but consider a better standard of "proof" (evidence based fitness doesn't necessarily mean scientifically or mathematically valid).
PPPS I'm not disputing the greater work demands or AKP of the American swing, just the claims of the article and the perception that American swings are twice as much work as the American swings.
Fawn: It's refreshing to hear someone to refer to Nicole C as "the woman in the picture." She's awesome, she's legendary and she's just a human being. As for her form...or anyone else's, best to watch in video than to get from photo. With that said, that is what my American kb swing look like when I try to do them w/ the 24kg. I would say that if hers are looking like that, she's not using enough hip drive. By the time it's overhead, it's impossible to have the kb in the right position and it's lookin' kind of limp. Fire the hip!
there's a thread going on the forum that I am reminded of.
Greg Everett foolishly enters in to a debate about whether Rip's method of teaching the O lifts is correct or not. He doesn't dispute anyone else's view point. He just gives his.
Then he points out;
"Don't just take my word for it by any means. But consider what you said as well - "while there may not be much debate within the Olympic lifting/coaching community, there is certainly enough within the CF community"... I mean no disrespect to anyone, but it should be obvious which one of those places can be expected to have the greatest collective experience and expertise, and I find it odd that more value isn't assigned to the coaches and athletes who have produced and/or been the best weightlifters in the world."
As an RKC and an Affiliate, I will go on record as saying my guys don't do the 'american swing'.
You're so screwed, Jason.
When the great flood comes and you have to stack 100 sandbags on top of each other in 3 minutes before the wall of water wipes out you and your loved ones, your "Halfies" just aren't going to get it done. You and yours will be hopelessly swept away while the American swingers point and laugh at you while doing handstands on top of their sandbag walls.
LOL. Yeah, CFitters are an opionated bunch. Additional note: if it looks like that overhead, chances are you're doing it wrong and/or it's too heavy. In my case, doing the heavy swings (which did indeed looked like that) made me wicked and frighteningly sore and was probably dangerous. I imagine I could have gotten more hurt than I did. No more two cents from me today :)
The forward pitch at the top of an American Swing can be used as a modification to increase safety. By allowing the KB's center of mass to remain in front of the athlete at the apex there is significantly less risk of the bell flipping over due to a botched swing. This does not imply that we're using the deltoids to 'muscle up' this position. The modification will feel somewhat effortless as the kettlebell should still be riding the momentum created by the hips. Basically you grip the handle a little tighter and allow your wrists to flex as it rises to it's end range of motion.
Yes, a little less work is being accomplished but at the end of the day i prefer it over a traditional American Swing, especially at high intensity. This is simply a stylistic difference which we use that works well for our needs.
Do 30 Russian swings, for time.
Two days later do 30 American swings, for time.
Use the same KB.
Tell me which one provides for the more "effective" workout.
As a side note, I don't think CrossFitters who do Russian swings should compare their times with those who do American swings. RE: above experiment.
David, thanks for the note. I had no idea that might be deliberate (the limp at the top thing).
"Tell me which one provides for the more "effective" workout."
?
define effective... again if it's 'makes me more sore' you're what's wrong with Crossfit.
FXD= WORK
The Russian KB swing is just about .5 of the work of the American swing and is inferior in EVERY way.
At CF East Bay we take the KB ALL the way overhead for it to count, that is to say a position with the handle over the ears. Also we start from a position more of less under the body, not behind the legs.
What you are missing, is that because of the nature of the movements, it is possible to move more weight more distance more faster than with Russian swings and therefore can generate a much higher power output, I'm not sure how much but doing 2 Pood swings to overhead demonstates this pretty conclusively: 21 2P swings overhead = fast and brutal 42 2P Commie swings = slow and relaxing.
Finally full ROM is almost always a good idea.
"I ran a 3-minute mile but it was only 1/2 a mile" - Coach
I mean MxD = Work
Post a Comment