Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells

Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
both as an academic and practical coach).

"Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
application of available research indicates the training stimuli
elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
foundation of performance training programs."

Which points out what many of us have been saying all along. Kettlebells
can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of training.

The entire study is available on:

www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf

--
Keith

On Aug 27, 10:09 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> both as an academic and practical coach).
>
> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
> foundation of performance training programs."
>
> Which points out what many of us have been saying all along. Kettlebells
> can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of training.
>
> The entire study is available on:
>
> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>
> --
> Keith



Why is that? I would guess that barbells allow for heavier loads, and
make for compound movements as opposed to the more isolated effects
available with dumbbells and kettlebells.

What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??

Speaking of physics: I can curl a 100-lb. kettlebell with my right
hand, standing, but cannot do so with a 100-lb. dumbbell under the
same circumstances!

In article <1188226361.884295.156210@o80g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 27, 10:09 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> > both as an academic and practical coach).
> >
> > "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> > variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> > application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> > elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
> > The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
> > RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
> > kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
> > available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
> > foundation of performance training programs."
> >
> > Which points out what many of us have been saying all along. Kettlebells
> > can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of training.
> >
> > The entire study is available on:
> >
> > www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
>
>
> Why is that? I would guess that barbells allow for heavier loads, and
> make for compound movements as opposed to the more isolated effects
> available with dumbbells and kettlebells.
>
> What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
> barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??
>
> Speaking of physics: I can curl a 100-lb. kettlebell with my right
> hand, standing, but cannot do so with a 100-lb. dumbbell under the
> same circumstances!
>

Read the study. It is quite clear.

--
Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-98B001.08095227082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> both as an academic and practical coach).
>
> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
> foundation of performance training programs."
>
> Which points out what many of us have been saying all along.
> Kettlebells
> can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of
> training.
>
> The entire study is available on:
>
> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf

This:

"In examining the literature, no comparative long-term investigations
have been performed to investigate the relative effectiveness of
exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells versus barbells.
Therefore, it is prudent to examine the biomechanics and physiology of
exercises performed with these implements, specifically in light of the
transfer of training principle, to determine their benefit for enhancing
performance."

Sums it up in a nutshell - what we'd like to talk about hasn't been
studied, so we'll speculate. I don't disagree with most of what they're
saying, but it's really nothing more than that, speculation.

"However for a given activity, once minimum aerobic levels are reached,
additional improvements do not further enhance performance14,20."

Tell that to my son's soccer coach.

"However, preliminary research3,17 indicates that the metabolic cost of
kettlebell exercise (5 sets of 10 repetitions for 3 exercises) is
approximately 4.97kcal.min-1 performed at 33% VO2max. In contrast,
weightlifting exercise with a barbell has a metabolic cost of
11.5kcal.min-1 performed at 58% VO2max22. Thus, weightlifting exercise
with a barbell appears to be more effective for increasing total energy
expenditure and for stimulating increases in work capacity."

OK, how about we lighten the barbell or use a heavier kettlebell?

Of course, your conclusion is right, Keith - nothing is the be all and
end all of training, and if you had to pick one of the three to get
bigger and/or faster and/or stronger and couldn't have the other two,
then we'd all pick the barbell.

Just my opinion.

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

On Aug 27, 10:09 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> both as an academic and practical coach).
>
> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.<snip>

I have a question to offer:

Upon reading the Subject line, did anyone else find themselves saying,
"Oh, my!" à la the Wizard of Oz?

"Lions, and Tigers, and Bear, oh, my!" You know, "Barbells, Dumbbells,
and Kettlebells, oh, my!"

Neeeeeeverrrr miiiiind!

(Humorless bastards.)

--
Curt

On Aug 27, 9:52 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 10:09 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> > both as an academic and practical coach).
>
> > "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> > variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> > application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> > elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
> > The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
> > RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
> > kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
> > available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
> > foundation of performance training programs."
>
> > Which points out what many of us have been saying all along. Kettlebells
> > can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of training.
>
> > The entire study is available on:
>
> >www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>
> > --
> > Keith
>
> Why is that? I would guess that barbells allow for heavier loads, and
> make for compound movements as opposed to the more isolated effects
> available with dumbbells and kettlebells.
>
> What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
> barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??
>
> Speaking of physics: I can curl a 100-lb. kettlebell with my right
> hand, standing, but cannot do so with a 100-lb. dumbbell under the
> same circumstances!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm too lazy to read the entire study the other posted recommended,
but without looking at it, you should take into consideration that a
dumbbell and a kettlebell do not have the same center of gravity,
relative to your forearm.

Ken

in my opinion either one is just fine.


cheers


ira



--------------------------------------------------
http://del.icio.us/vasilijepetkovic/
--------------------------------------------------

On Aug 28, 3:20 am, Tess <test...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in my opinion either one is just fine.
>
> cheers
>
> ira

In my opinion one is wonderful and the other is the ANTICHRIST!

Cheers.

--
Curtra

In article <5jhb6jF3tsm2bU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-98B001.08095227082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> > both as an academic and practical coach).
> >
> > "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
> > variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
> > application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> > elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
> > The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
> > RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
> > kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
> > available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
> > foundation of performance training programs."
> >
> > Which points out what many of us have been saying all along.
> > Kettlebells
> > can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and end all of
> > training.
> >
> > The entire study is available on:
> >
> > www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>
> This:
>
> "In examining the literature, no comparative long-term investigations
> have been performed to investigate the relative effectiveness of
> exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells versus barbells.
> Therefore, it is prudent to examine the biomechanics and physiology of
> exercises performed with these implements, specifically in light of the
> transfer of training principle, to determine their benefit for enhancing
> performance."
>
> Sums it up in a nutshell - what we'd like to talk about hasn't been
> studied, so we'll speculate. I don't disagree with most of what they're
> saying, but it's really nothing more than that, speculation.
>
> "However for a given activity, once minimum aerobic levels are reached,
> additional improvements do not further enhance performance14,20."
>
> Tell that to my son's soccer coach.
>
> "However, preliminary research3,17 indicates that the metabolic cost of
> kettlebell exercise (5 sets of 10 repetitions for 3 exercises) is
> approximately 4.97kcal.min-1 performed at 33% VO2max. In contrast,
> weightlifting exercise with a barbell has a metabolic cost of
> 11.5kcal.min-1 performed at 58% VO2max22. Thus, weightlifting exercise
> with a barbell appears to be more effective for increasing total energy
> expenditure and for stimulating increases in work capacity."
>
> OK, how about we lighten the barbell or use a heavier kettlebell?
>
> Of course, your conclusion is right, Keith - nothing is the be all and
> end all of training, and if you had to pick one of the three to get
> bigger and/or faster and/or stronger and couldn't have the other two,
> then we'd all pick the barbell.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>

He examines the different implements in terms of training variables to
reach his conclusion. And he is right about aerobics. I spent one winter
training for a marathon while playing rugby and I sucked that summer.
You reach a capacity for your sport and then you focus on other training
effects. The capacity required for soccer would be relatively high, but
once reached there is no point going a lot higher because speed and
power suffer with the increases endurance training.

--
Keith

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:

> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> both as an academic and practical coach).

Whether he's respected or not, if his analysis is duff, it's duff, so we
should look at that.

<rant>I do wish people would pay more attention to what was being said,
and less to who is saying it; just because someone with a big beard and a
long title is saying something doesn't make it true! One of my favourite
quotes is from Galileo on this subject:

But in natural sciences whose conclusions are true and necessary and have
nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in
the defence of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand
Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened
to hit upon the truth for himself.

Speaking as a mediocre wit myself, i find this rather comforting!</rant>

> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf

This is basically an opinion piece, not science. He cites exactly one bit
of actual data, and that's a study comparing the energy cost of barbells
and kettlebells; it says nothing about dumbbells, and nothing about
strength development. To conclude, in a strength training context, that
"application of available research indicates the training stimuli elicited
by these implements is less effective compared to barbells" is simply
nonsense.

I'm not sure i even believe that study; sadly, i can't read it, as he
makes his citations with numbers, but lists them by name, so there's no
way to cross-reference and figure out which paper he's actually citing.

Now, he does make some arguments about biomechanics which i think make
sense: if you're training for a lift which involves doing specific things
with your legs, then doing lifts which don't require you to do that is a
bad idea. I'd agree. If you're training for other lifts, or for strength
in general, that doesn't apply.

He also points out that kettlebells don't come in sizes big enough to
compete with barbells for top lifters doing the big lifts; this clearly
isn't an argument against kettlebells in principle, but it's a decent
enough practical point. For less strong people and smaller lifts, again,
it's clearly irrelevant.

He mentions that with DBs and KBs, "the maximum load possible is less than
for barbell training"; he doesn't explain that, and i don't think it's
true. You want to bench press 300 lb? There's nothing stopping anyone
making a pair of 150 lb dumbbells. I don't know if he's just talking
practically again, or if he thinks there's a reason this is actually
impossible. It doesn't seem to me that it is - although i've not heard of
people doing it, and i'd be interested to see what happens.

And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
conclusion is bullshit.

I was interested to read that "unilateral free weight training was popular
in the early 1900s and included in the sport of weightlifting at the
Olympic Games until 192812"; reassuring to know that the Olympics will
still be going in nineteen thousand years.

tom

--
Hier gaan over het tij, de wind, de maan en wij.

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>
> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
> > both as an academic and practical coach).
>
> Whether he's respected or not, if his analysis is duff, it's duff, so we
> should look at that.
>
> <rant>I do wish people would pay more attention to what was being said,
> and less to who is saying it; just because someone with a big beard and a
> long title is saying something doesn't make it true! One of my favourite
> quotes is from Galileo on this subject:
>
> But in natural sciences whose conclusions are true and necessary and have
> nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in
> the defence of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand
> Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened
> to hit upon the truth for himself.
>
> Speaking as a mediocre wit myself, i find this rather comforting!</rant>
>
> > www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>
> This is basically an opinion piece, not science. He cites exactly one bit
> of actual data, and that's a study comparing the energy cost of barbells
> and kettlebells; it says nothing about dumbbells, and nothing about
> strength development. To conclude, in a strength training context, that
> "application of available research indicates the training stimuli elicited
> by these implements is less effective compared to barbells" is simply
> nonsense.
>
> I'm not sure i even believe that study; sadly, i can't read it, as he
> makes his citations with numbers, but lists them by name, so there's no
> way to cross-reference and figure out which paper he's actually citing.
>
> Now, he does make some arguments about biomechanics which i think make
> sense: if you're training for a lift which involves doing specific things
> with your legs, then doing lifts which don't require you to do that is a
> bad idea. I'd agree. If you're training for other lifts, or for strength
> in general, that doesn't apply.
>
> He also points out that kettlebells don't come in sizes big enough to
> compete with barbells for top lifters doing the big lifts; this clearly
> isn't an argument against kettlebells in principle, but it's a decent
> enough practical point. For less strong people and smaller lifts, again,
> it's clearly irrelevant.
>
> He mentions that with DBs and KBs, "the maximum load possible is less than
> for barbell training"; he doesn't explain that, and i don't think it's
> true. You want to bench press 300 lb? There's nothing stopping anyone
> making a pair of 150 lb dumbbells. I don't know if he's just talking
> practically again, or if he thinks there's a reason this is actually
> impossible. It doesn't seem to me that it is - although i've not heard of
> people doing it, and i'd be interested to see what happens.
>
> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
> conclusion is bullshit.
>
> I was interested to read that "unilateral free weight training was popular
> in the early 1900s and included in the sport of weightlifting at the
> Olympic Games until 192812"; reassuring to know that the Olympics will
> still be going in nineteen thousand years.
>
> tom

I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that barbells
should form the base because strength and power is still the primary
point of resistant training. It was meant to be an opinion piece - it
wasn't published in a science journal. It was the National Strength and
Conditioning Association 'Hot Topics' and he ventured forth an opinion.
I was wrong to refer to him as a 'researcher' in this context, but I did
point our he was also a top coach.

You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all that is
required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I have no
problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the cultists.

--
Keith

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> writes:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-98B001.08095227082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
>> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
>> both as an academic and practical coach).
>>
>> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
>> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
>> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
>> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
>> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
>> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
>> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
>> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
>> foundation of performance training programs."
>>
>> Which points out what many of us have been saying all along.
>> Kettlebells can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and
>> end all of training.
>>
>> The entire study is available on:
>>
>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>
> This:
>
> "In examining the literature, no comparative long-term investigations
> have been performed to investigate the relative effectiveness of
> exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells versus barbells.
> Therefore, it is prudent to examine the biomechanics and physiology of
> exercises performed with these implements, specifically in light of the
> transfer of training principle, to determine their benefit for enhancing
> performance."
>
> Sums it up in a nutshell - what we'd like to talk about hasn't been
> studied, so we'll speculate. I don't disagree with most of what they're
> saying, but it's really nothing more than that, speculation.
>
> "However for a given activity, once minimum aerobic levels are reached,
> additional improvements do not further enhance performance14,20."
>
> Tell that to my son's soccer coach.
>
> "However, preliminary research3,17 indicates that the metabolic cost of
> kettlebell exercise (5 sets of 10 repetitions for 3 exercises) is
> approximately 4.97kcal.min-1 performed at 33% VO2max. In contrast,
> weightlifting exercise with a barbell has a metabolic cost of
> 11.5kcal.min-1 performed at 58% VO2max22. Thus, weightlifting exercise
> with a barbell appears to be more effective for increasing total energy
> expenditure and for stimulating increases in work capacity."
>
> OK, how about we lighten the barbell or use a heavier kettlebell?

I had serious problems with that section as well as what was compared
had basically nothing to do with the implement that was used and
everything to do with the amount of weight used. The real key here
was the percent V02max and it is easy to increase your percentage of
V02max with the kettlebell by simply doing more reps, which is
essentially what kettlebell folks do.

When was the last time you heard of an Olympic weight lifter try and
see how many snatches they could do at a certain weight in 10 minutes?
That sort of workout is basically the bread and butter of working with
a kettlebell, and it will *definitely* increase your work capacity
(and V02max).

> Of course, your conclusion is right, Keith - nothing is the be all
> and end all of training, and if you had to pick one of the three to
> get bigger and/or faster and/or stronger and couldn't have the other
> two, then we'd all pick the barbell.

Exactly. If you only had $100 to spend on equipment you'd get the
starter Olympic set and be done with it. Even if you could afford
other equipment the bulk of your time should be spent with the
barbell.

However, the kettlebell does have a few advantages. One, it's is far
easier to take with you when you go somewhere. Heck, I take mine to
work every day. It is also far easier to teach someone how to snatch
a kettlebell than it is to teach the Olympic lifts. It's safer too,
because if things get dicey you have a free hand to steady the
weight. That makes the kettlebell a useful tool for someone that
wants to spend some time training explosive strength without devoting
a lot of time to learning to clean and snatch a barbell.

Jason

"Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:87ps17ed0v.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> writes:
>
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-98B001.08095227082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
>>> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well
>>> respected
>>> both as an academic and practical coach).
>>>
>>> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
>>> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
>>> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
>>> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
>>> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular
>>> (MS,
>>> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
>>> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
>>> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
>>> foundation of performance training programs."
>>>
>>> Which points out what many of us have been saying all along.
>>> Kettlebells can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and
>>> end all of training.
>>>
>>> The entire study is available on:
>>>
>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> This:
>>
>> "In examining the literature, no comparative long-term investigations
>> have been performed to investigate the relative effectiveness of
>> exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells versus barbells.
>> Therefore, it is prudent to examine the biomechanics and physiology
>> of
>> exercises performed with these implements, specifically in light of
>> the
>> transfer of training principle, to determine their benefit for
>> enhancing
>> performance."
>>
>> Sums it up in a nutshell - what we'd like to talk about hasn't been
>> studied, so we'll speculate. I don't disagree with most of what
>> they're
>> saying, but it's really nothing more than that, speculation.
>>
>> "However for a given activity, once minimum aerobic levels are
>> reached,
>> additional improvements do not further enhance performance14,20."
>>
>> Tell that to my son's soccer coach.
>>
>> "However, preliminary research3,17 indicates that the metabolic cost
>> of
>> kettlebell exercise (5 sets of 10 repetitions for 3 exercises) is
>> approximately 4.97kcal.min-1 performed at 33% VO2max. In contrast,
>> weightlifting exercise with a barbell has a metabolic cost of
>> 11.5kcal.min-1 performed at 58% VO2max22. Thus, weightlifting
>> exercise
>> with a barbell appears to be more effective for increasing total
>> energy
>> expenditure and for stimulating increases in work capacity."
>>
>> OK, how about we lighten the barbell or use a heavier kettlebell?
>
> I had serious problems with that section as well as what was compared
> had basically nothing to do with the implement that was used and
> everything to do with the amount of weight used. The real key here
> was the percent V02max and it is easy to increase your percentage of
> V02max with the kettlebell by simply doing more reps, which is
> essentially what kettlebell folks do.
>
> When was the last time you heard of an Olympic weight lifter try and
> see how many snatches they could do at a certain weight in 10 minutes?
> That sort of workout is basically the bread and butter of working with
> a kettlebell, and it will *definitely* increase your work capacity
> (and V02max).
>
>> Of course, your conclusion is right, Keith - nothing is the be all
>> and end all of training, and if you had to pick one of the three to
>> get bigger and/or faster and/or stronger and couldn't have the other
>> two, then we'd all pick the barbell.
>
> Exactly. If you only had $100 to spend on equipment you'd get the
> starter Olympic set and be done with it. Even if you could afford
> other equipment the bulk of your time should be spent with the
> barbell.
>
> However, the kettlebell does have a few advantages. One, it's is far
> easier to take with you when you go somewhere. Heck, I take mine to
> work every day. It is also far easier to teach someone how to snatch
> a kettlebell than it is to teach the Olympic lifts. It's safer too,
> because if things get dicey you have a free hand to steady the
> weight. That makes the kettlebell a useful tool for someone that
> wants to spend some time training explosive strength without devoting
> a lot of time to learning to clean and snatch a barbell.
>
> Jason

Keith, what Jason just said.

The soccer coaches sent me back my son yesterday with a very sore
thigh/groin muscle, which turns out to be OK today, thank Goodness, but
he described the weight workout to me - box squats for max reps, same
size box for everyone, and no instructions for squatting except "look at
the ceiling", and wearing soccer shoes. I was, needless to say, less
than thrilled and decided he now has no choice but for his father to
teach him about lifting.

In the coaches' defense, they do a lot of sprinting with the kids, but
also some distance running that I don't see the point of. I will say
that my own kettlebell strength/endurance work always makes itself known
when I do endurance activities - I perform better, always - while the
converse, as Keith observes, is not true.

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

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-897EBE.09262528082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
>> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well
>> > respected
>> > both as an academic and practical coach).
>>
>> Whether he's respected or not, if his analysis is duff, it's duff, so
>> we
>> should look at that.
>>
>> <rant>I do wish people would pay more attention to what was being
>> said,
>> and less to who is saying it; just because someone with a big beard
>> and a
>> long title is saying something doesn't make it true! One of my
>> favourite
>> quotes is from Galileo on this subject:
>>
>> But in natural sciences whose conclusions are true and necessary and
>> have
>> nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place
>> oneself in
>> the defence of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a
>> thousand
>> Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who
>> happened
>> to hit upon the truth for himself.
>>
>> Speaking as a mediocre wit myself, i find this rather
>> comforting!</rant>
>>
>> > www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> This is basically an opinion piece, not science. He cites exactly one
>> bit
>> of actual data, and that's a study comparing the energy cost of
>> barbells
>> and kettlebells; it says nothing about dumbbells, and nothing about
>> strength development. To conclude, in a strength training context,
>> that
>> "application of available research indicates the training stimuli
>> elicited
>> by these implements is less effective compared to barbells" is simply
>> nonsense.
>>
>> I'm not sure i even believe that study; sadly, i can't read it, as he
>> makes his citations with numbers, but lists them by name, so there's
>> no
>> way to cross-reference and figure out which paper he's actually
>> citing.
>>
>> Now, he does make some arguments about biomechanics which i think
>> make
>> sense: if you're training for a lift which involves doing specific
>> things
>> with your legs, then doing lifts which don't require you to do that
>> is a
>> bad idea. I'd agree. If you're training for other lifts, or for
>> strength
>> in general, that doesn't apply.
>>
>> He also points out that kettlebells don't come in sizes big enough to
>> compete with barbells for top lifters doing the big lifts; this
>> clearly
>> isn't an argument against kettlebells in principle, but it's a decent
>> enough practical point. For less strong people and smaller lifts,
>> again,
>> it's clearly irrelevant.
>>
>> He mentions that with DBs and KBs, "the maximum load possible is less
>> than
>> for barbell training"; he doesn't explain that, and i don't think
>> it's
>> true. You want to bench press 300 lb? There's nothing stopping anyone
>> making a pair of 150 lb dumbbells. I don't know if he's just talking
>> practically again, or if he thinks there's a reason this is actually
>> impossible. It doesn't seem to me that it is - although i've not
>> heard of
>> people doing it, and i'd be interested to see what happens.
>>
>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that
>> his
>> conclusion is bullshit.
>>
>> I was interested to read that "unilateral free weight training was
>> popular
>> in the early 1900s and included in the sport of weightlifting at the
>> Olympic Games until 192812"; reassuring to know that the Olympics
>> will
>> still be going in nineteen thousand years.
>>
>> tom
>
> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that barbells
> should form the base because strength and power is still the primary
> point of resistant training. It was meant to be an opinion piece - it
> wasn't published in a science journal. It was the National Strength
> and
> Conditioning Association 'Hot Topics' and he ventured forth an
> opinion.
> I was wrong to refer to him as a 'researcher' in this context, but I
> did
> point our he was also a top coach.

The base of _what_? That's part of the $64,000 question.

> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all that
> is
> required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I have no
> problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the cultists.

I have never found a kettlebell advocate who says you have to use them
if you have access to other implements.

For my purposes, I have access to all three and no lack of facility in
my basement - power rack, bench, several bars, plenty of weights, and
lots of dumbbells and kettlebells. I choose to train with the
kettlebell most of the time because I like what it does for me. (FWIW,
I have really almost no use for a dumbbell.) My theory goes like this:
If you train for strength, you still need to train some for endurance.
If you train strength/endurance, you can reap benefits of both strength
and endurance. The American Kettlebell Club folks, who are, FWIW,
detractors of Pavel's, cite the performance of their head coach and
world Champ: he's done things like a 300+ lb. one-armed deadlift without
ever training for it because he trained exclusively for Girevoy Sport.
I don't completely agree with their arguments but I think there's a
point to be taken away from their example nonetheless. If there is a
continuum with endurance on end and limit strength on the other,
training in the middle can be pretty effective and arguably it is the
most effective spot place to train if you're only going to train at one
spot along the line. My own training combines limit strength and
strength/endurance - I can't say it's made me a better anything since
I'm not training for anything other than my own health and enjoyment,
but I like the results I'm getting.

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


> --
> Keith

In article <5jj95hF3tsb8cU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-897EBE.09262528082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
> > Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >>
> >> > Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
> >> > conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well
> >> > respected
> >> > both as an academic and practical coach).
> >>
> >> Whether he's respected or not, if his analysis is duff, it's duff, so
> >> we
> >> should look at that.
> >>
> >> <rant>I do wish people would pay more attention to what was being
> >> said,
> >> and less to who is saying it; just because someone with a big beard
> >> and a
> >> long title is saying something doesn't make it true! One of my
> >> favourite
> >> quotes is from Galileo on this subject:
> >>
> >> But in natural sciences whose conclusions are true and necessary and
> >> have
> >> nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place
> >> oneself in
> >> the defence of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a
> >> thousand
> >> Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who
> >> happened
> >> to hit upon the truth for himself.
> >>
> >> Speaking as a mediocre wit myself, i find this rather
> >> comforting!</rant>
> >>
> >> > www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
> >>
> >> This is basically an opinion piece, not science. He cites exactly one
> >> bit
> >> of actual data, and that's a study comparing the energy cost of
> >> barbells
> >> and kettlebells; it says nothing about dumbbells, and nothing about
> >> strength development. To conclude, in a strength training context,
> >> that
> >> "application of available research indicates the training stimuli
> >> elicited
> >> by these implements is less effective compared to barbells" is simply
> >> nonsense.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure i even believe that study; sadly, i can't read it, as he
> >> makes his citations with numbers, but lists them by name, so there's
> >> no
> >> way to cross-reference and figure out which paper he's actually
> >> citing.
> >>
> >> Now, he does make some arguments about biomechanics which i think
> >> make
> >> sense: if you're training for a lift which involves doing specific
> >> things
> >> with your legs, then doing lifts which don't require you to do that
> >> is a
> >> bad idea. I'd agree. If you're training for other lifts, or for
> >> strength
> >> in general, that doesn't apply.
> >>
> >> He also points out that kettlebells don't come in sizes big enough to
> >> compete with barbells for top lifters doing the big lifts; this
> >> clearly
> >> isn't an argument against kettlebells in principle, but it's a decent
> >> enough practical point. For less strong people and smaller lifts,
> >> again,
> >> it's clearly irrelevant.
> >>
> >> He mentions that with DBs and KBs, "the maximum load possible is less
> >> than
> >> for barbell training"; he doesn't explain that, and i don't think
> >> it's
> >> true. You want to bench press 300 lb? There's nothing stopping anyone
> >> making a pair of 150 lb dumbbells. I don't know if he's just talking
> >> practically again, or if he thinks there's a reason this is actually
> >> impossible. It doesn't seem to me that it is - although i've not
> >> heard of
> >> people doing it, and i'd be interested to see what happens.
> >>
> >> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that
> >> his
> >> conclusion is bullshit.
> >>
> >> I was interested to read that "unilateral free weight training was
> >> popular
> >> in the early 1900s and included in the sport of weightlifting at the
> >> Olympic Games until 192812"; reassuring to know that the Olympics
> >> will
> >> still be going in nineteen thousand years.
> >>
> >> tom
> >
> > I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that barbells
> > should form the base because strength and power is still the primary
> > point of resistant training. It was meant to be an opinion piece - it
> > wasn't published in a science journal. It was the National Strength
> > and
> > Conditioning Association 'Hot Topics' and he ventured forth an
> > opinion.
> > I was wrong to refer to him as a 'researcher' in this context, but I
> > did
> > point our he was also a top coach.
>
> The base of _what_? That's part of the $64,000 question.

Strength and power training.
>
> > You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all that
> > is
> > required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I have no
> > problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the cultists.
>
> I have never found a kettlebell advocate who says you have to use them
> if you have access to other implements.
>
> For my purposes, I have access to all three and no lack of facility in
> my basement - power rack, bench, several bars, plenty of weights, and
> lots of dumbbells and kettlebells. I choose to train with the
> kettlebell most of the time because I like what it does for me. (FWIW,
> I have really almost no use for a dumbbell.) My theory goes like this:
> If you train for strength, you still need to train some for endurance.
> If you train strength/endurance, you can reap benefits of both strength
> and endurance. The American Kettlebell Club folks, who are, FWIW,
> detractors of Pavel's, cite the performance of their head coach and
> world Champ: he's done things like a 300+ lb. one-armed deadlift without
> ever training for it because he trained exclusively for Girevoy Sport.
> I don't completely agree with their arguments but I think there's a
> point to be taken away from their example nonetheless. If there is a
> continuum with endurance on end and limit strength on the other,
> training in the middle can be pretty effective and arguably it is the
> most effective spot place to train if you're only going to train at one
> spot along the line. My own training combines limit strength and
> strength/endurance - I can't say it's made me a better anything since
> I'm not training for anything other than my own health and enjoyment,
> but I like the results I'm getting.

Which is great, but we are talking athletic training, not someone trying
to be efficient and generally good.

BTW - I pulled 365 the first time I tried a one-armed deadlift without
training for it...

Doing the olympic 3 - snatch, C&J and front squat.

:^?

:^)

--
Keith

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> conclusion is bullshit.
>
> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that barbells
> should form the base because strength and power is still the primary
> point of resistant training.

Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or even
why they're any different. It's all weight!

> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all that is
> required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I have no
> problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the cultists.

Well, in that case, proceed!

tom

--
People don't want nice. People want London. -- Al

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>>
>>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>>> conclusion is bullshit.
>>
>> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> the primary point of resistant training.
>
> Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
> even why they're any different. It's all weight!

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.

>> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
>> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>> cultists.

What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
*is* all that's required .

Of course, on the flip side, there are plenty of kettlebell
aficionados that have been able to do fairly impressive things while
only training with kettlebells. So, depending on your goals, it is
even safe to say that a kettlebell may be all that is required.
Alternatively, you could probably get away with just pushing your car
around, or lifting big rocks. If you want to look like a yoga devotee
then all that is required is a purple mat.

The important thing is to not get carried away about the importance of
this "research." The only difference between this particular paper
and your standard kettlebell propaganda is that this paper doesn't
mention the word comrade even once. Heck, I am pretty sure that
_Enter the Kettlebell_ even cites more studies. In the entire paper
there is precisely one measurement, and the measurement taken
basically tells us that lifting a heavier weight requires more energy
than lifting a lighter weight.

I'm sure Newton would be impressed.

So be careful with your pointy stick. From here it would appear to be
sharp at both ends.

Jason

In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:

> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
> >> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
> >>>
> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
> >>
> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
> >> the primary point of resistant training.
> >
> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>
> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>
> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
> >> cultists.
>
> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
> *is* all that's required .

I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In my
training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:

bodyweight exercises including hills
barbells
dumbbells
kettlebells
swing bells
sledge hammers
cabers
stones
shot
medicine balls
ropes
sleds
a 1997 Ford van :^)
etc.

But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training was
with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat, etc. Then we
would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed or power.

Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups as
the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance and
core work from rolling.

--
Keith

Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
> Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
>> >> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>> >
>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>
>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>
>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
>> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>> >> cultists.
>>
>> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
>> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
>> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
>> *is* all that's required .
>
> I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In
> my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:

And here I was planning on writing a series of pamphlets on how the
use of this wonderful training device could change your life...

Oh well, it probably wouldn't have made a very good gimmick anyhow.

> bodyweight exercises including hills
> barbells
> dumbbells
> kettlebells
> swing bells
> sledge hammers
> cabers
> stones
> shot
> medicine balls
> ropes
> sleds
> a 1997 Ford van :^)
> etc.

That sounds like a lot of fun, and to a certain extent that's the
point .

> But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training
> was with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat,
> etc. Then we would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed
> or power.

Exactly, even Steve agrees that when it comes to building strength and
power the best tool for the job is probably the barbell. It's
inexpensive, and it allows you to move ridiculous amounts of weight.

> Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
> changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
> course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
> progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
> absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
> them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups as
> the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance and
> core work from rolling.

It really is hard to beat deadlifts. It's entirely possible that
deadlifts are all you need .

Jason

"Jason Earl" <jearl@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:874piidy0y.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
> Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
>> Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
>>> >> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude
>>> >>> that his
>>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>>> >>
>>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>>> >
>>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others -
>>> > or
>>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>>
>>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>>> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that.
>>> >> I
>>> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>>> >> cultists.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably
>>> more
>>> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are
>>> folks
>>> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a
>>> barbell
>>> *is* all that's required .
>>
>> I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In
>> my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
>
> And here I was planning on writing a series of pamphlets on how the
> use of this wonderful training device could change your life...
>
> Oh well, it probably wouldn't have made a very good gimmick anyhow.
>
>> bodyweight exercises including hills
>> barbells
>> dumbbells
>> kettlebells
>> swing bells
>> sledge hammers
>> cabers
>> stones
>> shot
>> medicine balls
>> ropes
>> sleds
>> a 1997 Ford van :^)
>> etc.
>
> That sounds like a lot of fun, and to a certain extent that's the
> point .
>
>> But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training
>> was with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat,
>> etc. Then we would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed
>> or power.
>
> Exactly, even Steve agrees that when it comes to building strength and
> power the best tool for the job is probably the barbell. It's
> inexpensive, and it allows you to move ridiculous amounts of weight.
>
>> Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
>> changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
>> course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
>> progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
>> absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
>> them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups
>> as
>> the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance
>> and
>> core work from rolling.
>
> It really is hard to beat deadlifts. It's entirely possible that
> deadlifts are all you need .

I think Pavel, in PTP, assigns something like 80-90% of "it" to
deadlifts, and adds a one-arm standing overhead press for the remainder.
You could argue until the cows come home about what's still missing, but
I think the answer is "not much."

BTW, I was just looking through an early Pavel book entitled, "Beyond
Stretching", and it's pre-kettlebell. He says you can't get them in the
US, so he demonstrates a snatch with a powerblock dumbbell.

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

> Jason

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:01:56 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf@workhorse.earlhome>,
> Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561@urchin.earth.li >,
>> >> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>> >
>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>
>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>
>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing th