Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells

External Since: Nov 18, 2007 Posts: 53

"Steve Freides" <steve RemoveThis @fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:5jj95hF3tsb8cU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Hobbes" <khobman800 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-897EBE.09262528082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561 RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li>,
>> Tom Anderson <twic RemoveThis @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. Smile

>>>
>>> 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
>
>

Steve,
Why do you train at home vs going to a gym?

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

External Since: Nov 18, 2007 Posts: 53

"Tom Anderson" <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311827410.30238@urchin.earth.li...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Shava_X wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:52:41 -0700, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> 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??
>>
>> The main reason why You can just divide Your barbell bench press weight
>> in half when using dumbbells has to do with balance. When using a
>> barbell, the lifter only really needs to keep the weight stable fore and
>> aft (towards the head and feet). With dumbbells, the weight must also be
>> stabilized left and right. this adds new stress to the muscles. When
>> doing bench press with dumbbells, even the core muscles get worked a
>> little in order to keep the lifter on the bench.
>
> Okay, so what if we took our 315 lb bencher and trained up his
> stabilisers? Could he then do a 2 x 157.5 lb bench?
>
> I bench with dumbbells, and on the rare occasions that i try a barbell, i
> can't suddenly lift more. I presume that since my stabilisers have been
> trained for it, they're on a par with my pecs, so they're not the limiting
> factor, and taking them out of the picture doesn't give me any advantage.
>
> But then i'm not using anything like a 157.5 lb dumbbell!
>
>> At the moment, i consider that to be distinct advantage.
>
> Indeed.
>
> tom
>
> --
> 10 PARTY : GOTO 10

Tom,
For you to noticeably increase the amount of weight you use on a barbell,
you must work at it just like anything else. Just trying it every once and a
while will not really show you what you can do with it. I think that you are
better off using both as they both hit the muscle differently. I still
believe that most people who actually get into the gym and are consistent
over train. I see people at the gym all the time who do FAR too many
sets/body part. I saw a pretty small guy the other day do 20 sets for his
biceps. I never did 20 sets for my biceps even when competing in
bodybuilding, eating well and taking steroids! Smile

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/