all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Double KB jerk for A+A

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

deviant

Level 2 Valued Member
Just curious why nobody is using double KB jerk for a+a training. It is a great lift, and in my opinion more taxing than any other. You would have to get some idea of GS technique, but it's not a rocket science.

One great component of double jerk is the ability to play with time under the weight, and instead of 5 reps in 10 seconds repeated on the minute you can also progress in time in rack while keeping heart rate under the prescribed number.

Anybody played with this?
 
I did double jerks in A+A format while preparing for SFG II. However, they weren't GS style, and progressing the time in the rack wouldn't be A+A. We did originally use a HR number target with A+A, but that has worked its way out of the prescribed format and it's no longer a concern. What A+A tries to do is deplete PCr (the alactic energy in the muscles) with a quick/fast/powerful work set (usually 12-15 seconds), and then rest/recover for about a minute or a minute and a half (aerobic recover), then repeat that 20-60 times or so in a session. So to do double jerks for this it would be 1) hardstyle technique with challenging weight (max power/explosiveness for both clean and jerk), 2) probably a clean + 5 quick jerks, or 2-3 clean + jerks, then set the bells down and recover. In contrast, working your way up with GS and extending time in the rack introduces the static hold, which could definitely be used in Strong Endurance or other protocols with slightly different target adaptations, but not specifically A+A.
 
My overhead mobility with 2 bells isn't the best but I have done 10 min of single arm jerks with the 24kg with multiple hand switches. It was just for fun but I was really sore from it due to the time under tension.
 
Anna,

Double jerks - rack position to be precise - for females is problematic for anatomical reasons, and hard style double jerks are not the same, though probably could work in a different format. An alternative for ladies would be "resting" in overhead position, maybe...

I probably shouldn't have phrased this as A+A training, though depletion of PCr as its hallmark is probably an oversimplification. I think it's rather "tapping into" rather than depletion. We can call it anything, but I think if HR is below the lactate threshold level technically it's alactic.

The reason I like double jerk is because done GS style it's the most brutal KB lift. In a way that you are always under load, either in rack or overhead. The only pause you get is when the bells are descending, which is very short. Much shorter than the descent in snatch or long cycle. I am guessing you would be able to maintain elevated HR for longer total time during the session.

Anyway, I am currently nursing my impinged shoulder. As soon as I recover I will experiment with this and post the results.
 
deviant said:
Just curious why nobody is using double KB jerk for a+a training.
Click to expand...
With single bells you can somewhat recover one side while you work the other, thus prolonging your session. But still, nothing wrong with doing clean and jerk.
 
@Anna C

Would you still do double clean+jerks sometimes, or is there no place for it in A+A?
I too apreciate your vast knowledge and your elaborate posts. :)
 
Roland Roppelt said:
@Anna C

Would you still do double clean+jerks sometimes, or is there no place for it in A+A?
I too apreciate your vast knowledge and your elaborate posts. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words :)

Sure, double clean+jerks can be a good choice for A+A I think. The snatch seems to be the best choice for A+A specifically, but clean + jerk is used in several Strong Endurance protocols, of which A+A is a subset.

Personally I like them OK but don't love them... as @deviant points out they're not the best choice for women, although they're still entirely do-able. The rack position has to be slightly out from the center of the body compared to men, which is hard sometimes with heavier weight because the kettlebell wants to go even farther out if you misgroove it... not good for elbows.

The neat thing about clean+jerk is it's so scaleable weight-wise... for example, a while back I would often do a (5-8 minutes? I forget) finisher of 50 C+J in a row without setting the bells down using 8 kg + 8kg. Not too hard; just like a steady state effort that challenged the endurance of the grip, rack position, etc... had me what felt like just under lactate threshold, HR maybe 145 or 150. In contrast, a set of 3-5 clean + jerks with 20kg + 20kg, or single arm 24kg, was a much harder effort which I could do repeatedly in A+A style with the familiar "up and down" HR pattern.

One thing that's interesting about GS-style C&J to me is that the movement itself it's almost MORE fast and explosive than hardstyle. In contrast, the snatch is the opposite.
 
deviant said:
I think if HR is below the lactate threshold level technically it's alactic.
Click to expand...

I would not say this is true. I'll elaborate on my POV and interested in any views on it.

First, terminology:
  • Alactic = PCr = quick/fast/immediate energy, 10-30 sec.
  • Glycolytic = Anerobic glycolysis (lactate-producing); intermediate energy, a few minutes at top speed, or longer at "race pace" below lactate threshold
  • Aerobic = long easy distance; walking or light jog; lactate levels stay near baseline because anerobic glycolysis is minimized
Let's take a sprint/run/jog scenario. If I walk and lightly jog for 5 minutes prior to a "test", I've ramped up the aerobic system to contriubute what it can to my energy needs. If I just continue a very easy jog I might stay purely aerobic -- no lactate being produced, and the aerobic energy system can both supply energy and replenish any PCr that's been used by the muscles. This would be "alactic", and for me my HR would be 130 or below.

But if, after that initial warm-up, I start a "test" with a sprint, the aerobic system is still supplying energy, but it's not nearly enough to make my muscles contract as hard as they need to in order to sprint. The muscles use PCr for about 10-30 seconds. But immediately my body knows it needs a lot more energy FAST in order to sustain a maximum sprint/run, so anerobic glycolysis kicks in, my HR goes up rapidly to 160 or as high as 180 (about my max), my breathing increases rapidly. I can keep this up for a couple of minutes, but if I go too hard I'm way above lactate threshold and have to slow way down to a slow jog at best, and feeling miserable. If I instead start the "test" with a "race pace", maybe something I can sustain for 20 or 30 minutes, it's still aerobic and PCr (alactic) for the first 10-30 seconds, and then aerobic + anerobic glycolysis (lactate-producing) on top, but not enough to produce that rapidly increasing amount of lactate that forces me to slow down. I'm still breathing hard and HR is relatively high (160-ish), but not huffing and puffing and maxed out; I'm under lactate threshold (LT).

Now let's apply this to LCCJ. PCr is no doubt being used by the muscles to perform the explosive movements of clean and jerk, and it's continuously replenished and supplemented either aerobically or by anerobic glycolysis. How do we know which? Well, the heart rate and blood lactate levels can tell us. In my case, generally if my HR stays under 130, it's mostly aerobic. If my HR is between 130 and 160, it's glycolytic, but I can sustain it. If I go over 170 I'm probably going to be forced to slow down within a few minutes for sure because I'm above lactate threshold. This is true for a snatch test and/or LCCJ.

Back to your original point, then... "if HR is below the lactate threshold level technically it's alactic" -- I would say not. My LT HR is about 160, but this is very "lactic"... in fact, the whole range of HR 130 to 160 is "lactic" (i.e. glycolytic). I'm only "alactic" if I'm under 130; a relatively easy effort.

Edit/Add: "A+A" means the energy is supplied mostly by alactic (PCr) and aerobic systems, avoiding glycolysis... but we know we don't actually avoid glycolysis completely. We just avoid staying in deep or prolonged glycolysis by recovering and letting the HR come down between repeat efforts.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I agree with @Anna C . Lactate threshold just means your body can no longer buffer the hydrogen ions in your blood. There is plenty of lactate being produced during hard prolonged efforts that are below lactate threshold.
 
rickyw said:
I agree with @Anna C . Lactate threshold just means your body can no longer buffer the hydrogen ions in your blood. There is plenty of lactate being produced during hard prolonged efforts that are below lactate threshold.
Click to expand...

Yes - and I hope I don't pull this thread more off topic, but this is (in my opinion) what make A+A, and AGT in general, so cool. Lactate can be burned aerobically in the mitochondria. It's a slow reaction, but it's not slow because of the lack of oxygen - the rate limiting step is elsewhere. Since you're not limited by oxygen, the amount of lactate you can burn is limited by the number of mitochondria you have that can work in parallel. Repeated A+A bouts that lightly tap into glycoloysis cause some (below threshold) lactate to be generated and then you have to burn it in the mitochondria. As you do more A+A (and AGT) work, you grow more mitochondria so you can burn more lactate before it hits your blood. Meaning you can do more work with less of the by products.

HIIT does this too - which is why it works (for a while) but the approach of HIIT is to go hard and go past the buffering ability - overload the system and stimulate more mitochondria growth. But the overload also causes damage and that's why so many people burn out with that kind of training.

A+A is a slow over reaching that is always manageable. Just like a slow weight progression with barbells.

That's a long way of saying that I think the protocol matter less than the slow overreaching and growth - just like there are hundreds of variants of weightlifting programs (some more effective than others), there can be hundred of variants of A+A (some more effective than others...)
 
Anna,

Let's track back a little, to the purposes of various modes of training. The following is taken out of the book by Andrej Khozhurkin, The Theory and Methodology of Pullups (emphasis mine).

If you want to prepare the body for work in unfavourable conditions - for example during progressively increasing lactic acidosis - training is aimed at creating these conditions. For example, in middle distance running (400 and 800 m) where main mechanism of energy utilisation is anaerobic glycolysis in weeks leading to competition athletes perform large volume of anaerobic training, which makes this energy pathway more efficient.

On the other hand, if you want to achieve optimal utilisation of lactic acid then training of the same very middle distance running has to aim at increasing the aerobic oxidation of energy substrates, which will delay the moment where lactic acidosis leads to failure. In this case training load will be completely different. The paradox is, improving aerobic function of the muscle also improves its functioning under glycolytic conditions.

Therefore, glycolytic training has to comply with the following: it has to lead to the rapid use of glycogen in the muscle followed by supercompensation; it also has to lead to the accumulation of lactic acid in the muscle in order to develop resistance to acidosis.

On the other hand, anti-glycolytic training aims at increasing work capacity not by improving the resistance of the muscle to lactic acid and the ability to function under more acidotic conditions, but by slowing down its production by improving oxidative capacity of the muscle.

So, the purpose of this training is not depleting creatine phosphate, though you can do that if you wish. But the ultimately the purpose is the development of the aerobic function. Khozhurkin uses several series of several sets of pullups at 40-50% of maximum and long breaks in between. Eventually the fatigue accumulates, RPE rises, reps in a set drop and the series is stopped. Then repeated after a longer break.

What I am getting at is that KB jerks can add another loading parameter to this: rack holds. (Please note, I am talking about jerks, not C&J. The loading in these lifts is very different, and we can talk about it in another post). Rack holds are not high intensity, but they contribute to the general fatigue. In a way similar to Strossen's Supersquats, where you "rest" with the barbell on your shoulders. What it can do is to prolong the time when your heart rate is elevated, and smooth out the peaks and troughs of HR curve during the workout. This is my guess, not observation, and that's why I asked the question in the first place.
 
Yes, all good, @deviant ... and what you describe is similar to a few of the Strong Endurance protocols, and I would agree it is anti-glycolytic training. Could be we're just mixing terminology - here is how I use it:
  • AGT = anti-glycolytic training = tries to emphaize different aspects of strength, power, and/or endurance while minimizing deep and prolonged glycolysis
  • Strong Endurance = many different protocols, mostly AGT, which emphasize different aspects of training and adaptation
  • A+A = a subset of AGT and/or SE protocols that specifically uses high power repeats with active rest between them.
So I would say what you describe of jerks which include the rack holds could be AGT, but not A+A, specifically because there's no full rest between repeats, and the repeats of jerks aren't necessarily designed as the 12-15 sec work set.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom