I was thinking about ways to measure progress in GS. The best way, of course, is the PR for classic lifts. The problem with it, however, is that going for your best can only be done occasionally. I also wanted to compare various set/rest combinations for timed sets. What is more difficult, to do 10 one minute sets of 5 two minute ones?
In Pavel’s Beyond Bodybuilding there is a chapter on Pete Sisco’s Power Coefficient. I don’t remember exactly how it was calculated, but the idea was to combine weights, reps, sets and time into some sort of coefficient which can then be used to plot progress. The idea was criticized on bodybuilding.com, but I think overall approach is valid. In any case it is fun to play with numbers.
I could think of several parameters of training session. I was using Excel spreadsheet while playing with them, so that I could compare different workouts.
First, total load lifted. You are doing jerks with 2 x 16 kg and did 10 of 1 minute sets at 10 reps per minute. Total load is 10 x 10 x 32 kg = 32000 kg.
Next, load per minute. In the example above you rested 1 minute between sets. Therefore you lifted 3200 kg in 19 minutes (10 min for sets and 9 min rest in between). 3200/19 = 168 kg/min. Playing with this parameter is interesting. If you follow the EDT sequence from the earlier post, http://girevoysportafter40.blogspot.com/2008/07/russian-edt-in-gs.html where rest time equals set time, you can compare the load of different levels. Doing 5 sets of 2 minutes each at 10 reps/min is more difficult, as the total time is 18 min and the load/min is 178 kg. Similarly, doing 4 sets of 3 min or 3 sets of 4 min results in loads of 183 and 192 kg/min, respectively, because of different total times, 21 vs. 20 minutes. Two 5 minute sets give 213 kg/min.
Load per minute, however, does not tell the whole story. What is more difficult, two sets of 5 min with 5 min in between or 1 set of 6 minutes at the same reps/min? In order to combine volume and intensity I multiplied load per minute by total weight lifted (divided by 10,000 to make the number manageable). As the reminder, something like this was done by Peter Sisco, and I will also call it Power Coefficient (PC).
Taking all three coefficients together allows to compare training sessions. Comparing two sets of 5 minutes resting 5 minutes with one set of 6 minutes, both at 10 reps per minute produces the following numbers.
Total weight lifted: 3200 vs. 1920 kg.
Load per minute: 213 vs. 320 kg/min
PC: 68 vs. 61.
Six minute set is more intense. That is why long timed sets are so difficult: the load is more concentrated in time. Even though you lift less in 6 minute set, the load per minute is 50% higher. This parameter may be used as the measure of intensity in GS. At the same time total weight lifted – training volume - is much higher during 5 minute sets. Combining load per minute and total weight lifted into PC gives some sort of balanced estimate, hybrid between volume and intensity.
I don’t know, maybe it is a good way to gauge the load parameters with these numbers. Keep the PC more or less constant and tweak total weight lifted and load per minute. Or keep either volume and/or intensity the same and vary the PC when planning microcycles. It might also make sense to include assistance exercises into calculations.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Girevoy Sport info: methodology of training and sharing my own modest experience and observations.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(102)
-
▼
August
(18)
- 30 August 2008
- 27 Augist 2008
- “The Heart is not a Machine”
- 25 August 2008
- Long cycle and OTW
- 24 August 2008
- Measuring progress
- 20 August 2008
- Flexibility in GS
- 13 August 2008
- Another training template
- Trauma Prevention in GS
- 10 August 2008
- 8 August 2008
- 6 August 2008
- 3 August 2008
- More on Jerk Training
- 2 August 2008
-
▼
August
(18)
9 comments:
Smet, I love it and thank you for the new way of measuring this.
-hideouse
I am certainly dazzled by the calculations and formulae but I cannot help thinking that there is something missing.
E.g., yesterday I finished my training by doing 60 jerks @ 4rpm with two 24's. But I set the giri down between reps. And I am confident I could do 70 reps in this fashion. Patently, I can add reps to this methodology but I still can only do about 2-3 minutes of GS jerks.
So I don't doubt your equations, but I think there must be some variables missing. I don't have the knowledge to tell what those variables are, but I sense there is an "it" factor not being accounted for.
Eugene, Just a quick note to say "thank you" for starting this blog for guys like us (I'll be 42 next month). Great information on form and technique.
Great job and very generous!
Geoff
Dr Ipock, Sisco would argue if you did the same number of reps in less time, no matter how many times you set the bells down, or did more reps in the same amount of time, you are now more fit.
It was used for bodybuilding purposes to calc workload. It would be hard to apply it to a sport, but it is very similar to EDT, but Staley keeps time as a constant, you just try do do more work in a given amount of time thus eliminating the need to divide by the amount of time it took you to complete your workout.
Smet, your blog is awesome. It's hard to find good stuff on GS, thanks for taking the time to translate this info for us.
hoooowdy, B.J.
Although I'd rather have a GS medal, I guess it is some consolation to be fitter in Sisco's opinion. At this point, I'll take what I can get.
But I won't have to settle for long. You can see by my numbers that I have progressed since we last spoke. I am confident that eventually I will be able to attend a kettlebell meet and not embarrass myself. To a large extent, I have to thank the blogosphere for that. I have gleaned a great deal from Smet's blog as well as your own. So, thanks eveyone and to all a good night
Eugene, this blog is awesome, I check it regularly. I'm 47 and I just started true GS training last week. I previously did some weight training in addition to hiking, skiing, and playing ball. Have been doing crossfit style workouts mixed with some kettlebell workouts (not GS style) for the last couple of years.
Seems to me that it is important to vary both the volume and intensity of training in order to effectively stimulate the CNS for the best possible gains. In addition, for us 40+ers, we need some lower intensity workouts mixed in out of necessity of schedule and necessity of recovery. Your thoughts and information are great, keep up the focused training and the sharing of insights - we appreciate it very much!
I guess the difference between the red and white muscles, as well as the changes of the energy generating way, would explain the difference between the long and short sets... And that is why I never liked the short sets like 10 sets of 1 minute because you are really using the different muscles' types as well as the different procceses been involved to generate the energy....
The working part of the muscles will depend on the effort needed, which will depend on the tempo (pace) alot...
And I also guess that heart rate monitoring would be pretty helpful, since you could monitor how much you increase your HR every rep (and so you can calculate the 'cost' of the lift), how much do you decreasy between the reps (how well you are relaxed in the rest position), you also can see the stabilized HR at the current pace and compare that to the previous workout, as well as compare all the other parameters like the 'cost' of the lift etc....you also would use the heart rate monitor to choose the right zone for the current cycle of the training...etc... jmo
You will also figure out the weakest point (muscles, heart, etc) and so you will know where to go...
And needless to say that heart rate monitoring will help to keep the heart rate in the safe zone which is very important for those 40+ folks...
Besides, we all do have the different ratio of the slow/fast muscles and many other different details, and so the different people will feel the difference between the long & short sets in the different way....jmo again...
and also different cycles of the training will have the different goals and so the different rep/set schemes...
smet, what do you think about it?
jmo.
thanks
A-y
Andrey, I think you are right. I also think that at the beginning stages the difference in muscle fibers will have less significance. At the beginning the goal - jmo - should be building volume. A novice (like myself) can do more reps in several shorter sets compared to one long one. Building volume will eventually lead to the ability to do more reps non-stop, provided the technique is improving. Of course, going for long sets is a must, but I don't think it should be done too often. Again, my opinion is one of an amateur experimenting on himself, so these statents are far from the ultimate truth.
Heart rate monitor idea is interesting, as GS is primarily endurance sport and HR can guide training. At least help to avoid excessively high heart rates.
My compliments on your blog. I've just turned forty and just started KB lifting.
Your post is very interesting but some important things have to be kept in mind.
The main question is, what's more efficient at this time? The object of training is to initiate changes in the way our body lifts giri. Absolute numbers are not necessarily related to better performance. Not every number is a correct representation of every physiological change. Reps/min could be a good measure of our ability to develop power but not muscular endurance.
What are we measuring and how do we compare it? If you fix your training protocol, you can compare outputs. In this example the reps/minute is fixed, all sets are of the same length, work time and rest time are equal (except of course for the single set). The reps/min are not influenced by the duration of the set. We can say it’s a pace we can hold continuously for a long time. Our criterion by which we measure the quality of our workout is average power. Under these conditions, we see that adding one minute to a single set is more rewarding then adding another 5 min set.
Now let’s say we decide to do some high intensity interval training. We crank up our number of reps per minute to 20. We do 2 sets of 1 minute all out with rest of 3 minutes. At the end of each set we are panting heavily and our hart rate is close to maximum. The six-minute continuous 10-rpm workout gives us a load per minute of 320 kg/min and a PC of 61. The half crazy HIIT workout gives 256kg/min and a PC of 33. However we know the HIIT workout is more demanding then the 6-minute steady state. Conclusion: total weight or weight per minute are useful to compare similar workouts and we have to choose them according to the desired results.
Multiplying weight per minute with total weight is the same as multiplying total weight by itself and dividing it by total time. In other words doubling total weight quadruples PC, halving time only doubles PC. I suppose it’s a bodybuilding thing related to how muscle growth occurs. Reducing rest time between sets is probably less effective for muscle growth then adding another plate on the bar or doing one extra set. To my opinion PC gives way to much importance to total weight as supposed to weight over time to be a good measure for girevoy sport.
By the way, did you hear about the statistician who drowned while crossing the river? According to his calculations, the average depth was less then a meter.
Post a Comment