Dr Mel Siff and a Russian Article on Kettlebells Part 2

02 Feb

Dr Mel Siff and a Russian Article on Kettlebells Part 2

Author: Dr Mel Siff Blog // Category: Dr Siff on Olympic Weight Lifting, Dr Siff on Resistance Training, Main Content, Soviet/Eastern Bloc Training

Here is the next episode in the saga of Russian kettlebell lifting.

Kettlebell Lifting (continued)

PART 2

Extracts from Bud Charniga’s translations of the 1984 Russian Weightlifting
Yearbook (obtainable from www.dynamic-eleiko.com).

Kettlebell lifting requires two physical qualities: strength and endurance,
the combination of which produces a new quality- strength-endurance.

Flexibility, coordination and speed are qualities that are not involved in
kettlebell lifting; one should understand however, that kettlebell lifting is
unlike gymnastics, acrobatics, figure skating and many other sports.

As is known, strength and endurance develop and are perfected over a rather
wide age-range, therefore, results in kettlebell lifting can increase over a
longer period of time and over a wider age-range.

Let’s look at the effectiveness, or in other words, the training results of
kettlebell workouts. If a means of physical education can have all of the
aforementioned positive qualities, but its training-effect is low and it does
not exert a strong influence on the body, then on the whole, the value of
such a means will be low.

One can determine the influence of various means of physical education by
testing the athletes and comparing the test results during workouts with
different types of exercises.

We studied (at the Voronezhsky Farming Institute) the influence of kettlebell
lifting on the development of fundamental physical qualities over several
years. Based on the results of the first control tests: 1,000 metre
cross-country, 100 metre run, pull-ups, standing long-jump; three study
groups were formed from the students who took part two experimental (19 men)
and one control (21 men), of equivalent capabilities. We obtained the
following data. The initial mean results in the 1000 metre cross-country, was
3 min 48 sec for the experimental groups and 3 min 45 sec for the control
group. At the end of the first year of training the results were:
experimental groups 3 min 11 sec; the control group 3 min 13 sec. After two
years of training the results were: experimental groups 3 min 2 sec; the
control group 3 min 9 sec.

The pull-up results changed in the following way. The initial mean result
over a year (in the experimental groups — 6.3 times and 6.8 times in the
control group) increased to 8.8 in the experimental groups and to 8.38 in the
control group. By the end of the second year of study the experimental
group’s results increased to 9.8 times and the control group to 9.25 times.
The standing long jump dynamics were as follows. The initial mean in the
experimental groups was 204 cm and 203.7 cm in the control group. This
increased to 211.2 cm after one year of sessions in the experimental groups
and to 207.2 cm in the control group. At the end of the second year of
training these figures increased to 213.3 cm and 210.3 cm respectively.

The results of the 100 metre tests were as follows. In the experimental
groups the initial mean result was 14.4 sec; after the first year of training
it improved to 13.62 sec and after the second to 13.44 sec. Improvement in
the control group was somewhat slower. The initial result was 14.37 sec.
After the first year of training the mean result was 13.69 sec and after the
second year 13.48 sec.

The results of the experimental groups were higher than those of the control
group in all of the tests. The absolute improvements in the tests were: 100
metre run– Kettlebell lifters, 0.96 sec; control group, 0.86 sec; in the
cross-country –experimental groups, 0.46 sec and 0.36 sec in the control
group; in the standing long jump 9.3 cm and 6.6 cm respectively; in pull-ups
3.59 times for the kettlebell lifters and 2.45 times for the control group.

As is known, the Physical Work Capacity PWC170 test [see Siff MC,
"Supertraining" for details] is an important indicator of an athlete’s
general _physical work-capacity. Athletes who participate in cyclic types of
sports usually have the highest PWC170 scores. Kettlebell exercises are
cyclic, therefore we assumed that the work-capacity of kettlebell lifters is
high.

We studied .22 athletes who were either master of sport or Class I. The
PWC170 fluctuated in the range of 1180 to 1622 Kg M/min and the group mean
was 1486 Kg M/min. The relative PWC170 was 19.5 Kg M/min per kilo of
bodyweight.

So, kettlebell lifting, is quite suitable as a means of physical education
for a wide range of sports. The appropriateness of kettlebell lifting is
associated with the possibility of individual workouts, the technical
simplicity of the exercises, the ease of obtaining equipment, and the
possibility of training and competing with people of different ages.
Kettlebell lifting develops basic physical qualities and increases physical
work capacity. All of these lead one to consider kettlebell lifting an
effective means of physical education.

——————–

Attempts to devise Universal Rules of Competition and Classification Norms in
Kettlebell Lifting

Starodubtsev M V

The growing popularity and the “mass character” of Kettlebell lifting; its
transformation from a regional small- departmental sport, to a sport which
will be included in the Unified All-Soviet Classification System makes it
necessary to devise universal rules of competition and classification norms
for kettlebell lifters. Our purpose was to answer the following questions:

1. To determine the competition program.
2. To determine the optimal number and range of weight classes..
3. To devise evaluation tables for objective team scoring.
4. To establish equivalent work classification norms for all weight classes.

The Competition Program.

At present there are two events in kettlebell lifting — the Snatch with one
kettlebell and the Clean & Jerk with two kettlebells. These can be agreed on.
We think there is reason to believe that there are more significant and
effective exercises for Candidates to Master of Sport (CMS) and Masters of
Sport (MS); namely:

1. Snatch with two kettlebells, similar to the snatch with a barbell (in a
half-squat or full squat position) or by lifting the kettlebells between the
legs. Repetition snatches, executed without losing tempo.

2. Clean and jerk with two kettlebells with multiple cleans and jerks (same
number of cleans as jerks). After jerking the kettlebells, lower them into
the hang position and without losing tempo, lift them to the shoulders for
repetition jerks.

By way of comparison, firstly, these exercises involve more muscle groups;
secondly, they have a symmetrical influence on the body; thirdly, they reduce
the possible number of repetitions, thereby lowering the probability of
injuring the hands and shortening competitions. The clean and jerk with two
kettlebells can be utilized by the other classifications and the snatch with
one kettlebell is not executed by turns, but alternately with each hand
switching the kettlebell from hand to hand in the hang position. This enables
the athlete to avoid asymmetric development and will contribute to equalizing
the number of lifts by each hand.

Quantity and Range of Weight Classes. The optimal number and range of weight
classes is determined by correlation equations expressing the dependence of
results in the competition exercises on the athlete’s bodyweight. Let’s look
at how such equations are established. We used the results of the all-Soviet
competition held April 22-24, 1983 in Klaiped as the initial data….

For the rest of the article, see 1984 Weightlifting Yearbook.

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Share and Enjoy: