PDA

View Full Version : Re: Military Presses


Steve Freides
September 28th 06, 06:07 AM
"Shute" > wrote in message
...
>I started working out at a new gym. My old gym had a nice Hammer
> Stretch machine I could load up with weights and do military presses
> on. I could also rig up something with free weights using the squat
> rack if I wanted too.
>
> I thought this new place had the same thing. But it turns out it is a
> behind the head press instead of in front. All the guys I used to
> work out with says this messes up the rotator cuffs.

For most people, it only messes up the rotator cuffs _if_ you don't have
the flexibility to do the movement properly. If you can keep your head
in a normal position and pull down behind your head comfortably, it
shouldn't hurt anything. If you have to lean your head down or push
your head forwards, then it's best to stay away from it and work on your
shoulder flexibility.

> When I looked
> around the only other thing they had was a bench with the barbell
> overhead. Except the weight is so high up you need a spotter to move
> the weight into position. The gym guy mentioned the smith machine but
> that has its own issues with moving the weight in the right direction.
>
> So any ideas what to do now. Should I live with the behind the head
> press? Should I switch over to barbells? Or should I just come up
> with something else for shoulder work.

The barbell military press is a fine movement, as are any of dozens of
alternative pressing movements. Just pick whatever works for your goals
and have at it. The old timers did side and bent presses - great stuff.

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

Pete
September 28th 06, 10:39 AM
"Shute" > schreef:

> Hmm. The only pain I ever felt with the front presses was when I
> brought the weight too low.

With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last 15% of
the ROM.
This is better for both the shoulders and elbows, keeps continues tension on
the muscles, and gives you strained feeling, but in a GOOD way.

----
Pete

Bully
September 28th 06, 12:54 PM
Pete wrote:
> "Shute" > schreef:
>
>> Hmm. The only pain I ever felt with the front presses was when I
>> brought the weight too low.
>
> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
> 15% of the ROM.
> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,

Better in what way?

>keeps continues
> tension on the muscles, and gives you strained feeling, but in a GOOD
> way.
> ----
> Pete



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Pete
September 28th 06, 01:38 PM
"Bully" > schreef:

>> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
>> 15% of the ROM.
>> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,

> Better in what way?

Better because;

1) if you lock out, the weight is on the elbows, not the muscles.
2) if you let the bar go "too" deep, you might strain the shoulder joint
3) performing the reps this way provides "continues tension"

----
Pete

Steve Freides
September 28th 06, 02:33 PM
"Bully" > wrote in message
...
> Pete wrote:
>> "Shute" > schreef:
>>
>>> Hmm. The only pain I ever felt with the front presses was when I
>>> brought the weight too low.
>>
>> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
>> 15% of the ROM.
>> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,
>
> Better in what way?
>
>>keeps continues
>> tension on the muscles, and gives you strained feeling, but in a GOOD
>> way.

The OP has not stated specific goals so it's impossible to say what
might work best for him. What's better depends on your goals.

For general fitness purposes, joint health and range of motion should be
a consideration as well as muscle strength. For joint health and full
range of motion, locking out on the top is very good, but it's up to
individual trainees how they practice that - some may prefer full ROM
work without weights and limited ROM work with weights, but I prefer to
find exercises that encourage full ROM with weights. Just as muscles
don't get stronger without bearing some weight, joint health can be
improved with good exercise selection and regular practice. This is one
area in which an overhead kettlebell press offers some advantages over
the same movement done with a dumbbell. In the kettlebell version, the
weight is hanging off the back of the hand and resting on the forearm,
allowing you to lean forward at the shoulder at lockout and get a nice
stretch. It's more of a balancing act with a dumbbell - not necessarily
bad, just different, and not quite as conducive to increasing shoulder
ROM.

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

Jason Earl
September 28th 06, 03:21 PM
"Pete" > writes:

> "Bully" > schreef:
>
>>> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
>>> 15% of the ROM.
>>> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,
>
>> Better in what way?
>
> Better because;
>
> 1) if you lock out, the weight is on the elbows, not the muscles.

I thought joints were designed to do this sort of thing.

> 2) if you let the bar go "too" deep, you might strain the shoulder joint
> 3) performing the reps this way provides "continues tension"

I have no problems with these two :).

Jason

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 03:21 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>
> The OP has not stated specific goals so it's impossible to say what
> might work best for him. What's better depends on your goals.

He might not be aware of them yet.

> For general fitness purposes, joint health and range of motion should be
> a consideration as well as muscle strength. For joint health and full
> range of motion, locking out on the top is very good, but it's up to
> individual trainees how they practice that - some may prefer full ROM
> work without weights and limited ROM work with weights, but I prefer to
> find exercises that encourage full ROM with weights. Just as muscles
> don't get stronger without bearing some weight, joint health can be
> improved with good exercise selection and regular practice.

This is right. One of the reasons I switched to explosive lifts is the
fact that every time before I trained regularly, as well as this time,
my muscles outgrown my tendons and joints. Explosive lifting seems to
give this kind of shock stimulus which soft tissue likes.

> This is one
> area in which an overhead kettlebell press offers some advantages over
> the same movement done with a dumbbell. In the kettlebell version, the
> weight is hanging off the back of the hand and resting on the forearm,
> allowing you to lean forward at the shoulder at lockout and get a nice
> stretch. It's more of a balancing act with a dumbbell - not necessarily
> bad, just different, and not quite as conducive to increasing shoulder
> ROM.

If you do one handed press oldskool style, like the bent press, it
works your flexibility fine. Barbells are best for it because you can
keep the bar close to the body without weights getting in the way.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Pete
September 28th 06, 03:27 PM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

>>> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
>>> 15% of the ROM.
>>> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,

>> Better in what way?

>>>keeps continues
>>> tension on the muscles, and gives you strained feeling, but in a GOOD
>>> way.

> The OP has not stated specific goals so it's impossible to say what might
> work best for him. What's better depends on your goals.

Are YOU questioning my wisdom ?!?!?!

Swallow my wisdom the same way your... nevermind.

Anyway, the point being here is that *I* decide what is good for the OP, and
NOT the OP himself!

----
Pete

Bully
September 28th 06, 03:54 PM
Pete wrote:
> "Bully" > schreef:
>
>>> With shoulder presses, IMO, its better to skip the first 15 and last
>>> 15% of the ROM.
>>> This is better for both the shoulders and elbows,
>
>> Better in what way?
>
> Better because;
>
> 1) if you lock out, the weight is on the elbows, not the muscles.

Yep, so skip the last 2% of the ROM.

> 2) if you let the bar go "too" deep, you might strain the shoulder
> joint

How do you "strain" a joint?

> 3) performing the reps this way provides "continues tension"

Yes, so does it too if you don't lock out at the top (-2% ROM) and bring the
hands as deep as possible as the bottom

>
> ----
> Pete



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Steve Freides
September 28th 06, 04:04 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>
>> The OP has not stated specific goals so it's impossible to say what
>> might work best for him. What's better depends on your goals.
>
> He might not be aware of them yet.
>
>> For general fitness purposes, joint health and range of motion should
>> be
>> a consideration as well as muscle strength. For joint health and
>> full
>> range of motion, locking out on the top is very good, but it's up to
>> individual trainees how they practice that - some may prefer full ROM
>> work without weights and limited ROM work with weights, but I prefer
>> to
>> find exercises that encourage full ROM with weights. Just as muscles
>> don't get stronger without bearing some weight, joint health can be
>> improved with good exercise selection and regular practice.
>
> This is right. One of the reasons I switched to explosive lifts is
> the
> fact that every time before I trained regularly, as well as this time,
> my muscles outgrown my tendons and joints. Explosive lifting seems to
> give this kind of shock stimulus which soft tissue likes.

Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so popular
is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic (explosive) lifting
like strengthening connective tissue but requires much less in the way
of skill, equipment, and space. It is the reason, more than anything
thing else, that my bad back works as well as it does now.

>> This is one
>> area in which an overhead kettlebell press offers some advantages
>> over
>> the same movement done with a dumbbell. In the kettlebell version,
>> the
>> weight is hanging off the back of the hand and resting on the
>> forearm,
>> allowing you to lean forward at the shoulder at lockout and get a
>> nice
>> stretch. It's more of a balancing act with a dumbbell - not
>> necessarily
>> bad, just different, and not quite as conducive to increasing
>> shoulder
>> ROM.
>
> If you do one handed press oldskool style, like the bent press, it
> works your flexibility fine. Barbells are best for it because you can
> keep the bar close to the body without weights getting in the way.

I think just about anything works for a bent press - I typically use a
kettlebell but I know people who use dumbbells or even short barbells in
order to allow them to use more weight without the focus being on
balancing the weight in the hand. I've also heard of people working up
to strict one-armed pressing a heavier weight by starting with a bent
press then gradually taking the "bent" out of it. One thing I hope to
do some day is get good at the "oldskool" barbell bent press. The great
old timers could put up huge weights, well over their bodyweights, this
way.

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

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Pete
September 28th 06, 04:13 PM
"Bully" > schreef:

>> 1) if you lock out, the weight is on the elbows, not the muscles.

> Yep, so skip the last 2% of the ROM.

But if you stop 15% before, you will keep more tension on the muscles.

>> 2) if you let the bar go "too" deep, you might strain the shoulder
>> joint

> How do you "strain" a joint?

Take a 100kg barbell, and lock all the way out. ALL the way. Hold for 20
seconds. Repeat 6 times.
Do this 4 times a week.

>> 3) performing the reps this way provides "continues tension"

> Yes, so does it too if you don't lock out at the top (-2% ROM) and bring
> the hands as deep as possible as the bottom

Yes.
But if you skip the bottom 15 and upper 15%, the bar is more near at the
point where it is at it heaviest, at 50%.
Which means there is more tension on the muscles.

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 05:05 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>
>> This is right. One of the reasons I switched to explosive lifts is
>> the
>> fact that every time before I trained regularly, as well as this time,
>> my muscles outgrown my tendons and joints. Explosive lifting seems to
>> give this kind of shock stimulus which soft tissue likes.
>
> Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so popular
> is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic (explosive) lifting
> like strengthening connective tissue but requires much less in the way
> of skill,

One handed dumbbell work also does not require much skill. Dumbbell
snatch or clean is obviously easier, IMHO.

> equipment,

Well, you need kettlebells, while dumbbells are "everywhere".

> and space. It is the reason, more than anything
> thing else, that my bad back works as well as it does now.

This I experienced too. My back is damn *strong* now. Bent back
lifting of bags of corn? No problem. Bent back lifting of as much
crates of fruit as will fit under my chin? Nothing to speak about.

It was not like that even when I did a lot of deadlifts.

>> If you do one handed press oldskool style, like the bent press, it
>> works your flexibility fine. Barbells are best for it because you can
>> keep the bar close to the body without weights getting in the way.
>
> I think just about anything works for a bent press - I typically use a
> kettlebell but I know people who use dumbbells or even short barbells

Artur Saxon, who still holds world record in this lift despite being
dead for over 80 years, wrote that long barbell is the best. Mostly
because you could hoist it to the shoulder level by balancing it on
it's end and then sort of flipping it on your shoulder.

I use short barbell because that's what I have. Dumbbells are not
best, IMHO. There is this specific moment when you have to "rotate" a
weight while keeping your elbow pressed against a hip bone. Hard to do
with weight plates so close to your hand.

Well, I just started with it. I liked it for a while but needed first
to work on flexibility a little. One handed snatches to bent-press
like bottom position took care of it.

> in
> order to allow them to use more weight without the focus being on
> balancing the weight in the hand. I've also heard of people working up
> to strict one-armed pressing a heavier weight by starting with a bent
> press then gradually taking the "bent" out of it. One thing I hope to
> do some day is get good at the "oldskool" barbell bent press. The great
> old timers could put up huge weights, well over their bodyweights, this
> way.

Your my man, then. :-) I simply can't train to be prettier, but some
obscure goal like that fits me fine.

http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/compindex.htm#mm

Plenty of reading here, in case you did not know already. And really,
read what Artur Saxon wrote about the technique. I think that nobody
today and not many people in the olde times got this lift quite right.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 05:21 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Shute napisał(a):
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:54:37 +0100, "Bully"
> wrote:
>
>>> 2) if you let the bar go "too" deep, you might strain the shoulder
>>> joint
>>
>>How do you "strain" a joint?
>
> For me it felt like I was pinching something in the shoulder if I went
> too low. It was pain which hurt for like a day later. Once I started
> just a little bit higher I didn't get that feeling. It didn't really
> feel like a good kind of pain which is why I was worried.

Describe your previous lifting history and maybe someone will be able
to find a solution.

Whatever it might be, do not "train through pain".

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 05:29 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Pete napisał(a):
> "Bully" > schreef:
>
>> How do you "strain" a joint?
>
> Take a 100kg barbell, and lock all the way out. ALL the way. Hold for 20
> seconds. Repeat 6 times.
> Do this 4 times a week.

Seems similar to rack lockout performed often by Olympic lifters with
rather more than 100kg.

Not everybody is bodybuilder whose muscles had outgrown all the rest of
the body by a long stretch. Not everybody needs to use tricks which allow
them to stress the muscles to maximum while "saving" joints at the same
time. Developing muscles while you are natural takes "forever" so your
connecting tissue generally has enough time to keep up (well, maybe not
when you are a beginner).

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Jason Earl
September 28th 06, 06:40 PM
"Steve Freides" > writes:

> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>
>>> The OP has not stated specific goals so it's impossible to say what
>>> might work best for him. What's better depends on your goals.
>>
>> He might not be aware of them yet.
>>
>>> For general fitness purposes, joint health and range of motion
>>> should be a consideration as well as muscle strength. For joint
>>> health and full range of motion, locking out on the top is very
>>> good, but it's up to individual trainees how they practice that -
>>> some may prefer full ROM work without weights and limited ROM work
>>> with weights, but I prefer to find exercises that encourage full
>>> ROM with weights. Just as muscles don't get stronger without
>>> bearing some weight, joint health can be improved with good
>>> exercise selection and regular practice.
>>
>> This is right. One of the reasons I switched to explosive lifts is
>> the fact that every time before I trained regularly, as well as
>> this time, my muscles outgrown my tendons and joints. Explosive
>> lifting seems to give this kind of shock stimulus which soft tissue
>> likes.
>
> Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so
> popular is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic
> (explosive) lifting like strengthening connective tissue but
> requires much less in the way of skill, equipment, and space. It is
> the reason, more than anything thing else, that my bad back works as
> well as it does now.

I will grant you that kbells require less skill and space, but my
single 53lb kbell cost more than my 300lb Oly weight set.

Still, two out of three ain't bad. Especially considering that kbells
require a *lot* less skill and space. There's no way that I am going
to be able to tote my Oly set to work, but my kbell comes along just
fine.

Jason

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 07:20 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so
>> popular is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic
>> (explosive) lifting like strengthening connective tissue but
>> requires much less in the way of skill, equipment, and space. It is
>> the reason, more than anything thing else, that my bad back works as
>> well as it does now.
>
> I will grant you that kbells require less skill and space,

They don't, really. One handed work with dumbbells or short barbels is
not difficult.

Where space matters I'd go with a single dumbbell which could be loaded
high enough.

> but my
> single 53lb kbell cost more than my 300lb Oly weight set.

Damn. At that weight the size of a dumbbell is not an issue.

> Still, two out of three ain't bad. Especially considering that kbells
> require a *lot* less skill and space.

A lot less compared with Olympic lifting. You do not do that with
kbell. You do just one-handed lifting. Very straightforward with
dumbbells or even barbells.

> There's no way that I am going
> to be able to tote my Oly set to work, but my kbell comes along just
> fine.

There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
to pay for the work.

People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
inferior equipment.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Jason Earl
September 28th 06, 09:09 PM
Andrzej Rosa > writes:

> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
>> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>>
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so
>>> popular is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic
>>> (explosive) lifting like strengthening connective tissue but
>>> requires much less in the way of skill, equipment, and space. It is
>>> the reason, more than anything thing else, that my bad back works as
>>> well as it does now.
>>
>> I will grant you that kbells require less skill and space,
>
> They don't, really. One handed work with dumbbells or short barbels
> is not difficult.

I agree.

> Where space matters I'd go with a single dumbbell which could be
> loaded high enough.

I agree with this too.

>> but my single 53lb kbell cost more than my 300lb Oly weight set.
>
> Damn. At that weight the size of a dumbbell is not an issue.

Exactly. Don't get me wrong. I love my kettlebell, and I will
happily go on the record as saying that I think that kbell swings and
snatches are superior to dumbbell swings and snatches. I also think
that kbells are superior for any sort of overhead pressing (the offset
handle makes it easier to balance the weight, you don't even have to
close your fist).

That being the case, the price of kbells compared to barbells and
dumbbells means that they are somewhat of a gimmick. I like mine, and
I will probably get myself another one (or two) for Christmas. Heck,
I'll probably get one for my wife as well. However, I won't be buying
more because I believe that kbells are magical. I just happen to
think that they are fun, and that they look cool. I'm happy with the
results so far. If my kettlebell doesn't do anything at all but
encourage me to do more unilateral drills then the purchase is a win.

>> Still, two out of three ain't bad. Especially considering that
>> kbells require a *lot* less skill and space.
>
> A lot less compared with Olympic lifting. You do not do that with
> kbell. You do just one-handed lifting. Very straightforward with
> dumbbells or even barbells.

I agree. However, when it comes to adding a bit of "ballistic" stress
to your joints kettlebells are very similar to Oly weight lifting.
Dumbbells are not quite the same. A few kbell snatches would make the
difference apparent.

It's not a big deal, however, by any stretch of the imagination.

>> There's no way that I am going to be able to tote my Oly set to
>> work, but my kbell comes along just fine.
>
> There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
> build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
> to pay for the work.
>
> People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
> inferior equipment.

I agree with that too. There is nothing magical about kettlebells,
and their price makes them a hard sell as a general purpose strength
training device.

I think that there really is something to the high-rep explosive style
of training that is often associated with kbells. But you can do
something very similar with any heavy object with a handle.

Jason

Steve Freides
September 28th 06, 09:14 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
>> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>>
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Wise words there - one of the reasons the kettlebell swing is so
>>> popular is that it offers many of the benefits of Olympic
>>> (explosive) lifting like strengthening connective tissue but
>>> requires much less in the way of skill, equipment, and space. It is
>>> the reason, more than anything thing else, that my bad back works as
>>> well as it does now.
>>
>> I will grant you that kbells require less skill and space,
>
> They don't, really. One handed work with dumbbells or short barbels
> is
> not difficult.
>
> Where space matters I'd go with a single dumbbell which could be
> loaded
> high enough.
>
>> but my
>> single 53lb kbell cost more than my 300lb Oly weight set.
>
> Damn. At that weight the size of a dumbbell is not an issue.
>
>> Still, two out of three ain't bad. Especially considering that
>> kbells
>> require a *lot* less skill and space.
>
> A lot less compared with Olympic lifting. You do not do that with
> kbell. You do just one-handed lifting. Very straightforward with
> dumbbells or even barbells.
>
>> There's no way that I am going
>> to be able to tote my Oly set to work, but my kbell comes along just
>> fine.
>
> There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
> build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
> to pay for the work.
>
> People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
> inferior equipment.

Andrzej and Jason, I didn't mean to suggest kettlebell were cheaper
equipment, just less equipment in terms of the number of gadgets, space
they take up when not in use as well as when in use, and the like.

Swinging a dumbbell is not the same as swinging a kettlebell. Similar
in some ways, yes, but there was thread just today or yesterday on Bryce
Lane's board about this, someone who thought they'd be the same but he
found himself very sore after using a kettlebell that weighed the same
as a dumbbell he'd been using. IMHO, a few kettlebells, a barbell, a
power rack, and a pullup bar makes a complete gym. I own dumbbells but
have no need for them as I find the kettlebell versions of the one-armed
lifts like presses, snatches, and swings more to my liking.

Today's fun - Jason, you should try this if you haven't already - was
kettlebell military presses while standing on one leg.. You can use
either leg but I chose the bearing side leg, and today for the first
time, I also did the clean while standing on one leg, had to clean
outside the leg, somehow the physics don't let you clean it from inside,
or at least I couldn't. The trick, such as it is, is to try and stay
balanced by staying tight rather than just trying to balance yourself.
It's pretty cool.

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

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 09:55 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>
>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
[...]
>> There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
>> build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
>> to pay for the work.
>>
>> People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
>> inferior equipment.
>
> I agree with that too. There is nothing magical about kettlebells,
> and their price makes them a hard sell as a general purpose strength
> training device.
>
> I think that there really is something to the high-rep explosive style
> of training that is often associated with kbells.

I think so too. More important than the device by far.

> But you can do
> something very similar with any heavy object with a handle.

Yeah. Plenty of my layoffs were associated with the fact that it was
hard to find a place to train. Gyms closed, no place to put equipment,
moving again somewhere and so on.

For unknown reason it was hard for me to realise, that I can do
everything I need with almost no equipment at all. That squats,
deadlifts, cage or even a dumbbell is not necessary.

Now I could do fine with some bags and sand in them just fine, but for
unknown reason it was hard to understand that my results with such a
simple equipment could be very good.

I started training with next to nothing this time more than a year
ago (gym closed again) and now I could have both gym and better
equipment, but I don't care. I make better progress than ever with
what I have. I'm afraid to change anything.

So yeah. Equipment means very little. What you do with it is what
matters.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Steve Freides
September 28th 06, 10:05 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > writes:
>>
>>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
> [...]
>>> There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
>>> build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
>>> to pay for the work.
>>>
>>> People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
>>> inferior equipment.
>>
>> I agree with that too. There is nothing magical about kettlebells,
>> and their price makes them a hard sell as a general purpose strength
>> training device.
>>
>> I think that there really is something to the high-rep explosive
>> style
>> of training that is often associated with kbells.
>
> I think so too. More important than the device by far.
>
>> But you can do
>> something very similar with any heavy object with a handle.
>
> Yeah. Plenty of my layoffs were associated with the fact that it was
> hard to find a place to train. Gyms closed, no place to put
> equipment,
> moving again somewhere and so on.
>
> For unknown reason it was hard for me to realise, that I can do
> everything I need with almost no equipment at all. That squats,
> deadlifts, cage or even a dumbbell is not necessary.
>
> Now I could do fine with some bags and sand in them just fine, but for
> unknown reason it was hard to understand that my results with such a
> simple equipment could be very good.
>
> I started training with next to nothing this time more than a year
> ago (gym closed again) and now I could have both gym and better
> equipment, but I don't care. I make better progress than ever with
> what I have. I'm afraid to change anything.
>
> So yeah. Equipment means very little. What you do with it is what
> matters.

Both you and Jason would enjoy Bryce Lane's board. Link below:

http://p069.ezboard.com/btheironworks


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

Andrzej Rosa
September 28th 06, 10:07 PM
Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Jason Earl napisał(a):
>>> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>> There is nothing wrong with them per se, but I can't be bothered to
>> build an adjustable one even for a price of a beer, which I'd have
>> to pay for the work.
>>
>> People did not switched to dumbbells and barbells because they were
>> inferior equipment.
>
> Andrzej and Jason, I didn't mean to suggest kettlebell were cheaper
> equipment, just less equipment in terms of the number of gadgets, space
> they take up when not in use as well as when in use, and the like.

All right. I thought that he bought a kettlebell to do something
explosive so I chimed in.

> Swinging a dumbbell is not the same as swinging a kettlebell. Similar
> in some ways, yes, but there was thread just today or yesterday on Bryce
> Lane's board about this, someone who thought they'd be the same but he
> found himself very sore after using a kettlebell that weighed the same
> as a dumbbell he'd been using.

They are slightly different, but not much of an issue from my point of
view. They are mostly used as a conditioning device, after all.

> IMHO, a few kettlebells, a barbell, a
> power rack, and a pullup bar makes a complete gym.

I bet you could scratch some items and still do fine.

> I own dumbbells but
> have no need for them as I find the kettlebell versions of the one-armed
> lifts like presses, snatches, and swings more to my liking.

Sure. Whatever you like best _is_ the best for you.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
September 29th 06, 12:05 AM
Dnia 2006-09-28 DZ napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>> Andrzej and Jason, I didn't mean to suggest kettlebell were cheaper
>>> equipment, just less equipment in terms of the number of gadgets, space
>>> they take up when not in use as well as when in use, and the like.
>>
>> I thought that he bought a kettlebell to do something
>> explosive so I chimed in.
>
> y'all kettlebell people talk like them freaking terrorists.

How dare you! We are peace loving seekers of THE THRUTH, so you better
watch your mouth, or we'll shave your cat!

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

mike
September 29th 06, 04:35 AM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Dnia 2006-09-28 DZ napisał(a):
> > Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
> >> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
> >>> Andrzej and Jason, I didn't mean to suggest kettlebell were cheaper
> >>> equipment, just less equipment in terms of the number of gadgets,
space
> >>> they take up when not in use as well as when in use, and the like.
> >>
> >> I thought that he bought a kettlebell to do something
> >> explosive so I chimed in.
> >
> > y'all kettlebell people talk like them freaking terrorists.
>
> How dare you! We are peace loving seekers of THE THRUTH, so you better
> watch your mouth, or we'll shave your cat!
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Shave his pussy? why?

Bully
September 29th 06, 05:30 AM
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-09-28 DZ napisał(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>>> Dnia 2006-09-28 Steve Freides napisał(a):
>>>> Andrzej and Jason, I didn't mean to suggest kettlebell were cheaper
>>>> equipment, just less equipment in terms of the number of gadgets,
>>>> space they take up when not in use as well as when in use, and the
>>>> like.
>>>
>>> I thought that he bought a kettlebell to do something
>>> explosive so I chimed in.
>>
>> y'all kettlebell people talk like them freaking terrorists.
>
> How dare you! We are peace loving seekers of THE THRUTH,

Shurely you mean THE THRUST?

> so you
> better watch your mouth, or we'll shave your cat!



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Andrzej Rosa
September 29th 06, 12:58 PM
Dnia 2006-09-29 Shute napisał(a):
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:21:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>Describe your previous lifting history and maybe someone will be able
>>to find a solution.
>>
>>Whatever it might be, do not "train through pain".
>
> Well I lifted on and off from about 14 to 18. That only accounts for
> about a year total lifting. Then I took 20 years off and started back
> up 8 months ago. I used to do behind the neck when I was younger but
> not recently. I guess it is possible my joints have stiffened up a
> bit over the years. I know my ankles don't seem quite a mobile as
> they where when I was younger. My strength is back close to what it
> was in my teenage years but I still got a lot of work to do.

Your muscles might be back but are your tendons too? Might look like
not exactly. They take a while to grow. 8 months is more or less the
time when I always managed to injure myself, so first I'd recommend to
take things easy for the next half a year or so.

What exercises did you do up to now? From what you describe it might
look like you, for example, did a bench press but not much of rowing.
I could be wrong on that (guessing is hard), but anyway, take care to
fix any imbalances in your muscle developments and fix all postural
problems you are able to see.

I hate to say it ;-), but it is possible that some kettlebell-like drills
might actually help you. Find some videos on the net, grab a dumbbell and
just do it for a while. Your muscles will not grow so fast, but it
might be just what you need right now.

But I might read too much into what you wrote, and all you need is to
slow down a little for a month or so.

Make your own judgement.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Pete
September 29th 06, 01:07 PM
"Shute" > schreef:

> Well I lifted on and off from about 14 to 18. That only accounts for
> about a year total lifting. Then I took 20 years off and started back
> up 8 months ago.

Thats almost hilarious.
You trained for about a year, followed by a 20 year lay-off?

Better hope those workouts were efficient!

----
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
September 29th 06, 07:08 PM
Dnia 2006-09-29 Shute napisał(a):
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:58:36 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> wrote:
>
>>Your muscles might be back but are your tendons too? Might look like
>>not exactly. They take a while to grow. 8 months is more or less the
>>time when I always managed to injure myself, so first I'd recommend to
>>take things easy for the next half a year or so.
>
> I started out very slowly so as not to injure myself. It is only in
> the last few months I have pushed myself harder. I still try to be
> very careful not to sacrifice form to push more weight though.

Seems all right.

> I did hurt myself a little bit this week. I switched to a new gym and
> a lot of the little things I was used to are different. I think
> mostly it is a big open area and that makes me kind of nervous.

Do not worry. Nobody pays any attention to you.

>>What exercises did you do up to now? From what you describe it might
>>look like you, for example, did a bench press but not much of rowing.
>>I could be wrong on that (guessing is hard), but anyway, take care to
>>fix any imbalances in your muscle developments and fix all postural
>>problems you are able to see.
>
> I have been focusing very hard on imbalances since I started up 8
> months ago. Rows are something I do now but didn't in my teenage
> years. That is why I said there is still a lot of work to do. I
> have to fill in a lot of things I neglected then.

Until you neglect something for a long time, you do not have to be
obsessed with this issue. I mentioned it, because many people do it
wrong, but that is the problem with the net. You guess.

> To tell you the truth though I don't think it is just lack of weight
> lifting over the years that has been my downfall. I used to play a
> lot of athletics. I think those gave me a kind of strength the
> weightlifting doesn't. I was only like 5 years old when I started
> playing hockey.

You can tune your weight lifting protocol to suit your goals. You can
get stronger, faster and tougher, depending what you do.

>>I hate to say it ;-), but it is possible that some kettlebell-like drills
>>might actually help you. Find some videos on the net, grab a dumbbell and
>>just do it for a while. Your muscles will not grow so fast, but it
>>might be just what you need right now.
>>
>>But I might read too much into what you wrote, and all you need is to
>>slow down a little for a month or so.
>>
>>Make your own judgement.
>
> Maybe that is something I can do at home.

Yes, you can.

> You could be right about
> tendons and connecting tissue.

I might be wrong, too. Try things out and judge for yourself. Here I'm
right.

From what you've written it *looked like* you *might* have a problem
with tendons and/or flexibility of shoulder joint. But I do not know
it. I guess.

> I am not complaining though. I feel
> ten times better than I did a year ago.

Best luck.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R