Kettel Bell Work Out Pre/Post 50km Ride?

[pdempz]

Hi there,

I had originally posted in the "Power-Forum" but I figure this may be a better spot!

I wanted to incorporate some kettle bell classes into my training to improve core/back and general leg power.

However, the problem arises that the classes are in the evening, when I do my cycling.

IN saying this, I could incorporate both in the evening during week, 45min Kettle bells, and 50-60km cycle, but which would you do first.

I had though it might be more beneficial to do the kettle bells first, then cycle, but wanted to get some other opinions!

Look forward to hearing from ye,

Regards,

P

 

[MotownBikeBoy]

I would do the k b workout first.

 

[kopride]

Conventional wisdom was always cardio before resistance work. Kettle bells are very taxing metabolically. I am wondering whether you will have anything left in the tank when you do your cycling workout. There is also a learning curve with kettle bells. In the early stages, if you are not patient in allowing your connective tissue and tendons to adapt, its easy to hurt yourself. I am a big fan of mastering two simple kettle bell movements, like the two arm swing, or turkish get up, before jumping into complex movements things like the ****** and press. Get a good instructor and follow along patiently with some of the better videos. I've done Pavel's basic video workout, and trained with kb guru Steve Maxwell many years ago. After lots of kettle bells, I've become convinced that a little goes a long way, and a lot leads inevitably to injury.

I do cycling and resistance work (including yoga and gymnastics classes) on alternative days.I like body-weight exercises because they are self-limiting to increased body mass. As you increase weights (even kb), there is a natural inclination to put on muscle mass, even in the form of fat, which doesn't help you on the bike. But there is a natural synergy between body mass and strength in body weight exercises. if you put on more mass because you got stronger, then there is more mass to move during the exercise. Getting fatter makes the bodyweight exercise harder, not easier. Generally, it builds a very lean strong core and physique without a great deal of hypertrophy. All things being equal, the bigger guy will be able to lift heavier weights and move heavier kbs. Its basic physics. The same is not true with pull ups. The leaner stronger guy will be able to do more or harder variations of pull ups.

Felt Rider is the king of mixing resistance and cycling. He may be able to give you a better idea of the effect of two a days; and which to do first.

 

[jhuskey]

It sounds like a no-win scenario to me since the muscles need time to recover but given the choice I suppose I would do the cardio first. Once the bike ride is over the HR should slow and regular respiration resume.In theory weight training will cause the muscles to keep buring calories even after the workout is over. I too rotate my workouts or on weekends separate the two regemines with a gap of several hours.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by kopride

Felt Rider is the king of mixing resistance and cycling. He may be able to give you a better idea of the effect of two a days; and which to do first.

I will take the safe approach and say, "it depends."

But if it were me and the goals that I have I would do strength training first if I had to do both within the same hours.

Why? Based on opinion and experience I see it like this.

1. Safety first - strength training takes good technique and focused concentration, which one has more when fresh. The more fatigued a person becomes the less focus on technique and focus is shifted toward surviving the interval or lift. In other words people tend to get sloppy with more fatigue. Lifting in general with free weights has greater risks and kettle bells even more so. Whereas, cycling one is at less risk because it is a bit more predictable. Of course outdoor cycling has its risks as well, but there is not as much technique and variability as there is in lifting.

2. Progressive training - if one is really focused in on gaining strength it is best to hit those heaviest lifts when fresh. When I was at my peak we did our warm up sets with just enough, but not too much so that we had our greatest strength available for the lift. Even too much warm up could distract from hitting those targets for the day.

However, the converse is true if cycling performance is the primary goal and one is doing higher intensity training from L4 or higher intervals. If one is lifting in a manner that fatigues the body and uses up stored energy those intense intervals following lifting are going to be harder and one might miss those targets as well. But if one is content with a milder aerobic cardio after lifting there should not be much of an issue.

Now another "but" to consider. But if one is doing a milder aerobic cardio after lifting it takes a whole lot more duration in order for it to have any sort of benefit to improved cycling performance. I will say that when I competed in bodybuilding that I was able to lift heavy and was able to do a short session of HIT/cardio after lifting fairly successfully. I could not do it the other way around by doing HIT/cardio first as I did not have enough in me to lift heavy or with a progressive load.

There is a lot to this subject and I am not a sports scientist so I best stop at those two comments. I will just say that I am glad to split resistance training (morning) apart from my cycling training (evening).

Just consider this is my opinion and it really goes back to "it depends" on your personal goals.

Best wishes

 

[Felt_Rider]

I did not have time to post these yesterday, but here are a few links if needed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17095931

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002517

According to this study order did not matter
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313092224.htm
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00421-013-2813-6
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=9000&issue=00000&article=98120&type=abstract

It does come down to goals and preferences and another factor is duration, intensity and loading.

Disclaimer: those who know me know that I attempt to juggle the two antagonistic training styles. Since I am retired from competition and my desire is to fight hard to keep my many invested years in strength training going into my elder years with hope to keep some sort of physical fitness balance between strength and endurance, my opinion for competitive training has always been sports specific training is the best avenue for success.

 

[kopride]

I did not have time to post these yesterday, but here are a few links if needed. Disclaimer: those who know me know that I attempt to juggle the two antagonistic training styles. Since I am retired from competition and my desire is to fight hard to keep my many invested years in strength training going into my elder years with hope to keep some sort of physical fitness balance between strength and endurance, my opinion for competitive training has always been sports specific training is the best avenue for success.

Felt, thanks so much for these links. The 2012 met-analysis is particularly interesting. Really shows the compromise on the strength end, as well as the one dimensional nature of pure endurance training. Now all we need is a similar study measuring the aerobic gains of endurance only, concurrent, and strength only. I can say is that I got ridiculously strong during my extended layoff from cycling. It was so much easier to get stronger without mixing in endurance cycling . Now I am back to the compromise and I can really feel the struggle.