PDA

View Full Version : Walking Swings


Greg Everett
02-07-2007, 10:42 AM
Mr. Jason C. Brown and his kettlebell circus. Good stuff to mess around with as always.

http://www.kettlebellathletics.com/KettlebellTrainingVideos.html

Ron Nelson
02-07-2007, 02:31 PM
Signed up for his newsletter. Looks like solid stuff.

. . .and it's free.

Steve Shafley
02-07-2007, 05:39 PM
Hah. I just gave him some shit for sending 3 emails about a teleconference with him and Zack Evens-Esh in 4 days. I think he might have manually unsubscribed me.

Regarding walking swings:

What's is the benefit of doing these instead of swings? Just to switch things up?

I can see that they might be a nice progression for complexity of movement, but sometimes adding complexity without a clear reason for doing so isn't worth it.

How many sessions of walking swings have you done in the last 4 weeks?

Is this something you have your clients do on a frequent basis?

Rick Deckart
02-08-2007, 10:07 AM
Hmm, personally I would not use such an exercise, instead I would either combine running 400m in 5K or even better in one mile tempo with 20--25 KB swings (doing a couple of rounds of the complex) or simply swing more weight, that is, do double KB swings.
I agree with Steve on this one, complexity is good if there is a good reason for it, and with walking swings I don't see the reason.

Regards,

Peter

Craig Cooper
02-08-2007, 10:49 AM
C'mon, somebody's got to be able to think of a functional application of this :)

Steve Shafley
02-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Craig, that's not one of them Bulgarian wresting bags in your avatar, is it?

The whole discussion of the role of variety in exercise movement selection is probably one worth having.

Catherine Imes
02-08-2007, 12:49 PM
Walking swings be it lateral or just regular walking swings are a good coordination drill. Swing step/swing step. It's not that hard, but adds a little variety.

Also, they make a good group drill for Workshops, Boot Camp type classes, or even just something to do outdoors to add variety.... .Do walking swings 20 feet, drop do pushups. Do walking swings 50 feet, do Sandbag thrusters, ect...Just a creative variation.

If you've got a field or a track you can do them for distance. I don't consider them complex if you've mastered the basic swing. Just a little coordination challenge and can be a butt kicker.

All that being said, I don't ever do them in my workouts and my workouts are very KB centric.

CI

Greg Everett
02-08-2007, 12:54 PM
I straddle the line on this one. I agree that there may not be an direct function translation for the movement, but that's true for many movements most of us accept as functional (e.g. snatch, hanging leg raise, evil wheel). I do like them though simply for the sake of variety--if you're a KB purist, it's just another way to not go nuts doing the same movements over and over again without really compromising the benefits of the swing.

Ron Nelson
02-08-2007, 03:25 PM
Sorry, I just like free newsletters.

Actually, I'll try most things once or twice as long as they're not going to hurt me in the long run. I liked the walking deadlift idea posed by Chad Waterbury (although, knowing the S&C world, he got it from someone else), but I don't do them all the time. Just when I want to mix it up, have a little fun, and have people stare at me in the gym. Sort of like when I'm doing waiter's walks with 85# around all the benchers.

I doubt I could do a walking swing in a 24hr Fitness without causing widespread panic. (side note; one time I was blasting through a Fran workout and some dude is watching me with the weirdest look. He comes over when I've finished and asks what the hell I was doing swinging a 55lb dumbbell around. He thought I had lost my mind and was trying to hurt myself, but had terrible aim)

Craig Cooper
02-08-2007, 04:25 PM
Greg - I couldn't agree more. I think that adhering too rigidly to purely functional exercises is extremely limiting. When, however, does something escape the realm of functionality and become useless, compromising results? BTW, why are the Snatch and Hanging Leg Raise not functional?

Greg Everett
02-08-2007, 04:31 PM
BTW, why are the Snatch and Hanging Leg Raise not functional?

I would still call them functional, but not in the sense that they directly mimic a natural movement like a squat or deadlift do. In that sense, any variety of KB swing isn't functional. Never in my life have I snatched to get something from the floor to overhead unless I was training, nor have I ever needed to lift two straight legs up to my face while hanging from something.

I'm just making the point that I hesitate to call walking swings non-functional when tons of other valuable movements could also be called non-functional, but we use and love them anyway because they have functional RESULTs.

Craig Cooper
02-09-2007, 09:18 AM
Never in my life have I snatched to get something from the floor to overhead unless I was training

But wouldn't it be badass if you did? If I saw some farmer snatch a bail of hay, I definitely wouldn't mess with him.

Speaking from limited experience, I would think that the snatch is a natural movement, representing the most efficient way to get something from the ground to overhead.

Greg Everett
02-09-2007, 10:19 AM
Speaking from limited experience, I would think that the snatch is a natural movement, representing the most efficient way to get something from the ground to overhead.

Yes, I used to make that argument myself. But I think it was Bill Fox who stubbornly refused to accept it, and it made me think a little harder. The snatch really only works well with a barbell, which is a nice, low profile, easy to grip implement. A hay bail, on the other hand, is much harder to handle and wouldn't lend itself too well. If I had to get one overhead, I think I would try to get it onto a shoulder first and then push jerk it--regardless, it wouldn't look like a legitimate O-lift.

Craig Cooper
02-09-2007, 12:57 PM
The snatch really only works well with a barbell, which is a nice, low profile, easy to grip implement. A hay bail, on the other hand, is much harder to handle and wouldn't lend itself too well. If I had to get one overhead, I think I would try to get it onto a shoulder first and then push jerk it--regardless, it wouldn't look like a legitimate O-lift.

I agree totally. That has always been my biggest concern with functional training. Yeah, these lifts work great with a barbell and dumbell, but what about real objects? Take the World's Strongest Man competitions for example, you don't see much that resembles good form there. This is the most interesting part of strength and conditioning for me, that is, how can you maximize cross-over from training to sport.

Jason C. Brown
02-12-2007, 06:57 AM
Hey Greg,

Thanks for posting this.

The whole functional thing is getting bit crazy. I like Greg's examples. I have never seen a Snatch performed in real life, nor a thruster. Push Press yes but never a full thruster.

If we are using real life to determine what is functional and what is not consider this: 80% of our life is spent on one leg at a time,therefore 80% of our program should reflect this, I doubt it does. Everything changes when on one leg, the whole deep longitudal sub-system functions differently.

We can get anal and over analyze our training. Functional simply means training with a purpose and we can justify that how ever we want. The purpose of the walking swing is metcon and it serves that purpose well.

Mike ODonnell
02-12-2007, 07:02 AM
80% of our life is spent on one leg at a time,therefore 80% of our program should reflect this

Great point Jason....I know Mike Boyle would back you up on that. That's why I like the 1 legged stuff for people doing sports training....mimicks real functional strength needed during their movements.

Of course the SQ and DL are the most bang for the buck for mass gains.

Shawn Mozen
02-12-2007, 01:23 PM
Functional simply means training with a purpose and we can justify that how ever we want.

Now that is why I like you Jason.. Simple and to the point. People slip hairs all day about functional this and functional that when really they are wasting time they should be spending training. Training with a purpose, and when that purpose is not just beach muscle, well then we are talking about functional.

Shawn Mozen
www.agatsu.com
www.canadiankettlebellmag.com

Craig Cooper
02-12-2007, 05:08 PM
We can get anal and over analyze our training. Functional simply means training with a purpose and we can justify that how ever we want. The purpose of the walking swing is metcon and it serves that purpose well.

I agree that people are too anal over what is vs. isn't functional (myself included sometimes) but I think your definition of functional is a little to general. However, after reviewing the definiton of functional movement via the CrossFit Foundations article:

There are movements that mimic motor recruitment patterns that are found in everyday life. Others are somewhat unique to the gym. Squatting is standing from a seated position; deadlifting is picking any object off the ground.They are both functional movements. Leg extension and leg curl both have no equivalent in nature and are in turn nonfunctional movements. The bulk of isolation movements are non-functional movements. By contrast the compound or multi-joint movements are functional. Natural movement typically involves the movement of multiple joints for every activity.

I can see a wealth of exercises that could rightly be considered functional, because they mimic motor recruitment patterns (core to extremity) that are found in everyday life, walking swings included. I think that's the point I was missing before, that functional is more about order of motor recruitment, not about specific exercises.

Greg Everett
02-12-2007, 05:14 PM
I think 'functional' by CF's definition is too limiting. There are just too many caveats and minutiae in my opinion. I think the real issue is very simple - whether or not an exercise is beneficial for the athlete in question, and this is going to vary among athletes due to their individual strengths, weaknesses and athletic demands.

Steve Shafley
02-12-2007, 07:10 PM
My definition closely parallels Greg's.

Mike ODonnell
02-12-2007, 07:34 PM
I agree to the fact functional is only applicable to one's lifestyle, needs and weaknesses.....I mean if functional training is climbing a wall which I will never have a reason to do....how is it functional?? But if I need strength to take a slap shot for hockey.....than that is my definition of functional. Functional is individually defined....not one overall definition.

Jason C. Brown
02-12-2007, 07:55 PM
Mike and Greg, great points.

We had this discussion earlier in another thread about isolation exercises being functional. Of course they can be, if they serve the function we want them to, namely turn on some muscle (glute med for example) prior to a larger gross movement.

Great thread everyone.

Steve Shaf -I blocked your ISP, no more emails for you sucka.

Steve Shafley
02-13-2007, 05:45 AM
Bastard. Don't make me get out my proxies.

Craig Cooper
02-14-2007, 12:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_training