Help me understand low RPEs in kettlebell programming

[artlicbunny]

In much of Neupert's programming (and others too but this comes to mind first), the prescribed starting weight might be say 10RM (taking this as an example without going into specifics) and then the rep ranges are very low say 4-5-6 reps per set in a wave. Now that would make the effort per set 40%-50%-60% based on the weight being a 10RM. This feels very much at odds with the commonly used hypertrophy/strength protocols to work at 65-85% RPEs which would work out at say 6-7-8-9 reps per set (to wave the intensity).

I'm really struggling to get my head around this difference I keep seeing in kettlebell programming. I'm not dismissing it, I'm sure there's a good reason I just don't understand it!

My initial instinct is that this is to manage fatigue and get more volume in by keeping fatigue in check but this also seems at odds with the literature that it's time under tension that leads to hypertrophy.

So I can't see how 6 sets x 4 reps would provide as much mechanical tension as 3 sets x 8 reps given that the muscle is going to be nice and fresh for each one of those sets unlike in an 8-rep set where the last 4 are going to be quite hypertrophic since the muscle has been under tension for quite some time now.

I've also seen programs for ballistics like Snatch and Swings where the prescribed reps are 5 for a 15RM weight which is ~35% RPE. I'm not sure how this is meant to make you stronger or build muscle.

Please be gentle with me, I'm just looking to learn and deepen my understanding. As I said I am sure there is a good reasoning behind the expert programming, it's just doesn't click for me!

 

[juancarlos]

@artlicbunny

the literature that it's time under tension that leads to hypertrophy.

Is this the current literature? While I haven't been surfing the bodybuilding world recently, "time under tension" is not very often talked about these days. But the number of "hard sets" seems to be the later idea. But I think there are several ways to get there.

For strength, 50% RM is a very working solution. Grease the Groove method usually is prescribed like that.

Personally I find it harder to discuss nonspecific programming as people may forget to think of the big picture. Geoff's probably most used program, Dry Fighting Weight, uses 5RM press weight. And then on week four it has you do ladders of up to 5 reps (but 4 if 5 won't go nicely), which reaches 80%-100% RM.

As a sidenote, you are slightly abusing the RPE term since %1RM or %RM is not the same the RPE scale.

 

[hunter101]

@artlicbunny

65-85% RPEs

Minor correction, that's percentage of 1RM. RPE is a numerical scale, not a percentage scale.

My initial instinct is that this is to manage fatigue and get more volume in by keeping fatigue in check

Exactly. You get to do more total volume. Your 3x8 isn't going to be replaced by 6x4, but more likely 7x4, or maybe even up to 10x4.

On a sliding scale of conditioning-hypertrophy-strength this is more on the conditioning end

this also seems at odds with the literature that it's time under tension that leads to hypertrophy.

There's a lot of ideas out there about what leads to muscle growth. From what I remember the primary candidates are stuff like muscle tension (especially at long muscle lengths), activation of high threshold muscle fibres, metabolite accumulation and eccentric muscle damage.

Let's just assume that time under tension is king. If that were the case, 2 sets of 6 would be about as good as a set of 10 with your 10RM (assuming the reps slow down on the set of 10).

There's also disagreement on how hard a set has to be to induce hypertrophy. As far as I know, Mike Israetel rotates from RPE 7 to RPE 10 and doesn't consider anything below 7 to be worthwhile. Meanwhile, Mike Zourdos believes that RPE5 is totally fine.

---

If you consider it from a "number of hard sets" point of view, sets of 4 with your 10RM can still be absolutely miserable. Especially with limited rest, the RPE will gradually increase throughout the workout.

If you do clean & press 20x4 with your 10RM within a 30 minute time block, it's going to suck A LOT. The last 5-10 sets are going to be miserable - to the extent that some would argue you're doing too many hard sets if you're doing that 3x/week.

 

[artlicbunny]

@hunter101 Thanks for the detailed response and the correction!

If you consider it from a "number of hard sets" point of view, sets of 4 with your 10RM can still be absolutely miserable. Especially with limited rest, the RPE will gradually increase throughout the workout.

Right so sounds like high number of sets must be paired with "limited rest" in order to yield a similar level of RPE? What I mean by that is that unlike in typical gym/barbell where people seem to rest plenty between sets in kettlebell workouts you'd rest less (as much as necessary but as little as possible, I believe I've seen it phrased) because the weights are lower and you yield this time under tension by increasing volume and keeping rest low. Have I got that right?

So if the above is true then high number of low-ish reps would yield a similar result to lower number of sets but higher reps. So if that's the case, why isn't the latter more prevalent in kettlebell programming?

Thanks again for feeding this into this interesting discussion @hunter101

 

[hunter101]

@artlicbunny Yeah, often you'll rest less with a kb program - but even that isn't a hard rule.

I did The Giant 1.0-1.2 with great success - on 1.0 (the low rep per set portion) I ended up doing almost a set per minute, but when the reps got really high in 1.2 I was resting for several minutes because I was doing twice the work per set.

So The Giant specifically has a bit of block periodisation to it, where you go from the total amount of work being challenging to each individual set being challenging. So it's sort of a 4-week base building program followed by two 4-week peaking programs.

So if the above is true then high number of low-ish reps would yield a similar result to lower number of sets but higher reps. So if that's the case, why isn't the latter more prevalent in kettlebell programming?

Both Dry Fighting Weight and The Giant actually do both. DFW uses your 5RM and has ladders up to 5 and alternating sets of 3 and 4 in week 4.

I think there's also a culture of focusing more on the conditioning side of things with kettlebells. Not that you can't build strength with them - they're excellent for that too! - but just that many people are more into conditioning.

 

[rabbie77]

@artlicbunny I do not focus on Perceived exertion as it's different for everyone. Same as rest. . I feel this makes everyone too anxious about training instead of enjoying it for what it is.

 

[taeniura]

@artlicbunny So let me preface this by my not-so-reliable sources.

I have started watching Renaissance Periodization and Jeff Nippard's YT channels more often and a few times they mentioned that there's new research on the hypertrophy rep range being no so fixed as the old adage of "8 to 12" but it goes as far as 25 or 30 reps per set! But the caveat is of course the exertion (RPE) and reps in reserve (RIR).

 

[dawes]

@artlicbunny Our bodies don't really work in reps/sets/weights/rpe, you can build muscle even with ladders 1,2,3, if you play with density and volume.

If you moved 5000kg during a 60 minutes training session, I seriously doubt your body would care if you did 5 sets of 10, 100 sets of half a rep. Your body will respond to that volume.

Also, think of time under tension: a complex that contains 5-6 exercises done back to back (without ever setting your weights down) for 6 sets of 4 reps is killer if you're not used to it. Look for his program You Don't Know Squat 2.0: on the worse day possible it's 5 sets of 3 reps (yup, just 3) for 6 exercises, with a work rest ratio of 1:1. Doesn't seem like much, 3 reps, but it absolutely kills you.

I stopped thinking in terms of RepMaxes, RPEs, straight sets, and started embracing the autoregulated/density style of training for which Kettlebells are superior. I stopped thinking in terms of "I've done 10 hard sets at rpe9" and switched to "nice, today I moved 4900kg in 45 minutes". Appropriate nutrition and recovery and exercise selection will do the rest!

Pat Flynn recently released a Fitness Program (3 days a week, roughly based on Arnold's Golden 6, with straight sets, no ballistics) where reps increase by 2 per set per week (well, more or less: 3x10 -> 3x12 -> 4x10 etc). This means each week, with a pair of 20kg, you'll move 240kg more, or better, something between 5% and 10% weight jump equivalent each week. It's still progressive overload right?

This is how I started seeing things and it truly frees me from sets/reps and lets me play with my body and goals differently (the same complex can yield different results with the same weights, given a different setup)

 

[learnandbloom]

@artlicbunny The Giant 2 has you jump into higher rep sets, but I get the feeling that most folks on this sub choose to do the 12 week program. That makes sense to me. Before the adjustable comp bells came out, most folks only had a few weights.

I think that the first time I ran The Giant with 24s, I went from a 10 to 15RM over the first month. That’s without doing any more than six reps in a set. What’s nice about The Giant is you get a lot of practice. In that way, it’s similar to the heavy/light/medium split that The Texas Method has you follow. Higher frequency with lots of touches. I can’t recall specifically, but other barbell programs like GZCL or 531 have you working with 70-90% of a training max and you have a few days to recover between you hit that area again.

The strangest thing about kettlebell training is ladder sets. I had only ever seen some push-up pyramids back in HS on the good ol’ Stew Smith site. I can’t think of any barbell program that has you doing sets of 1, 2, 3 or Dan John’s 2, 3, 5, 10. It’s a great way to train though.

 

[cristina49]

@learnandbloom I did a bench press program in the late 90ies that was pyramid based, sadly I think that my all-time bench PR came from that one. But in that program, the weight changed together with the reps in each set.

 

[meeksoul]

@artlicbunny This is an interesting thread: great question and answers here!

 

[lostscaredme]

@artlicbunny Number of reps is not linearly correlated to percentage of RM and doesn’t account for total volume. By keeping the reps in this mid range you are staying more fresh, resulting in less intensity, which allows for a higher frequency of training the same exercise. KB training is built off of a high neural component to adaptation so the emphasis is on building volume while fresh versus chasing weight. TUT is a factor but so is volume. You don’t need to get bigger first to get stronger. You have to get stronger first(pun intended) to get bigger.

 

[nartynart]

@artlicbunny Take me, for example. I'm about to start The Giant 3.0, a clean and press program (don't look at post history--I know I've said otherwise up until yesterday). It uses your ~5RM clean and press weight. I can do 7 reps with 2x16kg when I'm fresh. On the sets of 3 days, at the beginning of the workouts, 3 reps will be 4 reps in reserve (RIR) which is about a 6 RPE. But as the workout goes on, every set only gets harder, so RPE will increase and RIR will decrease.

Also, if I had to estimate my C&P 1RM (based on half-assed attempts with 2x20kg), I'd probably say it's 18kg (rounding to the nearest actually-available bell sizes), so 2x16kg is basically 89% of my 1RM, so a program doing sets of one, two, and three are definitely appropriate.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I said anything incorrect.

 

[theweebabyjesus]

@artlicbunny Have you read this?

 

[doctoroliver83]

@artlicbunny The Soviets who tracked their elite athletes for like 30+ years had them doing more volume at 70-80% of their training max (not a PR) for sets of 1-5. This was based on all their work. A lot of this programming has carried over into KB training. Continually add work and the athlete will get stronger over time.