This Sandbag Training Exercise is the Best Fat Burner!
Recently I had an epiphany! While speaking with a local coach about our Ultimate Sandbag Training program I saw in him what I see in a lot of people. A head nod as though what I was saying and showing made sense, but I wasn’t getting the feeling as though he was REALLY getting it. Then I stepped back and did something that I often tell others to do, I began to listen to his needs and what he already does in his training program. Once I showed him specifically how our Ultimate Sandbag Training program could improve what he already believed to be valuable, his eyes lit up and all of sudden everything I talked about had more impact.
This experience taught me something so important, the final evolution of our Ultimate Sandbag Training. In the beginning I was like most and just enjoyed the difference that sandbag training felt during certain exercises. Then with the evolution of our Ultimate Sandbag and working with hundreds of different people the system of Dynamic Variable Resistance Training came about showing progressions, systematization of variable resistance training, and now we had to measure! We had to show people WHY Ultimate Sandbag Training HAS to be a part of their programming. How does Ultimate Sandbag Training provide a unique benefit over any other fitness program.
That is what I did the other day, now having a background in exercise physiology, I will admit this was not a study meant for peer-reviewed publication. It was a test to see if we need to test more and if what I had thought and felt actually had some measurable differences or were we just “doing something to be different?”
I wanted to start with two variables that were relatively easy to measure, average heart rate and calories burned. Since the kettlebell swing has become known as this powerful fat loss exercise I know I wanted to compare our Ultimate Sandbag Training to the two handed kettlebell swing. I also wanted to use something that had become popular which was Battling Rope Training and have three good comparisons to see what burn the most calories and caused the greatest increase in heart rate.
Of course I had to choose which Ultimate Sandbag Training exercise to use and while many probably would have thought of shouldering, that would have been the wrong choice! The best fat burning exercises tend to be fluid movements so shouldering would have NOT been a good choice, but the one I know that would be great and as I had thought to be the best of our Ultimate Sandbag Training drills for pure fat loss was the Rotational Lunge.
Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge
Three exercises no we had to think of the other variables. I had two people perform the tests, both with extensive backgrounds in using these implements so we removed the “learning” component. I decided that since the 100 rep mark in kettlebells was relatively popular to use this as a standard and because both the female and male participant were in good shape I made them use the 16kg (35 pound) and 32kg (70 pound) kettlebells. The one standardization was they had to hit chest height for the repetitions to count. The time for both was set as fast as they could complete the 100 repetitions. The ropes we used were a popular 50 foot 1.5 inch rope and for the female participant was 200 repetitions, but the male was to perform as many repetitions as possible in the SAME time frame as the kettlebell performance to standardize time. Finally the Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge I decided to use approximately half the load of the kettlebell swing because of the motion of the Rotational Lunge. Again I wanted to standardize the lifts to being chest height. For our female lifter the goal was 50 repetitions each side and our male had the goal of 50 but had to be in same amount of time as the kettlebell swing or the series was terminated.
Not bad for a casual look into who is the best at fat burning. We did also let heart rate come down in between the exercises to the same starting point. Lastly the order of the drills was two handed kettlebell swing, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge, Battling Ropes Two Arm Waves. So let’s see the results.
The Ultimate Sandbag Training Challenge Test
Fascinating to start! Let’s break down each section…
The Results of the Ultimate Sandbag Training Challenge
Female Lifter
- The fact that the heart rate was 20 bpm on average to the other two was profound.
- At first glance yes, she burned 30 more calories than either other kettlebell swing or ropes, but the time was about a minute longer than the kettlebell swing and almost two minutes to the rope. However, if we standardize and predict based upon her performance. If the time was equal we would have seen probably something like this: Kettlebell-63, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge-83, Battling Ropes-67
- This would make per second of calories burn come out to: Kettlebell: .157, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge: .206, and Battling Ropes: .167
- Kettlebell: 83, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge: 98, Battling Ropes: 82
- If we average the time to 5 min 45 seconds the calories per second: Kettlebell: .24, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge: .28, Battling Ropes: .23
- Average Heart Rate of Kettlebell: 154, Ultimate Sandbag Training Rotational Lunge: 170, Battling Ropes: 153
Josh,
Whatever the merits of USB are, and there are many, I don’t think you have shown them in this “experiment”. Let me make a few comments, I’ll leave it to others to either confirm or disprove them under more carefully devised conditions. First, the KB weights that were used for both participants are much heavier than the average person would or could use. For men, the 16kg., possibly the 24kg., is far better and the 12kg. or even the 8kg. is better for women. Second, KB weight has only an indirect effect on fat loss, which I am assuming is the real intention. In fact, the heavier weights probably impeded higher heart rates because the work was done at a slower pace. If each, man and women, used the lighter KB, the intensity would have been greater because of the faster pace, thereby burning (most likely) more calories. More importantly for a study like this, the percentage of fat burned, instead of carbohydrates, would probably be greater. Third, the range of motion for a swing and the rotational lunge is different. The latter is most likely a bit more strenuous, therefore, it is a comparison of apples and oranges. I do fully appreciate the strength and capacity of someone male or female to be able to swing 32kg. and 16kg. for 100 reps. My wager is that the results will come out much closer if lighter weights are used. If and when I decide to integrate USB into my daily routine, it’s not because of the extra 10 calories burned, which is miniscule – 1/8th of an average apple – but because I can walk a mile down the street with 2-180lb. bags on my shoulders. the uniqueness of USB is not that it can beat out other tools in functional training, but that it is another great tool for more easily working some functional positions that other tools don’t. IMHO, this is what should be emphasized.
Peace,
Mark
Mark,
You bring up some interesting points so let’s look at a few of them…
1. I think NOT using average people actually gives us better insights as proficiency in all the lifts will be higher which would mean greater power output and actually more “work” performed. These weights are moderate for these lifters thereby offering the best blend of speed and load.
2. If we dropped the weight of the kettlebell, would we then not drop the weight of the USB? Therefore, would it make a big difference in the comparison of the two movements. Dropping the load in the USB would seem to have a bigger impact on the overall impact because the complexity of the rotational lunge. Because of that complexity raising or lowering the weight in the rotational lunge would offer more of an impact of slowing down or speeding up. So, if we did lower both I would expect the rotational lunge to be more greatly impacted.
3. Yes, the range of motion is very different! Because the swing has been promoted as this powerful fat burning and power producing exercise, for the same reasons you just mentioned it may stand to reason the rotational lunge should be the priority exercise while the swing is accessory.
4. The ten calorie difference was only for almost six minutes worth of work. If you work towards 20-30 minutes you will see more of a difference between the two modalities more than likely. However again, not really the point, simply demonstrating especially time crunched which one would be more useful to perform with your time?
5. The percentage of calories actually shows the rotational lunge to be more interval based. True HIIT training has been shown time and time again to produce better fat loss compared to aerobic exercise. Really we would have to measure things such as blood lactate hours after training which really isn’t practical, but the heart rate may be a great indicator that we are getting a better anaerobic training effect with the rotational lunge.
Which of the three exercises were novel to the test subjects? While the sandbag mvmnt is more complex, was it also new? Were the subjects already proficient in kb swings? In using battling ropes?
This is a cool little test Josh.
Cliff,
None of the exercises were novel to the lifters. They were very proficient at all of them and I wanted to select exercises that did not require “learning” to provide less variability among the movements. I agree, it was interesting, and makes me want to play with more of the variables.
Josh,
We may be talking at cross purposes here. Please don’t misunderstand that what I say or have said is meant to detract from USB. Also, we are probably advocating similar results, but the explanations are different. Let me just make a few comments based on your points and then I’ll be quiet.
1.) Whether trained athletes or not, the disagreement here is “work” and KB weight. If building endurance strength is the purpose, then go for the gusto with the 32kg. However, if this is meant to be high intensity, then concentrating on faster rates per period of time or number of reps with lower weights would be in order. Caveat: if the weight that was used by your participants is “moderate”, I would have expected faster times per 100. Physical strength, but low max VO2? Runners do not add ankle weights in training for speed.
2.) I disagree. In looking to increase functional strength, the idealized image is “farmer’s strength” or miners’ or steel workers. (BTW, none of them were all round functionally strong either, but they represent common strength ideals). That being said, if I can do 200 – 500 snatches with 24kg. or whatever, in the course of 30-40 minutes, I would certainly want that same functional strength for rotational lunges, or anything else. If one doesn’t have the strength to do the rotational lunge’s with the same weight, that is where workouts come in to remedy that. Certainly, I agree that the movement for the rotational lunge is more complex, but that is why we practice and train.
3.) This is not directed at you, just an observation from more that 40 years of watching and participating in the “fitness” craze. So much of the “fat burning” in the media today is more marketing hype than reality. I have found that most participants and a considerable number of trainers and other “experts” simply don’t understand the physiology of calorie burning. My comments on fat burning were out of and misplaced. I would take more time to lay it out, but I’m sure you have it under control. As far as the swing being the great burner that it is, I respond with the best answer to most questions, “It depends.” Personally, though I occasionally do swings – 16kg or 24kg. I prefer snatches.
4.) In a time crunch, it doesn’t matter. If I need to do X that day, I’ll try to do it. Rarely, have I ever thought about calorie burned as motivation for training. It is interesting to run the numbers after a 5h20min century or to know that for a 10K at X pace, at least 600 calories will be burned, but not much more than that.
5.) Here is where training methodology comes in. Certainly for short spurts, HIIT does use more calories…and that is all we should be worried about. The issue about fat burning is more complex and as I said above my comments were out of place and too quickly written. However, that being said, as a coach, I would never recommend HIIT on a daily basis. For beginners it would be a physical and emotional disaster; even well-trained athletes – thinking good runners, not joggers — don’t do sprints every day. It will depend on their goals and where they are in the “season”.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time. I’m always looking for that “special something else” to help streamline my training and keep me in focus when other tools have become boring. It seems that USB will be that other tool soon.
Cheers!
Mark
Mark,
I always appreciate constructive discussions. So let me rebuttal a few of your points.
1. You suggest that the weights are not moderate? I am not sure how we quantify that or not. There really is not standard for what is a low intensity, moderate, and high intensity swing based upon time of a 100 reps that I am aware of. The term “moderate” was based upon what they have performed in training. The male lifter has swung the 48kg very comfortably and proficiently for sets of 10 or more, but never for the volume of 100 reps. The female has swung the 24kg very similar to the male, that is why I chose those weights as typically we don’t do just 100 reps focused upon one lift. If we used a lighter load of kettlebell what would have assumed would have been changed in the repetitions or time? If I had chosen a 16kg bell for the male that would have been a load about 30% of the 48kg and because the swing does not lend itself to maximal loading he may have the 16 kg bell be even less of a percentage. He has snatched a 124 pound kettlebell for five reps and if we base it off that load we are down to the 16kg bell being 28% of his maximal effort and I would assume he could swing far more than he could snatch. At this point the load could be seen as not a significant enough to elicit his optimal power output. Most importantly since time was standardized in the males tests and loads were chosen to be comparable to one another in the drills that everything balances out anyways? Meaning if I did drop their weights in the swings, I would then have to do the same in the other tests and we would still be in a similar situation? No, runners don’t add ankle weights, but use sleds, parachutes, and weight training (not sure the relationship here).
2. Mark, you can’t be stating that the load for a unilateral lift and bilateral lifts should be the same are you? We don’t see that in anything and a big reason the Olympic lifting went from a split clean to the now far more common squat clean. Even in something as simple as bench pressing I’ve never seen anyone barbell bench and dumbbell bench the same load as it relates to stability again. You would have to look at the dramatic biomechnical differences in leverage and lever arms to see how suggesting such a thing just wouldn’t make sense. Add in the fact, that the rotational lunge has more of a multi-planar trajectory of the load which creates more of an angular force makes it hard for me to believe that these lifts could ever use the same loads. Again, goes back to the fact the more balance and stable I am the more I should be able to lift in terms of load. Have you tried the rotational lunge in the manner I am referring? I would be interested to know if you have experience with how the lift feels which may impact your feelings upon it.
3. As stated in my prior post, high intensity interval training (HIIT), produces greater fat loss even at lower caloric expenditures as it relates to post-exercise oxygen consumption, hormonal releases, and many more factors. If you wish to read more on this topic my friend and colleague, Alwyn Cosgrove, has hundreds of studies reviewed and you can check them out at his site.
4. Then we are simply getting into a debate of what you “like to do”. Most people want to know which exercise gets them to their goal the fastest. If you enjoy doing a certain exercise, then tremendous! However, usually I determine the exercise and training tool I use in order to achieve a bigger goal and so do the majority of people I have coached or work with. If I told most people they could make $1000 working three hours or $700 in five hours most people would take the first option. That often times is how I see training, what gives me the most results in the given amount of time.
5. Mark, all the exercises tested are HIIT types of movements, therefore, NONE of them would be done daily. If anything the Rotational Lunge has more ability along with the ropes to be altered to fit light/medium/heavy cycles depending upon the variables manipulated. However, I don’t recommend any of these movements to be done every day, wasn’t the point.
I think where you might be getting hung up is the idea of the lighter kettlebell. Even if I did have the male lifter, for example, use the 16 kg bell even if he doubled the reps achieved within the given amount of time we probably would have seen similar training effects as the volume is the same. He would have had to significantly gone beyond 200 reps in the 337 seconds which is about 1.7 reps per second. That would seem it would take some specific training protocols to achieve and again, not the goal of the test. If we had done specific training for the kettlebell we would have had to do the same for the other two and I wonder if we just don’t end up in the same place.
Thanks for the comments and discussion Josh. I certainly don’t keep up on the research any more, but I am familiar with Cosgrove among others. Though I tend to stress calories expended for various activities when friends and others inquire over fat burning — which BTW is what a body predominantly uses while being a couch potato — I also stress that “You can’t outrun a donut!” In other words, if the person can’t “close their pie hole”, then they won’t see the results that they would like.
BTW, I placed my order and hope to be bagging it soon. If this works out like I hope it does, I won’t replace my KBs, but I’ll definitely get the next two. For a 60+ old fart, I try to keep banging away…
Cheers!
Mark
Mark,
There is no need to replace any of the fitness tools we tested. However, I think it is all too common for people to do exercises or use tools because “someone told them it is good” or “it burns fat”. Rarely do we take the time to validate these statements and that was primarily my goal. What such measures could do is help us prioritize time spent during specific movements or which ones we wish to progress towards.
Yes, a great program can’t do a bad diet, but not something we were really measuring here. I look forward to your feedback on the USBs as there are a lot of variables we haven’t touched upon yet that could also spike such results.
Thanks!
Very interesting. I have been thinking lately about using a HRM to get some idea of my heart rate. I wonder how the shoulder to shoulder thruster would compare or even a heavy bear hug squat?
Also, I have for a time been thinking about my own little USB experiment; looking at hip stability. I love sledgehammer strikes but found I have reached a point where the next increase in weight was too heavy in terms of hip stability. What a sad day when I had to admit that. So soon, I will put the USB to the test and see if it can give me back the ability to continue with my sledgehammer strikes.
Oh, I wanted to ask; where are you getting the calories burned from? Is that something the HRM gives you?
Regards
yes, it is a simple tool that Apple provides measuring these variables. As I mentioned to a friend today, even if the calories are not accurate their proportion to each other are interesting. Probably what is more missed though and something I will discuss more of is the heart rate impact.
Yes, I would be interested to hear about that.
Very interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing.
Josh,
I have an Ultimat Sandbag that was gathering dust in my garage due to some recent kettlebell work and I dusted it off after this post caught my eye. I have been on a steady diet of swings lately and this looked like the perfect way to switch things up. I’ll have to say that this lunge totally smoked me! I did this for time and not reps, so all in all I believe I worked for about 25 minutes. I’ll have to admit that this is a “new” exercise for me but I can tell you that I’ll be incorporating that sandbag more and more into my routine now. Thanks for the inspiration!
Thanks Greg keep us up to date on your progress!