| Home Page | Photo Pages | Videos | Articles | Links | What's New | Gallery of Ironmen |
| Heavy Club Training
By Tom Black The recent advent of 45-pound clubbells has fulfilled a century long need for clubs similar in weight to heavy clubs that were used in antiquity. However, once created I think many people who have tried a 45-pounder or have pondered what it would be like to handle such a beast are unsure what can be done with them. I do not have one of the clubs yet, mostly because I am setting up a new home gym and feel a squat rack or power rack is more important, but I still needed to evaluate and experiment with clubs of this size. Enter my
trusty Ironmind Olympic I sent the pictures that accompany this article to Coach Sonnon and he requested that I write an article on how I progressed to my current level. Upon reflection, however, I found the question not easy to answer simply because the weight that I used was far and above anything that I had ever tried before one-handed with a club. So it cannot be fairly said that the clubs themselves enabled me to swing 55-pounds to order (and now 60-pounds), but rather, it has been my grip training for around the last 7 years that made the exercise at this level possible. On top of that I hasten to add that I have used some very heavy weights in the squat and deadlift (both over 400-pounds) and while the focus of my site is mainly on grip strength it is my overall body strength that contributes as well. Could this level be obtained with the clubbells alone? I don't see why not, but training heavy with some basic weightlifting movements and grip work will definitely give you an edge in your club training. The Program Warm up with progressively higher
weights. For my workout that would be 15-pounds called to order,
torches with leverage holds, 25-pounds called to order, torches and
leverage holds. On the loading pin I do 15, 25 and 35 pounds with the same exercises, first dropping the leverage on the torch with
35-pounds and dropping the leverage after 45-pounds on the call to order
(Keep in mind that I've done a fairly strict leverage of a 16.5-pound
sledgehammer, about 385 inch-pounds of torque). On the reps I tend to pause longer between reps than I
would with something like a dumbbell curl,
Note that as the workout progresses the following happens:
I tend to gravitate towards heavy exercises. While the swinging movements that can be performed with smaller clubs have their advantages, I am looking for high end grip and wrist strength and I am accustomed to heavy lifting. I want more of a full body effect that I can obtain with a smaller (for me) 15-pound club. On the 55-pound club to order and especially on the torch lift my feet come off the ground, just as an Olympic lifter would do for a snatch or clean and jerk. I can't overstress that with a big club that it must be called to order or snatched to the torch hold very precisely on a dime. I try to slow the momentum about 15-degrees from vertical so that there is no overturning. This seems to parallel the controlled explosiveness of Olympic cleaning and snatching with a barbell. In my mind the complete club workout would be small clubs for some
movements and big clubs for limited movements. The weights of
course can be modified from my weights above. Hence, if you
can only call to order a 25-pound Once you get to the 45-pound level you should also be seriously considering supplementing your training with other grip exercises. You have reached the Scott Sonnon's "bruiser" level and may need some other stimulus to progress beyond. I have done an exercise called the vertical bar lift with this very same Ironmind loading pin. Even years ago I could do over 200-pounds in the movement which has prepared me for snatching a 60-pound club off the floor. Conversely, training the heavy club for years and then trying the vertical bar lift would lead to some impressive numbers to start on this grip exercise. I also recommend any explosive dumbbell lifts, in particular one-hand dumbbell snatches and dumbbell swings. I've snatched a 105-pound thick handled dumbbell and after that the 55-pound club does not seem nearly as big. On the dumbbell swing the weight starts between the legs and is swung in an arc in front of the body and up. Like a club, centrifugal force tends to pull the implement out of the hand. On the clubbell training forum I noticed a post asking what to do with the 45-pound clubbell. I believe that some people may have a bit of a mental block regarding the size of the big 45-pound clubbells. I hope this article dispels some of that feeling, with the proper preliminary training the 45-pound clubs will not seem so daunting. Also, a strap could be added to the loop on the end of the Ironmind loading pin for safety, although I do not have a strap on mine. This workout is planned for two times per week. If somehow I could manage more weight than my best of 60-pounds or more demanding exercises like a snatch with a front squat with this kind of weight then I would cut down on the frequency. If calculations bore you it may be a good idea to stop here, if not read on, but be forewarned. I believe weight trainers should be educated in their "arts" and should have at least a fundamental understanding of these exercises. When I sent Scott the pictures associated with this article there was some debate as to how difficult it was to swing the 45-pounds and 55-pounds on the loading pin relative to a 45-pound clubbell. As was pointed out, the clubbell was much longer and thus presented more
torque on the hand. This, however, is only the beginning of a proper torque analysis. The torque is the moment arm times the distance to the weight times the sine of the angle the moment arm makes with the perpendicular. That's Length * Distance * sin (angle). Note the sin of 0-degrees is 0 and the sine of 90-degrees is 1. Thus, when the club is straight up the angle is zero, and the torque is zero. When the club is held parallel to the ground the sine is 1 and the torque is the highest. Of course, any movement side-to-side is going to create some torque and the feel of the exercise will be a little different. We must also consider that the measurement of the moment arm, or length, should be from the fulcrum to the center of the weight. The "fulcrum" is essentially the end of the hand nearest the weight, not the far end of the club on the other side of the hand. It is the point on which the weight pivots. Thus, the length of the club on the opposite side of the hand would not be in the equation. On the clubbell this would be the ball end of the club, thus the moment arm would be measured from the other side of the hand opposite the ball end. Finally, we need to consider just where is the weight compared to the fulcrum. This is difficult to answer with the clubbell because of its shape. Physicists tend to simplify things and assume a point source for a load, but the weight on the clubbell is distributed throughout, but biased towards the far end. I think that for purposes of calculation it is safe to find the center of gravity of any object and measure from this point to find the moment arm. A simple example would be a sledgehammer, where the center of gravity is a few inches up the handle shaft from the hammer head. When measuring torque from the center of gravity the entire weight of the sledgehammer should be used, not just the hammerhead. With the 15-pound, 24-inch clubbell, the center of gravity is 8-inches from the top, the total length is 24-inches and the fulcrum point for a 4-inch hand on the opposite side of the 1.5-inch ball end is 10.5-inches (24-8-4-1.5).
I estimate (because I do not own one) that the 45-pound clubbell has a center of gravity about 10-inches from the far end, thus the moment arm would be 28-10-4-1.5=13-inches.
Now, after knowing these numbers, I stress that it is unlikely that anyone would train with the 45-pound clubbell the same way as with the 15-pounder. I think that most people would probably avoid the torque altogether and train the way I have described above. Simply calling to order and bringing a big club to the torch position for reps is a great workout. The big club could also be brought down about 30-degrees to the shoulder with a great amount of effort, somewhere in the 250 to 300 Inch pound range (13 * 45 * sin (30)= 13*45*.5=292 Inch-pounds. I've had many people e-mail me questioning about alternatives to clubbells and to a certain extent there is no alternative, they are simply that good. However, my swinging of the Ironmind Olympic loading pin has given me a good idea of what I could physically handle on the clubbells. While the handle is shorter, the center of gravity of the weight is more towards the end. As Scott Sonnon correctly points out the balance of a plate loading club changes as the weight goes on and the clubbells were designed to be more balanced. I've swung 15-pounds in one hand on the Ironmind "club" and the 15-pound clubbell in the other hand and they feel virtually identical in both weight and torque, however, the exact weight on the Ironmind pin would probably be 15.7 pounds to be equivalent, because the moment arm is around 10-inches. The loading pin has the added difficulty of not having a ball end. When swinging 55-pounds to order the handle must be grasped very tightly, whereas with the clubbell the amount of grip strength needed for the 45-pounds would be less, unless the trainer purposely leaves a small gap there. Of course, the loading pin is 2" which also adds to the difficulty. In the end, the club is held vertically and only small torques or no torque is felt on the hand. With the big clubs the torque in question then becomes the torque with your arm acting as the moment arm. Merely holding the weight out becomes a challenge because of this torque. Once you have practiced on a homemade club you can switch to the real thing with Rmax.tv's Clubbell:
If you enjoyed this article you might find the following of interest: Five Secret Tibetan Rejuvenation Rites- Downloadable eBook reveals easy-to-do exercises that will give you more energy and help you feel better than you've felt in years.
Copyright February 2003
Number of times this page has been viewed since June 6, 2003:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||