To Mr. Tyler Hass c/o Girevik Magazine,

Thank you for your kind offer of allowing me to publish a response to your editorial, which I will now do. [Click here to read the editorial to which this article responds]

You describe my article as "garbage" among other things, whereas it is nothing of the sort. My article was reasonable, objective and looked at the facts, nothing more. I stand by every word of it. In all conscience, I cannot use these adjectives when describing your "editorial", as the word "diatribe" is a much more accurate description. I personally attacked no-one , yet you appear to feel the need to personally attack me and ascribe motives to me which don't exist. This is grossly unprofessional and does serious damage to your credibility, as well as that of your e-zine. No doubt, your readership has already taken note of this and will exercise more discernment as to what they read in future.

In the darkest days of the USSR, Joseph Stalin set up "Glavlit " (or , to give its full title "The Administration for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press"). Glavlit functioned as the state censor in the USSR and every single item that was submitted for publication had to gain its approval prior to publication. If an author submitted more than two items a year which did not meet with party approval, Glavlit then passed his or her contact details to other state agencies. These agencies then tried to refute what was in the offending article and if they failed to do so, they then resorted to attacking the author on a more personal level.
This is exactly what you have tried to do to me. Monitoring the internet for ideological impurity must consume an inordinate amount of time, I should imagine, and then you don't even bother to read thoroughly an article of which you don't approve. In kneejerk fashion, you resort to personal attack( as Glavlit was wont to do), as you realise that you simply have no effective counterarguments to the many points contained in my article. In fact, you have singularly failed in your task -as did the staff of Glavlit on many occasions. It is one thing to address your reader as "Comrade", but quite another to adopt the tactics of the USSR censor in dealing with a piece of writing which is not in accord with what you think. We have never met face-to-face , yet that has not prevented you from ascribing all sorts of base motives to me. It is quite simply amazing what you can conclude about me, via the internet. Your personal slurs are undignifying to you, not me. Therefore, I see no reason to waste any more time on this aspect of your editorial or your psyche.

It is true that a lot of methods of training have been "hyped up" in order to sell then to the public. However, few in recent times have caused as many injuries as kettlebells, as taught by people like you. On average, I now get three hundred e-mails a week from people who have suffered injuries (some of them fairly serious) from their use. This is what concerns me and why I wrote that article. Kettlebells do have good points-I delineated them in my article. I also delineated the negative points. I write objectively and give both sides of the argument. However, you must read objectively in order to appreciate this.

In fact, I honestly wonder if you read my article thoroughly at all. You refer to the "Irish sport of curling" which I am supposed to have written about. I have no idea how you have chanced upon this startling and revolutionary historical error, but it wasn't from my article. Here is a clue: curling is not Irish. Note the word "Scottish" in the middle of the heading of my article, between "Auld " and "Bells". Also, there isn't enough snowfall in Ireland to be able to play curling in any case. I highly recommend you purchase an Atlas of the World , or better still a globe, where you could check the latitudes of the British Isles for yourself, the height of the Scottish Highlands and the proximity of both Ireland and Scotland to the Gulf Stream. If you are still confused, then get someone with a knowledge of geography to paint one of your own kettlebells with a map of the world. (Note to the reader : My apologies if this last point comes across as crass, but you can't say Mr. Hass didn't ask for it). I am , therefore., unsure if you have read my article at all. If you have any wish to write an editorial in future on one of my articles, then kindly do me the courtesy of reading them thoroughly first. If nothing else, it will save me the trouble of wasting my time in this tiresome manner because of lack of research on your part.

As I have already said, using the terminology of the USSR-a horror on the face of the earth for over half of the last century- is in very bad taste. This says nothing about the quality of the research(which I will address shortly), but rather about how it is being (ab)used in a cynical and taste-free marketing ploy. There are many people in the USA who fought for their country abroad. They did this for many reasons, one of which was that those of us lucky enough to reside in the free world would not have to address each other as "Comrade", but so that we can continue to address each other as we choose. For instance, note how free you have been in your choice of words in your erstwhile editorial. Even as I write this, a Communist state (North Korea, in case you were wondering) is threatening your country with a nuclear attack. Is the irony of this lost completely on you ? Your mode of address would certainly be more commonplace and acceptable in Pyongyang than it would be in Seattle.

As regards the quality of the research in question, why do you automatically assume that it is absolutely true because it was produced in Soviet Russia ? Do you believe that the Soviet system was capable of producing better quality information than that produced in your own country under your own system ? Do you believe that a completely state-controlled scientific establishment is superior to your own free-market model in every way, or just when it comes to producing scientifically accurate data ? I am sure many of your fellow Americans would be very keen to hear your replies to these questions. I hope for your own sake that you had at least considered these questions before putting pen to paper ( or fingers to keyboard in this case). It may also explain why kettlebelling has noticeably failed to penetrate the mainstream US fitness market. Also, if you believe that sport-related data from the USSR is inherently superior to that produced by the USA, what else was inherently superior about the USSR ?

At the risk of sounding repetitive (a concern which you don't appear to be troubled by, from what I can see) resistance is simply resistance. This cannot be reduced any further, yet it seems to be a particularly difficult point for you to grasp. You attempt to get round this by resorting to truisms such as "there are fat people and skinny people". This is true-and it is also true that they will change if they begin exercising regularly. Fat people will loose fat and become muscular. Skinny people will bulk up. Or are we to assume that you have experienced no change at all in your own physique or bodyfat since you commenced kettlebelling ? That would seem to be the assumption you are asking your readers to accept, albeit tacitly.

While we're on the topic of tacit assumptions, why do you insist on referring to me as "Brennan"? The majority of Americans I have met are very courteous and have respect for strangers. Do you derive some vicarious pleasure from such displays of vulgarity and plain bad manners ? My name is Raymond Brennan. Either "Raymond" or "Mr. Brennan" would be fine. I have addressed you as "Mr. Hass" at the top of this response, as I am led to believe that this is the correct way to address an American with whom one is not familiar. I have no desire to treat you in a bad-mannered way as I do not know you, yet you appear to suffer from no such qualms regarding your behaviour towards me. I wish to re-emphasise at this point that my article was civil and refrained from personal attacks on anyone. Your bad manners will not go unnoticed by your readers, that is for sure. Again, there are striking shades of Glavlit in your behaviour and attitude.

You mention "body mechanics " and callisthenics several times in your "response", but you simply state your own beliefs as if they were some sort of doctrine to which we should all subscribe and which do not require any proof. You make no attempt to explicate your meaning, nor do you give any concrete examples to back up your conclusions. Simply stating something three or four times does not make it true. Experience speaks volumes-which may be why you are strangely silent in these key areas and why you demure in these two topics in particular. You say for instance, that you still have your own bodyweight to use, even after taking up kettlebelling. One would never guess this, from the article you wrote yourself for Dolfzine. In your article, the distinct impression is given that you don't "do" bodyweight exercises at all, as kettlebelling is much better.

You neglect to mention or even acknowledge the vast majority of the points in my article altogether. I can only assume that this is for one of two reasons :

(a) You have no prior knowledge of what I am referring to, or explaining. This can be rectified by some research and by broadening your horizons and general attitude.
(b) You agree with these points-either implicitly or overtly. If so, then I am deeply flattered that you and I have so many views in common.

I personally know of no exercise guru or fitness instructor who would accept even half of the assumptions under which you operate. As you have reserved for yourself the right to "respond" to my article, I would like to have a look at some of your statements, though from a more informed and (I hope) less disrespectful vantage point…

"Kettlebelling is a sport". Really ? If so, then why is it any better than any other sport ? You portray the activity of kettlebelling as if it were the zenith of human activity, for no good reason that I can see. If it does you personally some good and helps you to meet your goals, then I am happy for you. However, you are prone to the "one size fits all" mentality which appears to pervade your editorials, too. You define Olympic Weightlifting as the "world's most powerful sport" and simply leave it there. Are we to conclude from this that Olympic Weightlifting is superior to all other sports when it comes to building strength? It would appear so, based on what you have written. Then I have to ask why aren't you practising Olympic Lifting, instead of wasting your time (by your own admission) on a second-rate activity such as kettlebelling ?

"If at that point, you're exploding to start, you can use a dumbbell " If someone can use a dumbbell at the start, why can't they keep on using it ? I can guess what you are going to say, but the fact remains you didn't say it. As well as being another example of incompleteness, it raises more questions that it answers. Come to that, the same applies to your statement earlier in your article about how kettlebells are such wondrous implements that they "fit the needs of soldiers, elite athletes and just ordinary people who want a good workout in a short amount of time". Is there an implicit assumption that no other form of exercise confers such blessings on its devotees ? Wouldn't dumbbells, callisthenics or strands do exactly the same thing ? If not, why not ? Answers, Mr. Hass, please, answers !
I have to conclude that you agree with what I have just written completely, as shortly after this you write "Mastery of the exercises themselves is far more important than the implement". If the implement is so unimportant, then why are you advocating its use so passionately ? Like all of your other statements, this one is full of holes , circular and is simply not convincing.

In fact, I could easily pick apart lots of statements in your article. However, I will confine myself to one more out of many glaring contradictions, in the interests of saving the bandwidth of your e-zine. This is…

"training can range anywhere from 2 times per week to multiple workouts per day" Apart from someone who planned to take up kettlebell lifting for a living, I can't think of any reason to train with any kind of weight more than once a day and I can think of plenty of very good reasons to train with heavy resistance no more than three times a week. In this, I believe that a majority of people would agree with me, simply (but not only) because they recognise the body's real need to rest and recover between workouts. I could mention other relevant areas here such as overtraining, joint resilience, the innate sadness of a person who thinks about nothing else except workouts and so on, but I believe you get my drift.

In fairness, the safety tips, rep schemes and general comments at the end of your article are, in my opinion, excellent. I will certainly make use of them in my own training at some stage, of that I have no doubt. My compliments on your clarity and succinctness of expression.

In conclusion, I find it sad that you felt it necessary to write your "response" in the way you did. I welcome reasonable and level-headed debate, but (like most people ) treat personal and unprovoked snipes with the contempt they deserve. I believe you have realised that by now. I wrote that article for the same reason I have written all of my other ones-out of a desire to share knowledge and experience and hopefully to enable some people to avoid injury. Given the obesity problem in the US at present (and the British Isles are catching up fast in this regard), I feel that we should be uniting to urge more people to take up some form of exercise, possibly by portraying a more positive example of the benefits entailed . In this way, we could all be of real benefit to society and not just to ourselves. Remember what we have in common-we are fit, healthy and strong. We may have reached our goal by different routes, but we have a common destination. Could I suggest in future that this be the primary motive, rather than commercial interests. Your negative, closed mindset would hardly be an asset in such a venture.

Thank you for allowing me the chance to respond,
Raymond Brennan