I wanted to share my first ever review paper on Kettlebell training. Understand, this was 4 years out of formal education and was thrusted into a graduate level exercise physiology class. I graduated undergrad with a sport management degree. Completely different. My knowledge thus far on human performance, specifically in physiology, comes from my own curiosity and my ACE certification studying. This paper was written around the end of the semester so I gained a lot of knowledge through the class but it was only one class.
What I've taken most from graduate school is being evidence based in my coaching and practice will be integral. This is highly formal in nature but shouldn't be over your head if you have a basic understanding. The purpose of this study was purely looking at optimization. Could the kettlebell be the only tool you need to reach your fitness goals? My conclusion, I'll give you the graduate school answer: it depends ;). It is an undoubtedly useful tool that you should equip in your training toolbox.
Forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. I wanted to give this to you raw and hopefully you glean something from my review to use in your own daily life. If you are interested in furthering your education, this would be a good start to understanding what goes into researching for a review.
Purpose: Kettlebell training has seen an upward trend in popularity over the past 20 years. The main purpose of kettlebell training is to illicit strength and power results, but other benefits are somewhat unknown or undiscovered.
Hypothesis: It’s hypothesized that kettlebell training, specifically the kettlebell swing, can provide individuals significant results in both anaerobic and aerobic training, allowing individuals to have one piece of equipment for their training needs. This one piece of equipment is small, easy to use given brief technique training, and is cost effective.
Arguments For: Based on the literature, kettlebell training has been shown to provide explosive strength and power adaptations to individuals. Kettlebell training also saw similar aerobic results compared to traditional aerobic training.
Arguments Against: The lack of literature in key areas show the kettlebell isn’t ready to be named the “only” piece of equipment necessary. Areas such as weight loss, balance, and flexibility were either not studied or found negative results.
Conclusion: As a result of reviewing academic articles, kettlebell training should be at the very least be apart of any exercise regimen. Its results are no doubt clear it is a useful tool that brings both anaerobic and aerobic results. More studies need to be done in other areas to determine further its hierarchy in the training world.
Introduction:
Exercise has long been a pillar of a happy and healthy lifestyle. Despite this knowledge, many individuals either lack the knowledge of what actions to take when it comes to exercise or have certain barriers in their way such as time, space, or cost. Gym memberships can be costly along with acquiring the correct knowledge from a trainer. The amount of equipment options in 2017 is overwhelming as well. For the average individual looking to maintain a healthy lifestyle, a form of exercise should exist that is cost effective, easy to use, takes up little space, and produces results.
Kettlebell training, although newer to the United States, has been a staple of exercise in other countries. “Kettlebells were first used in early 18-century Russia as a counterweight to measure farming stock (Vecchio, Sekendiz, 2017, p. 8). Eventually, the kettlebell became a focal point for men to demonstrate their abilities of strength, coordination, and endurance as a part of a gathering and this led to the early stages of kettlebell exercises (Vecchio et al., 2017, p. 8). Lyons (2016) describes the kettlebell as a “cannon-ball with handles” (p. 2363).
In the United States today, kettlebell training has become an incredibly popular exercise form (Lyons, Mayo, Tucker, Wax, Hendrix, 2016, p. 2363). They can be found in most gyms across the country. The popularity can be contributed to many factors. Ease of use, space efficient, recent accessibility, and efficiency of time spent exercising with kettlebells has led to their upward trend (Lyons et al., 2016, p. 2363). Fortner (2014) and Wade (2016) suggest that the time efficiency and the simplicity of the kettlebell are major benefits.
The result they produce is arguably why the kettlebell is a growing form of exercise and the recent studies done on kettlebell training would suggest this. Vecchio (2017), Lake (2012), and Greenwald (2016) suggest that kettlebell training has shown significant improvements in improving strength, power, and vertical jump simultaneously along with improving cardiovascular fitness and cardiorespiratory endurance. Lyons (2016) also makes the point of kettlebell training being multi-plane and multi-lateral, leading to a greater number of exercises and angles an individual can utilize. These points would suggest that one piece of equipment could provide improvements and benefits in both resistance and aerobic training. This would be a major discovery for a general population looking to maintain a regular fitness level.
Some see the kettlebell as another gimmicky piece of training equipment that won’t stand the test of time as traditional resistance training with barbells and dumbbells have. The lack of quality and quantity of research done on kettlebell training contributes to this. The exercise equipment market has also seen a dramatic spike in the number of products in recent years. This equipment is being pushed by advertising while it lacks scientific results. The kettlebell arguably gets grouped into this category based on its recent popularity.
Although kettlebell research is not where it needs to be, a decent amount of research has been done that show that kettlebell training compares to traditional resistance weight and aerobic training. Critical aspects such as VO2 max, aerobic capacity, explosive strength, and rate of perceived exertion among others have been tested and reviewed.
The Kettlebell Swing:
The kettlebell swing is arguably the most important kettlebell exercise and is considered in many fitness circles as the most important exercise an individual can do. Vecchio (2017) said that the kettlebell swing is critical to the mechanical base for other kettlebell exercises. Although cleans, deadlifts, and snatches are popular as well, the kettlebell swing is the most popular. This is the case because, with minimal instruction, the kettlebell swing can be performed with relative ease given the proper weight is chosen.
The kettlebell swing is performed as Gelder (2015) describes in 5 phases; the pre-swing phase, acceleration phase, swing phase, terminal swing phase, and return phase. Gelder (2015) describes the acceleration phase, where the transition from hip flexion to hip extension and the kettlebell is moved in the anterior/superior trajectory, is where the highest muscle activation occurs. Vecchio (2017) describes the kettlebell swing as “actively flexing the hip joint while restricting knee flexion, allowing the kettlebell to be displaced in a downward arc between the knees until the bottom position is reached (p. 10). Bullock (2017) stated “the design of the KB permits the center of mass to extend beyond the hand. As a result, this implement design is conductive for while body ballistic movements” (p.325).
There are a few different types of kettlebell swings that use slightly different angles to activate different muscles. The standard two hand swing is the most popular. The overhead swing and the one-handed kettlebell swing are popular alternatives to the traditional kettlebell swing. The kettlebell swing also provides different joint angles to be utilized based on the type of swing. Both Van Gelder (2015) and Bullock (2017) looked at kinematics of kettlebell swings and both showed great results in the muscle activation in the muscle groups they were testing.
Muscle Growth and Explosive Strength:
Kettlebell training is arguably most regarded for its resistance training adaptations. It is typically not in the cardiovascular or aerobic part of any gym. With traditional kettlebell training, kettlebells are used like dumbbells and barbells with a certain set of reps and sets. According to the research, kettlebells can play a significant role in muscle mass gain.
Ambrozy (2017) studied the effects on selected components with kettlebell resistance training. The results after 8 weeks showed significant increases in many categories, most notably an 84.25% increase in endurance strength of upper limbs and should girdle compared to the control group who did not train with kettlebells (Ambrozy, 2017, p. 31). These results correlate with a study by Wade (2016) who saw his kettlebell training group’s maximum push-up total increase compared to the traditionally trained control group. These results also agree with Lyons (2017) that kettlebell training has similar strength results that traditional weightlifting and powerlifting provide. The study by Ambrozy (2017) however only monitored a female population so results could vary depending on gender or age range.
Explosive strength is the kettlebell’s primary resistance training adaptation. Given the nature of the exercise, the upward motion of the swing requires muscular demands on the glutes, hamstrings, and hips along with lats, core, shoulders, and grip. This action repeated over and over again and the subsequent recovery should result in increased strength in those muscles along with possibly a higher vertical jump based on the motion of the exercise. Wade (2016) studied the effects of a continuous one-arm kettlebell swing on United States Air Force members. His results show an increase in vertical jump in the two kettlebell groups compared to no change in the control group. However, the subject pretest characteristics could be considered a weakness due to favorable subject attributes. The subjects in the kettlebell group are younger, taller, and have less body fat % than the other group. Lake (2012) saw similar results in his study that compared a kettlebell training regimen with a jump squat power training regimen. Holmstrup (2016) also saw an increase in vertical jump in his 8 week study compared to a stiff-legged deadlift group. These two regimens along with a traditional deadlift yielded similar results, suggesting that kettlebell training is equally favorable in explosive strength training to a specific jump squat power training program or traditional powerlifting. These results are an exciting discovery for those individuals looking for simple and safe way to increase muscle mass and improve explosive strength.
Aerobic Capacity and Sprint Performance:
The kettlebell as a resistance training tool is fairly established for its short existence. However, the aerobic component of kettlebell training and subsequent results with speed and endurance is largely unknown. If performed in a work-rest ratio interval training or Tabata, the kettlebell swing can be used in an aerobic capacity as well. Given proper instruction, the kettlebell swing could be considered safer and more time efficient than a traditional treadmill.
Fortner (2014) studied the metabolic and cardiovascular demands of the kettlebell swing and compared traditional resistance to Tabata interval training. Going back to time efficiency, this aspect is one of the most critical excuses why individuals don’t meet their exercise requirements. The results show significant potential for kettlebell training. Peak VO2 value and HR were significantly higher than the traditional protocol along with RPE having a higher value as well. Fortner (2014) said the results “demonstrated evidence of a greater exercise stimulus than the TRAD protocol (p. 183). However, two weaknesses of this study reduce this studies conclusion. Blood lactate levels were notably higher than the TAB group than the TRAD group is a potential concern. The fact that this study did not test against traditional aerobic training lessens it’s conclusion as well.
Holmstrup (2016) investigated sprint performance with kettlebell training. The results were not favorable to kettlebell training. The stiff-legged deadlift group saw a greater increase in sprint speed (.06) than the kettlebell group (.01). This study looked at just the female population so results for general population could be different.
Although these two articles specifically don’t show statistical increases in aerobic capacity comparable to traditional aerobic training, the literature as a whole suggests it exists. Lyons (2016), Lake (2012), Ambrozy (2017), Wade (2016), Vecchio (2017), and Hursely (2012) all reference to kettlebell training meeting the ACSM guidelines for cardiovascular fitness and response as well as a sufficient maximal oxygen uptake. More studies need to be done in this area to validate kettlebell training more in the academic fitness community.
Biological Adaptations:
There are many biological adaptations in recent literature to suggest that kettlebell training has similar metrics to traditional aerobic training. It’s no surprise that a continuous bout of exercise in a swinging motion would elicit a high HR, VO2 max, or RPE. The question is whether it closely compares to traditional aerobic training enough to utilize. Using an interval method compared to traditional treadmill or cycle training, the individual could cut their workout time substantially without giving up the same results.
Hursley (2012) studied a direct comparison between treadmill running and kettlebell swings. If VO2 max values were similar to treadmill values, this study would be incredibly valuable to boosting kettlebell training’s aerobic result credibility. However, the results showed the treadmill group reaching a higher VO2 max than the kettlebell swing group (46.7 vs. 34.1). These results contradict a study done by Williams and Kraemer (2015) cited in the Vecchio (2017) article stating that average VO2 max values were higher in the kettlebell HIIT group (22.6) versus the control group (19.9). The discrepancy could depend on many factors but it’s important to note the incongruity.
HR is a vital indicator of maximum exercise being accomplished at the aerobic level. Hulsey (2012) also measured HR values between a kettlebell swing group and a control treadmill group. The results show a higher achieved HR in the kettlebell group (180 bpm) versus the treadmill group (177 bpm). These results correlate with many of what Vecchio (2017) found as well. In 3 separate studies, it was found that both max HR and average HR were higher in the kettlebell group than the opposing group (Vecchio, 2017, pp. 8-9). Although age is a dominant factor in HR, this is a great indication of the effectiveness of kettlebell training in terms of aerobic benefits compared to traditional aerobic training. RPE, while subjective in nature, was also measured by Hursley (2012) and found similar values (15.3 vs. 15.5). Both of these measurements indicate a stronger possibility of relevance for kettlebell training in an aerobic capacity.
Greenwald (2016) looked at glucose tolerance levels in sedentary men. Type 2 diabetes is a growing epidemic in the United States and it only harder to control as individuals age. This is a growing concern in the health field. Greenwald (2016) studied 3 groups to compare glucose levels, one control, one kettlebell exercise group, and one high intensity interval running group. The results show no apparent difference between the kettlebell swing group and the high intensity interval running group. This indicates that an individual can have the same blood glucose levels performing kettlebell exercises rather than high intensity running. This is huge for the growing aging population in the United States. With proper form, kettlebell exercises, specifically the kettlebell swing is simple, less taxing on joints and feet, and takes up a lot less space than a treadmill.
Conclusion:
Based on the research done, there are enough results to indicate that kettlebell training should be considered in a training regimen. The anaerobic and aerobic result properties, space and ease of use, multi-plane movements, and similar results compared to traditional training all are in the kettlebell’s favor. Since this is still a relatively new piece of equipment, the lack of multiple studies done and multiple positive results show there is still research to be done. Although early indications show optimism for kettlebell exercises, more results need to be compiled to validate kettlebell training.
From here, research needs to be done in a few areas. Kettlebell training and balance in individuals should be one study. Balance is incredibly important to all populations but especially the older population. Many accidents occur from a loss of balance in older adults. The kettlebell by nature is weighted centrally compared to a dumbbell or barbell that are weighted equally on each side. This could indicate an increase of balance based on the way the kettlebell is designed.
Fat loss is an important topic in the health and fitness community. While diet plays a large role, exercise plays an equally important role. Although shown to decrease fat in the fitness community, no scholarly research has been done of note. This would further legitimize kettlebell training as a staple for fitness equipment.
Most of this literature has been completed in the last 3 years. This indicates that the validity of kettlebell training has risen enough that the academic world took notice and starting studies. Although many more need to be done, the initial results are a great first step in validating the kettlebell as a legitimate piece of equipment. Its many benefits could prove useful in a time constrained world and play a role in a healthy lifestyle.
References
Ambroży, T., Kiszczak, L., Omorczyk, J., Ozimek, M., Pałka, T., Mucha, D. (2017). Influence of experimental training with external resistance in a form of "kettlebell" on selected components of women's physical fitness. Baltic Journal Of Health & Physical Activity, 9(1), 28-36.
Bullock, G. S., Schmitt, A. C., Shutt, J. M., Cook, G., & Butler, R. J. (2017). Kinematic and kinetic variables differ between kettlebell swing styles. International Journal Of Sports Physical Therapy, 12(3), 324-332.
FORTNER, H. A., SALGADO, J. M., HOLMSTRUP, A. M., & HOLMSTRUP, M. E. (2014). Cardiovascular and metabolic demands of the kettlebell swing using tabata interval versus a traditional resistance protocol. International Journal Of Exercise Science, 7(3), 179-185.
GREENWALD, S., SEGER, E., NICHOLS, D., RAY, A. D., RIDEOUT, T. C., & GOSSELIN, L. E. (2016). Effect of an acute bout of kettlebell exercise on glucose tolerance in sedentary men: A preliminary study. International Journal Of Exercise Science, 9(4), 524-535.
HOLMSTRUP, M. E., JENSEN, B. T., EVANS, W. S., & MARSHALL, E. C. (2016). Eight weeks of kettlebell swing training does not improve sprint performance in recreationally active females. International Journal Of Exercise Science, 9(4), 437-444.
Hulsey, C. R., Soto, D. T., Koch, A. J., & Mayhew, J. L. (2012). Comparison of kettlebell swings and treadmill running at equivalent rating of perceived exertion values. Journal Of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1203-1207.
LAKE, J. P., & LAUDER, M. A. (2012). Kettlebell swing training improves maximal and explosive strength. Journal Of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2228-2233.
Lyons, B. C., Mayo, J. J., Tucker, W. S., Wax, B., & Hendrix, R. C. (2017). Electromyographical Comparison of Muscle Activation Patterns Across Three Commonly Performed Kettlebell Exercises. Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research, 31(9), 2363-2370.
Van Gelder, L. H., Hoogenboom, B. J., Alonzo, B., Briggs, D., & Hatzel, B. (2015). EMG analysis and sagittal plane kinematics of the two-handed and single-handed kettlebell swing: A descriptive study. International Journal Of Sports Physical Therapy, 10(6), 811-826.
Del Vecchio, L., & Sekendiz, B. (2017). Managing risks of training with kettlebells to achieve optimum benefits. ACSM's Health & Fitness Journal, 21(2), 8-12.
Wade, M., O'Hara, R., Caldwell, L., Ordway, J., & Bryant, D. (2016). Continuous one-arm kettlebell swing training on physiological parameters in US air force personnel: A pilot study. Journal Of Special Operations Medicine: A Peer Reviewed Journal For SOF Medical Professionals, 16(4), 41-47.
For every blog post emailed directly to you, just Click Here! You will never be spammed.