Literature DB >> 22207261

Mechanical demands of kettlebell swing exercise.

Jason P Lake1, Mike A Lauder.   

Abstract

The aims of this study were to establish mechanical demands of kettlebell swing exercise and provide context by comparing them to mechanical demands of back squat and jump squat exercise. Sixteen men performed 2 sets of 10 swings with 16, 24, and 32 kg, 2 back squats with 20, 40, 60, and 80% 1-repetition maximum (1RM), and 2 jump squats with 0, 20, 40, and 60% 1RM. Sagittal plane motion and ground reaction forces (GRFs) were recorded during swing performance, and GRFs were recorded during back and jump squat performances. Net impulse, and peak and mean propulsion phase force and power applied to the center of mass (CM) were obtained from GRF data and kettlebell displacement and velocity from motion data. The results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed that all swing CM measures were maximized during the 32-kg condition but that velocity of the kettlebell was maximized during the 16-kg condition; displacement was consistent across different loads. Peak and mean force tended to be greater during back and jump squat performances, but swing peak and mean power were greater than back squat power and largely comparable with jump squat power. However, the highest net impulse was recorded during swing exercise with 32 kg (276.1 ± 45.3 N·s vs. 60% 1RM back squat: 182.8 ± 43.1 N·s, and 40% jump squat: 231.3 ± 47.1 N·s). These findings indicate a large mechanical demand during swing exercise that could make swing exercise a useful addition to strength and conditioning programs that aim to develop the ability to rapidly apply force.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22207261     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182474280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  8 in total

1.  EMG Analysis and Sagittal Plane Kinematics of the Two-Handed and Single-Handed Kettlebell Swing: A Descriptive Study.

Authors:  Leonard H Van Gelder; Barbara J Hoogenboom; Bryan Alonzo; Dayna Briggs; Brian Hatzel
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-11

2.  KINEMATIC AND KINETIC VARIABLES DIFFER BETWEEN KETTLEBELL SWING STYLES.

Authors:  Garrett S Bullock; Abigail C Schmitt; Jason M Shutt; Gray Cook; Robert J Butler
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-06

Review 3.  Ballistic exercise as a pre-activation stimulus: a review of the literature and practical applications.

Authors:  Sean J Maloney; Anthony N Turner; Iain M Fletcher
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Eight Weeks of Kettlebell Swing Training Does not Improve Sprint Performance in Recreationally Active Females.

Authors:  Michael E Holmstrup; Brock T Jensen; William S Evans; Emily C Marshall
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2016-10-01

5.  External kinetics of the kettlebell snatch in amateur lifters.

Authors:  James A Ross; Justin W L Keogh; Cameron J Wilson; Christian Lorenzen
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Effect of a Hexagonal Barbell on the Mechanical Demand of Deadlift Performance.

Authors:  Jason Lake; Freddie Duncan; Matt Jackson; David Naworynsky
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-24

7.  Cardiovascular and Metabolic Demads of the Kettlebell Swing using Tabata Interval versus a Traditional Resistance Protocol.

Authors:  Howard A Fortner; Jeanette M Salgado; Angelica M Holmstrup; Michael E Holmstrup
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2014-07-01

8.  Kettlebell training in clinical practice: a scoping review.

Authors:  Neil J Meigh; Justin W L Keogh; Ben Schram; Wayne A Hing
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-09-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.