KINEMATIC AND KINETIC VARIABLES DIFFER BETWEEN KETTLEBELL SWING STYLES. 2017

Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

BACKGROUND Kettlebell (KB) and indian club swings (ICS) are used diversely for developing strength and power. It has been proposed that multiple swing techniques can be used interchangeably to elicit similar adaptations within performance training. Hypothesis/Purpose: It was hypothesized that there will be not be a difference in peak joint angles between types of swings. Furthermore, given the nature of the overhead kettlebell swing (OKS), it was hypothesized that the OKS will be associated with a greater cycle time and a greater vertical impulse compared to shoulder height swing (SKS) and ICS. The purpose of this study was to analyze the kinematics and kinetics of the SKS, OKS, and ICS. METHODS Cross-sectional cohort. METHODS Fifteen healthy subjects underwent 3D biomechanical analysis for assessment of kinematic and kinetic data. Subjects performed two trials of ten repetitions at full effort for each swing in a randomized order using either a standard set of 0.45 kg indian clubs or sex specific KB loads (Female = 12kg, Male = 20kg). Lower extremity sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics were analyzed for peak values during the down and up portions of the swing patterns. Statistical analyses were carried out utilizing one-way ANOVAs (p<.05) and effect size indices. RESULTS Cycle time for the OKS was 34% longer than the SKS and ICS (p<.001; ESISKS = 2.09, ESIICS=1.92). In general, ankle (SKS: 0.82 ± 0.16; OKS: 0.90 ± 0.21; ICS: 0.60 ± 0.15 BW*BH) and hip joint moments (SKS: 2.34 ± 0.68; OKS: 2.32 ± 0.53; ICS: 1.84 ± 0.47 BW*BH) and joint powers, along with peak vertical ground reaction forces (vGRF) (SKS: 0.98 ± 0.14; OKS: 0.96 ± 0.10; ICS: 0.86 ± 0.11 BW/s), were higher in the SKS and OKS than the ICS (p<.001; ankle: ESISKS/OKS=0.43, ESISKS/ICS=1.42; hip: ESISKS/OKS=0.03, ESISKS/ICS=0.87; vGRF: ESISKS/OKS=1.80, ESISKS/ICS=0.20). There were no observed differences found in peak joint angles between the movements. CONCLUSIONS Although these swings are kinematically similar, the differing kinetic demands of these exercises may be important in selecting the right training modality for specific strength and power training. METHODS 2.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
January 2023, Sports biomechanics,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
December 2012, Journal of strength and conditioning research,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
August 2012, Journal of strength and conditioning research,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
March 2011, Equine veterinary journal,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
December 2005, Journal of sports science & medicine,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
January 1989, European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
January 2022, PeerJ,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
October 2022, Sports biomechanics,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
April 2014, The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness,
Garrett S Bullock, and Abigail C Schmitt, and Jason M Shutt, and Gray Cook, and Robert J Butler
June 2008, Human movement science,
Copied contents to your clipboard!