ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2017
KINEMATIC AND KINETIC VARIABLES DIFFER BETWEEN KETTLEBELL SWING STYLES.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Employing a single trial motor equivalent analysis for the assessment of motor learning.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Effects of Kettlebell Swing Style and Mass on Female Hip Joint Kinetics.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Neuromuscular Adaptations Following 12 Weeks of Kettlebell Swing Training.Cureus · 2024Article
- Effects of Kettlebell Load on Joint Kinetics and Global Characteristics during Overhead Swings in Women.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effects of Six-week Periodized Versus Non-Periodized Kettlebell Swing Training on Strength, Power and Muscular Endurance.International journal of exercise science · 2022Article
- Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men.Sports medicine international open · 2019Article
- Kettlebell training in clinical practice: a scoping review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKettlebell (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. STUDY
designCross-sectional cohort.
methodsFifteen 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 (
resultsCycle time for the OKS was 34% longer than the SKS and ICS (
conclusionAlthough 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28593086PMC5455182What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.