ArticlePeerJ2022
Reliability of kettlebell swing one and five repetition maximum.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research into the kettlebell swing has increased in the last decade. There has been a paucity of literature assessing an individual's ability to perform the kettlebell swing exercise. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the one and five repetition maximum (1RM and 5RM) kettlebell swing. Materials & Methods: Twenty four recreational resistance-trained participants performed an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and two familiarization sessions followed by three test sessions for each RM load approximately one week apart, using a custom-built plate-loaded kettlebell. On each test occasion, subjects completed a series of warm-up sets followed by 3-4 progressively heavier kettlebell swings to a standardized height until 1RM or 5RM was reached. Test-retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation (ICC) and typical error was represented as the coefficient of variation (CV%) with 90% confidence limits (90% CL). The smallest worthwhile change (SWC%) representing the smallest change of practical importance, was calculated as 0.2 × between-subject standard deviation. The relationship of kettlebell swing performance and maximum strength was determined by Pearson correlation with ±90% CL between the absolute peak force recorded during IMTP and 1RM or 5RM. Results: Results demonstrated a high test-retest reliability for both the 1RM (ICC = 0.97, 90% CL [0.95-0.99]; CV = 2.7%, 90% CL [2.2-3.7%]) and 5RM (ICC = 0.98, 90% CL [0.96-0.99]; CV = 2.4%, 90% CL [1.9-3.3%]), respectively. The CV% was lower than the SWC for both the 1RM (SWC = 2.8%, 90% CL [1.9-3.5]) and 5RM (SWC = 2.9%, 90% CL [1.9-3.6]) kettlebell swing. The correlation between IMTP absolute peak force and the 1RM (r = 0.69, 90% CL 0.43-0.83) was large and very large for the 5RM (r = 0.75, 90% CL [0.55-0.87]). Conclusions: These results demonstrate the stability of 1RM and 5RM kettlebell swing performance after two familiarization sessions. Practitioners can be confident that changes in kettlebell swing 1RM and 5RM performance of >3.6 kg represent a practically important difference, which is the upper limit of the 90% CL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.