ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024
The effects of kettlebell training versus resistance training using the own body mass on physical fitness and physiological adaptations in obese adults: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of studyThis study aimed to explore the effects of different types of resistance training using kettlebells versus the own body mass, in comparison to a passive control, on key physical fitness and physiological parameters in young, obese adults.
methodsData from 60 sedentary, obese male college students, aged 17-26, were used for final analyses. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group (CG, n = 20, no training), a kettlebell resistance training group (KRTG, n = 20), or a bodyweight resistance training group (BWRTG, n = 20). Selected measures of physical fitness were tested using the 12-minutes run test, the push-up test, the sit-up test, and the sit-and-reach test. Physiological measures included vital capacity, resting and maximum heart rate (HRmax), mean arterial blood pressure, breath holding time, and respiratory rate. Biochemical variables were measured in the morning, in a fasted state, and comprised high and low density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. The 12-weeks progressive KRTG and BWRTG were specifically tailored using sets, repetitions, and intensity levels.
resultsNotable findings include significant body fat reductions in BWRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.53) and KRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.43), and a substantial increase in VO2max for BWRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.32) and KRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.34) compared to CG. KRTG also showed significant improvements in vital capacity (p < 0.001; d = 1.61) and reductions in resting heart rate (p = 0.024, d = 1.05) and respiratory rate (p = 0.001, d = 1.55), with BWRTG showing similar trends (resting heart rate: p = 0.041, d = 1.35; respiratory rate: p = 0.001, d = 1.98). Both intervention groups significantly improved breath holding time (KRTG: p = 0.001, d = 1.58; BWRTG: p < 0.001, d = 1.98) and reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels compared to CG.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that both KRTG and BWRTG are effective in improving body composition and selected fitness and physiological measures. Thus, resistance training using kettlebells or bodyweight training are recommended if the goal is to improve body composition and fitness in obese male adults.
trial registrationOSF, September, 28th 2023. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z6Y9Gosf.io/2mb98.
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.