Russian vs. American Kettlebell Swing – Which One to Choose?

Q3 Health Professions
Sport Mont Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.26773/smj.230216
S. Vuk, Hrvoje Pajtak
{"title":"Russian vs. American Kettlebell Swing – Which One to Choose?","authors":"S. Vuk, Hrvoje Pajtak","doi":"10.26773/smj.230216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Kettlebell swing exercises have been proposed as a method for developing power, strength, endurance, and aerobic capacity. There are two distinctive techniques or styles of kettlebell swing: Russian (RKBS) and American (AKBS), and the purpose of this study was to quantify the specific differences within each exercise. The aim of this paper was to determine which style offers greater mechanical output in the form of power, velocity and momentum, with consideration of energy expenditure and injury risk, and which represents a safer version of training operator for developing specific dimensions of strength and power along with muscular endurance. The selected population of physically active men (n=15; age: 27.5±4.5 years; height: 185.9±14.1 cm; weight: 96.1±11.1 kg; kettlebell swing experience: 3.6±2.4 years) were recruited to perform kettlebell swings of both styles. They performed eight maximal swings using a 24 kg kettlebell (~25% bodyweight), during which the concentric and eccentric phases and their respective amplitude, duration, peak and mean velocity, momentum and average power were analysed. The results of the paired sample t-test showed a statistically significant difference between styles in cycle duration, momentum, amplitude and velocities, while power generated was similar for both styles. In conclusion, both styles are viable training options, though the RKBS style presents a potentially safer alternative due to its biomechanical properties.","PeriodicalId":22150,"journal":{"name":"Sport Mont","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sport Mont","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26773/smj.230216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Kettlebell swing exercises have been proposed as a method for developing power, strength, endurance, and aerobic capacity. There are two distinctive techniques or styles of kettlebell swing: Russian (RKBS) and American (AKBS), and the purpose of this study was to quantify the specific differences within each exercise. The aim of this paper was to determine which style offers greater mechanical output in the form of power, velocity and momentum, with consideration of energy expenditure and injury risk, and which represents a safer version of training operator for developing specific dimensions of strength and power along with muscular endurance. The selected population of physically active men (n=15; age: 27.5±4.5 years; height: 185.9±14.1 cm; weight: 96.1±11.1 kg; kettlebell swing experience: 3.6±2.4 years) were recruited to perform kettlebell swings of both styles. They performed eight maximal swings using a 24 kg kettlebell (~25% bodyweight), during which the concentric and eccentric phases and their respective amplitude, duration, peak and mean velocity, momentum and average power were analysed. The results of the paired sample t-test showed a statistically significant difference between styles in cycle duration, momentum, amplitude and velocities, while power generated was similar for both styles. In conclusion, both styles are viable training options, though the RKBS style presents a potentially safer alternative due to its biomechanical properties.
俄罗斯vs美国壶铃摇摆-选择哪一个?
壶铃摇摆练习被认为是发展力量、力量、耐力和有氧能力的一种方法。壶铃摆动有两种不同的技术或风格:俄罗斯(RKBS)和美国(AKBS),本研究的目的是量化每种运动中的具体差异。本文的目的是在考虑能量消耗和受伤风险的情况下,确定哪种风格在力量、速度和动量方面提供更大的机械输出,以及哪种风格代表了一种更安全的训练方式,以发展特定尺寸的力量和力量以及肌肉耐力。选定的体力活动男性人群(n=15;年龄:27.5±4.5岁;高度:185.9±14.1 cm;重量:96.1±11.1 kg;壶铃摆动经验:3.6±2.4年),进行两种风格的壶铃摆动。他们使用24公斤(约体重的25%)的壶铃进行了8次最大摆动,在此期间,对同心和偏心阶段及其各自的振幅,持续时间,峰值和平均速度,动量和平均功率进行了分析。配对样本t检验结果显示,两种风格在周期持续时间、动量、振幅和速度上存在统计学差异,而两种风格产生的功率相似。总之,这两种训练方式都是可行的选择,尽管RKBS训练方式由于其生物力学特性而呈现出一种潜在的更安全的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sport Mont
Sport Mont Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: SM covers all aspects of sports science and medicine; all clinical aspects of exercise, health, and sport; exercise physiology and biophysical investigation of sports performance; sport biomechanics; sports nutrition; rehabilitation, physiotherapy; sports psychology; sport pedagogy, sport history, sport philosophy, sport sociology, sport management; and all aspects of scientific support of the sports coaches from the natural, social and humanistic side.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信