dynamic bodyweight exercises as part of a
continuous circuit program for 20 minutes.
The authors reported that the KB group
improved their VO2 max by 6 per cent and
the circuit group achieved no change.
A longer intervention (8 weeks) using
kettlebells was used in a randomised
control trial (RCT) using 40 middle-aged
mostly women cohort by Jay et al. (2011).
The intervention group completed ballistic
full body KB exercises for three sessions
per week to improve musculoskeletal
(pain in neck, shoulders, low back) and
cardiovascular health. While pain intensity
in the key areas reduced in the intervention
group, strength and cardiovascular fitness
remained unchanged.
The reality is that many fitness
enthusiasts would be challenged to sustain
12 minutes of continuous KB swings (Farrar
et al study) at an average of one swing in
every 3 seconds, or 20 minutes (15 sec on
and 15 off – Falatic et al. study). Working at
65 per cent of your VO2 max during treadmill
running or cycling, however, would be easier
to achieve for the same cardiovascular
benefit. There is no doubt that the KB swings
or snatches provide additional benefits
outside of cardiovascular improvement, but
trainers should consider this in the context
of the fitness of their clients. I can see direct
benefit in utilising KB exercises in tandem
with traditional cardiovascular training and
mixing the two in the form of a circuit or
intervals with the KB swings being used as
the higher intensity due to increased %HR
and the cardio being used as lower intensity
in the intervals. While current evidence
suggests there is value in KB training
towards improving cardiovascular fitness,
further research with greater numbers and
longer interventions is required for us to
better understand the real value of this
activity for aerobic fitness.
Effect on strength and power
There is significant evidence to show the
value in using KB to develop both strength
and power across a number of different
performance measures.
Manocchia et al. (2013) compared 23
middle-aged participants with a control
group of 14. The KB training intervention
was a 10-week program of two sessions
per week broken into five blocks of four
sessions, each with a different focus.
The control group maintained normal
daily activity which was not described.
Participants were tested for a 3-repetition
maximum (3RM) bench press, 3RM clean
and jerk, a maximal vertical jump and
repeated 45o back extensions to volitional
40 | NETWORK SPRING 2015
fatigue both pre and post the 10-week
program. The participant group varied
significantly, perhaps reducing the value
of this research. For example, the range of
weight lifted varied between the intervention
and control group for bench press (45-215
to 20-79kg) and clean and jerk (30-145 to
9-59kg) showing a major range difference in
training load and hence training experience
between the intervention group and control
group. The results showed there was no
significant change in performance of back
extension and vertical jump, but there was
for bench press and clean and jerk.
A study comparing the effects of
weightlifting versus kettlebell training
on vertical jump, strength, and body
composition by Otto et al. (2012) showed
that traditional weight lifting training was
more effective at improving strength than
KB training. The 10-week study comprised
two sessions per week for six weeks. The
KB group still showed positive changes for
vertical jump, back squat and power clean.
However, changes achieved from traditional
weightlifting were greater for back squat
than for the KB group.
Lake and Lauder (2012) compared the
changes in half squat 1RM and vertical jump
between two different protocols, jump squat
training and KB training, over six weeks with
two sessions completed each week using 12
male college-aged participants matched for
half squat 1RM in each group. The KB group
performed 12 rounds of 30-second swing
exercise alternated with 30 seconds of rest,
and the jump squat group performed at least
three sets of three jump squats (depending
on load) with the load that maximised peak
mechanical power applied to the centre of
mass (CM). Results showed that half squat
1RM increased by nearly 10 per cent and
vertical jump power increased by nearly
20 per cent, yet there was no difference
between the two different training groups,
showing similar changes in performances.
There is plenty of evidence now to show
that KB