Kettlebell Training: A Brief Review

Abstract

Kettlebell training is a relatively new trend that aims to serve many functions in training programs, including increasing muscular strength and power to improving aerobic capacity. Kettlebell training may provide a sufficient stimulus for enhancing both muscular and aerobic performance, possibly with the greatest effect on muscular power. The principle of specificity is discussed in detail as the specific design of a kettlebell program may influence the specific outcomes experienced by those performing kettlebell training. Further research comparing kettlebell training to other training methods may provide a better understanding of the benefits of this training modality in order to draw more definitive conclusions.

Full text

Eckert RM and Snarr RL Kettlebell training: A brief review.
J Sport Human Perf 2016; 4(3):1-10.
1
KETTLEBELL TRAINING: A BRIEF REVIEW
Eckert RM1 and Snarr RL1,2
1School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
2Department of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
.
Keywords: strength, power, muscular endurance, aerobic capacity
INTRODUCTION
The original use of kettlebells dates
back to the early 1700’s in Russia where they
were used as a counterweight for produce
scales, rather than as a method of improving
fitness (6). At some point after their initial
introduction, individuals began to incorporate
them into training regimens aimed at
improving fitness; however, the use of
kettlebells was limited to primarily Russian
athletes and military personnel (6). The use of
kettlebells to improve fitness in the United
States is still a recent trend (4,12). The
increasing use of kettlebells and of kettlebell
training may be partially attributable to the
increasing popularity of “functional training”
in the United States in recent years.
Kettlebells are a ball-shaped weight
and handle traditionally composed of cast-
iron, but have recently been made from
rubber and plastics as well (6). Like most
traditional free weights (i.e., barbells and
dumbbells), they are highly versatile in that
they allow for a wide range of movements
and exercises with a minimal amount of
equipment and space requirements (8,12).
The kettlebell, however, is unique in that the
center of mass extends beyond the handle,
which allows for a variety of swinging and
ballistic movements to be performed.
Kettlebells can be used as an alternative to
dumbbells or barbells for traditional
resistance training movements (e.g., presses,
rows, squats, and deadlifts); however, they
also allow the exerciser to perform a range of
ballistic movements (e.g., two-handed swings,
BREIF REVIEW OPEN ACCESS
ABSTRACT
Kettlebell training is a relatively new trend that aims to serve many functions in training
programs, including increasing muscular strength and power to improving aerobic capacity.
Kettlebell training may provide a sufficient stimulus for enhancing both muscular and aerobic
performance, possibly with the greatest effect on muscular power. The principle of specificity is
discussed in detail as the specific design of a kettlebell program may influence the specific outcomes
experienced by those performing kettlebell training. Further research comparing kettlebell training to
other training methods may provide a better understanding of the benefits of this training modality in
order to draw more definitive conclusions.

2
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
one-handed swings, clean and presses,
snatches, high-pulls).
Reported benefits of kettlebell use
include improvements in muscular fitness as
well as aerobic fitness. Compared to other
common methods of resistance and aerobic
training modalities, the research supporting
the efficacy of kettlebell training is scarce. As
the use of kettlebells increases in a variety of
settings, including commercial fitness and
strength and conditioning, research is needed
to support the effects of this training modality
on a range of fitness and performance
components. Therefore, the purpose of this
review is to summarize the efficacy of
kettlebell training for increasing muscular
power, strength, muscular endurance, and
aerobic capacity. Table 1 provides a brief
summary of each study that is included and
will be discussed in this review.
EFFECTS OF KETTLEBELL TRAINING
ON PERFORMANCE
Muscular Strength and Power
The use of kettlebells in training
programs has been shown to enhance
muscular strength and muscular power
(14,15,18,19). Manocchia et al (18) has
demonstrated significant improvements in
3RM bench press (51.7 ± 25.0 kg vs. 56.4 ±
27.1 kg, p< .05) and 3RM clean and jerk
(30.8 ± 16.7 kg vs. 38.5 ± 17.1 kg, p< .001)
performance with a 10-week kettlebell
training program. Otto et al (19) has
demonstrated increases in maximal back
squat and maximal power clean while also
showing improvements in vertical jump with
a progressive 6-week kettlebell training
program. This study was designed to compare
two groups, a kettlebell (KB) group and a
weightlifting (WL) group. Maximal power
clean and back squat improved significantly
in both training groups; however, the WL
group experienced a greater increase in back
squat strength from pre- to post-test (KB:
124.24 ± 31.20 kg vs. 129.82 ± 27.88 kg;
WL: 133.08 ± 30.38 kg vs. 151.15 ± 32.41
kg). Other investigations have concluded that
kettlebell training can improve muscular
power and rate of force development (15) as
well as muscular strength (14); however,
kettlebell training seems to have a greater
effect on power compared to strength (19).
Typically, kettlebell exercises (e.g.,
swings, cleans, snatches, push-presses, high-
pulls) are performed in a ballistic manner in
which the stretch-shortening cycle is elicited
due to the rapid concentric movement
immediately following the eccentric
countermovement (16,17). Although the
research is limited, this may help explain the
greater consistency in the research regarding
the effects of kettlebell training on
improvements in muscular power. Training
for muscular strength requires significant
loading of the musculature, typically with
loads between 60%-80% of 1RM or greater
depending on training status (1,2). When
performing ballistic movements with a
kettlebell (e.g., clean and press, snatch, push-
press, two-handed swing, one-handed swing),
this magnitude of loading is not achieved due
to the rapid nature of the exercise and the
need for a high movement velocity. In
research investigations it seems important to
distinguish between the types of exercises that
are being performed with a kettlebell as doing
so will help to clarify the function of the
kettlebell and its purpose for inclusion in the
training program.
Alternatively, kettlebells may be used
in place of dumbbells or other free weights
while performing traditional resistance
exercises with the goal of increasing muscular
strength as opposed to muscular power. It
would seem that performing traditional
resistance exercises with higher loads and
lower velocities would have a greater effect

3
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
on muscular strength compared to muscular
power as the kettlebell is simply replacing a
dumbbell or barbell. Much of the original
research into kettlebell training uses the two-
handed swing, one-handed swing, clean, or
snatch (14,15,19) when examining the effects
of this training modality on muscular strength
and power. However, some of these studies
have also included more traditional resistance
exercises such as squats or presses (14,19).
The selection of kettlebell exercises for a
training program would have a significant
influence on the specific muscular adaptations
experienced by the participants. This might
help to explain why kettlebell training seems
to have a greater effect on muscular power, as
much of the research that has been done with
kettlebells has involved primarily ballistic
movements performed at higher movement
velocities as opposed to traditional resistance
exercises performed at lower movement
velocities.
Muscular Endurance
The studies that have investigated the
effects of kettlebell training on muscular
endurance (5,18) often study this component
of muscular performance in addition to other
components as well (i.e., strength and power).
Despite this, kettlebell training has
demonstrated significant improvements in
muscular endurance. Manocchia et al (18) has
demonstrated improvements in the number of
repetitions of back extension to failure (PRE:
45 ± 5.7 reps vs. POST: 54 ± 9.3 reps) after a
10-week kettlebell training program that
consisted of two sessions each week. Beltz et
al (5) showed improvements in the muscular
endurance of the abdominals after participants
completed an 8-week kettlebell training
program. Both of these studies demonstrate
the potential for kettlebell training to improve
muscular endurance, although the
improvements in endurance were limited to
the musculature of the torso (i.e., abdominals
and back extensors).
In the studies that examined the
effects of kettlebell training on muscular
endurance, detailed descriptions of the
exercise prescription used throughout the
duration of the study were not provided. The
exercise prescription, particularly the number
of sets and repetitions as well as the loads
used, would be important to know as these
variables would have the potential to
influence the outcomes. In regards to
muscular endurance, lighter loads coupled
with a higher number of repetitions (e.g., 15-
25) have been shown to be most successful at
improving muscular endurance (1). The
magnitude of the improvements in muscular
endurance could change with a program that
is more focused towards improving this
specific component of muscular performance.
The specific kettlebell exercise prescriptions
are not know for the studies examined in this
review, which limits the ability to draw firm
conclusions in regards to the effectiveness of
kettlebell training on improving muscular
endurance.
Aerobic Capacity
Kettlebell training has demonstrated
the potential to improve aerobic performance,
although the research is somewhat
conflicting. For example, Beltz et al (5)
demonstrated significant improvements in
VO2 max compared to a control group after 8
weeks of kettlebell training, while Jay et al
(14) demonstrated no significant
improvements in VO2 max after 8 weeks of
kettlebell training. Both of these studies were
of the same duration, but Jay et al (14) had
participants perform total-body kettlebell
workouts 3 times each week for 15-20
minutes each session while Beltz et al (5) had
participants perform total-body kettlebell
workouts 2 times each week for 30-45
minutes. The kettlebell program performed by
those in the study by Beltz et al (5) was of a
longer duration but lesser frequency. The
cause of the observed difference in outcomes,

4
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
therefore, might not be explained by
differences in weekly training volume as both
studies had participants perform similar total
weekly training volumes. The significant
improvements in aerobic capacity
demonstrated by Beltz et al could be better
explained by differences in the prescribed
sets, repetitions and rest periods between
studies (only Jay et al (14) reported these
specific details), or by other differences that
existed between the 2 studies (e.g., training
experience of participants, baseline fitness
levels of the participants, choice of exercises,
etc.).
Despite these conflicting results,
kettlebell training may elicit a cardiovascular
and metabolic response sufficient for
improvements in aerobic performance
(7,9,10,11,13,20,21). A typical kettlebell
routine used in many of the included research
investigations involved 15-60 seconds of
exercise using a dynamic, total-body KB
exercise (e.g., two-handed swing, one-handed
swing, snatch, clean and press, etc.) followed
by 15-60 seconds of rest, repeated for 10-20
minutes (7,9,11,13,14,20,21). The American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
recommends that, for improvements in
cardiovascular fitness, aerobic exercise
should be performed at an intensity of
moderate (64%-76% HR max; 46%-65% VO2
max) or vigorous (76%-96% HR max; 64%-
91% VO2 max) in bouts of at least 10 minutes
duration (2). The cardiovascular responses to
the kettlebell routines included in this study
would all be classified as at least moderate- or
vigorous-intensity. In particular, Farrar et al
(9) and Fortner et al (10) demonstrated a
vigorous-intensity cardiovascular response as
evidenced by VO2 achieved by the
participants. Husley et al (13) compared a
kettlebell routine with treadmill running at an
equivalent rating of perceived exertion (RPE).
Both groups achieved a vigorous-intensity
cardiovascular response as evidenced by heart
rate (HR) (kettlebell group: 89% HR max,
treadmill group: 90% HR max). Fung et al
(11) and Schnettler et al (20) also showed that
a kettlebell routine could elicit a vigorous-
intensity response in its participants (average
HR response was 88% HR max and 93+/-
4.5% HR max respectively). It would seem
that as long as a kettlebell training routine is
performed for an appropriate duration and
intensity (i.e., >10 minutes duration and at
least moderate-intensity), it may provide a
sufficient stimulus for improving aerobic
capacity.
Interestingly, Fung et al (11) also
demonstrated that the weight of the kettlebell
used in relation to body weight affected the
type of cardiovascular response. The authors
of this research found that using a kettlebell
resistance of >13% of the participant’s body
weight elicited a more anaerobic response as
evidenced by a respiratory quotient (RQ) of
>1.0. While both aerobic and anaerobic
cardiovascular exercise are potent stimuli for
increasing aerobic capacity (3), these results
point to the importance of intensity (load)
during kettlebell training as heavier loads may
elicit different responses and, therefore,
different adaptations.
CONCLUSION
Based on the available literature
regarding kettlebell training and its effect on
muscular and aerobic performance, it seems
that there is efficacy regarding improvements
in muscular strength, power, endurance, and
aerobic capacity. The inclusion of kettlebells
in a training program may have more merit
when the goal is an increase in muscular
power or rate of force development compared
to muscular strength due to the ballistic nature
of typical kettlebell exercises (17,19).
Kettlebell training may have the potential to
increase muscular endurance, but this area of
research is very limited. The specific nature

5
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
of the KB program (i.e., frequency, intensity,
duration, etc.) will elicit specific
cardiovascular and metabolic responses (e.g.,
elevated heart rate and oxygen consumption),
with greater demands being placed on
anaerobic energy pathways when the
resistance of the KB load is heavier (e.g.,
>13% body weight). However, it seems that
kettlebell training does have the potential to
improve aerobic capacity, regardless of the
energy pathway that is emphasized during
training (5,9,10,11,13,20,21).
The principle of specificity is an
important consideration when prescribing any
type of exercise program. Therefore, it makes
sense that the specific nature of the kettlebell
training prescription results in specific
adaptations. Kettlebell training may have a
place in training programs regardless of goal,
just as long as the principle of specificity is
adhered to. When training for muscular
power, ballistic movements performed at
higher movement velocities should be utilized
(1). Improving muscular strength requires a
significant loading of the musculoskeletal
system; therefore, heavier loads and slower
movement velocities should be used with
more traditional resistance exercises (e.g.,
squats, presses, rows, etc.) (1). When training
for muscular endurance, higher repetitions
(e.g., 15-25) and lighter loads will be needed
to maximize improvements in this component
of muscular performance (1). Finally,
kettlebell training designed to improve
aerobic performance should be of a sufficient
duration (e.g., >10 minutes) and of an
appropriate intensity (e.g., moderate-
/vigorous-intensity) (2).
Future studies involving kettlebells
and kettlebell training should employ
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order
to directly compare kettlebell training with
other training modalities. The number of
RCTs comparing kettlebell training is very
limited, and very few studies included in this
review have utilized this study design. Future
research should also aim to identify the
optimal kettlebell training prescription for
each component of muscular and aerobic
performance. The optimal frequency,
intensity, duration, and type of kettlebell
exercise should be identified for improving
muscular power, muscular strength, muscular
endurance, and aerobic capacity. Research
investigators should also be very detailed in
describing the specific kettlebell prescription
that is used as this will help in determining an
optimal exercise prescription. Promising
research has been done thus far with kettlebell
training, however, further research is required
in order to draw more definitive conclusions
regarding the efficacy of kettlebell training
and its effects on human performance.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no sources of
funding or conflicts of interest. The results of
this review do not constitute endorsement of
any products by the authors or the Journal of
Sport and Human Performance.

6
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
Table 1. Summary of Investigations into the Effects of KB Training
Study/Purpose
Subjects
Training Protocol
Results
Beltz et al. (5)
Purpose:
To analyze the fitness benefits of KB
training
30 healthy adults
(15 male, 15
female; age range
19-25 years) with
some strength
training experience
Experimental group (n = 18) performed 8 weeks of
two, 30-45 minute KB sessions each week; KB
exercises: one- and two-handed swings, snatches,
cleans, presses, lunges and Turkish get-ups
Experimental group significantly increased
VO2 max, leg press, grip strength, and
abdominal endurance compared to the
control group
Budnar et al. (7)
Purpose:
To examine the acute metabolic,
testosterone (T), growth hormone (GH)
and cortisol (C) response to a KB swing
exercise session
10 recreationally
resistance trained
males (mean age
24+/- 4 years)
1 session of 12 rounds of KB swings with a 16 kg KB;
30 seconds of work followed by 30 seconds of rest
Blood lactate was higher immediately post
compared to pre; T was higher immediately
post compared to pre; GH was higher
immediately post compared to pre; C was
higher immediately post compared to pre
Farrar et al. (9)
Purpose:
To examine the cardiorespiratory demand
of a popularly recommended KB routine
10 college-aged
males (age range
20.8+/1.1 years)
As many two-handed KB swings as possible in 12
minutes with a 16 kg KB while expired gasses and
HR were analyzed
Subjects achieved a VO2 of 34.31 +/- 5.67
ml/kg/min and an average HR of 165 +/- 13
bpm
Fortner et al. (10)
Purpose:
To compare the acute metabolic and
cardiovascular effects of a Tabata-style KB
swing interval protocol with a traditional
KB swing protocol
15 adults (age
range 18-25 years)
with at least 6
months of
resistance training,
but no previous KB
training experience
Tabata protocol: 4 minutes of KB swings (20 seconds
of work, 10 seconds of rest, repeated 8 times);
Traditional protocol: 4 sets of KB swings (# of reps
from Tabata divided by 4 sets) with 90 seconds of rest
between sets
Tabata intervals elicited a vigorous-
intensity cardiovascular response as
evidenced by % VO2 peak (71.0+/-0.3%)
Fung et al. (11)
Purpose:
To examine the aerobic and anaerobic
work during KB exercise
8 healthy adults
(age range 25–33
years)
Three 6 minute cycles of a KB ‘snatch’, ‘clean to
press’, and ‘swing’; each exercise was performed for
30 seconds with 30 seconds of rest
HR reached 88% of age-predicted
maximum and VO2 reached an average of
23.8 +/- 0.9 ml/kg/min; RQ was measured
at 1.1 +/- 0.006
Husley et al. (13)
Purpose:
To compare the metabolic demand of a
typical KB routine with treadmill (TM)
running at an equivalent RPE
13 adults (11 male,
2 female; mean age
21.4+/- 2.1 years)
10 minute KB swings (35 seconds of work:25 seconds
of rest; men used 16 kg KB, women used 8 kg KB)
compared to 10 minute TM run at equivalent RPE
(TM run performed on separate day)
No difference in avg. HR and RPE between
KB and TM; average HR for TM was 90%
HR max compared to 89% HR max for KB

7
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
Study/Purpose
Subjects
Training Protocol
Results
Jay et al. (14)
Purpose:
To investigate the effectiveness of a KB
intervention and its effects on
musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health
40 adults (6 male,
34 female; mean
age of 44 years)
8 weeks of 3 full-body sessions/week consisting of
15-20 minutes of two-handed swings, one-handed
swings, and deadlifts; each exercise was performed
for 30 seconds with 30-60 seconds of rest
KB training group increased muscular
strength of the trunk extensors compared to
control; VO2 remained unchanged within
both
Jay et al. (15)
Purpose:
To investigate the effects of a worksite KB
intervention on postural perturbations and
jump performance
40 adults (6 male,
34 female; mean
age of 44 years)
8 weeks of 3 sessions/week consisting of 10-15
minutes of 30 second work periods followed by 30-60
seconds rest periods; two-handed swings and one-
handed swings performed in a progressive fashion
Maximal jump height increased
significantly in the intervention group;
however, this increase was not significant
when compared to the control group
Lake et al. (16)
Purpose:
To establish the mechanical demands of
the KB swing exercise compared to a back
squat and vertical jump
16 physically
active males (mean
age of 24+/- 2
years); all subjects
had at least 6
months of KB
exercise, back
squat, and jump
squat experience
2 sets of 10 repetitions KB swings (16, 24, and 32 kg
KB) compared to multiple repetitions of back squats
(20, 40, 60, 80% 1RM) and jump squats (body-
weight, 20, 40, 60% 1RM)
Peak force applied was maximized with the
back squat; peak and mean power output
with the KB swing were comparable to the
jump squat and both were greater than the
back squat
McGill et al. (17)
Purpose:
To quantify the spinal loading and muscle
activation patterns during different KB
exercises
7 healthy males
(mean age of
25.6+/-3.4 years)
KB swing variations, one-handed snatches, and
carries were performed using a 16 kg KB
KB swing produces hip hinge pattern
characterized by rapid muscle activation-
relaxation cycles of substantial magnitudes
(50% MVC of low-back extensors, 80%
MVC of gluteal muscles)
Manocchia et al. (18)
Purpose:
To examine the effects of a 10-week KB
program on muscular strength, power and
endurance
15 adults with
varying levels of
fitness (age range
of 20-72 years)
10-weeks of 2 sessions/week, periodized, group
exercise program consisting of KB exercises only
Significant increases in the barbell bench
press, clean and jerk and back extension
endurance; no significant differences seen
in the vertical jump

8
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
Study/Purpose
Subjects
Training Protocol
Results
Otto et al. (19)
Purpose:
To compare the effects of 6 weeks of
traditional weightlifting vs. KB training on
power, strength and anthropometric
measures
30 adult males (age
range of 19-26
years) with at least
1 year of resistance
training experience
6 weeks of 2 sessions/week, linear periodization
program; sets/reps ranged from 3-6/4-6 respectively
KB group: traditional swings, accelerated swings and
goblet squats
Weightlifting group: high pulls, power cleans and
back squats
Both groups significantly increased back
squat, vertical jump, and power clean
performance
Weightlifting group significantly increased
back squat compared to KB group
Schnettler et al. (20)
Purpose:
To analyze the energy cost and exercise
intensity of a KB workout
10 male and female
adults (age range
29-46 years)
considered
experienced in KB
training
20 minute routine consisting of KB snatches; 15
seconds of work followed by 15 seconds of rest,
repeated for 20 minutes
Participants achieved an average HR of
164+/-14.7 bpm (average of 93%+/-4.5%
HRmax), an average VO2 of 31.6+/-3.71
ml/kg/min (average of 78+/-8% of VO2
max), an average kcal expenditure/minute
of 13.6+/-3.08 and an average RPE of
15.9+/-2.21 (Borg scale)
Thomas et al. (21)
Purpose:
To determine if continuous prolonged KB
activity could be used to produce
cardiovascular stress similar to that of brisk
walking
10 adults (5 males,
5 females; age
range 21-31 years)
30 minutes of KB exercise; 3 continuous rounds of 10
minutes each consisting of 10 swings followed by 10
sumo-deadlifts
30 minutes TM walking; 3 rounds of 10 minutes each
at 4% grade; matched for VO2 achieved during KB
exercise
VO2, RER, kcal/min, and BP were similar
for KB and moderate-intensity TM exercise,
but RPE and HR were greater during KB
exercise

9
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine
Position Stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687-708.
2. American College of Sports Medicine
Position Stand. Quality and quantity of
exercise for developing and maintaining
cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and
neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy
adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise.
Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2011;43(7): 1334-
1359.
3. Baechle TR, Earle RW, editors. NSCA’s
Essentials of Strength and Conditioning. 3rd
ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.
p. 490-503.
4. Beardsley C, Contreras, B. The role of
kettlebells in strength and conditioning: A
brief review of the literature. Strength Cond
J. 2014;36(3):64-70.
5. Beltz N, Erbes D, Porcari JP, Martinez R,
Doberstein S, Foster C. Kettlebells kick
butt. Ace Certified News. 2014:1-3.
6. Brumitt J, Gilpin HE, Brunette M, Meira
EP. Incorporating kettlebells into a lower
extremity sports rehabilitation program. N
Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010;5(4):257-265.
7. Budnar RG, Duplanty AA, Hill DW,
McFarlin BK, Vingren JL. The acute
hormonal response to the kettlebell swing
exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
2014;28(10):2793-2800.
8. Eckert R, Snarr RL. Kettlebell thruster.
Strength Cond J. 2014;36(4):73-76.
9. Farrar RE, Mayhew JL, Koch AJ. Oxygen
costs of kettlebell swings. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010;24(4):1034-1036.
10. Fortner HA, Salgado JM, Holmstrup AM,
Holmstrup ME. Cardiovascular and
metabolic demands of the kettlebell swing
using Tabata intervals versus a traditional
resistance protocol. 2014;7(3):179-185.
11. Fung BJ, Shore SL. Aerobic and
anaerobic work during kettlebell exercise: A
pilot study. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2010;42(5):834.
12. Harrison JS, Schoenfeld B, Schoenfeld
ML. Applications of kettlebells in exercise
program design. Strength Cond J.
2011;33(6):86-89.
13. Husley CR, Soto DT, Koch AJ, Mayhew
JL. Comparison of kettlebell swings and
treadmill running at equivalent rating of
perceived exertion values. J Strength Cond
Res. 2012;26(5):1203-1207.
14. Jay K, Frisch D, Hansen K, Zebis MK,
Andersen C., Mortensen OS, Andersen LL.
Kettlebell training for musculoskeletal and
cardiovascular health: A randomized
controlled trial. Scand J Work Env Hea.
2011;37(3):196-203.
15. Jay K, Jakobsen M, Sundstrup E, Skotte J,
Jorgensen M, Andersen C, Pedersen MT,
Andersen LL. Effects of kettlebell training
on postural coordination and jump
performance: A randomized controlled trial.
J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(5):1202-
1209.
16. Lake JP, Lauder MA. Mechanical
demands of kettlebell swing exercise. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(12):3209-
3216.

10
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
17. McGill SM, Marshall LW. Kettlebell
swing, snatch, and bottoms-up carry: Back
and hip muscle activation, motion, and low
back loads. J Strength Cond Res.
2012;26(1):16-27.
18. Manocchia P, Spierer D, Lufkin A,
Minichiello J, Castro J. Transference of
kettlebell training to strength, power, and
endurance. J Strength Cond Res.
2013;27(2):477-484.
19. Otto WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE,
Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.
kettlebell training on vertical jump,
strength, and body composition. J Strength
Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1199-1202.
20. Schnettler C, Porcari J, Foster C, Anders
M. Kettlebells: Twice the results in half the
time. Ace Fitness Matters. 2012:6-10.
21. Thomas JF, Larson KL, Hollander DB,
Kraemer RR. Comparison of two-hand
kettlebell exercise and graded treadmill
walking: Effectiveness as a stimulus for
cardiorespiratory fitness. J Strength Cond J.
2014;28(4):998-1006.