The effects of kettlebell training on strength, power, and endurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Kettlebell training is becoming increasingly popular but there is limited evidence to compare kettlebell training’s effects on strength, power, and endurance compared to traditional resistance or plyometric training. The popularity of kettlebell training appears to be based on anecdotal reports rather than on scientific evidence supporting training effects.Objective:To systematically review the effects of kettlebell training on strength, power, and endurance. The systematic review will also examine any adverse events associated with kettlebell training.Methods:A systematic review of literature indexed in the following databases: Medline, CINAHL, SportsDiscus, ProQuest, PEDro, and PubMed, was conducted. The quality of the studies was graded using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale (PEDro).Results:Five studies satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. The populations studied age range was 18–72 years old. Methodological scores based on the PEDro scale ranged from 3 to 7 out of 10. Kettlebell training demonstrated improvements for a number of strength measures: time×group for bench press (P<0·05) and back extension (P<0·053), main effect for clean and jerk (P<0·05) and certain power measures such as improved explosive strength comparable to a jump squat control (19·8% increase). Improved postural control was demonstrated in one study (P = 0·04). Kettlebell training did not have an effect on aerobic endurance as measured by VO2 max. No adverse events were reported in any of these studies.Conclusions:Moderate evidence indicates that kettlebell training may be safe and effective for increasing certain functional strength and power measures and may show positive results with postural control in young, healthy populations. Kettlebell training has not been found to be efficacious in increasing aerobic endurance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".