Cardiopulmonary Demand of 16-kg Kettlebell Snatches in Simulated Girevoy Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chan, M, MacInnis, MJ, Koch, S, MacLeod, KE, Lohse, KR, Gallo, ME, Sheel, AW, and Koehle, MS. Cardiopulmonary demand of 16-kg kettlebell snatches in simulated Girevoy Sport. J Strength Cond Res 34(6): 1625-1633, 2020-Kettlebell lifting has become popular both as a strength and conditioning training tool and as a sport in and of itself: Girevoy Sport (GS). Although several kettlebell multimovement protocols have been analyzed, little research has attempted to quantify the aerobic stimulus of the individual events in GS, which could better inform kettlebell-related exercise prescription. The purpose of this study was to quantify the cardiopulmonary demand, assessed primarily by oxygen consumption (V[Combining Dot Above]O2) and heart rate (HR), of continuous high-intensity kettlebell snatches-under conditions relevant to GS-and to compare this demand with a more traditional graded rowing ergometer maximal exercise test. Ten male participants (age = 28.4 ± 4.6 years, height = 185 ± 7 cm, body mass = 95.1 ± 14.9 kg) completed (a) a graded-exercise test on a rowing ergometer to determine maximal oxygen consumption (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) and maximal heart rate (HRmax) and (b) a graded-exercise test consisting of continuous 16-kg kettlebell snatches to determine peak oxygen consumption (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak) and peak heart rate (HRpeak) during a simulated GS snatch event. Subjects achieved a V[Combining Dot Above]O2max of 45.7 ± 6.7 ml·kg·min and HRmax of 177 ± 8.3 b·min on the rowing ergometer. The kettlebell snatch test produced a V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak of 37.6 ± 4.4 ml·kg·min (82.7 ± 6.5% V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) and a HRpeak of 174 ± 10 b·min (98.0 ± 3.4% HRmax). These findings suggest that GS kettlebell snatches with 16-kg can provide an adequate aerobic stimulus to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in those with a V[Combining Dot Above]O2max of ≤51 ml·kg·min, according to aerobic training recommendations from the American College of Sports Medicine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".