Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".