Kettlebell I know I'm supposed to do barbell but...

[watchnerd]

If you want to combine strength with conditioning with mobility, there's no way to do it without the kettlebell.

I think some gymnasts, Olympic weightlifters, Crossfit competitors, and obstacle course racers would beg to differ.

Kettlebells are cool, but they're just a tool, and not the primary tool for S&C for any major competitive sport that I can think of.

 

[LukeV]

Or maybe you could try squats?

But they're so ugly I just don't know why anyone would want to look like that

 

[John Spezzano]

This is something that I see often and I never understand. What makes the kettlebell shape so special, that there's no way to " combine strength with conditioning with mobility" without the kettlebell?

I wouldn't say there's "no way" to combine these things without the kettlebell. But I would say the kettlebell is ideal for it.

The off-centered handle design is key to the kettlebell's versatility. Grabbing the center of mass in a dumbbell means you're grabbing exactly the weight of the dumbbell no matter what movement you're doing. The off-center handle of the KB makes it feel heavier than it actually is. The off-center handle also makes mobility work more demanding because the load is, by design, unstable. Hold a 35# dumbbell overhead and then a 16k kettlebell and see for yourself. For some movements, like the swing, this design makes little difference, but others like the press, get-up, snatch, bent press, windmill, etc, where stabilizing the load is part of the movement, the design is integral.

The versatility is what I think most of us mean with that statement. You can do a lot more variety of movements with a kettlebell than a dumbbell or barbell. (@Pavel Macek will undoubtedly chime in here on the dumbbell because he has researched methods of moving the dumbbell most of us haven't.) And compared to Olympic weightlifting, there is a much lower barrier to entry to clean or snatch a KB than a bar, making the benefits of these movements more easily attainable.

As I mentioned before, some things are not ideal with the kettlebell. My own example was getting my deadlift and front squat back where I want them. I won't be able to do these things with kettlebells because they just don't get heavy enough. And even if I got the biggest KBs available to work my deadlift, they would likely gather dust the rest of the year. But a selection of KBs from 24 to 48k, with some being doubles (probably 24, 28, and 32k) gives me so many options with very little footprint as compared to a bar, bumper plates and a squat cage.

One drawback to the KB worth mentioning are the weight jumps. The smaller KBs go up every 2k, but most KBs go up in size by 4k. Almost 9 pounds is a big increase depending on how close you are to your max. So the ability to load a bar more incrementally is an advantage the barbell has over the KB for some things - mainly when you're near your max. But then we're back to the increased footprint.

In short, every tool has its job. And not every tool can do every job. I just prefer using a tool that can do multiple jobs.

 

[Antti]

I wouldn't say there's "no way" to combine these things without the kettlebell. But I would say the kettlebell is ideal for it.

The off-centered handle design is key to the kettlebell's versatility. Grabbing the center of mass in a dumbbell means you're grabbing exactly the weight of the dumbbell no matter what movement you're doing. The off-center handle of the KB makes it feel heavier than it actually is. The off-center handle also makes mobility work more demanding because the load is, by design, unstable. Hold a 35# dumbbell overhead and then a 16k kettlebell and see for yourself. For some movements, like the swing, this design makes little difference, but others like the press, get-up, snatch, bent press, windmill, etc, where stabilizing the load is part of the movement, the design is integral.

The versatility is what I think most of us mean with that statement. You can do a lot more variety of movements with a kettlebell than a dumbbell or barbell. (@Pavel Macek will undoubtedly chime in here on the dumbbell because he has researched methods of moving the dumbbell most of us haven't.) And compared to Olympic weightlifting, there is a much lower barrier to entry to clean or snatch a KB than a bar, making the benefits of these movements more easily attainable.

As I mentioned before, some things are not ideal with the kettlebell. My own example was getting my deadlift and front squat back where I want them. I won't be able to do these things with kettlebells because they just don't get heavy enough. And even if I got the biggest KBs available to work my deadlift, they would likely gather dust the rest of the year. But a selection of KBs from 24 to 48k, with some being doubles (probably 24, 28, and 32k) gives me so many options with very little footprint as compared to a bar, bumper plates and a squat cage.

One drawback to the KB worth mentioning are the weight jumps. The smaller KBs go up every 2k, but most KBs go up in size by 4k. Almost 9 pounds is a big increase depending on how close you are to your max. So the ability to load a bar more incrementally is an advantage the barbell has over the KB for some things - mainly when you're near your max. But then we're back to the increased footprint.

In short, every tool has its job. And not every tool can do every job. I just prefer using a tool that can do multiple jobs.

Well, you wouldn't say, but you actually did in your previous post?

I don't think the off center handle is such a big deal. I'm also not sure if the exercise variation is greater with the kettlebell. Why would it be?

I agree that the kettlebells don't take much space, at least if you don't have many of them. Though a barbell and a pile of plates doesn't take much room either. And kettlebells are way harder to stack on top of each other than plates.

I don't have anything against kettlebells, they're fine tools. I just don't get why they're so special and why they're claimed superior to other tools.

 

[John Spezzano]

I don't think I can explain my points any better. Obviously you're welcome to disagree and use whatever tools you choose.

 

[watchnerd]

I just don't get why they're so special and why they're claimed superior to other tools.

I only see this claim in kettlebell communities.

In the rowing community, which is pretty agnostic about S&C tools used off the water (other than ergs), kettlebells get mentioned from time to time, but nobody sees them as some kind of essential, when compared to the meat and potato strength & power exercises used by rowers (front squats, leg presses, jump squats and/or power cleans, deadlifts, seal rows, etc.).

If KBs were some kind of wonder tool that made rowers win more, they'd use them more.

 

[Mike Torres]

To summarize:

• Kettlebell aren't magic.
• Kettlebells are superior to some tools at some things.
• Kettlebells are inferior to some tools at other things.
• Some people prefer to train with kettlebells over other tools for some things.
• Some people prefer to train with other tools for some things.

The good news is that StrongFirst teaches other modalities (barbell, bodyweight, soon: dumbbell) leveraging the same time-tested principles of strength development and program design.

 

[Suxatkettlebell]

I sort of subscribe that something is better than nothing. Kettlebells certainly have more versatility than barbells. As I write this, I have a full complement of bells next to my desk. But its tough for me to work from home next to a squat rack. I find kettlebells are easier on the joints and also have the dubious distinction of making me sore in places barbells don't.

On the other hand, its tough to beat a barbell as a total strength development tool. It allows for considerably heavier loads. But they can also be hard on the joints and unforgiving at times in the event of the misstep.

Its really a matter of what do you like to do vice what do you have to do. If you love kettlebells, swing 'em but if you're trying to become a champion powerlifter without lifting a barbell, you're delusional. If you like barbells, lift them and the kettlebell can supplement in ways that will improve your main lifts.

Its all winning, no losing either way.

 

[silveraw]

The off-center handle also makes mobility work more demanding because the load is, by design, unstable. Hold a 35# dumbbell overhead and then a 16k kettlebell and see for yourself.

I've never quite understood this. The lower center of gravity of holding a kettlebell over head always feels more stable than a dumbbell. It's part of the reason why I love kettlebell presses.

 

[WhatWouldHulkDo]

I've never quite understood this. The lower center of gravity of holding a kettlebell over head always feels more stable than a dumbbell. It's part of the reason why I love kettlebell presses.

I'm with you there - I like the force vector into the wrist/arm from a kettlebell a lot more than that of a dumbbell.

But, with that said, I've had a heavy kettlebell overhead try to rotate on me... haven't ever had a dumbbell do that.

 

[watchnerd]

I sort of subscribe that something is better than nothing. Kettlebells certainly have more versatility than barbells. As I write this, I have a full complement of bells next to my desk. But its tough for me to work from home next to a squat rack. I find kettlebells are easier on the joints and also have the dubious distinction of making me sore in places barbells don't.

On the other hand, its tough to beat a barbell as a total strength development tool. It allows for considerably heavier loads. But they can also be hard on the joints and unforgiving at times in the event of the misstep.

Its really a matter of what do you like to do vice what do you have to do. If you love kettlebells, swing 'em but if you're trying to become a champion powerlifter without lifting a barbell, you're delusional. If you like barbells, lift them and the kettlebell can supplement in ways that will improve your main lifts.

Its all winning, no losing either way.

If you had asked me 10 years ago (age 42) if barbells are hard on the joints, I would have said “yes”

Now at 52, I’d say, “Not especially”

I don’t know if my joints adapted, my skill is better, my mobility is better, or I just stopped lifting too heavily & ugly

 

[Antti]

I don't really get the recovery or joint or such issue.

Let's consider the front squat or the press. I load a barbell to 40kg or take double 20kg kettlebells. What makes the front squat or the press so different between the exercises? We could also consider the TGU or the bent press, or whatever you want. I can see the difference between the swings and cleans. Though barbell cleans and and derivatives like the power clean or high pull are great exercises and I would question what exactly would be the difference in the end result between the barbell and kettlebell exercises when programmed the same way.

 

[william bad butt]

I've been all over the map with which modalities I use. 100% barbell and 100% KB, etc... Right now I use them all. If I ordered them in terms of what I'm using for my current training plan, it would be: Barbell, dumbell, machines, bodyweight, kettlebell, sandbag and odd objects. In that order.

Kettle bells are great. To me, there are 2 specific advantages of kbells. (1) is that it is fantastic for repetitive ballistic lifts like snatches and cleans with lots of repetitions. The dumbbell is just awkward here, and the barbell makes it hard to snatch and clean for reps. This makes kb's fantastic for conditioning training. (2) The thick handle builds an impressive grip strength when one starts using bells bigger than 32kg.

For general strength and conditioning programming for somebody who has no specific goals other than to kick a#@ in life, 1 day per week of barbell training for absolute strength development + a few days/wk of KB training (grinds for hypertrophy and ballistics for conditioning) + daily walking is very effective for a long term plan.

Regards,

Eric

 

[Grayland]

For general strength and conditioning programming for somebody who has no specific goals other than to kick a#@ in life, 1 day per week of barbell training for absolute strength development + a few days/wk of KB training (grinds for hypertrophy and ballistics for conditioning) + daily walking is very effective for a long term plan.

I like this quite a bit.

 

[John K]

I don't really get the recovery or joint or such issue.

Let's consider the front squat or the press. I load a barbell to 40kg or take double 20kg kettlebells. What makes the front squat or the press so different between the exercises? We could also consider the TGU or the bent press, or whatever you want. I can see the difference between the swings and cleans. Though barbell cleans and and derivatives like the power clean or high pull are great exercises and I would question what exactly would be the difference in the end result between the barbell and kettlebell exercises when programmed the same way.

I think the difference is that I can do 48kg swings and double 32kg front squats and maintain a high-300s deadlift and a low-300s squat, but for me training with kettlebells doesn't run me down as much - I have more energy and feel better for things like playing with my kids, pickup games, sport, job, run, etc.

I could've been training "wrong" or had less-good technique when I was primarily training barbells than kettlebells, and I'm also 40-50lbs lighter, so I can't say it is an "apples to apples" comparison, and I also acknowledge that maintaining a sub-400lbs deadlift isn't exactly ... stellar. I was never particularly strong - mid 300s squat and mid 400s deadlift, best total of 1095 - and maintaining less than my barbell peak with kettlebells is different than building that with kettlebells.

I'm not really making any argument here. I love barbells, I love kettlebells. I just love kettlebelling a little more right now. But a little over a year ago I didn't have access to bells and so I trained with a barbell and was happy. To quote a hilarious old movie - "when I'm not near the girl I love, I love the girl I'm near."

 

[Nate]

Barbells are the right tool for some people some time. Can't argue they can be loaded heavier than KB or BW. But I personally am now firmly in the camp that they are no longer a needed tool for me. My strength is enough without them, my joints are healthier and I move better. Generalizations & research have a broad spectrum but remember we each have an N = 1 and we have to go with what is right for each of us, not someone else.

 

[Antti]

I think the difference is that I can do 48kg swings and double 32kg front squats and maintain a high-300s deadlift and a low-300s squat, but for me training with kettlebells doesn't run me down as much - I have more energy and feel better for things like playing with my kids, pickup games, sport, job, run, etc.

I could've been training "wrong" or had less-good technique when I was primarily training barbells than kettlebells, and I'm also 40-50lbs lighter, so I can't say it is an "apples to apples" comparison, and I also acknowledge that maintaining a sub-400lbs deadlift isn't exactly ... stellar. I was never particularly strong - mid 300s squat and mid 400s deadlift, best total of 1095 - and maintaining less than my barbell peak with kettlebells is different than building that with kettlebells.

I'm not really making any argument here. I love barbells, I love kettlebells. I just love kettlebelling a little more right now. But a little over a year ago I didn't have access to bells and so I trained with a barbell and was happy. To quote a hilarious old movie - "when I'm not near the girl I love, I love the girl I'm near."

Why would a barbell front squat with 64kg run you down more than a double kettlebell front squat with 2*32kg?

 

[watchnerd]

Why would a barbell front squat with 64kg run you down more than a double kettlebell front squat with 2*32kg?

Between those two, I actually find the 2 x 32 kg KB front squat more fatiguing.

By quite a bit.

 

[Adachi]

Between those two, I actually find the 2 x 32 kg KB front squat more fatiguing.

By quite a bit.

While I was in my physics class - my physics program was participating in a NASA Rocketry Design Competition which included actual launches and the results. as a result it was very convenient for our Physics professor to use that information in tests and lessons.

the calculated center of gravity, and its gross forces required, and the net motion induced, are incredibly important. and the slightest differences in one of these areas of concern create very drastically different results.

In this case, the barbell,
the calculated center of gravity of the barbell (more centrally located near the center of the bar) is closer to the vertical path of the motion.
this means that there is a lower gross force requirement, to have the requisite net force required for the motion.

in this case the kettlebell
slightly more off-axis kettlebell center of gravity, and subject to the deformities and differences between the left and right side, instead of the barbell, require a higher gross force production requirement in order to harvest the requisite net moment of force to cause the change in location.

a kettlebell-to-kettlebell comparison.

I can and did regularly clean my 24kg+32kg bells and front squat for 5x5 and was able to obtain a certain amount of ease with that motion.

having already achieved a moderate sensation of loading from this weight - if I cheat-clean and rack a 48kg bell (which I've tried) I can not complete the same 5x5 reps at a lower sense of exertion. the more off-center center-of-gravity dictates a higher gross force requirement than the higher mass (24+32=56kg>48kg) since it is less centrally located.

 

[Steve A]

If you had asked me 10 years ago (age 42) if barbells are hard on the joints, I would have said “yes”

Now at 52, I’d say, “Not especially”

I don’t know if my joints adapted, my skill is better, my mobility is better, or I just stopped lifting too heavily & ugly

It isn't the tool, it is the programming and the execution. The only real apples to apples comparison that can be done here is KB grinds vs BB grinds. All other comparisons are apples to oranges at best.