all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Strength Study: Barbell Vs. Kettlebell

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Matthew Knuth

First Post
Hey StrongFirst friends,

So I came across this study in my research for a presentation for class and at the last NSCA conference. Its a preliminary study looking at strength benefits of kettlebell training in comparison to barbell training, I'll post the study so you can look at the methods and see the issue with comparing the two strength programs. I haven't seen any other strength studies comparing the two, but wanted to probe around and see your thoughts on how we could've maybe done the study differently and if there are any other studies out there comparing the two. By no means am I against barbell training, there's no denying the fact that you can load a barbell more than you can create a kettlebell. So with that feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

In Strength,
Matthew Knuth
 

Attachments

  • Stength Study.pdf
    108.8 KB · Views: 79
@Matthew Knuth thanks for sharing.

I´m amazed at the possitive results obtained by the kettlebell group, considering that they were given only a 16 kg KB for 2 hand swings, for only 3 sets of 6 reps! then, 4x4 of overspeed swings. This, done 2 times a week. Note that these guys werent untrained, they could back squat 124 kg before the study.

I´m not experienced, I´m relatively light at 72 kg, I cant yet back squat 124 kg and still doing 2HS with 16 kg feel extremely light. Not to mention limiting to 3 sets of 6 reps. Maybe 10 sets of 10 reps of 2HS with 40 kg would be more appropiate for guys that can back squat 124 kg, at least 4/week. I dont know, I´m no instructor.

On the other hand, the barbell group did "3 3 6 RM (high pull), 4 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM (back squat), respectively. Weeks 4–6, the volume increased to 4 3 6 RM (high pull), 6 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM back squat)". It is not clear if they went to failure or what the "RM" means, but it appears that at least the weight were challenging in relation to the strength of the individual.
 
+1 to @Oscar's observation about the low volume for the KB group and the light load.

Also, two of the three assessments (back squat and power clean) were trained during the study by the barbell group, but not the KB group. I am not counting bodyfat % as an assessment since there was no significant difference observed, the study states that no significant difference was expected, and there was apparently no controlling for diet anyway.

I'm kind of shocked that a study like this would get done and published. It seems poorly designed in general, and the KB program bears no relation to how anyone would actually train with KBs. For that matter, the barbell program seems pretty odd as well--no load progression and minimal volume progression.
 
Last edited:
@Matthew Knuth thanks for sharing.

I´m amazed at the possitive results obtained by the kettlebell group, considering that they were given only a 16 kg KB for 2 hand swings, for only 3 sets of 6 reps! then, 4x4 of overspeed swings. This, done 2 times a week. Note that these guys werent untrained, they could back squat 124 kg before the study.

I´m not experienced, I´m relatively light at 72 kg, I cant yet back squat 124 kg and still doing 2HS with 16 kg feel extremely light. Not to mention limiting to 3 sets of 6 reps. Maybe 10 sets of 10 reps of 2HS with 40 kg would be more appropiate for guys that can back squat 124 kg, at least 4/week. I dont know, I´m no instructor.

On the other hand, the barbell group did "3 3 6 RM (high pull), 4 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM (back squat), respectively. Weeks 4–6, the volume increased to 4 3 6 RM (high pull), 6 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM back squat)". It is not clear if they went to failure or what the "RM" means, but it appears that at least the weight were challenging in relation to the strength of the individual.

I've always wondered what the minimum effect dose was for KB's. For power applications, looks like it is quite low. From a former S&S practitioner that's like a warm up! In fact, that might be my warm up from now on lol.
 
@Matthew Knuth thanks for sharing.

I´m amazed at the possitive results obtained by the kettlebell group, considering that they were given only a 16 kg KB for 2 hand swings, for only 3 sets of 6 reps! then, 4x4 of overspeed swings. This, done 2 times a week. Note that these guys werent untrained, they could back squat 124 kg before the study.

I´m not experienced, I´m relatively light at 72 kg, I cant yet back squat 124 kg and still doing 2HS with 16 kg feel extremely light. Not to mention limiting to 3 sets of 6 reps. Maybe 10 sets of 10 reps of 2HS with 40 kg would be more appropiate for guys that can back squat 124 kg, at least 4/week. I dont know, I´m no instructor.

On the other hand, the barbell group did "3 3 6 RM (high pull), 4 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM (back squat), respectively. Weeks 4–6, the volume increased to 4 3 6 RM (high pull), 6 3 4 RM (power clean), and 4 3 6 RM back squat)". It is not clear if they went to failure or what the "RM" means, but it appears that at least the weight were challenging in relation to the strength of the individual.


The gains by the kettlebell group is pretty amazing considering the load they were using through the study, for me a 16 kg bell is warmup weight and just as you said, I can easily do 10x10 with minimal effort. Rm refers to RM so it was 3 set of 6 reps with 80% of a 1 Rep Maximum. for High pulls so overall the volume for the barbell group was substantially more.
 
How can you have both groups test for a movement that one of the groups actually trained? That alone will bias the results.

I'm not clear how you could draw any conclusions.

And I'd also say either mode can make body comp changes in 6 weeks.
 
+1 to @Oscar's observation about the low volume for the KB group and the light load.

Also, two of the three assessments (back squat and power clean) were trained during the study by the barbell group, but not the KB group. I am not counting bodyfat % as an assessment since there was no significant difference observed, the study states that no significant difference was expected, and there was apparently no controlling for diet anyway.

I'm kind of shocked that this kind of study would get done and published. It seems poorly designed in general, and the KB program bears no relation to how anyone would actually train with KBs. For that matter, the barbell program seems pretty odd as well--no load progression and minimal volume progression.

I think it mentions it was the first study that's been done comparing the two. There's a bunch of studies that show the cardiovascular and weight loss benefits of kettlebell training but none really comparing it to strength. So I think that's kind of the biggest reason it got published. 6 weeks isn't that long of a program so maybe waving the load and progressing the volume didn't seem necessary? With that said what exercises/ movements can be applied to both groups that would make the study more concise?
 
Heres a thought.

Test double kb overhead press (1-5 rep max or rep max at a given weight) and barbell military press.
Have one group train only kettlebells, the other train only barbell for 6-8 weeks. Retest both lifts. Expect to see the implement trained to increae most, but then compare relative crossover.

For lower body, compare heavy, deep double front squat with a deep barbell front squat in the same way.

Test hinge with swing and deadlift training, although its harder to objectively count swing reps (shoulder involvement, squattiness, lower back, bell height), but it should still be doable.

Thinking into it more, testing 5 rep maxes for each might be best. 1 rep maxes respond more to specific training, like peaking, right? So crossover effect will be more pronounced at 3-5 rep max.
 
Last edited:
Or even have them train opposite of what they originally tested with, so those who tested with kettlebells do the barbell program and vise versa for the presses and squats. If we tested vertical jump and then added swings and barbell power clean to the programs I think we'd be able to test hinging better than max deadlifts and swings!
 
I haven't read the study, but 16 kg for a kettlebell for adult men? I've been doing 2h swings with a 44 kg lately and weighed 68 kg this morning. There ought to be a law against comparing apples and oranges and calling it a scientific study, IMHO.

-S-
 
A group of men, averaging 78.99kg bodyweight, 1RM half-squat (hamstrings parallel to the floor...) of 124.24kg, a 1RM power clean of 78.53kg were swinging and goblet squatting a 16kg kettlebell for 6 weeks.
Another group, of slightly better stats to start with, practiced power cleans, high pull and (half) back squat around 80% 1RM for 6 weeks.
Hum.
If they redo the study with a 40kg kettlebell, I may read it more carefully. Until then, nope.
 
Man, who gives a *#@! about the strength portion of this study. Obviously in regards to strength it was not well done. Thanks captain obvious! What's awesome is the vertical jump increases from such little work with such a light KB weight.
 
Man, who gives a *#@! about the strength portion of this study. Obviously in regards to strength it was not well done. Thanks captain obvious! What's awesome is the vertical jump increases from such little work with such a light KB weight.
Sorry, but the vertical jump did not increase. At all. 2 mm higher mean is not an increase, and is not even statisticaly significant with the 3 cm (30 mm) standard deviation. I have no idea why the paper claims for significance...

Both method of study and analysis are flawed IMO
 
Sorry, but the vertical jump did not increase. At all. 2 mm higher mean is not an increase, and is not even statisticaly significant with the 3 cm (30 mm) standard deviation. I have no idea why the paper claims for significance...

Both method of study and analysis are flawed IMO


The principle finding of the present study was that short-term
kettlebell training (12 training sessions for more than 6 weeks)
significantly increased vertical jump height and that the gain
in vertical jump performance (2.17%)

2.17% is an increase, not sure how you can say otherwise. If you are trying to build multiple athletic qualities, then this is useful information.
 
2.17% is an increase, not sure how you can say otherwise. If you are trying to build multiple athletic qualities, then this is useful information.
Unbenannt.jpg
That's an 1.8mm increase...
"Significant increase" are definitely the wrong words to describe this.

Also we're dealing with human beings and not ultra precise engineering or stuff like that.
The 1.8mm increase is so small that the cause of it can just be the test subjects feeling a bit more energetic that day, because it was not as hot outside like it maybe was on the initial test.
If everyone increased their vertical by 5cm or more it would mean something, but 1.8mm is so small that there could be 100 different reasons for it and therefore makes it insignificant.

vertical jump performance (2.17%)
What kind of math is this?
The pre-test result was 22.79cm. After an 2.17% increase the post-test has to be 23.28cm, not 22.97cm.
Going from 22.79cm to 22.97cm is an increase of 0.79%.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all in on scientific backup for the effectiveness of KB training, but that study is flawed on many levels.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the study, but 16 kg for a kettlebell for adult men? I've been doing 2h swings with a 44 kg lately and weighed 68 kg this morning. There ought to be a law against comparing apples and oranges and calling it a scientific study, IMHO.

-S-
Do you find the heavy 2h kettlebell swings help your deadlifting? I'd trust your real experience more than this kind of study.
 
@Kozushi, I’ve honestly never done them consistently enough to have formed an opinion. I tend to do them earlier in a cycle then stop as the actual deadlifts become more taxing - for fear of overtraining. As I’ve used them, I like them.

-S-
 
@Kozushi, I’ve honestly never done them consistently enough to have formed an opinion. I tend to do them earlier in a cycle then stop as the actual deadlifts become more taxing - for fear of overtraining. As I’ve used them, I like them.

-S-
Even though they look similar, 2h swings seem to achieve very different results from 1 handed swings.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom