ELECTROMYOGRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF MUSCLE
ACTIVATION PATTERNS ACROSS THREE COMMONLY
PERFORMED KETTLEBELL EXERCISES
BRIAN C. LYONS,1 JERRY J. MAYO,2 W. STEVEN TUCKER,3 BEN WAX,4
1
Health, Exercise Science, and Sport Management Department, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, Wisconsin;
2
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas; 3Department of Exercise
and Sport Science, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas; 4Department of Kinesiology, Mississippi State
University, Starkville, Mississippi; and 5Department of Biology, College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, Missouri
ABSTRACT
Lyons, BC, Mayo, JJ, Tucker, WS, Wax, B, and Hendrix, RC.
Electromyographical comparison of muscle activation pat-
terns across 3 commonly performed kettlebell exercises.
J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2363–2370, 2017—The pur-
pose of this study was to compare the muscle activation
patterns of 3 different kettlebell (KB) exercises using elec-
tromyography (EMG). Fourteen resistance-trained subjects
completed a 1-arm swing (Swing), 1-arm swing style snatch
(Snatch), and a 1-arm clean (Clean) using a self-selected 8
to 10 repetition maximum load for each exercise. Trial ses-
sions consisted of subjects performing 5 repetitions of
each KB exercise. Mean EMG was used to assess the mus-
cle activation of the biceps brachii, anterior deltoid, poste-
rior deltoid, erector spinae (ES), vastus lateralis (VL),
biceps femoris, contralateral external oblique (EO), and glu-
teus maximus during each lift using surface electrodes.
The mean EMG was normalized using maximal voluntary
contractions obtained from manual muscle testing.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a signifi-
cant difference in the muscle activation patterns of the ES
(Swing . Snatch), EO (Snatch, Clean . Swing), and VL
(Swing . Clean) across the 3 KB exercises. We conclude
that although the KB Swing, Snatch, and Clean are total
body exercises, they place different demands on the ES,
contralateral EO, and the VL. Therefore, KBs represent an
authentic alternative for lifters, and the Swing, Snatch, and
Clean are not redundant exercises.
KEY WORDS electromyography, resistance exercise, fiber
activation, kettlebells
Address correspondence to Dr. Brian C. Lyons, lyons@uwp.edu.
31(9)/2363–2370
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND RUSSELL C. HENDRIX5
INTRODUCTION
K
ettlebell (KB) training has become one of the
most popular fitness trends to hit the United
States in recent years. Described as a “cannon-
ball with handles (11),” KBs can be pressed
and swung in myriad ways with the goal of improving
overall body conditioning. Anecdotal reports regarding
KBs reveal that they are easy to use, require little space,
are extremely portable, and are very efficient for those
with little time to exercise. Also, KB training serves as
an alternative to traditional weightlifting or powerlifting
because exercises can be performed in all planes either
unilaterally or bilaterally (11). In addition, the utilization
of KBs has resulted in transference of strength and power
to traditional weightlifting and powerlifting performance
and, therefore, may be used to complement or augment
training for athletes in these sports (9). It has also been
demonstrated that KB exercises can be used to improve
postural control (7), and it has been suggested that KB
exercises may be incorporated into the rehabilitative
programs for injured athletes and patients (2,4).
Despite the recent reemergence of KB training, there is
limited scientific research on the topic. Interestingly, much
of the existing research has examined the metabolic cost of
the KB swing. This is due primarily to the total body nature
of KB exercise. It has been demonstrated that the metabolic
demands of the Swing provides a stimulus sufficient enough
to meet ACSM guidelines for the development of aerobic
fitness (4,5). However, at matched ratings of perceived
exertion, 10 minutes of the Swing elicited a similar heart
rate but a significantly lower oxygen consumption and
energy expenditure than treadmill exercise (6).
Mixed results have been reported when comparing the
use of KB training with traditional weightlifting (12,14). A
comparison of the KB Swing with the squat and squat jump
exercises revealed that mechanical demands during the KB
Swing were large and indicated that KB Swings might be
a useful means of developing the ability to apply force
quickly, although the data also suggested that the KB
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2363
 Kettlebell Exercises
Swing may not be optimal for developing strength (10).
Gains in muscular strength, power, and endurance were,
however, transferred well to traditional weightlifting after
10 weeks of KB training in another study (12). It has also
been reported that both traditional weight training and KB
training produced increases in strength and power over a 6-
week period; however, increases in strength were greater in
the traditional weight-training group (14).
To date, only one study has attempted to characterize
the muscle activation patterns of KB exercises. McGill and
Marshall (13) quantified the muscle activity and spinal
loading patterns during the Swing and Snatch exercises.
During the Swing exercise, modest spinal loads and
peak muscle activation of 50 and 80% of maximal volun-
tary contraction (MVC) were recorded for back extensors
and gluteal muscles, respectively. No differences were
observed in muscle activation between the 2 exercises.
Another study compared the mechanical characteristics
of the 2-handed KB Swing and the Snatch exercises
and revealed that the 2 exercises were similar, and the
authors suggested that strength and conditioning profes-
sionals could use these exercises interchangeably with
their athletes (9).
The purpose of this study is to further investigate the
muscle activation patterns during 3 commonly performed
KB exercises using electromyography (EMG). Results
from this study will assist strength and conditioning
professionals to discuss KB lifting technique, prescribe
KB exercises, and to better develop training programs for
their clients and athletes.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study used a repeated-measures design. All subjects
performed Swings, Cleans, and Snatches with a standard cast
iron KB (Power Systems Inc., Knoxville, TN, USA) during
a single testing session with the order of the exercise being
randomized and counterbalanced. Muscle activation (EMG)
of 8 different muscles (anterior deltoid [AD], posterior
deltoid [PD], biceps brachii [BB], external oblique [EO],
vastus lateralis [VL], biceps femoris [BF], gluteus maximus,
and lumbar erector spinae [ES]) was recorded during each of
the lifts using a submaximal load and was normalized using
a maximal isometric contraction.
Subjects
Fourteen male subjects (mean 6 SD age = 21.5 6 2.03
years, height = 180.87 6 3.76 cm, mass = 85.53 6 8.11 kg,
and body fat = 12.86 6 3.32%) were recruited from the
university population, forming a convenience sample.
Before the study, subjects completed a health history
questionnaire and signed a statement of informed consent.
To qualify for this study (i.e., inclusion criteria), the males
were classified as low-risk individuals as categorized by
the American College of Sports Medicine (American
the TM
2364 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
College of Sports Medicine, 2010) risk stratification (1).
Also, subjects indicated that they had completed 6
months of continuous recreational resistance exercise
training for no less than 3 days a week. The exclusion
criteria of the study were the following: (a) musculoskel-
etal problems, (b) cardiorespiratory ailments, (c) meta-
bolic disorders, (d) blood disorders, (e) history of
psychological disorders, (f ) use of tobacco products, (g)
consuming more than 10 alcoholic beverages per week,
and (h) less than 6 months of continuous recreational
training. All experimental procedures were reviewed and
approved by the Institutional Review Board before initia-
tion of the study. All subjects completed the protocol.
Procedures
Each subject reported to the laboratory on 2 occasions
before the experimental trial with all sessions being sepa-
rated by 7 days. In the first session, subjects’ demographic
information was collected, followed by familiarization with
the exercise protocol. Additionally, they were asked to
abstain from exercise 48 hours before the testing session.
Subjects reported little or no KB training; so, the proper
lifting technique was taught by a Certified Strength and
Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) who is an experienced KB
instructor.
In session 2, subjects were allowed ample time to practice
so that they felt comfortable with each lift. Subjects worked
with the researcher to determine a load for each individual
exercise that could be performed for 8–10 repetitions with
a good technique. If subjects could not achieve 8 repeti-
tions, then a lighter KB was selected. If the subject could
perform more than 10 repetitions, then a heavier KB was
selected. An 8 to 10 repetition maximum was used to con-
trol relative intensities across subjects, decrease the risk of
injury, and to reflect the skill level of the participants.
Subjects were not permitted to proceed onto the data
collection phase of the experiment until they consistently
displayed a proper lifting technique per the approval of the
CSCS instructor. Kettlebell weights used in the study
ranged from 4.5 to 32 kg. Subjects’ experimental loads
varied across the swing (23.23 6 4.21 kg), clean (21.68 6
5.21 kg), and snatch (18.43 6 4.31 kg).
During the third visit, before the experimental trial, each
subject warmed up by light pedaling on a stationary bike
for 10 minutes. Next, the subject’s skin was prepared by
shaving, abrading, and cleaning with a cotton ball soaked
in a 70% isopropyl alcohol solution. Eight separate bipolar
surface (2.0-cm center-to-center) electrode (Noraxon Dual
Electrodes, silver/silver chloride) arrangements were
placed on the right side of the body over the muscle bellies
of the AD, PD, BB, VL, gluteus maximus (GM), BF,
lumbar ES, and contralateral EO according to the recom-
mendations of Cram and Kasman (3). The EO electrodes
were placed on the left side of the body, as the left EO acts
as a stabilizer for the muscles on the right side of the body.

Figure 1. Initiating the swing.
The electrodes for the AD muscle were placed on the
anterior aspect of the arm, 4 cm below the clavicle, and
approximately parallel to the muscle fibers. The electrodes
for the PD muscle were placed 2 cm inferior to the lateral
border of the spine of the scapula, and angled at an oblique
angle toward the arm so that they run parallel to the mus-
cle fibers. The electrodes for the BB muscle were placed
over the longitudinal axis 1/3 the distance from the fossa
cubit to the acromion process, starting at the fossa cubit.
The electrodes for the VL muscle were placed over the
lateral portion of the muscle approximately 33% of the
distance between the superior, lateral border of the patella
to the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), and angled to
approximate the pennation of the muscle fibers. The elec-
trodes for the GM muscle were placed 6 cm lateral to the
gluteal fold, 50% between the sacral vertebrae and the
trochanter, and obliquely angled toward the hip to run
parallel to the muscle fibers. The electrodes for the BF
muscle were placed on the lateral aspect of the thigh
67% of the distance between the trochanter and popliteal
fossa, starting at the trochanter. The belly of the BF muscle
was identified by muscle palpation while holding the sub-
ject’s leg at 908 and having the subject flex against tester
resistance. The electrodes for the ES muscle were placed
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Figure 2. Endpoint for the swing.
3 cm lateral to the L3 spinous process. Electrodes were
also placed over the left EO muscle 50% between the ribs
and the ASIS, immediately superior to the ASIS, and at an
oblique angle to run parallel to the muscle fibers. The
reference electrode was placed over the lateral clavicle,
approximately 2 cm from the sternoclavicular joint. Inter-
electrode impedance was kept below 2000 V by shaving
the area and careful skin abrasion. The EMG signal was
preamplified (gain 31,000) using a differential amplifier
(MyoResearch XP; Noraxon EMG and Sensor Systems,
Scottsdale, AZ, USA, bandwidth 10–500 Hz).
Subjects then performed three 5-second trials of a max-
imal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) against
manual resistance from the researcher for each of the 8
muscles. All MVIC trials were performed by the same
researcher and were based on standard muscle-testing
techniques (8). For the BB, the subject was seated with
the elbow flexed to 908 and the forearm supinated. With
one hand, the researcher stabilized the distal end of the
posterior humerus at the epicondyles, while the hand
provided resistance to the anterior distal end of the forearm
while the subject attempted to flex the elbow. With the
subject seated, the AD was tested with the glenohumeral
joint abducted to 708 with 208 of flexion and the humerus
in slight external rotation. The research stabilized the
posterior scapula with one hand and provided downward
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2365
 Kettlebell Exercises
Figure 3. Midway of the swing style snatch.
resistance to the middle portion of the humerus while the
subject attempted to abduct the shoulder. The position for
the PD was identical to the AD, except the humerus was
abducted to 708 with 208 of extension. For the ES, the sub-
ject was placed prone on an examination table with the
hands behind the head. With the researcher stabilizing
the lower extremities, the subject raised the trunk from
the table and held the position. Because of the risk of injury,
no manual resistance was applied. The VL was tested with
the subject seated and the knee in full extension. The
researcher used one hand to stabilize the upper leg and
provided resistance with the other hand proximal to the
subject’s ankle. For the BF, the subject lay prone on an
examination table with the knee flexed to 708 and the hip
externally rotated to 208. The researcher stabilized the lat-
eral hip with one hand and resisted knee flexion by placing
the other hand proximal to the ankle. The EO was tested
with the subject supine on an examination table with the
hands behind the head. The researcher stabilized the lower
extremities while the subject flexed and rotated the trunk.
To minimize the risk of injury, this position was held and
no manual resistance was provided. For the GM, the
subject was positioned supine on an examination table.
With the knee flexed to 908 and the hip extended off the
the TM
2366 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 4. Catch phase of the swing style snatch.
surface of the table, the researcher stabilized the posterior,
lateral aspect of the low back. The researcher’s other hand
provided resistance to the posterior thigh while the subject
attempted to extend the hip. A 60-second rest period
between trials was administered to avoid muscle fatigue.
After all of the MVIC trials were complete, a 5-minute rest
period was provided before the experimental trials.
Next, the subjects completed 5 single repetitions for each
of the 3 exercises (Swings, Cleans, and Snatches). Exercises
were randomized with a 1-minute rest between each
repetition, and 2 minutes was allotted between the different
lifts. The velocity of each repetition was self-paced, and the
exercise order was randomized. Completion of an exercise
condition occurred when 5 successful repetitions were
accomplished. If the investigator deemed a trial unsuccessful,
subjects continued the protocol until 5 successful repetitions
were completed.
Exercise Description. The Swing, Snatch, and Clean, are
touted as whole-body ballistic exercises. They involve the
lower body, core, and upper body musculature; and they
are initiated with great force, and they culminate with
momentum. Thus, subjects were instructed to use their
whole bodies and to explosively move the KB. It should

Figure 5. About to initiate the clean.
also be noted that these KB exercises have a greater
concentric component and a lesser eccentric component
because of their ballistic nature.
The Swing was initiated with the KB in the right hand
and feet shoulder-width apart (Figures 1 and 2). Starting
in a squatting position with a stabilized neutral spine, sub-
jects were cued to move the KB in the sagittal plane by
rapidly extending their hips and knees. Subjects used the
momentum gathered from the lower extremity to carry
the KB to the chest level before it was returned to the
initial starting position. The lifting technique for
the Snatch was similar to that of the Swing except that
the bell was swung into a snatch position and caught over-
head (Figures 3 and 4). The subjects were instructed to
absorb the force of the bell by flexing the hips and knees as
they performed the catch. Subjects were instructed to
keep the elbow extended, but not locked, and to hold
the KB overhead for approximately 2 seconds before re-
turning the load to the starting position.
The Clean was initiated in a squat position with the feet
slightly wider than the shoulders and a stabilized neutral
spine. The subjects were instructed to reach down and grasp
the KB with the right hand. From this position, a simultaneous
integrated effort involving the lower body, core, and right
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Figure 6. Catch phase of the clean.
upper extremity elevated the KB by pulling it up close to the
body so that the elbow is high with the shoulder abducted
and the elbow flexed (Figures 5 and 6). The momentum gen-
erated through this pull is used to facilitate the catch. Once
the bell was pulled high, the elbow and hand “trade places” by
quickly dropping the elbow as the shoulder externally rotates.
The bell, driven by its momentum, flips over the hand, and it
was caught posterior to the vertical forearm. As the hand and
elbow trade places and the bell flips, subjects were cued to
absorb the force of the bell by flexing the hips and knees.
Subjects were instructed to stand and recover (for 2 seconds)
by extending the hips and knees, flipping the bell back to the
front, and trading hand and elbow position so that the bell
may drop down to the original starting point.
Instrumentation. Electromyography data were collected using
the Noraxon Telemyo 2400T system (Noraxon USA Inc.,
Scottsdale, AZ, USA). The EMG signal was telemetered to
a receiver that contained a differential amplifier with an
input impedance of 10 MV and a common mode rejection
ratio of 130 dB. An amplifier gain of 1,000 was used, and the
signal-to noise-ratio was less than 1 mV root mean square of
the baseline. The EMG signals were then filtered with
a bandpass Butterworth filter at 15 Hz and 500 Hz. The
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2367
 Kettlebell Exercises

TABLE 1. Mean muscle activation values during the kettlebell (KB) Swing, Clean, and Snatch.*

Swing Snatch Clean

Average muscle activation (%MVIC) SD SD SD Average muscle activation (%MVIC) SD

AD 45.4 21.7 47.1 21.0 47.2 17.5

PD 23.2 11.8 27.6 20.0 28.3 17.8
BB 34.0 20.3 35.4 20.0 41.9 21.7
EO† 15.6 6.0 20.7 7.7 23.4 10.1
VLz 56.8 27.4 50.0 33.8 40.9 36.1
GM 35.5 23.8 35.5 37.3 39.6 49.1
ES§ 60.9 24.3 38.4 17.7 51.0 18.4
BF 55.7 46.4 45.2 21.7 45.2 25.9

*MVIC = maximal voluntary isometric contraction; AD = anterior deltoid; PD = posterior deltoid; BB = biceps brachii; EO = external
oblique; VL = vastus lateralis; GM = gluteus maximus; ES = erector spinae; BF = biceps femoris.
†Snatch, Clean . Swing, p # 0.05.
zSwing . Clean, p # 0.05.
§Swing . Snatch, p # 0.05.

receiver was interfaced with a Latitude C840 computer RESULTS

(Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA). Disposable 4 3 2.2 self-
adhesive Ag/AgCl electrodes were used for data collection.
A sampling rate of 1,000 Hz was used for all testing.
Noraxon MyoVideo version 1.7 was used in conjunction
with a DCR-TRV 140 digital 8 video camera (Sony Corp,
Tokyo, Japan) to time match EMG data to each repetition
of every KB lift. Electromyography files were then accessed
and processed using Noraxon MyoResearch XP version 1.07.
Data Processing. Raw EMG data were full-wave rectified and
smoothed using a moving window (50 ms) with a linear
algorithm. The middle 3 seconds of the MVICs were used
for data analysis, allowing subjects 1 second to reach full
muscle activation and eliminating the potential effects of
fatigue during the last second. For each subject, the mean
EMG during the MVIC trials was averaged for each of the
8 muscles. Electromyography data for the 8 muscles were
then averaged during the KB Swing, KB Snatch, and KB
Clean. The mean EMG activity for the 8 muscles from the
KB exercises was normalized as a percentage of the MVIC
(%MVIC). Data were exported to Excel (version 2010;
Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA, USA) and imported to
SPSS (version 20 for Windows; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA) for analysis.
Statistical Analyses
For each dependent variable, the average muscle activation
expressed as a %MVIC of each muscle was calculated for the
independent variables of Swing, Snatch, and Clean. Analysis
of variance with repeated-measures and t-test post hoc anal-
ysis were used to compare the effects of and differences
between the 3 KB exercises across the 8 different muscles.
The alpha level was set at p # 0.05 for all comparisons.
the TM
Table 1 provides the muscle activation values for the 8
muscles during the 3 KB exercises. The results of the
statistical analysis revealed significant differences for 3
of the 8 muscles. Pairwise comparisons revealed that for
the ES (F 2,26 = 12.015; P , 0.001), the Swing (60.89 6
24.34%) elicited greater muscle activation than did the
Snatch (38.38 6 17.67%); for the EO, there was greater
muscle activation (F2,26 = 11.196; P , 0.001) during the
Clean (23.36 6 10.06%) and Snatch (20.71 6 7.72%) com-
pared with the Swing (15.59 6 5.91%); and the VL was
significantly more active (F2,16 = 5.786; P = 0.008) during
the Swing (56.81 6 27.37%) compared with the Clean
(40.9 6 36.14%). Effect sizes computed as partial eta
squared were 0.701 (ES), 0.630 (EO), and 0.630 (VL).
Statistical power ranged between 0.952 and 0.990 for all
statistically significant findings. There were no significant
differences in the muscle activation of the AD (F2,26 =
0.2224; P = 0.801), PD (F2,26 = 1.764; P = 0.191), BB
(F2,26 = 2.79; P = 0.08), BF (F2,26 = 1.588; P = 0.224),
and GM (F2,26 = 0.160; P = 0.853).
DISCUSSION
Results of this study revealed that the Swing, Snatch, and
Clean do involve muscular contributions from the lower
extremity, core, and upper extremity. Contributions across
the 3 exercises from the 8 muscles tested were somewhat
similar, but not the same. Conversely, McGill and
Marshall (13) compared only the Swing and Snatch exer-
cises and found no differences in muscle activation
between the 2 exercises.
The ES are important for postural stabilization and
dynamic movement of the spine. In this study, the ES made
a greater contribution during the Swing than during the

2368 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Snatch. The contralateral EO ostensibly serves an important
stabilizing function of the spine mostly in the frontal plane
during these 3 lifts. The contribution of the contralateral EO
was greater during the Snatch and Clean than during the
Swing. This can probably be attributed to subtle differences
in the KB movement paths for these lifts. During both the
Snatch and Clean, the KB tended to stay on the right side of
the body causing the contralateral EO to work harder to
counteract a lateral flexion to the right of the spine. During
the Swing, the KB tended to be brought up along the
centerline of the body in front of the chin causing less lateral
flexion of the spine.
The VL is important for effectuating and controlling knee
activity. In this study, the VL made a greater contribution
during the Swing than during the Clean. Because knee
extension plays a meaningful role in both lifts, it is not readily
apparent why this was so. It is possible that the recreation-
ally trained subjects with minimal KB experience had not
fully developed the capacity to fully engage their lower
bodies during the Clean.
No other statistically significant differences among the 3
lifts for the 8 muscles tested were revealed. It is possible
that advanced KB lifters may manifest different motor unit
recruitment patterns and different patterns of intermus-
cular coordination. In this study, the KB lifts started from
a static position so that individual repetitions of each
exercise were separated by a pause. Typically, these KB
exercises are done continuously without pause. This
difference may have affected EMG readings and muscle
contributions. This study involved young adult male
subjects; female subjects may yield different fiber activa-
tion patterns. Future research should explore KB muscle
activation patterns using different lifts with varying
intensities, more diverse subjects, and longitudinal de-
signs. Research should also focus on comparing KB
exercises with similar lifts such as cleans and snatches
performed with dumbbells and barbells.
The KB exercises performed in this study involve dynamic
motion that could cause noise within the EMG data.
Precautions to prevent noise were taken by the researchers,
including careful preparation of the skin for maximal
adhesion of the surface electrodes. The researchers moni-
tored the recorded EMG signal for obvious signs of noise
created by motion of the EMG leads. Additionally, the
EMG data were smoothed with a moving window, reducing
the effects of low level noise. Despite these precautions, it is
possible that some noise within the data exists. This should
be viewed as an acceptable limitation given the exercises
involved in this study.
Finally, variety in training is important for both phys-
iological and psychological reasons. Kettlebells represent
an alternative training modality for fitness enthusiasts.
Knowledge concerning KB training has been mostly
limited to theoretical analysis and anecdotal commentary
and experience. Little rigorous empirical research has
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
been done using KBs. This study establishes that the KB
Swing, Snatch, and Clean are whole-body exercises. This
study also demonstrated that although the lifts are similar,
they are not exactly the same. Three muscles were
determined to have made different contributions during
the 3 lifts. Therefore, we conclude that the Swing, Snatch,
and Clean, place different demands on the ES, contralat-
eral EO, and the VL. Kettlebells represent an authentic
alternative for lifters, and the Swing, Snatch, and Clean are
indeed whole-body exercises, and they are similar, but not
redundant.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this investigation demonstrate that KBs may
be an effective and alternative method for conditioning the
whole body. Kettlebell conditioning has been used to
improve strength, power, and endurance (10,12) and may
also serve as an interesting option for dynamic warm-up.
Kettlebell training has also been shown to produce transfer-
ence of strength and power to traditional weightlifting (12).
Most KB exercises, like the 3 evaluated in this study, require
large muscle groups to be used in an explosive fashion. This
may increase the likelihood that strength and power will be
transferred across lifting styles. Finally, coaches and practi-
tioners lacking the budget and the necessary space to per-
form explosive barbell exercises with their athletes may
consider substituting the performance movements with KB
exercises such as the Swing, Snatch, and Clean.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No grant support was used to perform this study. The results
of this study do not constitute endorsement of any products
or techniques by the authors or National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine, Thompson, WR, Gordon,
NF, and Pescatello, LS. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and
Prescription (8th ed.). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, 2010.
2. Brumitt, J, En Gilpin, H, Brunette, M, and Meira, EP. Incorporating
kettlebells into a lower extremity sports rehabilitation program.
N Am J Sports Phys Ther 5: 257–265, 2010.
3. Cram, JR, Kasman, GS, and Holz, J. Introduction to Surface
Electromyography. New York, NY: Aspen Publishing, 1998.
4. Crawford, M. Kettlebells: Powerful, effective exercises and
rehabilitation tools. J Am Chiropr Assoc 48: 7–10, 2011.
5. Farrar, RE, Mayhew, JL, and Koch, AJ. Oxygen cost of kettlebell
swings. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1034–1036, 2010.
6. Hulsey, CR, Soto, DT, Koch, AJ, and Mayhew, JL. Comparison
of kettlebell swings and treadmill running at equivalent rating
of perceived exertion values. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1203–
1207, 2012.
7. Jay, K, Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Skotte, JH, Jorgensen, MB,
Andersen, CH, Pedersen, MT, and Andersen, LL. Effects of
kettlebell training on postural coordination and jump performance:
A randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1202–1209,
2013.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2017 | 2369
 Kettlebell Exercises
8. Kendal, FP, McCreary, EK, Provance, PG, Rodgers, MM, and
Romani, WA. Muscles: Testing and Function (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
9. Lake, JP, Hetzler, BS, and Lauder, M. Magnitude and relative
distribution of kettlebell snatch force-time characteristics. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 3063–3072, 2014.
10. Lake, JP and Lauder, MA. Kettlebell swing training improves maximal
and explosive strength. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2228–2233, 2012.
11. Lake, JP and Lauder, MA. Mechanical demands of kettlebell swing
exercise. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3209–3216, 2012.
the TM
2370 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12. Manocchia, P, Spierer, DK, Lufkin, AKS, Minichiello, J, and Castro, J.
Transference of kettlebell training to strength, power, and endurance.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 477–484, 2013.
13. McGill, SM and Marshall, LW. Kettlebell swing, snatch, and
bottoms-up carry: Back and hip muscle activation, motion,
and low back loads. J Strength Cond Res 26: 16–27, 2012.
14. Otto, WH III, Coburn, JW, Brown, LE, and Spiering, BA.
Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump,
strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1199–1202, 2012.