Cargando…

Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men

The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscle...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andersen, Vidar, Fimland, Marius Steiro, Saeterbakken, Atle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30911671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0869-7228
_version_ 1783405429139701760
author Andersen, Vidar
Fimland, Marius Steiro
Saeterbakken, Atle
author_facet Andersen, Vidar
Fimland, Marius Steiro
Saeterbakken, Atle
author_sort Andersen, Vidar
collection PubMed
description The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles were collected on both sides of the trunk. The erector spinae activation during the one-armed swing was 14–25% higher on the contralateral compared to the ipsilateral side in both exercises (Cohen’s d effect size [ES]=0.41–0.71, p  ˂ 0.001–0.034). Further, the contralateral side was 14% more activated during the two-armed swing compared to the ipsilateral side during the one-armed swing (ES=0.43, p =0.009). For the rectus abdominis muscle, the two-armed swing induced higher activation of the rectus abdominis compared to the one-armed swing on both the contralateral (40%, ES=0.48, p =0.040) and ipsilateral side (59%, ES=0.83, p =0.002). There were no differences for the external oblique muscle ( p =0.495–0.662). In conclusion, the trunk activation patterns of the two exercises were different, which could be explained by different biomechanics in the two exercises, and could thus have complimentary effects. We recommend that both unilateral and bilateral execution of the American kettlebell swing is included over time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6428676
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64286762019-03-25 Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men Andersen, Vidar Fimland, Marius Steiro Saeterbakken, Atle Sports Med Int Open The aim of the study was to compare the one-armed vs. two-armed American kettlebell swing on trunk muscle activation. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed ten repetitions of both exercises using a 14-kg kettlebell. Surface EMG from the erector spinae, rectus abdominis and external oblique muscles were collected on both sides of the trunk. The erector spinae activation during the one-armed swing was 14–25% higher on the contralateral compared to the ipsilateral side in both exercises (Cohen’s d effect size [ES]=0.41–0.71, p  ˂ 0.001–0.034). Further, the contralateral side was 14% more activated during the two-armed swing compared to the ipsilateral side during the one-armed swing (ES=0.43, p =0.009). For the rectus abdominis muscle, the two-armed swing induced higher activation of the rectus abdominis compared to the one-armed swing on both the contralateral (40%, ES=0.48, p =0.040) and ipsilateral side (59%, ES=0.83, p =0.002). There were no differences for the external oblique muscle ( p =0.495–0.662). In conclusion, the trunk activation patterns of the two exercises were different, which could be explained by different biomechanics in the two exercises, and could thus have complimentary effects. We recommend that both unilateral and bilateral execution of the American kettlebell swing is included over time. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6428676/ /pubmed/30911671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0869-7228 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Andersen, Vidar
Fimland, Marius Steiro
Saeterbakken, Atle
Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title_full Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title_fullStr Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title_full_unstemmed Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title_short Trunk Muscle Activity in One- and Two-Armed American Kettlebell Swing in Resistance-Trained Men
title_sort trunk muscle activity in one- and two-armed american kettlebell swing in resistance-trained men
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30911671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0869-7228
work_keys_str_mv AT andersenvidar trunkmuscleactivityinoneandtwoarmedamericankettlebellswinginresistancetrainedmen
AT fimlandmariussteiro trunkmuscleactivityinoneandtwoarmedamericankettlebellswinginresistancetrainedmen
AT saeterbakkenatle trunkmuscleactivityinoneandtwoarmedamericankettlebellswinginresistancetrainedmen