Kettlebell lifting
Kettlebell Lifting as an Effective Means of Physical Education
English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1984 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1984), pp. 70–73: the text is paraphrased, not translated.
Kettlebell Lifting: Editorial Note
The September 1981 CPSU and Council of Ministers resolution gave new impetus to mass strength training: besides Olympic weightlifting, kettlebell lifting and athletic gymnastics (work with other weights, apparatus and machines). Many hundreds of thousands practise them under the commission on athletic gymnastics and kettlebell lifting of the USSR Weightlifting Federation. This collection opens a section “Kettlebell Lifting”, which may later carry athletic gymnastics.
Two articles present the content, aims and methods of kettlebell lifting, notably how to assess results for the draft grade standards of the 1985–88 Unified All-Union Sports Classification. They invite debate, so not every recommendation may win support. The sport is ancient, since kettlebell exercises date from time immemorial, yet young, as there are still no unified all-Union rules and standards, which may be revised as it develops.
Interest in kettlebell lifting, one of the country's national sports, has grown markedly in recent years. More people take it up, groups and sections appear on collective and state farms, in colleges, factories, the merchant and river fleets and Army units, and contests of every scale are held over a widening area. Yet some still regard it as old-fashioned and of little value, and the author spent several years testing that view.
An exercise is valuable for physical education only if it is both accessible and effective.
Accessibility
Technical simplicity. Under current rules the sport comprises the one-kettlebell press, the two-kettlebell clean and jerk and the one-kettlebell snatch. All are cyclic exercises with a fairly light weight, and they are learned quickly because the athlete-implement system never travels through the air unsupported, as in weightlifting, and the athlete makes none of the complex movements of gymnastics or acrobatics. The centre of gravity shifts, but identically in every cycle. An athlete of average physical development masters the three lifts in 4–6 months, leaving more time to develop physical qualities.
Group or individual training. A group or section is the best setting, but work on a ship, in the field or in shifts makes it impossible, and people then train alone, with their plans checked periodically by an experienced coach. Solo kettlebell training needs no gym or large ground: any free area of 4–5 m2 will do.
Modest equipment. Kettlebell lifting is among the cheapest sports to equip. A kettlebell costs 4–6 roubles, the kit is shorts, a vest and any sports shoes, and the implements last practically for ever. A kettlebell lifter also uses the barbell, running, throwing and skiing, which cost extra, but so do athletes in other sports; the claim concerns a single “pure” sport with its own equipment.
Freedom from injury. Learning the three lifts and competing need no spotter, and the exercises carry no element of risk. Injuries are usually torn skin on the palms, caused by a badly prepared implement (the handle must be smooth, polished and rust-free) or by a hand grown “weak” after a long break. Their causes are avoidable side factors, not the sport itself.
A wide age range. Age limits are not yet fully studied, but practice shows a broad spread. At the 1980 interregional tournament in Lipetsk the average age of the competitors was 26, the oldest being 49 and the youngest 16; at the 1981 republican tournament in Kazan the average was 25.5, the oldest 48 and the youngest 15. Widening the age range is a present problem of sport, since many sports treat starting at 16–17 as hopeless. Kettlebell lifting rests on strength and endurance, which combine into strength-endurance. Flexibility, coordination and speed matter, but unlike in gymnastics, acrobatics or figure skating they are not to the fore. Since strength and endurance develop over a wide age span, results can go on improving for longer and across a wider age range.
Effectiveness
However accessible, a means of physical education is worth little if its training effect is low. That effect can be judged by testing trainees and comparing results across exercises.
For several years the author studied the effect of kettlebell lifting on the basic physical qualities at Voronezh Agricultural Institute. Initial tests (1000 m cross-country, 100 m sprint, pull-ups, standing long jump) were used to form three uniform first-year groups: two experimental of 19 students each and one control of 21. All trained twice a week for two hours; the control group followed the standard university physical education programme, the experimental groups the author's kettlebell programme. Progress was tested over two years against the university standards.
In the 1000 m the experimental groups started at 3 min 48 s and the control group at 3 min 45 s. After one year they averaged 3 min 11 s and 3 min 13 s, and after two years 3 min 2 s and 3 min 9 s. In pull-ups the initial 6.3 (experimental) and 6.8 (control) rose after a year to 8.8 and 8.38, and by the end of the second year to 9.88 and 9.25. In the standing long jump the start was 204 cm against 203.7 cm; after one year 211.2 cm against 207.2 cm, and after two 213.3 cm against 210.3 cm. In the 100 m the experimental groups improved from 14.4 s to 13.62 s and then 13.44 s, the control group, a little more slowly, from 14.37 s to 13.69 s and then 13.48 s.
The experimental groups thus ended ahead in every test. Their absolute gains against the control group's were 0.96 s against 0.86 s in the 100 m, 0.46 s against 0.36 s in the cross-country, 9.3 cm against 6.6 cm in the jump and 3.58 against 2.45 repetitions in pull-ups.
General physical working capacity, PWC170, is normally highest in cyclic sports, and kettlebell exercises are cyclic, so the author expected high values in kettlebell lifters. Twenty-two masters of sport and first-category athletes were tested. Their PWC170 ranged from 1180 to 1622 kgm/min, averaging 1486 kgm/min, or 19.5 kgm/min per kg of bodyweight.
Conclusion
Kettlebell lifting is accessible to a wide public, develops the basic physical qualities and raises general working capacity, and so is an effective means of physical education.