Exercise Physiology Laboratory and Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May;26(5):1199-202. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824f233e.
Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1199-1202, 2012-The present study compared the effects of 6 weeks of weightlifting plus traditional heavy resistance training exercises vs. kettlebell training on strength, power, and anthropometric measures. Thirty healthy men were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: (a) weightlifting (n = 13; mean ± SD: age, 22.92 ± 1.98 years; body mass, 80.57 ± 12.99 kg; height, 174.56 ± 5.80 cm) or (b) kettlebell (n = 17; mean ± SD: age, 22.76 ± 1.86 years; body mass, 78.99 ± 10.68 kg; height, 176.79 ± 5.08 cm) and trained 2 times a week for 6 weeks. A linear periodization model was used for training; at weeks 1-3 volume was 3 × 6 (kettlebell swings or high pull), 4 × 4 (accelerated swings or power clean), and 4 × 6 (goblet squats or back squats), respectively, and the volume increased during weeks 4-6 to 4 × 6, 6 × 4, and 4 × 6, respectively. Participants were assessed for height (in centimeters), body mass (in kilograms), and body composition (skinfolds). Strength was assessed by the back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereas power was assessed by the vertical jump and power clean 1RM. The results of this study indicated that short-term weightlifting and kettlebell training were effective in increasing strength and power. However, the gain in strength using weightlifting movements was greater than that during kettlebell training. Neither method of training led to significant changes in any of the anthropometric measures. In conclusion, 6 weeks of weightlifting induced significantly greater improvements in strength compared with kettlebell training. No between-group differences existed for the vertical jump or body composition.
举重与壶铃训练对垂直跳跃、力量和身体成分的影响。J 力量与调节研究 26(5):1199-1202,2012-本研究比较了 6 周举重加传统大阻力训练与壶铃训练对力量、爆发力和人体测量指标的影响。30 名健康男性被随机分配到以下 2 组中的 1 组:(a)举重组(n = 13;均值 ± 标准差:年龄,22.92 ± 1.98 岁;体重,80.57 ± 12.99 千克;身高,174.56 ± 5.80 厘米)或(b)壶铃组(n = 17;均值 ± 标准差:年龄,22.76 ± 1.86 岁;体重,78.99 ± 10.68 千克;身高,176.79 ± 5.08 厘米),每周训练 2 次,共 6 周。采用线性周期化模型进行训练;在第 1-3 周,分别为 3×6(壶铃摆动或高拉)、4×4(加速摆动或力量清洁)和 4×6(高脚深蹲或深蹲),而在第 4-6 周,训练量分别增加到 4×6、6×4 和 4×6。参与者的身高(厘米)、体重(千克)和身体成分(皮褶厚度)接受评估。力量通过深蹲 1 次重复最大重量(1RM)评估,而爆发力通过垂直跳跃和力量清洁 1RM 评估。本研究结果表明,短期举重和壶铃训练均可有效提高力量和爆发力。然而,使用举重动作增加的力量大于壶铃训练。两种训练方法均未导致任何人体测量指标的显著变化。总之,6 周举重训练与壶铃训练相比,力量的提高更为显著。垂直跳跃或身体成分在两组之间没有差异。