Verbal Cueing vs Constraint-Led Approach for Teaching the Kettlebell Swing

Comparing Verbal Cueing and the Constraint-Led Approach for Teaching the Kettlebell Swing

The purpose of this study is to determine which method is most effective for teaching the kettlebell swing: verbal cueing, physical constraints, or a combination of the two.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Movement Disorders; Muscle Tenderness
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Verbal coaching vs. Constraint based coaching

Detailed Description

There is a method of teaching and learning movement and exercise skills known as the constraint-led approach. This method of movement learning has the learner exploring and experimenting different variations of an exercise by self-organizing around a set of given constraints of the individual, environment and task. Individual constraints are qualities about the person performing the task such as their arm length and height. Environmental constraints regard the environment where the task is being performed and include factors such as lighting and temperature. Finally, the task constraints are qualities about the movement and exercises being performed such as asking someone to do a half squat onto a box instead of a full bodyweight squat in the air. This constraints way of teaching movement has the movement educator as a guide or architect that shapes the qualities of the task the learner must navigate.

The kettlebell swing was chosen as the primary exercise for this study due to its efficacy and practicality as a functional movement pattern. Current literature suggests that kettlebell swings may elicit an increase in strength measured in the form of a deadlift exercise, which may have carry over to activities of daily living, such as bending over to lift a box with proper form. In a 2016 study, Edinborough et al. examined the proposed implications that repeated kettlebell swings could be used as a practical tool to increase endurance capacity of the lumbar extensor complex. The investigators of this study found that after a 60 second bout of continuous kettlebell swings, participants demonstrated a reduction in isometric strength, demonstrating fatigue of this musculature. The implications of this study suggest that kettlebell swings may increase the fatigue threshold of the lumbar extensor musculature, which may provide protective measures regarding the development of musculoskeletal conditions such as low back pain, as a decrease in activation of these associated muscles may be apparent during periods of fatigue.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 66
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Florida
    • Orlando, Florida, United States, 32816
      • University of Central Florida

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 55 years (Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Subjects between the ages of 18 and 55 years.
• Subjective rating of 3/5 or less on confidence with kettlebell swings.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Inability to read and write in English.
• Previous injury to the lower extremity that prevents normal squatting motion.
• Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire suggesting inability to safely participate in exercise.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

3

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: verbal and physical constraint group; Use of verbal and physical constraint	Behavioral: Verbal coaching vs. Constraint based coaching; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval
Active Comparator: verbal constraint group; Use of verbal constraint only	Behavioral: Verbal coaching vs. Constraint based coaching; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval
Experimental: physical constraint group; Use of constraint only	Behavioral: Verbal coaching vs. Constraint based coaching; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues and physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using verbal cues to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval; 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to teach the second part of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval→ 15 repetitions of kettlebell swings using physical constraints to combine both parts of the movement → 30 seconds to 1 minute rest interval

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Hip range of motion	Joint angles of the subject's dominant side of the hip will be measured from a horizontal view using the OnForm app on the ipad. Subjects will have yellow, circular stickers placed on bony landmarks such as the greater trochanter, lateral femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, and the tuberosity of the 5th metatarsal. The participant will be performing the kettlebell swings without shoes for standardization purposes. These measurements will be compared both pre- and post-test to measure any changes.	Base line and immediately after intervention
Knee range of motion	Joint angles of the subject's dominant side of the knee will be measured from a horizontal view using the OnForm app on the ipad (as shown below). Subjects will have yellow, circular stickers placed on bony landmarks such as the greater trochanter, lateral femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, and the tuberosity of the 5th metatarsal. The participant will be performing the kettlebell swings without shoes for standardization purposes. These measurements will be compared both pre- and post-test to measure any changes.	Base line and immediately after intervention
Ankle range of motion	Joint angles of the subject's dominant side of the ankle will be measured from a horizontal view using the OnForm app on the ipad (as shown below). Subjects will have yellow, circular stickers placed on bony landmarks such as the greater trochanter, lateral femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, and the tuberosity of the 5th metatarsal. The participant will be performing the kettlebell swings without shoes for standardization purposes. These measurements will be compared both pre- and post-test to measure any changes.	Base line and immediately after intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Central Florida

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Levine NA, Hasan MB, Avalos MA, Lee S, Rigby BR, Kwon YH. Effects of kettlebell mass on lower-body joint kinetics during a kettlebell swing exercise. Sports Biomech. 2022 Oct;21(9):1032-1045. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2020.1726442. Epub 2020 Mar 4.
• McGill SM, Marshall LW. Kettlebell swing, snatch, and bottoms-up carry: back and hip muscle activation, motion, and low back loads. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jan;26(1):16-27. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a4063.
• Lyons BC, Mayo JJ, Tucker WS, Wax B, Hendrix RC. Electromyographical Comparison of Muscle Activation Patterns Across Three Commonly Performed Kettlebell Exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Sep;31(9):2363-2370. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001771.
• Andersen V, Fimland MS, Gunnarskog A, Jungard GA, Slattland RA, Vraalsen OF, Saeterbakken AH. Core Muscle Activation in One-Armed and Two-Armed Kettlebell Swing. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 May;30(5):1196-204. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001240.
• Otte FW, Rothwell M, Woods C, Davids K. Specialist Coaching Integrated into a Department of Methodology in Team Sports Organisations. Sports Med Open. 2020 Nov 16;6(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s40798-020-00284-5.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): May 2, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 5, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): May 5, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: September 26, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 26, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): September 29, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): June 7, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 5, 2024
• Last Verified: June 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Pain; Neurologic Manifestations; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Muscular Diseases; Neuromuscular Diseases; Musculoskeletal Pain; Myalgia; Movement Disorders
• Other Study ID Numbers: STUDY00004623

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No