See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305871353

Biomechanical Loading of the American Kettlebell Swing

Conference Paper · November 2015

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2015-52072

CITATIONS READS
3 2,129

5 authors, including:

Wayne Johnson Bryan L Riemann

Georgia Southern University Georgia Southern University
27 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS    168 PUBLICATIONS   4,524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kellen Krajewski Cameron Coates

University of Pittsburgh Kennesaw State University
32 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of Home Confinement on Multiple Lifestyle Behaviours During the COVID-19 Outbreak (ECLB-COVID19) View project

Crack growth in Cold Worked Holes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bryan L Riemann on 20 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
DRAFT
BIOMECHANICAL LOADING OF THE AMERICAN KETTLEBELL SWING
Jefferey Mitchell, EIT
Mechanical Designer
Savannah, GA, USA
Bryan Riemann, Ph. D., ATC, FNATA
Sports Medicine Program
Armstrong State University
Savannah, GA, USA
ABSTRACT
The American kettlebell swing is a variation of the
Russian kettlebell swing where the kettlebell is swept in an
arc from between the legs to an overhead position with
straightened arms. Previous studies involving the kettlebell
swing have examined the aerobic and cardiovascular
impact of the swing, the variation of mechanical impulse
and power generation with kettlebell weight, and compared
its efficacy to other types of exercises. However, there have
been limited studies examining the dynamic biomechanical
loads of the swing on the arm and shoulder. The aim of this
study was to establish the mechanical demands of the
American kettlebell swing exercise on the arms and
shoulders to determine the regions of highest force output
and the variation of the forces throughout the swing, all
based on percentage of the swing completed. In order to
obtain kinematic data, two female subjects with prior
kettlebell exercise experience performed one set of fifteen
American swings with 8, 12, and 16 kg kettlebells. Position
and orientation data was recorded during trials for the
kettlebell, joints, and centers of mass of arm segments.
Velocity and acceleration data was found using finite-
difference approximations. An inverse dynamics method
applied to (2-D) planar motion using Newton-Euler
equations was used to determine the forces and moments at
various joints along the entire arm including the wrist,
elbow, and shoulder joints. Data was time normalized as
percent of swing, where 0% and 100% indicated the
beginning and end of the swing respectively, and
approximately 50% denoted the transition between
upswing and downswing halves. Results revealed that the
IMECE2015
November 13-19, 2015, Houston, Texas, USA
IMECE2015-52072
Wayne M. Johnson, Ph. D.
Engineering Studies Program
Armstrong State University
Savannah, GA, USA
Cameron W. Coates, Ph. D.,
P.E.
Engineering Studies Program
Armstrong State University
Savannah, GA, USA
arm was under tension during 0% to 35% and 67% to 100%
of the swing, indicating the upper torso works to provide
the normal force to support the curved motion of the
kettlebell. Inversely, during 36% to 66% of the swing the
arm muscles worked in order to support the weight of the
kettlebell. While the lower extremity mechanical demands
associated with kettlebell swings have been studied, the
current results help clarify the upper extremity mechanical
demands associated with kettlebell swing exercise. The
results of this analysis will better help practitioners to
understand the prerequisite upper extremity function
needed to perform the full American style swing. The
American kettlebell swing carries risks its Russian
equivalent does not have, typically breaking form to make
the shoulder extension involved with raising the kettlebell
above the subjects head. These results suggest that the extra
range of motion in the American kettlebell swing prompts
very different mechanical demands which, in turn, targets
different muscle groups from the lower half of the
American swing or the full Russian kettlebell swing.
Finally, because increasing mechanical stimuli is an
important component to exercise progression, this analysis
fills the void of understanding the effects of changing
kettlebell loads on the upper extremity demands. Future
research will consider the symmetry of the upper extremity
mechanical patterns revealed by this analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Kettlebells have seen increased use in American gyms
and athletic training in the last couple of decades. Although
kettlebells have been in widespread use throughout Russia
1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
for centuries and a lesser extent through Europe, there are
relatively few papers quantifying the mechanical demands
associated with kettlebell exercises. Beyond a few recent
studies examining strength and cardiovascular changes
following a kettlebell training program, there are many
unsubstantiated claims about their effectiveness versus
other exercise regiments and their effectiveness on
improving strength and power. Strength in this study is the
ability of muscles to apply force, often associated with
heavy lifting and one repetition maximum. Power considers
the ability of muscles to apply force quickly and is an
integral part of many functional movements such as jump
height or throwing a ball. [4]
The kettlebell itself is a round weight with a handle
protruding from the top similar in appearance to a tea kettle,
thus the name. Most weights such as dumbbells and
barbells have their handle located through the center of
mass. However, the kettlebell's handle is offset from the
center of mass which readily lends itself to a number of
unique exercises such as the snatch, clean and jerk,
bottoms-up carry, and kettlebell swing. The focus of this
study is on the two-handed American kettlebell swing. The
American swing starts with both hands gripping the
kettlebell handle between both legs with slight knee flexion.
The posterior chain musculature is then rapidly extended to
drive the kettlebell in an upward arc. The arc ends with the
arms and kettlebell extended above the head before
returning to the starting position. This is in contrast to the
Russian kettlebell swing which stops at chest level. [5]
Existing studies have mixed results on the
effectiveness of kettlebell training. Jay et al. found
kettlebell training to help improve postural stability, but
only a statistically insignificant result on jump height verses
the control group and pre-training levels. [2] Otto et al. in
contrast found kettlebells increase jump height, but strength
gain was greater with focused weight training rather than
with kettlebells. [7] Beardsley and Contreras concluded
positive results for power improvement, but uncertainty
with strength gains. They concluded that the mechanics and
joint movement are not well understood for kettlebell
exercises. [1] McGrill and Marshall addressed the
mechanics primarily of the lower back and leg loading
where they found loading was highest during the initial
stages of kettlebell exercises. [6]
McGrill and Marshall also found a shear force
component on the lower spine which is in contrast with
traditional exercises, and credit this shear force as a
possible explanation for improved back health. They also
offer this fact as a possible reason for reports of lower back
pain due to kettlebell exercises. [6] Jonen and Netterville
respond by stressing the need for evidence to support proper
instruction for the complex movements involved in
kettlebell exercises in order to ensure safety and reduce risk
of injury. [3]
To improve the understanding and safety of the
kettlebell swing, we have employed inverse-dynamics
similar to the methods of Lake and Lauder to determine the
forces experienced by the joints in the arms and shoulders
for based on kinematic data [5]. Dynamics involves
examining the relationships between the forces and
moments applied to objects and the subsequent motion;
kinematic data being the data associated with an object’s
position, velocity and acceleration with no regard for the
object’s mass. Inverse-dynamics is the reverse of this
process and works using the kinematic data and
mass/inertial information to determine the resultant forces
and moments that created motion. The work herein
provides an analytic framework for which more exhaustive
studies can be completed to examine and characterize
various aspects of the kettlebell swing including swing
styles (Russian vs. American), and gender differences.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Two female test subjects with minimum 6 months
kettlebell swing experience performed 15 repetitions of
two-handed overhead (American style) swings. Subject 1
was 167cm tall and weighs 75 kg; subject 2 was 161cm and
53 kg. Both subjects were early 20’s in age. Each variation
of the kettlebell swing was performed with three different
kettlebell masses; 8kg, 12kg, and 16kg (one set each) in a
random order. Subjects were given at least one minute of
rest in between sets. Swings were performed on two AMTI
force plates while 12 Vicon infrared cameras (Vicon,
Oxford, UK), captured upper extremity motion of each
subject at 100Hz sampling rate. Each subject was outfitted
with four marker sets, placed on the trunk and upper
extremity. Specific locations for the marker sets were;
thorax, approximately one to two inches below the C7
vertebra, left upper arm three inches above the olecranon
process, the mid-forearm three inches above the head of the
radius and the dorsal portion of the hand covering all five
metatarsals. The proximal and distal segment endpoints
were digitized and combined with anthropometric data to
compute the location each segments center of mass. The 3-
D position and orientation of the marker sets were streamed
through The Motion Monitor (Innovative Sports Training,
Chicago, IL) and recorded for offline analysis; a built-in
Butterworth filter was applied to remove discontinuities
and smooth recorded position data. Five swings with clean
(few interruptions) data were identified in each set.
All subjects signed an informed consent form and
experimentation has IRB approval.
DYNAMIC MODELING
A Matlab program was written to take recorded data
from the Motion Monitor software and apply inverse
dynamics to determine the forces and moments acting on
the kettlebell and arm joints up to the shoulder socket.
Several assumptions were made to facilitate the modeling
of the system. First, the kettlebell and the arm sections:
hand, forearm, and upper arm, were assumed to be rigid.
Second, the kettlebell swing was simplified to a two
dimensional problem in the sagittal plane. Examination of
2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
the position data for the kettlebell indicated a 0.0685m
difference between the maximum and minimum values of
the z-axis/lateral movement during 13 complete 8kg
kettlebell swings. This is relative to 1.000m of travel in the
x-axis/anterior and 1.7918m of travel in the y-axis/vertical.
Third, it was assumed that forces were symmetrical
between both arms. In reality, the results in this study
indicate the average of both arms on the kettlebell's motion.
Asymmetry between the forces would be attributed to
asymmetry within the body structure and muscle
application if taken into account. Fourth, it was assumed
that frictional forces and other external forces were
negligible.
In order to perform inverse dynamic calculations,
kinematic data needed to be paired with mass and inertial
data. The kinematic data provided from recording software
consisted of position, acceleration, rotation, and angular
acceleration of the bodies' center of mass and position data
of the joints at specific times. The combined data is then
passed through Newton-Euler equations generated from the
free body diagrams and relationships between bodies.
Figure 1 contains the free body diagram of the kettlebell
and Figure 2 contains the free body diagram of a generic
arm segment. Note that in modeling the arm anatomy, the
elbow, wrist, and hand grip are hinge joints while the
shoulder is a ball and socket joint. The rationale for
modeling the first three joints as hinges is due to capacity
for the muscles in the arm segment above a joint to provide
torques across that joint which must be taken into account.
For example, the triceps and biceps in the upper arm
provide a net torque on the elbow causing it to bend or
straighten.
Figure 1. Kettlebell free body diagram
Figure 2. Generic arm segment free body diagram.
The generic Newton-Euler equations generated from
the free body diagram in fig. 2 for the nth arm segment is as
follows:
⃗⃗⃗𝑥 = 𝑚𝑎
𝛴𝐹 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑥 = 𝐹(𝑥,𝑛) − 𝐹(𝑥,𝑛−1) (1)
⃗⃗⃗𝑦 = 𝑚𝑎
𝛴𝐹 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑦 = 𝐹(𝑦,𝑛) − 𝐹(𝑦,𝑛−1) + 𝑚𝑔 (2)
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑧 = 𝐼𝛼
𝛴𝑀 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑧 = 𝑀⃗⃗ (𝑧,𝑛) − 𝑀
⃗⃗ (𝑧,𝑛−1) (3)
+(𝑟(𝑎,𝑛) × 𝐹(𝑛) ) + (𝑟(𝑏,𝑛) × −𝐹(𝑛−1) )
Where equation (1) shows the forces on the x-axis, (2)
shows the forces on the y-axis, and (3) shows the torques
about the z-axis. A similar set of equations for the kettlebell
are shown in equations (4)-(6):
⃗⃗⃗𝑥 = 𝑚𝑎
𝛴𝐹 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑥 = 𝐹(𝑥,𝑛) (4)
⃗⃗⃗𝑦 = 𝑚𝑎
𝛴𝐹 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑦 = 𝐹(𝑦,𝑛) + 𝑚𝑔 (5)
⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑧 = 𝐼𝛼
𝛴𝑀 ⃗⃗⃗⃗𝑧 = 𝑀⃗⃗ (𝑧,𝑛) + (𝑟(𝑎,𝑛) × 𝐹(𝑛) ) (6)
Most of the data was directly available from the
experiment, but data for the kettlebell was incomplete.
Although recording software can approximate position data
of joints and the center of mass (COM) of appendages on a
human body, it cannot correctly determine the COM for
non-anatomical objects (e.g., kettlebell). All kettlebell
kinematic data was based the centroid of a triad of data
markers rather than based around the actual center of mass
as a result of this issue. In order to correct this, the kettlebell
was digitally scanned and modeled in CAD software to
determine the location of the centroid relative to the center
of mass. From here, a position vector was created and
combined with kettlebell rotational data (i.e., angular
velocity and acceleration) to determine the position and
acceleration of the kettlebell’s center of mass in the data as
depicted in Equations (7) and (8), respectively. Note that in
Equations (7) and (8), cdm is the centroid of the data
markers, and kb is the kettlebell. Further, the location of the
grip on the kettlebell was unknown. Again, a vector was
created between the center of the handle's cross member
3 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
and the center of mass and the rotation of the kettlebell was
applied to determine the location of the hand's grip. Com is
the center of mass of the kettlebell and cdm is the centroid
of the data markers in equations (7) and (8).

𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚 = 𝑟 𝑐𝑑𝑚 + 𝑟 𝑐𝑑𝑚/𝑐𝑑𝑚 (7)

𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚 = 𝑎 𝑐𝑑𝑚 + 𝛼 𝑘𝑏 × 𝑟 𝑐𝑑𝑚/𝑐𝑑𝑚 (8)
−𝜔
⃗ (𝑘𝑏) × 𝑟 𝑐𝑑𝑚/𝑐𝑑𝑚 Figure 4. Tensive/Shear force conventions during the
middle of a representative kettlebell swing.
Once all of the forces and moments acting at each joint
were determined, the forces were converted to tensive/shear
(T-S) forces. These T-S forces were aligned to each segment
of the arm as the segments rotated during the swing. This is
a relative coordinate system where the positive tensive
forces always point up the body segment (proximally). It
represents the muscles and joints being pulled in tension by
the weights further down the arm when positive, and the
arms under compression or supporting the weights further
down the arm when negative. The forces at the grip point
on the kettlebell were aligned with the hand, the wrist Figure 5. Tensive/Shear force conventions during the
aligned with the forearm, the elbow with the upper arm, and top of a representative kettlebell swing.
the shoulder with the distal thoracic (T12) vertebrate. The
vertebrate was chosen since it best aligns the T-S axis with
the spine and shows the nature of the loading the shoulders
RESULTS
put on the spine. Note that since the spine is supporting the
When handling the results, “skeleton” plots of the
arms and kettlebell, the resulting tensive values are
kettlebell swing were used for a preliminary examination of
normally negative, indicating compression whereas the
the data for errors and movement throughout a swing. In the
other joints are normally in tension.
“skeleton” plots in Figures 6 and 7 the asterisk represents
Positive shear forces represent force normal to the
the kettlebell location at various instants in time, while the
compressive axis, and are positive when the shear force
circles show the location of the grip on the kettlebell handle,
propels the segments below the joint up and around the arc
wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints in addition to the T-12
of the kettlebell swing. A positive shear on the shoulders
vertebrate. The dashed line that connects between each joint
indicates the muscles in the upper torso are counter-
and the kettlebell to show which markers correspond to the
intuitively pulling the shoulders backwards. Figures 3
same time, while the solid line show the path of travel for
through 5 represent the T-S coordinate system at three
the selected points on the X-Y plane throughout a swing.
temporal instants during a swing and show how the T-S
Figure 6 shows the various locations of the kettlebell
coordinate system for the shoulders differs verses the other
and joints for a single upswing of an American kettlebell
T-S coordinate systems. Figures 3 through 5 apply to both
swing with a 12kg weight swung by subject 2. Notice the
the up and down swing that make a complete kettlebell
elbow travels almost vertically during the majority of the
swing. The numerical annotations in these figures represent
swing, while the shoulder and back travel up then forward
the following: 1 – Kettlebell, 2 – Hand, 3 – Forearm, 4 –
on the second half of the upswing, in contrast to the smooth
Upper Arm, 5 – Thorax.
arc of the kettlebell and hand data points. During the second
half of the swing, the torso swings forward in an effort to
counterbalance the kettlebell being held out. For this
particular subject, the torso and kettlebell balance out near
the elbow, which gives it a nearly vertical path.

Figure 3. Tensive/Shear force conventions during the

bottom of a representative kettlebell swing.

4 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 Figure 6. Select locations of a 12kg kettlebell up
swing by subject 2.
Figure 7 shows the corresponding down swing for the
same kettlebell swing shown in Fig. 6. There is little
difference in either the up or down half of the swing; this is
typical of all swings in the data sets.
Figure 7. Select locations of a 12kg kettlebell down
swing by subject 2.
In order to produce meaningful data from the forces
and moments found with the Newton-Euler equations (1 to
6), the data was broken into complete swings by a simple
algorithm. The data points were then assigned to discrete
percentages of a swing based on their time in the swing
where 0% represents the bottom of the swing, 50% the top,
and 100% as the 0% of the following swing with ensemble
averaging. This was done to allow for statistical
calculations of the data across multiple swings despite
minor time variations in each swing. Only swings without
notable discontinuities or other recording errors were used
for statistical calculations.
Figure 8 (See Annex A) is the first plot generated
with this method. The plot contains the mean Y-position for
the swings of a single trial as a function of swing percent
completed. The dashed lines represent the maximum and
minimum values at each percentage in the data set. The
standard deviation of the data set was computed, but would
5 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
have little meaning with a minimum of five swings in each 9, means the 30%-70% region of the swing requires
data set. Figures 9-12, 13-16,17-20 are the compression, minimal power from the subject.
shear forces, and moments respectively at each joint for all A positive shear force in figs. 13-16 indicates the
four trials. Figures 21-24 show the resultant force while subject is exerting force to pull the kettlebell towards the
figs. 25-28 show the corresponding power at each joint for top of the kettlebell swing. With one local maximum on the
each trial. The power is based on the net force, linear upper arm provided by the torso near 17% as the swing
displacement between two moments in time, and the starts and another near 88% completion as the kettlebell’s
constant sample period for each data point as seen in motion retards nears the bottom. The presence of high shear
equation 9. Figures 8 - 20 can be found in Annex A. All sets on the shoulder with comparatively low shear elsewhere
are shown for comparison. indicates most of the force that drives the kettlebell around
2 2 the arc originates elsewhere in the body, rather than in the
𝑃 = √𝐹 (𝑥,𝑛) + 𝐹 (𝑦,𝑛) (9) arms. This supports the conclusion in existing biodynamic
2 2 1 literature that states the main force and power comes from
× √⃗⃗⃗⃗
∆𝑥 (𝑛,𝑛+1) + ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
∆𝑦 (𝑛,𝑛+1) × the posterior chain [5,6].
100
Examining the tensive forces in fig. 9 and shear forces
Table 1 below shows the maximum force in in fig. 13 verses figs. 10-12 and 14-16 reveals an anomaly
Newtons on each kettlebell with respect to percent of swing with forces on the kettlebell for subject 1’s 8kg swing. By
completed. Table 2 is similar but shows the peak power in examining the positional information for this trial, it was
Watts for each kettlebell. revealed that the subject had locked their wrist in flexion.
This flexion forced the tensive direction associated with the
hand as seen in fig. 3-5 further out of line with the arm. This
Percent Peak Net Force explains why the net forces in fig. 21 do not appear out of
Subject Weight (kg) of Swing Mean (N) line.
8 90% 151.3 Although the net force on subject 1’s 8kg swing is
1
12 90% 161.0 nominal, the moments required to maintain that flexion are
8 13% 123.1 approximately 2 times as large as subject 1’s 12 kg swing
2 despite being a lighter weight. The greater moments acting
12 93% 115.4
on the kettlebell indicate greater use of the extensor/flexor
muscles in the forearm. Compared to both of subject 2’s
Table 1. Peak Force
swings which have minimal moments on the kettlebell, it
seems that the muscles in the arms can be engaged by
Weight Percent Peak Power
maintaining flexion at joints that counters the natural
Subject (kg) of Swing Mean (W)
tension created by the kettlebell. The significance of the
8 88% 590.7 muscle engagement in the arms is, however, beyond the
1
12 88% 655.9 scope of this analysis.
8 16% 456.3
2
12 17% 407.4 CONCLUSIONS
The regions of highest force and power both occur at
Table 2. Peak Power the beginning and end phase of the kettlebell swing, while
the middle section of the swing provides little in the way of
DISCUSSION difficulty for the weightlifter. One possible avenue of future
Figures 9-12 show that moving closer to the torso study is the examination of the Russian kettlebell swing.
increases magnitude of tensive forces. This intuitively The Russian swing stops at approximately chest level
makes sense as the arm segments further up the arm not verses over the head as in the American version. As it
only have to provide the tensive force on the kettlebell, but avoids the mostly idle region of the American swing, the
also the additional tensive force to move the body segments Russian swing may provide constant tensive force rather
below. Note that the back provides the reactionary forces than switching to compressive near the peak.
against the shoulder/upper arm and that the positive tensive Further study needs greater verity of weights, test
forces is aligned down the spine which explains why the subjects, and multiple kettlebell exercises, not just the two
upper arm is mostly in compression while the other handed swings. Seeing trend data as weight increases for
segments are in tension. various individuals could help determine effectiveness of
When the swing is 30% to 70% complete, indicating the kettlebell swing and potentially lead to
the kettlebell is near the peak of the swing, the weight of recommendations for ideal kettlebell weight to maximize
the kettlebell begins to create compression on the arms force or power based on user. The addition of data on
rather than tension. This region is also marked by low force baseline exercises which engage the posterior chain would
created by the subject and low displacement per time allow for more complete conclusions regarding the
interval as the kettlebell slows to a stop which, by equation effectiveness of the kettlebell swing.

6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 Refinement to the recording and analysis of the data
is needed to determine forces and moments at the bottom of
the swing to create a complete picture of the swing data.
Finally, additional understanding and research needs to be
completed to determine the significance of moments on the
joints. It is currently believed they represent the net torque
acting on a joint from the muscles directly above, but this
is speculation
REFERENCES
[1] C. Beardsley and B. Contreras, “The Role of
Kettlebells in Strength and Conditioning: A Review
of the Literature,” Strength and Conditioning
Journal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 64–70, Jun. 2014.
[2] K. Jay, M. D. Jakobsen, E. Sundstrup, J. H. Skotte,
M. B. Jørgensen, C. H. Andersen, M. T. Pedersen,
and L. L. Andersen, “Effects of Kettlebell Training
on Postural Coordination and Jump Performance: A
Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, vol. 27, no. 5, pp.
1202–1209, May 2013.
[3] W. Jonen and J. T. Netterville, “Kettlebell Safety: A
Periodized Program Using the Clean and Jerk and
the Snatch,” Strength and Conditioning Journal,
vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1–10, Apr. 2014.
[4] J. P. Lake, B. S. Hetzler, and M. A. Lauder,
“Magnitude and Relative Distribution of Kettlebell
Snatch Force-Time Characteristics:,” Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 28, no.
11, pp. 3063–3072, Nov. 2014.
[5] J. P. Lake and M. A. Lauder, “Mechanical demands
of kettlebell swing exercise,” J Strength Cond Res,
vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3209–3216, Dec. 2012.
[6] S. M. McGill and L. W. Marshall, “Kettlebell
Swing, Snatch, and Bottoms-Up Carry: Back and
Hip Muscle Activation, Motion, and Low Back
Loads:,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 16–27, Jan. 2012.
[7] W. H. Otto, J. W. Coburn, L. E. Brown, and B. A.
Spiering, “Effects of Weightlifting vs. Kettlebell
Training on Vertical Jump, Strength, and Body
Composition:,” Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1199–
1202, May 2012.
7 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
 ANNEX A

FIGURES 8 – 28.

Figure 8. Average Y-Positions for 8kg swing by subject 1.

8 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 9. Average tensional forces for 8kg swing by subject 1.

9 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 10. Average tensional forces for 12kg swing by subject 1.

10 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 11. Average tensional forces for 8kg swing by subject 2.

11 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 12. Average tensional forces for 12kg swing by subject 2.

12 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 13. Average shear forces for 8kg swing by subject 1.

13 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 14. Average shear forces for 12kg swing by subject 1.

14 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 15. Average shear forces for 8kg swing by subject 2.

15 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 16. Average shear forces for 12kg swing by subject 2.

16 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 17. Average moments for 8kg swing by subject 1.

17 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 18. Average moments for 12kg swing by subject 1.

18 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 19. Average moments for 8kg swing by subject 2.

19 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 20. Average moments for 12kg swing by subject 2.

20 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 21. Sum of forces for 8kg swing by subject 1.

21 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 22. Average power for 12kg swing by subject 1.

22 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 23. Average power for 8kg swing by subject 2.

23 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 24. Average power for 12kg swing by subject 2.

24 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 25. Average power for 8kg swing by subject 1.

25 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 26. Average power for 12kg swing by subject 1.

26 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 27. Average power for 8kg swing by subject 2.

27 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 Figure 28. Average power for 12kg swing by subject 2.

28 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

View publication stats