REF-1636 · Otto et al., 2012 · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, · Paper · PubMed

Barbell weightlifting raised back-squat 1RM more than kettlebell training over 6 weeks in 30 healthy young men (twice a week, 13 vs 17 per group); both programmes raised strength and power, vertical jump and body composition did not differ between groups, and the abstract gives no size for any change

Main caveat: 30 men in two groups over 6 weeks; no non-training control.
moderate evidenceMeasured on non-athletes and recreational peopleRead from the abstract only

Otto and colleagues compared 6 weeks of weightlifting plus traditional heavy resistance exercises with 6 weeks of kettlebell training for strength, power and body measurements.

Thirty healthy men were randomised to weightlifting (n = 13) or kettlebell training (n = 17) and trained twice a week on a linear periodisation plan, each kettlebell exercise paired with a barbell counterpart: kettlebell swing or high pull, accelerated swing or power clean, goblet squat or back squat.

Strength was tested as back-squat 1RM, power as vertical jump and power-clean 1RM, and body composition by skinfolds. Both programmes increased strength and power, but the back-squat gain was greater after weightlifting. Neither changed body measurements significantly, and the groups did not differ in vertical jump or body composition.

The authors conclude that 6 weeks of weightlifting improved strength significantly more than kettlebell training.

Participants

30 healthy men, randomised to two groups.
Weightlifting, n = 13: age 22.92 ± 1.98 y, body mass 80.57 ± 12.99 kg, height 174.56 ± 5.80 cm.
Kettlebell, n = 17: age 22.76 ± 1.86 y, body mass 78.99 ± 10.68 kg, height 176.79 ± 5.08 cm.
Training history and lifting experience not in the abstract.

Protocol

Exercise slotKettlebell groupWeightlifting groupWeeks 1-3Weeks 4-6
1Kettlebell swingHigh pull3 × 64 × 6
2Accelerated swingPower clean4 × 46 × 4
3Goblet squatBack squat4 × 64 × 6
2 sessions a week for 6 weeks, linear periodisation.
Measures: height, body mass, skinfold body composition; back-squat 1RM (strength); vertical jump and power-clean 1RM (power).
Not in the abstract: loads or kettlebell masses, rest intervals, supervision, adherence and drop-outs.

Key Results

Both groups increased strength and power (no values in the abstract).
The back-squat 1RM gain was greater with weightlifting than with kettlebell training.
No significant change in any anthropometric measure in either group.
No between-group difference in vertical jump or body composition.
The between-group result for power-clean 1RM is not stated in the abstract.

Practical Application

For maximal leg strength, barbell squats and pulls beat kettlebell swings and goblet squats; for jump, kettlebells kept up. Over 6 weeks both programmes raised strength and power, but back-squat 1RM rose more with the barbell, while vertical jump did not differ.
Read the strength result with its test in mind (our reading): strength was tested on the back squat, which only the weightlifting group trained; part of the gap may be practice on the test lift rather than more strength overall.
Inference, not tested here: for runners and cyclists, the strength benefit in the base comes from heavy, low-repetition lifting (SYNTH-43, SYNTH-44); a kettlebell-only programme is a workable substitute for power work, but a weaker one for maximal leg strength unless the bell is heavy enough for low-repetition squats.
Not settled by this design: the size of any change, effects in women or trained lifters, programmes longer than 6 weeks, heavier bells, and any endurance-performance outcome.

Limitations

30 men in two groups over 6 weeks; no non-training control.
The abstract reports directions only: no means, effect sizes or confidence intervals.
Kettlebell masses and barbell loads are not in the abstract, so the relative stimulus is unknown.
Strength was measured on a lift only one group trained.
Training background of the participants is not stated.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

parallel RCT with 10-19 per arm (30 randomised into two arms of 13 and 17, 15 per arm by rule 2); the abstract reports no numeric results, effect sizes or kettlebell loads

Content correction 2026-11-07
2026-11-07: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level B+ (parallel RCT, 13 and 17 per arm, 15 per arm by rule 2).