Kettlebell Institute Intel

powered by neuroscience!

for open distribution

Kettlebell Institute Intel 2012jan, vol.1#1:01-03: www.kettlebellinstitute.net/warehouse/downloads/intel/spinal_sheer_mcgill.pdf

Spinal sheer and compression during kettlebell swings - a

brief review of McGill & Marshall (2012) JSCR.
Kenneth Jay, MSc. human physiology, PhD(c), Z-Health master trainer
Disclaimer:
The information provided in the Kettlebell Institute Intel reports are for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as medical advice or
recommendations, nor is it intended for use as a substitute for consultation with or advice given by a qualified medical or health practitioner. Kettlebell
Institute / Kenneth Jay / NeuroSig ApS and www.kettlebellinstitute.net shall not be liable or responsible for any damage occasioned to any person acting or
refraining to act as a result of any information or suggestion in this publication or website. Kettlebell Institute / Kenneth Jay / NeuroSig ApS will not be held
responsible for the conduct of any company, website or individual mentioned in this publication or associated websites. Before beginning this or any
exercise and/or diet program, you should always consult your physician. All matters regarding your health require medical supervision and all readers of this
publication and associated website and forum visitors and participants are encouraged to confirm the information contained herein with other reliable
sources and to direct any questions concerning personal healthcare to licensed physicians or other appropriate healthcare providers. The opinions
expressed in this publication only represent the views of the Kettlebell Institute / Kenneth Jay / NeuroSig ApS.

Abstract
Objective: The objective of this report is to discuss select recent findings by McGill & Marshall (2012) in
regards to spinal compression and sheer force when swinging kettlebells. As there is great debate in the
kettlebell community of the hows and whys of kettlebell training, the findings of McGills research team are
interesting observations that leads to additional questions- especially in terms of kettlebell swing execution.
Therefore, the aim of this report is to shed some scientific light on the findings of McGill & Marshall (2012),
and put it into an applicable context.
Methods: Objective comparison and discussion of some of the results and recommendations of McGill &
Marshall (2012) to the scientific literature (referenced works are hyperlinks in the text).
Conclusion: It is encouraged that people interested in kettlebell training explore more than the powerliftingbased style/technique of lifting as research on this topic is still in its infancy.

Introduction
This first edition of the Kettlebell Institute
Intel report is a brief review of a few key
elements from the new study on spinal
loads during the kettlebell swing by McGill
and Marshall (2012). This is not intended
to be an extended review of the article but
rather a brief discussion on some of the
findings and how they correlate to previous
work by McGill and other researchers
interested in spinal shear and
compression. I do encourage you to read
the full article.
The methods utilized by the McGill
research team were primarily surface
electrode EMG muscle activity recordings
________________________________________
Address correspondence to Kenneth Jay, MSc.,
PhD(c) and Z-Health master trainer at
kettlebellinstitute@gmail.com. More information
about the Kettlebell Institute Trainer certification
and upcoming workshops is available at
www.kettlebellinstitute.net. This KBI intel report
was first made public January 2012. Copyright
2012 by Kenneth Jay / NeuroSig ApS. All Rights
Reserved. For open distribution. Not to be
considered a scientific paper for peer-review or
publication.

of 16 major muscles and 3D kinematics

using reflective markers videoed by a 9camera motion capture system- a pretty
standard procedure for motion analysis
and EMG recording.
It is nice to see this data published and as
more data is gathered (more EMG/force
plate/3D kinematics data is currently being
analyzed here in Denmark) we will know
more about muscle activation and loading
during kettlebell work.
It should however be mentioned that an interelectrode distance of 2.5cm during surface
EMG measurements could provide additional
noise to the data collection. This could be a
potential methodological problem as signal
normalization would be of greater variability.

Stuart McGill is one of many experimental

researchers investigating spinal loads and
has written extensively about it in his
books based on his own research and the
research of others. As low back problems
are a major socioeconomic burden
1

Kettlebell Institute Intel

powered by neuroscience!

responsible for 12-13% of all annual sick

days in northern Europe it is an area of
great interest. The recent article by McGill
& Marshall (2012) raises some interesting
questions, especially in the enthusiastic
kettlebell community as Pavel Tsatsouline
(the kettlebell master in the single trial
case study mentioned in the article) is a
fan of McGills work and often refers to him.
As mentioned, several big questions are
raised with the recent findings of McGill &
Marshall (2012) and in the following I will
discuss a few of them from a scientific
perspective.
Squat vs. Stoop-style
Probably the biggest question is why did
McGill & Marshall chose a squat-type
swing movement instead of the
powerlifting-based hip hinge with limited
ankle and knee movement? Well, without
knowing for sure here is a scientific guess.
It is well-known that when dealing with
compression forces and shear loads a
deadlift-type or stoop-lift, as it is called in
the literature, creates substantially greater
compression and shear forces on the
spine, especially in the lower back all the
way down to the sacral joints, compared to
a squat motion. It should of course be
noted that a kettlebell swing regardless of
how it is done also differs from how squat
and stoop lifts are examined in the
scientific literature as 1) the literature
compares the two when lifting low-lying
objects and 2) at low speeds. Neither of
these two occurs when swinging
kettlebells as typical instruction regardless
of methodology avoids having the
kettlebell pass between the legs below
knee-level. A review by Straker (2001) of
the evidence to support either way of lifting
as well- as an in-between these two
styles concludes there are also some
benefits of using a stoop style way of lifting
low-lying objects, in terms of rate of
perceived exertion (RPE) and energy
expenditure (EE). It should however be
noted that in regards to spinal sheer and
compression the forces are still lower in
the squat style were knees and ankles are
allowed to move more.

for open distribution

Sheer:Compression ratio
The compression and sheer forces in the
kettlebell swing (16kg) reported for the
start, middle and end position were
calculated to be on average for the seven
participants 3,195N, 2,328N, 1,903N and
4 6 1 N , 3 2 6 N , 1 5 6 N , r e s p e c t i v e l y.
Furthermore, the sheer force direction was
observed to be reversed of what is
normally seen in lifting tasks as the
superior vertebrae (L4) was moving
posterior on the inferior vertebrae (L5), to
which an explanation is not elaborated but
attributed to [resisting, kj, red.] the
centrifugal force during the swing. It does
not appear to be known if an opposite
vertebral sheer direction is a good/
restorative thing but one thing is certain
and that is that the sheer:compression
ratio observed by McGill is rather highsomething McGill himself notes in the
article as a potential problem. It could
therefore be debated if the conclusion by
McGill & Marshall (2012) is a little too
optimistic [judge for yourself]:
...this unique exercise may be very
appropriate for some exercise programs
emphasizing posterior chain power
development about the hip. In contrast, the
exercise also appears to result in unique
compression and shear load ratios in the
lumbar spine that may account for the
irritation in some peoples backs, who
otherwise tolerate very heavy loads. Shear
stability and tolerance to posterior shear
loading would be a requirement to obtain the
other benefits of kettlebell swing exercise
painlessly.Thus, quantitative analysis
provides an insight into why many individuals
credit kettlebell swings with restoring and
enhancing back health and function,
although a few find that they irritate tissues.

The interpretation of the above paragraph

indicates a least one big problem from a
research perspective. Stating that many
individuals credit kettlebell swings with
restoring and enhancing back health and
only a few find that the kettlebell swing
irritate tissues is a bold statement that
has , at least to my knowledge, no
scientific backing. In this context it would
have been appropriate and necessary
2

Kettlebell Institute Intel

powered by neuroscience!

from a scientific perspective to conduct at

least a quantitative data collection by a
simple pain questionnaire to a group of
dedicated kettlebell practitioners before
such claims are made [Personally, I
wonder why this was not pointed out by
the reviewer as it should not have been
included in the article].
Pain and discomfort among skilled
kettlebell practitioners
In the spring/summer of 2010 Jay, K
(unpublished observations) conducted a
preliminary and informal investigation by
questionnaire on pain and discomfort
among highly trained kettlebell
practitioners. 72 people were asked about
pain and discomfort in the lower back,
neck and shoulders within the last three six months and lasting more than two
weeks. The replies were astounding. 85%
reported having ongoing pain in one or
more of the regions. Giving the fact that
these people were regarded highly skilled
professionals [making a living of kettlebell
instruction, kj red.] in the powerliftingbased style of kettlebell training that high a
prevalence is in direct contrast to what
McGill & Marshall (2012) concludes in the
above paragraph. Even occupations with a
high prevalence of pain does not come
even close to 85% but sits at around
40-50%. Something seems to be off in the
statement by McGill & Marshall (2012)
especially considering that
such a
statement is made based only on
anecdotes, non-scientific literature and
with a EMG/3D kinematics of seven
people and one kettlebell-master to back
it up.
Sheer and compression - providing a
new perspective
The big problem with sheer and
compression of the spine (or any other
joint for that matter) is when they happen
together. On its own the spine can handle
a tremendous amount of compression and
without compression sheering forces are
far from dangerous. This is probably why
McGill advocates not moving your spine
under load - no movement, no sheer,

for open distribution

which is something the powerlifting-based

kettlebell instructors has adopted. At first
glance this might seem like the right thing
to do but as the human being was
designed to move, movement occurs in
the joints and the spine has a joint
between each vertebrae, it seems
contradictory to what is known about
human design, that we are not supposed
to move it even if it is under load. How
would we have survived the rough life of
the savannah?
Instead of treating the body as a
mechanical device when analyzing
movement we should look at it from a
biologically perspective. A biological
system creates stability by keeping the
joints mobile and open and not
fixed ,braced or superstiff [still would like
to know exactly what the scientific
definition of superstiffness is], which is
something McGill advocates. Based on
the construct of biological systems sheer
forces can be reduced by keeping the
joints mobile under load [ie. lengthened
with movement] by not locking everything
down with tension pain and discomfort
would probably not be so prevalent in the
kettlebell community.
Conclusion
More research should go into mapping
sheer:compression ratios and how to avoid
it by changing the stylistic approach.
Overall McGill & Marshall (2012) presents
a good article which contains more data
than just in regards to the kettlebell swing
and it is recommended to read the full
article. The major problematic issues have
been discussed briefly in this report and it
is encouraged that people interested in
kettlebell training explore more than the
powerlifting-based style/technique of lifting
as research on this topic is still in its
infancy.
References
Please refer to the active links in the text.
Thank you!