(2) COMPARING VERBAL CUEING AND THE CONSTRAINT-LED APPROACH FOR TEACHING THE KETTLEBELL SWING

Purpose: Movement literacy during exercise is a priority to maintain proper form, derive intended benefits, and reduce injury risk.  During a KB swing, verbal and tactile cues may be used to promote proper hip hinge.  However, it remains unclear if the coaching technique impacts hip hinge motor performance during a KB swing.  Traditional coaching may involve the use of static verbal cueing.  Alternatively, constraint-led approach involves external cueing with physical constraints to promote specificity, exploration, and individualization of the movement.  Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare a traditional verbal cueing approach, a constraint-led approach, and a combined approach during a KB swing among individuals with low to average self-reported confidence in performing the KB swing. 

Methods: Seventy-three participants (male = 29, female = 44, mean age = 24.0 ± 5.49 years, height = 166.35 ± 7.05 cm, body mass = 70.65 ± 13.33 kg) were randomly assigned to a physical constraints, verbal constraints, or combined coaching condition. Their KB swing joint angles and subjective confidence ratings were assessed before and after their group intervention. All participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by 5 KB swings to determine baseline joint angle measurements. To follow, each group performed 3 sets of 15 KB swings with coaching provided before each set (based on group assignment). After completion of 3 sets, joint angles were reassessed by performing 5 KB swings, without any form of coaching.   Hip flexion angle was measured before and after the KB swing.  A one-way ANOVA examined for differences in hip flexion angle between groups and alpha was set a 0.05.

Results: No significant differences between groups at baseline were measured (p >0.05), however, a significant increase in hip flexion angle was demonstrated in the physical constraint group compared to verbal cueing group at follow-up (mean difference= 8.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]= -17.0-(-0.36); p< 0.001), suggesting that the type of cueing influenced the subject’s acute changes in technique. Additionally, the combined physical and verbal cueing group did not achieve a significant difference in hip flexion angle within group or between any of the groups across time. Additionally, self-reported confidence in performing the KB swing improved across all groups pre to post (p< 0.001) with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusions: Subjective reporting of confidence in performing the KB swing improved regardless of coaching method.  Although all groups demonstrated similar improvements in joint angles pre to post, hip flexion, an index of maintaining a proper hip hinge, improved in the physical constraints group compared to verbal cueing alone and did not improve in the combined group.  This suggests applying a tactile cue promotes greater immediate change in hip hinge technique during a KB swing compared to verbal cues alone.  While a greater amount of cueing through a combination group may not lead to significant improvements in hip hinging.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Strength and conditioning specialists may consider the use of tactile cues through constraints when training hip hinge technique during a KB swing.  The use of a constraints-led approach by using external cueing or physical constraints is an appropriate means to influence an individual’s confidence and performance of the hip hinge.


Acknowledgements: N/A