2
submitted 3 weeks ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/fitness@lemmy.world
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

They're redundant. It's just a differently shaped dumbbell. Not necessary at all, if dumbbells are available. If dumbbells aren't available, kettlebells are a poor substitute for dumbbells, whereas if kettlebells aren't available and dumbbells are, dumbbells are an OK substitute for kettlebells.

"But what about kettlebell swings?"

NO. Just no.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Kettlebells are focused on compound exercises. I don't know where you came up with this:

If dumbbells aren't available, kettlebells are a poor substitute for dumbbells, whereas if kettlebells aren't available and dumbbells are, dumbbells are an OK substitute for kettlebells.

I can't think of any dumbbell exercises that couldn't use a kettlebell if it's all you had, but dumbbells are not well suited at all to kettlebell exercises.

And I don't know why you hate swings, they're a fantastic way to build squat form.

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)

Fitness

4527 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS