Content uploaded by Paul Comfort
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Comfort on Nov 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Power and Impulse Applied During Push Press Exercise
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify the load that maximized peak and mean power, as well as impulse applied to these loads, during the push press and to compare them to equivalent jump squat data. Resistance-trained men performed two push press (n = 17; age: 25.4 ± 7.4 years; height: 183.4 ± 5 cm; body mass: 87 ± 15.6 kg) and jump squat (n = 8 of original 17; age: 28.7 ± 8.1 years; height: 184.3 ± 5.5 cm; mass: 98 ± 5.3 kg) singles with 10-90% of their push press and back squat 1 RM, respectively, in 10% 1 RM increments while standing on a force platform. Push press peak and mean power was maximized with 75.3 ± 16.4 and 64.7 ± 20% 1RM, respectively, and impulses applied to these loads were 243 ± 29 N.s and 231 ± 36 N.s. Increasing and decreasing load, from the load that maximized peak and mean power, by 10% and 20% 1RM reduced peak and mean power by 6-15% (p < 0.05). Push press and jump squat maximum peak power (7%, p = 0.08) and the impulse that was applied to the load that maximized peak (8%, p = 0.17) and mean (13%, p = 0.91) power were not significantly different, but push press maximum mean power was significantly greater than the jump squat equivalent (∼9.5%, p = 0.03). The mechanical demand of the push press is comparable to the jump squat and could provide a time-efficient combination of lower-body power and upper-body and trunk strength training.
... Weightlifting overhead pressing exercises such as the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ) and split jerk (SJ) are widely used by practitioners to enhance athlete ability to generate high rates of force development and power (Comfort et al., 2016;Lake et al., 2014;Soriano et al., 2019). The PP, PJ, and SJ have similar lower-body motion patterns, which are comparable to the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the propulsion phase of other weightlifting derivatives, such as the hang power clean, as previously established (Hori et al., 2008;Lake et al., 2014;Soriano et al., 2019a). ...
... Weightlifting overhead pressing exercises such as the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ) and split jerk (SJ) are widely used by practitioners to enhance athlete ability to generate high rates of force development and power (Comfort et al., 2016;Lake et al., 2014;Soriano et al., 2019). The PP, PJ, and SJ have similar lower-body motion patterns, which are comparable to the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the propulsion phase of other weightlifting derivatives, such as the hang power clean, as previously established (Hori et al., 2008;Lake et al., 2014;Soriano et al., 2019a). The lifting strategy of the PP, PJ, and SJ involves the dip and thrust phases. ...
... The dip is the shallow squat which corresponds to the sum of the unweighing and braking phases (similar to the CMJ), whereas the thrust is the rapid propulsion phase via extension of the hips and knees and plantar flexion of the ankles. It is during the thrust phase where the highest rate of force development, barbell velocity, and, consequently, power has been recorded (Lake et al., 2007(Lake et al., , 2014. A strictly vertical movement and optimal duration and displacement during the dip and thrust phases are key aspects of success in the PP, PJ, and SJ (Soriano et al., 2019a). ...
This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, η2 ≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.
... The push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ) are weightlifting pressing derivatives that are commonly included in the training programs of sporting and fitness populations (26,33). Researchers have reported the potential performance benefits of these weightlifting pressing variations (3,19,26); however, few studies report the reliability of PP, PJ, or SJ 1RM performance (8,15,21). For example, Lake et al. (21) assessed the kinetics of the PP, while Flores et al. (15) assessed the 1RM during SJ, but neither reported between-session reliability of the 1RM. ...
... Researchers have reported the potential performance benefits of these weightlifting pressing variations (3,19,26); however, few studies report the reliability of PP, PJ, or SJ 1RM performance (8,15,21). For example, Lake et al. (21) assessed the kinetics of the PP, while Flores et al. (15) assessed the 1RM during SJ, but neither reported between-session reliability of the 1RM. By contrast, Comfort et al. (8) reported between-session reliability (ICC 5 0.910) for the 1RM during PP, but did not provide measurement error values. ...
... Warm-up. Subjects completed a modified warm-up protocol conducted previously described by Lake et al. (21). This began with 5 minutes of easy stationary running on a treadmill and continued with 2-3 minutes of upper-and lower-body dynamic stretching. ...
The aim of this study was to determine the validity of performing 3 one repetition maximum (1RM) assessments for the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ) in sequence in one testing session vs. the criterion method (testing on separate days), while determining the between-session reliability of the combined assessment. Twenty-two well-trained men (n = 22; age: 28.5 + 1.3 years; height: 1.80 + 0.04 m; body mass: 84.9 + 1.9 kg; training experience: 4.27 + 4.08 years) participated in this study. The 1RM was assessed in a sequential order in the same testing session (combined 1RM assessment) for the PP, PJ, and SJ on 2 occasions, to determine between-session reliability. The 1RM for each exercise was also examined on 3 separate sessions to compare the results against the combined method. A high reliability, low variability, and low measurement error were evident for the PP (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.960; coefficient of variation [CV] = 1.8%; smallest detectable difference [SDD] = 7.1%), PJ (ICC = 0.978; CV = 1.5%; SDD = 5.4%) and SJ (ICC = 0.987; CV = 0.8%; SDD = 4.6%). In addition, there were no significant (p > 0.05) or meaningful (η2 ≤0.001) differences between the single and combined assessments. The high reliability and validity of the combined assessment suggest that practitioners and researchers may simplify the testing procedure by assessing the 1RM during the 3 main overhead pressing exercises in a single testing session.
... It is would alter the strategy in which they carry out the jumping and jerking as load increased such that the resemblance to CMJ characteristics is altered [19]. In current study the 40% 1RM squat was used as an absolute load to each exercise, which is much higher than the load of 40% 1RM jerk [30]. Thus, the dissimilarity between both jerk conditions to vertical jump was reinforced by the relative higher load in jerk trials. ...
... In the past, studies suggested similarities in kinetic parameters with push press, power clean and jump squat. Lake et al. [30] found the push press enabling application of significantly greater power with less mechanical cost than the jump squat equivalent and suggested that push press could provide a time-efficient combination and effective . CC-BY 4.0 International license made available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. ...
Although weightlifting exercises and their pulling and catching derivatives have been well studied, less is known about the group of weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs). There were two purposes of the present study. Above all, it was to compare WOPDs (i.e. jerk and back jerk) with jump squat in enhancing sport performance such as vertical jump in the perspective of biomechanics. Furthermore, it was to gain a better understanding of the biomechanical difference between jerk and back jerk. The study compared the kinetics, kinematics, and muscle activation of the jerk, back jerk, vertical jump and jump squat. Ground reaction forces, joint angle data and electromyography were collected from 20 track and field athletes while they performed the four movements. The joint coordination pattern and EMG characters of the jump squat were more similar to those of the vertical jump. WOPDs, especially jerk, exhibited less similarity with vertical jump in joint coordination, as well as the subsequent peak activation. The electromyography data demonstrated significant differences in rectus femoris and gluteus maximus in the relative timing of peak activations and the maximum activation. Jump squat was greater in peak force (2211N) than jerk (P < .005), greater peak power (4749W) than jerk and back jerk (P < .001) and no significant difference with WOPDs in rate of force development. Back jerk produced a greater peak force (2223 N), peak power (3767W) and eccentric RFD (15965 N⋅s –1 ) than jerk (2061N)(P < .001) (3364W)(P < .05) (12280 N⋅s –1 )(P < .01)and the opposite in concentric RFD that jerk (7702 N⋅s –1 ) was greater than back jerk (5972 N⋅s –1 )(P < .05). We can conclude that for runner and jumpers, jump squat was better for improving vertical jump than WOPDs and back jerk is better than jerk in power training.
... Jumping-based movements (e.g., plyometrics and ballistic training) have been shown to enhance lower-body power development during chronic training programs (6). However, the acute effects of this method present some limitations; during ballistic jump training such as loaded jump squats, maximal force production is achieved with high loads (27,28), and maximal velocity and power are achieved during unloaded conditions (18,27,35). Unless, when using equipment such as dumbbells or a hexagonal barbell (hexbar) then peak power can be achieved from , 20% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (29,35). ...
Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) can be combined with lower body power-based movements to acutely enhance them, however, currently there are limited recommendations for this training method. AEL can enhance force and power metrics during its utilization with lower body power-based exercises. When employing AEL, exercises should consist of jump squats and countermovement jumps with loading methods consisting of weight releasors or dumbbell hand release. Elastic bands can be utilized, however, more research is needed in this area. External loads ranging from 10 – 30% of body mass can be utilized. Future research needs to investigate increased eccentric and concentric loads when employing AEL with power-based movements.
... Push press is another exercise used in this study which has also been researched. Lake et al. (2014) found that a push press exercise is an effective method to improve power where compared to a squat jump, push press produce a higher maximum mean power. However, Loturco et al. (2015) and Loturco et al. (2016) both found that squat jumps are more effective and more specific to sprinting and jumping performance than push press exercises as the improvements were much higher in 5, 10, 20 and 30m sprint as well as the countermovement jump tests. ...
Power it vital in football as it is utilized for the main movement patterns of the sport, which include sprinting and jumping, where these two happen very frequently and improvements in both can influence the overall performance. Therefore, this study is aimed to examine the influence of resistance training on power development in the lower extremity in relation to enhancing countermovement jump height as well as improving 10 and 20m sprint performance. Male youth elite football players (n=15, age =14.5±1.5, height =164±16.3, body mass =51±14.9) participated in this study over 8 weeks, attending 2 hourly sessions a week. Each session included a dynamic warm up, several resistance training exercises including, back squat, front squat, trap bar deadlift, behind neck push press, clean pull, jump squats, Nordics, lunges with dumbbells and Bulgarian split squat as well as stretches and conditioning work such as balance and trunk. Participants were tested through countermovement jump height for lateral and bi-lateral, as well as 10- and 20-meter sprint times prior, mid and after the training programme. There was a significant improvement in the countermovement jump height for both lateral and bi-lateral. Bi-lateral performance resulted in a significant improvement over the course of 8 weeks (CMJ - Pre. 24.5±3.99cm, Mid. 26.9±4.82cm, and Post. 28.4±4.56cm) (p = 0.05). There was also a significant improvement in the lateral for both left and right legged countermovement jump. ((Left) Pre = 15.64±2.62cm, mid = 16.9±2.24cm and post = 17.7±2.10cm (p = 0.025)) ((Right) Pre =14.5±2.82cm, mid =15.5±2.6cm and post =17±2.27cm (p =0.013)). However, there was no significant difference in both 10 and 20m sprints. (10m Pre =2.036±0.091s and post = 2.030667±0.098s (p = 0.620)) and 20m (pre =3.562±0.2s and post =3.5293±0.21s (p= 0.928)). Therefore, the conclusion for this study is that 8 weeks twice a week resistance training program has a significant improvement in jumping performance for both unilateral and bi-lateral however, not the sprinting performance including 10 and 20m.
... Another benefit may be seen during the competitive phases of an annual periodized plan, whereby athletes have reduced time to devote to strength and conditioning. At such times, total body exercises such as the truck pull and push press may allow high kinetic outputs to be generated through the primary upper and lower body musculature within the one exercise [49]. ...
Background:
The sport of strongman is becoming increasingly popular, catering for females, lightweight, and Masters competitors, with strongman exercises also being used by strength and conditioning coaches for a range of athletic groups. Thus, a systematic review was conducted to examine researchers' current understanding of the biomechanics of strongman exercises, with a view to improve strongman athlete performance, provide biomechanical evidence supporting the transferability of strongman exercises to strength and conditioning/rehabilitation programs, and identify gaps in the current knowledge of the biomechanics of strongman exercises.
Methods:
A two-level search term strategy was used to search five databases for studies relevant to strongman exercises and biomechanics.
Results:
Eleven articles adherent to the inclusion criteria were returned from the search. The studies provided preliminary biomechanical analysis of various strongman exercises including the key biomechanical performance determinants of the farmer's walk, heavy sled pull, and tire flip. Higher performing athletes in the farmer's walk and heavy sled pull were characterized by a greater stride length and stride rate and reduced ground contact time, while higher performing athletes in the tire flip were characterized by a reduced second pull phase time when compared with lower performing athletes. Qualitative comparison of carrying/walking, pulling and static lifting strongman, traditional weight training exercises (TWTE), and common everyday activities (CEA), like loaded carriage and resisted sprinting, were discussed to further researchers' understanding of the determinants of various strongman exercises and their applications to strength and conditioning practice. A lack of basic quantitative biomechanical data of the yoke walk, unilateral load carriage, vehicle pull, atlas stone lift and tire flip, and biomechanical performance determinants of the log lift were identified.
Conclusions:
This review has demonstrated the likely applicability and benefit of current and future strongman exercise biomechanics research to strongman athletes and coaches, strength and conditioning coaches considering using strongman exercises in a training program, and tactical operators (e.g., military, army) and other manual labor occupations. Future research may provide a greater understanding of the biomechanical determinants of performance, potential training adaptations, and risks expected when performing and/or incorporating strongman exercises into strength and conditioning or injury rehabilitation programs.
The vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and front foot sagittal plane movement of the weightlifting jerk were recorded from seven weightlifters. Average knee flexion during the dip phase was 58 ± 9 degrees (mean ± SD) at an average angular velocity of 125 ± 16 degrees.s-1 exerting a vertical impulse of 138 ± 17.3 Ns. The peak rate of force development was 17.2 ± 4.86 BW.s-1 , the VGRF continuing to increase from a propulsion impulse of 113.7 ± 31.2 Ns to a peak drive phase value of 3.5 ± 1.2 BW, extending the knees by 54 ± 9 degrees. The front foot catch phase peak impact VGRF was 3.4 ± 1.2 BW loading at a rate of 285 ±119 BW.s-1. The results indicate that although loading rates are not excessive during the catch phase, careful consideration should be given before introducing the jerk into the strength and conditioning program of the inexperienced.
There is a paucity of evidence-based support for the allocation of rest interval duration between incremental loads in the assessment of the load-power profile. We examined the effect of rest interval duration on muscular power production in the load-power profile, and sought to determine if greater rest is required with increasing load (i.e. variable rest interval). Ten physically trained males completed four experimental conditions in a cross-over, balanced design. Participants performed jump squats across incremental loads (0-60 kg) on four occasions, with an allocated recovery interval of 1, 2, 3, or 4 minutes. The mean log transformed power output at each load was used for comparison between conditions (rest intervals). Unloaded jump squats (0 kg) maximised power output at each condition. Pmax was 66.6 ± 6.5 W[BULLET OPERATOR]kg (1 min), 66.2 ± 5.2 W[BULLET OPERATOR]kg (2 min), 67.1 ± 5.9 W[BULLET OPERATOR]kg (3 min), and 66.2 ± 6.5 W[BULLET OPERATOR]kg (4 min). Trivial or unclear differences in power output were observed between rest intervals at each incremental load. As expected, power declined per 10kg increment in load, the magnitude of decrease was 13.9-14.5% (CL: ± 1.3-2.0%) and 13.4-14.6% (CL: ± 2.4-3.9%) for relative peak and mean power respectively, yet differences in power output between conditions were likely insubstantial. The prescription of rest intervals between loads that are longer than 1 min have a likely negligible effect on muscular power production in the jump squat incremental load-power profile. Practitioners should select either a 1-4 min rest interval to best accommodate the logistical constraints of their monitoring sessions.
This study examined the relative effectiveness of two leading forms of athletic training in enhancing dynamic performance in various tests. Thirty-three men who participated in various regional level sports, but who had not previously performed resistance training, were randomly assigned to either a maximal power training program, a combined weight and plyometric program, or a nontraining control group. The maximal power group performed weighted jump squats and bench press throws using a load that maximized the power output of the exercise. The combined group underwent traditional heavy weight training in the form of squats, and bench press and plyometric training in the form of depth jumps and medicine ball throws. The training consisted of 2 sessions a week for 8 weeks. Both training groups were equally effective in enhancing a variety of performance measures such as jumping, cycling, throwing, and lifting.
(C) 1996 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Films taken at the first Women’s World Weightlifting Championship were analyzed to determine the average power output during the total pulling phase, and the second pull phase, for the heaviest successful snatch and clean lift of gold medalists in each of nine body-weight divisions. Comparisons were made with previously published data on power output by male lifters in World and Olympic competition. Average relative power output values were one and a half to two times greater for both men and women when only the second pull phase of each lift was analyzed. Results show that women can generate higher short-term power outputs than previously documented, but lower than for men in absolute values and relative to body mass. Male/female comparisons in other high power sport events and basic strength measures are discussed. The high power outputs suggest the value of including the types of lifts analyzed in training programs to improve short-term power output.
Subjects performed maximum vertical jumps on a force platform to reveal whether resulting force-time curves could identify characteristics of good performances. Instantaneous power-time curves were also derived from the force-time curves. Eighteen temporal and kinetic variables were calculated from the force- and power-time curves and were compared with the takeoff velocities and maximum heights via correlation and multiple regression. The large variability in the patterns of force application between the subjects made it difficult to identify important characteristics of a good performance. Maximum positive power was found to be an excellent single predictor of height, but the best three-predictor model, not including maximum power, could only explain 66.2% of the height variance. A high maximum force (> 2 body weights) was found to be necessary but not sufficient for a good performance. Some subjects had low jumps in spite of generating high peak forces, which indicated that the pattern of force applica...
This study examined the relative effectiveness of two leading forms of athletic training in enhancing dynamic performance in various tests. Thirty-three men who participated in various regional level sports, but who had not previously performed resistance training, were randomly assigned to either a maximal power training program, a combined weight and plyometric program, or a nontraining control group. The maximal power group performed weighted jump squats and bench press throws using a load that maximized the power output of the exercise. The combined group underwent traditional heavy weight training in the form of squats, and bench press and plyometric training in the form of depth jumps and medicine ball throws. The training consisted of 2 sessions a week for 8 weeks. Both training groups were equally effective in enhancing a variety of performance measures such as jumping, cycling, throwing, and lifting.