ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVATIVES MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN A SEQUENCED PROGRESSION THROUGHOUT THE TRAINING YEAR TO OPTIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATHLETE’S STRENGTH, RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND POWER OUTPUT. WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVATIVES CAN BE PROGRAMMED EFFECTIVELY BY CONSIDERING THEIR FORCE–VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS TO MEET THE SPECIFIC TRAINING GOALS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING PHASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TYPICAL APPLICATION OF PERIODIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enhancing the Force–
Velocity Profile of
Athletes Using Weight-
lifting Derivatives
Timothy J. Suchomel, PhD, CSCS*D,
1
Paul Comfort, PhD, CSCS*D,
2
and Jason P. Lake, PhD
3
1
Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin;
2
Directorate of Sport, Exercise
and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom; and
3
Department of Sport and
Exercise Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND
THEIR DERIVATIVES MAY BE IM-
PLEMENTED IN A SEQUENCED
PROGRESSION THROUGHOUT
THE TRAINING YEAR TO OPTIMIZE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATH-
LETE’S STRENGTH, RATE OF
FORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND
POWER OUTPUT. WEIGHTLIFTING
MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVA-
TIVES CAN BE PROGRAMMED
EFFECTIVELY BY CONSIDERING
THEIR FORCE–VELOCITY CHAR-
ACTERISTICS AND PHYSIOLOGI-
CAL UNDERPINNINGS TO MEET
THE SPECIFIC TRAINING GOALS
OF RESISTANCE TRAINING PHA-
SES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TYPICAL APPLICATION OF PERIO-
DIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS.
INTRODUCTION
Weightlifting movements (i.e.,
full lifts including the snatch,
clean and jerk) and their de-
rivatives (i.e., variations that omit part
of the full lift) have been shown to pro-
vide a superior lower extremity train-
ing stimulus compared with other
forms of training including jumping
(106), powerlifting (51), and kettlebell
exercise (71). This is likely due to the
similarities between the rate and pat-
tern of hip, knee, and ankle triple exten-
sion that occur during weightlifting
movements and sport skills such as ver-
tical jumping (7,8,36,52,53,81), sprint-
ing (52), and change of direction
tasks (52), as well as the ability to pro-
vide an overload stimulus (95). In addi-
tion, it has been suggested that
weightlifting movements may be used
to train the muscular strength that is
required during impact tasks, such as
jump landing (68). As a result, many
practitioners implement weightlifting
movements and their derivatives into
resistance training programs for ath-
letes (95). The proper implementation
and progression of resistance training
exercises throughout the training year
facilitates the optimal development of
the force–velocity profile of athletes
(22,23), which has been suggested to
be an important aspect regarding ath-
letic performance (4,69,83). Thus,
information that may assist practi-
tioners when it comes to programming
exercises to optimally develop these
characteristics would be beneficial.
Previous research has investigated
the training effects of various resis-
tance training methods; however,
limited information exists beyond
the manipulation of the sets and rep-
etitions. Ebben et al. (31,32) investi-
gated the effects of a 6-week
plyometric training program on the
development of lower-body explo-
siveness. In addition to the manipula-
tion of sets and repetitions, these
studies programmed exercises within
periodized programs to vary the
intensity of the training stimulus.
Regarding squat movements, the
exercise stimulus may be varied based
on the depth and variation of the
squat (49) as well as the load that is
prescribed. Ultimately, this will mod-
ify the force–velocity characteristics
of the training stimulus, but may
enable the full development of the
athlete’s force–velocity profile. Pre-
vious literature has indicated that the
combination of heavy and light loads
with different exercises, and during
work sets, warm-up sets, and warm-
down sets with the same exercise,
enables the full development of the
athlete’s force–velocity profile (38).
Although information on how to
impact an athlete’s force–velocity
profile using plyometrics and other
Address correspondence to Dr. Timothy J.
Suchomel, timothy.suchomel@gmail.com.
KEY WORDS:
resistance training; rate of force devel-
opment; power output; periodization;
power clean; snatch
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 1
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
forms of resistance training exists
(3,10,20,64), less information exists
on the implementation of weightlift-
ing movements and their derivatives.
Traditionally, weightlifting movements
and their derivatives are programmed
into resistance training programs
where the athletes usually perform
the catch phase of the movement.
Although previous research supports
the notion that weightlifting catching
derivatives may train an athlete’s ability
to “absorb” a load during impact activ-
ities (68), more recent studies indicate
that weightlifting pulling derivatives
that exclude the catch phase may pro-
duce a similar or greater load absorp-
tion stimulus (i.e., loading work, mean
force, and duration) following the sec-
ond pull compared with weightlifting
catching derivatives (17,99). Moreover,
further research has demonstrated that
weightlifting pulling derivatives pro-
duce comparable (11,12) or greater
(60,102,104,105) force, velocity, and
power characteristics during the sec-
ond pull compared with weightlifting
movements that include a catch ele-
ment. Although the complete removal
of weightlifting catching derivatives is
not being suggested, the integration of
weightlifting pulling derivatives into
resistance training programs should
be considered for the comprehensive
development of an athlete’s force–
velocity profile, as elimination of the
catch phase permits the use of greater
loads (i.e., greater forces) (14,16,39)
and potentially greater velocities
(95,101). By using higher loads (i.e.,
.100% 1 repetition maximum [RM]
clean/snatch) during the pulling de-
rivatives, it is likely that greater in-
creases in strength may occur (2,88,89).
Although the use of weightlifting
movements typically results in a low
injury rate (44), previous literature
indicated that training exclusively with
the full weightlifting movements
involving the catch may result in
a greater potential for injury (63,82).
An additional benefit of the pulling
derivatives is the reduced technical
demand (i.e., removal of the catch
phase), which may (a) make the
movements easier for athletes to learn
due to fewer technical components and
(b) may reduce injury potential due to
the relatively neutral position of the
shoulders, elbows, and wrists during
the second pull phase (89). To properly
program weightlifting movements and
their derivatives, additional informa-
tion is needed. The purpose of this
review is to discuss the sequenced
implementation of weightlifting de-
rivatives in resistance training pro-
grams based on their force–velocity
characteristics for the optimal devel-
opment of the rate of force develop-
ment (RFD) and power characteristics
of athletes.
WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVE
FORCE–VELOCITY CURVE
Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical
relationship between force and veloc-
ity with special consideration to
weightlifting derivatives. The high
force end of the force–velocity
curve features weightlifting de-
rivatives that develop the largest
forces due to the loads that can be
used. For example, previous literature
has indicated that the midthigh
pull (14,16,26,55), countermovement
shrug (25), pull from the knee (29),
and pull from the floor (27,39,110)
tend to enable the use of loads in
excess of the athlete’s 1RM power or
hang power clean/snatch. This is due
to the decreased displacement of the
external load during each movement.
In contrast, the high velocity end of
the force–velocity curve features
weightlifting derivatives that are
more ballistic in nature and typically
use lighter loads. The placement of
the jump shrug and hang high pull on
the force–velocity curve is supported
by previous research demonstrating
that the jump shrug (104,105) and the
hang high pull (104) produced higher
velocities compared with the hang
power clean. Moreover, previous
research also indicates that these
exercises may be best prescribed
using lighter loads to maximize
power and velocity (60,92,94,102–
105). Additional research also sup-
ports the placement of the power
clean, power clean from the knee, and
midthigh power clean based on the
1RM (i.e., greater force or less force)
that may be achieved for each
exercise (56).
Although Figure 1 displays the general
force–velocity characteristics of
weightlifting catching and pulling de-
rivatives, the load used during each
exercise may influence its position on
the force–velocity curve. For example,
the midthigh pull is highlighted as the
weightlifting derivative that enables the
use of the heaviest loads (e.g., 140%
Figure 1. Force–velocity (power) curve with respect to weightlifting derivatives.
Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
2
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
1RM of power clean) as indicated by
Comfort et al. (14,16). However, the
same studies indicated that velocity
was maximized with the lightest load
(i.e., 40% 1RM power clean), demon-
strating that by manipulating the load,
the exercise may change its position on
the force–velocity curve. On the
opposite end of the force–velocity
curve, the jump shrug is highlighted
as the weightlifting derivative that
maximizes velocity (92,104). Despite
its potential to produce greater peak
forces compared to the hang high pull
and hang power clean (102,104), using
the jump shrug to develop speed–
strength characteristics may be pref-
erential to other exercises considering
that higher velocities have been re-
ported at the same or similar loads
compared with the hang high pull,
hang power clean, clean pull from the
floor, and midthigh pull. Concurrently,
using the midthigh pull to develop
maximal strength qualities may be
preferential to other exercises as
research has examined loads upward to
140% 1RM (14,16), which would
enhance high force production capac-
ity. Although the previous information
outlines just 2 examples, additional
literature has described the versatility
of weightlifting derivatives through
a properly developed training plan
using seamless and sequential pro-
gramming (21,24). Figure 2 presents
a more detailed proposal of how load
may affect the force–velocity charac-
teristics of the weightlifting derivatives
described in Figure 1 that may aid
strength and conditioning practitioners
when it comes to implementing them
in training.
PERIODIZATION MODEL FOR
WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVES
Previous literature has suggested that
a seamless and sequential progression
of training phases facilitates the optimal
development of the athlete’s force–
velocity profile (22,23,38,67,84,85,112).
This approach, which utilizes phase
potentiation, is often found in models
that use conjugate sequential pro-
gramming (i.e., sequenced develop-
ment and emphasis of fitness
characteristics through block periodi-
zation) (21,24,84,85). Using similar
concepts described in the literature
(67,112), increases in work capacity
and muscle cross-sectional area pro-
duced during a strength–endurance
phase will enhance an athlete’s abil-
ity to increase their muscular strength
in subsequent training phases. From
here, increases in muscular strength
will then enhance an athlete’s potential
to improve their RFD and power
output. A similar approach may be
taken when prescribing weightlifting
derivatives. Because certain weight-
lifting derivatives place greater
emphasis on either force or velocity, it
seems that a sequential progression
and combination of weightlifting de-
rivatives may benefit the athlete when
it comes to developing RFD and
power. Moreover, the technique
learned/refined during earlier training
phases may facilitate increases in the
load used for each exercise.
While much of the comparative litera-
ture indicates that a true block period-
ization model may provide superior
training outcomes for individual sport
athletes (22), it should be noted that
weightlifting derivatives may also be im-
plemented effectively with team sport
athletes using a multilevel block model
such as those discussed by Zatsiorsky
(113), Verkhoshansky and Tatyan
(109), and Bondarchuk (6). Using these
training models, various attributes of
athletes may be developed simulta-
neously while avoiding any potential in-
creases in training volume that may
result in an accumulation in fatigue.
RESISTANCE TRAINING PHASIC
PROGRESSION
Each resistance training phase has
its own unique characteristics that
Figure 2. Proposed guidelines for the force–velocity characteristics of weightlifting derivatives with respect to load. Blue 5studied
loads; red 5hypothetical loads; gray area 5comparable force–velocity characteristics at given load ranges.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 3
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
include specific goals, set and repeti-
tion schemes, and loads. However,
another aspect that must be consid-
ered is the selection of exercises to
meet the training goals of each resis-
tance training phase. Although core
exercises such as squatting, pressing,
and pulling movements may be pre-
scribed in every training phase, the
characteristics of each weightlifting
derivative depicted in Figure 1 may
lead practitioners to prescribe cer-
tain derivatives in specific training
phases. Specifically, the biomechan-
ical and physiological characteristics
of each weightlifting derivative may
indicate that certain derivatives
should be prescribed during certain
training phases to meet the training
goals of each phase. A recent article
discussed the implementation of
weightlifting derivatives when devel-
oping sprint speed (21). The authors
noted that specific derivatives
should be implemented during the
general preparation, special prepara-
tion, early–midseason, and mid–late-
season phases of training to achieve
optimal adaptations of strength,
RFD, and power while training
through specific joint angles that are
characteristic to different phases of
sprinting.
The following paragraphs will discuss
the characteristics of strength–
endurance, maximal strength, absolute
strength, strength–speed, and speed–
strength resistance training phases
and the recommended weightlifting
derivatives to prescribe in each training
phase for the optimal development of
an athlete’s force–velocity profile based
on the biomechanical and physiologi-
cal characteristics of each exercise.
Examples of strength and power
development programming using
phase potentiation are displayed in
Tables 1–5. It should be noted that the
loads displayed in each table represent
relative intensities based on the specific
set and repetition configurations as
described by previous literature (23,86).
Using this method of load prescription,
the load percentage is based off of
a RM for each individual exercise. For
example, performing 3 sets of 10 rep-
etitions of the back squat at 90% is
based on 90% of the athlete’s 10RM
back squat. It should also be noted that
lighter intensities were prescribed on
day 3 of each table to allow for ade-
quate recovery and the reduced chance
of accumulated fatigue and over-
training (23), but also to ensure that
a variety of power outputs would be
used resulting in positive adaptations to
the power–load spectrum (48,72).
Lastly, practitioners should note that
the example training blocks may follow
a return to fitness training period
(typically 1–2 weeks), where large
emphases are placed on exercise
technique and recovery in preparation
for the subsequent training blocks.
STRENGTH–ENDURANCE
The strength–endurance phase is
characterized by a high volume of
repetitions (usually 8–12) in exercises
that use moderately heavy loads (;55–
75% 1RM) (86). The goals of this
Table 1
Example strength–endurance training block using relative intensities
based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
1 Strength–endurance 3 310 85 85 75–77.5
2 Strength–endurance 3 310 90 90 80
3 Strength–endurance 3 310 92.5 92.5 80–82.5
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
Day 1 (push emphasis): back squat, overhead press, barbell lunges, and bench press.
Day 2 (pull emphasis): clean grip pull to knee (clean grip pull to knee performed for 3 35
throughout block to maintain technique integrity; clean grip/snatch grip pull from the floor
may be substituted with advanced athletes using cluster sets of 2 or 5 repetitions to maintain
technique integrity), clean grip shoulder shrug, stiff-legged deadlift, and pull-ups.
Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip shoulder shrug, front squat, incline bench press, and
dumbbell step-ups.
Table 2
Example maximal strength training block using relative intensities based on
attainable loads for sets and repetitions
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
4 Maximal strength 3 35 87.5 87.5 75–77.5
5 Maximal strength 3 35 90 90 77.5–80
6 Absolute strength 3 35 95 95 80–82.5
7 Maximal strength 3 35 82.5 82.5 75–77.5
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
Day 1 (push emphasis): front squat, overhead press, barbell split squat, and incline bench
press.
Day 2 (pull emphasis): clean grip midthigh pull, clean grip pull from floor, glute–ham raises,
and bent over row.
Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip midthigh pull, back squat, bench press, and reverse
hyperextensions.
Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
4
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
training phase are to increase the ath-
lete’s overall work capacity and to
stimulate increases in muscle cross-
sectional area. According to Minetti
(67) and Zamparo et al. (112), the
strength–endurance phase serves as
a building block for subsequent resis-
tance training phases. Specifically, the
strength–endurance phase will
enhance the athlete’s force production
(both magnitude and rate) character-
istics in subsequent training phases
(22,23,85). In addition, the technique
learned during the strength–endurance
phase is likely to carry over into later
training phases. Thus, it is important to
implement exercises that serve as
a foundation for future exercise
progressions.
Although foundational exercises such
as squatting, pressing, and pulling varia-
tions are typically implemented, only
one article has discussed the use
of weightlifting derivatives within
a strength–endurance phase (75). Scala
et al. (75) indicated that implementing
exercises, including weightlifting pulling
derivatives (i.e., clean/snatch pull from
floor, thigh, and knee and clean/
snatch grip shoulder shrugs), that
recruit large amounts of muscle mass
during a high volume strength–
endurance phase may result in posi-
tive adaptations in aerobic power and
body composition, but would also
meet many basic requirements for the
preparation of strength–power ath-
letes. Based on these findings and the
goals of a strength–endurance phase,
the weightlifting derivatives recom-
mended for this phase are the clean/
snatch pull from the floor (27,39,110),
pull to the knee (28), and clean/
snatch grip shoulder shrug. The
rationale for the inclusion of these
exercises is multifaceted. First, each
derivative serves as a foundational
exercise that enables the progression
to more complex weightlifting
movements. Without the ability to
complete the above exercises, the
technique of more complex de-
rivatives may not be completed effi-
ciently, potentially impacting the
stimulus of the exercise. Second, the
clean/snatch pull from the floor en-
ables athletes to overload the triple
extension of the hips, knees, and an-
kles without experiencing the addi-
tional stress and complexity of
catching the load during every repe-
tition as fatigue develops. Although
the catch phase of certain weightlift-
ing derivatives may enable the athlete
to develop additional characteristics
(e.g., improvement in skeletal and soft
tissue characteristics (50,91), posi-
tional strength, external load accep-
tance, etc.), the high volume of
repetitions experienced during the
strength–endurance phase may lead
to a deterioration in form due to acute
fatigue. Moreover, this decline in
technique could alter catch phase
mechanics and thus increase the
likelihood of injury or compression
stress. Although declines in technique
during weightlifting catching derivatives
may be attenuated by using various
cluster set configurations with higher
repetitions (46), previous literature
indicated that may be necessary to
reduce the number of collisions with the
bar, especially during heavy clean and
Table 3
Example transition to absolute strength training block using relative
intensities based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
8 Maximal strength 5 35 87.5 87.5 75–77.5
9 Maximal strength 3 35 92.5 92.5 80
10 Absolute strength 3 35 95–97.5 95–97.5 82.5
11 Maximal strength–strength–
speed
333 80–82.5 80–82.5 75
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
Day 1 (push emphasis): push press, back squat, bench press, and squat and press.
Day 2 (pull emphasis): midthigh power clean, clean grip pull from floor, stiff-legged deadlift,
and pull-ups.
Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip countermovement shrug, back squat, incline bench
press, and barbell split squat.
Table 4
Example absolute strength training block using relative intensities based on
attainable loads for sets and repetitions
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
12 Absolute strength 5 33 85–87.5 85–87.5 75
13 Absolute strength 3 33 92.5 92.5 75–77.5
14 Absolute strength 3 33 95 95 80–82.5
15 Strength–speed 3 32 80–82.5 80–82.5 75
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
Day 1 (push emphasis): push jerk, back squat, bench press, and parallel squat jumps.
Day 2 (pull emphasis): power clean, clean grip midthigh pull, and bent over row.
Day 3 (push–pull combo): midthigh power snatch, back squat, and push press.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 5
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
jerks, to limit potential overuse injuries
(82). Finally, the suggested derivatives
enable the development of important
lower- and upper-body musculature
that will be used to enhance the
force–velocity profile during later
training phases in tandem with core
exercises such as squatting, pressing,
and pulling movements. An example
strength–endurance training block is
displayed in Table 1.
It should be noted that the athletic
population may dictate which weight-
lifting movements are prescribed in
a strength–endurance training block.
For example, the clean/snatch pull
from the floor may only be incorpo-
rated with an advanced athletic pop-
ulation whose movement mechanics
are more stable and resilient to fatigue.
As mentioned above, because of the
high volume of repetitions within each
exercise set, practitioners may consider
prescribing cluster sets (i.e., exercise set
split into smaller sets of repetitions
separated by rest intervals) of either
2–5 repetitions for the clean/snatch
pull from the floor (e.g., 10 total rep-
etitions 55 repetitions /30-second
rest /5 repetitions). Through the use
of cluster sets, athletes may maintain
their technique, force, and power out-
put in subsequent training phases that
use heavier loads (39,46,47). This may
also lead to high-quality work,
enhanced work capacity, and force
production adaptations with a high vol-
ume of repetitions (107). Moreover, the
interrepetition rest period also provides
the coach with the opportunity to pro-
vide additional feedback to the athlete.
MAXIMAL STRENGTH
Adaptations produced from the
strength–endurance phase of train-
ing may enhance an athlete’s ability
to gain maximal strength (67,112).
The primary goal of the maximal
strength phase is to increase the
athlete’s force production capacity
(5,89) using repetition schemes that
include about 4–6 repetitions and
moderately heavy loads (usually 80–
90% 1RM, although potentially
slightly higher with the pulling de-
rivatives). Based on the goals of the
maximal strength phase, practitioners
may shift their focus to exercises that
emphasize force production. From
a biomechanical standpoint, the
amount of force that must be applied
to achieve the maximum potential
movement velocity will be maxi-
mized by performing weightlifting
movements that allow the heaviest
loads to be used. With this in mind,
a limitation to weightlifting catching
derivatives is that the athlete cannot
use loads greater than their 1RM.
However, this is not the case for
weightlifting pulling derivatives. The
clean/snatch pull from the floor
(27,39,110), clean/snatch pull from
the knee (29), and the clean/snatch
midthigh pull (14,16,26,55) all allow
for loads greater than the athlete’s
1RM to be used due to a decreased
displacement of the load and the
elimination of the catch phase. Ulti-
mately, the use of heavier loads will
emphasize force production and train
the high force end of the force–
velocity curve (Figure 1). Examples
of maximal strength and transition
training blocks are displayed in Ta-
bles 2 and 3, respectively.
ABSOLUTE STRENGTH
Although the maximal strength train-
ing block typically aims to increase the
athlete’s general strength characteris-
tics during moderate repetition
schemes (i.e., 4–6), the goals of an
absolute strength training block are to
improve the athlete’s low repetition
(i.e., 2–3) force production (both mag-
nitude and rate) characteristics using
near maximal loads (usually 90–95%
1RM, although this can increase to
120–140% 1RM with the pulling deriv-
atives). As new force production de-
mands are placed on the athlete,
additional weightlifting derivatives
may be prescribed to meet the training
goals of the absolute strength resis-
tance training phase. Weightlifting de-
rivatives featured in the previous
resistance training phase, including
the clean/snatch pull from the floor,
clean/snatch pull from the knee, and
midthigh pull, will carry over into the
absolute strength resistance training
phase. Although these derivatives
enable the athlete to retain their capac-
ity for high force production, addi-
tional weightlifting derivatives that
include a higher velocity may be pre-
scribed during warm-up and warm-
down sets and on training days where
relative intensities are prescribed to
lower the volume–load, while intro-
ducing or retaining a speed–strength
characteristic. These might include
the hang power clean/snatch (93),
power clean/snatch, countermove-
ment shrug (25), countermovement
clean/snatch, midthigh clean/snatch
(11,12,15), and the full clean and
snatch. The combination of heavy and
moderate loads that enable a higher
velocity also enables the athlete to train
the high force side in addition to
Table 5
Example strength–speed and speed–strength training block using relative
intensities based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
16 Speed–strength 4 3285 85 75
17 Strength–speed 3 32 90 90 77.5
18 Speed–strength 2 32 82.5–85 82.5 75
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
Day 1: push jerk, back squat, bench press, and ¼ squat jumps.
Day 2: countermovement power clean and clean grip jump shrug.
Day 3: countermovement power snatch, back squat, and push press.
Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
6
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
aspects of the high velocity side. This is
important during the absolute strength
phase as it enables the athlete to
improve their force–velocity profile.
These adaptations will ultimately
contribute to the athlete’s ability to
further develop impulse, RFD, and
power characteristics (3). An absolute
strength training block example is
displayed in Table 4.
STRENGTH–SPEED
The primary goals of the strength–
speed training phase are to further
increase RFD and power, while also
maintaining or potentially increasing
strength levels. Practitioners should
note the importance of maintaining or
continuing to develop maximal strength
during the strength–speed phase due to
its influence on an athlete’s sport per-
formance and their fitness character-
istics including both RFD and power
(100). Because previous literature has
indicated that RFD and power are 2 of
the most important characteristics
regarding an athlete’s performance
(4,69,83), it is important to prepare the
athlete to maximize these adaptations
using the previously discussed training
phases (22,23). Based on the phasic
progression of resistance training pha-
ses, increases in muscular strength (100)
and RFD (3) from the previous training
phases should, in theory, enhance the
athlete’s ability to augment their power
characteristics.
Regarding the programming of weight-
lifting derivatives during the strength–
speed phase, the enhancement of
RFD and power characteristics may be
achieved through the combination of
heavy and light loads. However, the
emphasis within this phase of training is
to move relatively heavy loads quickly
to enhance RFD characteristics (21).
Using the derivatives displayed in Fig-
ure 1, the midthigh clean/snatch
(11,12,15), countermovement clean/
snatch (93), and power clean/snatch
from the knee (15,98) may be used to
develop the high velocity portion of the
force–velocity curve, whereas the power
clean (13,19), clean and snatch pull from
the floor (27), clean and snatch pull from
the knee (29), and midthigh pull (26)
may develop the high force end of the
force–velocity curve.
SPEED–STRENGTH
Explosive strength may be defined as
the force development characteristics
within the first 0–250 milliseconds of
the concentric phase of a movement
(1,65). The purpose of a speed–
strength resistance training phase is to
produce peak adaptations in RFD and
power before competition. The adapta-
tions and alterations in task specificity in
the previous training phases enable
athletes to progress in a desirable fashion
to increase their speed–strength (i.e.,
explosiveness) (5,89,90). Specifically, in-
creases in rate coding due to increased
myelination, dendritic branching, and
doublets(30,108)mayhaveresulted
because of the exposure of heavier loads
in the maximal strength, absolute
strength, and strength–speed training
phases. Additional adaptations in neural
drive (40,42,70), inter- and possibly intra-
muscular coordination (9,41,43,74), and
motor unit synchronization (76,77) may
also aid in the development of explosive
force–time characteristics.
Optimal adaptations in RFD and
power may be achieved by implement-
ing a wide variety of the previously
described weightlifting derivatives.
Many of the previously described
weightlifting derivatives may be pre-
scribed during the speed–strength
resistance training phase. However,
the speed at which the movement is
performed, and therefore the load, must
be considered. The jump shrug (97) and
hang high pull (96) are 2 of the most
ballistic weightlifting derivatives that
may be highlighted in a speed–strength
training phase (95). Similar to the
strength–speed phase, a combination of
heavy and light loaded derivatives
should be implemented to optimize
RFD and power adaptations. Practi-
tioners may consider implementing the
combination of the midthigh pull or
clean/snatch pull from the floor and the
jump shrug and hang high pull to
focus training on each extreme of the
force–velocity curve (Figure 1). In
addition, the combination of the above
exercises enables the athlete to simulate
overcoming the inertia of the external
load from a static start (e.g., midthigh
pull) and using the stretch-shortening
cycle (e.g., jump shrug). This combina-
tion will ultimately place varying neuro-
logical demands on the athlete, allowing
them to optimize impulse, RFD, and
power characteristics.
Practitioners must also consider the
loads implemented with each exercise
within the speed–strength phase. To
optimize power adaptations, it has
been suggested that athletes should
train at the load that maximizes power
output, the “optimal load” (54,111).
Research has indicated that loads of
approximately 70–80% 1RM may
provide the optimal load for weight-
lifting catching derivatives such as the
power clean (13,18,19,78) and hang
power clean (53,57,78). However, sev-
eral of these studies indicated that
there were no statistical differences in
power output between loads ranging
from 50 to 90% 1RM (13,18,19,53,57).
Research investigating the optimal
load for weightlifting pulling de-
rivatives is limited because of the lack
of criteria that indicates a successful
repetition (100). However, several
studies have suggested that lighter
loads (i.e., 30–45% 1RM hang power
clean) may optimize training stimuli for
the jump shrug (60,92,102–105) and
hang high pull (94,102,104). Similarly,
Comfort et al. (14,16) indicated that
during midthigh clean pulls, loads
ranging from 40 to 60% of power clean
1RM maximized power, similar to the
findings of Kawamori et al. (55).
Additional literature has indicated that
loads ranging 90–110% of the in-
dividual’s 1RM power clean (39) or full
clean/snatch (33–35,73) may produce
the optimal training stimulus for
velocity and power adaptations during
the clean/snatch pull from the floor.
Practitioners should however consider
that the optimal load for power pro-
duction may be specific to the joint,
athlete plus load system, or the bar
(66), may be altered based on the rel-
ative strength of the athlete (87), and
may be impacted by movement pattern
and the fatigue status of the athlete
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 7
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(54). Although optimal loading studies
may provide practitioners with a base-
line for load prescription, it is suggested
that a range of loads should be pre-
scribed to train various aspects of an
athlete’s force–velocity profile (38).
Support for this contention comes
from a recent meta-analysis that dis-
played that optimal loading zones ex-
isted for a variety of lower-body
exercises (78). An example of
a strength–speed and speed–strength
training block is displayed in Table 5.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
LOAD PRESCRIPTION
Two methods of load prescription
can be used when implementing the
weightlifting derivatives discussed in
the previous paragraphs. Tradition-
ally, loads for weightlifting deriva-
tives may be prescribed based off of
the 1RM of each exercise. Although
this may still hold true for weightlift-
ing catch derivatives, there are no
criteria describing what constitutes
a successful 1RM attempt during
weightlifting pulling derivatives
(100). Thus, practitioners are left
prescribing the loads for weightlift-
ing pulling derivatives based on
a 1RM of a weightlifting catching
derivative. The vast majority of liter-
ature that has examined weightlifting
derivatives used a percentage of
a 1RM completed with a catching deriv-
ative (11–14,16,19,37,39,45–47,53,55,57–
62,79,80,92–94,102–105,110). Although
this method may work for some practi-
tioners, others may discourage the prac-
tice of 1RM tests, which may make it
difficult to prescribe loads for pulling
derivatives.
Another alternative to prescribing
loads for weightlifting movements,
which is highlighted in Tables 1–5, is
the use of a method termed set–rep
best (23,86). As mentioned above, the
set–rep best method of load prescrip-
tion is based on the loads that may be
completed during specific set and rep-
etition schemes in training. For exam-
ple, an individual may complete
a heavy resistance training block with
a set and repetition scheme of 3 sets of
3 repetitions. In this scenario, the rela-
tive intensity percentage is based off of
the 3RM for each individual exercise.
Based on the load(s) completed during
training, one may estimate the 1RM of
the individual, but may also estimate
loads that may be used during other
repetition schemes. Advantages to this
method of load prescription are that
the athletes do not have to perform
a 1RM test and that this method can
be used with any exercise.
STATIC VERSUS DYNAMIC
VARIATIONS
Certain weightlifting derivatives may
be performed using weightlifting
training blocks or squat rack safety
bars (e.g., midthigh pull, clean/snatch
pull from the knee, and clean/snatch
from the knee). It should be noted
that the use of certain variations may
place different demands on the ath-
lete. For example, a weightlifting
derivative performed using a static
start from either the blocks, safety
bars,orevenwhenheldstationaryat
a specific position (e.g., midthigh or
knee) may require a greater RFD
compared with a dynamic start
because the athlete would have to
overcome the inertia of the training
load from a dead-stop position, as
previously observed (11,12). Although
a dynamic variation will still require
a large RFD, as is characteristic of
all weightlifting derivatives, the ath-
lete will already have developed
a given amount of force. Practitioners
should consider the differences
between static and dynamic weight-
lifting variations as different demands
will be required of the athletes per-
forming the exercises.
CONCLUSIONS
Weightlifting movements and their de-
rivatives may be programmed through-
out the training year to fully develop
and improve the athlete’s force–
velocity profile. Practitioners should
consider the prescription of specific
weightlifting derivatives during certain
training phases based on their bio-
mechanical and physiological charac-
teristics. A combination of weightlifting
catching and pulling derivatives may be
used to develop the athlete’s force–
velocity profile. A sequenced approach
should be taken when prescribing
weightlifting derivatives to meet the
goals of each training phase.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Brad DeWeese
for his insight regarding the program-
ming of weightlifting derivatives in
resistance training programs.
Timothy J.
Suchomel is an
assistant profes-
sor in the
Department of
Human Move-
ment Sciences at
Carroll
University.
Paul Comfort is
a senior lecturer
and program
leader of the MSc
Strength and
Conditioning in
the Directorate of
Sport, Exercise,
and Physiother-
apy at the Uni-
versity of Salford.
Jason P. Lake is
a senior lecturer
and program
leader of the MSc
Strength and
Conditioning in
the Department of
Sport and Exer-
cise Sciences at the University of Chichester.
REFERENCES
1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL,
Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P.
Increased rate of force development and
neural drive of human skeletal muscle
Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
8
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
following resistance training. J Appl
Physiol (1985) 93: 1318–1326, 2002.
2. Aja
´nTandBarogaL.Weightlifting: Fitness
for All Sports. Budapest, Hungary:
International Weightlifting Federation, 1988.
3. Arabatzi F, Kellis E, and de Villarreal ESS.
Vertical jump biomechanics after plyometric,
weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting +
plyometric) training. J Strength Cond Res
24: 2440–2448, 2010.
4. Baker D. A series of studies on the training
of high-intensity muscle power in rugby
league football players. J Strength Cond
Res 15: 198–209, 2001.
5. Bompa TO and Haff G. Periodization:
Theory and Methodology of Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.
6. Bondarchuk A. Periodization of sports
training. Legkaya Atletika 12: 8–9, 1986.
7. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and Armstrong
LE. Kinematic and kinetic relationships
between an Olympic-style lift and the
vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 10:
127–130, 1996.
8. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ, Morris
RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC, Newton RU,
Harman EA, Sands WA, and Stone MH.
The relationship between vertical jump
power estimates and weightlifting ability:
A field-test approach. J Strength Cond
Res 18: 534–539, 2004.
9. Carolan B and Cafarelli E. Adaptations in
coactivation after isometric resistance
training. J Appl Physiol (1985) 73: 911–
917, 1992.
10. Channell BT and Barfield JP. Effect of
Olympic and traditional resistance training
on vertical jump improvement in high
school boys. J Strength Cond Res 22:
1522–1527, 2008.
11. Comfort P, Allen M, and Graham-Smith P.
Comparisons of peak ground reaction
force and rate of force development during
variations of the power clean. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 1235–1239, 2011.
12. Comfort P, Allen M, and Graham-Smith P.
Kinetic comparisons during variations of
the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 25:
3269–3273, 2011.
13. Comfort P, Fletcher C, and McMahon JJ.
Determination of optimal loading during the
power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 2970–2974, 2012.
14. ComfortP,JonesPA,andUdallR.The
effect of load and sex on kinematic and
kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean
pull. Sports Biomech 14: 139–156, 2015.
15. Comfort P, McMahon JJ, and Fletcher C.
No kinetic differences during variations of
the power clean in inexperienced female
collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res
27: 363–368, 2013.
16. Comfort P, Udall R, and Jones PA. The
effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic
variables during the midthigh clean pull.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 1208–1214,
2012.
17. Comfort P, Williams R, Suchomel TJ, and
Lake JP. A comparison of catch phase
force-time characteristics during clean
deriatives from the knee. J Strength Cond
Res 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
18. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley
GO. Validation of power measurement
techniques in dynamic lower body
resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 23:
103–118, 2007.
19. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, and
McBride JM. Optimal loading for maximal
power output during lower-body
resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 39: 340–349, 2007.
20. de Villarreal ESS, Izquierdo M, and
Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Enhancing jump
performance after combined vs. maximal
power, heavy-resistance, and plyometric
training alone. J Strength Cond Res 25:
3274–3281, 2011.
21. DeWeese BH, Bellon CR, Magrum E,
Taber CB, and Suchomel TJ.
Strengthening the springs. In: Techniques
Magazine, 2016. pp. 8–20.
22. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and
Stone MH. The training process: Planning
for strength–power training in track and
field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. J Sport
Health Sci 4: 308–317, 2015.
23. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and
Stone MH. The training process: Planning
for strength–power training in track and
field. Part 2: Practical and applied as-
pects. J Sport Health Sci 4: 318–324,
2015.
24. DeWeese BH, Sams ML, Williams JH,
and Bellon CR. The nature of speed:
Enhancing sprint abilities through a short
to long training approach. Techniques 8:
8–22, 2015.
25. DeWeese BH and Scruggs SK. The
countermovement shrug. Strength Cond J
34: 20–23, 2012.
26. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK,
and Burton JD. The midthigh pull: Proper
application and progressions of
a weightlifting movement derivative.
Strength Cond J 35: 54–58, 2013.
27. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK,
and Sams ML. The clean pull and snatch
pull: Proper technique for weightlifting
movement derivatives. Strength Cond J
34: 82–86, 2012.
28. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK,
and Sams ML. The pull to knee—Proper
biomechanics for a weightlifting
movement derivative. Strength Cond J
34: 73–75, 2012.
29. DeWeese BH, Suchomel TJ, Serrano AJ,
Burton JD, Scruggs SK, and Taber CB.
The pull from the knee: Proper technique
and application. Strength Cond J 38: 79–
85, 2016.
30. Duchateau J, Semmler JG, and Enoka RM.
Training adaptations in the behavior of
human motor units. J Appl Physiol (1985)
101: 1766–1775, 2006.
31. Ebben WP, Feldmann CR, Vanderzanden
TL, Fauth ML, and Petushek EJ. Periodized
plyometric training is effective for women,
and performance is not influenced by the
length of post-training recovery. JStrength
Cond Res 24: 1–7, 2010.
32. Ebben WP, Suchomel TJ, and Garceau
LR. The effect of plyometric training
volume on jumping performance.
Presented at: XXXIInd International
Conference of Biomechanics in Sports,
July 12–16, 2014, Johnson City, TN.
33. Ermakov AD. The training load of
weightlifters in pulls and squats. In: 1980
Weightlifting Yearbook. Livonia, MI:
Sportivny Press, 1980. pp. 34–38.
34. Frolov VI, Efimov NM, and Vanagas MP.
The training weights in the snatch pull. In:
Tyazhelaya Atletika. Charniga Jr A, trans.
Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura I Sport
Publishers, 65–67, 1977.
35. Frolov VI, Efimov NM, and Vanagas MP.
Training weights for snatch pulls. Sov
Sports Rev 18: 58–61, 1983.
36. Garhammer J and Gregor R. Propulsion
forces as a function of intensity for
weightlifting and vertical jumping.
J Strength Cond Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
37. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, Kilgore
JL, Kawamori N, Jackson JR, Morris RT,
Sands WA, and Stone MH. Force-time
curve characteristics of dynamic and
isometric muscle actions of elite women
olympic weightlifters. JStrengthCondRes
19: 741–748, 2005.
38. Haff GG and Nimphius S. Training
principles for power. Strength Cond J 34:
2–12, 2012.
39. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O’Bryant
HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE, Pierce K, and
Stone MH. Effects of different set
configurations on barbell velocity and
displacement during a clean pull.
J Strength Cond Res 17: 95–103, 2003.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 9
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
40. Ha
¨kkinen K. Neuromuscular and hormonal
adaptations during strength and power
training. A review. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 29: 9, 1989.
41. Ha
¨kkinen K, Alen M, Kallinen M, Newton
RU, and Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular
adaptation during prolonged strength
training, detraining and re-strength-training
in middle-aged and elderly people. Eur J
Appl Physiol 83: 51–62, 2000.
42. Ha
¨kkinen K, Alen M, and Komi PV.
Changes in isometric force-and
relaxation-time, electromyographic and
muscle fibre characteristics of human
skeletal muscle during strength training
and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 125:
573–585, 1985.
43. Ha
¨kkinen K, Newton RU, Gordon SE,
McCormick M, Volek JS, Nindl BC,
Gotshalk LA, Campbell WW, Evans WJ,
and Ha
¨kkinen A. Changes in muscle
morphology, electromyographic activity,
and force production characteristics
during progressive strength training in
young and older men. J Gerontol A Biol
Sci Med Sci 53: B415–B423, 1998.
44. Hamill BP. Relative safety of weightlifting
and weight training. J Strength Cond Res
8: 53–57, 1994.
45. Hardee JP, Lawrence MM, Utter AC,
Triplett NT, Zwetsloot KA, and McBride
JM. Effect of inter-repetition rest on
ratings of perceived exertion during
multiple sets of the power clean. Eur J
Appl Physiol 112: 3141–3147, 2012.
46. Hardee JP, Lawrence MM, Zwetsloot KA,
Triplett NT, Utter AC, and McBride JM.
Effect of cluster set configurations on
power clean technique. JSportsSci31:
488–496, 2013.
47. Hardee JP, Triplett NT, Utter AC,
Zwetsloot KA, and McBride JM. Effect of
interrepetition rest on power output in the
power clean. J Strength Cond Res 26:
883–889, 2012.
48. Harris GR, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS,
Proulx CM, and Johnson RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high
force, or combined weight-training
methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–
20, 2000.
49. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M, Dalic J,
Matuschek C, and Schmidtbleicher D.
Influence of squatting depth on jumping
performance. J Strength Cond Res 26:
3243–3261, 2012.
50. Heinonen A, Sieva
¨nenH,KannusP,OjaP,
and Vuori I. Site-specific skeletal response
to long-term weight training seems to be
attributable to principal loading modality: A
pQCT study of female weightlifters. Calcif
Tissue Int 70: 469–474, 2002.
51. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and
Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs.
traditional power lifting training programs
in football players. J Strength Cond Res
18: 129–135, 2004.
52. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA,
Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, and Nosaka K.
Does performance of hang power clean
differentiate performance of jumping,
sprinting, and changing of direction?
J Strength Cond Res 22: 412–418, 2008.
53. Kawamori N, Crum AJ, Blumert PA, Kulik
JR, Childers JT, Wood JA, Stone MH, and
Haff GG. Influence of different relative
intensities on power output during the
hang power clean: Identification of the
optimal load. J Strength Cond Res 19:
698–708, 2005.
54. Kawamori N and Haff GG. The optimal
training load for the development of
muscular power. J Strength Cond Res
18: 675–684, 2004.
55. Kawamori N, Rossi SJ, Justice BD, Haff
EE, Pistilli EE, O’Bryant HS, Stone MH,
and Haff GG. Peak force and rate of force
development during isometric and
dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed
at various intensities. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 483–491, 2006.
56. Kelly J, McMahon JJ, and Comfort P. A
comparison of maximal power clean
performances performed from the floor,
knee and mid-thigh. J Trainology 3: 53–
56, 2014.
57. Kilduff LP, Bevan H, Owen N, Kingsley MI,
Bunce P, Bennett M, and Cunningham D.
Optimal loading for peak power output
during the hang power clean in
professional rugby players. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2: 260–269, 2007.
58. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick M.
Correlations between internal and
external power outputs during
weightlifting exercise. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 1025–1030, 2013.
59. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick MB. Lower
extremity biomechanics during
weightlifting exercise vary across joint and
load. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1229–
1234, 2011.
60. Kipp K, Malloy PJ, Smith J, Giordanelli
MD, Kiely MT, Geiser CF, and Suchomel
TJ. Mechanical demands of the hang
power clean and jump shrug: A joint-level
perspective. J Strength Cond Res 2016
[Epub ahead of print].
61. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick M, and Harris C.
Kinematic and kinetic synergies of the
lower extremities during the pull in olympic
weightlifting. J Appl Biomech 28: 271–
278, 2012.
62. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick MB, and HarrisC.
Weightlifting performance is related to
kinematic and kinetic patterns of the hip and
knee joints. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1838–1844, 2012.
63. Kulund DN, Dewey JB, Brubaker CE, and
Roberts JR. Olympic weightlifting injuries.
Phys Sportsmed 6: 111–119, 1978.
64. Lake JP and Lauder MA. Kettlebell swing
training improves maximal and explosive
strength. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2228–
2233, 2012.
65. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ,
Folland J, Tillin N, and Duchateau J. Rate of
force development: Physiological and
methodological considerations. Eur J Appl
Physiol 116: 1091–1116, 2016.
66. McBride JM, Haines TL, and Kirby TJ.
Effect of loading on peak power of the bar,
body, and system during power cleans,
squats, and jump squats. J Sports Sci 29:
1215–1221, 2011.
67. Minetti AE. On the mechanical power of
joint extensions as affected by the change
in muscle force (or cross-sectional area),
ceteris paribus. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:
363–369, 2002.
68. Moolyk AN, Carey JP, and Chiu LZF.
Characteristics of lower extremity work
during the impact phase of jumping and
weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res 27:
3225–3232, 2013.
69. Morrissey MC, Harman EA, and Johnson
MJ. Resistance training modes:
Specificity and effectiveness. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 27: 648–660, 1995.
70. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE,
and Cerretelli P. Changes in force, cross-
sectional area and neural activation during
strength training and detraining of the
human quadriceps. Eur J Appl Physiol
Occup Physiol 59: 310–319, 1989.
71. Otto WH III, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and
Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.
kettlebell training on verticaljump, strength,
and body composition. JStrengthCond
Res 26: 1199–1202, 201 2.
72. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW,
McBride J, Triplett T, Sands WA, Lamont
HS, Stone ME, and Stone MH. Strength
gains: Block versus daily undulating
periodization weight training among track
and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 7: 161–169, 2012.
73. Roman RA. The Training of the
Weightlifter. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press,
1988.
Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
10
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
74. Sale DG. Neural adaptations to strength
training. In: Strength and Power in Sport.
Komi PV, ed. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Blackwell Science, 2003. pp. 281–313.
75. Scala D, McMillan J, Blessing D, Rozenek R,
and Stone MH. Metabolic cost of
a preparatory phase of training in weight
lifting: A practical observation. JStrength
Cond Res 1: 48–52, 1987.
76. Semmler JG. Motor unit synchronization
and neuromuscular performance. Exerc
Sport Sci Rev 30: 8–14, 2002.
77. Semmler JG, Kornatz KW, Dinenno DV,
Zhou S, and Enoka RM. Motor unit
synchronisation is enhanced during slow
lengthening contractions of a hand
muscle. J Physiol 545: 681–695, 2002.
78. Soriano MA, Jime
´nez-Reyes P, Rhea MR,
and Marı
´n PJ. The optimal load for maximal
power production during lower-body
resistance exercises: A meta-analysis.
Sports Med 45: 1191–1205, 2015.
79. Souza AL and Shimada SD.
Biomechanical analysis of the knee during
the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 16:
290–297, 2002.
80. Souza AL, Shimada SD, and Koontz A.
Ground reaction forces during the power
clean. J Strength Cond Res 16: 423–
427, 2002.
81. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M.
Relationship between anaerobic power and
olympic weightlifting performance. JSports
Med Phys Fitness 20: 99–102, 1980.
82. Stone MH, Fry AC, Ritchie M, Stoessel-
Ross L, and Marsit JL. Injury potential and
safety aspects of weightlifting movements.
Strength Cond J 16: 15–21, 1994.
83. Stone MH, Moir G, Glaister M, and
Sanders R. How much strength is
necessary? Phys Ther Sport 3: 88–96,
2002.
84. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, and Garhammer J.
A hypothetical model for strength training.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 21: 342–351,
1981.
85. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, Garhammer J,
McMillan J, and Rozenek R. A theoretical
model of strength training. Strength Cond
J4: 36–39, 1982.
86. Stone MH and O’Bryant HS. Weight
Training: A Scientific Approach. Minneapolis,
MN: Burgess International, 1987.
87. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L,
Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and Schilling B.
Power and maximum strength relationships
during performance of dynamic and static
weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17:
140–147, 2003.
88. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and
Stone ME. Weightlifting: A brief overview.
Strength Cond J 28: 50–66, 2006.
89. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and
Stone ME. Weightlifting: Program design.
Strength Cond J 28: 10–17, 2006.
90. Stone MH, Stone M, and Sands WA.
Principles and Practice of Resistance
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2007.
91. Storey A and Smith HK. Unique aspects
of competitive weightlifting: Performance,
training and physiology. Sports Med 42:
769–790, 2012.
92. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright
GA. Lower body kinetics during the jump
shrug: Impact of load. J Trainol 2: 19–22,
2013.
93. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright
GA. The impact of load on lower body
performance variables during the hang
power clean. Sports Biomech 13: 87–95,
2014.
94. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright
GA. Effect of various loads on the force-
time characteristics of the hang high pull.
J Strength Cond Res 29: 1295–1301,
2015.
95. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, and Stone MH.
Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale
for implementation and application.
Sports Med 45: 823–839, 2015.
96. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham
GK, Serrano AJ, and French SM. The
hang high pull: A progressive exercise into
weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J
36: 79–83, 2014.
97. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham
GK, Serrano AJ, and Sole CJ. The jump
shrug: A progressive exercise into
weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J
36: 43–47, 2014.
98. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, and Serrano
AJ. The power clean and power snatch
from the knee. Strength Cond J 38: 98–
105, 2016.
99. Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, and Comfort P.
Load absorption force-time
characteristics following the second pull
of weightlifting derivatives. J Strength
Cond Res 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
100. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH.
The importance of muscular strength in
athletic performance. Sports Med 46:
1419–1449, 2016.
101. Suchomel TJ and Sato K. Baseball
resistance training: Should power clean
variations be incorporated? J Athl
Enhancement 2, 2013.
102. Suchomel TJ and Sole CJ. Force-time
curve comparison between weightlifting
derivatives. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2016 [Epub ahead of print].
103. Suchomel TJ, Taber CB, and Wright GA.
Jump shrug height and landing forces
across various loads. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 11: 61–65, 2016.
104. Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, Kernozek TW,
and Kline DE. Kinetic comparison of the
power development between power
clean variations. J Strength Cond Res 28:
350–360, 2014.
105. Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, and Lottig J.
Lower extremity joint velocity
comparisons during the hang power
clean and jump shrug at various loads.
Presented at: XXXIInd International
Conference of Biomechanics in Sports,
July 12–16, 2014, Johnson City, TN.
106. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and
Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on
lower-body functional power
development: Weightlifting vs. vertical
jump training programs. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 433–437, 2005.
107. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Brown
LE, Seitz LB, Williamson BD, and Haff
GG. Cluster sets maintain velocity and
power during high-volume back squats.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: 885–
892, 2016.
108. van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, and Hainaut K.
Changes in single motor unit behaviour
contribute to the increase in contraction
speed after dynamic training in humans.
JPhysiol513: 295–305, 1998.
109. Verkhoshansky Y and Tatyan V. Speed-
strength preparation for future
champions. Sov Sports Rev 18: 166–
170, 1983.
110. Wicki B, Culici J, DeMarco N, Moran M,
and Miller J. Comparison of rate of force
development during a light and moderate
load snatch pull. J Undergrad Kinesiol
Res 9: 20–30, 2014.
111. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and
Humphries BJ. The optimal training load
for the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:
1279–1286, 1993.
112. Zamparo P, Minetti A, and di Prampero P.
Interplay among the changes of muscle
strength, cross-sectional area and
maximal explosive power: Theory and
facts. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 193–202,
2002.
113. Zatsiorsky V. Science and Practice of
Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1995.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 11
Copyright ªNational Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
... The rationale for the exercise selection was based on three factors: its ability to enhance the force-velocity profile of athletes [12]; the ability of each derivative to serve as a foundational exercise that enables the progression to more complex weightlifting movements [11,12]; and the exercise frequency applied by OW coaches [29]. The selected exercises were the Snatch and its derivative exercises (Muscle Snatch; Power Snatch; Snatch; Snatch Pull; Back Squat) and the Clean and Jerk (C&J) and its derivative exercises (Power Clean; C&J; Clean; High Hang Clean; Hang Power Clean). ...
... The rationale for the exercise selection was based on three factors: its ability to enhance the force-velocity profile of athletes [12]; the ability of each derivative to serve as a foundational exercise that enables the progression to more complex weightlifting movements [11,12]; and the exercise frequency applied by OW coaches [29]. The selected exercises were the Snatch and its derivative exercises (Muscle Snatch; Power Snatch; Snatch; Snatch Pull; Back Squat) and the Clean and Jerk (C&J) and its derivative exercises (Power Clean; C&J; Clean; High Hang Clean; Hang Power Clean). ...
... Some authors [11,12,17,21,23,33,49] have described a theoretical relationship between force and velocity with special consideration for weightlifting derivatives. The highforce end of the force-velocity curve features weightlifting derivatives that develop the largest forces due to the loads that can be used. ...
Article
Full-text available
Load management is an extremely important subject in fatigue control and adaptation processes in almost all sports. In Olympic Weightlifting (OW), two of the load variables are intensity and volume. However, it is not known if all exercises produce fatigue of the same magnitude. Thus, this study aimed to compare the fatigue prompted by the Clean and Jerk and the Snatch and their derivative exercises among male and female participants, respectively. We resorted to an experimental quantitative design in which fatigue was induced in adult individuals with weightlifting experience of at least two years through the execution of a set of 10 of the most used lifts and derivatives in OW (Snatch, Snatch Pull, Muscle Snatch, Power Snatch, and Back Squat; Clean and Jerk, Power Clean, Clean, High Hang Clean, and Hang Power Clean). Intensity and volume between exercises were equalized (four sets of three repetitions), after which one Snatch Pull test was performed where changes in velocity, range of motion, and mean power were assessed as fatigue measures. Nine women and twelve men participated in the study (age, 29.67 ± 5.74 years and 28.17 ± 5.06 years, respectively). The main results showed higher peak velocity values for the Snatch Pull test when compared with Power Snatch (p = 0.008; ES = 0.638), Snatch (p < 0.001; ES = 0.998), Snatch Pull (p < 0.001, ES = 0.906), and Back Squat (p < 0.001; ES = 0.906) while the differences between the Snatch Pull test and the derivatives of Clean and Jerk were almost nonexistent. It is concluded that there were differences in the induction of fatigue between most of the exercises analyzed and, therefore, coaches and athletes could improve the planning of training sessions by accounting for the fatigue induced by each lift.
... The rationale for the exercise selection was based on three factors: its ability to enhance the force-velocity profile of athletes [12]; the ability of each derivative to serve as a foundational exercise that enables the progression to more complex weightlifting movements [11,12]; and the exercise frequency applied by OW coaches [29]. The selected exercises were the Snatch and its derivative exercises (Muscle Snatch; Power Snatch; Snatch; Snatch Pull; Back Squat) and the Clean and Jerk (C&J) and its derivative exercises (Power Clean; C&J; Clean; High Hang Clean; Hang Power Clean). ...
... The rationale for the exercise selection was based on three factors: its ability to enhance the force-velocity profile of athletes [12]; the ability of each derivative to serve as a foundational exercise that enables the progression to more complex weightlifting movements [11,12]; and the exercise frequency applied by OW coaches [29]. The selected exercises were the Snatch and its derivative exercises (Muscle Snatch; Power Snatch; Snatch; Snatch Pull; Back Squat) and the Clean and Jerk (C&J) and its derivative exercises (Power Clean; C&J; Clean; High Hang Clean; Hang Power Clean). ...
... Some authors [11,12,17,21,23,33,49] have described a theoretical relationship between force and velocity with special consideration for weightlifting derivatives. The highforce end of the force-velocity curve features weightlifting derivatives that develop the largest forces due to the loads that can be used. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Load management is an extremely important subject in the control of fatigue and adaptation process in almost all sports. In Olympic Weightlifting (OW), some of the load variables are known, namely intensity and volume. However, the type of exercise remains unknown in specific terms, this is because empiricism tells us that some exercises induce greater fatigue than others, nonetheless we do not know specifically the value for this quantification. Thus, this work intends to evaluate the amount of fatigue provoke by various types of OW exercises. We resorted to an experimental quantitative design, where we induced fatigue in adult individuals with weightlifting experience of at least 2 years, through the execution of a set of 10 of the most used exercises in OW, in which the intensity and volume between them were equalized (4 sets of 3 repetitions), after which a Snatch Pull test was performed and changes in maximum and medium velocity, range of motion and medium power were evaluated as fatigue measurement, between before and after the protocol of each exercise through the linear transductor Vitruve (Vitruve encoder; Madrid, Spain). Nine women and 12 men have participated in the study (age, 29.67±5.74years and 28.17±5.06years; height, 158.78±6.70cm and 174.50±6.07cm; body weight, 60.84±7.34kg and 79.46±5.32kg; %body fat, 17.76±7.63% and 16.98±5,14%, respectively). For the total sample, significant differences were found in the range of motion (ROM) of Snatch Pull, Snatch and Back Squat (respectively, p<0.001 and ES=0.986; p=0.003 and ES=0.731 ; p=0.021 and ES=0.547) and also on C&J ROM (p=0.015 and ES=0.582), in the mean power variable, significant differences were found in Power Snatch, Snatch, Snatch Pull and Back Squat and C&J (respectively, p=0.043 and ES=0.472; p=0.048 and ES=0.460; p=0.003 and ES=0.729; p=0.009 and ES=0.636 ; p=0.037 and ES=0.488), in peak velocity, significant differences were found in Power Snatch, Snatch, Snatch Pull and Back Squat (respectively, p=0.008 and ES=0.638; p<0.001 and ES=0.998; p<0.001 and ES=0.906 ; p<0.001 and ES=0.906), in the mean velocity variable, significant differences were found in Snatch Pull and Back Squat (respectively, p=0.030 and ES=0.509; p=0.003 and ES=0.727). When genders were analyzed separately, on the female group, significant differences were noticed in Snatch ROM, Snatch Pull and Back Squat (respectively, p=0.006 and ES=1.218; p=0.001 and ES=1.776; p=0.002 and ES=1.474), in the mean power variable, significant differences were found in Snatch, Snatch Pull and Back Squat (respectively, p=0.006 and ES=1.227; p=0.002 and ES=1.512 ; p=0.001 and ES=1.679), at peak velocity significant differences were revealed in Snatch, Snatch Pull and Back Squat (respectively, p=0.002 and ES=1.469; p=0.005 and ES=1.258; p<0.001 and ES=2.058), for the mean velocity variable, significant differences were found in Snatch, Snatch pull and Back squat (respectively, p=0.006 and ES=1.228; p=0.003 and ES=1.372 ; p=0.001 and ES=1.660). In the male group, differences were found in the ROM of Snatch Pull, C&J and Clean (respectively, p=0.042 and ES=0.663; p=0.004 and ES=1.033; p=0.020 and ES=0.786) also, significant differences in mean power were only found in C&J (p=0.009 and ES=0.910, at peak velocity were revealed significant differences in Power Snatch, Snatch and Snatch Pull (respectively, p=0.009 and ES=0.910; p=0.025 and ES=0.745; p=0.039 and ES=0.675), the mean velocity showed significant differences only in the C&J (p=0.011 and ES=0.876). It is thus concluded that there are differences in the induction of fatigue between most of the exercises analyzed, and that the female gender seems to be more resistant to fatigue than the male gender, in relation to exercises derived from C&J, however in the exercises derived from snatch the reverse seems to happen in most variables except at maximum speed, in which both genders present similar fatigue in the analyzed exercises.
... The WL group performed the following exercises: high pull from the knee, power clean from the knee, and mid-thigh clean pull. These exercises were chosen due to their ability to stimulate the entire force-velocity profile [5]. All exercises were performed from adjustable blocks and participants were instructed to execute the concentric phase of each repetition as fast as possible. ...
... Contrary to regular CMJ, loaded vertical jumps are usually performed with greater countermovement depth [42]; fact observed in the present study (CMJ = 0.38 m . This characteristic is relevant as the mid-thigh clean pull, the main WL that could affect loaded vertical jumps [5], was performed with a small range of motion (start position from mid-thigh height). Thus, it is possible to suggest that the increase in force production was limited only to a small range of motion and it did not result in a significant impact in PPO and JH during loaded vertical jumps. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of weightlifting derivatives (WL) and plyometric exercises (PLYO) on unloaded and loaded vertical jumps and sprint performance. Initially, 45 resistance-trained men underwent a 4-week WL learning period. Then, the participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups (WL (n = 15), PLYO (n = 15), and control group (CG) (n = 15)) and followed a training period of 8 weeks. The WL group performed exercises to stimulate the entire force-velocity profile, while the PLYO group performed exercises with an emphasis in vertical- and horizontal-oriented. The CG did not perform any exercise. Pre- and post-training assessments included peak power output (PPO) and jump height (JH) in the squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), CMJ with 60% and 80% of the body mass (CMJ60% and CMJ80%, respectively), and mean sprinting speeds over 5, 10, 20, and 30 m distances. From pre- to post-training, PLYO significantly increased (p≤0.05) PPO and JH in the SJ, PPO during CMJ, and PPO and JH in the CMJ60%; however, no significant changes were observed in JH during CMJ, and PPO and JH in the CMJ80%. For WL and CG, no significant changes were observed in the unloaded and loaded vertical jumps variables. PLYO also resulted in significant improvements (p≤0.05) for 5, 10, and 20 m sprint speeds, but not for 30 m. For WL and CG, no significant changes were observed for all sprint speeds. In conclusion, these data demonstrate that PLYO was more effective than a technically-oriented WL program to improve unloaded and loaded vertical jumps and sprint performance.
... The winner of a competition is determined by the highest amount of weight lifted by each weightlifter. Olympic weightlifting is a power sport wherein the two competition lifts, the snatch and the clean and jerk, are placed in the middle of the forcevelocity curve [1]. The sport demands a high level of both physical ability and technical proficiency from the athletes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Traditionally, the biomechanical analysis of Olympic weightlifting movements required laboratory equipment such as force platforms and transducers, but such methods are difficult to implement in practice. This study developed a field-based method using wearable technology and videos for the biomechanical assessment of weightlifters. To demonstrate the practicality of our method, we collected kinetic and kinematic data on six Singapore National Olympic Weightlifters. The participants performed snatches at 80% to 90% of their competition one-repetition maximum, and the three best attempts were used for the analysis. They wore a pair of in-shoe force sensors loadsol® (novel, Munich, Germany) to measure the vertical ground reaction forces under each foot. Concurrently, a video camera recorded the barbell movement from the side. The kinematics (e.g., trajectories and velocities) of the barbell were extracted using a free video analysis software (Kinovea). The power–time history was calculated from the force and velocity data. The results showed differences in power, force, and barbell velocity with moderate to almost perfect reliability. Technical inconsistency in the barbell trajectories were also identified. In conclusion, this study presented a simple and practical approach to evaluating weightlifters using in-shoe wearable sensors and videos. Such information can be useful for monitoring progress, identifying errors, and guiding training plans for weightlifters.
... This presumed association justifies the use of foundation strength exercises to increase performance in the snatch and clean and jerk. Foundation strength exercises should also be implemented beyond developing muscle strength and power, to strengthen joints, ligaments, and tendons, and reduce the risk of injuries (2,15,27,36). Although there could be mechanical, neural, and metabolic differences between foundation strength and weightlifting exercises, the presumed association between the 2 exercises relies on the idea that a general strength component underlies performance across all strength exercises (10). ...
Article
In addition to specific weightlifting exercises (i.e., clean and jerk and snatch), foundation strength exercises (i.e., overhead press, front squat, and deadlift) constitute an integral part of the weightlifters' training regime. The unexamined concept behind this training plan is that foundation strength exercises are associated with clean and jerk and snatch performance, implying the existence of a general strength component. We thus determined the relationship between performance in foundation strength exercises (overhead press, front squat, and deadlift) and weightlifting exercises (clean and jerk and snatch) in weightlifters. Well-trained weightlifters (N 5 19, age: 26.8 6 4.4 years; body mass index: 27.6 6 2.3 kg·m 22 ; and training history: 4.6 6 0.8 years) performed 1 repetition maximum tests (1RM) in foundation strength and weightlifting exercises, over 14 days, in a randomized order. We observed significant correlations in 1RM performance between the overhead press and snatch (r 5 0.69), front squat and snatch (r 5 0.73), overhead press and clean and jerk (r 5 0.67), and front squat and clean and jerk (r 5 0.72, all r values: p , 0.01). No significant correlations were found for 1RM performance between the snatch and deadlift or between the clean and jerk and deadlift (r-range: 0.20-0.58; p. 0.05). Stepwise linear regression revealed that 1RM performance in the overhead press and front squat explained 62% of the variance in snatch 1RM performance (F 5 5.51; p , 0.04). Overhead press and front squat 1RM performance explained 59% of the variance in the clean and jerk 1RM performance (F 5 5.14; p , 0.04). Our results demonstrate the existence of a general strength component between selected foundation strength exercises and weightlifting performance. However, the use of the front squat and overhead press to increase 1RM performance in weightlifting exercises needs to be determined in future research using a different methodological approach (i.e., longitudinal protocols), given that the observed correlations do not necessarily imply causation.
... Power is developed using a variety of loading parameters (6,11,64,67). By varying the load, landmine row variations can be used to train power across the force-velocity continuum. ...
... The clean, power clean or hang power clean are technically complex movements derived from the clean and jerk [11]. These exercises require the neuromuscular system's ability to develop a series of highintensity muscle contractions to accelerate the barbell [12]. In addition, CrossFit ® athletes require adequate upper-limb flexibility for the phases of the movement that require a high ROM [13][14][15]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the optimal upper-limb range of motion (ROM) profile for the catch phase of the clean movement (CPCM) and to identify the key ROMs for performing the CPCM in CrossFit® athletes. Methods: A prospective cohort study of twenty CrossFit® athletes aged 20-36 years was conducted. Data were collected regarding age, anthropometrics, CrossFit® training experience and upper-limb ROM. The ROM was measured using the ROM-SPORT method. After 7 months, athletes performed a clean movement with a load of 80% one repetition maximum. A Bayesian Student's t-analysis, binary logistic regression analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis were performed. Results: The optimal upper-limb ROM profile that predicted correct CPCM performance was 78° in shoulder extension, 173° in shoulder flexion, 107° in shoulder external rotation, 89° in shoulder internal rotation, 153° in elbow flexion, 99° in elbow pronation and 92° in wrist extension (area under the curve ≥ 651; positive predictive value ≥ 80%). Shoulder external rotation, elbow pronation and wrist extension were found to be the most important ROMs for the efficient and safe performance of CPCM (area under the curve ≥ 854; positive predictive value ≥ 85.7%). Conclusion: The upper-limb ROM profile is associated with proper clean performance. Further studies are warranted to determine whether improving flexibility on upper-limb ROM may improve proper clean movement performance.
Article
Giriş ve Amaç: Yüksek irtifa kamp merkezli Türkiye kadın-erkek buz hokeyi milli takım sporcularına uygulanan 8 haftalık yoğun interval antrenmanın cinsiyet bakımından bazı performans parametreleri üzerine etkisini incelemektir. Yöntem: Çalışmamıza kadın 12 erkek 13 Türkiye buz hokeyi sporcusu 8 hafta boyunca branş antrenmanları dışında haftada 3 gün 60-80 dakika olmak üzere, yoğun interval antrenman programı uygulanmıştır. Antrenmanlara başlamadan önce sporculara anaerobik güç, 30 m sprint, çeviklik ve denge testleri uygulanmıştır 8 haftalık antrenman dönemi sonunda sporculardan tekrar anaerobik güç, 30 m sprint, çeviklik ve denge testleri uygulanıp çalışma sona erdirilmiştir. Verilerin istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde lisanslı SPSS 20.0 windows paket programı kullanıldı ve anlamlılık seviyesi 0.05 olarak kabul edilmiştir Bulgular: İstatistiksel analiz sonucunda anaerobik güç ön test- son test sonucunda anlamlı düzeyde artış bulunduğu fakat zaman*cinsiyet açısından anlamlı düzeyde olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Statik denge ölçümleri, sprint ve çeviklik ön test-son test sonuçlarında zaman bakımından anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu ancak zaman*cinsiyet açısından bir anlamlı bir değişim olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçlar: Yüksek yoğunluklu interval antrenman programının 8 hafta sonunda kadın-erkek milli buz hokeyi sporcularında farklı branşlarda olduğu gibi anaerobik kapasitelerini arttırdığını, çeviklik, sprint ve statik denge değerlerini de geliştirdiği gözlenmiştir. Ölçümlerini gerçekleştirdiğimiz parametreler zaman açısından anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmasına rağmen cinsiyet açısından bir farklılık oluşturmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda yoğun interval çalışmaların diğer spor branşlarında olduğu gibi buz hokeyi branşında da yüksek performans elde etmek için egzersiz programlarının farklı yerlerinde bulunmasının çok önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Buz Hokeyi, Performans, İnterval Antrenman
Article
Full-text available
The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre-and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g =-0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g =-0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the joint- and load-dependent changes in the mechanical demands of the lower extremity joints during the hang power clean (HPC) and the jump shrug (JS). Fifteen male lacrosse players were recruited from an NCAA DI team, and completed three sets of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM HPC) in a counterbalanced and randomized order. Motion analysis and force plate technology were used to calculate the positive work, propulsive phase duration, and peak concentric power at the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Separate three-way analysis of variances were used to determine the interaction and main effects of joint, load, and lift type on the three dependent variables. The results indicated that the mechanics during the HPC and JS exhibit joint-, load-, and lift-dependent behavior. When averaged across joints, the positive work during both lifts increased progressively with external load, but was greater during the JS at 30% and 50% of 1-RM HPC than during the HPC. The JS was also characterized by greater hip and knee work when averaged across loads. The joint-averaged propulsive phase duration was lower at 30% than at 50% and 70% of 1-RM HPC for both lifts. Furthermore, the load-averaged propulsive phase duration was greater for the hip than the knee and ankle joint. The joint-averaged peak concentric power was the greatest at 70% of 1-RM for the HPC and at 30% to 50% of 1-RM for the JS. In addition, the joint-averaged peak concentric power of the JS was greater than that of the HPC. Furthermore, the load-averaged peak knee and ankle concentric joint powers were greater during the execution of the JS than the HPC. However, the load-averaged power of all joints differed only during the HPC, but was similar between the hip and knee joints for the JS. Collectively, these results indicate that compared to the HPC the JS is characterized by greater hip and knee positive joint work, and greater knee and ankle peak concentric joint power, especially if performed at 30 and 50% of 1-RM HPC. This study provides important novel information about the mechanical demands of two commonly used exercises and should be considered in the design of resistance training programs that aim to improve the explosiveness of the lower extremity joints.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare the load absorption force-time characteristics of weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives. Twelve resistance-trained men performed repetitions of the hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) on a force platform with 30, 45, 65, and 80% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) HPC. Load absorption phase duration, mean force, and work were calculated from the force-time data. The HHP produced a significantly longer load absorption phase duration compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 3.77) and JS (p < 0.001, d = 5.48), while no difference existed between the HPC and JS (p = 0.573, d = 0.51). The JS produced significantly greater load absorption mean forces compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 2.85) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 3.75), while no difference existed between the HPC and HHP (p = 0.253, d = 0.37). Significantly more load absorption work was performed during the JS compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 5.03) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.69), while HHP load absorption work was also significantly greater compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 4.81). The weightlifting pulling derivatives examined in the current study (JS and HHP) produced greater load absorption demands following the second pull compared to the weightlifting catching derivative (HPC). The JS and HHP may be used as effective training stimuli for load absorption during impact tasks such as jumping.
Article
Full-text available
The force production characteristics of three weightlifting derivatives were examined by comparing the force-time curves of each exercise. Sixteen resistance-trained men performed repetitions of the hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) on a force platform at several relative loads. Relative peak force (PFRel), relative impulse (IMPRel), peak rate of force development (PRFD), and time normalized force-time curves of each exercise were compared. The JS produced greater PFRel compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 1.38) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.14), while no difference existed between the HPC and HHP (p = 0.338, d = 0.26). Similarly, the JS produced greater IMPRel compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.52) and HHP (p = 0.019, d = 0.36). The HHP also produced greater IMPRel compared to the HPC (p = 0.040, d = 0.18). Finally, the JS produced greater PRFD compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.73) and HHP (p = 0.001, d = 0.47), while no difference existed between the HPC and HHP (p = 0.192, d = 0.22). The HPC, JS, and HHP force-time profiles were similar during the first 75-80% of the movement; however, the JS produced markedly different force-time characteristics in the final 20-25% of the movement. The JS produced superior force production characteristics, namely PFRel, IMPRel, and PRFD, as well as a unique force-time profile, compared to the HPC and HHP across several loads.
Article
Full-text available
THE POWER CLEAN AND POWER SNATCH FROM THE KNEE CAN BE USED IN THE TEACHING PROGRESSION OF THE CLEAN AND SNATCH EXERCISES BECAUSE THEY EMPHASIZE POSITIONAL STRENGTH DURING THE TRANSITION PHASE, USE THE DOUBLE KNEE BEND TECHNIQUE, AND TRAIN THE TRIPLE EXTENSION OF THE HIP, KNEE, AND ANKLE JOINTS.
Article
Full-text available
The evaluation of rate of force development during rapid contractions has recently become quite popular for characterising explosive strength of athletes, elderly individuals and patients. The main aims of this narrative review are to describe the neuromuscular determinants of rate of force development and to discuss various methodological considerations inherent to its evaluation for research and clinical purposes. Rate of force development (1) seems to be mainly determined by the capacity to produce maximal voluntary activation in the early phase of an explosive contraction (first 50–75 ms), particularly as a result of increased motor unit discharge rate; (2) can be improved by both explosive-type and heavy-resistance strength training in different subject populations, mainly through an improvement in rapid muscle activation; (3) is quite difficult to evaluate in a valid and reliable way. Therefore, we provide evidence-based practical recommendations for rational quantification of rate of force development in both laboratory and clinical settings.
Article
Full-text available
The pull from the knee is a weightlifting movement derivative that can be used in the teaching progression of the clean and snatch exercises. This exercise emphasizes positional strength during the transition phase and the triple extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints that is characteristic of weightlifting movements.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of a traditional set structure and two cluster set structures on force, velocity, and power during back squats in strength-trained men. Methods: Twelve men (25.8 ± 5.1 y; 1.74 ± 0.07 m; 79.3 ± 8.2 kg) performed three sets of twelve repetitions at 60% of one repetition maximum using three different set structures: traditional sets (TS), cluster sets of four (CS4), and cluster sets of two (CS2). Results: When averaged across all repetitions, peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), and mean power (MP) were greater in CS2 and CS4 compared to TS (p < 0.01), with CS2 also resulting in greater values than CS4 (p < 0.02). When examining individual sets within each set structure, PV, MV, PP, and MP decreased during the course of TS (effect sizes range from 0.28 - 0.99), while no decreases were noted during CS2 (effect sizes range from 0.00 - 0.13) or CS4 (effect sizes range from 0.00 - 0.29). Conclusions: These results demonstrate that CS structures maintain velocity and power whereas TS structures do not. Furthermore, increasing the frequency of intra-set rest intervals in CS structures maximises this effect and should be used if maximal velocity is to be maintained during training.
Article
Because most Olympic weightlifting injuries are caused by inflexibility and improper technique, the well-trained lifter concentrates on improving these abilities.
Article
Most injuries can be prevented by following safe procedures. A coach or fellow lifter should be present during workouts, and proper breathing is important for preventing blackouts during lifts. Lifting platforms, shoes with good counters and support around the midfoot, and wraps to prevent skin-to-skin sticking also help to prevent injuries. Finally, because inflexibility and improper technique cause most lifting injuries, the lifter should concentrate on developing these abilities.