Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

This study examined the lower-extremity joint level load absorption characteristics of the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Eleven Division I male lacrosse players were fitted with 3-dimensional reflective markers and performed 3 repetitions each of the HPC and JS at 30, 50, and 70% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HPC while standing on force plates. Load absorption joint work and duration at the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared using 3-way repeated-measures mixed analyses of variance. Cohen’s d effect sizes were used to provide a measure of practical significance. The JS was characterized by greater load absorption joint work compared with the HPC performed at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.84), knee (p < 0.001, d = 1.85), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 1.49). In addition, greater joint work was performed during the JS compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.89), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.74), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.66). The JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.94), knee (p = 0.001, d = 0.89), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 0.99). In addition, the JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.83), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.79), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.85). The JS required greater hip, knee, and ankle joint work on landing compared with the load absorption phase of the HPC, regardless of load. The HPC and JS possess unique load absorption characteristics; however, both exercises should be implemented based on the goals of each training phase.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Numerous researchers have investigated gross kinetic and kinematic differences in weightlifting derivatives. These have included the power clean [PC] (Comfort et al., 2011a(Comfort et al., , 2011b, hang power clean (Kipp et al., 2021(Kipp et al., , 2016Suchomel et al., 2014), countermovement shrug (CMS; , mid-thigh pull , snatch pull (James et al., 2020), hang pull , hang high pull , pull from the knee and jump shrug (Kipp et al., 2021(Kipp et al., , 2016Suchomel et al., 2013Suchomel et al., , 2018Suchomel et al., 2014). Researchers have investigated the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of the second pull, commencing from the mid-thigh ("power") position (DeWeese & Scruggs, 2012), and have reported that this phase produces the greatest force and power in experienced weightlifters during the clean, snatch and PC (Enoka, 1979;Souza et al., 2002). ...
Article
Full-text available
The effect of load on time-series data has yet to be investigated during weightlifting derivatives. This study compared the effect of load on the force-time and velocity-time curves during the countermovement shrug (CMS). Twenty-nine males performed the CMS at relative loads of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (PC). A force plate measured the vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), which was used to calculate the barbell-lifter system velocity. Time-series data were normalized to 100% of the movement duration and assessed via statistical parametric mapping (SPM). SPM analysis showed greater negative velocity at heavier loads early in the unweighting phase (12-38% of the movement), and greater positive velocity at lower loads during the last 16% of the movement. Relative loads of 40% 1RM PC maximised propulsion velocity, whilst 140% 1RM maximized force. At higher loads, the braking and propulsive phases commence at an earlier percentage of the time-normalized movement, and the total absolute durations increase with load. It may be more appropriate to prescribe the CMS during a maximal strength mesocycle given the ability to use supramaximal loads. Future research should assess training at different loads on the effects of performance.
... The mechanical demands on the wrist and shoulders during the catch phase is a significant consideration in relation to potential risk of injury. According to Suchomel et al., [34] weightlifting derivatives may possess a unique load absorption profile. ...
Article
Full-text available
The power clean and its variations are prescribed by strength and conditioning coaches as part of the ‘big three’ to develop “total body strength”. This article explores the application of the power clean and its variations to athletic performance and introduces strength and conditioning coaches to teaching progressions, with specific emphasis on developing the correct body positioning required for the power clean. Teaching components are addressed with special reference to taller athletes. It is recommended that strength and conditioning coaches teach the hang clean follow a progression model to decrease movement complexity when advancing athletes to the power clean.
... Subsequently, weightlifting is seen as a superior training method because various loads and exercises can be exploited to enhance specific performance force-velocity profile (36,38). Furthermore, the catch phase during exercises such as the power clean has been linked to eccentric loading of the lower limbs and improving absorption qualities (38,39). Although this method is criticized as being difficult to learn and also as having a low injury risk for athletes during the catch phase, this injury risk can be reduced when only completing the pulling derivative exercises (13,38). ...
Article
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.
... The inclusion of weightlifting derivatives (Specificity), which have been advocated previously in youth [222,223], could also be included, more specifically at the post-PHV period. Inclusion of weightlifting derivatives, such as the jump shrug, hang power clean and hang high pull, can be also used to improve load absorption characteristics [224,225]. Such an approach would further challenge movement complexity as well as developing concentric neuromuscular power during the propulsive phase of the movement and eccentric force qualities during the landing phase. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss the role of eccentric resistance training in youth and how this training modality can be utilized within long-term physical development. Current literature on responses to eccentric exercise in youth has demonstrated that potential concerns, such as fatigue and muscle damage, compared to adults are not supported. Considering the importance of resistance training for youth athletes and the benefits of eccentric training in enhancing strength, power, speed, and resistance to injury, its inclusion throughout youth may be warranted. In this review we provide a brief overview of the physiological responses to exercise in youth with specific reference to the different responses to eccentric resistance training between children, adolescents, and adults. Thereafter, we discuss the importance of ensuring that force absorption qualities are trained throughout youth and how these may be influenced by growth and maturation. In particular, we propose practical methods on how eccentric resistance training methods can be implemented in youth via the inclusion of efficient landing mechanics, eccentric hamstrings strengthening and flywheel inertia training. This article proposes that the use of eccentric resistance training in youth should be considered a necessity to help develop both physical qualities that underpin sporting performance, as well as reducing injury risk. However, as with any other training modality implemented within youth, careful consideration should be given in accordance with an individual's maturity status, training history and technical competency as well as being underpinned by current long-term physical development guidelines.
... Most exercises are prescribed based on a percentage of a 1RM or the performance of another lift. For example, the JS has been studied based on percentages of a 1RM back squat (Cormie et Dayne et al., 2011;Stone et al., 2003), while the HEXJ has been examined based on a 1RM back squat (Swinton et al., 2012) or box squat 1RM (Turner et al., 2015) and the JShrug has been examined based on percentages of a 1RM hang power clean (Suchomel et al., , 2018aSole, 2017a, 2017b). While this information is valuable, it is important to provide practitioners with different options for exercise prescription. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare the power production characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) across a spectrum of relative loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men completed three testing sessions where they performed repetitions of either the JS, HEXJ, or JShrug at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% of their BM. Relative peak power (PPrel), relative force at PP (Fpp), and velocity at PP (Vpp) were compared between exercises and loads. In addition, power-time curves at each load were compared between exercises. Load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PPrel were statistically greater than the JS (both p < 0.01), while no difference existed between the HEXJ and the JShrug (p = 1.000). Load-averaged JShrug Fpp was statistically greater than both the JS and the HEXJ (both p < 0.001), while no statistical difference existed between the JS and the HEXJ (p = 0.111). Load-averaged JS and HEXJ Vpp were statistically greater than the JShrug (both p < 0.01). In addition, HEXJ Vpp was statistically greater than the JS (p = 0.009). PPrel was maximized at 40, 40, and 20% BM for the JS, HEXJ, and JShrug, respectively. The JShrug possessed statistically different power-time characteristics compared to both the JS and the HEXJ during the countermovement and propulsion phases. The HEXJ and the JShrug appear to be superior exercises for PPrel compared to the JS. The HEXJ may be considered a more velocity-dominant exercise, while the JShrug may be a more force-dominant one.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) force–time curve characteristics following 10 weeks of training with either load-matched weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling derivatives (PULL) or pulling derivatives that included force- and velocity-specific loading (OL). Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups. Participants completed a 10 week, group-specific training program. SJ and CMJ height, propulsion mean force, and propulsion time were compared at baseline and after 3, 7, and 10 weeks. In addition, time-normalized SJ and CMJ force–time curves were compared between baseline and after 10 weeks. No between-group differences were present for any of the examined variables, and only trivial to small changes existed within each group. The greatest improvements in SJ and CMJ height were produced by the OL and PULL groups, respectively, while only trivial changes were present for the CATCH group. These changes were underpinned by greater propulsion forces and reduced propulsion times. The OL group displayed significantly greater relative force during the SJ and CMJ compared to the PULL and CATCH groups, respectively. Training with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce greater vertical jump adaptations compared to training with catching derivatives.
Article
Full-text available
The purposes of this study were to compare the training effects of weightlifting movements performed with (CATCH) or without (PULL) the catch phase of clean derivatives performed at the same relative loads or training without the catch phase using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus (OL) on isometric and dynamic performance tasks. Twenty-seven resistance-trained men completed 10 weeks of training as part of the CATCH, PULL, or OL group. The CATCH group trained using weightlifting catching derivatives, while the PULL and OL groups used biomechanically-similar pulling derivatives. The CATCH and PULL groups were prescribed the same relative loads, while the OL group was prescribed force- and velocity-specific loading that was exercise and phase specific. Pre- and post-intervention isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), relative one repetition maximum power clean (1RM PC), 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint, and 505 change of direction on the right (505R) and left (505L) legs performance were examined. Statistically significant differences in pre- to post-intervention percent change were present for relative IMTP peak force, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprints, and 505L (all p < 0.03), but not for relative 1RM PC or 505R (p > 0.05). The OL group produced the greatest improvements in each of the examined characteristics compared to the CATCH and PULL groups with generally moderate to large practical effects being present. Using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce superior adaptations in relative strength, sprint speed, and change of direction compared to submaximally-loaded weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives.
Article
The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical similarity between net joint moments (NJM) of the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Twelve male Lacrosse players performed three maximal effort CMJs and three repetitions of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC one repetition maximum (1-RM). Ground reaction forces and motion capture data were used to calculate the NJM of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during each exercise. Statistical comparison of the peak NJM indicated that NJM during the HPC and JS across all loads were equal to or greater than the NJM during the CMJ (all p < 0.025). In addition, correlation analyses indicated that CMJ hip NJM were associated (all p < 0.025) with HPC hip NJM at 30% and 70% (r = 0.611-0.822) and JS hip NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.674-0.739), whereas CMJ knee NJM were associated with HPC knee NJM at 70% (r = 0.638) and JS knee NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.664-0.732). Further, CMJ ankle NJM were associated with HPC ankle NJM at 30% and 50% (r = 0.615-0.697) and JS ankle NJM at 30%, 50%, and 70% (r = 0.735-0.824). Lastly, knee and ankle NJM during the JS were greater than during the HPC at 30% and 50% of 1-RM (all p < 0.017). The degree of mechanical similarity between the CMJ and the HPC and JS is dependent on the respective load and joint.
Article
Full-text available
This study examined the power production differences between weightlifting derivatives through a comparison of power-time (P-t) curves. Thirteen resistance-trained males performed hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) repetitions at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) HPC. Relative peak power (PPRel), work (WRel), and P-t curves were compared. The JS produced greater PPRel than the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 2.53) and the HHP (p < 0.001, d = 2.14). In addition, the HHP PPRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.008, d = 0.80). Similarly, the JS produced greater WRel compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 1.89) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.42). Furthermore, HHP WRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.003, d = 0.73). The P-t profiles of each exercise were similar during the first 80-85% of the movement; however, during the final 15-20% of the movement the P-t profile of the JS was found to be greater than the HPC and HHP. The JS produced greater PPRel and WRel compared to the HPC and HHP with large effect size differences. The HHP produced greater PPRel and WRel than the HPC with moderate effect size differences. The JS and HHP produced markedly different P-t profiles in the final 15-20% of the movement compared to the HPC. Thus, these exercises may be superior methods of training to enhance PPRel. The greatest differences in PPRel between the JS and HHP and the HPC occurred at lighter loads, suggesting that loads of 30-45% 1RM HPC may provide the best training stimulus when using the JS and HHP. In contrast, loads ranging 65-80% 1RM HPC may provide an optimal stimulus for power production during the HPC.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to compare load-absorption force-time characteristics of the clean from the knee (CK), power clean from the knee (PCK) and clean pull from the knee (CPK). Ten collegiate athletes (age 27.5 +/- 4.2 years; height 180.4 +/- 6.7 cm; mass 84.4 +/- 7.8 kg), performed three repetitions each of the CK, PCK and CPK with 90% of their 1RM power clean on a force platform. The CK load-absorption duration (0.95 +/- 0.35 s) was significantly longer compared to the CPK (0.44 +/- 0.15 s; p < 0.001, d = 2.53), but not compared to the PCK (0.56 +/- 0.11 s; p > 0.05, d = 1.08), with no differences between PCK and CPK (p > 0.05, d = 0.91). The CPK demonstrated the greatest mean force (2039 +/- 394 N), which was significantly greater than the PCK (1771 +/- 325 N; p = 0.012, d = 0.83), but not significantly different to the CK (1830 +/- 331 N; p > 0.05, d = 0.60); CK and PCK were not different (p > 0.05, d = 0.18). Significantly more load-absorption work was performed during the CK (655 +/- 276 J) compared to the PCK (288 +/- 109 J; d = 1.75, p < 0.001); but not compared to the CPK (518 +/- 132 J; d = 0.80, p > 0.05). Additionally, more load-absorption work was performed during the CPK compared to the PCK (d = 1.90, p = 0.032). Inclusion of the catch phase during the CK does not provide any additional stimulus in terms of mean force or work during the load-absorption phase compared to the CPK, while the CPK may be beneficial in training rapid force absorption due to high force and a short duration.
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
Efficient training of neuromuscular power and the translation of this power to sport-specific tasks is a key objective in the preparation of athletes involved in team-based sports. The purpose of the current study was to compare changes in center of mass (COM) neuromuscular power and performance of sport-specific tasks following short-term (6-week) training adopting either Olympic Style Weightlifting (WL) exercises or vertical jump (VJ) exercises. Twenty six recreationally active males (18-30 years; height: 178.7±8.3 cm; mass: 78.6±12.2 kg) were randomly allocated to either a WL or VJ training group and performance during the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), depth jump (DJ), 20m sprint and the 5-0-5 agility test assessed pre- and post-training. Despite the WL group demonstrating larger increases in peak power output during the CMJ (WL group: 10% increase, d=0.701; VJ group: 5.78% increase, d=0.328) and SJ (WL group: 12.73% increase, d=0.854; VJ group: 7.27% increase, d=0.382), no significant between-group differences were observed in any outcome measure studied. There was a significant main effect of time observed for the three vertical jumps (CMJ, SJ, DJ), 0-5m and 0-20m sprint times, and the 5-0-5 agility test time, which were all shown to improve following the training (all main effects of time p<0.01). Irrespective of the training approach adopted by coaches or athletes, addition of either WL or VJ training for development of power can improve performance in tasks associated with team-based sports, even in athletes with limited pre-season training periods.
Article
Full-text available
The clean grip midthigh pull and snatch grip midthigh pull are exercises that focus on reinforcing the double knee bend and triple extension involved in weightlifting movements. As a result, these pulling movements are used with the purpose of making an athlete more efficient at producing force with an overload stimulus in the peak power position. In addition, these exercises can be used as a teaching modality for the progressive development of the full clean or snatch.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect that load has on the mechanics of the jump shrug. 15 track and field and club/intramural athletes (age: 21.7 ± 1.3 years, height: 180.9 ± 6.6 cm, body mass: 84.7 ± 13.2 kg, 1 repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean: 109.1 ± 17.2 kg) performed repetitions of the jump shrug at 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1RM hang power clean. Jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at jump shrug apex were compared between loads using a series of one-way repeated measures ANOVAs. Statistical differences in jump height (p < 0.001), peak landing force (p = 0.012), and potential energy of the system (p < 0.001) existed; however no statistically significant pairwise comparisons in peak landing force existed between loads (p > 0.05). The greatest magnitudes of jump height, peak landing force, and potential energy of the system at the apex of the jump shrug occurred at 30% 1RM hang power clean and decreased as the external load increased from 45% to 80% 1RM hang power clean. Relationships between peak landing force and potential energy of the system at jump shrug apex indicate that the landing forces produced during the jump shrug may be due to the landing strategy used by the athletes, especially at lighter loads. Practitioners may prescribe heavier loads during the jump shrug exercise without viewing landing force as a potential limitation.
Article
Full-text available
Power is a fundamental component for many sporting activities; while the load that elicits peak power during different exercises and differences between sexes remains unclear. This study aims to determine the effect of sex and load on kinematic and kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean pull. Men (n = 10) and women (n = 10) performed the mid-thigh clean pull at intensities of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% of one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomised and counter-balanced order, while assessing bar velocity, bar displacement, power, force, and impulse. Two-way analysis of variance revealed that men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) values for all variables across loads, excluding bar velocity. Men demonstrated significantly greater (p < 0.05) bar velocities with 40-80% 1RM; in contrast, women demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) higher velocities with 120-140% 1RM. Irrespective of sex significantly greater (p < 0.05), system peak power, bar velocity, and displacement occurred with 40% 1RM. In contrast, peak force and impulse were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with 140% 1RM. When performing the mid-thigh clean pull, to maximise system power or bar velocity, lower loads (40-60% 1RM) are recommended. When training force production or impulse, higher loads (120-140% 1RM) are recommended, when using the mid-thigh clean pull.
Article
Full-text available
This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength–power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of various loads on the force-time characteristics associated with peak power during the hang high pull. 14 athletic men (age: 21.6 ± 1.3 years, height: 179.3 ± 5.6 cm, body mass: 81.5 ± 8.7 kg, 1 repetition maximum (1RM) hang power clean: 104.9 ± 15.1 kg) performed sets of the hang high pull at 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1RM hang power clean. Peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power were compared between loads. Statistical differences in peak force (p = 0.001), peak velocity (p < 0.001), peak power (p = 0.015) , force at peak power (p < 0.001), and velocity at peak power (p < 0.001) existed, with the greatest values for each variable occurring at 80%, 30%, 45%, 80%, and 30% 1RM hang power clean, respectively. Effect sizes between loads indicated that larger differences in velocity at peak power existed as compared to those displayed by force at peak power. It appears that differences in velocity may contribute to a greater extent to differences in peak power production as compared to force during the hang high pull. Further investigation of both force and velocity at peak power during weightlifting variations is necessary to provide insight on the contributing factors of power production. Specific load ranges should be prescribed to optimally train the variables associated with power development during the hang high pull.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to compare the kinematic profile between the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Eighteen college students performed repetitions of the HPC and JS at 40, 60, and 80% of their 1RM HPC. Two trials at each load for each exercise were completed and the peak joint velocity of the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared using a series of 2 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA. The peak joint velocity of the hip, knee, and ankle during the JS was statistically greater than the HPC at all loads. Statistically significant differences in hip joint velocity existed between repetitions at 40 and 80% 1RM HPC as well as between 60 and 80% 1RM HPC. Joint velocity during the JS was superior to the HPC at all loads examined. Differences in technique between exercises and loads may alter lower extremity joint velocity. INTRODUCTION: Lower body muscular power is viewed as a vital component to an athlete's performance in sports. As a result, practitioners have placed a large emphasis on the development and improvement of lower body muscular power during the triple extension movement. Many different training methods and exercises have been prescribed to improve lower body muscular power, however weightlifting movements and their derivatives are often viewed as superior training stimuli (Comfort, Allen, & Graham-Smith, 2011a, 2011b; Cormie, McCaulley, Triplett, & McBride, 2007). Based on the number of derivatives, it is up to the practitioner to choose the most effective training method for their athletes. When considering different exercises and their ability to train muscular power, both kinetic and kinematic aspects must be considered. Several previous studies have examined the kinetic differences between weightlifting movements and their derivatives (Comfort, et al., 2011a, 2011b; Suchomel & Wright, 2013; Suchomel, Wright, Kernozek, & Kline, 2014). Collectively, these studies suggest that the mid-thigh pull and jump shrug (JS) weightlifting derivatives produce greater force, center of mass velocity, rate of force development, and power as compared to the hang power clean (HPC), suggesting that these variations may provide a superior training stimulus as compared to a variation that includes the catch phase. Although the above kinetic information exists, there is a paucity of research that has compared the kinematic differences between weightlifting exercises and their derivatives. In order to optimally train muscular power, both ends of the force-velocity curve should be trained (Haff & Nimphius, 2012). Thus, it is common for practitioners to prescribe both heavy and light loads in order to provide their athletes with a superior training stimulus. If practitioners are considering multiple exercises, data indicating how kinetics and kinematics change as an external load increases should be provided. Much of the extant literature on weightlifting movements has examined the optimal load of an individual exercise (Comfort, Fletcher, & McMahon, 2012; Cormie, et al., 2007; Kawamori et al., 2005; Kilduff et al., 2007), while only two studies have examined differences between exercises at multiple loads (Suchomel & Wright, 2013; Suchomel, et al., 2014). Furthermore, little research has examined how kinematics change as a result of load between weightlifting movements. In order to provide information about the development of muscular power between exercises, both kinetic and kinematic information is warranted. Although previous research supports that
Article
Full-text available
The jump shrug (JS) is an explosive lower-body exercise that can be used to enhance lower-body muscular power. In addition, this exercise can be used as part of the teaching progression of the clean and snatch, while emphasizing the second pull and complete extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints. This exercise can be per-formed from a static starting position or with a countermovement, at varying starting positions, from the mid-thigh and above/below the knee.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: To examine the impact of load on lower body kinetics during the jump shrug. Design: Randomized, repeated measures design. Methods: Fourteen men performed randomized sets of the jump shrug at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their one repetition maximum hang clean (1RM-HC). A number of variables were obtained through analysis of the force-time data, which included peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power. A series of one-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the differences in peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power between each load. Results: Statistical differences in peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power existed between loads (p<0.001), while peak force trended toward statistical significance (p=0.060). The greatest peak velocity, peak power, and velocity at peak power occurred at 30% 1RM-HC. In addition the greatest peak force and force at peak power occurred at loads of 65% and 80% 1RM-HC, respectively. Conclusions: Velocity is the greatest contributing factor to peak power production during the jump shrug. Practitioners should prescribe specific loading schemes for the jump shrug to provide optimal training stimuli to their athletes based on the training goal: specifically, loads of 65% 1RM-HC or higher, loads of approximately 30-45% 1RM-HC, and loads of 30% 1RM-HC should be prescribed for improvements in peak force and force at peak power, peak power, and velocity and velocity at peak power, respectively.
Article
Full-text available
This study examined the impact of load on lower body performance variables during the hang power clean. Fourteen men performed the hang power clean at loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. Peak force, velocity, power, force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and rate of force development were compared at each load. The greatest peak force occurred at 80% 1RM. Peak force at 30% 1RM was statistically lower than peak force at 45% (p=0.022), 65% (p=0.010), and 80% 1RM (p=0.018). Force at peak power at 65% and 80% 1RM was statistically greater than force at peak power at 30% (p<0.01) and 45% 1RM (p<0.01). The greatest rate of force development occurred at 30% 1RM, but was not statistically different from the rate of force development at 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. The rate of force development at 65% 1RM was statistically greater than the rate of force development at 80% 1RM (p=0.035). No other statistical differences existed in any variable existed. Changes in load affected the peak force, force at peak power, and rate of force development, but not the peak velocity, power, or velocity at peak power.
Article
Full-text available
A number of organizations recommend that advanced resistance training (RT) techniques can be implemented with children. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Olympic weightlifting (OWL), plyometrics and traditional RT programs with children. Sixty-three children (10-12 years) were randomly allocated to a 12-week control, OWL, plyometric or traditional RT program. Pre- and post-training tests included body mass index (BMI), sum of skinfolds, countermovement jump (CMJ), horizontal jump, balance, 5 and 20 m sprint times, isokinetic force and power at 60.s and 300.s. Magnitude-based inferences were used to analyze the likelihood of an effect having a standardized (Cohen) effect size exceeding 0.20. All interventions were generally superior to the control group. OWL was >80% likely to provide substantially better improvements than plyometric training for CMJ, horizontal jump and 5 and 20 m sprint times while >75% likely to substantially exceed traditional RT for balance and isokinetic power at 300.s. Plyometric training was >78% likely to elicit substantially better training adaptations than traditional RT for balance, isokinetic force at 60.s and 300.s, isokinetic power at 300.s, as well as 5 and 20 m sprints. Traditional RT only exceeded plyometric training for BMI and isokinetic power at 60.s. Hence, OWL and plyometrics can provide similar or greater performance adaptations for children. It is recommended that any of the three training modalities can be implemented under professional supervision with proper training progressions to enhance training adaptations in children.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare the power production of the hang clean (HC), jump shrug (JS), and high pull (HP) when performed at different relative loads. Seventeen men with previous HC training experience, performed 3 repetitions each of the HC, JS, and HP at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HC on a force platform over 3 different testing sessions. Peak power output (PPO), force (PF), and velocity (PV) of the lifter plus bar system during each repetition were compared. The JS produced a greater PPO, PF, and PV than both the HC (p < 0.001) and HP (p < 0.001). The HP also produced a greater PPO (p < 0.01) and PV (p < 0.001) than the HC. PPO, PF, and PV occurred at 45%, 65%, and 30% 1RM respectively. PPO at 45% 1RM was greater than PPO at 65% (p = 0.043) and 80% 1RM (p = 0.004). PF at 30% was less than PF at 45% (p = 0.006), 65% (p < 0.001), and 80% 1RM (p = 0.003). PV at 30% and 45% was greater than PV at 65% (p < 0.001) and 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). PV at 65% 1RM was also greater than PV at 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). When designing resistance training programs, practitioners should consider implementing the JS and HP. To optimize PPO, loads of approximately 30% and 45% 1RM HC are recommended for the JS and HP, respectively.
Article
Full-text available
The ability to develop high levels of muscular power is considered a fundamental component for many different sporting activities; however, the load that elicits peak power still remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which load peak power output occurs during the midthigh clean pull. Sixteen participants (age 21.5 ± 2.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 70.85 ± 11.67 kg) performed midthigh clean pulls at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomized and balanced order using a force plate and linear position transducer to assess velocity, displacement, peak power, peak force (Fz), impulse, and rate of force development (RFD). Significantly greater Fz occurred at a load of 140% (2,778.65 ± 151.58 N, p < 0.001), impulse within 100, 200, and 300 milliseconds at a load of 140% 1RM (196.85 ± 76.56, 415.75 ± 157.56, and 647.86 ± 252.43 N·s, p < 0.023, respectively), RFD at a load of 120% (26,224.23 ± 2,461.61 N·s, p = 0.004), whereas peak velocity (1.693 ± 0.042 m·s, p < 0.001) and peak power (3,712.82 ± 254.38 W, p < 0.001) occurred at 40% 1RM. Greatest total impulse (1,129.86 ± 534.86 N·s) was achieved at 140% 1RM, which was significantly greater (p < 0.03) than at all loads except the 120% 1RM condition. Results indicate that increased loading results in significant (p < 0.001) decreases in peak power and peak velocity during the midthigh clean pull. Moreover, if maximizing force production is the goal, then training at a higher load may be advantageous, with peak Fz occurring at 140% 1RM.
Article
Full-text available
Previous research has identified that the second pull phase of the clean generates the greatest power output and that the mid-thigh variations of the power clean also result in the greatest force and power output in male athletes, however, no research has compared the kinetics of the variations of the power clean in females. The aim of this investigation was to identify any differences between variations of the clean, across a range of loads, in inexperienced female collegiate athletes. Sixteen healthy female collegiate athletes (age 19±2.3 yrs; height 166.5±3.22 cm; body mass 62.25±4.52 kg; 1-RM power clean 51.5±2.65 kg) performed three repetitions of three variations (power clean, hang power clean, mid-thigh power clean) of the power clean at 60%, 70% and 80% of their predetermined one repetition maximum (1-RM) power clean, in a randomized and counter-balanced order. A two way analysis of variance (3 x 3; load x variation) revealed no significant differences (p>0.05) in peak power, peak vertical force (Fz) or rate of force development (RFD) between loads or variations of the power clean. There appears to be no advantage in terms of peak power, Fz or RFD between variations of the clean, in inexperienced female athletes, it is suggested, therefore, that inexperienced athletes intermittently perform different variations of the clean to ensure all round development and technical competence in each variation of the exercise.
Article
Full-text available
Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 1199-1202, 2012-The present study compared the effects of 6 weeks of weightlifting plus traditional heavy resistance training exercises vs. kettlebell training on strength, power, and anthropometric measures. Thirty healthy men were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: (a) weightlifting (n = 13; mean ± SD: age, 22.92 ± 1.98 years; body mass, 80.57 ± 12.99 kg; height, 174.56 ± 5.80 cm) or (b) kettlebell (n = 17; mean ± SD: age, 22.76 ± 1.86 years; body mass, 78.99 ± 10.68 kg; height, 176.79 ± 5.08 cm) and trained 2 times a week for 6 weeks. A linear periodization model was used for training; at weeks 1-3 volume was 3 × 6 (kettlebell swings or high pull), 4 × 4 (accelerated swings or power clean), and 4 × 6 (goblet squats or back squats), respectively, and the volume increased during weeks 4-6 to 4 × 6, 6 × 4, and 4 × 6, respectively. Participants were assessed for height (in centimeters), body mass (in kilograms), and body composition (skinfolds). Strength was assessed by the back squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM), whereas power was assessed by the vertical jump and power clean 1RM. The results of this study indicated that short-term weightlifting and kettlebell training were effective in increasing strength and power. However, the gain in strength using weightlifting movements was greater than that during kettlebell training. Neither method of training led to significant changes in any of the anthropometric measures. In conclusion, 6 weeks of weightlifting induced significantly greater improvements in strength compared with kettlebell training. No between-group differences existed for the vertical jump or body composition.
Article
Full-text available
Comfort, P, Fletcher, C, and McMahon, JJ. Determination of optimal loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26(11): 2970-2974, 2012-Although previous research has been performed in similar areas of study, the optimal load for the development of peak power during training remains controversial, and this has yet to be established in collegiate level athletes. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load to achieve peak power output during the power clean in collegiate athletes. Nineteen male collegiate athletes (age 21.5 ± 1.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 78.85 ± 8.67 kg) performed 3 repetitions of power cleans, while standing on a force platform, using loads of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM) power clean, in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Peak power output occurred at 70% 1RM (2,951.7 ± 931.71 W), which was significantly greater than the 30% (2,149.5 ± 406.98 W, p = 0.007), 40% (2,201.0 ± 438.82 W, p = 0.04), and 50% (2,231.1 ± 501.09 W, p = 0.05) conditions, although not significantly different when compared with the 60 and 80% 1RM loads. In addition, force increased with an increase in load, with peak force occurring at 80% 1RM (1,939.1 ± 320.97 N), which was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than the 30, 40, 50, and 60% 1RM loads but not significantly greater (p > 0.05) than the 70% 1RM load (1,921.2 ± 345.16 N). In contrast, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in rate of force development across loads. When training to maximize force and power, it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 60-80% of the 1RM, in collegiate level athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Comfort, P, Allen, M, and Graham-Smith, P. Kinetic comparisons during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3269-3273, 2011-The aim of this investigation was to determine the differences in peak power, peak vertical ground reaction forces, and rate of force development (RFD) during variations of the power clean. Elite rugby league players (n = 16; age 22 ± 1.58 years; height 182.25 ± 2.81 cm; body mass 98.65 ± 7.52 kg) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions of the power clean, hang power clean, midthigh power clean, or midthigh clean pull, using 60% of 1 repetition maximum power clean, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform. One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc analysis revealed a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak power output during the midthigh power clean (3,565.7 ± 410.6 W) and the midthigh clean pull (3,686.8 ± 386.5 W) compared with both the power clean (2,591.2 ± 645.5 W) and the hang power clean (3,183.6 ± 309.1 W), along with a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak Fz during the midthigh power clean (2,813.8 ± 200.5 N) and the midthigh clean pull (2,901.3 ± 226.1 N) compared with both the power clean (2,264.1 ± 199.6 N) and the hang power clean (2,479.3 ± 267.6 N). The midthigh power clean (15,049.8 ± 4,415.7 N·s) and the midthigh clean pull (15,623.6 ± 3,114.4 N·s) also demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) greater instantaneous RFD when compared with both the power clean (8,657.9 ± 2,746.6 N·s) and the hang power clean (10,314.4 ± 4,238.2 N·s). From the findings of this study, when training to maximize power, Fz, and RFD, the midthigh power clean and midthigh clean pull appear to be the most advantageous variations of the power clean to perform.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this investigation was to determine the differences in vertical ground reaction forces and rate of force development (RFD) during variations of the power clean. Elite rugby league players (n = 11; age 21 ± 1.63 years; height 181.56 ± 2.61 cm; body mass 93.65 ± 6.84 kg) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions of the power clean, hang-power clean, midthigh power clean, or midthigh clean pull, using 60% of 1-repetition maximum power clean, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform. Differences in peak vertical ground reaction forces (F(z)) and instantaneous RFD between lifts were analyzed via 1-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc analysis. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak F(z) during the midthigh power clean (2,801.7 ± 195.4 N) and the midthigh clean pull (2,880.2 ± 236.2 N) compared to both the power clean (2,306.24 ± 240.47 N) and the hang-power clean (2,442.9 ± 293.2 N). The midthigh power clean (14,655.8 ± 4,535.1 N·s⁻¹) and the midthigh clean pull (15,320.6 ± 3,533.3 N·s⁻¹) also demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) greater instantaneous RFD when compared to both the power clean (8,839.7 ± 2,940.4 N·s⁻¹) and the hang-power clean (9,768.9 ± 4,012.4 N·s⁻¹). From the findings of this study, when training to maximize peak F(z) and RFD the midthigh power clean and midthigh clean pull appear to be the most advantageous variations of the power clean to perform.
Article
Full-text available
The ability to develop high levels of muscle power is considered an essential component of success in many sporting activities; however, the optimal load for the development of peak power during training remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to determine the optimal load required to observe peak power output (PPO) during the hang power clean in professional rugby players. Twelve professional rugby players performed hang power cleans on a portable force platform at loads of 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) in a randomized and balanced order. Relative load had a significant effect on power output, with peak values being obtained at 80% of the subjects' 1-RM (4466 +/- 477 W; P < .001). There was no significant difference, however, between the power outputs at 50%, 60%, 70%, or 90% 1-RM compared with 80% 1-RM. Peak force was produced at 90% 1-RM with relative load having a significant effect on this variable; however, relative load had no effect on peak rate of force development or velocity during the hang power clean. The authors conclude that relative load has a significant effect on PPO during the hang power clean: Although PPO was obtained at 80% 1-RM, there was no significant difference between the loads ranging from 40% to 90% 1-RM. Individual determination of the optimal load for PPO is necessary in order to enhance individual training effects.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a ballistic resistance training program of Olympic lifts with those of a traditional resistance training program of power lifts on vertical jump improvement in male high school athletes. Twenty-seven male student athletes were recruited from a high school football program at a small, rural school in the Southeast. The subjects were divided into an Olympic training group (OT, n = 11), a power training group (PT, n = 10), and a control group (n = 6). Analysis of variance was used to determine whether a significant mean difference existed among groups on vertical jump improvement after 8 weeks of group-specific training. Effect size of vertical jump improvement between groups, and correlations between strength and vertical jump performance, were also examined. There was no significant mean difference (p >or= 0.05) among OT, PT, and control groups, but large effect sizes between OT and control (d = 1.06) and PT and control (d = 0.94) demonstrate that both OT and PT are effective in improving vertical jump performance in male high school athletes. Moderate to high correlations were noted between squat score and vertical jump after adjusting for body weight (r = 0.42) and between power clean and vertical jump after adjusting for body weight (r = 0.75). Findings from the current study indicate that Olympic lifts as well as power lifts provide improvement in vertical jump performance and that Olympic lifts may provide a modest advantage over power lifts for vertical jump improvement in high school athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Data from five experienced weightlifters on the vertical forces applied to the barbell and system (barbell and lifter) during the pull were in excellent agreement with earlier displacement-time descriptions of the double knee bend as consisting of two stages of extension interrupted by a period of realignment (second knee bend). The vertical component of the ground reaction force (Rz) consisted of three phases: Weighting I, Unweighting, and Weighting II. The relative magnitude of the Rz impulse with respect to the system weight impulse (as an indicant of the proportion of the Rz impulse contributing to system acceleration) ranged from 118--141% for Weighting I, 74--89% for Unweighting, and 122--135% for Weighting II. In agreement with published theoretical calculations the most experienced and successful lifter produced the larger phase of positive acceleration first. The rebending of the knees was associated with the Unweighting phase. Although this latter interval corresponded to a phase of barbell deceleration, it appeared that the concomitant enhancement of the back, hip, and knee extensor activity outweighed any adverse effects.
Article
Full-text available
Twenty members of an National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III collegiate football team were assigned to either an Olympic lifting (OL) group or power lifting (PL) group. Each group was matched by position and trained 4-days.wk(-1) for 15 weeks. Testing consisted of field tests to evaluate strength (1RM squat and bench press), 40-yard sprint, agility, vertical jump height (VJ), and vertical jump power (VJP). No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in Delta VJ than PL. Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM squat (p > 0.05), and a twofold greater improvement (p > 0.05) in 40-yard sprint time by OL, no further significant group differences were seen. Results suggest that OL can provide a significant advantage over PL in vertical jump performance changes.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the vertical jump and estimated vertical-jump power as a field test for weightlifting. Estimated PP output from the vertical jump was correlated with lifting ability among 64 USA national-level weightlifters (junior and senior men and women). Vertical jump was measured using the Kinematic Measurement System, consisting of a switch mat interfaced with a laptop computer. Vertical jumps were measured using a hands-on-hips method. A counter-movement vertical jump (CMJ) and a static vertical jump (SJ, 90 degrees knee angle) were measured. Two trials were given for each condition. Test-retest reliability for jump height was intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.98 (CMJ) and ICC = 0.96 (SJ). Athletes warmed up on their own for 2-3 minutes, followed by 2 practice jumps at each condition. Peak power (PP) was estimated using the equations developed by Sayers et al. (24). The athletes' current lifting capabilities were assessed by a questionnaire, and USA national coaches checked the listed values. Differences between groups (i.e., men versus women, juniors versus resident lifters) were determined using t-tests (p < or = 0.05). Correlations were determined using Pearson's r. Results indicate that vertical jumping PP is strongly associated with weightlifting ability. Thus, these results indicate that PP derived from the vertical jump (CMJ or SJ) can be a valuable tool in assessing weightlifting performance.
Article
Full-text available
Among sport conditioning coaches, there is considerable discussion regarding the efficiency of training methods that improve lower-body power. Heavy resistance training combined with vertical jump (VJ) training is a well-established training method; however, there is a lack of information about its combination with Olympic weightlifting (WL) exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term effects of heavy resistance training combined with either the VJ or WL program. Thirty-two young men were assigned to 3 groups: WL = 12, VJ = 12, and control = 8. These 32 men participated in an 8-week training study. The WL training program consisted of 3 x 6RM high pull, 4 x 4RM power clean, and 4 x 4RM clean and jerk. The VJ training program consisted of 6 x 4 double-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 alternated single-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 single-leg hurdle hops, and 4 x 4 40-cm drop jumps. Additionally, both groups performed 4 x 6RM half-squat exercises. Training volume was increased after 4 weeks. Pretesting and posttesting consisted of squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests, 10- and 30-m sprint speeds, an agility test, a half-squat 1RM, and a clean-and-jerk 1RM (only for WL). The WL program significantly increased the 10-m sprint speed (p < 0.05). Both groups, WL and VJ, increased CMJ (p < 0.05), but groups using the WL program increased more than those using the VJ program. On the other hand, the group using the VJ program increased its 1RM half-squat strength more than the WL group (47.8 and 43.7%, respectively). Only the WL group improved in the SJ (9.5%). There were no significant changes in the control group. In conclusion, Olympic WL exercises seemed to produce broader performance improvements than VJ exercises in physically active subjects.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of this study was to investigate the validity of power measurement techniques utilizing various kinematic and kinetic devices during the jump squat (JS), squat (S) and power clean (PC). Ten Division I male athletes were assessed for power output across various intensities: 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of one repetition maximum strength (1RM) in the JS and S and 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1RM in the PC. During the execution of each lift, six different data collection systems were utilized; (1) one linear position transducer (1-LPT); (2) one linear position transducer with the system mass representing the force (1-LPT+MASS); (3) two linear position transducers (2-LPT); (4) the force plate (FP); (5) one linear position transducer and a force plate (1-LPT+FP); (6) two linear position transducers and a force place (2-LPT+FP). Kinetic and kinematic variables calculated using the six methodologies were compared. Vertical power, force, and velocity differed significantly between 2-LPT+FP and 1-LPT, 1-LPT+MASS, 2-LPT, and FP methodologies across various intensities throughout the JS, S, and PC. These differences affected the load-power relationship and resulted in the transfer of the optimal load to a number of different intensities. This examination clearly indicates that data collection and analysis procedures influence the power output calculated as well as the load-power relationship of dynamic lower body movements.
Article
POWER-GENERATING CAPACITY SHOULD BE A PRIMARY TRAINING OUTCOME FOR FOOTBALL ATHLETES. THE ABILITY TO BE EXPLOSIVE AND USE HIGH LEVELS OF STRENGTH SEEMS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ATHLETES AND TEAMS. DEVELOPING TRAINING INTERVENTIONS THAT CAN IMPROVE BOTH STRENGTH- AND POWER-GENERATING CAPACITY WOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED A PARAMOUNT ENDEAVOR WHEN ATTEMPTING TO OPTIMIZE THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS NECESSARY FOR COMPETITIVE SUCCESS. TOO OFTEN, STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES FORGET THAT THE FOUNDATION OF POWER-GENERATING CAPACITY IS IN FACT HIGH LEVELS OF MUSCULAR STRENGTH. WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH IS MINIMIZED OR EXCLUDED FROM THE TRAINING PLAN, THE ABILITY TO EXPRESS HIGH-POWER OUTPUTS IS COMPROMISED. IN ADDITION, A FAILURE TO USE SEQUENCED AND INTEGRATED TRAINING PROGRAMS DECREASES THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCCESSFULLY INCREASING STRENGTH- AND POWER-GENERATING CAPACITY, THUS DECREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR COMPETITIVE SUCCESS. THEREFORE, THIS BRIEF REVIEW ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN HOW STRENGTH- AND POWER-GENERATING CAPACITY CAN BE ENHANCED TO INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPING THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE FOUNDATION NECESSARY FOR COMPETITIVE SUCCESS WITH THE FOOTBALL ATHLETE.
Article
Jumping and weightlifting tasks involve impact phases, where work is performed by the lower extremity to absorb energies present at contact. This study compared the lower extremity kinematic and kinetic strategies to absorb energy during the impact phase of jumping and weightlifting activities. Ten women experienced in jumping and weightlifting performed four tasks (landing from a jump, drop landing, clean and power clean) in a motion analysis laboratory. Work performed at the hip, knee and ankle were calculated during the landing and receiving phases of jumping and weightlifting tasks, respectively. Additionally, segment and joint kinematics and net joint moments were determined. The most lower extremity work was performed in the clean and drop landing, followed by landing from a jump and the least work was performed in the power clean (p<0.05). For all tasks, work performed by the knee extensors was the greatest contributor to lower extremity work. Knee extensor net joint moment was greater in the power clean than jump and drop landings, and greater in the clean than all other tasks (p<0.05). Knee flexion angle was not different between the power clean and jump landing (p>0.05), but greater in the drop landing and clean (p<0.05). A common characteristic of the impact phase of jumping and weightlifting tasks is a large contribution of knee extensor work. Further, the correspondence in kinematics between impact phases of jumping and weightlifting tasks suggests similar muscular strategies are used to perform both types of activities. Weightlifting tasks, particularly the clean, may be important exercises to develop the muscular strength required for impact actions, due to their large knee extensor net joint moments.
Article
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of an Olympic weightlifting (OL) and traditional weight (TW) training program on muscle coactivation around the knee joint during vertical jump tests. Twenty-six men were assigned randomly to 3 groups: the OL (n = 9), the TW (n = 9), and Control (C) groups (n = 8). The experimental groups trained 3 d · wk(-1) for 8 weeks. Electromyographic (EMG) activity from the rectus femoris and biceps femoris, sagittal kinematics, vertical stiffness, maximum height, and power were collected during the squat jump, countermovement jump (CMJ), and drop jump (DJ), before and after training. Knee muscle coactivation index (CI) was calculated for different phases of each jump by dividing the antagonist EMG activity by the agonist. Analysis of variance showed that the CI recorded during the preactivation and eccentric phases of all the jumps increased in both training groups. The OL group showed a higher stiffness and jump height adaptation than the TW group did (p < 0.05). Further, the OL showed a decrease or maintenance of the CI recorded during the propulsion phase of the CMJ and DJs, which is in contrast to the increase in the CI observed after TW training (p < 0.05). The results indicated that the altered muscle activation patterns about the knee, coupled with changes of leg stiffness, differ between the 2 programs. The OL program improves jump performance via a constant CI, whereas the TW training caused an increased CI, probably to enhance joint stability.
Article
The effects of 3 types of set configurations (cluster, traditional, and undulating) on barbell kinematics were investigated in the present study. Thirteen men (track and field = 8; Olympic weightlifters = 5) (mean +/- SEM age, 23.4 +/- 1.1 years; height, 181.3 +/- 2.1 cm; body mass, 89.8 +/- 4.2 kg) performed 1 set of 5 repetitions in a cluster, traditional, and undulating fashion at 90 and 120% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (119.0 +/- 4.3 kg). All data were collected at 50 Hz and analyzed with a V-Scope Weightlifting Analysis System. Peak velocity (PV) and peak displacement (PD) were analyzed for each repetition and averaged for each set type. Results indicated that a significantly (p < 0.016) higher PV occurred during the cluster set when compared with the traditional sets at both intensities. PD was significantly higher than traditional sets at the 120% intensity. The present study suggests set configuration can affect PV and PD during clean pulls.
Article
The influence of different relative intensities on power output was investigated in the present study in order to identify the optimal load that maximizes power output during the hang power clean. Fifteen men (age: 22.1 +/- 2.0 years, height: 180.1 +/- 6.3 cm, and body mass: 89.4 +/- 14.7 kg) performed the hang power cleans on a forceplate at 30-90% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Peak power was maximized at 70% 1RM, which was, however, not significantly different from peak power at 50, 60, 80, and 90% 1RM. Average power also was maximized at 70% 1RM, which was not significantly different from average power at 40, 50, 60, 80, and 90% 1RM. It was concluded that (a) the relative intensity had a significant influence on power output, and (b) power output can be maximized at a submaximal load during the hang power clean.
Article
The influence of various loads on power output in the jump squat (JS), squat (S), and power clean (PC) was examined to determine the load that maximizes power output in each lift. Twelve Division I male athletes participated in four testing sessions. The first session involved performing one-repetition maximums (1RM) in the S and PC, followed by three randomized testing sessions involving either the JS, S, or PC. Peak force, velocity, and power were calculated across loads of 0, 12, 27, 42, 56, 71, and 85% of each subject's 1RM in the JS and S and at 10% intervals from 30 to 90% of each subject's 1RM in the PC. The optimal load for the JS was 0% of 1RM; absolute peak power was significantly lower from the optimal load at 42, 56, 71, and 85% of 1RM (P < or = 0.05), whereas peak power relative to body mass was significantly lower at 27% of 1RM in addition to 42, 56, 71, and 85% of 1RM. Peak power in the S was maximized at 56% of 1RM; however, power was not significantly different across the loading spectrum. The optimal load in the PC occurred at 80% of 1RM. Relative peak power at 80% of 1RM was significantly different from the 30 and 40% of 1RM. This investigation indicates that the optimal load for maximal power output occurs at various percentages of 1RM in the JS, S, and PC.
  • B H Deweese
  • Bellon
  • Cr
  • E Magrum
  • C B Taber
DeWeese, BH, Bellon, CR, Magrum, E, Taber, CB, and Suchomel, TJ. Strengthening the springs. Techniques 9: 8-20, 2016.
Comparison of rate of force development during a light and moderate load snatch pull
  • B Wicki
  • J Culici
  • N Demarco
  • M Moran
  • J Miller
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.
Comparison of rate of force development during a light and moderate load snatch pull
  • Wicki