Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for implementation and application

Between-Session Reliability of Isometric Midthigh Pull Kinetics and Maximal Power Clean Performance in Male Youth Soccer Players

Dos'Santos, T, Thomas, C, Comfort, P, McMahon, JJ, Jones, PA, Oakley, NP, and Young, AL. Between-session reliability of isometric midthigh pull kinetics and maximal power clean performance in male youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3373-3381, 2018-The aim of the study was to determine the between-session reliability of isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) kinetics and maximal weight lifted during the power clean (PC) in male youth soccer players, and to identify the smallest detectable differences between sessions. Thirteen male youth soccer players (age: 16.7 ± 0.5 years, height: 1.80 ± 0.08 m, and mass: 70.5 ± 9.4 kg) performed 3 IMTP trials, whereas only 10 soccer players performed maximal PCs. These were performed twice, separated by 48 hours to examine the between-session reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficient of variation (CV) demonstrated high levels of within-session (ICC = 0.84-0.98, CV = 4.05-10.00%) and between-session reliability (ICC = 0.86-0.96, CV = 3.76-7.87%) for IMTP kinetics (peak force [PF] and time-specific force values 30-250 ms) and maximal PC (ICC = 0.96, CV = 3.23%), all meeting minimum acceptable reliability criteria. No significant differences (p > 0.05, effect size ≤0.22) were revealed between sessions for IMTP kinetics and maximal PC performance. Strength and conditioning coaches and practitioners should consider changes of >6.04% in maximal PC and changes in IMTP kinetics of >14.31% in force at 30 ms, >14.73% in force at 50 ms, >12.36% in force at 90 ms, >12.37% in force at 100 ms, >14.51% in force at 150 ms, >11.71% in force at 200 ms, >7.23% in force at 250 ms, and >8.50% in absolute PF as meaningful improvements in male youth soccer players. Decrements in the IMTP kinetics greater than the aforementioned values could possibly be used as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue and preparedness for training or competition.

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete's training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete's training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete's ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study

Comfort, P, Dos'Santos, T, Thomas, C, McMahon, JJ, and Suchomel, TJ. An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks: an intervention study. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2116-2129, 2018-The aims of this study were to compare the effects of the exclusion or inclusion of the catch phase during power clean (PC) derivatives on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks, after two 4-week mesocycles of resistance training. Two strength matched groups completed the twice-weekly training sessions either including the catch phase of the PC derivatives (Catch group: n = 16; age 19.3 ± 2.1 years; height 1.79 ± 0.08 m; body mass 71.14 ± 11.79 kg; PC 1 repetition maximum [1RM] 0.93 ± 0.15 kg·kg) or excluding the catch phase (Pull group: n = 18; age 19.8 ± 2.5 years; height 1.73 ± 0.10 m; body mass 66.43 ± 10.13 kg; PC 1RM 0.91 ± 0.18 kg·kg). The Catch and Pull groups both demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.007, power ≥0.834) and meaningful improvements in countermovement jump height (10.8 ± 12.3%, 5.2 ± 9.2%), isometric mid-thigh pull performance (force [F]100: 14.9 ± 17.2%, 15.5 ± 16.0%, F150: 16.0 ± 17.6%, 16.2 ± 18.4%, F200: 15.8 ± 17.6%, 17.9 ± 18.3%, F250: 10.0 ± 16.1%,10.9 ± 14.4%, peak force: 13.7 ± 18.7%, 9.7 ± 16.3%), and PC 1RM (9.5 ± 6.2%, 8.4 ± 6.1%), before and after intervention, respectively. In contrast to the hypotheses, there were no meaningful or significant differences in the percentage change for any variables between groups. This study clearly demonstrates that neither the inclusion nor exclusion of the catch phase of the PC derivatives results in any preferential adaptations over two 4-week, in-season strength and power, mesocycles.

Mechanical Demands of the Hang Power Clean and Jump Shrug: A Joint-Level Perspective

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 32(2): 466-474, 2018-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 a National Collegiate Athletic Association DI team, and completed 3 sets of the HPC and JS at 30, 50, and 70% of their HPC 1 repetition maximum (1RM 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 3-way analysis of variances were used to determine the interaction and main effects of joint, load, and lift type on the 3 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 1RM 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 1RM 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 1RM for the HPC and at 30%-50% of 1RM 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 with 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 1RM HPC. This study provides important novel information about the mechanical demands of 2 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.

Effects of weightlifting exercise, traditional resistance and plyometric training on countermovement jump performance: a meta-analysis

Jump performance is considered an important factor in many sports. Thus, strategies such as weightlifting (WL) exercises, traditional resistance training (TRT) and plyometric training (PT) are effective at improving jump performance. However, it is not entirely clear which of these strategies can enable greater improvements on jump height. Thus, the purpose of the meta-analysis was to compare the improvements on countermovement jump (CMJ) performance between training methods which focus on WL exercises, TRT, and PT. Seven studies were included, of which one study performed both comparison. Therefore, four studies comparing WL exercises vs. TRT (total n = 78) and four studies comparing WL exercises vs. PT (total n = 76). The results showed greater improvements on CMJ performance for WL exercises compared to TRT (ES_diff: 0.72 ± 0.23; _95%CI: 0.26, 1.19; P = 0.002; Δ % = 7.5 and 2.1, respectively). The comparison between WL exercises vs. PT revealed no significant difference between protocols (ES_diff: 0.15 ± 0.23; _95%CI: -0.30, 0.60; P = 0.518; Δ % = 8.8 and 8.1, respectively). In conclusion, WL exercises are superior to promote positive changes on CMJ performance compared to TRT; however, WL exercises and PT are equally effective at improving CMJ performance.

Effects of Load on Peak Power Output Fatigue During the Bench Throw

Boffey, D, Sokmen, B, Sollanek, K, Boda, W, and Winter, S. Effects of load on peak power output fatigue during the bench throw. J Strength Cond Res 33(2): 355-359, 2019-The ability to create power is an important variable for athletic success. No study to date has compared peak power output (PPO) fatigue across multiple sets and with different loads with the bench throw. This study aimed to begin the process of establishing empirical upper-body power training guidelines for moderately strong athletes by determining how load (30, 45, and 60% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) affects PPO (Watts) dropoff during 3 sets of 10 repetitions of the bench throw. Ten resistance-trained male volunteers ([mean ± SD]: age 20.58 ± 1.36 years, height 176.05 ± 9.09 cm, body mass 78.65 ± 9.93 kg, bench press 1RM 99.79 ± 18.52 kg) performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions of the bench throw with one of the 3 loads during 3 weekly sessions. A Humac 360 device collected concentric phase PPO data during each repetition. The data were analyzed using one-way (treatment) and 2-way (treatment × time) repeated-measures analysis of variance. A significant decrease in PPO was observed during repetitions 5-7 at 30%, 3-4 at 45%, and 2-3 at 60% 1RM. Based on the results of this study, coaches who want to maximize power should potentially keep sets of upper-body plyometrics within these repetition ranges. The authors recommend that moderately strong athletes perform the bench throw on a Smith machine at 45% or 60% 1RM to produce high PPO over multiple sets.

Kinetic and kinematic patterns during high intensity clean movement: searching for optimal load

The aim of the present study was to investigate loading effects on kinematic and kinetic variables among elite-weightlifters in order to identify an optimal training load to maximize power production for clean-movement. Nine elite-weightlifter (age: 24 ± 4years, body-mass: 77 ± 6.5kg, height: 176 ± 6.1cm and 1RM clean: 170 ± 5kg) performed 2 separate repetitions of the clean using 85, 90, 95% and 100%, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform and being recorded using 3D-capture-system. Differences in kinematics (barbell displacement, velocity and acceleration) and kinetics (power, vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), rate of force development (RFD), and work) across the loads were statistically assessed. Results revealed significant load effects for the majority of the studied parameters (p < 0.01) and showed that typical bar-displacement, greatest bar-velocity and peak-power were achieved at 85 and 90% 1RM (p < 0.001). Additionally greater average power was shown for 90 and 95% (p < 0.01) and greater work and vGRF were shown for 90, 95 and 100% than 85% 1RM (p < 0.05). Load had no significant effect on peak-vGRF and peak-RFD (p > 0.05). The results of this study, suggest 90% 1RM to be the most advantageous load to train explosive-force and to enhance power-outputs while maintaining technical efficiency in elite-weightlifters.

Redistributing load using wearable resistance during power clean training improves athletic performance

A popular method to improve athletic performance and lower body power is to train with wearable resistance (WR), for example, weighted vests. However, it is currently unknown what training effect this loading method has on full-body explosive movements such as the power clean. The purpose of this study was to determine what effects WR equivalent to 12% body mass (BM) had on the power clean and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Sixteen male subjects (age: 23.2 ± 2.7 years; BM: 90.5 ± 10.3 kg) were randomly assigned to five weeks of traditional (TR) power clean training or training with 12% BM redistributed from the bar to the body using WR. Variables of interest included pre and post CMJ height, power clean one repetition maximum (1RM), peak ground reaction force, power output (PO), and several bar path kinematic variables across loads at 50%, 70%, and 90% of 1RM. The main findings were that WR training: (1) increased CMJ height (8.7%; ES = 0.53) and 1RM power clean (4.2%; ES = 0.2) as compared to the TR group (CMJ height = -1.4%; 1RM power clean = 1.8%); (2) increased PO across all 1RM loads (ES = 0.33-0.62); (3) increased barbell velocity at 90% 1RM (3.5%; ES = 0.74) as compared to the TR group (-4.3%); and (4) several bar path kinematic variables improved at 70% and 90% 1RM loads. WR power clean training with 12% BM can positively influence power clean ability and CMJ performance, as well as improve technique factors.

The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance

This review discusses previous literature that has examined the influence of muscular strength on various factors associated with athletic performance and the benefits of achieving greater muscular strength. Greater muscular strength is strongly associated with improved force-time characteristics that contribute to an athlete's overall performance. Much research supports the notion that greater muscular strength can enhance the ability to perform general sport skills such as jumping, sprinting, and change of direction tasks. Further research indicates that stronger athletes produce superior performances during sport specific tasks. Greater muscular strength allows an individual to potentiate earlier and to a greater extent, but also decreases the risk of injury. Sport scientists and practitioners may monitor an individual's strength characteristics using isometric, dynamic, and reactive strength tests and variables. Relative strength may be classified into strength deficit, strength association, or strength reserve phases. The phase an individual falls into may directly affect their level of performance or training emphasis. Based on the extant literature, it appears that there may be no substitute for greater muscular strength when it comes to improving an individual's performance across a wide range of both general and sport specific skills while simultaneously reducing their risk of injury when performing these skills. Therefore, sport scientists and practitioners should implement long-term training strategies that promote the greatest muscular strength within the required context of each sport/event. Future research should examine how force-time characteristics, general and specific sport skills, potentiation ability, and injury rates change as individuals transition from certain standards or the suggested phases of strength to another.

Optimal Load and Power Spectrum During Jerk and Back Jerk in Competitive Weightlifters

Flores, FJ, Sedano, S, and Redondo, JC. Optimal load and power spectrum during jerk and back jerk in competitive weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 809-816, 2017-Although the ability to develop high levels of power is considered as a key component of success in many sporting activities, the optimal load (Pmax load) that maximizes power output (Pmax) remains controversial mainly during weightlifting movements. The aim of the present study was to determine Pmax load and optimal power spectrum (OPS) required to elicit Pmax by comparing jerk and back jerk exercises in competitive weightlifters. Thirteen male competitive weightlifters participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved performing one repetition maximum (1RM) in the back jerk and jerk and the second session assessed a power test across a spectrum of loads (30-90%) of each subject's 1RM in the predetermined exercises tested. Relative load had a significant effect on peak power, with Pmax load being obtained at 90% of the subjects' 1RM in both exercises assessed. There was no significant difference between the power outputs at 80% of 1RM compared with 90% of 1RM. Furthermore, Pmax load and OPS were the same for jerk and back jerk, whereas peak power in the back jerk demonstrated no significant increases in every load of the power-load curve. We can conclude that it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 80-90% of the 1RM in jerk and back jerk in competitive weightlifters when training to maximize power.

Hang cleans and hang snatches produce similar improvements in female collegiate athletes

Olympic weightlifting movements and their variations are believed to be among the most effective ways to improve power, strength, and speed in athletes. This study investigated the effects of two Olympic weightlifting variations (hang cleans and hang snatches), on power (vertical jump height), strength (1RM back squat), and speed (40-yard sprint) in female collegiate athletes. 23 NCAA Division I female athletes were randomly assigned to either a hang clean group or hang snatch group. Athletes participated in two workout sessions a week for six weeks, performing either hang cleans or hang snatches for five sets of three repetitions with a load of 80-85% 1RM, concurrent with their existing, season-specific, resistance training program. Vertical jump height, 1RM back squat, and 40-yard sprint all had a significant, positive improvement from pre-training to post-training in both groups (p≤0.01). However, when comparing the gain scores between groups, there was no significant difference between the hang clean and hang snatch groups for any of the three dependent variables (i.e., vertical jump height, p=0.46; 1RM back squat, p=0.20; and 40-yard sprint, p=0.46). Short-term training emphasizing hang cleans or hang snatches produced similar improvements in power, strength, and speed in female collegiate athletes. This provides strength and conditioning professionals with two viable programmatic options in athletic-based exercises to improve power, strength, and speed.

Variability of a "force signature" during windmill softball pitching and relationship between discrete force variables and pitch velocity

This study assessed reliability of discrete ground reaction force (GRF) variables over multiple pitching trials, investigated the relationships between discrete GRF variables and pitch velocity (PV) and assessed the variability of the "force signature" or continuous force-time curve during the pitching motion of windmill softball pitchers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for all discrete variables was high (0.86-0.99) while the coefficient of variance (CV) was low (1.4-5.2%). Two discrete variables were significantly correlated to PV; second vertical peak force (r(5)=0.81, p=0.03) and time between peak forces (r(5)=-0.79; p=0.03). High ICCs and low CVs support the reliability of discrete GRF and PV variables over multiple trials and significant correlations indicate there is a relationship between the ability to produce force and the timing of this force production with PV. The mean of all pitchers' curve-average standard deviation of their continuous force-time curves demonstrated low variability (CV=4.4%) indicating a repeatable and identifiable "force signature" pattern during this motion. As such, the continuous force-time curve in addition to discrete GRF variables should be examined in future research as a potential method to monitor or explain changes in pitching performance.