1
|
Techmanski BS, Kissick CR, Loturco I, Suchomel TJ. Using Barbell Acceleration to Determine the 1 Repetition Maximum of the Jump Shrug. J Strength Cond Res 2024; 38:1486-1493. [PMID: 39072659 DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000004872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Techmanski, BS, Kissick, CR, Loturco, I, and Suchomel, TJ. Using barbell acceleration to determine the 1 repetition maximum of the jump shrug. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1486-1493, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of the jump shrug (JS) using the barbell acceleration characteristics of repetitions performed with relative percentages of the hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.5 ± 15.7 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1) completed 2 testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and JS repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM HPC. A linear position transducer was used to determine concentric duration and the percentage of the propulsive phase (P%) where barbell acceleration was greater than gravitational acceleration (i.e., a>-9.81 m·s-2). Two 1 way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare each variable across loads, whereas Hedge's g effect sizes were used to examine the magnitude of the differences. Concentric duration ranged from 449.7 to 469.8 milliseconds and did not vary significantly between loads (p = 0.253; g = 0.20-0.39). The P% was 57.4 ± 7.2%, 64.8 ± 5.9%, 73.2 ± 4.3%, 78.7 ± 4.0%, and 80.3 ± 3.5% when using 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% 1RM HPC, respectively. P% produced during the 80 and 100% 1RM loads were significantly greater than those at 20, 40, and 60% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.30-3.90). In addition, P% was significantly greater during 60% 1RM compared with both 20 and 40% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.58-2.58) and 40% was greater than 20% 1RM (p = 0.003, g = 1.09). A braking phase was present during each load and, thus, a 1RM JS load was not established. Heavier loads may be needed to achieve a 100% propulsive phase when using this method.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Baylee S Techmanski
- Athlete Performance, Mequon, Wisconsin
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin
| | | | - Irineu Loturco
- Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, Sao Paulo, Brazil; and
| | - Timothy J Suchomel
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Suchomel TJ, Techmanski BS, Kissick CR, Comfort P. Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull? J Strength Cond Res 2024; 38:1321-1325. [PMID: 38900178 DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000004845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Suchomel, TJ, Techmanski, BS, Kissick, CR, and Comfort, P. Can the velocity of a 1RM hang power clean be used to estimate a 1RM hang high pull? J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1321-1325, 2024-The purpose of this study was to estimate the 1-repetition maximum hang high pull (1RM HHP) using the peak barbell velocity of a 1RM hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.3 ± 15.4 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg-1) with previous HPC experience participated in 2 testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, and 80% of their 1RM HPC. Peak barbell velocity was measured using a linear position transducer during the 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions performed at each load. The peak barbell velocity achieved during the 1RM HPC was determined as the criterion value for a 1RM performance. Subject-specific linear regression analyses were completed using slope-intercept equations created from the peak velocity of the 1RM HPC and the peak barbell velocities produced at each load during the HHP repetitions. The peak barbell velocity during the 1RM HPC was 1.74 ± 0.30 m·s-1. The average load-velocity profile showed that the estimated 1RM HHP of the subjects was 98.0 ± 19.3% of the 1RM HPC. Although a 1RM HHP value may be estimated using the peak barbell velocity during the HPC, strength and conditioning practitioners should avoid this method because of the considerable variation within the measurement. Additional research examining different methods of load prescription for weightlifting pulling derivatives is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J Suchomel
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Baylee S Techmanski
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin
- Athlete Performance, Mequon, Wisconsin
| | - Cameron R Kissick
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin
- New York Mets, Queens, New York; and
| | - Paul Comfort
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
- Strength and Power Research Group, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Suchomel TJ, Techmanski BS, Kissick CR, Comfort P. Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2023; 8:35. [PMID: 36976132 PMCID: PMC10055813 DOI: 10.3390/jfmk8010035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 02/18/2023] [Accepted: 03/10/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J. Suchomel
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford M6 6PU, UK
| | | | | | - Paul Comfort
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford M6 6PU, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Handford MJ, Rivera FM, Maroto-Izquierdo S, Hughes JD. Plyo-Accentuated Eccentric Loading Methods to Enhance Lower Limb Muscle Power. Strength Cond J 2021. [DOI: 10.1519/ssc.0000000000000635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
5
|
Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, Comfort P. Training With Weightlifting Derivatives: The Effects of Force and Velocity Overload Stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34:1808-1818. [PMID: 32398635 DOI: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000003639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Suchomel, TJ, McKeever, SM, and Comfort, P. Training with weightlifting derivatives: The effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1808-1818, 2020-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. Preintervention and postintervention isometric midthigh 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) leg were examined. Statistically significant differences in preintervention to postintervention 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 with 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 with submaximally loaded weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J Suchomel
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin; and.,Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Shana M McKeever
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin; and
| | - Paul Comfort
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, McMahon JJ, Comfort P. The Effect of Training with Weightlifting Catching or Pulling Derivatives on Squat Jump and Countermovement Jump Force-Time Adaptations. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2020; 5:E28. [PMID: 33467244 PMCID: PMC7739439 DOI: 10.3390/jfmk5020028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J. Suchomel
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA;
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK; (J.J.M.); (P.C.)
| | - Shana M. McKeever
- Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA;
| | - John J. McMahon
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK; (J.J.M.); (P.C.)
| | - Paul Comfort
- Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK; (J.J.M.); (P.C.)
- Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Drury B, Ratel S, Clark CC, Fernandes JF, Moran J, Behm DG. Eccentric Resistance Training in Youth: Perspectives for Long-Term Athletic Development. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2019; 4:E70. [PMID: 33467385 PMCID: PMC7739302 DOI: 10.3390/jfmk4040070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2019] [Revised: 11/21/2019] [Accepted: 11/25/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin Drury
- Department of Applied Sport Sciences, Hartpury University, Gloucestershire GL19 3BE, England, UK;
| | - Sébastien Ratel
- Laboratoire des Adaptations Métaboliques à l’Exercice en conditions Physiologiques et Pathologiques (AME2P, EA 3533), Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France;
| | - Cain C.T. Clark
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5RW, England, UK;
| | - John F.T. Fernandes
- Department of Applied Sport Sciences, Hartpury University, Gloucestershire GL19 3BE, England, UK;
| | - Jason Moran
- School of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3WA, UK;
| | - David G Behm
- School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador, A1C 5S7C, Canada;
| |
Collapse
|