Using Barbell Acceleration to Determine the 1 Repetition Maximum of the Jump Shrug

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.

National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on Weightlifting for Sports Performance

ABSTRACT

Comfort, P, Haff, GG, Suchomel, TJ, Soriano, MA, Pierce, KC, Hornsby, WG, Haff, EE, Sommerfield, LM, Chavda, S, Morris, SJ, Fry, AC, and Stone, MH. National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on weightlifting for sports performance. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The origins of weightlifting and feats of strength span back to ancient Egypt, China, and Greece, with the introduction of weightlifting into the Olympic Games in 1896. However, it was not until the 1950s that training based on weightlifting was adopted by strength coaches working with team sports and athletics, with weightlifting research in peer-reviewed journals becoming prominent since the 1970s. Over the past few decades, researchers have focused on the use of weightlifting-based training to enhance performance in nonweightlifters because of the biomechanical similarities (e.g., rapid forceful extension of the hips, knees, and ankles) associated with the second pull phase of the clean and snatch, the drive/thrust phase of the jerk and athletic tasks such as jumping and sprinting. The highest force, rate of force development, and power outputs have been reported during such movements, highlighting the potential for such tasks to enhance these key physical qualities in athletes. In addition, the ability to manipulate barbell load across the extensive range of weightlifting exercises and their derivatives permits the strength and conditioning coach the opportunity to emphasize the development of strength-speed and speed-strength, as required for the individual athlete. As such, the results of numerous longitudinal studies and subsequent meta-analyses demonstrate the inclusion of weightlifting exercises into strength and conditioning programs results in greater improvements in force-production characteristics and performance in athletic tasks than general resistance training or plyometric training alone. However, it is essential that such exercises are appropriately programmed adopting a sequential approach across training blocks (including exercise variation, loads, and volumes) to ensure the desired adaptations, whereas strength and conditioning coaches emphasize appropriate technique and skill development of athletes performing such exercises.

Comparing Biomechanical Time Series Data During the Hang-Power Clean and Jump Shrug

ABSTRACT

Kipp, K, Comfort, P, and Suchomel, TJ. Comparing biomechanical time series data during the hang-power clean and jump shrug. J Strength Cond Res 35(9): 2389-2396, 2021-The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the force-, velocity-, displacement-, and power-time curves during the hang-power clean (HPC) and the jump shrug (JS). To this end, 15 male lacrosse players were recruited from a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division-I team, and performed one set of 3 repetitions of the HPC and JS at 70% of their HPC 1 repetition maximum (1RM HPC). Two in-ground force plates were used to measure the vertical ground reaction force (GRF) and calculate the barbell-lifter system mechanics during each exercise. The time series data were normalized to 100% of the movement phase, which included the initial countermovement and extension phases, and analyzed with curve analysis and statistical parametric mapping (SPM). The SPM procedure highlighted significant differences in the force-time curves of the HPC and JS between 85 and 100% of the movement phase. Likewise, the SPM procedure highlighted significant differences in the velocity- and power-time curve of the HPC and JS between 90 and 100% of the movement phase. For all comparisons, performance of the JS was associated with greater magnitudes of the mechanical outputs. Although results from the curve analysis showed significant differences during other periods of the movement phase, these differences likely reflect statistical issues related to the inappropriate analysis of time series data. Nonetheless, these results collectively indicate that when compared with the HPC, execution of the JS is characterized by greater GRF and barbell-lifter system velocity and power outputs during the final 10% of the movement phase.

Contrast Tempo of Movement and Its Effect on Power Output and Bar Velocity During Resistance Exercise

In this study, we examined the impact of contrast movement tempo (fast vs. slow) on power output and bar velocity during the bench press exercise. Ten healthy men (age = 26.9 ± 4.1 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 10.3 kg; bench press 1RM = 136.8 ± 27.7 kg) with significant experience in resistance training (9.4 ± 5.6 years) performed the bench press exercise under three conditions: with an explosive tempo of movement in each of three repetitions (E/E/E = explosive, explosive, explosive); with a slow tempo of movement in the first repetition and an explosive tempo in the next two repetitions (S/E/E = slow, explosive, explosive); and with a slow tempo of movement in the first two repetitions and an explosive tempo in the last repetition (S/S/E = slow, slow, explosive). The slow repetitions were performed with a 5/0/5/0 (eccentric/isometric/concentric/isometric) movement tempo, while the explosive repetitions were performed with an X/0/X/0 (X- maximal speed of movement) movement tempo. During each experimental session, the participants performed one set of three repetitions at 60%1RM. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect for peak power output (PP; p = 0.03; η² = 0.26) and for peak bar velocity (PV; p = 0.04; η² = 0.24). Futhermore there was a statistically significant main effect of condition for PP (p = 0.04; η² = 0.30) and PV (p = 0.02; η² = 0.35). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PP was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both) and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PV was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both), and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for main effect of condition revealed that PP and PV was significantly higher for the E/E/E compared to the S/S/E (p = 0.04; p = 0.02; respectively). The main finding of this study was that different distribution of movement tempo during a set has a significant impact on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 60%1RM. However, the use of one slow repetition at the beginning of a set does not decrease the level of power output in the third repetition of that set.

Mechanical power production assessment during weightlifting exercises. A systematic review

The assessment of the mechanical power production is of great importance for researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this review was to compare the differences in ground reaction force (GRF), kinematic, and combined (bar velocity x GRF) methods to assess mechanical power production during weightlifting exercises. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 May 2019. The peak power output (PPO) was selected as the key variable. The exercises included in this review were clean variations, which includes the hang power clean (HPC), power clean (PC) and clean. A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria with 53.9% using the GRF, 38.5% combined, and 30.8% the kinematic method. Articles were evaluated and descriptively analysed to enable comparison between methods. The three methods have inherent methodological differences in the data analysis and measurement systems, which suggests that these methods should not be used interchangeably to assess PPO in Watts during weightlifting exercises. In addition, this review provides evidence and rationale for the use of the GRF to assess power production applied to the system mass while the kinematic method may be more appropriate when looking to assess only the power applied to the barbell.

Relative importance of lower extremity net joint moments in relation to bar velocity and acceleration in weightlifting

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative importance of net joint moments (NJM) in relation to bar kinematics during the clean. Ground reaction force and 3-D motion data were recorded as seven weightlifters performed cleans at 85% of their competition maximum, and were used to calculate hip, knee, and ankle NJM. Vertical bar kinematics were also calculated. NJM were used as inputs to a three-layer feedforward artificial neural network (ANN), which was trained to predict bar kinematics. Subject-specific ANN with 15 hidden neurons could effectively model the association between NJM and bar kinematics for each individual weightlifter (r: 0.965 ± 0.031; MSE: 0.169 ± 0.152). The relative importance (%) of hip, knee, and ankle NJM to bar velocity were 23%, 31%, and 46%, respectively, whereas the relative importance of hip, knee, and ankle NJM to bar acceleration were 23%, 39%, and 38%, respectively. Non-parametric statistics indicated that the ankle NJM exhibited the greatest relative importance in relation to bar velocity, whereas the knee and ankle NJM showed the greatest relative importance in relation to bar acceleration. These results indicate that the NJM produced at the knee and ankle joint are of great importance in contributing to bar kinematics during weightlifting.

Effect of Onset Threshold on Kinetic and Kinematic Variables of a Weightlifting Derivative Containing a First and Second Pull

James, LP, Suchomel, TJ, McMahon, JJ, Chavda, S, and Comfort, P. Effect of onset threshold on kinetic and kinematic variables of a weightlifting derivative containing a first and second pull. J Strength Cond Res 34(2): 298-307, 2020-This study sought to determine the effect of different movement onset thresholds on both the reliability and absolute values of performance variables during a weightlifting derivative containing both a first and second pull. Fourteen men (age: 25.21 ± 4.14 years; body mass: 81.1 ± 11.4 kg; and 1 repetition maximum [1RM] power clean: 1.0 ± 0.2 kg·kg) participated in this study. Subjects performed the snatch-grip pull with 70% of their power clean 1RM, commencing from the mid-shank, while isolated on a force platform. Two trials were performed enabling within-session reliability of dependent variables to be determined. Three onset methods were used to identify the initiation of the lift (5% above system weight [SW], the first sample above SW, or 10 N above SW), from which a series of variables were extracted. The first peak phase peak force and all second peak phase kinetic variables were unaffected by the method of determining movement onset; however, several remaining second peak phase variables were significantly different between methods. First peak phase peak force and average force achieved excellent reliability regardless of the onset method used (coefficient of variation [CV] < 5%; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.90). Similarly, during the second peak phase, peak force, average force, and peak velocity achieved either excellent or acceptable reliability (CV < 10%; ICC > 0.80) in all 3 onset conditions. The reliability was generally reduced to unacceptable levels at the first sample and 10 N method across all first peak measures except peak force. When analyzing a weightlifting derivative containing both a first and second pull, the 5% method is recommended as the preferred option of those investigated.

The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization

Recent reviews have attempted to refute the efficacy of applying Selye's general adaptation syndrome (GAS) as a conceptual framework for the training process. Furthermore, the criticisms involved are regularly used as the basis for arguments against the periodization of training. However, these perspectives fail to consider the entirety of Selye's work, the evolution of his model, and the broad applications he proposed. While it is reasonable to critically evaluate any paradigm, critics of the GAS have yet to dismantle the link between stress and adaptation. Disturbance to the state of an organism is the driving force for biological adaptation, which is the central thesis of the GAS model and the primary basis for its application to the athlete's training process. Despite its imprecisions, the GAS has proven to be an instructive framework for understanding the mechanistic process of providing a training stimulus to induce specific adaptations that result in functional enhancements. Pioneers of modern periodization have used the GAS as a framework for the management of stress and fatigue to direct adaptation during sports training. Updates to the periodization concept have retained its founding constructs while explicitly calling for scientifically based, evidence-driven practice suited to the individual. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide greater clarity on how the GAS serves as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize the periodization of training.

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.

Muscle-Specific Effective Mechanical Advantage and Joint Impulse in Weightlifting

Kipp, K, and Harris, C. Muscle-specific effective mechanical advantage and joint impulse in weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1905-1910, 2017-Lifting greater loads during weightlifting exercises may theoretically be achieved through increasing the magnitudes of net joint impulses or manipulating the joints' effective mechanical advantage (EMA). The purpose of this study was to investigate muscle-specific EMA and joint impulse as well as impulse-momentum characteristics of the lifter-barbell system across a range of external loads during the execution of the clean. Collegiate-level weightlifters performed submaximal cleans at 65, 75, and 85% of their 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), whereas data from a motion analysis system and a force plate were used to calculate lifter-barbell system impulse and velocity, as well as net extensor impulse generated at the hip, knee, and ankle joints and the EMA of the gluteus maximus, hamstrings, quadriceps, and triceps surae muscles. The results indicated that the lifter-barbell system impulse did not change as load increased, whereas the velocity of the lifter-barbell system decreased with greater load. In addition, the net extensor impulse at all joints increased as load increased. The EMA of all muscles did not, however, change as load increased. The load-dependent effects on the impulse-velocity characteristics of the lifter-barbell system may reflect musculoskeletal force-velocity behaviors, and may further indicate that the weightlifting performance is limited by the magnitude of ground reaction force impulse. In turn, the load-dependent effects observed at the joint level indicated that lifting greater loads were due to greater net extensor impulses generated at the joints of the lower extremity and not greater EMAs of the respective extensor muscles. In combination, these results suggest that lifting greater external loads during the clean is due to the ability to generate large extensor joint impulses, rather than manipulate EMA.

Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for implementation and application

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.

Effect of various loads on the force-time characteristics of the hang high pull

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 (HHP). Fourteen 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 [HPC]: 104.9 ± 15.1 kg) performed sets of the HHP at 30, 45, 65, and 80% of their 1RM HPC. 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 HPC, respectively. Effect sizes between loads indicated that larger differences in velocity at peak power existed as compared with those displayed by force at peak power. It seems that differences in velocity may contribute to a greater extent to differences in peak power production as compared with force during the HHP. 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 HHP.