The Effect of Training with Weightlifting Catching or Pulling Derivatives on Squat Jump and Countermovement Jump Force-Time Adaptations

Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull?

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.

Postactivation Performance Enhancement With Maximal Isometric Contraction on Power-Clean Performance Across Multiple Sets

PURPOSE

This study investigated the postactivation performance-enhancement effect of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) at the starting position on power-clean performance over a series of contrast sets.

METHODS

Eighteen male (age: 31 [3.7] y, body mass: 76.8 [9.1] kg, height: 175.0 [5.2] cm) and 2 female (age: 27.5 [3.5] y, body mass: 53.3.8 [2.0] kg, height: 158.5 [4.9] cm) resistance-trained individuals performed a contrast postactivation performance-enhancement protocol (isometric contrast training condition [ISO]) consisting of 3 sets of 3 MVICs alternated with 3 power cleans, with an intracontrast rest period of 1 minute. A control protocol consisted of 3 sets of 3 power cleans were performed in a separate session. Barbell velocity during the power clean was measured as an indicator of performance.

RESULTS

A significant time effect was observed for both mean velocity (MV; P < .001) and peak velocity (PV; P = .008). Time × group (P = .415-.444) and group (P = .158-.210) effects showed no significant difference for either MV or PV. However, differences in MV and PV between the corresponding sets of ISO and control condition exceeded the minimum worthwhile change, showing a small to moderate effect (MV: d = 0.38-0.50, PV: d = 0.35-0.50) in favor of ISO. There was no significant difference in rating of perceived exertion between conditions (P = .385, d = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Power-clean performance was potentiated after 1 minute of rest following 3 repetitions of MVIC across 3 sets. Furthermore, the ISO protocol did not result in greater perception of exertion. These results indicate that coaches may incorporate MVICs as the postactivation performance-enhancement stimulus during contrast training involving the power-clean exercise.

Effects of Expertise on Muscle Activity during the Hang Power Clean and Hang Power Snatch Compared to Snatch and Clean Pulls - An Explorative Analysis

The purpose was to compare the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the Hang Power Clean (HPC) and Hang Power Snatch (HPS) with the Hang Clean Pull (HCP) and Hang Snatch Pull (HSP). Additionally, the influence of weightlifting expertise (beginner, advanced and elite) on EMG activity was analyzed. Twenty-seven weightlifters (beginner: n = 11, age: 23.9 ± 3.2 years, bodyweight: 75.7 ± 10.5 kg; advanced: n = 10, age: 24.8 ± 4.5 years, bodyweight: 69.4 ± 13.9 kg; elite: n = 6, age: 25.5 ± 5.2 years, bodyweight: 75.5 ± 12.5 kg) participated in this study. Participants performed two repetitions of HPC, HPS, HCP, and HSP at 50%, 70%, and 90% 1RM, respectively. The EMG activity of vastus lateralis (VL), gluteus maximus (GM), erector spinae (ES), rectus abdominis (RA) and trapezius (TZ) was recorded and normalized to the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of each muscle. There were significant differences in RA and ES EMG activity at 70% and 90% 1RM during HPC compared to HCP in the beginner group (p < 0.05, Hedges g = 0.50-1.06). Significant greater ES activity was observed in the beginner, advanced, and elite groups (p < 0.05, g = 0.27-0.98) during the HPS when compared to the HSP at 50-90% 1RM. TZ muscle activity was significantly greater at 50% and 70% 1RM in the HCP compared to the HPC in the elite group (p < 0.05, g = 0.61-1.08), while the beginner group reached significance only at 50% 1RM favoring HPC (p < 0.05, g = 0.38). Moreover, the EMG activity of the TZ during the HSP and HPS was significantly different only at 50% 1RM in the elite group and favored HSP (p < 0.05, g = 0.27). No differences were observed between the levels of weightlifting expertise. Based upon the results of this study, the overall pattern of EMG activity of the predominant muscles involved in HPC/HPS and the corresponding weightlifting pulling derivatives, apart from the stabilizing muscle (RA and ES), is similar at higher intensities (>70% 1RM) and expertise does not influence muscle activity.

The relationship between elastography-based muscle properties and vertical jump performance, countermovement utilization ratio, and rate of force development

This study explored the relationships between passive muscle stiffness (shear modulus) and vertical jumping performance, countermovement utilization ratio (CUR) and rate of force development (RFD) in an attempt to unravel the mechanism that may explain the association between shear modulus and performance. 32 recreationally active participants (16 males, 16 females; age: 22.4 ± 5.1 years) participated. Shear modulus was assessed for the lateral and medial gastrocnemius (GL and GM), and vastus medialis (VM) and lateralis (VL) muscles using shear wave elastography. Squat jump (SJ) and countermovement (CMJ) jump were determined, with CUR being expressed as the ratio between the two. RFD in ankle and knee extension tasks was measured using isometric dynamometers. Our results suggest that within a heterogeneous group of recreational athletes, passive muscle stiffness is not related to RFD and jump performance, but positively related to CUR. In males, shear modulus of the GL was positively related to SJ height (r = 0.55). We also found inverse moderate correlations between VL and VM shear modulus and RFD in females only (r = -0.50 to -0.51), but this relationship was possibly affected by age and body fat content. Different mechanisms may underpin the association between shear modulus and performance depending on the muscle, task and population investigated.

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.

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

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.

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women

The purpose of this study was to compare the propulsion phase characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) performed across a spectrum of relative loads. Thirteen resistance-trained women (18-23 years old) performed JS, HEXJ, and JShrug repetitions at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% BM during three separate testing sessions. Propulsion mean force (MF), duration (Dur), peak power output (PP), force at PP (F_PP), and velocity at PP (V_PP) were compared between exercises and loads using a series of 3 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA and Hedge's g effect sizes. There were no significant differences in MF or Dur between exercises. While load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PP were significantly greater than the JS, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. The JShrug produced significantly greater F_PP than the JS and HEXJ at loads ranging from BM-60% BM, but not at 80 or 100% BM. Load-averaged V_PP produced during the JS and HEXJ was significantly greater than the JShrug; however, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. Practically meaningful differences between exercises indicated that the JShrug produced greater magnitudes of force during shorter durations compared to the JS and HEXJ at light loads (BM-40%). The JS and HEXJ may be classified as more velocity-dominant exercises while the JShrug may be more force-dominant. Thus, it is important to consider the context in which each exercise is prescribed for resistance-trained women to provide an effective training stimulus.

Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives

The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre- and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g = -0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g = -0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.

Impact of maximal strength training on countermovement jump phase characteristics in athletes with cerebral palsy

Analysis of the countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time curve phases provides insight into athlete neuromuscular function and methods by which jump height improves in response to training. A CMJ phase analysis and the dynamic strength index (DSI) have yet to be explored in athletes with cerebral palsy (CP). This study aimed to address this knowledge gap. Eleven state- to international-level athletes with CP completed a pre-post maximal strength training intervention with waitlist control. CMJ was assessed via force plate pre/post baseline and after the 12-week intervention. Following the intervention, CMJ height, takeoff velocity, and concentric phase peak and mean force, impulse and mean acceleration improved significantly (p = 0.006-0.001). No changes were observed in any eccentric braking phase variable (p = 0.79-0.13), while DSI lowered (p = 0.03). In athletes with CP, strength training increased CMJ concentric phase peak and mean force and impulse, increasing velocity and acceleration and therefore jump height. DSI lowered due to moderate and small increases in isometric mid-thigh pull and CMJ peak force, respectively. Unlike in non-disabled athletes, strength training did not alter any eccentric phase variable; therefore, other modalities may be required to further optimize jumping performance in athletes with CP.

Altered countermovement jump force profile and muscle-tendon unit kinematics following combined ballistic training

Combined heavy‐ and light‐load ballistic training is often employed in high‐performance sport to improve athletic performance and is accompanied by adaptations in muscle architecture. However, little is known about how training affects muscle‐tendon unit (MTU) kinematics during the execution of a sport‐specific skill (e.g., jumping), which could improve our understanding of how training improves athletic performance. The aim of this study was to investigate vastus lateralis (VL) MTU kinematics during a countermovement jump (CMJ) following combined ballistic training. Eighteen young, healthy males completed a 10‐week program consisting of weightlifting derivatives, plyometrics, and ballistic tasks under a range of loads. Ultrasonography of VL and force plate measurements during a CMJ were taken at baseline, mid‐test, and post‐test. The training program improved CMJ height by 11 ± 13%. During the CMJ, VL's MTU and series elastic element (SEE) length changes and velocities increased from baseline to post‐test, but VL's fascicle length change and velocity did not significantly change. It is speculated that altered lower limb coordination and increased force output of the lower limb muscles during the CMJ allowed more energy to be stored within VL's SEE. This may have contributed to enhanced VL MTU work during the propulsion phase and an improved CMJ performance following combined ballistic training.

Improved power clean performance with the hook-grip is not due to altered force-time or horizontal bar-path characteristics

he underlying biomechanical benefits of hook-grip (HG) over conventional closed-grip (CG) remain unclear. This study compared bar-path kinematics and force-time variables of the power clean (PC) performed with HG or CG. We also aimed to compared kinetic changes measured by force platform versus linear position transducer (LPT). Eleven well-trained men volunteered. Following a familiarisation session, HG, and CG 1RM conditions, were randomly completed seven days apart. System kinetics and barbell kinematics were recorded via synchronized force platform+LPT system and two-dimensional motion-capture. Statistical parametric mapping (SPM), analysis of variance, and standardised differences were utilised. The SPM cut-offs were determined via novel combination of force and displacement. No between-condition differences in normalised force-time variables of the pull or catch were detected. The first and second pull duration was similar between conditions (ES = 0.04-0.38). Conversely, catch and total PC durations were shorter at 80-95% (ES = 0.26-0.75), with the weightless phase more prolonged at 95% and 100% (ES = 0.54-0.76) with HG compared to CG. Improved timing of the turnover and catch phases appears to be the primary difference between HG and CG performance. Thus, grip type is possibly irrelevant to non-weightlifting athletes when performing submaximal catch-less derivatives..

A systematic review of resistance training methodologies for the development of lower body concentric mean power, peak power, and mean propulsive power in team-sport athletes

This study aimed to systematically review training methods prescribed to develop lower-body power, determine their effectiveness for the development of lower-body mechanical power and their implementation in an annual training cycle amongst team-sport athletes. The absolute and relative outcome values of concentric mean power, peak power and mean propulsive power were extracted from 19 studies. Outcomes were assessed using baseline to post intervention percent change, effect sizes, and the level of evidence concerning the method's effectiveness. A thorough analysis of the literature indicated that, based on the high level of evidence, traditional (e.g., strength training alone) and combination training (e.g., complex and contrast) methods should be considered. Further, optimal load and velocity-based training can be implemented if coaches have access to the appropriate equipment to monitor movement velocity and mechanical power in every session. This is of particular importance in periods of the season where high volumes of technical-tactical training and congested fixture periods are present. Also, flywheel, eccentric overload and weightlifting methods have been shown to be effective although the level of evidence is low. Future research should expand on current training practices whilst adequately reporting actual training loads from sport-specific training and games alongside strength-power training protocols.

The effect of load based on body mass percentage on peak power output in the hang power clean, hang high pull, and mid-thigh clean pull

BACKGROUND

Prescribing load at the peak power output (PPO) is one of the strategies utilized to enhance lower-body muscle power. PPO of an exercise is determined based on a relative percentage of the one-repetition maximum test (1RM). However, 1RM tests may be impractical in some weightlifting derivatives. This study aimed to identify the PPO of the hang power clean (HPC), hang high pull (HHP), and mid-thigh clean pull (MTCP) based on a relative percentage of body mass (BM).

METHODS

Fifteen males with weightlifting experience performed HPC, HHP, and MTCP at loads ranging from 30-90% BM. Kinematic data were collected through a 16-camera infrared motion capture system and processed based on a 3-dimensional lower-extremity model. Ground reaction force (GRF) data were collected from two force plates. PPO was calculated as the product of model center of mass velocity and combined vertical GRF during the concentric phase.

RESULTS

PPO occurred at 90% BM for the HPC. In addition, the PPO occurred at 90% BM for the HHP and it was not different than 70 and 80% BM. At last, the PPO for MTCP occurred at 80% BM and it was not different than 60 and 70% BM.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative percentages of BM can be used to determine PPO in the HPC, HHP, and MTCP. PPO during HPC is achieved at 90% BM, while the PPO for HHP and MTCP is achieved between 70 to 90% BM and 60 to 80% BM, respectively.

Training for Muscular Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity

Linear loading, the two-for-two rule, percent of one repetition maximum (1RM), RM zones, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), and velocity-based training (VBT) are all methods of adjusting resistance training intensity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages that strength and conditioning practitioners should be aware of when measuring and monitoring strength characteristics. The linear loading and 2-for-2 methods may be beneficial for novice athletes; however, they may be limited in their capacity to provide athletes with variation and detrimental if used exclusively for long periods of time. The percent of 1RM and RM zone methods may provide athletes with more variation and greater potential for strength-power adaptations; however, they fail to account for daily changes in athlete's performance capabilities. An athlete's daily readiness can be addressed to various extents by both subjective (e.g., RPE, repetitions in reserve, set-repetition best, and APRE) and objective (e.g., VBT) load adjustment methods. Future resistance training monitoring may aim to include a combination of measures that quantify outcome (e.g., velocity, load, time, etc.) with process (e.g., variability, coordination, efficiency, etc.) relevant to the stage of learning or the task being performed. Load adjustment and monitoring methods should be used to supplement and guide the practitioner, quantify what the practitioner 'sees', and provide longitudinal data to assist in reviewing athlete development and providing baselines for the rate of expected development in resistance training when an athlete returns to sport from injury or large training load reductions.

Dynamic Strength Index: Relationships with Common Performance Variables and Contextualization of Training Recommendations

The purposes of this study were to examine the relationships between dynamic strength index (DSI) and other strength-power performance characteristics and to contextualize DSI scores using case study comparisons. 88 male and 67 female NCAA division I collegiate athletes performed countermovement jumps (CMJ) and isometric mid-thigh pulls (IMTP) during a pre-season testing session as part of a long-term athlete monitoring program. Spearman's correlations were used to assess the relationships between DSI and CMJ peak force, height, modified reactive strength index, peak power and IMTP peak force and rate of force development (RFD). Very large relationships existed between DSI and IMTP peak force (r = -0.848 and -0.746), while small-moderate relationships existed between DSI and CMJ peak force (r = 0.297 and 0.313), height (r = 0.108 and 0.167), modified reactive strength index (r = 0.174 and 0.274), and IMTP RFD (r = -0.341 and -0.338) for men and women, respectively. Finally, relationships between DSI and CMJ peak power were trivial-small for male (r = 0.008) and female athletes (r = 0.191). Case study analyses revealed that despite similar DSI scores, each athlete's percentile rankings for each variable and CMJ force-time characteristics were unique, which may suggest different training emphases are needed. Based on the explained variance, an athlete's IMTP performance may have a larger influence on their DSI score compared to the CMJ. DSI scores should be contextualized using additional performance data to ensure each individual athlete receives the appropriate training stimulus during different training phases throughout the year.