Is the Optimal Load for Maximal Power Output During Hang Power Cleans Submaximal?

Portions of the force-velocity relationship targeted by weightlifting exercises

We compared the force-velocity (F-V) characteristics between jump squat (JS) and weightlifting (hang clean [HC] and HC pull [HCP]) to determine lower limb F-V portions targeted by weightlifting exercises. Ten weightlifters performed JS at 0% (body weight only) to 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) for back squat, and HC and HCP at 30‒90% and 30‒110% of their 1RM for HC, respectively. Force and velocity values at each relative load were plotted to determine the F-V features of JS, HC, and HCP. Linear regression was used to evaluate each participant's JS F-V results to obtain individual F-V relationships. Regression equations evaluated the JS force at a given velocity for each relative load of HC and HCP. HC produced significantly less force than JS at given velocities for 30%, 40%, and 50% 1RM. Furthermore, HCP produced significantly less force than JS at a given velocity for 30% 1RM and exhibited less force than JS at a given velocity for 40% 1RM with moderate effect size. HC and HCP produce comparable forces to JS within the velocity ranges of 60‒90% and 50‒110% 1RM, respectively. Thus, weightlifting exercises target low‒moderate-velocity portion of the lower limb F-V relationship.

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.

Differences in muscle synergies between skilled and unskilled athletes in power clean exercise at various loads

The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in muscle synergy between skilled and unskilled participants using various loading conditions for power clean. Nineteen participants (ten skilled and nine unskilled) performed power clean at 60-90% one repetition maximum (1RM), while measured 12 muscles across the entire body. The vertical impulse was calculated for the unweighting associated with the double-knee bend (DKB) manoeuvre in power clean. Muscle synergies were extracted using non-negative matrix factorization. The weighting of muscle synergies was subsequently compared between the two groups for all loads, and confidence intervals were calculated. The number of muscle synergies in both groups was three, and the functions of all muscle synergies were similar. Muscle synergy 1 involved the first pull, muscle synergy 2 involved the transition and the second pull, and muscle synergy 3 involved DKB. No significant difference in either muscle synergy was observed at 60-80% 1RM weight, while the 90% 1RM showed significantly active in the ankle plantar flexor and knee extensor muscles for muscle synergy 3, which involved DKB only in the skilled group. This indicates that increased joint stiffness during DKB may minimize unweighting. Unskilled individuals may acquire such muscle synergies to lift greater weights.

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.

Comparison of the Power Output Between the Hang Power Clean and Hang High Pull Across a Wide Range of Loads in Weightlifters

ABSTRACT

Takei, S, Hirayama, K, and Okada, J. Comparison of the power output between the hang power clean and hang high pull across a wide range of loads in weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S84-S88, 2021-The current study compared the peak power output during the hang power clean (HPC) and hang high pull (HHP) across a wide range of external loads in weightlifters. Eight weightlifters completed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) assessment for the HPC (1.59 ± 0.17 kg/body mass) and a power test for the HPC and HHP at relative loads of 40, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM of the HPC. The ground reaction force and 2-dimensional bar position data were recorded to determine the system (barbell + body mass) kinetics and bar height, respectively. System power was calculated as force multiplied by system velocity. The HHP produced significantly greater peak power than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. Conversely, there was no statistical or practical difference in peak power between the exercises at 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM. No significant interaction was found in force at peak power, whereas velocity at peak power was significantly greater during the HHP than during the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. In addition, significantly greater peak bar height was observed for the HHP than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. From the power output comparisons across loads, the HHP should be used over the HPC at loads of 40-70% 1RM, whereas the HPC and HHP can be interchangeably used at loads of 80-100% 1RM.