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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of Joint-Level Kinetics During Single-Leg and Double-Leg Weightlifting Derivatives

ABSTRACT

Hayashi, R, Yoshida, T, and Kariyama, Y. Comparison of joint-level kinetics during single- and double-leg weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-Humans have different 3-dimensional biomechanical characteristics of the lower extremities during locomotion with one and both legs. These biomechanical characteristics may also be observed in the weightlifting derivatives. This study aimed to compare the 3-dimensional joint kinetics of the lower extremities during the single-leg hang power clean (SHPC) and double-leg hang power clean (DHPC). Ten male track and field athletes performed the SHPC and DHPC using external loads of 30, 60, and 90% of one repetition maximum (1RM). The 1RMs in SHPC and DHPC were measured separately, and the external loads at 30, 60, and 90% of the 1RM used were determined based on the different 1RMs in SHPC and DHPC. We calculated the joint moment and joint power of the SHPC and DHPC using a motion capture system and force platforms. The hip abduction moment and power of the SHPC were significantly greater than those of the DHPC under all external loads (p < 0.05). In addition, ankle joint moment at all external loads and joint power at 90% of 1RM was greater for SHPC than for DHPC (p < 0.05). Furthermore, although hip (extension-flexion) and ankle joint kinetics in SHPC and DHPC showed similar load dependence, hip abduction axis kinetics was not load dependent. These results suggest that the hip (abduction-adduction) and ankle joint kinetics in SHPC are greater than in DHPC, but hip (abduction-abduction) kinetics in SHPC is not load independent.

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

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.