Correlational analysis between joint-level kinetics of countermovement jumps and weightlifting derivatives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical similarity between net joint moments (NJM) of the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Twelve male Lacrosse players performed three maximal effort CMJs and three repetitions of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC one repetition maximum (1-RM). Ground reaction forces and motion capture data were used to calculate the NJM of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during each exercise. Statistical comparison of the peak NJM indicated that NJM during the HPC and JS across all loads were equal to or greater than the NJM during the CMJ (all p < 0.025). In addition, correlation analyses indicated that CMJ hip NJM were associated (all p < 0.025) with HPC hip NJM at 30% and 70% (r = 0.611-0.822) and JS hip NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.674-0.739), whereas CMJ knee NJM were associated with HPC knee NJM at 70% (r = 0.638) and JS knee NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.664-0.732). Further, CMJ ankle NJM were associated with HPC ankle NJM at 30% and 50% (r = 0.615-0.697) and JS ankle NJM at 30%, 50%, and 70% (r = 0.735-0.824). Lastly, knee and ankle NJM during the JS were greater than during the HPC at 30% and 50% of 1-RM (all p < 0.017). The degree of mechanical similarity between the CMJ and the HPC and JS is dependent on the respective load and joint. [Abstract copyright: © Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.

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

Weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives : a review of the literature

This review examines the literature on weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs) and provides information regarding historical, technical, kinetic and kinematic mechanisms as well as potential benefits and guidelines to implement the use of WOPDs as training tools for sports populations. Only 13 articles were found in a search of electronic databases, which was employed to gather empirical evidence to provide an insight into the kinetic and kinematic mechanisms underpinning WOPDs. Practitioners may implement WOPDs such as push press, push jerk or split jerk from the back as well as the front rack position to provide an adequate stimulus to improve not only weightlifting performance but also sports performance as: (1) the use of WOPDs is an additional strategy to improve weightlifting performance; (2) WOPDs require the ability to develop high forces rapidly by an impulsive triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles, which is mechanically similar to many sporting tasks; (3) WOPDs may be beneficial for enhancing power development and maximal strength in the sport population; and, finally, (4) WOPDs may provide a variation in training stimulus for the sports population due to the technical demands, need for balance and coordination. The potential benefits highlighted in the literature provide a justification for the implementation of WOPDs in sports training. However, there is a lack of information regarding the longitudinal training effects that may result from implementing WOPDs

Understanding the key phases of the countermovement jump force-time curve

The countermovement jump (CMJ) test is commonly conducted to assess neuromuscular function and is being increasingly performed using force platforms. Comprehensive insight into athletes’ neuromuscular function can be gained through detailed analyses of force-time curves throughout specific phases of the CMJ, beyond jump height alone. Confusingly, however, many different terms and methods have been used to describe the different phases of the CMJ. This article describes how six key phases of the CMJ (weighing, unweighting, braking, propulsion, flight, and landing) can be derived from force-time records to facilitate researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding and application to their own practice

An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks

The aims of this study were to compare the effects of the exclusion or inclusion of the catch phase during power clean (PC) derivatives on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks, after two 4-week mesocycles of resistance training. Two strength matched groups completed the twice-weekly training sessions either including the catch phase of the PC derivatives (Catch group: n = 16; age 19.3 ± 2.1 years; height 1.79 ± 0.08 m; body mass 71.14 ± 11.79 kg; PC 1 repetition maximum [1RM] 0.93 ± 0.15 kg·kg-1) or excluding the catch phase (Pull group: n = 18; age 19.8 ± 2.5 years; height 1.73 ± 0.10 m; body mass 66.43 ± 10.13 kg; PC 1RM 0.91 ± 0.18 kg·kg-1). The Catch and Pull groups both demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.007, power ≥0.834) and meaningful improvements in countermovement jump height (10.8 ± 12.3%, 5.2 ± 9.2%), isometric mid-thigh pull performance (force [F]100: 14.9 ± 17.2%, 15.5 ± 16.0%, F150: 16.0 ± 17.6%, 16.2 ± 18.4%, F200: 15.8 ± 17.6%, 17.9 ± 18.3%, F250: 10.0 ± 16.1%,10.9 ± 14.4%, peak force: 13.7 ± 18.7%, 9.7 ± 16.3%), and PC 1RM (9.5 ± 6.2%, 8.4 ± 6.1%), before and after intervention, respectively. In contrast to the hypotheses, there were no meaningful or significant differences in the percentage change for any variables between groups. This study clearly demonstrates that neither the inclusion nor exclusion of the catch phase of the PC derivatives results in any preferential adaptations over two 4-week, in-season strength and power, mesocycles

Training with weightlifting derivatives : the effects of force and velocity overload stimuli

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 0.05). 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

Changes in dynamic strength index in response to strength training

The primary aim of this investigation was to determine the effects of a four-week period of in-season strength training on the dynamic strength index (DSI). Pre and post a four-week period of strength-based training, twenty-four collegiate athletes (age = 19.9 ± 1.3 years; height = 1.70 ± 0.11 m; weight 68.1 ± 11.8 kg) performed three isometric mid-thigh pulls and countermovement jumps to permit the calculation of DSI. T-tests and Cohen’s effect sizes revealed a significant but small (p = 0.009, d = 0.50) decrease in DSI post-training (0.71 ± 0.13 N·N−1) compared to pre-training (0.65 ± 0.11 N·N−1); however, when divided into high and low DSI groups, differential responses were clear. The low DSI group exhibited no significant or meaningful (p = 1.000, d = 0.00) change in DSI pre to post-training (0.56 ± 0.05 N·N−1, 0.56 ± 0.09 N·N−1, respectively), whereas the high DSI group demonstrated a significant and large decrease (p = 0.034, d = 1.29) in DSI pre to post-training (0.85 ± 0.05 N·N−1, 0.74 ± 0.11 N·N−1, respectively), resulting in a significant and moderate difference (p = 0.034, d = 1.29) in the change in DSI between groups. These results demonstrate that DSI decreases in response to strength training, as expected, due to an increase in isometric mid-thigh pull peak force, with minimal change in dynamic (countermovement jump) peak forc

The impact of power clean ability and training age on adaptations to weightlifting-style training

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether weightlifting actions are a viable method for improving athletic performance amongst weaker, inexperienced lifters when compared to individuals with a greater power clean result, and hence weightlifting ability and experience. Two groups of males with distinctly different power clean performances (higher performance (HP): N = 8; BM = 78.1±4.0 kg; 1RM PC = 1.08±0.09 kg.BM-1; lower performance (LP): N = 8; BM=82.6±14.0 kg; 1RM PC=0.78±0.1 kg⸱BM-1) and resistance training age (HP: resistance training experience=3.5±1.2 years; LP: resistance training experience=1.44±1.50 years) undertook 10 weeks of training involving weightlifting derivatives, in addition to supplemental ballistic and plyometric exercises. Testing of athletic performance (represented by measures derived from the countermovement jump) occurred at baseline, after five weeks of training, and after ten weeks of training. Both groups significantly improved across the majority of outcome variables following training (Hedges g=0.98–2.55, P≤0.01-0.05). Only the HP participants experienced significant changes at mid-test (g = 0.99–1.27, P ≤ 0.01-0.05), while no significant changes were revealed between mid- and post-test in this group. In contrast to this, the LP participants displayed a significant improvement in relative impulse (g=1.39, P<0.01) and rate of force development (g=1.91, P<0.01) during this final period (P<0.01). As weaker, inexperienced lifters underwent a significant and meaningful enhancement in maximal neuromuscular measures following weightlifting derivative focused training, practitioners should consider early implementation of such exercises. However, it is important for coaches to note that a delayed training effect might be present in weaker, less experienced lifters

Resistance training volume load with and without exercise displacement

Monitoring the resistance training volume load (VL) (sets × reps × load) is essential to managing resistance training and the recovery⁻adaptation process. Eight trained weightlifters, seven of which were at national level, participated in the study. VL was measured both with (VLwD) and without (VL) the inclusion of barbell displacement, across twenty weeks of training, in order to allow for comparisons to be made of these VL calculating methods. This consisted of recording the load, repetition count, and barbell displacement for every set executed. Comparisons were made between VL and VLwD for individual blocks of training, select training weeks, and select training days. Strong, statistically significant correlations (r ≥ 0.78, < 0.001) were observed between VL and VLwD between all training periods analyzed. -tests revealed statistically significant ( ≤ 0.018) differences between VL and VLwD in four of the seven training periods analyzed. The very strong relationship between VL and VLwD suggest that a coach with time constraints and a large number of athletes can potentially spare the addition of displacement. However, differences in percent change indicate that coaches with ample time should include displacement in VL calculations, in an effort to acquire more precise workload totals

Normalization of early isometric force production as a percentage of peak force during multijoint isometric assessment

Purpose: To determine the reliability of early force production (50-, 100-, 150-, 200-, 250 ms) relative to peak force (PF) during an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and assess the relationships between these variables. Methods: Male collegiate athletes (n = 29; age: 21.1 ± 2.9 years; height: 1.71 ± 0.07 m; body mass: 71.3 ± 13.6 kg) performed IMTPs during two separate testing sessions. Net PF and net force produced at each epoch were calculated. Within- and between-session reliability were determined by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV%). Additionally, Pearson’s correlation coefficients and coefficient of determination, were calculated to examine the relationships between PF and time-specific force production. Results: Net PF and time-specific force demonstrated very high to almost perfect reliability both within- and between-sessions (ICCs 0.82-0.97; CV% 0.35-1.23%). Similarly, time-specific force expressed as a percentage of PF demonstrated very high to almost perfect reliability both within- and between-sessions (ICCs 0.76-0.86; CV% 0.32-2.51%). Strong to nearly perfect relationships (r = 0.615-0.881) exist between net PF and time-specific net force, with relationships improving over longer epochs. Conclusion: Based on the smallest detectable difference, a change in force at 50 ms expressed relative to PF >10% and early force production (100-, 150-, 200- and 250 ms) expressed relative to PF of >2% should be considered meaningful. Expressing early force production as a percentage of PF is reliable and may provide greater insight into the adaptations to the previous training phase than PF alone