Enhancing the Force-Velocity Profile of Athletes Using Weightlifting Derivatives

Suchomel, Timothy J.; Comfort, Paul; Lake, Jason P.

doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000275

Cited by 101 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the loads implemented for these exercises may not have provided an adequate load or volume stimulus to the Pull group, which may have prevented them from displaying greater training benefits compared to the Catch group. Given that weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce greater force and velocity characteristics, dependent on the load used (43), researchers may consider investigating the training effects of weightlifting pulling derivatives that use loads which emphasize either a force or velocity overload stimulus, as described by Suchomel et al, (43), compared to training with weightlifting catching derivatives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent reviews of weightlifting derivatives also suggested that variations of the PC, which omit the catch phase, namely the clean pull, mid-thigh pull, jump shrug and hang high pull, may be advantageous when training athletes who are less proficient with full weightlifting movements that include the catch phase (41,43). This is supported by additional research that has suggested the use of associate exercises that enhance explosive strength during the second pull movement in less skillful athletes (25).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study

Comfort

Dos’Santos

Thomas

et al. 2018

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comfort, P, Dos'Santos, T, Thomas, C, McMahon, JJ, and Suchomel, TJ. An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks: an intervention study. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2116-2129, 2018-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) 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). 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study

Comfort

Dos’Santos

Thomas

et al. 2018

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jump squats 4. Weightlifting derivatives including: jump shrugs and hang clean pulls Based on training recommendations [ 81 , 83 , 98 , 101 , 108 , 148 ] Sasaki et al [ 42 ] Male soccer 180° turn—PP 0.44 ± 0.07 Spiteri et al [ 106 ] Female basketball 180° turn—PP 0.42 ± 0.03 to 0.47 ± 0.04 Jones et al [ 36 ] Female soccer 180° turn—PP (4.03 ± 0.2 m·s −1 ) 0.517 ± 0.082 Dos’Santos et al [ 59 ] Male team sport 180° turn—PP 0.46 ± 0.10 Note: Strength training should not be omitted and overlooked, as an underpinning foundation of strength is required for effective use of plyometrics, ballistic training, and weightlifting exercises [ 81 , 83 , 98 , 101 , 108 , 148 ]. Shorter GCTs, and greater braking and propulsive forces have been identified as determinants of faster COD speed performance [ 40 , 42 , 59 , 83 , 106 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Angle and Velocity on Change of Direction Biomechanics: An Angle-Velocity Trade-Off

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes of direction (CODs) are key manoeuvres linked to decisive moments in sport and are also key actions associated with lower limb injuries. During sport athletes perform a diverse range of CODs, from various approach velocities and angles, thus the ability to change direction safely and quickly is of great interest. To our knowledge, a comprehensive review examining the influence of angle and velocity on change of direction (COD) biomechanics does not exist. Findings of previous research indicate the biomechanical demands of CODs are ‘angle’ and ‘velocity’ dependent and are both critical factors that affect the technical execution of directional changes, deceleration and reacceleration requirements, knee joint loading, and lower limb muscle activity. Thus, these two factors regulate the progression and regression in COD intensity. Specifically, faster and sharper CODs elevate the relative risk of injury due to the greater associative knee joint loading; however, faster and sharper directional changes are key manoeuvres for successful performance in multidirectional sport, which subsequently creates a ‘performance-injury conflict’ for practitioners and athletes. This conflict, however, may be mediated by an athlete’s physical capacity (i.e. ability to rapidly produce force and neuromuscular control). Furthermore, an ‘angle-velocity trade-off’ exists during CODs, whereby faster approaches compromise the execution of the intended COD; this is influenced by an athlete’s physical capacity. Therefore, practitioners and researchers should acknowledge and understand the implications of angle and velocity on COD biomechanics when: (1) interpreting biomechanical research; (2) coaching COD technique; (3) designing and prescribing COD training and injury reduction programs; (4) conditioning athletes to tolerate the physical demands of directional changes; (5) screening COD technique; and (6) progressing and regressing COD intensity, specifically when working with novice or previously injured athletes rehabilitating from an injury.

show abstract

“…9,11 However, based on our findings (Figure 3), the lifters' receiving positions might not have been strictly controlled, which could be the primary factor for such inconsistency. It has been stated in a journal article, 19 a review article, 1 and original research articles 6-10 that the optimal load for Olympic weight-lifting exercises that include the motion of receiving the bar after the second pull phase is a submaximal load. However, because it is possible that the success criterion (quarter squat vs parallel squat) is a determinant of the optimal load for HPC, the results of the previous studies and their interpretations should be applied with caution in strength and conditioning settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Takei¹,

Hirayama²,

Okada³

2020

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The optimal load for maximal power output during hang power cleans (HPCs) from a mechanical perspective is the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) load; however, previous research has reported otherwise. The present study thus aimed to investigate the underlying factors that determine optimal load during HPCs. Methods: Eight competitive Olympic weight lifters performed HPCs at 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% of their 1RM while the ground-reaction force and bar/body kinematics were simultaneously recorded. The success criterion during HPC was set above parallel squat at the receiving position. Results: Both peak power and relative peak power were maximized at 80% 1RM (3975.7 [439.1] W, 50.4 [6.6] W/kg, respectively). Peak force, force at peak power, and relative values tended to increase with heavier loads (P < .001), while peak system velocity and system velocity at peak power decreased significantly above 80% 1RM (P = .005 and .011, respectively). There were also significant decreases in peak bar velocity (P < .001) and bar displacement (P < .001) toward heavier loads. There was a strong positive correlation between peak bar velocity and bar displacement in 7 of 8 subjects (r > .90, P < .01). The knee joint angle at the receiving position fell below the quarter-squat position above 70% 1RM. Conclusions: Submaximal loads were indeed optimal for maximal power output for HPC when the success criterion was set above the parallel-squat position. However, when the success criterion was defined as the quarter-squat position, the optimal load became the 1RM load.

show abstract

Enhancing the Force-Velocity Profile of Athletes Using Weightlifting Derivatives

Cited by 101 publications

References 78 publications

An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study

An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study

The Effect of Angle and Velocity on Change of Direction Biomechanics: An Angle-Velocity Trade-Off

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About