Force-Time–Curve Comparison Between Weight-Lifting Derivatives

Abstract

The force-production characteristics of 3 weight-lifting derivatives were examined by comparing the force-time curves of each exercise. Sixteen resistance-trained men performed repetitions of the hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) on a force platform at several relative loads. Relative peak force (PF), relative impulse (IMP), peak rate of force development (PRFD), and time-normalized force-time curves of each exercise were compared. The JS produced greater PF than the HPC (P < .001, d = 1.38) and HHP (P < .001, d = 1.14), while there was no difference between the HPC and HHP (P = .338, d = 0.26). Similarly, the JS produced greater IMP than the HPC (P < .001, d = 0.52) and HHP (P = .019, d = 0.36). The HHP also produced greater IMP than the HPC (P = .040, d = 0.18). Finally, the JS produced greater PRFD than the HPC (P < .001, d = 0.73) and HHP (P = .001, d = 0.47), while there was no difference between the HPC and HHP (P = .192, d = 0.22). The HPC, JS, and HHP force-time profiles were similar during the first 75-80% of the movement; however, the JS produced markedly different force-time characteristics in the final 20-25% of the movement. The JS produced superior force-production characteristics, namely PF, IMP, and PRFD, as well as a unique force-time profile, compared with the HPC and HHP across several loads.

Enhancing the Force-Velocity Profile of Athletes Using Weightlifting Derivatives

“…Research investigating the optimal load for weightlifting pulling derivatives is limited because of the lack of criteria that indicates a successful repetition (100). However, several studies have suggested that lighter loads (i.e., 30-45% 1RM hang power clean) may optimize training stimuli for the jump shrug (60,92,(102)(103)(104)(105) and hang high pull (94,102,104) 33-35,73) may produce the optimal training stimulus for velocity and power adaptations during the clean/snatch pull from the floor. Practitioners should however consider that the optimal load for power production may be specific to the joint, athlete plus load system, or the bar (66), may be altered based on the relative strength of the athlete (87), and may be impacted by movement pattern and the fatigue status of the athlete Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com (54).…”

“…On the opposite end of the force-velocity curve, the jump shrug is highlighted as the weightlifting derivative that maximizes velocity (92,104). Despite its potential to produce greater peak forces compared to the hang high pull and hang power clean (102,104), using the jump shrug to develop speedstrength characteristics may be preferential to other exercises considering that higher velocities have been reported at the same or similar loads compared with the hang high pull, hang power clean, clean pull from the floor, and midthigh pull. Concurrently, using the midthigh pull to develop maximal strength qualities may be preferential to other exercises as research has examined loads upward to 140% 1RM (14,16), which would enhance high force production capacity.…”

“…Thus, practitioners are left prescribing the loads for weightlifting pulling derivatives based on a 1RM of a weightlifting catching derivative. The vast majority of literature that has examined weightlifting derivatives used a percentage of a 1RM completed with a catching derivative (11-14,16,19,37,39,45-47,53,55,57-62, 79,80,[92][93][94][102][103][104][105]110). Although this method may work for some practitioners, others may discourage the practice of 1RM tests, which may make it difficult to prescribe loads for pulling derivatives.…”

“…Although previous research supports the notion that weightlifting catching derivatives may train an athlete's ability to "absorb" a load during impact activities (68), more recent studies indicate that weightlifting pulling derivatives that exclude the catch phase may produce a similar or greater load absorption stimulus (i.e., loading work, mean force, and duration) following the second pull compared with weightlifting catching derivatives (17,99). Moreover, further research has demonstrated that weightlifting pulling derivatives produce comparable (11,12) or greater (60,102,104,105) force, velocity, and power characteristics during the second pull compared with weightlifting movements that include a catch element. Although the complete removal of weightlifting catching derivatives is not being suggested, the integration of weightlifting pulling derivatives into resistance training programs should be considered for the comprehensive development of an athlete's forcevelocity profile, as elimination of the catch phase permits the use of greater loads (i.e., greater forces) (14,16,39) and potentially greater velocities (95,101).…”

“…The placement of the jump shrug and hang high pull on the force-velocity curve is supported by previous research demonstrating that the jump shrug (104,105) and the hang high pull (104) produced higher velocities compared with the hang power clean. Moreover, previous research also indicates that these exercises may be best prescribed using lighter loads to maximize power and velocity (60,92,94,(102)(103)(104)(105). Additional research also supports the placement of the power clean, power clean from the knee, and midthigh power clean based on the 1RM (i.e., greater force or less force) that may be achieved for each exercise (56).…”