The Effect of Load Placement on the Power Production Characteristics of Three Lower Extremity Jumping Exercises

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the power production characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) across a spectrum of relative loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men completed three testing sessions where they performed repetitions of either the JS, HEXJ, or JShrug at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% of their BM. Relative peak power (PPRel), relative force at PP (FPP), and velocity at PP (VPP) were compared between exercises and loads. In addition, power-time curves at each load were compared between exercises. Load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PPRel were statistically greater than the JS (both p < 0.01), while no difference existed between the HEXJ and the JShrug (p = 1.000). Load-averaged JShrug FPP was statistically greater than both the JS and the HEXJ (both p < 0.001), while no statistical difference existed between the JS and the HEXJ (p = 0.111). Load-averaged JS and HEXJ VPP were statistically greater than the JShrug (both p < 0.01). In addition, HEXJ VPP was statistically greater than the JS (p = 0.009). PPRel was maximized at 40, 40, and 20% BM for the JS, HEXJ, and JShrug, respectively. The JShrug possessed statistically different power-time characteristics compared to both the JS and the HEXJ during the countermovement and propulsion phases. The HEXJ and the JShrug appear to be superior exercises for PPRel compared to the JS. The HEXJ may be considered a more velocity-dominant exercise, while the JShrug may be a more force-dominant one.

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

“…If athletes use the PC regularly in their training programs, this may not be issue; however, alternative methods of prescribing pulling derivatives are required. Although a recent study examined loading effects with the jump shrug using percentages of body mass [ 36 ], it is clear that further research is needed to identify different loading methods. Although the current training program allowed participants to complete strength–endurance, strength, overreach, and taper phases, a second limitation may have been the length of the training program.…”

“…Each testing session was scheduled to take place within two hours of the participants’ pre-intervention testing sessions to ensure that testing took place during a comparable time of day, to minimize the time-of-day effect. Prior to each testing session, the participants performed the same standardized warm-up that consisted of stationary cycling, dynamic stretching, body weight squats, and progressive vertical jumps [ 20 , 23 , 36 ].…”

Determining the Peak Power Output for Weightlifting Derivatives Using Body Mass Percentage: A Practical Approach

“…Although this strategy is effective, 1RM testing in weightlifting derivatives presents some challenges. Specifically, 1RM testing can be very time-consuming (Chapman et al, 1998;Niewiadomski et al, 2008;Loturco et al, 2017a), and also be impractical for some weightlifting derivatives (e.g., JShurg, HHP, and MTCP) (Suchomel and Sole, 2017;Suchomel et al, 2019). Moreover, because there are no standard 1RM test procedures for some of them, relative loads from different exercises (HPC and PC) are used as a reference for load attainment.…”

“…Given the disadvantages of using the 1RM test, it has become apparent that there is a need for practical alternatives to determine the PPO in the weightlifting derivatives. A practical alternative that emerges as a possible solution is the use of a relative percentage based on the body mass (BM) of the athletes (Suchomel et al, 2019). The use of this alternative may offer advantages as it eliminates the need to perform 1RM tests and to prescribe loads based on different exercises (Suchomel et al, 2019).…”

“…A practical alternative that emerges as a possible solution is the use of a relative percentage based on the body mass (BM) of the athletes (Suchomel et al, 2019). The use of this alternative may offer advantages as it eliminates the need to perform 1RM tests and to prescribe loads based on different exercises (Suchomel et al, 2019). Therefore, the purpose of the manuscript is to provide a rationale for the use of BM as an alternative for PPO identification and also to explore advantages and disadvantages of this method.…”