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

McKeever²,

Sijuwade

et al. 2023

Sports

Self Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the propulsion phase characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) performed across a spectrum of relative loads. Thirteen resistance-trained women (18–23 years old) performed JS, HEXJ, and JShrug repetitions at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% BM during three separate testing sessions. Propulsion mean force (MF), duration (Dur), peak power output (PP), force at PP (FPP), and velocity at PP (VPP) were compared between exercises and loads using a series of 3 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA and Hedge’s g effect sizes. There were no significant differences in MF or Dur between exercises. While load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PP were significantly greater than the JS, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. The JShrug produced significantly greater FPP than the JS and HEXJ at loads ranging from BM–60% BM, but not at 80 or 100% BM. Load-averaged VPP produced during the JS and HEXJ was significantly greater than the JShrug; however, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. Practically meaningful differences between exercises indicated that the JShrug produced greater magnitudes of force during shorter durations compared to the JS and HEXJ at light loads (BM–40%). The JS and HEXJ may be classified as more velocity-dominant exercises while the JShrug may be more force-dominant. Thus, it is important to consider the context in which each exercise is prescribed for resistance-trained women to provide an effective training stimulus.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women

McKeever²,

Sijuwade

et al. 2023

Sports

Self Cite

“…Modified reactive strength index was then calculated as the ratio between jump height and time to takeoff (Suchomel et al, 2015). Time-normalized forcetime and displacement-time curves were generated using previously described methods (Suchomel et al, 2020). PF during the IMTP was identified as the greatest force produced following the initiation of the IMTP (visually identified as the first increase in force following the pre-tension phase of the movement) (Beckham et al, 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Strength Index: Relationships with Common Performance Variables and Contextualization of Training Recommendations

Journal of Human Kinetics

Sole

Bellon

et al. 2020

Self Cite

The purposes of this study were to examine the relationships between dynamic strength index (DSI) and other strength-power performance characteristics and to contextualize DSI scores using case study comparisons. 88 male and 67 female NCAA division I collegiate athletes performed countermovement jumps (CMJ) and isometric mid-thigh pulls (IMTP) during a pre-season testing session as part of a long-term athlete monitoring program. Spearman’s correlations were used to assess the relationships between DSI and CMJ peak force, height, modified reactive strength index, peak power and IMTP peak force and rate of force development (RFD). Very large relationships existed between DSI and IMTP peak force (r = -0.848 and -0.746), while small-moderate relationships existed between DSI and CMJ peak force (r = 0.297 and 0.313), height (r = 0.108 and 0.167), modified reactive strength index (r = 0.174 and 0.274), and IMTP RFD (r = -0.341 and -0.338) for men and women, respectively. Finally, relationships between DSI and CMJ peak power were trivial-small for male (r = 0.008) and female athletes (r = 0.191). Case study analyses revealed that despite similar DSI scores, each athlete’s percentile rankings for each variable and CMJ force-time characteristics were unique, which may suggest different training emphases are needed. Based on the explained variance, an athlete’s IMTP performance may have a larger influence on their DSI score compared to the CMJ. DSI scores should be contextualized using additional performance data to ensure each individual athlete receives the appropriate training stimulus during different training phases throughout the year.

“…Researchers have concluded that weightlifting movements and their derivatives may provide greater strength, power, and speed adaptations compared to other methods of training [ 1 ], especially when added to traditional resistance training programs [ 2 ]. A growing body of research has shown that training with weightlifting pulling derivatives (i.e., clean or snatch variations that exclude the catch phase) [ 3 ] may improve dynamic and isometric strength, jump performance, sprint speed, and change of direction performance [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. This is due to the performance of these movements providing effective force and velocity overload stimuli via triple extension of the hip, knee, and ankle (plantarflexion) joints [ 3 , 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

Techmanski²,

Kissick³

et al. 2023

JFMK

Self Cite

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.