No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Weightlifting Pull in Power Development
... body muscular power [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. These lifts are effective in that they allow an athlete to produce high amounts of power while using large lower body musculature. ...
... These lifts are effective in that they allow an athlete to produce high amounts of power while using large lower body musculature. Muscular power is an essential component to an athlete's success in sports [2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Because of its running, jumping, throwing, and hitting demands, it should come as no surprise that baseball requires both lower body strength and power in order to be successful. ...
... Although the PC and its HC variation can be highly beneficial to an athlete's lower body muscular power, baseball strength and conditioning coaches may have an issue with the physical requirements of the catch phase of each lift (weight supported by the shoulders and wrists). The catch phase of the PC and HC requires the lifter to rapidly rotate their elbows under the bar, while projecting them forward and keeping them high, and catch the bar across their shoulders in a semi-squat position [3,5,9,12,18]. Due to the complexity of the catch phase, baseball strength and conditioning coaches may take comfort in knowing that previous research indicates that practitioners should substitute less technical exercises to train lower body power [4,10]. ...
Study background: The power clean and its variations are prescribed by many collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches in order to train lower body muscular power. Lower body muscular power is an essential component to the overall performance of athletes in their respective sports. Although baseball is a sport that requires lower body power to be successful, it has not followed the trend of other sports that use Olympic lifts and their variations to train lower body power. Speculation leads practitioners to believe that baseball players consider Olympic lifts to be harmful to their shoulders and wrists because of the traditional overhead catch position of the snatch and jerk and the catch position of the power clean respectively. There are several power clean variations that produce high amounts of lower body power and may decrease the chance for injury to the shoulders and wrists. The high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are three power clean variations that are used in the teaching progression of the power clean. Previous research indicated that the high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull can produce high amounts of lower body power that may be superior to a power clean variation that includes the catch phase. Because of the simplistic nature of these variations, it is likely the chance of injury to the shoulders and wrists will decrease. Conclusion: If there are power clean variations that can produce high amounts of lower body power and decrease the risk of injury to the shoulders and wrists of athletes, baseball strength and conditioning coaches should not be so quick to exclude all power clean variations from their strength training programs. Baseball strength and conditioning coaches should consider implementing the high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull into their strength training regimens.
... INTRODUCTION I t has been well documented that a strong relationship exists between the ability of an athlete to develop high levels of muscular power and their success in sports (1,3,4,6,7,10,11,(13)(14)(15)18,20,21,(23)(24)(25)(26)(28)(29)(30)(31). Common movements in sports, such as sprinting and jumping, require an athlete to produce high amounts of power. ...
... Two variations used to teach the power clean are the jump shrug (JS) and high pull (HP) (16,21). Similar to the HC, the JS and HP can both be performed from the hang position and are used to train lower body power. ...
... The JS and HP required the subject to start in a standing position and lower the bar down their thighs until the bar was just above their knees, identical to the beginning of the HC. The JS required the subject to maximally jump with the barbell although violently shrugging their shoulders (12,16,21). A successful repetition of the JS required the subject to leave the surface of the force platform ( Figure 3). ...
The purpose of this study was to compare the power production of the hang clean (HC), jump shrug (JS), and high pull (HP) when performed at different relative loads. Seventeen men with previous HC training experience, performed 3 repetitions each of the HC, JS, and HP at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HC on a force platform over 3 different testing sessions. Peak power output (PPO), force (PF), and velocity (PV) of the lifter plus bar system during each repetition were compared. The JS produced a greater PPO, PF, and PV than both the HC (p < 0.001) and HP (p < 0.001). The HP also produced a greater PPO (p < 0.01) and PV (p < 0.001) than the HC. PPO, PF, and PV occurred at 45%, 65%, and 30% 1RM respectively. PPO at 45% 1RM was greater than PPO at 65% (p = 0.043) and 80% 1RM (p = 0.004). PF at 30% was less than PF at 45% (p = 0.006), 65% (p < 0.001), and 80% 1RM (p = 0.003). PV at 30% and 45% was greater than PV at 65% (p < 0.001) and 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). PV at 65% 1RM was also greater than PV at 80% 1RM (p < 0.001). When designing resistance training programs, practitioners should consider implementing the JS and HP. To optimize PPO, loads of approximately 30% and 45% 1RM HC are recommended for the JS and HP, respectively.
... Few studies have investigated the effects of weightlifting as compared with other types of resistance training on improving athletic performance (13,18,24). However, there is no reason to believe that the benefits derived from weightlifting would not transfer positively to improving performance in a variety of sports (5,21,26,34). This transfer to improving performance would be strongest in sports that involve movements similar to those used performing the weightlifting movements (e.g., generating force against the ground as when running and triple extension of the ankles, knees and hips as when jumping) and less effective in sports with less biomechanical similarity to the weightlifting movements (e.g., open water swimming). ...
... The classic weightlifting movements (snatch, clean and jerk) and related training exercises (hang pulls, hang cleans, power snatch, power clean, push press, power jerk) have been suggested as being of value for developing power (13,21). This is likely because during execution of the weightlifting movements, despite the significant resistance used, the intent is always to move the load as quickly as possible. ...
... Depending on the needs of the athletes, lifts from the hang or boxes may be of value, as would the clean or split snatch. One important variation of the weightlifting movements that may not have been given adequate attention during training is the pulling movements in both cleans and snatches (21). The pull is responsible for the majority of the power in the clean and snatch movements. ...
THIS ARTICLE FIRST DEFINES THE SPORT OF WEIGHTLIFTING SO THE READER HAS A CLEAR IDEA OF THE ACTIVITY. WE INCLUDE A DETAILED LOOK OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS THAT CAN BE DERIVED FROM INCLUDING WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS IN THE TRAINING PROGRAMS OF ATHLETES FROM A VARIETY OF SPORTS. FINALLY, A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE EVALUATING THE INJURY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE OF THE WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS IS PRESENTED. THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION REGARDING INCLUSION OF THE WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS IN THE TRAINING PROGRAMS OF THEIR ATHLETES.
... One important factor related to this training method may be that it facilitates neural learning as it relates to optimal motor unit recruitment and control and, consequently, maximization of the RFD and energy transfer between the segments of movement (11). In addition, the development of balance, coordination, and flexibility is a further advantage that accrues as a result of this training (15). This belief is strengthened by evidence that associates speed intention in a strength movement with enhancement of the variables associated with high power performance (5,22,29). ...
... Although there is a positive correlation between maximum strength and power performance (1,4,9,13,19,27), the higher improvement in maximum strength shown for the VJ group failed to increase its performance in a similar fashion when compared with the WL group in the 10-m speed sprint and SJ tests. These results may indicate that a WL training program develops a broader spectrum of physical abilities, which may be better transferred to either performance (11,15,22) or the RFD. ...
Among sport conditioning coaches, there is considerable discussion regarding the efficiency of training methods that improve lower-body power. Heavy resistance training combined with vertical jump (VJ) training is a well-established training method; however, there is a lack of information about its combination with Olympic weightlifting (WL) exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term effects of heavy resistance training combined with either the VJ or WL program. Thirty-two young men were assigned to 3 groups: WL = 12, VJ = 12, and control = 8. These 32 men participated in an 8-week training study. The WL training program consisted of 3 x 6RM high pull, 4 x 4RM power clean, and 4 3 4RM clean and jerk. The VJ training program consisted of 6 x 4 double-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 alternated single-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 single-leg hurdle hops, and 4 x 4 40-cm drop jumps. Additionally, both groups performed 4 x 6RM half-squat exercises. Training volume was increased after 4 weeks. Pretesting and posttesting consisted of squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests, 10- and 30-m sprint speeds, an agility test, a half-squat 1RM, and a clean-and-jerk 1RM (only for WL). The WL program significantly increased the 10-m sprint speed (p < 0.05). Both groups, WL and VJ, increased CMJ (p < 0.05), but groups using the WL program increased more than those using the VJ program. On the other hand, the group using the VJ program increased its 1RM half-squat strength more than the WL group (47.8 and 43.7%, respectively). Only the WL group improved in the SJ (9.5%). There were no significant changes in the control group. In conclusion, Olympic WL exercises seemed to produce broader performance improvements than VJ exercises in physically active subjects.
... T he hang high pull (HHP) is a weightlifting variation that can also be used as a teaching progression for the power clean (11,16,28). Previous research also indicates that the HHP alone may also be used to improve lower-body muscular power by training the triple extension movement (31,33), which seems to be why power clean variations are often prescribed in resistance training (15). ...
... Similar to the HPC, the HHP required the subject to start in the midthigh position, flex at the hip and lower the bar to the knee, and immediately change direction to begin the transition phase into the second pull. After transitioning to the midthigh position, the subjects immediately began the second pull phase by rapidly extending their hips, knees, and ankles and shrugging their shoulders, driving their elbows upward, and elevating the barbell to chest height (11,16,28,31). For the countermovement for both the HPC and HHP, the subjects were instructed to lower the barbell to a position just above the knee and immediately transition back to the midthigh position in 1 fluid motion without pausing at the knee. ...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of various loads on the force-time
characteristics associated with peak power during the hang high pull. 14 athletic men (age: 21.6
± 1.3 years, height: 179.3 ± 5.6 cm, body mass: 81.5 ± 8.7 kg, 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
hang power clean: 104.9 ± 15.1 kg) performed sets of the hang high pull at 30%, 45%, 65%, and
80% of their 1RM hang power clean. Peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak
power, and velocity at peak power were compared between loads. Statistical differences in peak
force (p = 0.001), peak velocity (p < 0.001), peak power (p = 0.015) , force at peak power (p <
0.001), and velocity at peak power (p < 0.001) existed, with the greatest values for each variable
occurring at 80%, 30%, 45%, 80%, and 30% 1RM hang power clean, respectively. Effect sizes
between loads indicated that larger differences in velocity at peak power existed as compared to
those displayed by force at peak power. It appears that differences in velocity may contribute to
a greater extent to differences in peak power production as compared to force during the hang
high pull. Further investigation of both force and velocity at peak power during weightlifting
variations is necessary to provide insight on the contributing factors of power production.
Specific load ranges should be prescribed to optimally train the variables associated with power
development during the hang high pull.
... The jump shrug (JS) is a weightlifting variation that can be used to teach the power clean (PC), but can also be used to train lower body power itself. 1 The JS is ballistic in nature and requires a subject to perform a countermovement with the barbell to the top of the knee, return to the mid-thigh position, and maximally jump while simultaneously shrugging their shoulders. [1][2][3] This PC variation differs from others in that there is a deliberate attempt to jump with the barbell. Despite its potential to produce high amounts of lower body power, only one study has investigated the power development potential of the JS. ...
... Following the countermovement, the JS required the subject to maximally jump with the barbell while simultaneously shrugging their shoulders. [1][2][3] Subjects returned for their testing session 2-7 days later. Prior to testing repetitions, subjects performed the same dynamic warm-up described above followed by submaximal exercise sets of the JS (e.g. ...
Objectives: To examine the impact of load on lower body kinetics during the jump shrug. Design: Randomized, repeated measures design. Methods: Fourteen men performed randomized sets of the jump shrug at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their one repetition maximum hang clean (1RM-HC). A number of variables were obtained through analysis of the force-time data, which included peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power. A series of one-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the differences in peak force, peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power between each load. Results: Statistical differences in peak velocity, peak power, force at peak power, and velocity at peak power existed between loads (p<0.001), while peak force trended toward statistical significance (p=0.060). The greatest peak velocity, peak power, and velocity at peak power occurred at 30% 1RM-HC. In addition the greatest peak force and force at peak power occurred at loads of 65% and 80% 1RM-HC, respectively. Conclusions: Velocity is the greatest contributing factor to peak power production during the jump shrug. Practitioners should prescribe specific loading schemes for the jump shrug to provide optimal training stimuli to their athletes based on the training goal: specifically, loads of 65% 1RM-HC or higher, loads of approximately 30-45% 1RM-HC, and loads of 30% 1RM-HC should be prescribed for improvements in peak force and force at peak power, peak power, and velocity and velocity at peak power, respectively.
... One important factor related to this training method may be that it facilitates neural learning as it relates to optimal motor unit recruitment and control and, consequently, maximization of the RFD and energy transfer between the segments of movement (11). In addition, the development of balance, coordination, and flexibility is a further advantage that accrues as a result of this training (15). This belief is strengthened by evidence that associates speed intention in a strength movement with enhancement of the variables associated with high power performance (5,22,29). ...
... Although there is a positive correlation between maximum strength and power performance (1,4,9,13,19,27), the higher improvement in maximum strength shown for the VJ group failed to increase its performance in a similar fashion when compared with the WL group in the 10-m speed sprint and SJ tests. These results may indicate that a WL training program develops a broader spectrum of physical abilities, which may be better transferred to either performance (11,15,22) or the RFD. ...
Among sport conditioning coaches, there is considerable discussion regarding the efficiency of training methods that improve lower-body power. Heavy resistance training combined with vertical jump (VJ) training is a well-established training method; however, there is a lack of information about its combination with Olympic weightlifting (WL) exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the short-term effects of heavy resistance training combined with either the VJ or WL program. Thirty-two young men were assigned to 3 groups: WL = 12, VJ = 12, and control = 8. These 32 men participated in an 8-week training study. The WL training program consisted of 3 x 6RM high pull, 4 x 4RM power clean, and 4 x 4RM clean and jerk. The VJ training program consisted of 6 x 4 double-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 alternated single-leg hurdle hops, 4 x 4 single-leg hurdle hops, and 4 x 4 40-cm drop jumps. Additionally, both groups performed 4 x 6RM half-squat exercises. Training volume was increased after 4 weeks. Pretesting and posttesting consisted of squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests, 10- and 30-m sprint speeds, an agility test, a half-squat 1RM, and a clean-and-jerk 1RM (only for WL). The WL program significantly increased the 10-m sprint speed (p < 0.05). Both groups, WL and VJ, increased CMJ (p < 0.05), but groups using the WL program increased more than those using the VJ program. On the other hand, the group using the VJ program increased its 1RM half-squat strength more than the WL group (47.8 and 43.7%, respectively). Only the WL group improved in the SJ (9.5%). There were no significant changes in the control group. In conclusion, Olympic WL exercises seemed to produce broader performance improvements than VJ exercises in physically active subjects.
... Дослідження гендерних особливостей світових рекордів у важкій атлетиці з урахуванням вагових категорій дозволяють визначити факт збільшення диморфних відмінностей із зростанням вагової категорії (Enoka, 1979;Kipp, 2018 Зазначається, що досвідчені атлети тягнуть штангу на 60% від загальної висоти атлета (Bartonietz, 1996), проте є дані, які вказують на залежність загального вертикального зміщення та антропометричних характеристик атлетів (Hydock, 2001 Вимірювали абсолютні та відносні показники кінематико-динамічних параметрів рухів. ...
В магістерській роботі розкрито теоретичні основи підвищення рівня сили у жінок-важкоатлеток. Про аналіз особливостей побудови тренувального процесу для жінок у важкій атлетиці. Узагальнено процес індивідуалізації спортивної підготовки для кваліфікованих спортсменів. Визначено біомеханіку рухів змагальних вправ у важкій атлетиці. Охарактеризовано алгоритми організації тренувального процесу у важкій атлетиці. Обґрунтовано модель індивідуалізації спеціальної силової підготовки важкоатлеток високої кваліфікації. Запропоновано параметри кінематико-динамічних рухів для жінок-важкоатлеток високої кваліфікації.
... The weightlifting lifts are snatch and clean and jerk and importantly the derivatives such as the pulls which can be referred to as Olympic-style lifts [2]. These movements all require great balance, coordination and flexibility which are some of the physical qualities required in sports that have been found to be improved as a result of weightlifting [3]. ...
The purpose of this study is to find if the mobility of the body effect on the Olympic lifting technique performing. Participants of this study involved 22 males and 22 females students Faculty of Sport Science and Coaching aged 20-24 years old. Participants were instructed to perform 3 repetitions of overhead squat mobility performance first, using only their own bodyweight without any equipment at all. Finished with that, participants were then instructed to performed 3 repetitions of snatch technical performance and proceed to the clean and jerk technical performance using the custom-made plastic pipe bar or 20-kg Olympic bar without plate. Result showed that all students had ‘Good” quality of mobility required for the technical performance of snatch, clean and jerk, however practical test indicated a mastery or quality of the technical performance for the snatch was just considered as ‘Fair’ for the male, with the female students scores dip into the ‘Poor’ level of performance. For both genders, all students have a poor technical performance quality for the clean and jerk exercise.
... When in starting position, begin the snatch with the first pull. This phase is terminated as soon as the barbell reaches the knee level [31]. Following the first pull, the transition phase starts with a realignment of the lifters body to reach the power position which is characterized by slightly flexed knees. ...
The aim of this study is to monitor short-term seasonal development of young Olympic weightlifters’ anthropometry, body composition, physical fitness, and sport-specific performance. Fifteen male weightlifters aged 13.2 ± 1.3 years participated in this study. Tests for the assessment of anthropometry (e.g., body-height, body-mass), body-composition (e.g., lean-body-mass, relative fat-mass), muscle strength (grip-strength), jump performance (drop-jump (DJ) height, countermovement-jump (CMJ) height, DJ contact time, DJ reactive-strength-index (RSI)), dynamic balance (Y-balance-test), and sport-specific performance (i.e., snatch and clean-and-jerk) were conducted at different time-points (i.e., T1 (baseline), T2 (9 weeks), T3 (20 weeks)). Strength tests (i.e., grip strength, clean-and-jerk and snatch) and training volume were normalized to body mass. Results showed small-to-large increases in body-height, body-mass, lean-body-mass, and lower-limbs lean-mass from T1-to-T2 and T2-to-T3 (∆0.7–6.7%; 0.1 ≤ d ≤ 1.2). For fat-mass, a significant small-sized decrease was found from T1-to-T2 (∆13.1%; d = 0.4) and a significant increase from T2-to-T3 (∆9.1%; d = 0.3). A significant main effect of time was observed for DJ contact time (d = 1.3) with a trend toward a significant decrease from T1-to-T2 (∆–15.3%; d = 0.66; p = 0.06). For RSI, significant small increases from T1-to-T2 (∆9.9%, d = 0.5) were noted. Additionally, a significant main effect of time was found for snatch (d = 2.7) and clean-and-jerk (d = 3.1) with significant small-to-moderate increases for both tests from T1-to-T2 and T2-to-T3 (∆4.6–11.3%, d = 0.33 to 0.64). The other tests did not change significantly over time (0.1 ≤ d ≤ 0.8). Results showed significantly higher training volume for sport-specific training during the second period compared with the first period (d = 2.2). Five months of Olympic weightlifting contributed to significant changes in anthropometry, body-composition, and sport-specific performance. However, hardly any significant gains were observed for measures of physical fitness. Coaches are advised to design training programs that target a variety of fitness components to lay an appropriate foundation for later performance as an elite athlete.
... When in starting position, begin the snatch with the first pull. This phase is terminated as soon as the barbell reaches the knee level [31]. Following the first pull, the transition phase starts with a realignment of the lifters body to reach the power position which is characterized by slightly flexed knees. ...
... When in starting position, begin the snatch with the first pull. This phase is terminated as soon as the barbell reaches the knee level [31]. Following the first pull, the transition phase starts with a realignment of the lifters body to reach the power position which is characterized by slightly flexed knees. ...
The aim of this study was to monitor short-term seasonal development of young Olympic weightlifters’ anthropometry, body composition, physical fitness, and sport-specific performance. Fifteen male weightlifters aged 13.2±1.3 years participated in this study. Tests for the assessment of anthropometry (e.g., body-height, body-mass), body-composition (e.g., lean-body-mass, relative fat-mass), muscle strength (grip-strength), jump performance (drop-jump [DJ] height, countermovement-jump [CMJ] height, DJ contact time, DJ reactive-strength-index [RSI]), dynamic balance (Y-balance-test), and sport-specific performance (i.e., snatch and clean-and-jerk) were conducted at different time-points (i.e., T1 [baseline], T2 [9 weeks], T3 [20 weeks]). Strength tests (i.e., grip strength, clean-and-jerk and snatch) and training volume were normalized to body mass. Results showed small-to-large increases in body-height, body-mass, lean-body-mass, and lower-limbs lean-mass from T1-to-T2 and T2-to-T3 (∆0.7-6.7%; 0.1≤d≤1.2). For fat-mass, a significant small-sized decrease was found from T1-to-T2 (∆13.1%; d=0.4) and a significant increase from T2-to-T3 (∆9.1%; d=0.3). A significant main effect of time was observed for DJ contact time (d=1.3) with a trend toward a significant decrease from T1-to-T2 (∆-15.3%; d=0.66; p=0.06). For RSI, significant small increases from T1-to-T2 (∆9.9%, d=0.5) were noted. Additionally, a significant main effect of time was found for snatch (d=2.7) and clean-and-jerk (d=3.1) with significant small-to-moderate increases for both tests from T1-to-T2 and T2-to-T3 (∆4.6-11.3%, d=0.33 to 0.64). The other tests did not change significantly over time (0.1≤d≤0.8). Results showed significantly higher training volume for sport-specific training during the second period compared with the first period (d = 2.2). Five months of Olympic weightlifting contributed to significant changes in anthropometry, body-composition, and sport-specific performance. However, hardly any significant gains were observed for measures of physical fitness. Coaches are advised to design training programs that target a variety of fitness components to lay an appropriate foundation for later performance as an elite athlete.
... Despite these training methods that exist for the development and improvement of lower body power, previous research has indicated that weightlifting movements may provide a superior training stimulus [18, [21][22][23][24]. As a result, weightlifting movements such as the clean, jerk, snatch, and their derivatives (e.g., power clean, power snatch, etc.) are commonly used to train lower body muscular power via the triple extension movement [3,4,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Weightlifting movements are popular within strength training programs because of the similarities between the triple extension of the lifting movements and those seen in other athletic movements in sports [3]. ...
This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength–power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.
... Depending on the needs of the player, variations can be used to develop certain physical qualities required to improve technique in the snatch and clean and jerk as well as to enhance desired performance capabilities. Because the second pull mimics the requirement to push aggressively against the ground when performing a vertical jump, a greater emphasis might be placed on developing a proper pull to improve volleyball performance (13,36,39,47). However, when prescribing pulling movements, coaches should be aware of the factors that can affect power output, such as the applied force pattern, bar movement velocity, range of motion of the involved joints, and the power output of the movement related to the intended outcome of the exercise, all of which might be changed depending on the weight of the barbell (28). ...
VOLLEYBALL IS AN EXPLOSIVE SPORT IN WHICH A SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE IS LARGELY DETERMINED BY THE CAPACITY TO DEMONSTRATE REPEATED BOUTS OF MAXIMAL OR NEAR MAXIMAL POWER. GIVEN THE RELATIVELY HIGH LEVELS OF FORCE BEING GENERATED AND ABSORBED, THE RISK FOR INJURY EXISTS WHEN PLAYING. THIS ARTICLE FOCUSES ON WEIGHTLIFTING AS THE PRIMARY MEANS WITH WHICH TO ADDRESS THOSE ATTRIBUTES THAT UNDERLIE PERFORMANCE AND REDUCE THE CHANCE FOR INJURY.
... Therefore, the evaluation of muscular power and the development of training strategies to develop power are of considerable interest to sport coaches and researchers (15). This is reflected in the considerable attention focused on the development of power in athletes (2,8,22) and the increase in research examining specific techniques used to maximize power development during the past decade (1,18). ...
There currently exists a debate among strength and conditioning specialists concerning the most effective training methods for maximizing gains in power during weight-training. The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the changes in peak power under different loads during performance of the parallel squat exercise. The study also examined the changes in the force and velocity components contributing to peak power during these loading conditions. Twelve healthy males, experienced in performing the parallel squat movement (11.17 +/- 5.75 years), performed this motion at loads equivalent to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 percent of their one repetition maximum (1RM). Peak power (PP), peak ground reaction force (PGRF), peak barbell velocity (PV), force at time PP (FPP), velocity at time PP (VPP), time between PGRF and PP (TFP), time between PP and PV (TPV) and time between PGRF and PV (TFV) were determined from force, velocity and power curves calculated using barbell velocity and GRF. Barbell velocity was measured by monitoring movement of cables attached to each end of a barbell and GRF was measured using a force plate. Changes in both variables were measured continuously at a sampling frequency of 60 Hz. No significant differences in PP were detected between loads (p > 0.05), however, the greatest PP values were associated with loads of 40 and 50 percent of 1RM. Higher percentage loads produced greater PGRF and FPP values than lower percentage loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between loads corresponding to 60--50, 50--40, and 40--30 percent of 1RM for PGRF and 70--60, and 60--50 percent of 1RM for FPP respectively. Higher percentage loads produced lower PV and VPP values than lower percentage loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between loads corresponding to 20--30, 70--80, and 80--90 percent of 1RM for both PV and VPP. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were detected between loads for TFP, TPV, or TFV. In conclusion, the magnitude of the peaks in the force and velocity curves were determined to play a larger role in differences in PP across loads than the time at which these peaks in the force and velocity curves occurred.
... At this point, the athlete should use the explosive triple extension movement to begin elevating the barbell to approximately chest height. As the barbell begins moving vertically, as a result of the second pull, the athlete should break the elbows to complement the increase of bar speed generated by the triple extension of the second pull to further elevate the barbell to chest height (7,10,17). While elevating the bar to their chest height, the athlete should be cued to "lead with their elbows up to the sky" and keep the bar close to their body ( Figure 3). ...
THE HANG HIGH PULL IS A WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENT DERIVATIVE THAT CAN BE USED IN THE TEACHING PROGRESSION OF THE CLEAN AND SNATCH EXERCISES. THIS EXERCISE ELICITS HIGH AMOUNTS OF LOWER-BODY POWER WITHIN THE SECOND PULL OF THE MOVEMENT BY EMPHASIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE HIP, KNEE, AND ANKLE JOINTS.
... At this point, the athlete should explosively extend their hips, knees, and ankles to perform an explosive jump and leave the platform or lifting surface. In addition, the athlete should simultaneously shrug their shoulders (8,10,11,18) (Figure 3). The athlete should be instructed to jump as high as possible while keeping the bar close to their body. ...
The jump shrug (JS) is an explosive lower-body exercise that can be used to enhance lower-body muscular power. In addition, this exercise can be used as part of the teaching progression of the clean and snatch, while emphasizing the second pull and complete extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints. This exercise can be per-formed from a static starting position or with a countermovement, at varying starting positions, from the mid-thigh and above/below the knee.
... A cursory glance at many resistance training programs or recommendations aimed at increasing muscular power typically reveals a high proportion of weightlifting (e.g., power cleans, pulls) or plyometric exercises (e.g., jumping, bounding) (1,20,21). While these methods of training often produce tremendous increases in lower-body power, methods for developing upperbody power appear to be less explored. ...
... The unique biomechanical characteristics of Olympic lifting exercises allow for the use of heavy loads to be moved at high velocities, thus producing higher power outputs than traditional lifts (24). In addition, the greater skill complexity required for the Olympic lifting exercises may be advantageous by facilitating the development of a broader physical abilities spectrum (i.e., balance, coordination, and flexibility), which seems to be better transferred to performance (15). The findings from this study demonstrate that strongman competitors in common with elite powerlifters combine compensatory acceleration with heavy and submaximal loads to enhance force and rate of force development across a range of velocities. ...
This study describes the results of a survey of the strength and conditioning practices of strongman competitors. A 65-item online survey was completed by 167 strongman competitors. The subject group included 83 local, 65 national, and 19 international strongman competitors. The survey comprised 3 main areas of enquiry: (a) exercise selection, (b) training protocols and organization, and (c) strongman event training. The back squat and conventional deadlift were reported as the most commonly used squat and deadlift (65.8 and 88.0%, respectively). Eighty percent of the subjects incorporated some form of periodization in their training. Seventy-four percent of subjects included hypertrophy training, 97% included maximal strength training, and 90% included power training in their training organization. The majority performed speed repetitions with submaximal loads in the squat and deadlift (59.9 and 61.1%, respectively). Fifty-four percent of subjects incorporated lower body plyometrics into their training, and 88% of the strongman competitors reported performing Olympic lifts as part of their strongman training. Seventy-eight percent of subjects reported that the clean was the most performed Olympic lift used in their training. Results revealed that 56 and 38% of the strongman competitors used elastic bands and chains in their training, respectively. The findings demonstrate that strongman competitors incorporate a variety of strength and conditioning practices that are focused on increasing muscular size, and the development of maximal strength and power into their conditioning preparation. The farmers walk, log press, and stones were the most commonly performed strongman exercises used in a general strongman training session by these athletes. These data provide information on the training practices required to compete in the sport of strongman.
... cursory glance at many resistance training programs or recommendations aimed at increasing muscular power typically reveals a high proportion of weightlifting (e.g., power cleans, pulls) or plyometric exercises (e.g., jumping, bounding) (1, 20, 21). While these methods of training often produce tremendous increases in lower-body power, methods for developing upperbody power appear to be less explored. ...
Power training recommendations have typically involved Olympic Weightlifting and plyometric exercise prescriptions, paying scant attention to upper body maximal-power demands. This article attempts to redress this situation by focusing upon strategies and specific techniques that can be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of upper body maximal-power training.
... The most widespread approach to exercise prescription in resistance training is based on the concept of specificity (15). The universal thought in this theory holds that exercises should replicate a movement as closely as possible in the type of muscle action and contraction forces (3,6,11,15). This theory postulates that muscles should be taught to work (neuromotor learning) in training to improve power production in competition. ...
The ability to generate lower body explosive power is considered an important factor in many athletic activities. Thirty-one men and women, recreationally trained volunteers, were randomly assigned to 3 different groups (control, n = 10; VertiMax, n = 11; and depth jump, n = 10). A Vertec measuring device was used to test vertical jump height pre- and post-training. All subjects trained twice weekly for 6 weeks, performing approximately 140 jumps. The VertiMax group increased elastic resistance and decreased volume each week, while the depth jump group increased both box height and volume each week. The depth jump group significantly increased their vertical jump height (pre: 20.5 +/- 3.98; post: 22.65 +/- 4.09), while the VertiMax (pre: 22.18 +/- 4.31; post: 23.36 +/- 4.06) and control groups (pre: 15.65 +/- 4.51; post: 15.85 +/- 4.17) did not change. These findings suggest that, within the volume and intensity constraints of this study, depth jump training twice weekly for 6 weeks is more beneficial than VertiMax jump training for increasing vertical jump height. Strength professionals should focus on depth jump exercises in the short term over commercially available devices to improve vertical jump performance.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the success factors of snatches in elite Japanese female weightlifters from the viewpoint of biomechanics. Data were collected at the All-Japan championships. The data in this study included successful and unsuccessful (due to a backward barbell drop) snatch lifts achieved using the same weights by the same lifter. This study analyzed the snatch motion and barbell trajectory of 11 lifters. The results revealed significant differences in the barbell backward and forward displacement and forward peak velocity, which were significantly smaller in a successful snatch lift than in an unsuccessful lift (p＜0.01). The COM forward displacement and forward peak velocity in a successful snatch lift were significantly smaller than in an unsuccessful lift (p＜0.01). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the maximum barbell height between successful and unsuccessful lifts. Based on these findings, we concluded that maximum barbell height is not a success factor for snatches in elite female Japanese weightlifters. Decreased barbell forward and backward displacement in the second pull phase to catch each phase and decreased COM forward displacement during drop under the barbell increase the probability of success without a backward barbell drop in the snatch motion.
Despite previous misconceptions, youth participation in weightlifting is now recognized
as safe and beneficial when delivered, programed, and monitored by a qualified professional. This article explores teaching progressions to help coaches periodize weightlifting training for young or novice athletes, with consideration to the theoretical concepts underpinning long-term athletic development. It is hoped that the structured and progressive guidelines presented in the current article will help coaches develop the weightlifting performance of their young athletes in a safe and effective manner.
This study aimed to clarify the success factor of snatch based on barbell trajectory and lifter’s motion among elite male weightlifters. Motion analysis of snatch was conducted using digital videos recorded at the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships. Data on successful and unsuccessful snatch lifts of 22 lifters, each using the same weights, were analysed; the unsuccessful lift was due to a frontward barbell drop. Results revealed that the difference in backward barbell displacement between the turnover to catch phase (DxL) and peak backward barbell velocity (pVx-) was significantly greater in successful snatch than in frontward barbell drops (DxL: p < 0.001, d > 5.0, pVx-: p < 0.01, d > 2.0). Backward displacement of the lifters’ centre of mass (COM) between the transition to turnover phase in a successful snatch lift was significantly smaller than that in an unsuccessful lift (p < 0.05, d > 2.0). It is considered that there was excessive backward leaning during unsuccessful lifts. However, no significant difference in maximum barbell height (Dy1) was found. Based on these findings, DxL and pVx- are success factors for snatch, whereas Dy1 is not. It is suggested that avoiding excessive backward-leaning of the body in the turnover phase may vary the chances of successful snatch among elite male weightlifters.
Recent motor control literature has demonstrated that using verbal instructions to direct a performer's attention externally (i.e. toward the movement outcome) enhances motor skill performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate how an athlete's focus of attention impacts kinematic performance of the snatch. Using a counterbalanced within-participant design, 12 competitively trained athletes (8 male, 4 female) performed 2 instructional blocks of 3 snatch repetitions at 80% of their most recent training 1RM. Blocks of internal and external instructions were given to the athlete in a random fashion. Results showed that, when focusing internally, athletes significantly (p <0.05) increased elbow velocity relative to focusing externally, while the external instructions significantly increased horizontal barbell velocity, relative to internal instructions (see table 2). Additionally an internal focus resulted in significantly larger Barbell-Cervical-Hip (BCH) angles at maximum height of the barbell (MH) (see table 1) compared to an external focus, indicating that the athletes squatted under the barbell too soon. This information adds to the literature suggesting small changes in coaching instructions can impact performance significantly. It is recommended that coaches use instructions that direct an athlete's attention externally, toward the movement outcome, rather than the action itself.
THE “FIRST PULL” (1ST PULL) IS THE INITIAL MOVEMENT PHASE OF THE CLEAN AND SNATCH AND VARIOUS RELATED TRAINING EXERCISES. MAXIMAL OR NEAR-MAXIMAL EFFORT TRAINING DEMANDS PRECISE 1ST PULL MECHANICS. THUS, IT IS THE 1ST PULL THAT SETS THE BIOMECHANICAL STAGE FOR PROPER EXECUTION OF THE ENTIRE LIFT AND FOR THE MOST EFFICIENT MOVEMENT PATTERN FOR HIGH LOAD MOVEMENTS TO BE SAFELY EXECUTED. THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES A THOROUGH BREAKDOWN OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS FOR PROPER EXECUTION OF THE 1ST PULL AND EFFECTIVE COACHING STRATEGIES.
This is a review of current research trends in weightlifting literature relating to the understanding of technique and its role in successful snatch performance. Reference to the world records in the snatch from the 1960s onwards indicates little progress across all weight categories. With such mediocre advances in performance at the international level, there is a need to better understand how snatch technique can improve performance even if only by a small margin. Methods of data acquisition for technical analysis of the snatch have involved mostly 2-dimensional barbell and joint kinematics. Although key variables which play a role in the successful outcome of a snatch lift have been heavily investigated, few studies have combined variables relating both the barbell and the weightlifter in their analyses. This suggests the need for a more detailed approach integrating both barbell- and weightlifter-related data to enhance understanding of the mechanics of a successful lift. Currently, with the aid of technical advances in motion analysis data acquisition and methods of analysis, a more accurate representation of the movement can be provided. Better ways of understanding the key characteristics of technique in the snatch could provide the opportunity for more effective individualized feedback from the coach to the athlete which should in turn lead to improved performance in competition.
Strength and Conditioning for Team Sports is designed to help trainers and coaches to devise more effective high-performance training programs for team sports. This remains the only evidence-based study of sport-specific practice to focus on team sports and features all-new chapters covering neuromuscular training, injury prevention and specific injury risks for different team sports. Fully revised and updated throughout, the new edition also includes over two hundred new references from the current research literature. The bookintroduces the core science underpinning different facets of physical preparation, covering all aspects of training prescription and the key components of any degree-level strength and conditioning course, including: ○ physiological and performance testing. ○ strength training. ○ metabolic conditioning. ○ power training. ○ agility and speed development. ○ training for core stability. ○ training periodisation. ○ training for injury prevention. Bridging the traditional gap between sports science research and practice, each chapter features guidelines for evidence-based best practice as well as recommendations for approaches to physical preparation to meet the specific needs of team sports players. This new edition also includes an appendix that provides detailed examples of training programmes for a range of team sports. Fully illustrated throughout, it is essential reading for all serious students of strength and conditioning, and for any practitioner seeking to extend their professional practice.
THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE ARE TO DISCUSS THE TECHNIQUE OF THE SNATCH/CLEAN PULLS AND TO ADDRESS THE COACHING POINTS OF PULLING ACTIONS. THE PULL HAS 2 PRIMARY FORMS, THE CLEAN GRIP AND SNATCH GRIP STYLES, WHICH CAN BE FURTHER BROKEN DOWN TO THE PULL AND HIGH PULL VERSIONS. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CLEAN/SNATCH GRIP STYLES, THE BASIC MOVEMENT PATTERNS, ERRORS, AND COACHING POINTS REMAIN SIMILAR. AFTER READING THE ARTICLE, THE STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PROFESSIONAL WILL HAVE FURTHER INFORMATION TO CORRECTLY COACH AND APPLY THE PULL OR HIGH PULL TO A STRENGTH PROGRAM TO ENHANCE AN ATHLETE'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE POWER OR SPEED STRENGTH.
This study investigated the effect on upper-body power output of manipulating resistances during contrast or complex power training. This power-training strategy typically entails the athlete alternating sets of a heavy resistance in a strength-oriented exercise with sets of lighter resistances in a power-oriented exercise. Sixteen rugby league players, who were experienced in power training and who performed complex training on a regular basis, served as subjects for this study and were divided equally into a control (Con) or experimental (Exp) group. Both groups were pre- and posttested for power output while performing explosive bench press throws in a Smith machine with a resistance of 50 kg (BT P50). The Exp group performed an intervention strategy of a 6-repetition set of bench presses with a resistance of 65% of 1 repetition maximum (65% 1RM) between tests. At the pretest occasion, no differences were observed between the groups in power output; however, at the posttesting, a significant difference in power output was observed between the groups in the BT P50. The 4.5% increase in the power output recorded during the posttesting BT P50 for the Exp group was determined to be significantly different from all other scores (p < or = 0.05). These data indicate that the performance of a set of heavy resistance strength training exercise between power training sets will acutely enhance power output in the second power training set. This effect has been previously theorized as possibly due to some combination of acute neural or mechanical adaptations.
This study examined the changes in peak power, ground reaction force and velocity with different loads during the performance of the parallel squat movement. Twelve experienced male lifters (26.83 +/- 4.67 years of age) performed the standard parallel squat, using loads equal to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Each subject performed all parallel squats with as much explosiveness as possible using his own technique. Peak power (PP), peak ground reaction force (PGRF), peak barbell velocity (PV), force at the time of PP (FPP), and velocity at the time of PP (VPP) were determined from force, velocity, and power curves calculated using barbell velocity and ground reaction force data. No significant differences were detected among loads for PP; however, the greatest PP values were associated with loads of 40 and 50% of 1RM. Higher loads produced greater PGRF and FPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between loads equal to 60-50, 50-40, and 40-30% of 1RM for PGRF, and between loads equal to 70-60 and 60-50% of 1RM for FPP. Higher loads produced lower PV and VPP values than lower loads (p < 0.05) in all cases except between the 20-30, 70-80, and 80-90% of 1RM conditions. These results may be helpful in determining loads when prescribing need-specific training protocols targeting different areas of the load-velocity continuum.
