Adam Storey

Unique Aspects of Competitive Weightlifting

Weightlifting is a dynamic strength and power sport in which two, multijoint, whole-body lifts are performed in competition; the snatch and clean and jerk. During the performance of these lifts, weightlifters have achieved some of the highest absolute and relative peak power outputs reported in the literature. The training structure of competitive weightlifters is characterized by the frequent use of high-intensity resistance exercise movements. Varied coaching and training philosophies currently exist around the world and further research is required to substantiate the best type of training programme for male and female weightlifters of various age groups. As competitive weightlifting is contested over eight male and seven female body weight categories, the anthropometric characteristics of the athletes widely ranges. The body compositions of weightlifters are similar to that of athletes of comparable body mass in other strength and power sports. However, the shorter height and limb lengths of weightlifters provide mechanical advantages when lifting heavy loads by reducing the mechanical torque and the vertical distance that the barbell must be displaced. Furthermore, the shorter body dimensions coincide with a greater mean skeletal muscle cross-sectional area that is advantageous to weightlifting performance. Weightlifting training induces a high metabolic cost. Although dietary records demonstrate that weightlifters typically meet their required daily energy intake, weightlifters have been shown to over consume protein and fat at the expense of adequate carbohydrate. The resulting macronutrient imbalance may not yield optimal performance gains. Cross-sectional data suggest that weightlifting training induces type IIX to IIA fibre-type transformation. Furthermore, weightlifters exhibit hypertrophy of type II fibres that is advantageous to weightlifting performance and maximal force production. As such, the isometric peak force and contractile rate of force development of weightlifters is ~15–20% and ~13–16% greater, respectively, than in other strength and power athletes. In addition, weightlifting training has been shown to reduce the typical sex-related difference in the expression of neuromuscular strength and power. However, this apparent sex-related difference appears to be augmented with increasing adult age demonstrating that women undergo a greater age-related decline in muscle shortening velocity and peak power when compared with men. Weightlifting training and competition has been shown to induce significant structural and functional adaptations of the cardiovascular system. The collective evidence shows that these adaptations are physiological as opposed to pathological. Finally, the acute exercise-induced testosterone, cortisol and growth hormone responses of weightlifters have similarities to that of following conventional strength and hypertrophy protocols involving large muscle mass exercises. The routine assessment of the basal testosterone: cortisol ratio may be beneficial when attempting to quantify the adaptive responses to weightlifting training. As competitive weightlifting is becoming increasingly popular around the world, further research addressing the physiological responses and adaptations of female weightlifters and younger (i.e. ≤17 years of age) and older (i.e. ≥35 years of age) weightlifters of both sexes is required.

Unique Aspects of Competitive Weightlifting: Performance, Training and Physiology

Weightlifting is a dynamic strength and power sport in which two, multijoint, whole-body lifts are performed in competition; the snatch and clean and jerk. During the performance of these lifts, weightlifters have achieved some of the highest absolute and relative peak power outputs reported in the literature. The training structure of competitive weightlifters is characterized by the frequent use of high-intensity resistance exercise movements. Varied coaching and training philosophies currently exist around the world and further research is required to substantiate the best type of training programme for male and female weightlifters of various age groups. As competitive weightlifting is contested over eight male and seven female body weight categories, the anthropometric characteristics of the athletes widely ranges. The body compositions of weightlifters are similar to that of athletes of comparable body mass in other strength and power sports. However, the shorter height and limb lengths of weightlifters provide mechanical advantages when lifting heavy loads by reducing the mechanical torque and the vertical distance that the barbell must be displaced. Furthermore, the shorter body dimensions coincide with a greater mean skeletal muscle cross-sectional area that is advantageous to weightlifting performance. Weightlifting training induces a high metabolic cost. Although dietary records demonstrate that weightlifters typically meet their required daily energy intake, weightlifters have been shown to over consume protein and fat at the expense of adequate carbohydrate. The resulting macronutrient imbalance may not yield optimal performance gains. Cross-sectional data suggest that weightlifting training induces type IIX to IIA fibre-type transformation. Furthermore, weightlifters exhibit hypertrophy of type II fibres that is advantageous to weightlifting performance and maximal force production. As such, the isometric peak force and contractile rate of force development of weightlifters is ~15-20% and ~13-16% greater, respectively, than in other strength and power athletes. In addition, weightlifting training has been shown to reduce the typical sex-related difference in the expression of neuromuscular strength and power. However, this apparent sex-related difference appears to be augmented with increasing adult age demonstrating that women undergo a greater age-related decline in muscle shortening velocity and peak power when compared with men. Weightlifting training and competition has been shown to induce significant structural and functional adaptations of the cardiovascular system. The collective evidence shows that these adaptations are physiological as opposed to pathological. Finally, the acute exercise-induced testosterone, cortisol and growth hormone responses of weightlifters have similarities to that of following conventional strength and hypertrophy protocols involving large muscle mass exercises. The routine assessment of the basal testosterone : cortisol ratio may be beneficial when attempting to quantify the adaptive responses to weightlifting training. As competitive weightlifting is becoming increasingly popular around the world, further research addressing the physiological responses and adaptations of female weightlifters and younger (i.e. ≤17 years of age) and older (i.e. ≥35 years of age) weightlifters of both sexes is required.

Stress responses to short-term intensified and reduced training in competitive weightlifters.

We sought to identify and evaluate the tolerance to, and consequences of, short‐term variations in training load in competitive weightlifters. Seven international‐level lifters performed 1 week of initial training followed by 2 weeks of intensified (INT: +100%, 36.5 ± 11.3 × 103 kg/week) and 1 week of subsequently reduced (RED: −25%) training within their annual program. After INT, but not RED, 90 min of weightlifting increased mRNA levels of chemokine (C‐C motif) ligand 4 (CCL4), chemokine (C‐X‐C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) and cellular stress‐associated DNA‐damage‐inducible transcript 4 (DDIT4) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells by 40–240%. Resting‐ and weightlifting‐induced changes in plasma protein carbonyls, indicative of oxidative stress, but not pro‐inflammatory CCL4 concentrations differed between INT and RED. Symptoms of stress (Daily Analysis of Life Demands of Athletes questionnaire) were reported as worse than normal more frequently during INT and RED than initial training. Global (negative) mood state increased during INT and declined during RED. Maximal snatch (−4.3 ± 3.7%) and vertical jump (−7.2 ± 6.5%), but not clean and jerk, were reduced after INT and restored after RED. Chemokine signaling may thus be part of the stress response to intense weightlifting and short‐term reductions in training load support recovery from periodic INT training in weightlifters.

Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

RPE and Velocity Relationships for the Back Squat, Bench Press, and Deadlift in Powerlifters.

Abstract Helms, ER, Storey, A, Cross, MR, Browm, SR, Lenetsky, S, Ramsay, H, Dillen, C, and Zourdos, MC. RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 292–297, 2017—The purpose of this study was to compare average concentric velocity (ACV) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) based on repetitions in reserve on the squat, bench press, and deadlift. Fifteen powerlifters (3 women and 12 men, mean age 28.4 ± 8.5 years) worked up to a one repetition maximum (1RM) on each lift. Rating of perceived exertion was recorded on all sets, and the ACV was recorded for all sets performed at 80% of estimated 1RM and higher, up to 1RM. Rating of perceived exertion at 1RM on squat, bench press, and deadlift was 9.6 ± 0.5, 9.7 ± 0.4, and 9.6 ± 0.5, respectively and was not significantly different (p > 0.05). The ACV at 1RM on squat, bench press and deadlift was 0.23 ± 0.05, 0.10 ± 0.04, and 0.14 ± 0.05 m·second−1, respectively. Squat was faster than both bench press and deadlift (p > 0.001), and deadlift was faster than bench press (p = 0.05). Very strong relationships (r = 0.88–0.91) between percentage 1RM and RPE were observed on each lift. The ACV showed strong (r = −0.79 to −0.87) and very strong (r = −0.90 to 92) inverse relationships with RPE and percentage 1RM on each lift, respectively. We conclude that RPE may be a useful tool for prescribing intensity for squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters, in addition to traditional methods such as percentage of 1RM. Despite high correlations between percentage 1RM and ACV, a “velocity load profile” should be developed to prescribe intensity on an individual basis with appropriate accuracy.

Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program

Abstract Helms, ER, Cross, MR, Brown, SR, Storey, A, Cronin, J, and Zourdos, MC. Rating of perceived exertion as a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1627–1636, 2018—The purpose of this investigation was to observe how a rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based autoregulation strategy impacted volume performed by powerlifters. Twelve (26 ± 7 years, n = 9 men, n = 3 women) nationally qualified powerlifters performed the back squat, bench press, and deadlift 3x per week on nonconsecutive days in a session order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength; for 3 weeks. Each session subjects performed an initial top set for a prescribed number of repetitions at a target RPE. A second top set was performed if the RPE score was too low, then subsequent back-off sets at a reduced load were performed for the same number of repetitions. When the prescribed RPE was reached or exceeded, sets stopped; known as an “RPE stop.” The percentage load reduction for back-off sets changed weekly: there were 2, 4, or 6% RPE stop reductions from the top set. The order in which RPE stop weeks were performed was counterbalanced among subjects. Weekly combined relative volume load (squat + bench press + deadlift), expressed as sets x repetitions x percentage 1-repetition maximum was different between weeks (p < 0.001): 2% = 74.6 ± 22.3; 4% = 88.4 ± 23.8; 6% = 114.4 ± 33.4. Combined weekly bench press volume (hypertrophy + power + strength) was significantly higher in accordance with load reduction magnitude (2% > 4% > 6%; p ⩽ 0.05), combined squat volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% (p ⩽ 0.05), and combined deadlift volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% and 4% (p ⩽ 0.05). Therefore, it does seem that volume can be effectively autoregulated using RPE stops as a method to dictate number of sets performed.

RPE vs Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions

Purpose: To investigate differences between rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM) load assignment in resistance-trained males (19–35 years) performing protocols with matched sets and repetitions differentiated by load-assignment. Methods: Participants performed squats then bench press 3x/weeks in a daily undulating format over 8-weeks. Participants were counterbalanced by pre-test 1RM then assigned to percentage 1RM (1RMG, n = 11); load-assignment via percentage 1RMs, or RPE groups (RPEG, n = 10); participant-selected loads to reach target RPE ranges. Ultrasonography determined pre and post-test pectoralis (PMT), and vastus lateralis muscle thickness at 50 (VLMT50) and 70% (VLMT70) femur-length. Results: Bench press (1RMG +9.64 ± 5.36; RPEG + 10.70 ± 3.30 kg), squat (1RMG + 13.91 ± 5.89; RPEG + 17.05 ± 5.44 kg) and their combined-total 1RMs (1RMG + 23.55 ± 10.38; RPEG + 27.75 ± 7.94 kg) increased (p < 0.05) in both groups as did PMT (1RMG + 1.59 ± 1.33; RPEG +1.90 ± 1.91 mm), VLMT50 (1RMG +2.13 ± 1.95; RPEG + 1.85 ± 1.97 mm) and VLMT70 (1RMG + 2.40 ± 2.22; RPEG + 2.31 ± 2.27 mm). Between-group differences were non-significant (p > 0.05). Magnitude-based inferences revealed 79, 57, and 72% chances of mean small effect size (ES) advantages for squat; ES 90% confidence limits (CL) = 0.50 ± 0.63, bench press; ES 90% CL = 0.28 ± 0.73, and combined-total; ES 90% CL = 0.48 ± 0.68 respectively, in RPEG. There were 4, 14, and 6% chances 1RMG had a strength advantage of the same magnitude, and 18, 29, and 22% chances, respectively of trivial differences between groups. Conclusions: Both loading-types are effective. However, RPE-based loading may provide a small 1RM strength advantage in a majority of individuals.

The high-bar and low-bar back-squats: A biomechanical analysis

No prior study has compared the joint angle and ground reaction force (Fv) differences between the high-bar back-squat (HBBS) and low-bar back-squat (LBBS) above 90% 1RM. Six male powerlifters (height: 179.2 ± 7.8 cm; bodyweight: 87.1 ± 8.0 kg; age: 27.3 ± 4.2 years) of international level, six male Olympic weightlifters (height: 176.7 ± 7.7 cm; bodyweight: 83.1 ± 13 kg; age: 25.3 ± 3.1 years) of national level, and six recreationally trained male athletes (height: 181.9 ± 8.7 cm; bodyweight: 87.9 ± 15.3 kg; age: 27.7 ± 3.8 years) performed the LBBS, HBBS, and both LBBS and HBBS (respectively) up to and including 100% 1RM. Small to moderate (d = 0.2-0.5) effect size differences were observed between the powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters in joint angles and Fv, although none were statistically significant. However, significant joint angle results were observed between the experienced powerlifters/weightlifters and the recreationally trained group. Our findings suggest that practitioners seeking to place emphasis on the stronger hip musculature should consider the LBBS. Also, when the goal is to lift the greatest load possible, the LBBS may be preferable. Conversely, the HBBS is more suited to replicate movements that exhibit a more upright torso position, such as the snatch and clean, or to place more emphasis on the associated musculature of the knee joint.

Redistributing load using wearable resistance during power clean training improves athletic performance

Abstract A popular method to improve athletic performance and lower body power is to train with wearable resistance (WR), for example, weighted vests. However, it is currently unknown what training effect this loading method has on full-body explosive movements such as the power clean. The purpose of this study was to determine what effects WR equivalent to 12% body mass (BM) had on the power clean and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Sixteen male subjects (age: 23.2 ± 2.7 years; BM: 90.5 ± 10.3 kg) were randomly assigned to five weeks of traditional (TR) power clean training or training with 12% BM redistributed from the bar to the body using WR. Variables of interest included pre and post CMJ height, power clean one repetition maximum (1RM), peak ground reaction force, power output (PO), and several bar path kinematic variables across loads at 50%, 70%, and 90% of 1RM. The main findings were that WR training: (1) increased CMJ height (8.7%; ES = 0.53) and 1RM power clean (4.2%; ES = 0.2) as compared to the TR group (CMJ height = −1.4%; 1RM power clean = 1.8%); (2) increased PO across all 1RM loads (ES = 0.33–0.62); (3) increased barbell velocity at 90% 1RM (3.5%; ES = 0.74) as compared to the TR group (−4.3%); and (4) several bar path kinematic variables improved at 70% and 90% 1RM loads. WR power clean training with 12% BM can positively influence power clean ability and CMJ performance, as well as improve technique factors.