Timothy J. Suchomel

Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives: Rationale for Implementation and Application

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.

The impact of load on lower body performance variables during the hang power clean

This study examined the impact of load on lower body performance variables during the hang power clean. Fourteen men performed the hang power clean at loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. Peak force, velocity, power, force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and rate of force development were compared at each load. The greatest peak force occurred at 80% 1RM. Peak force at 30% 1RM was statistically lower than peak force at 45% (p = 0.022), 65% (p = 0.010), and 80% 1RM (p = 0.018). Force at peak power at 65% and 80% 1RM was statistically greater than force at peak power at 30% (p < 0.01) and 45% 1RM (p < 0.01). The greatest rate of force development occurred at 30% 1RM, but was not statistically different from the rate of force development at 45%, 65%, and 80% 1RM. The rate of force development at 65% 1RM was statistically greater than the rate of force development at 80% 1RM (p = 0.035). No other statistical differences existed in any variable existed. Changes in load affected the peak force, force at peak power, and rate of force development, but not the peak velocity, power, or velocity at peak power.

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete’s training status and the dose–response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete’s training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete’s ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

The Relationships between Hip and Knee Extensor Cross-Sectional Area, Strength, Power, and Potentiation Characteristics

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), maximal strength, power output, and maximum potentiation characteristics. The vastus lateralis and biceps femoris CSA, one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat, 1RM concentric-only half-squat (COHS) strength, static jump power output, and maximum potentiation characteristics of 17 resistance-trained men was assessed during several testing sessions. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationships between CSA, strength, power output, and maximum potentiation measures. Moderate-to-strong relationships existed between CSA and strength measures (r = 0.462–0.643) as well as power output (r = 0.396–0.683). In addition, moderate-to-strong relationships existed between strength and power output (r = 0.407–0.548), while trivial relationships existed between strength and maximum potentiation (r = −0.013–0.149). Finally, small negative relationships existed between CSA and maximum potentiation measures (r = −0.229–−0.239). The results of the current study provide evidence of the interplay between muscle CSA, strength, power, and potentiation. Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris CSA may positively influence an individual’s back squat and COHS maximal strength and squat jump peak power; however, muscle CSA and absolute strength measures may not contribute to an individual’s potentiation capacity. Practitioners may consider implementing resistance training strategies that improve vastus lateralis and biceps femoris size in order to benefit back squat and COHS strength. Furthermore, implementing squatting variations—both full and partial—may benefit jumping performance.

Vertically and horizontally directed muscle power exercises: Relationships with top-level sprint performance

The capacity to rapidly generate and apply a great amount of force seems to play a key role in sprint running. However, it has recently been shown that, for sprinters, the technical ability to effectively orient the force onto the ground is more important than its total amount. The force-vector theory has been proposed to guide coaches in selecting the most adequate exercises to comprehensively develop the neuromechanical qualities related to the distinct phases of sprinting. This study aimed to compare the relationships between vertically-directed (loaded and unloaded vertical jumps, and half-squat) and horizontally-directed (hip-thrust) exercises and the sprint performance of top-level track and field athletes. Sixteen sprinters and jumpers (including three Olympic athletes) executed vertical jumps, loaded jump squats and hip-thrusts, and sprinting speed tests at 10-, 20-, 40-, 60-, 100-, and 150-m. Results indicated that the hip-thrust is more associated with the maximum acceleration phase (i.e., from zero to 10-m; r = 0.93), whereas the loaded and unloaded vertical jumps seem to be more related to top-speed phases (i.e., distances superior to 40-m; r varying from 0.88 to 0.96). These findings reinforce the mechanical concepts supporting the force-vector theory, and provide coaches and sport scientists with valuable information about the potential use and benefits of using vertically- or horizontally-based training exercises.

The effect of barbell load on vertical jump landing force-time characteristics

The aim of this study was to quantify the effect that barbell load has on the jump height and force-time characteristics of the countermovement jump (CMJ). Fifteen strengthtrained men (mean ± SD: age 23 ± 2 years, mass 84.9 ± 8.1 kg, height 1.80 ± 0.05 m) performed three CMJ with no additional load, and with barbell loads of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of body mass on two force plates recording at 1000 Hz. Propulsion and landing force-time characteristics were obtained from force-time data and compared using analysis of variance and effect sizes. Jump height decreased significantly as load increased (26 to 71%, d = 1.80 to 6.87). During propulsion, impulse increased with load up to 75% of body mass (6 to 9%, d = 0.71 to 1.08), mean net force decreased (10 to 43%, d = 0.50 to 2.45) and time increased (13 to 50%, d = 0.70 to 2.57). During landing, impulse increased as load increased up to 75% of body mass (5 to 12%, d = 0.54 to 1.01), mean net force decreased (13 to 38%, d = 0.41 to 1.24), and time increased (20 to 47%, d = 0.65 to 1.47). Adding barbell load to CMJ significantly decreases CMJ height. Furthermore, CMJ with additional barbell load increases landing phase impulse. However, while mean net force decreases as barbell load increases, landing time increases so that jumpers are exposed to mechanical load for longer. Practitioners should exercise caution when implementing loaded CMJ to assess their athletes.

Concurrent Validity of a Portable Force Plate Using Vertical Jump Force–Time Characteristics

This study examined concurrent validity of countermovement vertical jump reactive strength index modified and force-time characteristics recorded using a 1-dimensional portable and laboratory force plate system. Twenty-eight men performed bilateral countermovement vertical jumps on 2 portable force plates placed on top of 2 in-ground force plates, both recording vertical ground reaction force at 1000xa0Hz. Time to takeoff; jump height; reactive strength index modified; and braking and propulsion impulse, mean net force, and duration were calculated from the vertical force from both force plate systems. Results from both systems were highly correlated (ru2009≥u2009.99). There were small (du2009<u20090.12) but significant differences between their respective braking impulse, braking mean net force, propulsion impulse, and propulsion mean net force (Pu2009<u2009.001). However, limits of agreement yielded a mean value of 1.7% relative to the laboratory force plate system (95% confidence limits, 0.9%-2.5%), indicating very good agreement across all of the dependent variables. The largest limits of agreement were for jump height (2.1%), time to takeoff (3.4%), and reactive strength index modified (3.8%). The portable force plate system provides a valid method of obtaining reactive strength measures, and several underpinning force-time variables, from unloaded countermovement vertical jump. Thus, practitioners can use both force plates interchangeably.

1RM measures or maximum bar-power output: which is more related to sport performance?

PURPOSEnThis study compared the associations between optimum power loads and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) values (assessed in half-squat [HS] and jump squat [JS] exercises) and multiple performance measures in elite athletes.nnnMETHODSnSixty-one elite athletes (fifteen Olympians) from four different sports (track and field [sprinters and jumpers], rugby sevens, bobsled, and soccer) performed squat and countermovement jumps, HS exercise (for assessing 1RM), HS and JS exercises (for assessing bar-power output), and sprint tests (60-m for sprinters and jumpers and 40-m for the other athletes). Pearsons product moment correlation test was used to determine relationships between 1RM and bar-power outputs with vertical jumps and sprint times in both exercises.nnnRESULTSnOverall, both measurements were moderately to near perfectly related to speed performance (r values varying from -0.35 to -0.69 for correlations between 1RM and sprint times, and from -0.36 to -0.91 for correlations between bar-power outputs and sprint times; P< 0.05). However, on average, the magnitude of these correlations was stronger for power-related variables, and only the bar-power outputs were significantly related to vertical jump height.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe bar-power outputs were more strongly associated with sprint-speed and power performance than the 1RM measures. Therefore, coaches and researchers can use the bar-power approach for athlete testing and monitoring. Due to the strong correlations presented, it is possible to infer that meaningful variations in bar-power production may also represent substantial changes in actual sport performance.

Do the peak and mean force methods of assessing vertical jump force asymmetry agree

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess agreement between peak and mean force methods of quantifying force asymmetry during the countermovement jump (CMJ). Forty-five men performed four CMJ with each foot on one of two force plates recording at 1,000 Hz. Peak and mean were obtained from both sides during the braking and propulsion phases. The dominant side was obtained for the braking and propulsion phase as the side with the largest peak or mean force and agreement was assessed using percentage agreement and the kappa coefficient. Braking phase peak and mean force methods demonstrated a percentage agreement of 84% and a kappa value of 0.67 (95% confidence limits: 0.45–0.90), indicating substantial agreement. Propulsion phase peak and mean force methods demonstrated a percentage agreement of 87% and a kappa value of 0.72 (95% confidence limits: 0.51–0.93), indicating substantial agreement. While agreement was substantial, side-to-side differences were not reflected equally when peak and mean force methods of assessing CMJ asymmetry were used. These methods should not be used interchangeably, but rather a combined approach should be used where practitioners consider both peak and mean force to obtain the fullest picture of athlete asymmetry.

Scaling isometric mid-thigh pull maximum strength in division I Athletes: are we meeting the assumptions?

ABSTRACT This study examined the validity of various scaling methods, isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) peak force using various scaling methods, and the relationships between IMTP peak force and countermovement jump height. Fifty-one collegiate baseball and soccer athletes performed two maximal IMTPs. Absolute peak force was compared between teams and when data were scaled using ratio (RS), traditional allometric (ALLOTrad), and fitted allometric (ALLOFit) scaling. ALLOTrad and ALLOFit validity was violated because different derived exponents existed for baseball (b = 0.20) and soccer (b = 1.20). Soccer athletes produced greater RS peak force compared to baseball (p = 0.012), while no difference existed with absolute, ALLOTrad or ALLOFit (all p > 0.05) peak force. Moderate relationships existed between body mass and absolute (r = 0.402, p = 0.003) and RS (r = -0.328, p = 0.019) peak force, while trivial relationships existed with ALLOTrad and ALLOFit (both r < -0.10, p > 0.05). Trivial relationships existed between countermovement jump height and absolute, RS, ALLOTrad, and ALLOFit (all r < 0.20, p > 0.05) peak force. The current dataset violated allometric scaling assumptions, making it inappropriate to use ALLOTrad and ALLOFit scaling. Practitioners must understand the assumptions, limitations, and purpose of scaling methods.