Jump performance can be enhanced after performing squat exercises, and this is thought to be because of the phenomenon of postactivation potentiation (PAP). However, the influence of the intensity of squat exercises on jump performance enhancement and its association to PAP have not been elucidated. Thus, we examined the influence of the intensity of squat exercises on the subsequent jump performance and the magnitude of PAP. Eight weightlifters (age, 19.8 ± 1.3 years; height, 1.67 ± 0.07 m; body mass, 77.1 ± 14.8 kg) were recruited as subjects. The intensity of squat exercises was set in 2 conditions: heavy condition (HC) (45% 1 repetition maximum [1RM] × 5 repetitions [reps], 60% 1RM × 5 reps, 75% 1RM × 3 reps, and 90% 1RM × 3 reps) and moderate condition (MC) (45% 1RM × 5 reps, 60% 1RM × 5 reps, and 75% 1RM × 3 reps). Before and after the squat exercises, the subjects performed countermovement jumps 3 times. In addition, a twitch contraction was concurrently elicited before and after the squat exercises. In both conditions, twitch torque and jump height recorded after the squat exercises increased significantly compared with those recorded beforehand. The extents of increase in both twitch torque and jump height were significantly larger in HC than in MC. We conclude therefore that a high-intensity squat exercise is better than a moderate-intensity squat exercise as a warm-up modality for enhancing subsequent jump performance.

Takei, S, Hirayama, K, and Okada, J. Comparison of the power output between the hang power clean and hang high pull across a wide range of loads in weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S84–S88, 2021—The current study compared the peak power output during the hang power clean (HPC) and hang high pull (HHP) across a wide range of external loads in weightlifters. Eight weightlifters completed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) assessment for the HPC (1.59 ± 0.17 kg/body mass) and a power test for the HPC and HHP at relative loads of 40, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM of the HPC. The ground reaction force and 2-dimensional bar position data were recorded to determine the system (barbell + body mass) kinetics and bar height, respectively. System power was calculated as force multiplied by system velocity. The HHP produced significantly greater peak power than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. Conversely, there was no statistical or practical difference in peak power between the exercises at 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM. No significant interaction was found in force at peak power, whereas velocity at peak power was significantly greater during the HHP than during the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. In addition, significantly greater peak bar height was observed for the HHP than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. From the power output comparisons across loads, the HHP should be used over the HPC at loads of 40–70% 1RM, whereas the HPC and HHP can be interchangeably used at loads of 80–100% 1RM.

Purpose: The optimal load for maximal power output during hang power cleans (HPCs) from a mechanical perspective is the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) load; however, previous research has reported otherwise. The present study thus aimed to investigate the underlying factors that determine optimal load during HPCs. Methods: Eight competitive Olympic weight lifters performed HPCs at 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% of their 1RM while the ground-reaction force and bar/body kinematics were simultaneously recorded. The success criterion during HPC was set above parallel squat at the receiving position. Results: Both peak power and relative peak power were maximized at 80% 1RM (3975.7 [439.1] W, 50.4 [6.6] W/kg, respectively). Peak force, force at peak power, and relative values tended to increase with heavier loads (P < .001), while peak system velocity and system velocity at peak power decreased significantly above 80% 1RM (P = .005 and .011, respectively). There were also significant decreases in peak bar velocity (P < .001) and bar displacement (P < .001) toward heavier loads. There was a strong positive correlation between peak bar velocity and bar displacement in 7 of 8 subjects (r > .90, P < .01). The knee joint angle at the receiving position fell below the quarter-squat position above 70% 1RM. Conclusions: Submaximal loads were indeed optimal for maximal power output for HPC when the success criterion was set above the parallel-squat position. However, when the success criterion was defined as the quarter-squat position, the optimal load became the 1RM load.