Comparison of peak power output during exercises with similar lower-limb kinematics

Comfort, Paul; Mundy, Peter D.; Graham-Smith, Philip; Jones, Paul A.; Smith, Louise Z.; Lake, Jason P.

doi:10.17338/trainology.5.1_1

Cited by 6 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences may be due to Garhammer [ 24 , 26 ] evaluating world class weightlifters and due to the different devices, loads and methodologies used to assess power output, resulting in significantly different perceived power outputs [ 75 – 77 ]. Additionally, recent research reports high power outputs (3000–5600 W) in the push press exercise [ 78 – 80 ], similar to values reported for exercises with similar lower-limb kinematics, such as the jump squat or power clean [ 19 , 75 , 80 ].…”

Section: Previous Literature On Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…2 . According to the above-defined inclusion criteria, we identified 13 independent studies [ 16 , 24 , 26 , 50 , 72 – 74 , 78 – 80 , 85 – 87 ]. An overview of the main information from these studies can be found in the following sections, where the WOPDs and variations (see Table 2 ) and the main information regarding kinetics and kinematics results of the different studies analysed is provided (see Table 3 ) to guarantee a deeper knowledge of the WOPDs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies found similarities in kinetic and kinematic variables between WOPDs and other weightlifting and ballistic exercises [ 78 , 80 , 85 ]. On the one hand, Lake et al [ 78 ] concluded that the mechanical demand of the push press is comparable to that of the jump squat, enabling the lifter to apply significantly greater power over the propulsion phase of the triple extension (hips, knees and ankles) with less mechanical cost than the jump squat.…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, the push press could provide an effective stimulus and a time-efficient combination to target the entire kinetic chain during strength and power training. On the other hand, Comfort et al [ 80 ] suggested that when training to maximise peak power output and also rapid force production, the mid-thigh power clean, squat jump and push press performed at 50–70% 1RM could be used interchangeably without detriments in power development. Moreover, Comfort et al [ 85 ] reported no differences in peak force, peak power or rate of force development (RFD) during the mid-thigh power clean, squat jump and push press using 60% 1RM power clean, suggesting that any of these exercises could be used to target rapid force and power production under moderate loads.…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 ), have been studied to date, which consequently leads to a lack of understanding regarding the kinetic and kinematic data on the full range of WOPDs. Furthermore, whilst the studies conducted on the push press used an amateur but well-trained population [ 78 – 80 , 85 , 87 ], the vast majority of studies that have analysed the jerk included in this review were conducted by highly trained professional lifters [ 16 , 24 , 26 , 50 , 72 , 73 , 86 ]. This may be one of the reasons why it is difficult to compare between studies, as highly experienced weightlifters have been shown to perform differently to their counterparts [ 50 , 72 , 73 , 121 ].…”

Section: Limitations Of the Current Study And Recommendations For Futmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review examines the literature on weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs) and provides information regarding historical, technical, kinetic and kinematic mechanisms as well as potential benefits and guidelines to implement the use of WOPDs as training tools for sports populations. Only 13 articles were found in a search of electronic databases, which was employed to gather empirical evidence to provide an insight into the kinetic and kinematic mechanisms underpinning WOPDs. Practitioners may implement WOPDs such as push press, push jerk or split jerk from the back as well as the front rack position to provide an adequate stimulus to improve not only weightlifting performance but also sports performance as: (1) the use of WOPDs is an additional strategy to improve weightlifting performance; (2) WOPDs require the ability to develop high forces rapidly by an impulsive triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles, which is mechanically similar to many sporting tasks; (3) WOPDs may be beneficial for enhancing power development and maximal strength in the sport population; and, finally, (4) WOPDs may provide a variation in training stimulus for the sports population due to the technical demands, need for balance and coordination. The potential benefits highlighted in the literature provide a justification for the implementation of WOPDs in sports training. However, there is a lack of information regarding the longitudinal training effects that may result from implementing WOPDs.

show abstract

Section: Previous Literature On Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Benefits Of Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Benefits Of Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of the Current Study And Recommendations For Futmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics

Soriano

Lake

Comfort

et al. 2021

Sports Biomechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analyzed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91 -1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86 -1.00) and SJ (ICC = 0.55 -0.99) kinetics. One-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05,  2 < 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardized load of 80% 1RM PP.

show abstract

A biomechanical comparison of the jerk, back jerk, vertical jump and jump squat

Liu

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although weightlifting exercises and their pulling and catching derivatives have been well studied, less is known about the group of weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs). There were two purposes of the present study. Above all, it was to compare WOPDs (i.e. jerk and back jerk) with jump squat in enhancing sport performance such as vertical jump in the perspective of biomechanics. Furthermore, it was to gain a better understanding of the biomechanical difference between jerk and back jerk. The study compared the kinetics, kinematics, and muscle activation of the jerk, back jerk, vertical jump and jump squat. Ground reaction forces, joint angle data and electromyography were collected from 20 track and field athletes while they performed the four movements. The joint coordination pattern and EMG characters of the jump squat were more similar to those of the vertical jump. WOPDs, especially jerk, exhibited less similarity with vertical jump in joint coordination, as well as the subsequent peak activation. The electromyography data demonstrated signiﬁcant differences in rectus femoris and gluteus maximus in the relative timing of peak activations and the maximum activation. Jump squat was greater in peak force (2211N) than jerk (P < .005), greater peak power (4749W) than jerk and back jerk (P < .001) and no significant difference with WOPDs in rate of force development. Back jerk produced a greater peak force (2223 N), peak power (3767W) and eccentric RFD (15965 N⋅s –1 ) than jerk (2061N)(P < .001) (3364W)(P < .05) (12280 N⋅s –1 )(P < .01)and the opposite in concentric RFD that jerk (7702 N⋅s –1 ) was greater than back jerk (5972 N⋅s –1 )(P < .05). We can conclude that for runner and jumpers, jump squat was better for improving vertical jump than WOPDs and back jerk is better than jerk in power training.

show abstract

Comparison of peak power output during exercises with similar lower-limb kinematics

Cited by 6 publications

References 40 publications

Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature

Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature

No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics

A biomechanical comparison of the jerk, back jerk, vertical jump and jump squat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About