Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives

Suchomel, Timothy J.; McKeever, Shana M.; Nolen, Justin D.; Comfort, Paul

doi:10.52082/jssm.2022.504

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this approach may be novel, differences in subject training experience, technique, and anthropometrics may prevent its widespread use within the strength and conditioning field. As noted previously, weightlifting pulling derivatives are typically prescribed using percentages of a 1RM catching derivative (5,6,8,15,24,25,(27)(28)(29)(33)(34)(35). Although this may not be an issue if both weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives are prescribed, strength and conditioning practitioners only prescribing pulling variations may require a loading alternative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that the existing cross-sectional and longitudinal research on weightlifting pulling derivatives has primarily used percentages of a 1RM catching derivative to prescribe loads. For example, researchers have used loads based on the 1RM HPC or power clean of subjects to examine the differences between weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives (9,18,19,31,32,37,38,40,41) and the effect of load during different pulling derivatives (6,8,15,24,25,(27)(28)(29) as well as during training prescription (5,(33)(34)(35). Although prescribing loads in this manner may serve as an efficient strategy, these loads may not accurately represent the actual relative percentages of the exercise being performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull?

Suchomel,

Techmanski,

Kissick

et al. 2024

Journal of Strength &Amp; Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suchomel, TJ, Techmanski, BS, Kissick, CR, and Comfort, P. Can the velocity of a 1RM hang power clean be used to estimate a 1RM hang high pull? J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1321–1325, 2024—The purpose of this study was to estimate the 1-repetition maximum hang high pull (1RM HHP) using the peak barbell velocity of a 1RM hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.3 ± 15.4 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1) with previous HPC experience participated in 2 testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, and 80% of their 1RM HPC. Peak barbell velocity was measured using a linear position transducer during the 1RM HPC and HHP repetitions performed at each load. The peak barbell velocity achieved during the 1RM HPC was determined as the criterion value for a 1RM performance. Subject-specific linear regression analyses were completed using slope-intercept equations created from the peak velocity of the 1RM HPC and the peak barbell velocities produced at each load during the HHP repetitions. The peak barbell velocity during the 1RM HPC was 1.74 ± 0.30 m·s−1. The average load-velocity profile showed that the estimated 1RM HHP of the subjects was 98.0 ± 19.3% of the 1RM HPC. Although a 1RM HHP value may be estimated using the peak barbell velocity during the HPC, strength and conditioning practitioners should avoid this method because of the considerable variation within the measurement. Additional research examining different methods of load prescription for weightlifting pulling derivatives is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull?

Suchomel,

Techmanski,

Kissick

et al. 2024

Journal of Strength &Amp; Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…compared with the HPC (13,40,46,49), especially at lighter loads (i.e., ,50% 1 repetition maximum [1RM] HPC). Despite the existing cross-sectional and longitudinal research on the JS and other weightlifting pulling derivatives, researchers have typically loaded these exercises based on the 1RM HPC or power clean of subjects when comparing different weightlifting exercises (6,15,18,41,45,49), examining the impact of different loads on performance (5,26,33,35), or during training prescription (2,(42)(43)(44). Although this may not be an issue when both weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives are prescribed, strength and conditioning practitioners must consider that loads based on another exercise may not accurately represent the relative loading percentages of a different exercise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Barbell Acceleration to Determine the 1 Repetition Maximum of the Jump Shrug

Techmanski,

Kissick,

Loturco

et al. 2024

Journal of Strength &Amp; Conditioning Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Techmanski, BS, Kissick, CR, Loturco, I, and Suchomel, TJ. Using barbell acceleration to determine the 1 repetition maximum of the jump shrug. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1486–1493, 2024—The purpose of this study was to determine the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of the jump shrug (JS) using the barbell acceleration characteristics of repetitions performed with relative percentages of the hang power clean (HPC). Fifteen resistance-trained men (age = 25.5 ± 4.5 years, body mass = 88.5 ± 15.7 kg, height = 176.1 ± 8.5 cm, relative 1RM HPC = 1.3 ± 0.2 kg·kg−1) completed 2 testing sessions that included performing a 1RM HPC and JS repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM HPC. A linear position transducer was used to determine concentric duration and the percentage of the propulsive phase (P%) where barbell acceleration was greater than gravitational acceleration (i.e., a>−9.81 m·s−2). Two 1 way repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare each variable across loads, whereas Hedge's g effect sizes were used to examine the magnitude of the differences. Concentric duration ranged from 449.7 to 469.8 milliseconds and did not vary significantly between loads (p = 0.253; g = 0.20–0.39). The P% was 57.4 ± 7.2%, 64.8 ± 5.9%, 73.2 ± 4.3%, 78.7 ± 4.0%, and 80.3 ± 3.5% when using 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% 1RM HPC, respectively. P% produced during the 80 and 100% 1RM loads were significantly greater than those at 20, 40, and 60% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.30–3.90). In addition, P% was significantly greater during 60% 1RM compared with both 20 and 40% 1RM (p < 0.01, g = 1.58–2.58) and 40% was greater than 20% 1RM (p = 0.003, g = 1.09). A braking phase was present during each load and, thus, a 1RM JS load was not established. Heavier loads may be needed to achieve a 100% propulsive phase when using this method.

show abstract

“…Additional researchers examining the HEXJ concluded that PP occurred with loads ranging from 20–40% of a 1RM back squat [ 5 ] or 10–20% of a 1RM box squat [ 12 ]. Compared to the other two exercises, the JShrug is typically loaded using a percentage of a 1RM weightlifting catching derivative [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In this light, PP has been shown to be maximized between 30–45% of a 1RM hang power clean [ 14 , 16 , 18 , 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women

Suchomel

McKeever²,

Sijuwade

et al. 2023

Sports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the propulsion phase characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) performed across a spectrum of relative loads. Thirteen resistance-trained women (18–23 years old) performed JS, HEXJ, and JShrug repetitions at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% BM during three separate testing sessions. Propulsion mean force (MF), duration (Dur), peak power output (PP), force at PP (FPP), and velocity at PP (VPP) were compared between exercises and loads using a series of 3 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA and Hedge’s g effect sizes. There were no significant differences in MF or Dur between exercises. While load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PP were significantly greater than the JS, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. The JShrug produced significantly greater FPP than the JS and HEXJ at loads ranging from BM–60% BM, but not at 80 or 100% BM. Load-averaged VPP produced during the JS and HEXJ was significantly greater than the JShrug; however, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. Practically meaningful differences between exercises indicated that the JShrug produced greater magnitudes of force during shorter durations compared to the JS and HEXJ at light loads (BM–40%). The JS and HEXJ may be classified as more velocity-dominant exercises while the JShrug may be more force-dominant. Thus, it is important to consider the context in which each exercise is prescribed for resistance-trained women to provide an effective training stimulus.

show abstract

Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives

Cited by 6 publications

References 80 publications

Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull?

Can the Velocity of a 1RM Hang Power Clean Be Used to Estimate a 1RM Hang High Pull?

Using Barbell Acceleration to Determine the 1 Repetition Maximum of the Jump Shrug

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About