Using Velocity to Predict the Maximum Dynamic Strength in the Power Clean

Abstract

The primary aim of the present study was to examine the commonly performed training exercise for athlete preparation. Twenty-two recreationally trained males (age: 26.3 ± 4.1 y, height: 1.80 ± 0.07 m; body mass (BM): 87.01 ± 13.75 kg, 1-repetitoon maximum(1-RM)/BM: 0.90 ± 0.19 kg) participated in the present study. All subjects had their 1-RM power clean tested with standard procedures. On a separate testing day, subjects performed three repetitions at 30% and 45%, and two repetitions at 70% and 80% of their 1-RM power clean. During all trials during both sessions, peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) were measured with the use of a GymAware device. There were no significant differences between the actual and estimated 1-RM power clean (p = 0.37, ES = −0.11) when the load-PV profile was utilized. There was a large typical error (TE) present for the load-PV- and load-MV-estimated 1-RM values. Additionally, the raw TE exceeded the smallest worthwhile change for both load-PV and load-MV profile results. Based upon the results of this study, the load-velocity profile is not an acceptable tool for monitoring power clean strength.

Predictive Validity of the Snatch Pull Force-Velocity Profile to Determine the Snatch One Repetition-Maximum in Male and Female Elite Weightlifters

“…Of note, the prediction accuracy of the 1RM snatch from the snatch pull FvR 2 model (i.e., snatch th ) reported in the current study (systematic bias ± SDD = 0.2 ± 1.5 kg) is higher compared with the abovementioned studies that used either the multiple linear regression model [ 8 ] or the LvR-profiling [ 11 , 12 , 25 ]. The low measurement error of snatch th can be attributed to three primary reasons.…”

“…Besides statistical modeling, LvR-profiling is a widely accepted approach to predict 1RM performance that has, in fact, not yet been used for weightlifting competition exercises (i.e., snatch, clean and jerk). However, being similar to the snatch and clean, recent research was conducted on the prediction accuracy of 1RM in the power clean and deadlift exercise using individual LvR profiles [ 11 , 12 , 25 ]. For instance, Haff, Garcia-Ramos, and James [ 11 ] used the individual LvR to predict the 1RM power clean performance in recreationally trained males aged 26 years.…”

“…However, being similar to the snatch and clean, recent research was conducted on the prediction accuracy of 1RM in the power clean and deadlift exercise using individual LvR profiles [ 11 , 12 , 25 ]. For instance, Haff, Garcia-Ramos, and James [ 11 ] used the individual LvR to predict the 1RM power clean performance in recreationally trained males aged 26 years. These authors reported a measurement error (systematic bias ± SDD) of 1.4 ± 7.2 kg.…”

“…In this case, the limited force output results in a submaximal barbell velocity output that influences the individual LvR slope and the accuracy of the 1RM prediction. In the study of Haff, Garcia-Ramos, and James [ 11 ], very light loads (i.e., starting at 30% of 1RM power clean with peak barbell velocities of 3.29 m·s −1 ) were used as initial load stages during LvR-profiling. For the same study, the aforementioned relation (i.e., submaximal barbell velocity output at very light loads) may explain the high random error component reported for the prediction of 1RM power clean using LvR-profiling.…”

“…The individual load-velocity relationship (LvR) (i.e., linear regression model of barbell load vs. barbell velocity) is a good example of such a widely applied biomechanical approach that has the potential to predict 1RM during various strength exercises (e.g., bench press, back squat, deadlift, power clean) [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In this easy-to-administer approach, the estimated 1RM is the intercept of the extrapolated LvR-regression-line with the previously determined minimal velocity threshold of a maximal lift [ 11 ]. In addition to the LvR, the force–velocity relationship (FvR) represents another method to predict 1RM performance [ 14 , 15 ].…”