Comparisons of peak ground reaction force and rate of force development during variations of the power clean

The aim of this investigation was to determine the differences in vertical ground reaction forces and rate of force development (RFD) during variations of the power clean. Elite rugby league players (n = 11; age 21 ± 1.63 years; height 181.56 ± 2.61 cm; body mass 93.65 ± 6.84 kg) performed 1 set of 3 repetitions of the power clean, hang-power clean, midthigh power clean, or midthigh clean pull, using 60% of 1-repetition maximum power clean, in a randomized order, while standing on a force platform. Differences in peak vertical ground reaction forces (F(z)) and instantaneous RFD between lifts were analyzed via 1-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc analysis. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly (p < 0.001) greater peak F(z) during the midthigh power clean (2,801.7 ± 195.4 N) and the midthigh clean pull (2,880.2 ± 236.2 N) compared to both the power clean (2,306.24 ± 240.47 N) and the hang-power clean (2,442.9 ± 293.2 N). The midthigh power clean (14,655.8 ± 4,535.1 N·s?1) and the midthigh clean pull (15,320.6 ± 3,533.3 N·s?1) also demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) greater instantaneous RFD when compared to both the power clean (8,839.7 ± 2,940.4 N·s?1) and the hang-power clean (9,768.9 ± 4,012.4 N·s?1). From the findings of this study, when training to maximize peak F(z) and RFD the midthigh power clean and midthigh clean pull appear to be the most advantageous variations of the power clean to perform.     

The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull

The ability to develop high levels of muscular power is considered a fundamental component for many different sporting activities; however, the load that elicits peak power still remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which load peak power output occurs during the midthigh clean pull. Sixteen participants (age 21.5 ± 2.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 70.85 ± 11.67 kg) performed midthigh clean pulls at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomized and balanced order using a force plate and linear position transducer to assess velocity, displacement, peak power, peak force (Fz), impulse, and rate of force development (RFD). Significantly greater Fz occurred at a load of 140% (2,778.65 ± 151.58 N, p < 0.001), impulse within 100, 200, and 300 milliseconds at a load of 140% 1RM (196.85 ± 76.56, 415.75 ± 157.56, and 647.86 ± 252.43 N·s, p < 0.023, respectively), RFD at a load of 120% (26,224.23 ± 2,461.61 N·s, p = 0.004), whereas peak velocity (1.693 ± 0.042 m·s, p < 0.001) and peak power (3,712.82 ± 254.38 W, p < 0.001) occurred at 40% 1RM. Greatest total impulse (1,129.86 ± 534.86 N·s) was achieved at 140% 1RM, which was significantly greater (p < 0.03) than at all loads except the 120% 1RM condition. Results indicate that increased loading results in significant (p < 0.001) decreases in peak power and peak velocity during the midthigh clean pull. Moreover, if maximizing force production is the goal, then training at a higher load may be advantageous, with peak Fz occurring at 140% 1RM.     

Ground reaction forces during the power clean

Identifying and understanding the key biomechanical factors that exemplify the power clean can provide athletes the proper tools needed to prevail at a competitive event. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize and describe ground reaction forces (Fz) during the power clean lift. Three 60-Hz motion-detecting cameras and an AMTI force plate were used to collect data from 10 collegiate weightlifting men who performed a power clean at 60 and 70% of their last competitive maximum clean. The results revealed that a greater peak force (Fz) was produced during the second pull compared with the first pull and unweighted phases in both percentage lifts. As the system weight increased from 60 to 70%, the peak force (Fz) increased for the first pull and unweighted phases and decreased during the second pull phase. Learning the proper technique of the power clean may provide athletes the basic understanding needed to be competitive in a weightlifting or sporting event.     

Determination of optimal loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes

ABSTRACT: Comfort, P, Fletcher, C, and McMahon, JJ. Determination of optimal loading during the power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26(11): 2970-2974, 2012-Although previous research has been performed in similar areas of study, the optimal load for the development of peak power during training remains controversial, and this has yet to be established in collegiate level athletes. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load to achieve peak power output during the power clean in collegiate athletes. Nineteen male collegiate athletes (age 21.5 ± 1.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 78.85 ± 8.67 kg) performed 3 repetitions of power cleans, while standing on a force platform, using loads of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM) power clean, in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Peak power output occurred at 70% 1RM (2,951.7 ± 931.71 W), which was significantly greater than the 30% (2,149.5 ± 406.98 W, p = 0.007), 40% (2,201.0 ± 438.82 W, p = 0.04), and 50% (2,231.1 ± 501.09 W, p = 0.05) conditions, although not significantly different when compared with the 60 and 80% 1RM loads. In addition, force increased with an increase in load, with peak force occurring at 80% 1RM (1,939.1 ± 320.97 N), which was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than the 30, 40, 50, and 60% 1RM loads but not significantly greater (p > 0.05) than the 70% 1RM load (1,921.2 ± 345.16 N). In contrast, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in rate of force development across loads. When training to maximize force and power, it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 60-80% of the 1RM, in collegiate level athletes.     

Strength and power characteristics in English elite rugby league players

The aim of this article is to present data on the strength and power characteristics of forwards and backs in a squad of elite English rugby league players and compare these findings to previously published literature from Australia. Participants were elite English rugby league players (n = 18; height 184.16 ± 5.76 cm; body mass 96.87 ± 10.92 kg, age 21.67 ± 4.10 years) who were all regular first team players for an English Superleague club. Testing included 5-, 10-, 20-m sprint times, agility, vertical jump, 40-kg squat jump, isometric squat, concentric and eccentric isokinetic knee flexion and extension. Independent t-tests were performed to compare results between forwards and backs, with paired samples t-tests used to compare bilateral differences from isokinetic assessments and agility tests. Forwards demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) greater body mass (102.15 ± 7.5 kg), height (186.30 ± 5.47 cm), power during the 40-kg jump squat (2,106 ± 421 W), isometric force (3,122 ± 611 N) and peak torque during left concentric isokinetic knee extension (296.1 ± 54.2 N·m) compared to the backs (86.30 ± 8.97 kg; 179.87 ± 3.72 cm; 1,709 ± 286 W; 2,927 ± 607 N; 241.7 ± 35.2 N·m, respectively). However, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were noted between forwards and backs during right concentric isokinetic knee extension (274.8 ± 37.7 and 246.8 ± 25.8 N·m), concentric isokinetic knee flexion for both left (158.8 ± 28.6 and 141.0 ± 22. 7 N·m) and right legs (155.3 ± 22.9 and 128.0 ± 23.9 N·m), eccentric isokinetic knee flexion and extension, hamstring quadriceps ratios, or vertical jump (37.25 ± 4.35 and 40.33 ± 6.38 cm). In comparison, relative measures demonstrated that backs performed significantly better compared to the forwards during the 40-kg jump squat (20.71 ± 5.15 and 19.91 ± 3.91 W·kg?1) and the isometric squat (34.32 ± 7.9 and 30.65 ± 5.34 N·kg?1). Bilateral comparisons revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between left and right leg performances in the agility test (3.26 ± 0.18 and 3.24 ± 0.18 seconds), or between left (0.7 ± 0.10) and right (0.71 ± 0.17) leg eccentric hamstring concentric quadriceps ratios. The results demonstrate that absolute strength and power measures are generally higher in forwards compared to in backs; however, when body mass is taken into account and relative measures compared, the backs outperform the forwards.     

Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) performance and various methods used to assess isometric and dynamic multijoint strength. Twelve NCAA Division I-AA male football and track and field athletes (age, 19.83 +/- 1.40 years; height, 179.10 +/- 4.56 cm; mass, 90.08 +/- 14.81 kg; percentage of body fat, 11.85 +/- 5.47%) participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (kg) testing in the squat and power clean. During the second session, peak force (N), relative peak force (N x kg(-1)), peak power (W), relative peak power (W x kg(-1)), peak velocity (m x s(-1)), and jump height (meters) in a CMJ, and peak force and rate of force development (RFD) (N x s(-1)) in a maximal isometric squat (ISO squat) and maximal isometric mid-thigh pull (ISO mid-thigh) were assessed. Significant correlations (P < or = 0.05) were found when comparing relative 1RMs (1RM/body mass), in both the squat and power clean, to relative CMJ peak power, CMJ peak velocity, and CMJ height. No significant correlations existed between the 4 measures of absolute strength, which did not account for body mass (squat 1RM, power clean 1RM, ISO squat peak force, and ISO mid-thigh peak force) when compared to CMJ peak velocity and CMJ height. In conclusion, multijoint dynamic tests of strength (squat 1RM and power clean 1RM), expressed relative to body mass, are most closely correlated with CMJ performance. These results suggest that increasing maximal strength relative to body mass can improve performance in explosive lower body movements. The squat and power clean, used in a concurrent strength and power training program, are recommended for optimizing lower body power.     

Smith machine counterbalance system affects measures of maximal bench press throw performance

Equipment with counterbalance weight systems is commonly used for the assessment of performance in explosive resistance exercise movements, but it is not known if such systems affect performance measures. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using a counterbalance weight system on measures of smith machine bench press throw performance. Ten men and 14 women (mean ± SD: age, 25 ± 4 years; height, 173 ± 10 cm; weight, 77.7 ± 18.3 kg) completed maximal smith machine bench press throws under 4 different conditions (2 × 2; counterbalance × load): with or without a counterbalance weight system and using 'light' or 'moderate' net barbell loads. Performance variables (peak force, peak velocity, and peak power) were measured using a linear accelerometer attached to the barbell. The counterbalance weight system resulted in significant (p < 0.001) reductions in measures of peak force (mean difference ± standard error: light: -112 ± 20 N; moderate: -140 ± 23 N), peak velocity (light: -0.49 ± 0.10 m·s; moderate: -0.33 ± 0.07 m·s), and peak power (light: -220 ± 43 W; moderate: -143 ± 28 W) compared with no counterbalance system for both load conditions. Load condition did not affect absolute or percentage reductions from the counterbalance weight system for any variable. In conclusion, the use of a counterbalance weight system reduces accelerometer-based performance measures for the bench press throw exercise at light and moderate loads. This reduction in measures is likely because of an increase in the external resistance during the movement, which results in a discrepancy between the manually input and the actual value for external load. A counterbalance weight system should not be used when measuring performance in explosive resistance exercises with an accelerometer.     

Effect of interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean

The effect of interrepetition rest (IRR) periods on power output during performance of multiple sets of power cleans is unknown. It is possible that IRR periods may attenuate the decrease in power output commonly observed within multiple sets. This may be of benefit for maximizing improvements in power with training. This investigation involved 10 college-aged men with proficiency in weightlifting. The subjects performed 3 sets of 6 repetitions of power cleans at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 0 (P0), 20 (P20), or 40 seconds (P40) of IRR. Each protocol (P0, P20, P40) was performed in a randomized order on different days each separated by at least 72 hours. The subjects performed the power cleans while standing on a force plate with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Peak power, force, and velocity were obtained for each repetition and set. Peak power significantly decreased by 15.7% during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 5.5% (R1: 4,303 ± 567 W, R6: 4,055 ± 582 W) during P20 and a decrease of 3.3% (R1: 4,549 ± 659 W, R6: 4,363 ± 476 W) during P40. Peak force significantly decreased by 7.3% (R1: 2,861 ± 247 N, R6: 2,657 ± 225 N) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 2.7% (R1: 2,811 ± 327 N, R6: 2,730 ± 285 N) during P20 and an increase of 0.4% (R1: 2,861 ± 323 N, R6: 2,862 ± 280 N) during P40. Peak velocity significantly decreased by 10.2% (R1: 1.97 ± 0.15 m·s(-1), R6: 1.79 ± 0.11 m·s(-1)) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 3.8% (R1: 1.89 ± 0.13 m·s(-1), R6: 1.82 ± 0.12 m·s(-1)) during P20 and a decrease of 1.7% (R1: 1.93 ± 0.17 m·s(-1), R6: 1.89 ± 0.14 m·s(-1)) during P40. The results demonstrate that IRR periods allow for the maintenance of power in the power clean during a multiple set exercise protocol and that this may have implications for improved training adaptations.     

Kinetic comparison of free weight and machine power cleans

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the kinetic characteristics of the power clean exercise using either free weight or machine resistance. After familiarization, 14 resistance trained men (mean +/- SD; age = 24.9 +/- 6.2 years) participated in two testing sessions. During the initial testing session, one-repetition maximum performance (1RM) was assessed in either the free weight or machine power clean from the midthigh. This was followed by kinetic assessment of either the free weight or the machine power clean at 85% of 1RM. One week after the initial testing session, 1RM performance, as well as the subsequent kinetic evaluation, were performed for the alternate exercise modality. All performance measures were obtained using a computer-interfaced FiTROdyne dynamometer (Fitronic; Bratislava, Slovakia). Maximum strength (1RM) and average power were significantly greater for the free weight condition, whereas peak velocity and average velocity were greater for the machine condition (p < 0.05). Although peak power was not different between modalities, force at peak power (free weights = 1445 +/- 266 N, machine = 1231 +/- 194 N) and velocity at peak power (free weights = 1.77 +/- 0.28 m x s(-1), machine = 2.20 +/- 0.24 m x s(-1)) were different (p < 0.05). It seems that mechanical limitations of the machine modality (i.e., lift trajectory) result in different load capacities that produce different kinetic characteristics for these two lifting modalities.     

Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes were tested to determine the load at which maximal mechanical output is achieved. Athletes performed power testing at 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70% of individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the squat jump, bench press, and hang pull exercises. Additionally, hang pull power testing was performed using free-form (i.e., barbell) and fixed-form (i.e., Smith machine) techniques. There were differences between genders in optimal power output during the squat jump (30-40% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) and bench throw (30% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) exercises. There were no gender or form interactions during the hang pull exercise; maximal power output during the hang pull occurred at 30-60% of 1RM. In conclusion, these results indicate that (a) gender differences exist in the load at which maximal power output occurs during the squat jump and bench throw; and (b) although no gender or form interactions occurred during the hang pull exercise, greater power could be generated during fixed-form exercise. In general, 30% of 1RM will elicit peak power outputs for both genders and all exercises used in this study, allowing this standard percentage to be used as a starting point in order to train maximal mechanical power output capabilities in these lifts in strength trained athletes.     

Prior eccentric exercise reduces v[combining dot above]o2peak and ventilatory threshold but does not alter movement economy during cycling exercise

Exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) has been shown to reduce force production and result in delayed-onset soreness and pain in the damaged muscle(s). Cycling in the presence of EIMD reduces peak power output and time-trial performance. However, its effect on peak aerobic capacity has not been widely studied. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of EIMD targeted specifically to the quadriceps muscle group on peak oxygen consumption (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak) during cycling. Ten participants (4 men, 6 women) completed a V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak test on a cycle ergometer before and 48 hours after performing 24 eccentric contractions with their right and left quadriceps with a weight equal to 120% of 1-repetition maximal concentric strength (1RM). The EIMD was assessed using 1RM, and muscle soreness was assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale. The presence of EIMD was confirmed by a 9% reduction in 1RM (p = 0.0001) and increased ratings of soreness from 2.4 ± 2.1 to 24.6 ± 10.8 mm (p = 0.001). The V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak was reduced from 46.2 ± 9.7 to 41.8 ± 10.7 ml·kg·min (10%; p = 0.01) with participants terminating exercise at lower heart rates 191 ± 9 vs. 186 ± 10 b·min (p = 0.02) and power output 248 ± 79 vs. 238 ± 81 W (p = 0.02) after EIMD. Additionally, ventilatory threshold decreased from 34.2 ± 7.8 to 30.5 ± 8.5 ml·kg·min (11%; p = 0.031). Despite the reduction in V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak, cycling economy (p = 0.17) did not differ pre-EIMD and post-EIMD. These findings indicate that EIMD reduced peak aerobic exercise capacity to an extent that could result in meaningful reductions in exercise performance. The reduction is likely attributable to a combination of reduced strength, earlier accumulation of lactic acid, and heightened muscle pain during exercise.     

The relationship between isometric force-time curve characteristics and club head speed in recreational golfers

ABSTRACT: Leary, BK, Statler, J, Hopkins, B, Fitzwater, R, Kesling, T, Lyon, J, Phillips, B, Bryner, RW, Cormie, P, and Haff, GG. The relationship between isometric force-time curve characteristics and club head speed in recreational golfers. J Strength Cond Res 26(10): 2685-2697, 2012-The primary purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationships between club head speed, isometric midthigh pull performance, and vertical jump performance in a cohort of recreational golfers. Twelve recreational golfers (age, 20.4 ± 1.0 years; weight, 77.0 ± 9.8 kg; height, 177.8 ± 6.3 cm; body fat, 17.1 ± 7.6%; handicap, 14.5 ± 7.3; experience, 8.9 ± 3.6 years) completed 3 testing sessions: (a) familiarization session and body composition measurements; (b) measurement of force-time curves in the isometric midthigh pull, countermovement, and static vertical jump (SJ); and (c) measurement of club head speed. During sessions 1 and 2, subjects performed 5 countermovement jumps, 5 SJ, and 2 isometric midthigh pulls. Isometric peak force was measured at 30, 50, 90, 100, 200, and 250 milliseconds. Rate of force development was measured among 0-30, 0-50, 0-90, 0-100, 0-200, and 0-250 milliseconds. Peak rate of force development was determined as the highest value in a 10-millisecond sampling windows. During session 3, subjects performed 10 maximal golf swings with a driver to measure club head speed; peak and average club head speed were analyzed across the 10 swings. Golf handicap was moderately correlated with average (r = -0.52, p = 0.04) and maximal club head speed (r = -0.45, p = 0.07). Force at 150 milliseconds during the isomeric midthigh pull test was moderately correlated with average (r = 0.46, p = 0.07) and maximal club head speed (r = 0.47, p = 0.06). Moderate correlations were also found between the rate of force development from 0 to 150 milliseconds and average (r = 0.38, p = 0.11) and maximal club head speed (r = 0.36, p = 0.12). The present findings suggest that the ability to exhibit high ground reaction forces in time frames <200 milliseconds are related to high club head speeds.     

Mechanically braked elliptical Wingate test: modification considerations, load optimization, and reliability

The 30-second, all-out Wingate test evaluates anaerobic performance using an upper or lower body cycle ergometer (cycle Wingate test). A recent study showed that using a modified electromagnetically braked elliptical trainer for Wingate testing (EWT) leads to greater power outcomes because of larger muscle group recruitment. The main purpose of this study was to modify an elliptical trainer using an easily understandable mechanical brake system instead of an electromagnetically braked modification. Our secondary aim was to determine a proper test load for the EWT to reveal the most efficient anaerobic test outcomes such as peak power (PP), average power (AP), minimum power (MP), power drop (PD), and fatigue index ratio (FI%) and to evaluate the retest reliability of the selected test load. Delta lactate responses (ΔLa) were also analyzed to confirm all the anaerobic performance of the athletes. Thirty healthy and well-trained male university athletes were selected to participate in the study. By analysis of variance, an 18% body mass workload yielded significantly greater test outcomes (PP = 19.5 ± 2.4 W·kg, AP = 13.7 ± 1.7 W·kg, PD = 27.9 ± 5 W·s, FI% = 58.4 ± 3.3%, and ΔLa = 15.4 ± 1.7 mM) than the other (12-24% body mass) tested loads (p < 0.05). Test and retest results for relative PP, AP, MP, PD, FI%, and ΔLa were highly correlated (r = 0.97, 0.98, 0.94, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.95, respectively). In conclusion, it was found that the mechanically braked modification of an elliptical trainer successfully estimated anaerobic power and capacity. A workload of 18% body mass was optimal for measuring maximal and reliable anaerobic power outcomes. Anaerobic testing using an EWT may be more useful to athletes and coaches than traditional cycle ergometers because a greater proportion of muscle groups are worked during exercise on an elliptical trainer.     

Large differences in peak oxygen uptake do not independently alter changes in core temperature and sweating during exercise

The independent influence of peak oxygen uptake (Vo(? peak)) on changes in thermoregulatory responses during exercise in a neutral climate has not been previously isolated because of complex interactions between Vo(? peak), metabolic heat production (H(prod)), body mass, and body surface area (BSA). It was hypothesized that Vo(? peak) does not independently alter changes in core temperature and sweating during exercise. Fourteen males, 7 high (HI) Vo(? peak): 60.1 ± 4.5 ml·kg?1·min?1; 7 low (LO) Vo(? peak): 40.3 ± 2.9 ml·kg?1·min?1 matched for body mass (HI: 78.2 ± 6.1 kg; LO: 78.7 ± 7.1 kg) and BSA (HI: 1.97 ± 0.08 m2; LO: 1.94 ± 0.08 m2), cycled for 60-min at 1) a fixed heat production (FHP trial) and 2) a relative exercise intensity of 60% Vo(? peak) (REL trial) at 24.8 ± 0.6°C, 26 ± 10% RH. In the FHP trial, H(prod) was similar between the HI (542 ± 38 W, 7.0 ± 0.6 W/kg or 275 ± 25 W/m2) and LO (535 ± 39 W, 6.9 ± 0.9 W/kg or 277 ± 29 W/m2) groups, while changes in rectal (T(re): HI: 0.87 ± 0.15°C, LO: 0.87 ± 0.18°C, P = 1.00) and aural canal (T(au): HI: 0.70 ± 0.12°C, LO: 0.74 ± 0.21°C, P = 0.65) temperature, whole-body sweat loss (WBSL) (HI: 434 ± 80 ml, LO: 440 ± 41 ml; P = 0.86), and steady-state local sweating (LSR(back)) (P = 0.40) were all similar despite relative exercise intensity being different (HI: 39.7 ± 4.2%, LO: 57.6 ± 8.0% Vo(2 peak); P = 0.001). At 60% Vo(2 peak), H(prod) was greater in the HI (834 ± 77 W, 10.7 ± 1.3 W/kg or 423 ± 44 W/m2) compared with LO (600 ± 90 W, 7.7 ± 1.4 W/kg or 310 ± 50 W/m2) group (all P < 0.001), as were changes in T(re) (HI: 1.43 ± 0.28°C, LO: 0.89 ± 0.19°C; P = 0.001) and T(au) (HI: 1.11 ± 0.21°C, LO: 0.66 ± 0.14°C; P < 0.001), and WBSL between 0 and 15, 15 and 30, 30 and 45, and 45 and 60 min (all P < 0.01), and LSR(back) (P = 0.02). The absolute esophageal temperature (T(es)) onset for sudomotor activity was ～0.3°C lower (P < 0.05) in the HI group, but the change in T(es) from preexercise values before sweating onset was similar between groups. Sudomotor thermosensitivity during exercise were similar in both FHP (P = 0.22) and REL (P = 0.77) trials. In conclusion, changes in core temperature and sweating during exercise in a neutral climate are determined by H(prod), mass, and BSA, not Vo(? peak).     

Acute effects of elastic bands during the free-weight barbell back squat exercise on velocity, power, and force production

The use of elastic bands in resistance training has been reported to be effective in increasing performance-related parameters such as power, rate of force development (RFD), and velocity. The purpose of this study was to assess the following measures during the free-weight back squat exercise with and without elastic bands: peak and mean velocity in the eccentric and concentric phases (PV-E, PV-C, MV-E, MV-C), peak force (PF), peak power in the concentric phase, and RFD immediately before and after the zero-velocity point and in the concentric phase (RFDC). Twenty trained male volunteers (age = 26.0 ± 4.4 years) performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of squats (at 55% one repetition maximum [1RM]) on 2 separate days: 1 day without bands and the other with bands in a randomized order. The added band force equaled 20% of the subjects' 55% 1RM. Two independent force platforms collected ground reaction force data, and a 9-camera motion capture system was used for displacement measurements. The results showed that PV-E and RFDC were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with the use of bands, whereas PV-C and MV-C were greater without bands. There were no differences in any other variables. These results indicate that there may be benefits to performing squats with elastic bands in terms of RFD. Practitioners concerned with improving RFD may want to consider incorporating this easily implemented training variation.     

Eight weeks of ballistic exercise improves power independently of changes in strength and muscle fiber type expression

This study investigated the effects of ballistic resistance training and strength training on muscle fiber composition, peak force (PF), maximal strength, and peak power (PP). Fourteen males (age = 21.3 +/- 2.9, body mass = 77.8 +/- 10.1 kg) with 3 months of resistance training experience completed the study. Subjects were tested pre and post for their squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) and PP in the jump squat (JS). Peak force and rate of force development (RFD) were tested during an isometric midthigh pull. Muscle biopsies were obtained from the vastus lateralis for analysis of muscle fiber type expression. Subjects were matched for strength and then randomly selected into either training (T) or control (C) groups. Group T performed 8 weeks of JS training using a periodized program with loading between 26 and 48% of 1RM, 3 days per week. Group T showed significant improvement in PP from 4088.9 +/- 520.6 to 5737.6 +/- 651.8 W. Rate of force development improved significantly in group T from 12687.5 +/- 4644.0 to 25343.8 +/- 12614.4 N x s(-1). PV improved significantly from 1.59 +/- 0.41 to 2.11 +/- 0.75 m x s(-1). No changes occurred in PF, 1RM, or muscle fiber type expression for group T. No changes occurred in any variables in group C. The results of this study indicate that using ballistic resistance exercise is an effective method for increasing PP and RFD independently of changes in maximum strength (1RM, PF), and those increases are a result of factors other than changes in muscle fiber type expression.     

Kinematic analysis of the snatch lift with elite female weightlifters during the 2010 World Weightlifting Championship

The objectives of this study were to determine the mechanical work, the power output, and the angular kinematics of the lower limb and the linear kinematics of the barbell during the first and second pulls in the snatch lift event of the 2010 Women's World Weightlifting Championship, an Olympic qualifying competition, and to compare the snatch performances of the women weightlifters to those reported in the literature. The heaviest successful snatch lifts of 7 female weightlifters who won gold medals were analyzed. The snatch lifts were recorded using 2 Super-Video Home System cameras (50 fields·s), and points on the body and the barbell were manually digitized using the Ariel Performance Analysis System. The results revealed that the duration of the first pull was significantly greater than the duration of the transition phase, the second pull, and the turnover under the barbell (p < 0.05). The maximum extension velocities of the lower limb in the second pull were significantly greater than the maximum extension velocities in the first pull. The fastest extensions were observed at the knee joint during the first pull and at the hip joint during the second pull (p < 0.05). The barbell trajectories for the heaviest snatch lifts of these elite female weightlifters were similar to those of men. The maximum vertical velocity of the barbell was greater during the second pull than in the first pull (p < 0.05). The mechanical work performed in the first pull was greater than the second pull, and the power output during the second pull was greater than that of the first pull (p < 0.05). Although the magnitudes of the barbell's linear kinematics, the angular kinematics of the lower limb, and other energy characteristics did not exactly reflect those reported in the literature, the snatch lift patterns of the elite women weightlifters were similar to those of male weightlifters.     

Effects of different elastic cord assistance levels on vertical jump

Tran, TT, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, Lynn, SK, Dabbs, NC, Schick, MK, Schick, EE, Khamoui, AV, Uribe, BP, and Noffal, GJ. Effects of different elastic cord assistance levels on vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3472-3478, 2011-Currently, little research has been conducted using body weight reduction (BWR) as a means to enhance vertical jump. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of different elastic cord assistance levels on vertical jump height (JH), takeoff velocity (TOV), relative ground reaction force (rGRF), relative impact force (RIF), and descent velocity (DV). Thirty recreationally trained college men and women (M = 15, W = 15) completed 3 testing sessions consisting of 5 conditions: 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40% BWR. In all BWR conditions, the subjects wore a full body harness while being attached to 2 elastic cords suspended from the ceiling and a linear velocity transducer. They then performed 3 maximal countermovement jumps with arm swing on a force plate. The results indicated no interaction of condition by sex for any variable; however, there was a significant (p < 0.05) main effect for condition for each variable. The JH significantly increased across all conditions (0%: 43.73 ± 1.62 cm, 40%: 64.77 ± 2.36 cm). The TOV at 30% (2.73 ± 0.34 m·s) was significantly greater than that at 0% (2.59 ± 0.39 m·s) and 10% (2.63 ± 0.34 m·s), whereas that at 40% (2.79 ± 0.43 m·s) was significantly greater than that at >0, 10, and 20%. The rGRF at 30% (18.62 ± 4.35 N·kg) was significantly greater than that at >0, 10, and 20%, whereas that at 40% (21.38 ± 5.21 N·kg) was significantly greater than in all conditions. The RIF at 20, 30, and 40% (40%: 61.60 ± 18.53 N·kg) was significantly greater than that at 0% (44.46 ± 9.12 N·kg). The DV at 20% (2.61 ± 0.31 m·s) was significantly greater than at 10%, whereas those at 30 and 40% (2.8 ± 0.41 m·s) were significantly greater than at 0, 10, and 20%. These results demonstrate that using different elastic cord levels to reduce body weight appears effective for increasing ascent and descent force and velocity variables. Future research should investigate greater BWR% and chronic training.