Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives

This study examined the power production differences between weightlifting derivatives through a comparison of power-time (P-t) curves. Thirteen resistance-trained males performed hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) repetitions at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Uludag 2017-09-01
Series:Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jssm.org/researchjssm-16-407.xml.xml
id doaj-6f6c1615f7d24598a9fc0b8263cfa572
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6f6c1615f7d24598a9fc0b8263cfa5722020-11-24T22:49:47ZengUniversity of UludagJournal of Sports Science and Medicine1303-29682017-09-01163407413Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting DerivativesTimothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole0Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI, USAThis study examined the power production differences between weightlifting derivatives through a comparison of power-time (P-t) curves. Thirteen resistance-trained males performed hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) repetitions at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) HPC. Relative peak power (PPRel), work (WRel), and P-t curves were compared. The JS produced greater PPRel than the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 2.53) and the HHP (p < 0.001, d = 2.14). In addition, the HHP PPRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.008, d = 0.80). Similarly, the JS produced greater WRel compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 1.89) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.42). Furthermore, HHP WRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.003, d = 0.73). The P-t profiles of each exercise were similar during the first 80-85% of the movement; however, during the final 15-20% of the movement the P-t profile of the JS was found to be greater than the HPC and HHP. The JS produced greater PPRel and WRel compared to the HPC and HHP with large effect size differences. The HHP produced greater PPRel and WRel than the HPC with moderate effect size differences. The JS and HHP produced markedly different P-t profiles in the final 15-20% of the movement compared to the HPC. Thus, these exercises may be superior methods of training to enhance PPRel. The greatest differences in PPRel between the JS and HHP and the HPC occurred at lighter loads, suggesting that loads of 30-45% 1RM HPC may provide the best training stimulus when using the JS and HHP. In contrast, loads ranging 65-80% 1RM HPC may provide an optimal stimulus for power production during the HPC.http://www.jssm.org/researchjssm-16-407.xml.xmlHang power cleanjump shrughang high pullmechanical worktime normalization
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole
spellingShingle Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole
Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Hang power clean
jump shrug
hang high pull
mechanical work
time normalization
author_facet Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole
author_sort Timothy J. Suchomel, Christopher J. Sole
title Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
title_short Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
title_full Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
title_fullStr Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
title_full_unstemmed Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives
title_sort power-time curve comparison between weightlifting derivatives
publisher University of Uludag
series Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
issn 1303-2968
publishDate 2017-09-01
description This study examined the power production differences between weightlifting derivatives through a comparison of power-time (P-t) curves. Thirteen resistance-trained males performed hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) repetitions at relative loads of 30%, 45%, 65%, and 80% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) HPC. Relative peak power (PPRel), work (WRel), and P-t curves were compared. The JS produced greater PPRel than the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 2.53) and the HHP (p < 0.001, d = 2.14). In addition, the HHP PPRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.008, d = 0.80). Similarly, the JS produced greater WRel compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 1.89) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.42). Furthermore, HHP WRel was statistically greater than the HPC (p = 0.003, d = 0.73). The P-t profiles of each exercise were similar during the first 80-85% of the movement; however, during the final 15-20% of the movement the P-t profile of the JS was found to be greater than the HPC and HHP. The JS produced greater PPRel and WRel compared to the HPC and HHP with large effect size differences. The HHP produced greater PPRel and WRel than the HPC with moderate effect size differences. The JS and HHP produced markedly different P-t profiles in the final 15-20% of the movement compared to the HPC. Thus, these exercises may be superior methods of training to enhance PPRel. The greatest differences in PPRel between the JS and HHP and the HPC occurred at lighter loads, suggesting that loads of 30-45% 1RM HPC may provide the best training stimulus when using the JS and HHP. In contrast, loads ranging 65-80% 1RM HPC may provide an optimal stimulus for power production during the HPC.
topic Hang power clean
jump shrug
hang high pull
mechanical work
time normalization
url http://www.jssm.org/researchjssm-16-407.xml.xml
work_keys_str_mv AT timothyjsuchomelchristopherjsole powertimecurvecomparisonbetweenweightliftingderivatives
_version_ 1725675127081795584