Author Topic: Power pull vs power clean  (Read 9521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DamienZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
  • Yeah dude!
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Power pull vs power clean
« on: December 03, 2010, 09:40:28 am »
0
Quote
OMPARISON OF POWER PRODUCTION IN THE HANG CLEAN VS. JUMP SHRUG AT DIFFERENT RELATIVE INTENSITIES

Although the hang power clean (HC) is utilized in many strength-power training programs, it is an exercise that requires high skill. In addition, regular supervision is often required to assure proper lifting technique is being performed. Many variations and lead-up exercises are used to teach the HC. One exercise used to progressively teach the HC is the jump shrug (JS), an exercise similar to the HC but without the catch phase. For individuals training to improve lower-body power for sports other than competitive weightlifting, one can propose to utilize the JS since it is easier to learn, while providing similar lower-body power production and training stimulus as the HC. However, a comparison of these 2 exercises has not been performed in order to make this claim. PURPOSE: To compare the kinematic and kinetic profiles of the HC and JS at 40, 60 and 80% of one rep max (1RM) of the HC. METHODS: 18 college-age athletes (16 mem, 2 women; age, 21.8 ? 1.9 yrs; height, 178. 1 ? 6.2 cm; weight, 89.0 ? 13.9 kg; 1RM HC, 92.2 ? 15.7 kg) volunteered for the study. All subjects had used the HC regularly in their training for a minimum of 1 yr. On day 1, 1RM HC testing was performed. Within 2-7 days later, motion analysis and force platform testing on the HC and JS was performed at 40, 60, and 80% of HC 1RM. Exercises were performed in a counter balanced order but the relative intensities were always in the order 40, 60, and 80% within each exercise. All testing was completed on a single day. Peak force, peak velocity (center of mass of the body + bar mass), and peak power produced for each lift at each of the relative intensities were compared. Peak joint angular velocities at the ankle, knee, and hip were also compared.

RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that performance measures were significantly higher during the JS compared to the HC for peak force, peak velocity, and peak power. Analysis at the ankle, knee, and hip joints also showed peak joint angular velocities for JS to be significantly higher than HC in all 3 joints. When comparing the relative intensities, peak velocity and peak power were higher at 40 and 60%, than 80% 1RM with no difference between 40 and 60% 1RM. CONCLUSION: Performing the JS at intensities between 40 and 60% 1RM of the HC creates higher loading and joint angular velocities for developing power compared to using the HC at similar intensities.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The JS is a simple task to master as compared to the HC and is typically a lead-up exercise used to teach the HC. According to our results the use of the JS in weekly programming may create a greater training stimulus for developing overall power than using the HC alone. In addition, teaching or supervising the performance of the HC may be limited by time or ratios of coaches to athletes. When athletes are not training for competitive weightlifting, where the catch of the HC is important to learn, consider performing the JS as part of the explosive training program. Funding for this project was received in a grant from the Graduate Student Research, Service and Education Leadership Grant Program at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12859
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7966
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2010, 09:57:36 am »
0
Huh. Where did you find the study?
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

DamienZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
  • Yeah dude!
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2010, 10:06:46 am »
0
I read it some time ago and just remembered it.
http://training.fitness.com/weight-training/jump-shrug-vs-power-clean-research-28204.html

i read it elsewhere, but i cant find it again...

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Things to take note of
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2010, 08:18:58 am »
0
I see several problems with this research regarding the practical implications. What did the study reveal? Power output was higher in the jump shrug for very low weights than it was with the same low weights when the powerclean was performed. The question that has to be asked in this context is whether your training should consist of powercleaning with 60% of your max in the first place? Well, I don't think so. I wonder what the results would have been at 80%, 90% and 95% of 1rm.

Now why are those findings not very surprising.... It's not that you can't produce a lot of power with 60% of your 1rm in the powerclean, it's just that you don't have to with this light of a weight. Increasing power in the pull also means having to work more in the catch phase. Of course as an athlete experienced with that exercise you are aware of that fact and you won't see a need to pull harder than you have to. Again, try the same with 95% of your max and some lifters with decent technique and you will probably see how the jump shrug will hardly be an as effective exercise, especially if you also consider scalability. I will say it again and again until people will start to comprehend what that means. If you cannot scale progress in an exercise, you will not know when to use more weight and if you are unaware of your potential progress in one exercise, you cannot possibly relate its execution to performance gains on the field. In other words, if you have been doing jump shrugs with the same weight for 8 weeks and happen to jump higher, you cannot possibly suggest that this exercise has been the cause. If you would use a hang snatch and increased your work weights and observed that you jump higher after progress in that exercise has been made, it would make a lot more sense to attribute that progress to that part of your training.
Now why is that important? It is important because we have to learn to differentiate between what makes effective training and what does not for ourselves.

And we have to do so because exercise science apparently cannot.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 08:48:57 am by steven-miller »

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2010, 01:12:40 pm »
0
  It doesnt look like the study took into account the shock benefits provided by strong eccentric overload during the catch phase of the clean, not provided by the jump shrug either.  Jumping a weight to a certain height, then pulling the body under it at very high speeds, is a big eccentric overload at those joint angles similar to jumping.  You dont get this with jump shrugs.  

  Also, of course you can create higher numbers with the jump shrug on the concentric than you can on a light clean, you have to gauge the amount of power you put into the bar on the clean or the bar comes up too high to catch properly.  It would be interesting if they tried the same power output experiment on the concentric portion of a power snatch vs a jump shrug as well.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 01:24:25 pm by LanceSTS »
Relax.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14567
  • Respect: +2493
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2010, 01:17:01 pm »
0
I for one feel the snatch as a much more natural body movement than a clean.

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2010, 07:04:33 am »
0
Why is that? You won't tell the story with your long forearms now, will you?  ;D

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14567
  • Respect: +2493
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2010, 05:55:09 am »
0
It just is much more natural... I have no idea exactly why, but...

I feel it's a more "complete" extension. In the clean I feel getting the bar to the chest instead of "throwing the bar over the head" is a "partial movement", like you have to stop from the extension. I know that's not the case, but that's how I feel about it.

Kellyb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2010, 01:15:19 pm »
0
Have you been doing the snatch lately Raptor?

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14567
  • Respect: +2493
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2010, 04:01:27 pm »
0
Yes I am... nothing fancy, I'm using 30 kg for the moment... but it's great in terms of movement, so natural. I'm still kind of afraid to use more weight (maybe it's not such a good idea afterall until my form is great) - but I definitely do them better form wise than cleans. In the clean, I can NEVER EVER keep the elbows forward... if I get one elbow forward like I'm supposed to, the other one must be perpendicular to the floor. It can't go forward ONE BIT no matter what you do. Weird stuff to say the least, I have no idea what this means in terms of flexibility (what muscle is inflexible).

So I either do the catch with the elbows perpendicular to the floor and all the weight being amortized by the hands/elbows (since the bar is catched on the chest and not on the deltoids) or I don't do the catch at all... I don't know. I haven't found anybody to answer that question about the inflexibility (or maybe I should widen the grip but that doesn't correct it either).

Anyway, the snatch feels so much more "athletic" if you will.

$ick3nin.vend3tta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2011, 11:40:47 am »
0
If I was ever trying to develop my VJ, Jump shrug would be high priority for sure.







« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 05:29:59 pm by $ick3nin.vend3tta »

Username

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: -1
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2011, 10:15:19 am »
0
This abstract is not from a published study. Furthermore, there are glaring flaws within the methodology. I would advise that people read Cormie's research from 2007 and 2008.


Quote
OMPARISON OF POWER PRODUCTION IN THE HANG CLEAN VS. JUMP SHRUG AT DIFFERENT RELATIVE INTENSITIES

Although the hang power clean (HC) is utilized in many strength-power training programs, it is an exercise that requires high skill. In addition, regular supervision is often required to assure proper lifting technique is being performed. Many variations and lead-up exercises are used to teach the HC. One exercise used to progressively teach the HC is the jump shrug (JS), an exercise similar to the HC but without the catch phase. For individuals training to improve lower-body power for sports other than competitive weightlifting, one can propose to utilize the JS since it is easier to learn, while providing similar lower-body power production and training stimulus as the HC. However, a comparison of these 2 exercises has not been performed in order to make this claim.


 PURPOSE: To compare the kinematic and kinetic profiles of the HC and JS at 40, 60 and 80% of one rep max (1RM) of the HC. METHODS: 18 college-age athletes (16 mem, 2 women; age, 21.8 ? 1.9 yrs; height, 178. 1 ? 6.2 cm; weight, 89.0 ? 13.9 kg; 1RM HC, 92.2 ? 15.7 kg) volunteered for the study. All subjects had used the HC regularly in their training for a minimum of 1 yr. On day 1, 1RM HC testing was performed. Within 2-7 days later, motion analysis and force platform testing on the HC and JS was performed at 40, 60, and 80% of HC 1RM. Exercises were performed in a counter balanced order but the relative intensities were always in the order 40, 60, and 80% within each exercise. All testing was completed on a single day. Peak force, peak velocity (center of mass of the body + bar mass), and peak power produced for each lift at each of the relative intensities were compared. Peak joint angular velocities at the ankle, knee, and hip were also compared.

RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that performance measures were significantly higher during the JS compared to the HC for peak force, peak velocity, and peak power. Analysis at the ankle, knee, and hip joints also showed peak joint angular velocities for JS to be significantly higher than HC in all 3 joints. When comparing the relative intensities, peak velocity and peak power were higher at 40 and 60%, than 80% 1RM with no difference between 40 and 60% 1RM. CONCLUSION: Performing the JS at intensities between 40 and 60% 1RM of the HC creates higher loading and joint angular velocities for developing power compared to using the HC at similar intensities.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The JS is a simple task to master as compared to the HC and is typically a lead-up exercise used to teach the HC. According to our results the use of the JS in weekly programming may create a greater training stimulus for developing overall power than using the HC alone. In addition, teaching or supervising the performance of the HC may be limited by time or ratios of coaches to athletes. When athletes are not training for competitive weightlifting, where the catch of the HC is important to learn, consider performing the JS as part of the explosive training program. Funding for this project was received in a grant from the Graduate Student Research, Service and Education Leadership Grant Program at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

$ick3nin.vend3tta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2011, 10:44:41 am »
0
Just pulled up a couple of vids.

What are the best way to perform these?. Partial from hang or full ROM?.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjWaUbzWY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjWaUbzWY</a>



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLQZWwS21q0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLQZWwS21q0</a>

Username

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: -1
    • View Profile
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2011, 01:43:11 pm »
0
PPO is still in press so I won't discuss that,  but mid thigh produces sig greater values for both VGRF and RFD (Comfort, Allen & Graham-Smith, 2011).

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Power pull vs power clean
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2011, 04:03:04 pm »
0
PPO is still in press so I won't discuss that,  but mid thigh produces sig greater values for both VGRF and RFD (Comfort, Allen & Graham-Smith, 2011).


  I agree with this.  Most athletes will inherently end up in a bad power position when trying to go from the floor, and all of the benefits to athletes seeking power improvement in their sport are coming from that position, the pull from the floor is a part of the sport of olympic weightlifting so obviously for that specific goal things are different. 

  There are also unique benefits of the catch phase of the snatch and clean not present in the jump shrug, which not only provide solid feedback to the lifter when progress in power was made due to a set "marker" they must reach to complete the lift, but the shock benefits of catching and stopping the bar in a quarter squat position are very beneficial as well imo.
Relax.