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.
QuoteOMPARISON 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.
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).
Abstract.
Comfort, P, Allen, M, and Graham-Smith, P. Comparisons of peak ground reaction force and rate of force development during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 24(x): 000-000, 2010-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 (Fz) 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 Fz 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[middle dot]s-1) and the midthigh clean pull (15,320.6 +/- 3,533.3 N[middle dot]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[middle dot]s-1) and the hang-power clean (9,768.9 +/- 4,012.4 N[middle dot]s-1). From the findings of this study, when training to maximize peak Fz and RFD the midthigh power clean and midthigh clean pull appear to be the most advantageous variations of the power clean to perform.
(C) 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association.
Lance , do you recommend this depth for the squat after catching , something higher ( like half or quarter squat ) or whatever comes/feels natural?
edit : exrx.net won't allow the gif embeding so i'll use a pic:
(http://www.glasgowschoolofsportbellahoustonacademy.co.uk/Images/SupportServicesImages/Power%20Clean%20Techniques.JPG)
Lance , do you recommend this depth for the squat after catching , something higher ( like half or quarter squat ) or whatever comes/feels natural?
edit : exrx.net won't allow the gif embeding so i'll use a pic:
(http://www.glasgowschoolofsportbellahoustonacademy.co.uk/Images/SupportServicesImages/Power%20Clean%20Techniques.JPG)
Yea Vag, I 100% believe half or quarter squat catch is going to be more beneficial for most athletes. The height that you catch and reverse the weight is much more specific to that point in the range of motion for jumping, as well as the focus on extremely powerful triple extension to get the height needed to catch the bar at a higher depth. When doing the full lifts there is much more focus on getting under the bar quickly and many athletes trying to implement these lifts will end up cutting the second pull (triple extension) short, in order to start getting under the bar more quickly at a full depth.
Lance , do you recommend this depth for the squat after catching , something higher ( like half or quarter squat ) or whatever comes/feels natural?
edit : exrx.net won't allow the gif embeding so i'll use a pic:
(http://www.glasgowschoolofsportbellahoustonacademy.co.uk/Images/SupportServicesImages/Power%20Clean%20Techniques.JPG)
Yea Vag, I 100% believe half or quarter squat catch is going to be more beneficial for most athletes. The height that you catch and reverse the weight is much more specific to that point in the range of motion for jumping, as well as the focus on extremely powerful triple extension to get the height needed to catch the bar at a higher depth. When doing the full lifts there is much more focus on getting under the bar quickly and many athletes trying to implement these lifts will end up cutting the second pull (triple extension) short, in order to start getting under the bar more quickly at a full depth.
Not to mention, is hard as fuck to learn the full, competition-style version. If nothing else, the level of mobility/stability you need in your hips, core and shoulders to handle competitive weights is pretty incredible and probably not specifically necessary for anyone but a competitive lifter. As has already been discussed ad nauseum on this site, you don't need to be able to do an honest ATG squat to be a great athlete. But you do to be an elite oly lifter.
I think I have just found the king of all posterior chain exercises to end all.
Snatch Grip-Pulls. :headbang:
Get the hips low enough and the chest up. These are major.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQhsNeMEZeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqcTAY5eL1Y
Variation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HqPs6G0IuY
Variation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HqPs6G0IuY
That's some pretty bad clean technique really :|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HqPs6G0IuY
I've seen these before it is more of a drill for getting aggressively under the bar than it is a tool for sports performance. I'd consider it strictly a technique drill.
Generally pretty useless anyway since the best way to get confident and quick underneath the bar is to drill heavy %s of the lifts repeatedly once your form is decent. I highly doubt this kid learnt how to get under the bar by doing those with 30kgs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X07opRChfqA