No description available.

This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength–power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.

The jump shrug is a weightlifting movement derivative that can be used to teach the clean and snatch exercises or as a stand-alone training exercise. The ballistic nature of this exercise allows athletes to produce high amounts of lower extremity power, an essential component to athletic performance.

The hang high pull is a weightlifting movement derivative that can be used in the teaching progression of the clean and snatch exercises. This exercise elicits high amounts of lower-body power within the second pull of the movement by emphasizing the extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints.

No description available.

The clean pull and snatch pull are exercises that use the double knee bend and triple extension involved in weightlifting movements. As a result, these pulling movements are used with the purpose of making an athlete more efficient at producing force with an overload stimulus. In addition, these exercises can be used as a teaching modality for the progressive development of the full clean or snatch.

The pull to knee is an exercise that allows an athlete to become efficient in producing force with an overload stimulus, as well as it is a teaching modality for the initial pull from the floor in weightlifting. This movement emphasizes the precursor movement leading into the double knee bend position.

The countermovement shrug is a dynamic total body exercise allowing an athlete to become more efficient at producing force. The exercise provides an overload stimulus through utilizing the stretch-shortening cycle. This movement teaches the double knee bend and may improve extension at the top of the second pull for the clean and the snatch. This exercise can be used throughout the training year. This column provides a detailed description and figures of the proper exercise technique for a countermovement shrug.

Guppy, SN, Brady, CJ, Kotani, Y, Stone, MH, Medic, N, and Haff, GG. Effect of altering body posture and barbell position on the within-session reliability and magnitude of force-time curve characteristics in the isometric midthigh pull. J Strength Cond Res 33(12): 3252-3262, 2019-A large degree of variation in the position used during isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) testing and conflicting results of the effects of these changes can be found in the literature. This study investigated the effect of altering body posture and barbell position on the reliability and magnitude of force-time characteristics generated during the IMTP. Seventeen strength-power athletes (n = 11 males, height: 177.5 ± 7.0 cm, body mass: 90.0 ± 14.1 kg, age: 30.6 ± 10.4 years; n = 6 females, height: 165.8 ± 11.4 cm; body mass: 66.4 ± 13.9 kg, age: 30.8 ± 8.7 years) with greater than 6 months of training experience in the clean (1 repetition maximum: 118.5 ± 20.6 kg, 77.5 ± 10.4 kg) volunteered to undertake the experimental protocol. Subjects performed the IMTP using 4 combinations of hip and knee angles, and 2 different barbell positions. The first barbell position corresponded to the second pull of the clean, while the second rested at the midpoint between the iliac crest and the patella. Peak force (PF), time-specific force (F50, F90, F150, F200, and F250), peak rate of force development (pRFD), and impulse (IMP) time bands were reliable in all 4 testing positions examined. Statistically greater PF, F50, F90, F150, F200, F250, pRFD, and IMP0-50, IMP0-90, IMP0-150, and IMP0-200 were generated in a testing position corresponding to the second pull of the clean when compared with a bent over torso angle, regardless of the barbell position used. Moderate to large effect sizes favoring a testing position corresponding to the second pull were also found. Overall, when performing the IMTP, an upright torso and a barbell position that matches the second pull of the clean should be used.

Wetmore, A, Wagle, JP, Sams, ML, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, and Stone, MH. Cluster set loading in the back squat: Kinetic and kinematic implications. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S19-S25, 2019-As athletes become well trained, they require greater stimuli and variation to force adaptation. One means of adding additional variation is the use of cluster loading. Cluster loading involves introducing interrepetition rest during a set, which in theory may allow athletes to train at higher absolute intensities for the same volume. The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic implications of cluster loading as a resistance training programming tactic compared with traditional loading (TL). Eleven resistance-trained men (age = 26.75 ± 3.98 years, height = 181.36 ± 5.96 cm, body mass = 89.83 ± 10.66 kg, and relative squat strength = 1.84 ± 0.34) were recruited for this study. Each subject completed 2 testing sessions consisting of 3 sets of 5 back squats at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 3 minutes of interset rest. Cluster loading included 30 seconds of interrepetition rest with 3 minutes of interset rest. All testing was performed on dual-force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz, and the barbell was connected to 4 linear position transducers sampling at 1,000 Hz. Both conditions had similar values for peak force, concentric average force, and eccentric average force (p = 0.25, effect size (ES) = 0.09, p = 0.25, ES = 0.09, and p = 0.60, ES = 0.04, respectively). Cluster loading had significantly higher peak power (PP) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77), peak and average velocities (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77, and p < 0.001, ES = 0.81, respectively), lower times to PP and velocity (p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, and p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, respectively) as well as greater maintenance of time to PP (p < 0.001, ES = 1.57). These results suggest that cluster loading may be superior to TL when maintaining power output and time point variables is the desired outcome of training.