Enhancing the Force–

Velocity Profile of
Athletes Using Weight-
lifting Derivatives
Timothy J. Suchomel, PhD, CSCS*D,1 Paul Comfort, PhD, CSCS*D,2 and Jason P. Lake, PhD3
1
Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, Wisconsin; 2Directorate of Sport, Exercise
and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Sport and
Exercise Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT (106), powerlifting (51), and kettlebell the manipulation of the sets and rep-
exercise (71). This is likely due to the etitions. Ebben et al. (31,32) investi-
WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND
similarities between the rate and pat- gated the effects of a 6-week
THEIR DERIVATIVES MAY BE IM-
tern of hip, knee, and ankle triple exten- plyometric training program on the
PLEMENTED IN A SEQUENCED development of lower-body explo-
sion that occur during weightlifting
PROGRESSION THROUGHOUT siveness. In addition to the manipula-
movements and sport skills such as ver-
THE TRAINING YEAR TO OPTIMIZE tion of sets and repetitions, these
tical jumping (7,8,36,52,53,81), sprint-
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATH- studies programmed exercises within
ing (52), and change of direction
LETE’S STRENGTH, RATE OF periodized programs to vary the
tasks (52), as well as the ability to pro-
FORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND intensity of the training stimulus.
vide an overload stimulus (95). In addi-
POWER OUTPUT. WEIGHTLIFTING Regarding squat movements, the
tion, it has been suggested that
MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVA- exercise stimulus may be varied based
weightlifting movements may be used
TIVES CAN BE PROGRAMMED to train the muscular strength that is on the depth and variation of the
EFFECTIVELY BY CONSIDERING required during impact tasks, such as squat (49) as well as the load that is
THEIR FORCE–VELOCITY CHAR- jump landing (68). As a result, many prescribed. Ultimately, this will mod-
ACTERISTICS AND PHYSIOLOGI- ify the force–velocity characteristics
practitioners implement weightlifting
CAL UNDERPINNINGS TO MEET of the training stimulus, but may
movements and their derivatives into
THE SPECIFIC TRAINING GOALS enable the full development of the
resistance training programs for ath-
OF RESISTANCE TRAINING PHA- athlete’s force–velocity profile. Pre-
letes (95). The proper implementation
SES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE vious literature has indicated that the
and progression of resistance training
TYPICAL APPLICATION OF PERIO- combination of heavy and light loads
exercises throughout the training year
DIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS. with different exercises, and during
facilitates the optimal development of work sets, warm-up sets, and warm-
the force–velocity profile of athletes down sets with the same exercise,
INTRODUCTION (22,23), which has been suggested to enables the full development of the
eightlifting movements (i.e., be an important aspect regarding ath- athlete’s force–velocity profile (38).

W full lifts including the snatch,

clean and jerk) and their de-
rivatives (i.e., variations that omit part
letic performance (4,69,83). Thus,
information that may assist practi-
tioners when it comes to programming
Although information on how to
impact an athlete’s force–velocity
profile using plyometrics and other
of the full lift) have been shown to pro- exercises to optimally develop these
vide a superior lower extremity train- characteristics would be beneficial.
ing stimulus compared with other Previous research has investigated
KEY WORDS:
forms of training including jumping resistance training; rate of force develop-
the training effects of various resis-
ment; power output; periodization; power
Address correspondence to Dr. Timothy J. tance training methods; however,
clean; snatch
Suchomel, [email protected]. limited information exists beyond

10 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017 Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 forms of resistance training exists movements easier for athletes to learn hang power clean/snatch. This is due
(3,10,20,64), less information exists due to fewer technical components and to the decreased displacement of the
on the implementation of weightlift- (b) may reduce injury potential due to external load during each movement.
ing movements and their derivatives. the relatively neutral position of the In contrast, the high velocity end of
Traditionally, weightlifting movements shoulders, elbows, and wrists during the force–velocity curve features
and their derivatives are programmed the second pull phase (89). To properly weightlifting derivatives that are
into resistance training programs program weightlifting movements and more ballistic in nature and typically
where the athletes usually perform their derivatives, additional informa- use lighter loads. The placement of
tion is needed. The purpose of this the jump shrug and hang high pull on
the catch phase of the movement.
review is to discuss the sequenced the force–velocity curve is supported
Although previous research supports
implementation of weightlifting de- by previous research demonstrating
the notion that weightlifting catching
rivatives in resistance training pro- that the jump shrug (104,105) and the
derivatives may train an athlete’s ability
grams based on their force–velocity hang high pull (104) produced higher
to “absorb” a load during impact activ-
characteristics for the optimal devel- velocities compared with the hang
ities (68), more recent studies indicate
opment of the rate of force develop- power clean. Moreover, previous
that weightlifting pulling derivatives
ment (RFD) and power characteristics research also indicates that these
that exclude the catch phase may pro-
of athletes. exercises may be best prescribed
duce a similar or greater load absorp-
using lighter loads to maximize
tion stimulus (i.e., loading work, mean
power and velocity (60,92,94,102–
force, and duration) following the sec- WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVE
FORCE–VELOCITY CURVE 105). Additional research also sup-
ond pull compared with weightlifting
Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical ports the placement of the power
catching derivatives (17,99). Moreover,
relationship between force and veloc- clean, power clean from the knee, and
further research has demonstrated that
ity with special consideration to midthigh power clean based on the
weightlifting pulling derivatives pro- 1RM (i.e., greater force or less force)
duce comparable (11,12) or greater weightlifting derivatives. The high
force end of the force–velocity that may be achieved for each
(60,102,104,105) force, velocity, and exercise (56).
power characteristics during the sec- curve features weightlifting de-
ond pull compared with weightlifting rivatives that develop the largest Although Figure 1 displays the general
movements that include a catch ele- forces due to the loads that can be force–velocity characteristics of
ment. Although the complete removal used. For example, previous literature weightlifting catching and pulling de-
of weightlifting catching derivatives is has indicated that the midthigh rivatives, the load used during each
not being suggested, the integration of pull (14,16,26,55), countermovement exercise may influence its position on
weightlifting pulling derivatives into shrug (25), pull from the knee (29), the force–velocity curve. For example,
resistance training programs should and pull from the floor (27,39,110) the midthigh pull is highlighted as the
be considered for the comprehensive tend to enable the use of loads in weightlifting derivative that enables the
development of an athlete’s force– excess of the athlete’s 1RM power or use of the heaviest loads (e.g., 140%
velocity profile, as elimination of the
catch phase permits the use of greater
loads (i.e., greater forces) (14,16,39)
and potentially greater velocities
(95,101). By using higher loads (i.e.,
.100% 1 repetition maximum [RM]
clean/snatch) during the pulling de-
rivatives, it is likely that greater in-
creases in strength may occur (2,88,89).
Although the use of weightlifting
movements typically results in a low
injury rate (44), previous literature
indicated that training exclusively with
the full weightlifting movements
involving the catch may result in
a greater potential for injury (63,82).
An additional benefit of the pulling
derivatives is the reduced technical
demand (i.e., removal of the catch
phase), which may (a) make the Figure 1. Force–velocity (power) curve with respect to weightlifting derivatives.

11
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles

1RM of power clean) as indicated by using seamless and sequential pro- output. A similar approach may be
Comfort et al. (14,16). However, the gramming (21,24). Figure 2 presents taken when prescribing weightlifting
same studies indicated that velocity a more detailed proposal of how load derivatives. Because certain weight-
was maximized with the lightest load may affect the force–velocity charac- lifting derivatives place greater
(i.e., 40% 1RM power clean), demon- teristics of the weightlifting derivatives emphasis on either force or velocity, it
strating that by manipulating the load, described in Figure 1 that may aid seems that a sequential progression
the exercise may change its position on strength and conditioning practitioners and combination of weightlifting de-
the force–velocity curve. On the when it comes to implementing them rivatives may benefit the athlete when
opposite end of the force–velocity in training. it comes to developing RFD and
curve, the jump shrug is highlighted power. Moreover, the technique
as the weightlifting derivative that PERIODIZATION MODEL FOR learned/refined during earlier training
maximizes velocity (92,104). Despite WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVES phases may facilitate increases in the
its potential to produce greater peak Previous literature has suggested that load used for each exercise.
forces compared to the hang high pull a seamless and sequential progression While much of the comparative litera-
and hang power clean (102,104), using of training phases facilitates the optimal ture indicates that a true block period-
the jump shrug to develop speed– development of the athlete’s force– ization model may provide superior
strength characteristics may be pref- velocity profile (22,23,38,67,84,85,112). training outcomes for individual sport
erential to other exercises considering This approach, which utilizes phase athletes (22), it should be noted that
that higher velocities have been re- potentiation, is often found in models weightlifting derivatives may also be im-
ported at the same or similar loads that use conjugate sequential pro- plemented effectively with team sport
compared with the hang high pull, gramming (i.e., sequenced develop- athletes using a multilevel block model
hang power clean, clean pull from the ment and emphasis of fitness such as those discussed by Zatsiorsky
floor, and midthigh pull. Concurrently, characteristics through block periodi- (113), Verkhoshansky and Tatyan
using the midthigh pull to develop zation) (21,24,84,85). Using similar (109), and Bondarchuk (6). Using these
maximal strength qualities may be concepts described in the literature training models, various attributes of
preferential to other exercises as (67,112), increases in work capacity athletes may be developed simulta-
research has examined loads upward to and muscle cross-sectional area pro- neously while avoiding any potential in-
140% 1RM (14,16), which would duced during a strength–endurance creases in training volume that may
enhance high force production capac- phase will enhance an athlete’s abil- result in an accumulation in fatigue.
ity. Although the previous information ity to increase their muscular strength
outlines just 2 examples, additional in subsequent training phases. From RESISTANCE TRAINING PHASIC
literature has described the versatility here, increases in muscular strength PROGRESSION
of weightlifting derivatives through will then enhance an athlete’s potential Each resistance training phase has
a properly developed training plan to improve their RFD and power its own unique characteristics that

Figure 2. Proposed guidelines for the force–velocity characteristics of weightlifting derivatives with respect to load. Blue 5 studied
loads; red 5 hypothetical loads; gray area 5 comparable force–velocity characteristics at given load ranges.

12 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 include specific goals, set and repeti- Table 1
tion schemes, and loads. However, Example strength–endurance training block using relative intensities
another aspect that must be consid- based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions
ered is the selection of exercises to
meet the training goals of each resis- Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
tance training phase. Although core 1 Strength–endurance 3 3 10 85 85 75–77.5
exercises such as squatting, pressing,
and pulling movements may be pre- 2 Strength–endurance 3 3 10 90 90 80
scribed in every training phase, the 3 Strength–endurance 3 3 10 92.5 92.5 80–82.5
characteristics of each weightlifting
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
derivative depicted in Figure 1 may urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
lead practitioners to prescribe cer-
tain derivatives in specific training Day 1 (push emphasis): back squat, overhead press, barbell lunges, and bench press.
phases. Specifically, the biomechan- Day 2 (pull emphasis): clean grip pull to knee (clean grip pull to knee performed for 3 3 5
ical and physiological characteristics throughout block to maintain technique integrity; clean grip/snatch grip pull from the floor
of each weightlifting derivative may may be substituted with advanced athletes using cluster sets of 2 or 5 repetitions to maintain
technique integrity), clean grip shoulder shrug, stiff-legged deadlift, and pull-ups.
indicate that certain derivatives
should be prescribed during certain Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip shoulder shrug, front squat, incline bench press, and
training phases to meet the training dumbbell step-ups.
goals of each phase. A recent article
discussed the implementation of
weightlifting derivatives when devel- example, performing 3 sets of 10 rep- the example training blocks may follow
oping sprint speed (21). The authors etitions of the back squat at 90% is a return to fitness training period
noted that specific derivatives based on 90% of the athlete’s 10RM (typically 1–2 weeks), where large
should be implemented during the back squat. It should also be noted that emphases are placed on exercise
general preparation, special prepara- lighter intensities were prescribed on technique and recovery in preparation
tion, early–midseason, and mid–late- day 3 of each table to allow for ade- for the subsequent training blocks.
season phases of training to achieve quate recovery and the reduced chance
optimal adaptations of strength, of accumulated fatigue and over- STRENGTH–ENDURANCE
RFD, and power while training training (23), but also to ensure that The strength–endurance phase is
through specific joint angles that are a variety of power outputs would be characterized by a high volume of
characteristic to different phases of used resulting in positive adaptations to repetitions (usually 8–12) in exercises
sprinting. the power–load spectrum (48,72). that use moderately heavy loads (;55–
Lastly, practitioners should note that 75% 1RM) (86). The goals of this
The following paragraphs will discuss
the characteristics of strength–
endurance, maximal strength, absolute Table 2
strength, strength–speed, and speed– Example maximal strength training block using relative intensities based on
strength resistance training phases attainable loads for sets and repetitions
and the recommended weightlifting
derivatives to prescribe in each training Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%)
phase for the optimal development of 4 Maximal strength 335 87.5 87.5 75–77.5
an athlete’s force–velocity profile based
on the biomechanical and physiologi- 5 Maximal strength 335 90 90 77.5–80
cal characteristics of each exercise. 6 Absolute strength 335 95 95 80–82.5
Examples of strength and power
7 Maximal strength 335 82.5 82.5 75–77.5
development programming using
phase potentiation are displayed in The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
Tables 1–5. It should be noted that the urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
loads displayed in each table represent Day 1 (push emphasis): front squat, overhead press, barbell split squat, and incline bench
relative intensities based on the specific press.
set and repetition configurations as
Day 2 (pull emphasis): clean grip midthigh pull, clean grip pull from floor, glute–ham raises,
described by previous literature (23,86). and bent over row.
Using this method of load prescription,
the load percentage is based off of Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip midthigh pull, back squat, bench press, and reverse
hyperextensions.
a RM for each individual exercise. For

13
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles

Table 3 floor, thigh, and knee and clean/

Example transition to absolute strength training block using relative snatch grip shoulder shrugs), that
intensities based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions recruit large amounts of muscle mass
during a high volume strength–
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%) endurance phase may result in posi-
8 Maximal strength 535 87.5 87.5 75–77.5 tive adaptations in aerobic power and
body composition, but would also
9 Maximal strength 335 92.5 92.5 80 meet many basic requirements for the
10 Absolute strength 335 95–97.5 95–97.5 82.5 preparation of strength–power ath-
letes. Based on these findings and the
11 Maximal strength–strength– 333 80–82.5 80–82.5 75 goals of a strength–endurance phase,
speed
the weightlifting derivatives recom-
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config- mended for this phase are the clean/
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23). snatch pull from the floor (27,39,110),
Day 1 (push emphasis): push press, back squat, bench press, and squat and press. pull to the knee (28), and clean/
snatch grip shoulder shrug. The
Day 2 (pull emphasis): midthigh power clean, clean grip pull from floor, stiff-legged deadlift, rationale for the inclusion of these
and pull-ups.
exercises is multifaceted. First, each
Day 3 (push–pull combo): snatch grip countermovement shrug, back squat, incline bench derivative serves as a foundational
press, and barbell split squat. exercise that enables the progression
to more complex weightlifting
movements. Without the ability to
training phase are to increase the ath- phase is likely to carry over into later complete the above exercises, the
lete’s overall work capacity and to training phases. Thus, it is important to technique of more complex de-
stimulate increases in muscle cross- implement exercises that serve as rivatives may not be completed effi-
sectional area. According to Minetti a foundation for future exercise ciently, potentially impacting the
(67) and Zamparo et al. (112), the progressions. stimulus of the exercise. Second, the
strength–endurance phase serves as Although foundational exercises such clean/snatch pull from the floor en-
a building block for subsequent resis- as squatting, pressing, and pulling varia- ables athletes to overload the triple
tance training phases. Specifically, the tions are typically implemented, only extension of the hips, knees, and an-
strength–endurance phase will one article has discussed the use kles without experiencing the addi-
enhance the athlete’s force production of weightlifting derivatives within tional stress and complexity of
(both magnitude and rate) character- a strength–endurance phase (75). Scala catching the load during every repe-
istics in subsequent training phases et al. (75) indicated that implementing tition as fatigue develops. Although
(22,23,85). In addition, the technique exercises, including weightlifting pulling the catch phase of certain weightlift-
learned during the strength–endurance derivatives (i.e., clean/snatch pull from ing derivatives may enable the athlete
to develop additional characteristics
(e.g., improvement in skeletal and soft
tissue characteristics (50,91), posi-
Table 4
tional strength, external load accep-
Example absolute strength training block using relative intensities based on
attainable loads for sets and repetitions tance, etc.), the high volume of
repetitions experienced during the
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%) strength–endurance phase may lead
12 Absolute strength 533 85–87.5 85–87.5 75 to a deterioration in form due to acute
fatigue. Moreover, this decline in
13 Absolute strength 333 92.5 92.5 75–77.5 technique could alter catch phase
14 Absolute strength 333 95 95 80–82.5 mechanics and thus increase the
likelihood of injury or compression
15 Strength–speed 332 80–82.5 80–82.5 75 stress. Although declines in technique
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config- during weightlifting catching derivatives
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23). may be attenuated by using various
cluster set configurations with higher
Day 1 (push emphasis): push jerk, back squat, bench press, and parallel squat jumps.
repetitions (46), previous literature
Day 2 (pull emphasis): power clean, clean grip midthigh pull, and bent over row. indicated that may be necessary to
reduce the number of collisions with the
Day 3 (push–pull combo): midthigh power snatch, back squat, and push press.
bar, especially during heavy clean and

14 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 5 1RM to be used due to a decreased
Example strength–speed and speed–strength training block using relative displacement of the load and the
intensities based on attainable loads for sets and repetitions elimination of the catch phase. Ulti-
mately, the use of heavier loads will
Week Objective Volume Day 1 (%) Day 2 (%) Day 3 (%) emphasize force production and train
16 Speed–strength 432 85 85 75 the high force end of the force–
velocity curve (Figure 1). Examples
17 Strength–speed 332 90 90 77.5 of maximal strength and transition
18 Speed–strength 232 82.5–85 82.5 75 training blocks are displayed in Ta-
bles 2 and 3, respectively.
The loads prescribed represent relative intensities based on the set and repetition config-
urations as discussed by Stone and O’Bryant (86) and DeWeese et al. (23).
ABSOLUTE STRENGTH
Day 1: push jerk, back squat, bench press, and ¼ squat jumps. Although the maximal strength train-
ing block typically aims to increase the
Day 2: countermovement power clean and clean grip jump shrug.
athlete’s general strength characteris-
Day 3: countermovement power snatch, back squat, and push press. tics during moderate repetition
schemes (i.e., 4–6), the goals of an
absolute strength training block are to
jerks, to limit potential overuse injuries interrepetition rest period also provides improve the athlete’s low repetition
(82). Finally, the suggested derivatives the coach with the opportunity to pro- (i.e., 2–3) force production (both mag-
enable the development of important vide additional feedback to the athlete. nitude and rate) characteristics using
lower- and upper-body musculature near maximal loads (usually 90–95%
that will be used to enhance the MAXIMAL STRENGTH 1RM, although this can increase to
force–velocity profile during later Adaptations produced from the 120–140% 1RM with the pulling deriv-
training phases in tandem with core strength–endurance phase of train- atives). As new force production de-
exercises such as squatting, pressing, ing may enhance an athlete’s ability mands are placed on the athlete,
and pulling movements. An example to gain maximal strength (67,112). additional weightlifting derivatives
strength–endurance training block is The primary goal of the maximal may be prescribed to meet the training
displayed in Table 1. strength phase is to increase the goals of the absolute strength resis-
It should be noted that the athletic athlete’s force production capacity tance training phase. Weightlifting de-
population may dictate which weight- (5,89) using repetition schemes that rivatives featured in the previous
lifting movements are prescribed in include about 4–6 repetitions and resistance training phase, including
a strength–endurance training block. moderately heavy loads (usually 80– the clean/snatch pull from the floor,
For example, the clean/snatch pull 90% 1RM, although potentially clean/snatch pull from the knee, and
from the floor may only be incorpo- slightly higher with the pulling de- midthigh pull, will carry over into the
rated with an advanced athletic pop- rivatives). Based on the goals of the absolute strength resistance training
ulation whose movement mechanics maximal strength phase, practitioners phase. Although these derivatives
are more stable and resilient to fatigue. may shift their focus to exercises that enable the athlete to retain their capac-
As mentioned above, because of the emphasize force production. From ity for high force production, addi-
high volume of repetitions within each a biomechanical standpoint, the tional weightlifting derivatives that
exercise set, practitioners may consider amount of force that must be applied include a higher velocity may be pre-
prescribing cluster sets (i.e., exercise set to achieve the maximum potential scribed during warm-up and warm-
split into smaller sets of repetitions movement velocity will be maxi- down sets and on training days where
separated by rest intervals) of either mized by performing weightlifting relative intensities are prescribed to
2–5 repetitions for the clean/snatch movements that allow the heaviest lower the volume–load, while intro-
pull from the floor (e.g., 10 total rep- loads to be used. With this in mind, ducing or retaining a speed–strength
etitions 5 5 repetitions / 30-second a limitation to weightlifting catching characteristic. These might include
rest / 5 repetitions). Through the use derivatives is that the athlete cannot the hang power clean/snatch (93),
of cluster sets, athletes may maintain use loads greater than their 1RM. power clean/snatch, countermove-
their technique, force, and power out- However, this is not the case for ment shrug (25), countermovement
put in subsequent training phases that weightlifting pulling derivatives. The clean/snatch, midthigh clean/snatch
use heavier loads (39,46,47). This may clean/snatch pull from the floor (11,12,15), and the full clean and
also lead to high-quality work, (27,39,110), clean/snatch pull from snatch. The combination of heavy and
enhanced work capacity, and force the knee (29), and the clean/snatch moderate loads that enable a higher
production adaptations with a high vol- midthigh pull (14,16,26,55) all allow velocity also enables the athlete to train
ume of repetitions (107). Moreover, the for loads greater than the athlete’s the high force side in addition to

15
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles

aspects of the high velocity side. This is may develop the high force end of the overcoming the inertia of the external
important during the absolute strength force–velocity curve. load from a static start (e.g., midthigh
phase as it enables the athlete to pull) and using the stretch-shortening
improve their force–velocity profile. SPEED–STRENGTH
cycle (e.g., jump shrug). This combina-
These adaptations will ultimately Explosive strength may be defined as tion will ultimately place varying neuro-
contribute to the athlete’s ability to the force development characteristics logical demands on the athlete, allowing
further develop impulse, RFD, and within the first 0–250 milliseconds of
them to optimize impulse, RFD, and
power characteristics (3). An absolute the concentric phase of a movement
power characteristics.
strength training block example is (1,65). The purpose of a speed–
strength resistance training phase is to Practitioners must also consider the
displayed in Table 4.
produce peak adaptations in RFD and loads implemented with each exercise
STRENGTH–SPEED power before competition. The adapta- within the speed–strength phase. To
The primary goals of the strength– tions and alterations in task specificity in optimize power adaptations, it has
speed training phase are to further the previous training phases enable been suggested that athletes should
increase RFD and power, while also athletes to progress in a desirable fashion train at the load that maximizes power
maintaining or potentially increasing to increase their speed–strength (i.e., output, the “optimal load” (54,111).
strength levels. Practitioners should explosiveness) (5,89,90). Specifically, in- Research has indicated that loads of
note the importance of maintaining or creases in rate coding due to increased approximately 70–80% 1RM may
continuing to develop maximal strength myelination, dendritic branching, and provide the optimal load for weight-
during the strength–speed phase due to doublets (30,108) may have resulted lifting catching derivatives such as the
its influence on an athlete’s sport per- because of the exposure of heavier loads power clean (13,18,19,78) and hang
formance and their fitness character- in the maximal strength, absolute power clean (53,57,78). However, sev-
istics including both RFD and power strength, and strength–speed training eral of these studies indicated that
(100). Because previous literature has phases. Additional adaptations in neural there were no statistical differences in
indicated that RFD and power are 2 of drive (40,42,70), inter- and possibly intra- power output between loads ranging
the most important characteristics muscular coordination (9,41,43,74), and from 50 to 90% 1RM (13,18,19,53,57).
regarding an athlete’s performance motor unit synchronization (76,77) may Research investigating the optimal
(4,69,83), it is important to prepare the also aid in the development of explosive load for weightlifting pulling de-
athlete to maximize these adaptations force–time characteristics. rivatives is limited because of the lack
using the previously discussed training Optimal adaptations in RFD and of criteria that indicates a successful
phases (22,23). Based on the phasic power may be achieved by implement- repetition (100). However, several
progression of resistance training pha- ing a wide variety of the previously studies have suggested that lighter
ses, increases in muscular strength (100) described weightlifting derivatives. loads (i.e., 30–45% 1RM hang power
and RFD (3) from the previous training Many of the previously described clean) may optimize training stimuli for
phases should, in theory, enhance the weightlifting derivatives may be pre- the jump shrug (60,92,102–105) and
athlete’s ability to augment their power scribed during the speed–strength hang high pull (94,102,104). Similarly,
characteristics. resistance training phase. However, Comfort et al. (14,16) indicated that
Regarding the programming of weight- the speed at which the movement is during midthigh clean pulls, loads
lifting derivatives during the strength– performed, and therefore the load, must ranging from 40 to 60% of power clean
speed phase, the enhancement of be considered. The jump shrug (97) and 1RM maximized power, similar to the
RFD and power characteristics may be hang high pull (96) are 2 of the most findings of Kawamori et al. (55).
achieved through the combination of ballistic weightlifting derivatives that Additional literature has indicated that
heavy and light loads. However, the may be highlighted in a speed–strength loads ranging 90–110% of the in-
emphasis within this phase of training is training phase (95). Similar to the dividual’s 1RM power clean (39) or full
to move relatively heavy loads quickly strength–speed phase, a combination of clean/snatch (33–35,73) may produce
to enhance RFD characteristics (21). heavy and light loaded derivatives the optimal training stimulus for
Using the derivatives displayed in Fig- should be implemented to optimize velocity and power adaptations during
ure 1, the midthigh clean/snatch RFD and power adaptations. Practi- the clean/snatch pull from the floor.
(11,12,15), countermovement clean/ tioners may consider implementing the Practitioners should however consider
snatch (93), and power clean/snatch combination of the midthigh pull or that the optimal load for power pro-
from the knee (15,98) may be used to clean/snatch pull from the floor and the duction may be specific to the joint,
develop the high velocity portion of the jump shrug and hang high pull to athlete plus load system, or the bar
force–velocity curve, whereas the power focus training on each extreme of the (66), may be altered based on the rel-
clean (13,19), clean and snatch pull from force–velocity curve (Figure 1). In ative strength of the athlete (87), and
the floor (27), clean and snatch pull from addition, the combination of the above may be impacted by movement pattern
the knee (29), and midthigh pull (26) exercises enables the athlete to simulate and the fatigue status of the athlete

16 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 (54). Although optimal loading studies 3 repetitions. In this scenario, the rela- catching and pulling derivatives may be
may provide practitioners with a base- tive intensity percentage is based off of used to develop the athlete’s force–
line for load prescription, it is suggested the 3RM for each individual exercise. velocity profile. A sequenced approach
that a range of loads should be pre- Based on the load(s) completed during should be taken when prescribing
scribed to train various aspects of an training, one may estimate the 1RM of weightlifting derivatives to meet the
athlete’s force–velocity profile (38). the individual, but may also estimate goals of each training phase.
Support for this contention comes loads that may be used during other Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
from a recent meta-analysis that dis- repetition schemes. Advantages to this The authors report no conflicts of interest
played that optimal loading zones ex- method of load prescription are that and no source of funding.
isted for a variety of lower-body the athletes do not have to perform
exercises (78). An example of a 1RM test and that this method can ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a strength–speed and speed–strength be used with any exercise. The authors thank Dr. Brad DeWeese
training block is displayed in Table 5. for his insight regarding the program-
STATIC VERSUS DYNAMIC ming of weightlifting derivatives in
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS VARIATIONS resistance training programs.
LOAD PRESCRIPTION Certain weightlifting derivatives may
Two methods of load prescription be performed using weightlifting
can be used when implementing the training blocks or squat rack safety Timothy J.
weightlifting derivatives discussed in bars (e.g., midthigh pull, clean/snatch Suchomel is an
the previous paragraphs. Tradition- pull from the knee, and clean/snatch assistant profes-
ally, loads for weightlifting deriva- from the knee). It should be noted sor in the
tives may be prescribed based off of that the use of certain variations may Department of
the 1RM of each exercise. Although place different demands on the ath- Human Move-
this may still hold true for weightlift- lete. For example, a weightlifting ment Sciences at
ing catch derivatives, there are no derivative performed using a static Carroll
criteria describing what constitutes start from either the blocks, safety University.
a successful 1RM attempt during bars, or even when held stationary at
weightlifting pulling derivatives a specific position (e.g., midthigh or
knee) may require a greater RFD Paul Comfort is
(100). Thus, practitioners are left
compared with a dynamic start a senior lecturer
prescribing the loads for weightlift-
because the athlete would have to and program
ing pulling derivatives based on
overcome the inertia of the training leader of the MSc
a 1RM of a weightlifting catching
load from a dead-stop position, as Strength and
derivative. The vast majority of liter-
previously observed (11,12). Although Conditioning in
ature that has examined weightlifting
a dynamic variation will still require the Directorate of
derivatives used a percentage of
a large RFD, as is characteristic of Sport, Exercise,
a 1RM completed with a catching deriv-
all weightlifting derivatives, the ath- and Physiother-
ative (11–14,16,19,37,39,45–47,53,55,57–
lete will already have developed apy at the Uni-
62,79,80,92–94,102–105,110). Although
a given amount of force. Practitioners versity of Salford.
this method may work for some practi-
tioners, others may discourage the prac- should consider the differences
tice of 1RM tests, which may make it between static and dynamic weight-
lifting variations as different demands Jason P. Lake is
difficult to prescribe loads for pulling
will be required of the athletes per- a senior lecturer
derivatives.
forming the exercises. and program
Another alternative to prescribing leader of the MSc
loads for weightlifting movements, CONCLUSIONS Strength and
which is highlighted in Tables 1–5, is Weightlifting movements and their de- Conditioning in
the use of a method termed set–rep rivatives may be programmed through- the Department of
best (23,86). As mentioned above, the out the training year to fully develop Sport and Exer-
set–rep best method of load prescrip- and improve the athlete’s force– cise Sciences at the University of Chichester.
tion is based on the loads that may be velocity profile. Practitioners should
completed during specific set and rep- consider the prescription of specific
REFERENCES
etition schemes in training. For exam- weightlifting derivatives during certain 1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL,
ple, an individual may complete training phases based on their bio- Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P.
a heavy resistance training block with mechanical and physiological charac- Increased rate of force development and
a set and repetition scheme of 3 sets of teristics. A combination of weightlifting neural drive of human skeletal muscle

17
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles

following resistance training. J Appl the power clean in inexperienced female movement derivatives. Strength Cond J
Physiol (1985) 93: 1318–1326, 2002. collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 34: 82–86, 2012.
2. Aján T and Baroga L. Weightlifting: Fitness 27: 363–368, 2013. 28. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK,
for All Sports. Budapest, Hungary: 16. Comfort P, Udall R, and Jones PA. The and Sams ML. The pull to knee—Proper
International Weightlifting Federation, 1988. effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic biomechanics for a weightlifting
variables during the midthigh clean pull. movement derivative. Strength Cond J
3. Arabatzi F, Kellis E, and de Villarreal ESS.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 1208–1214, 34: 73–75, 2012.
Vertical jump biomechanics after plyometric,
2012. 29. DeWeese BH, Suchomel TJ, Serrano AJ,
weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting +
plyometric) training. J Strength Cond Res 17. Comfort P, Williams R, Suchomel TJ, and Burton JD, Scruggs SK, and Taber CB.
24: 2440–2448, 2010. Lake JP. A comparison of catch phase The pull from the knee: Proper technique
force-time characteristics during clean and application. Strength Cond J 38: 79–
4. Baker D. A series of studies on the training
deriatives from the knee. J Strength Cond 85, 2016.
of high-intensity muscle power in rugby
Res 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. 30. Duchateau J, Semmler JG, and Enoka RM.
league football players. J Strength Cond
Res 15: 198–209, 2001. 18. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley Training adaptations in the behavior of
GO. Validation of power measurement human motor units. J Appl Physiol (1985)
5. Bompa TO and Haff G. Periodization:
techniques in dynamic lower body 101: 1766–1775, 2006.
Theory and Methodology of Training.
resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 23: 31. Ebben WP, Feldmann CR, Vanderzanden
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.
103–118, 2007. TL, Fauth ML, and Petushek EJ. Periodized
6. Bondarchuk A. Periodization of sports
19. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, and plyometric training is effective for women,
training. Legkaya Atletika 12: 8–9, 1986.
McBride JM. Optimal loading for maximal and performance is not influenced by the
7. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and Armstrong power output during lower-body length of post-training recovery. J Strength
LE. Kinematic and kinetic relationships resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports Cond Res 24: 1–7, 2010.
between an Olympic-style lift and the Exerc 39: 340–349, 2007. 32. Ebben WP, Suchomel TJ, and Garceau
vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 10:
20. de Villarreal ESS, Izquierdo M, and LR. The effect of plyometric training
127–130, 1996.
Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Enhancing jump volume on jumping performance.
8. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ, Morris performance after combined vs. maximal Presented at: XXXIInd International
RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC, Newton RU, power, heavy-resistance, and plyometric Conference of Biomechanics in Sports,
Harman EA, Sands WA, and Stone MH. training alone. J Strength Cond Res 25: July 12–16, 2014, Johnson City, TN.
The relationship between vertical jump 3274–3281, 2011. 33. Ermakov AD. The training load of
power estimates and weightlifting ability:
21. DeWeese BH, Bellon CR, Magrum E, weightlifters in pulls and squats. In: 1980
A field-test approach. J Strength Cond
Taber CB, and Suchomel TJ. Weightlifting Yearbook. Livonia, MI:
Res 18: 534–539, 2004.
Strengthening the springs. In: Techniques Sportivny Press, 1980. pp. 34–38.
9. Carolan B and Cafarelli E. Adaptations in Magazine, 2016. pp. 8–20. 34. Frolov VI, Efimov NM, and Vanagas MP.
coactivation after isometric resistance
22. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and The training weights in the snatch pull. In:
training. J Appl Physiol (1985) 73: 911–
Stone MH. The training process: Planning Tyazhelaya Atletika. Charniga Jr A, trans.
917, 1992.
for strength–power training in track and Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura I Sport
10. Channell BT and Barfield JP. Effect of field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. J Sport Publishers, 65–67, 1977.
Olympic and traditional resistance training Health Sci 4: 308–317, 2015. 35. Frolov VI, Efimov NM, and Vanagas MP.
on vertical jump improvement in high
23. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and Training weights for snatch pulls. Sov
school boys. J Strength Cond Res 22:
Stone MH. The training process: Planning Sports Rev 18: 58–61, 1983.
1522–1527, 2008.
for strength–power training in track and 36. Garhammer J and Gregor R. Propulsion
11. Comfort P, Allen M, and Graham-Smith P. field. Part 2: Practical and applied as- forces as a function of intensity for
Comparisons of peak ground reaction pects. J Sport Health Sci 4: 318–324, weightlifting and vertical jumping.
force and rate of force development during 2015. J Strength Cond Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
variations of the power clean. J Strength
24. DeWeese BH, Sams ML, Williams JH, 37. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, Kilgore
Cond Res 25: 1235–1239, 2011.
and Bellon CR. The nature of speed: JL, Kawamori N, Jackson JR, Morris RT,
12. Comfort P, Allen M, and Graham-Smith P. Enhancing sprint abilities through a short Sands WA, and Stone MH. Force-time
Kinetic comparisons during variations of to long training approach. Techniques 8: curve characteristics of dynamic and
the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 25: 8–22, 2015. isometric muscle actions of elite women
3269–3273, 2011.
25. DeWeese BH and Scruggs SK. The olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res
13. Comfort P, Fletcher C, and McMahon JJ. countermovement shrug. Strength Cond J 19: 741–748, 2005.
Determination of optimal loading during the 34: 20–23, 2012. 38. Haff GG and Nimphius S. Training
power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength
26. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, principles for power. Strength Cond J 34:
Cond Res 26: 2970–2974, 2012.
and Burton JD. The midthigh pull: Proper 2–12, 2012.
14. Comfort P, Jones PA, and Udall R. The application and progressions of 39. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O’Bryant
effect of load and sex on kinematic and a weightlifting movement derivative. HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE, Pierce K, and
kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean Strength Cond J 35: 54–58, 2013. Stone MH. Effects of different set
pull. Sports Biomech 14: 139–156, 2015. 27. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, configurations on barbell velocity and
15. Comfort P, McMahon JJ, and Fletcher C. and Sams ML. The clean pull and snatch displacement during a clean pull.
No kinetic differences during variations of pull: Proper technique for weightlifting J Strength Cond Res 17: 95–103, 2003.

18 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 40. Häkkinen K. Neuromuscular and hormonal pQCT study of female weightlifters. Calcif lower extremities during the pull in olympic
adaptations during strength and power Tissue Int 70: 469–474, 2002. weightlifting. J Appl Biomech 28: 271–
training. A review. J Sports Med Phys 51. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and 278, 2012.
Fitness 29: 9, 1989. Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. 62. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick MB, and Harris C.
41. Häkkinen K, Alen M, Kallinen M, Newton traditional power lifting training programs Weightlifting performance is related to
RU, and Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular in football players. J Strength Cond Res kinematic and kinetic patterns of the hip and
adaptation during prolonged strength 18: 129–135, 2004. knee joints. J Strength Cond Res 26:
training, detraining and re-strength-training 1838–1844, 2012.
52. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA,
in middle-aged and elderly people. Eur J Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, and Nosaka K. 63. Kulund DN, Dewey JB, Brubaker CE, and
Appl Physiol 83: 51–62, 2000. Does performance of hang power clean Roberts JR. Olympic weightlifting injuries.
42. Häkkinen K, Alen M, and Komi PV. differentiate performance of jumping, Phys Sportsmed 6: 111–119, 1978.
Changes in isometric force-and sprinting, and changing of direction? 64. Lake JP and Lauder MA. Kettlebell swing
relaxation-time, electromyographic and J Strength Cond Res 22: 412–418, 2008. training improves maximal and explosive
muscle fibre characteristics of human 53. Kawamori N, Crum AJ, Blumert PA, Kulik strength. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2228–
skeletal muscle during strength training JR, Childers JT, Wood JA, Stone MH, and 2233, 2012.
and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 125: Haff GG. Influence of different relative 65. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ,
573–585, 1985. intensities on power output during the Folland J, Tillin N, and Duchateau J. Rate of
43. Häkkinen K, Newton RU, Gordon SE, hang power clean: Identification of the force development: Physiological and
McCormick M, Volek JS, Nindl BC, optimal load. J Strength Cond Res 19: methodological considerations. Eur J Appl
Gotshalk LA, Campbell WW, Evans WJ, 698–708, 2005. Physiol 116: 1091–1116, 2016.
and Häkkinen A. Changes in muscle 54. Kawamori N and Haff GG. The optimal 66. McBride JM, Haines TL, and Kirby TJ.
morphology, electromyographic activity, training load for the development of Effect of loading on peak power of the bar,
and force production characteristics muscular power. J Strength Cond Res body, and system during power cleans,
during progressive strength training in 18: 675–684, 2004. squats, and jump squats. J Sports Sci 29:
young and older men. J Gerontol A Biol
55. Kawamori N, Rossi SJ, Justice BD, Haff 1215–1221, 2011.
Sci Med Sci 53: B415–B423, 1998.
EE, Pistilli EE, O’Bryant HS, Stone MH, 67. Minetti AE. On the mechanical power of
44. Hamill BP. Relative safety of weightlifting and Haff GG. Peak force and rate of force joint extensions as affected by the change
and weight training. J Strength Cond Res development during isometric and in muscle force (or cross-sectional area),
8: 53–57, 1994. dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed ceteris paribus. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:
45. Hardee JP, Lawrence MM, Utter AC, at various intensities. J Strength Cond 363–369, 2002.
Triplett NT, Zwetsloot KA, and McBride Res 20: 483–491, 2006.
68. Moolyk AN, Carey JP, and Chiu LZF.
JM. Effect of inter-repetition rest on 56. Kelly J, McMahon JJ, and Comfort P. A Characteristics of lower extremity work
ratings of perceived exertion during comparison of maximal power clean during the impact phase of jumping and
multiple sets of the power clean. Eur J performances performed from the floor, weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res 27:
Appl Physiol 112: 3141–3147, 2012. knee and mid-thigh. J Trainology 3: 53– 3225–3232, 2013.
46. Hardee JP, Lawrence MM, Zwetsloot KA, 56, 2014.
69. Morrissey MC, Harman EA, and Johnson
Triplett NT, Utter AC, and McBride JM. 57. Kilduff LP, Bevan H, Owen N, Kingsley MI, MJ. Resistance training modes:
Effect of cluster set configurations on Bunce P, Bennett M, and Cunningham D. Specificity and effectiveness. Med Sci
power clean technique. J Sports Sci 31: Optimal loading for peak power output Sports Exerc 27: 648–660, 1995.
488–496, 2013. during the hang power clean in
70. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE,
47. Hardee JP, Triplett NT, Utter AC, professional rugby players. Int J Sports
and Cerretelli P. Changes in force, cross-
Zwetsloot KA, and McBride JM. Effect of Physiol Perform 2: 260–269, 2007.
sectional area and neural activation during
interrepetition rest on power output in the 58. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick M. strength training and detraining of the
power clean. J Strength Cond Res 26: Correlations between internal and human quadriceps. Eur J Appl Physiol
883–889, 2012. external power outputs during Occup Physiol 59: 310–319, 1989.
48. Harris GR, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, weightlifting exercise. J Strength Cond
71. Otto WH III, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and
Proulx CM, and Johnson RL. Short-term Res 27: 1025–1030, 2013.
Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs.
performance effects of high power, high 59. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick MB. Lower kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength,
force, or combined weight-training extremity biomechanics during and body composition. J Strength Cond
methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14– weightlifting exercise vary across joint and Res 26: 1199–1202, 2012.
20, 2000. load. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1229–
72. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW,
49. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Klusemann M, Dalic J, 1234, 2011.
McBride J, Triplett T, Sands WA, Lamont
Matuschek C, and Schmidtbleicher D. 60. Kipp K, Malloy PJ, Smith J, Giordanelli HS, Stone ME, and Stone MH. Strength
Influence of squatting depth on jumping MD, Kiely MT, Geiser CF, and Suchomel gains: Block versus daily undulating
performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: TJ. Mechanical demands of the hang periodization weight training among track
3243–3261, 2012. power clean and jump shrug: A joint-level and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol
50. Heinonen A, Sievänen H, Kannus P, Oja P, perspective. J Strength Cond Res 2016 Perform 7: 161–169, 2012.
and Vuori I. Site-specific skeletal response [Epub ahead of print]. 73. Roman RA. The Training of the
to long-term weight training seems to be 61. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick M, and Harris C. Weightlifter. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press,
attributable to principal loading modality: A Kinematic and kinetic synergies of the 1988.

19
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Enhancing Athlete Force–Velocity Profiles

74. Sale DG. Neural adaptations to strength 88. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and 102. Suchomel TJ and Sole CJ. Force-time
training. In: Strength and Power in Sport. Stone ME. Weightlifting: A brief overview. curve comparison between weightlifting
Komi PV, ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Strength Cond J 28: 50–66, 2006. derivatives. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
Blackwell Science, 2003. pp. 281–313. 89. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
75. Scala D, McMillan J, Blessing D, Rozenek R, Stone ME. Weightlifting: Program design. 103. Suchomel TJ, Taber CB, and Wright GA.
and Stone MH. Metabolic cost of Strength Cond J 28: 10–17, 2006. Jump shrug height and landing forces
a preparatory phase of training in weight across various loads. Int J Sports Physiol
90. Stone MH, Stone M, and Sands WA.
lifting: A practical observation. J Strength Perform 11: 61–65, 2016.
Principles and Practice of Resistance
Cond Res 1: 48–52, 1987. Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 104. Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, Kernozek TW,
76. Semmler JG. Motor unit synchronization 2007. and Kline DE. Kinetic comparison of the
and neuromuscular performance. Exerc power development between power
91. Storey A and Smith HK. Unique aspects
Sport Sci Rev 30: 8–14, 2002. clean variations. J Strength Cond Res 28:
of competitive weightlifting: Performance,
350–360, 2014.
77. Semmler JG, Kornatz KW, Dinenno DV, training and physiology. Sports Med 42:
Zhou S, and Enoka RM. Motor unit 769–790, 2012. 105. Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, and Lottig J.
synchronisation is enhanced during slow Lower extremity joint velocity
92. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright
lengthening contractions of a hand comparisons during the hang power
GA. Lower body kinetics during the jump
muscle. J Physiol 545: 681–695, 2002. clean and jump shrug at various loads.
shrug: Impact of load. J Trainol 2: 19–22,
Presented at: XXXIInd International
78. Soriano MA, Jiménez-Reyes P, Rhea MR, 2013.
Conference of Biomechanics in Sports,
and Marı́n PJ. The optimal load for maximal 93. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright July 12–16, 2014, Johnson City, TN.
power production during lower-body GA. The impact of load on lower body
resistance exercises: A meta-analysis. 106. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and
performance variables during the hang
Sports Med 45: 1191–1205, 2015. Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on
power clean. Sports Biomech 13: 87–95,
lower-body functional power
79. Souza AL and Shimada SD. 2014.
development: Weightlifting vs. vertical
Biomechanical analysis of the knee during 94. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright jump training programs. J Strength Cond
the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 16: GA. Effect of various loads on the force- Res 19: 433–437, 2005.
290–297, 2002. time characteristics of the hang high pull.
107. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Brown
80. Souza AL, Shimada SD, and Koontz A. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1295–1301,
LE, Seitz LB, Williamson BD, and Haff
Ground reaction forces during the power 2015.
GG. Cluster sets maintain velocity and
clean. J Strength Cond Res 16: 423– 95. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, and Stone MH. power during high-volume back squats.
427, 2002. Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: 885–
81. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M. for implementation and application. 892, 2016.
Relationship between anaerobic power and Sports Med 45: 823–839, 2015.
108. van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, and Hainaut K.
olympic weightlifting performance. J Sports 96. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham Changes in single motor unit behaviour
Med Phys Fitness 20: 99–102, 1980. GK, Serrano AJ, and French SM. The contribute to the increase in contraction
82. Stone MH, Fry AC, Ritchie M, Stoessel- hang high pull: A progressive exercise into speed after dynamic training in humans.
Ross L, and Marsit JL. Injury potential and weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J J Physiol 513: 295–305, 1998.
safety aspects of weightlifting movements. 36: 79–83, 2014.
109. Verkhoshansky Y and Tatyan V. Speed-
Strength Cond J 16: 15–21, 1994. 97. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham strength preparation for future
83. Stone MH, Moir G, Glaister M, and GK, Serrano AJ, and Sole CJ. The jump champions. Sov Sports Rev 18: 166–
Sanders R. How much strength is shrug: A progressive exercise into 170, 1983.
necessary? Phys Ther Sport 3: 88–96, weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J
110. Wicki B, Culici J, DeMarco N, Moran M,
2002. 36: 43–47, 2014.
and Miller J. Comparison of rate of force
84. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, and Garhammer J. 98. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, and Serrano development during a light and moderate
A hypothetical model for strength training. AJ. The power clean and power snatch load snatch pull. J Undergrad Kinesiol
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 21: 342–351, from the knee. Strength Cond J 38: 98– Res 9: 20–30, 2014.
1981. 105, 2016.
111. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and
85. Stone MH, O’Bryant H, Garhammer J, 99. Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, and Comfort P. Humphries BJ. The optimal training load
McMillan J, and Rozenek R. A theoretical Load absorption force-time for the development of dynamic athletic
model of strength training. Strength Cond characteristics following the second pull performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:
J 4: 36–39, 1982. of weightlifting derivatives. J Strength 1279–1286, 1993.
86. Stone MH and O’Bryant HS. Weight Cond Res 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
112. Zamparo P, Minetti A, and di Prampero P.
Training: A Scientific Approach. Minneapolis, 100. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH. Interplay among the changes of muscle
MN: Burgess International, 1987. The importance of muscular strength in strength, cross-sectional area and
87. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L, athletic performance. Sports Med 46: maximal explosive power: Theory and
Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and Schilling B. 1419–1449, 2016. facts. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 193–202,
Power and maximum strength relationships 101. Suchomel TJ and Sato K. Baseball 2002.
during performance of dynamic and static resistance training: Should power clean 113. Zatsiorsky V. Science and Practice of
weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17: variations be incorporated? J Athl Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human
140–147, 2003. Enhancement 2, 2013. Kinetics, 1995.

20 VOLUME 39 | NUMBER 1 | FEBRUARY 2017

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.