Correlational analysis between joint-level kinetics of countermovement jumps and weightlifting derivatives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical similarity between net joint moments (NJM) of the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Twelve male Lacrosse players performed three maximal effort CMJs and three repetitions of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC one repetition maximum (1-RM). Ground reaction forces and motion capture data were used to calculate the NJM of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during each exercise. Statistical comparison of the peak NJM indicated that NJM during the HPC and JS across all loads were equal to or greater than the NJM during the CMJ (all p < 0.025). In addition, correlation analyses indicated that CMJ hip NJM were associated (all p < 0.025) with HPC hip NJM at 30% and 70% (r = 0.611-0.822) and JS hip NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.674-0.739), whereas CMJ knee NJM were associated with HPC knee NJM at 70% (r = 0.638) and JS knee NJM at 50% and 70% (r = 0.664-0.732). Further, CMJ ankle NJM were associated with HPC ankle NJM at 30% and 50% (r = 0.615-0.697) and JS ankle NJM at 30%, 50%, and 70% (r = 0.735-0.824). Lastly, knee and ankle NJM during the JS were greater than during the HPC at 30% and 50% of 1-RM (all p < 0.017). The degree of mechanical similarity between the CMJ and the HPC and JS is dependent on the respective load and joint. [Abstract copyright: © Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.

Load absorption force-time characteristics following the second pull of weightlifting derivatives

The purpose of this study was to compare the load absorption force-time characteristics of weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives. Twelve resistance-trained men performed repetitions of the hang power clean (HPC), jump shrug (JS), and hang high pull (HHP) on a force platform with 30, 45, 65, and 80% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) HPC. Load absorption phase duration, mean force, and work were calculated from the force-time data. The HHP produced a significantly longer load absorption phase duration compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 3.77) and JS (p < 0.001, d = 5.48), while no difference existed between the HPC and JS (p = 0.573, d = 0.51). The JS produced significantly greater load absorption mean forces compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 2.85) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 3.75), while no difference existed between the HPC and HHP (p = 0.253, d = 0.37). Significantly more load absorption work was performed during the JS compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 5.03) and HHP (p < 0.001, d = 1.69), while HHP load absorption work was also significantly greater compared to the HPC (p < 0.001, d = 4.81). The weightlifting pulling derivatives examined in the current study (JS and HHP) produced greater load absorption demands following the second pull compared to the weightlifting catching derivative (HPC). The JS and HHP may be used as effective training stimuli for load absorption during impact tasks such as jumping

The effect of training with weightlifting catching or pulling derivatives on squat jump and countermovement jump force–time adaptations

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) force−time curve characteristics following 10 weeks of training with either load-matched weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling derivatives (PULL) or pulling derivatives that included force- and velocity-specific loading (OL). Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups. Participants completed a 10 week, group-specific training program. SJ and CMJ height, propulsion mean force, and propulsion time were compared at baseline and after 3, 7, and 10 weeks. In addition, time-normalized SJ and CMJ force−time curves were compared between baseline and after 10 weeks. No between-group differences were present for any of the examined variables, and only trivial to small changes existed within each group. The greatest improvements in SJ and CMJ height were produced by the OL and PULL groups, respectively, while only trivial changes were present for the CATCH group. These changes were underpinned by greater propulsion forces and reduced propulsion times. The OL group displayed significantly greater relative force during the SJ and CMJ compared to the PULL and CATCH groups, respectively. Training with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce greater vertical jump adaptations compared to training with catching derivatives

A comparison of catch phase force-time characteristics during clean derivatives from the knee

The aim of this study was to compare load-absorption force-time characteristics of the clean from the knee (CK), power clean from the knee (PCK) and clean pull from the knee (CPK). Ten collegiate athletes (age 27.5 ± 4.2 years; height 180.4 ± 6.7 cm; mass 84.4 ± 7.8 kg), performed three repetitions each of the CK, PCK and CPK with 90% of their 1RM power clean on a force platform. The CK load-absorption duration (0.95 ± 0.35 s) was significantly longer compared to the CPK (0.44 ± 0.15 s; p 0.05, d = 1.08), with no differences between PCK and CPK (p > 0.05, d = 0.91). The CPK demonstrated the greatest mean force (2039 ± 394 N), which was significantly greater than the PCK (1771 ± 325 N; p = 0.012, d = 0.83), but not significantly different to the CK (1830 ± 331 N; p > 0.05, d = 0.60); CK and PCK were not different (p > 0.05, d = 0.18). Significantly more load-absorption work was performed during the CK (655 ± 276 J) compared to the PCK (288 ± 109 J; d = 1.75, p 0.05). Additionally, more load-absorption work was performed during the CPK compared to the PCK (d = 1.90, p = 0.032). Inclusion of the catch phase during the CK does not provide any additional stimulus in terms of mean force or work during the load-absorption phase compared to the CPK, while the CPK may be beneficial in training rapid force absorption due to high force and a short duration

Spin-induced symmetry breaking in orbitally ordered NiCr_2O_4 and CuCr_2O_4

At room temperature, the normal oxide spinels NiCr_2O_4 and CuCr_2O_4 are tetragonally distorted and crystallize in the I4_1/amd space group due to cooperative Jahn-Teller ordering driven by the orbital degeneracy of tetrahedral Ni$^{2+}$ ($t_2^4$) and Cu$^{2+}$ ($t_2^5$). Upon cooling, these compounds undergo magnetic ordering transitions; interactions being somewhat frustrated for NiCr_2O_4 but not for CuCr_2O_4. We employ variable-temperature high-resolution synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction to establish that at the magnetic ordering temperatures there are further structural changes, which result in both compounds distorting to an orthorhombic structure consistent with the Fddd space group. NiCr_2O_4 exhibits additional distortion, likely within the same space group, at a yet-lower transition temperature of $T$ = 30 K. The tetragonal to orthorhombic structural transition in these compounds appears to primarily involve changes in NiO_4 and CuO_4 tetrahedra

Understanding the key phases of the countermovement jump force-time curve

The countermovement jump (CMJ) test is commonly conducted to assess neuromuscular function and is being increasingly performed using force platforms. Comprehensive insight into athletes’ neuromuscular function can be gained through detailed analyses of force-time curves throughout specific phases of the CMJ, beyond jump height alone. Confusingly, however, many different terms and methods have been used to describe the different phases of the CMJ. This article describes how six key phases of the CMJ (weighing, unweighting, braking, propulsion, flight, and landing) can be derived from force-time records to facilitate researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding and application to their own practice

Weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives : a review of the literature

This review examines the literature on weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs) and provides information regarding historical, technical, kinetic and kinematic mechanisms as well as potential benefits and guidelines to implement the use of WOPDs as training tools for sports populations. Only 13 articles were found in a search of electronic databases, which was employed to gather empirical evidence to provide an insight into the kinetic and kinematic mechanisms underpinning WOPDs. Practitioners may implement WOPDs such as push press, push jerk or split jerk from the back as well as the front rack position to provide an adequate stimulus to improve not only weightlifting performance but also sports performance as: (1) the use of WOPDs is an additional strategy to improve weightlifting performance; (2) WOPDs require the ability to develop high forces rapidly by an impulsive triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles, which is mechanically similar to many sporting tasks; (3) WOPDs may be beneficial for enhancing power development and maximal strength in the sport population; and, finally, (4) WOPDs may provide a variation in training stimulus for the sports population due to the technical demands, need for balance and coordination. The potential benefits highlighted in the literature provide a justification for the implementation of WOPDs in sports training. However, there is a lack of information regarding the longitudinal training effects that may result from implementing WOPDs

Electromyographical Analysis of Lower Extremity Muscle Activation During Variations of the Loaded Step-Up Exercise

The loaded step-up exercise allows strength and conditioning practitioners to incorporate a unilateral resistance for athletes while performing extension at the hip, knee, and plantar flexion at the ankle. This study evaluated the activation of the biceps femoris (BF), gluteus maximus (GMx), gluteus medius (GMe), rectus femoris, semitendinosus (ST), vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis during 4 variations of the step-up exercise to assess the specific muscle training stimulus of each exercise variation. The exercises included the step-up, crossover step-up, diagonal step-up, and lateral step-up. Fifteen women who regularly engaged in lower body resistance training performed the 4 exercises with 6 repetition maximum loads on a 45.72-cm (18-in.) plyometric box. Data were collected with a telemetered electromyography (EMG) system, and root mean square values were calculated for EMG data for eccentric and concentric phases. Results of a repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a variety of differences in muscle activation between the exercises (

An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks

The aims of this study were to compare the effects of the exclusion or inclusion of the catch phase during power clean (PC) derivatives on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks, after two 4-week mesocycles of resistance training. Two strength matched groups completed the twice-weekly training sessions either including the catch phase of the PC derivatives (Catch group: n = 16; age 19.3 ± 2.1 years; height 1.79 ± 0.08 m; body mass 71.14 ± 11.79 kg; PC 1 repetition maximum [1RM] 0.93 ± 0.15 kg·kg-1) or excluding the catch phase (Pull group: n = 18; age 19.8 ± 2.5 years; height 1.73 ± 0.10 m; body mass 66.43 ± 10.13 kg; PC 1RM 0.91 ± 0.18 kg·kg-1). The Catch and Pull groups both demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.007, power ≥0.834) and meaningful improvements in countermovement jump height (10.8 ± 12.3%, 5.2 ± 9.2%), isometric mid-thigh pull performance (force [F]100: 14.9 ± 17.2%, 15.5 ± 16.0%, F150: 16.0 ± 17.6%, 16.2 ± 18.4%, F200: 15.8 ± 17.6%, 17.9 ± 18.3%, F250: 10.0 ± 16.1%,10.9 ± 14.4%, peak force: 13.7 ± 18.7%, 9.7 ± 16.3%), and PC 1RM (9.5 ± 6.2%, 8.4 ± 6.1%), before and after intervention, respectively. In contrast to the hypotheses, there were no meaningful or significant differences in the percentage change for any variables between groups. This study clearly demonstrates that neither the inclusion nor exclusion of the catch phase of the PC derivatives results in any preferential adaptations over two 4-week, in-season strength and power, mesocycles

Do the peak and mean force methods of assessing vertical jump force asymmetry agree?

The aim of this study was to assess agreement between peak and mean force methods of quantifying force asymmetry during the countermovement jump (CMJ). Forty-five men performed four CMJ with each foot on one of two force plates recording at 1000 Hz. Peak and mean were obtained from both sides during the braking and propulsion phases. The dominant side was obtained for the braking and propulsion phase as the side with the largest peak or mean force and agreement was assessed using percentage agreement and the kappa coefficient. Braking phase peak and mean force methods demonstrated a percentage agreement of 84% and a kappa value of 0.67 (95% confidence limits: 0.45 to 0.90), indicating substantial agreement. Propulsion phase peak and mean force methods demonstrated a percentage agreement of 87% and a kappa value of 0.72 (95% confidence limits: 0.51 to 0.93), indicating substantial agreement. While agreement was substantial, side-to-side differences were not reflected equally when peak and mean force methods of assessing CMJ asymmetry were used. These methods should not be used interchangeably, but rather a combined approach should be used where practitioners consider both peak and mean force to obtain the fullest picture of athlete asymmetry