The age, height, body mass, 1RM HC, and HC training experience of the subjects are listed below in Table 2. All subjects were tested during the same time of year, which coincided with the offseason portion of the track and field training program. Each subject competed in Division III collegiate track and field (short sprints, jumps, or throws) ( n = 8) or collegiate club/intramural sports ( n = 9). Seventeen athletic males with a minimum of 2 years of previous training experience with the HC exercise, but no previous competitive weightlifting experience, agreed to participate in the present study. The activities performed during each session are displayed in Table 1. During each testing session, subjects completed randomized sets of one of the exercises (HC, JS, or HP) on a force platform although the vertical ground reaction forces at different relative loads were collected. The familiarization session was used to obtain the subject’s 1RM HC and to familiarize the subjects with the JS and HP exercises. Testing sessions for each subject were completed at the same time of day and were separated by minimum of 2 days and maximum of 7 days between sessions. Subjects completed a single familiarization session and 3 different testing sessions. Because power is a product of force and velocity, it was deemed necessary to examine the factors contributing to power production. The PPO, peak force (PF), and peak velocity (PV) of each repetition were chosen as dependent variables because they are frequently compared when investigating the power clean and its variations (2–6,9,11,15,18,19,23,25,33). The specific relative loads were chosen to cover a wide range of light, moderate, and heavy training loads. The exercises (HC, JS, and HP) and loads (30, 45, 65, and 80% 1RM HC) were chosen as independent variables to compare the kinetics produced during each repetition to determine if any differences existed between the respective exercises and loads. To test our hypotheses, a repeated measures design was used to investigate the relationships between power clean variations (HC, JS, and HP) performed at different relative loads (30, 45, 65, and 80% 1RM HC) and the peak power output (PPO) produced during the repetitions of each exercise and load. Based on previous research and pilot testing, it was hypothesized that the greatest power output for the HC would occur at 65% 1RM HC. However, it should be noted that several studies observed that there was no significant difference between the optimal load and 60–80% 1RM (4) or 50–90% 1RM (9,23,25). Previous research has indicated that the optimal load for the HC and power clean exercises occurred at either 70% (4,23) or 80% 1RM (6,9,10,25). Based on previous pilot testing and the ballistic nature of the JS, it was hypothesized that the JS would produce the greatest power output as compared with the HC and HP exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the power production of the HC, JS, and HP when performed at different loads relative to the 1RM HC of each subject. Furthermore, by identifying and training with the ideal load for a specific exercise, athletes will be able to optimally improve their muscular power and as a result, their overall athletic performance (22,32). It has been suggested that strength and conditioning practitioners should select exercises that maximize power output during the movement that is being trained (28). they can choose an exercise that will allow their athletes to train lower body power effectively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |