Weightlifting Derivatives Training Notes

Compare training effects of weightlifting movements with (CATCH) or without (PULL) the catch phase.
Evaluate force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus (OL) on isometric and dynamic performance.

27 resistance-trained men completed 10 weeks of training in CATCH, PULL, or OL groups.
CATCH group used weightlifting catching derivatives.
PULL and OL groups used pulling derivatives.
CATCH and PULL groups had the same relative loads.
OL group had force- and velocity-specific loading.
Performance assessed via:
- Isometric midthigh pull (IMTP)
- Relative one repetition maximum power clean (1RM PC)
- 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint
- 505 change of direction (right and left leg)

Significant differences in pre- to post-intervention percent change for:
- Relative IMTP peak force.
- 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprints.
- 505L (left leg change of direction).
No significant differences for:
- Relative 1RM PC.
- 505R (right leg change of direction).
OL group showed the greatest improvements in all examined characteristics.

Weightlifting movements may be a superior strength-power training stimulus compared to:
- Jump training
- Traditional resistance training
- Kettlebell training
Similarity between the second pull of weightlifting movements and triple extension facilitates improvements.
Weightlifting movements may provide a superior overload stimulus due to moving moderate to heavy loads with ballistic intent.
Produce greater power outputs compared with other resistance training exercises.

Catching derivatives: Include the catch phase of the movement.
Pulling derivatives: Exclude the catch phase.
Pulling derivatives may provide a comparable or superior training stimulus compared with catching derivatives regarding:
- Peak force
- Velocity
- Power
- Rate of force development
- Impulse
- Work
Force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus may provide superior training benefits with weightlifting pulling derivatives.

Pulling derivatives may provide a greater force and velocity overload stimulus compared with catching derivatives.
Pulling derivatives can use loads in excess of an athlete’s 1RM PC, such as midthigh pull and countermovement shrug (up to 140% of 1RM PC).
Pulling derivatives produce greater movement velocities, benefiting rapid force production characteristics.
Hypothesis: OL group would demonstrate the greatest adaptations in isometric and dynamic performance compared with both CATCH and PULL groups.

Subjects were positioned within an adjustable IMTP rig to measure force.
Knee and hip angles were maintained between $125-135$ ° and $140-150$ °, respectively.
Subjects performed 2 submaximal pulls, with one each at 50 and 75% of their perceived maximal effort, separated by one minute of rest.
Vertical ground reaction force data recorded at 1,000 Hz.
1RM PC established using standard methods.
Sprint performance assessed using laser timing gates at 10-, 20-, and 30-m.
505 test used to assess change of direction performance.

Each group trained 3 days per week for 10 weeks.
Weightlifting derivatives programmed based on the 1RM PC achieved during the preintervention testing session.
Nonweightlifting derivative exercises were added to the training intervention to increase the ecological validity of each program.
CATCH group trained using PC derivatives with the catch phase.
PULL and OL groups trained using biomechanically similar PC derivatives that removed the catch phase.
PULL group performed derivatives with the same relative load as the CATCH group.
OL group performed PC derivatives with either a force or velocity overload stimulus, using either heavier or lighter loads, respectively.

Force-time data recorded during IMTP trials.
Peak force was recorded from the force-time curve during the IMTP trials.
Relative peak force was calculated by dividing the peak force of each IMTP trial by each subject’s body mass.
Percent change calculated from preintervention to postintervention using the formula: $\text{Percent change in performance } (%) = (\frac{\text{New score - Old score}}{\text{Old score}}) \times 100$
Weekly volume-load calculated as the product of sets, repetitions, and load.
Statistical analyses included:\n * Shapiro-Wilk test of normality
- Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance
- Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and typical error (CV%)
- One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc analyses
- Effect sizes (Hedge’s g)

Percent change data were normally distributed and demonstrated similar variance within each group.
Reliability of all testing data ranged from good to excellent (ICC = 0.75–0.99) with acceptable variability (CV% = 0.5–3.6%) for each group.

OL group produced statistically greater relative IMTP peak force improvements compared with the CATCH group (p = 0.005, g = 1.64).
10-m improvements were greater for the OL group compared with the CATCH group (p = 0.026, g = 1.32).
OL group produced greater improvements in 505L test compared with the CATCH group (p = 0.017, g = 1.29).

Statistically significant differences existed between groups for relative IMTP peak force, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint performance, and 505L performance.
Heavier loading in the midthigh position during certain weightlifting pulling derivatives throughout the training program may have contributed to the improvements of the OL group.
Exclusion of the catch phase may have allowed the PULL and OL groups to emphasize the second pull phase of each derivative.
Implement weightlifting pulling derivatives to improve sprint performance.
Weightlifting derivatives (catching and pulling) may be implemented to help improve accelerative sprint performance, but exercises that provide a large force overload stimulus may produce superior training effects.
OL group produced greater improvements in isometric and dynamic strength, which may have contributed to their 505 improvements.