This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete’s training status and the dose–response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete’s training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete’s ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

Weightlifting movements and their derivatives may be implemented in a sequenced progression throughout the training year to optimize the development of an athlete’s strength, rate of force development, and power output. Weightlifting movements and their derivatives can be programmed effectively by considering their force-velocity characteristics and physiological underpinnings to meet the specific training goals of resistance training phases in accordance with the typical application of periodized training programs.

/pdf/enhancing-the-force-velocity-profile-of-athletes-using-2zifrc4fjw.pdf

Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives

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.

Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for implementation and application

Background
The development of muscular power is often a key focus of sports performance enhancement programs.

The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis

Post-activation potentiation (PAP) refers to the acute enhancement of muscular function as a direct result of its contractile history. Protocols designed to elicit PAP have commonly employed heavy resistance exercise (HRE) as the pre-activation stimulus; however, a growing body of research suggests that low-load ballistic exercises (BE) may also provide an effective stimulus. The ability to elicit PAP without the need for heavy equipment would make it easier to utilise prior to competition. It is hypothesised that BE can induce PAP given the high recruitment of type II muscle fibres associated with its performance. The literature has reported augmentations in power performance typically ranging from 2 to 5 %. The performance effects of BE are modulated by loading, recovery and physical characteristics. Jumps performed with an additional loading, such as depth jumps or weighted jumps, appear to be the most effective activities for inducing PAP. Whilst the impact of recovery duration on subsequent performance requires further research, durations of 1–6 min have been prescribed successfully in multiple instances. The effect of strength and sex on the PAP response to BE is not yet clear. Direct comparisons of BE and HRE, to date, suggest a tendency for HRE protocols to be more effective; future research should consider that these strategies must be optimised in different ways. The role of acute augmentations in lower limb stiffness is proposed as an additional mechanism that may further explain the PAP response following BE. In summary, BE demonstrates the potential to enhance performance in power tasks such as jumps and sprints. This review provides the reader with some practical recommendations for the application of BE as a pre-activation stimulus.

Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus: A Review of the Literature and Practical Applications

Although previous research has been performed in similar areas of study, the optimal load for the development of peak power during training remains controversial, and this has yet to be established in collegiate level athletes. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal load to achieve peak power output during the power clean in collegiate athletes. Nineteen male collegiate athletes (age 21.5 ± 1.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 78.85 ± 8.67 kg) performed 3 repetitions of power cleans, while standing on a force platform, using loads of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM) power clean, in a randomized, counterbalanced order. Peak power output occurred at 70% 1RM (2,951.7 ± 931.71 W), which was significantly greater than the 30% (2,149.5 ± 406.98 W, p = 0.007), 40% (2,201.0 ± 438.82 W, p = 0.04), and 50% (2,231.1 ± 501.09 W, p = 0.05) conditions, although not significantly different when compared with the 60 and 80% 1RM loads. In addition, force increased with an increase in load, with peak force occurring at 80% 1RM (1,939.1 ± 320.97 N), which was significantly greater (p 0.05) than the 70% 1RM load (1,921.2 ± 345.16 N). In contrast, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in rate of force development across loads. When training to maximize force and power, it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 60-80% of the 1RM, in collegiate level athletes.

Determination of Optimal Loading During the Power Clean, in Collegiate Athletes

Previous research has identified that the second pull phase of the clean generates the greatest power output and that the midthigh variations of the power clean also result in the greatest force and power output in male athletes; however, no research has compared the kinetics of the variations of the power clean in women. The aim of this investigation was to identify any differences between variations of the clean, across a range of loads, in inexperienced female collegiate athletes. Sixteen healthy female collegiate athletes (age 19 ± 2.3 years; height 166.5 ± 3.22 cm; body mass 62.25 ± 4.52 kg; 1 repetition maximum [1RM] power clean 51.5 ± 2.65 kg) performed 3 repetitions of 3 variations (power clean, hang power clean, midthigh power clean) of the power clean at 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1RM power clean, in a randomized and counterbalanced order. A 2-way analysis of variance (3 × 3; load × variation) revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in peak power, peak vertical force (Fz) or rate of force development (RFD) between loads or variations of the power clean. There appears to be no advantage in terms of peak power, Fz, or RFD between variations of the clean, in inexperienced female athletes, it is suggested, therefore, that inexperienced athletes intermittently perform different variations of the clean to ensure all round development and technical competence in each variation of the exercise.

No Kinetic Differences During Variations of the Power Clean in Inexperienced Female Collegiate Athletes

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Caroline Fletcher

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Determination of Optimal Loading During the Power Clean, in Collegiate Athletes

No Kinetic Differences During Variations of the Power Clean in Inexperienced Female Collegiate Athletes