Comparison of Joint Work During Load Absorption Between Weightlifting Derivatives. (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Suchomel, Timothy J.; Giordanelli, Matthew D.; Geiser, Christopher F.; Kipp, Kristof
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 35:Supplement 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: hang power clean -- jump shrug -- jump landing; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002927
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Suchomel, TJ, Giordanelli, MD, Geiser, CF, and Kipp, K. Comparison of joint work during load absorption between weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S127–S135, 2021—This study examined the lower-extremity joint-level load absorption characteristics of the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Eleven Division I male lacrosse players were fitted with 3-dimensional reflective markers and performed 3 repetitions each of the HPC and JS at 30, 50, and 70% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HPC while standing on force plates. Load absorption joint work and duration at the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared using 3-way repeated-measures mixed analyses of variance. Cohen's d effect sizes were used to provide a measure of practical significance. The JS was characterized by greater load absorption joint work compared with the HPC performed at the hip ( p < 0.001, d = 0.84), knee ( p < 0.001, d = 1.85), and ankle joints ( p < 0.001, d = 1.49). In addition, greater joint work was performed during the JS compared with the HPC performed at 30% ( p < 0.001, d = 0.89), 50% ( p < 0.001, d = 0.74), and 70% 1RM HPC ( p < 0.001, d = 0.66). The JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC at the hip ( p < 0.001, d = 0.94), knee ( p = 0.001, d = 0.89), and ankle joints ( p < 0.001, d = 0.99). In addition, the JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC performed at 30% ( p < 0.001, d = 0.83), 50% ( p < 0.001, d = 0.79), and 70% 1RM HPC ( p < 0.001, d = 0.85). The JS required greater hip, knee, and ankle joint work on landing compared with the load absorption phase of the HPC, regardless of load. The HPC and JS possess unique load absorption characteristics; however, both exercises should be implemented based on the goals of each training phase.