Acute Study: The Effect of Wearable Resistance on Power Cleans in Recreationally Trained Males

Marriner, Cronin (22)

 

Purpose Statement:

To compare the effects of different WR magnitudes on power clean performance in resistance trained males.

 

Introduction:

WR of 5% or 12% BM attached to the posterior of the upper and lower body (Figure 21) was used to examine the acute effects on power clean lifting. Nine recreational trained males performed two reps of the power clean (PC) at 50 and 70% 1RM with each WR condition, i.e. power cleans with and without load redistributed from the bar to the body via WR, in a randomized order.

Figure 21: Posteriorly loaded upper and lower body WR of 5% and 12% BM

Key Findings:

  1. WR significantly increased acute power output (11.5-16.8%) via increased barbell velocity (3.3-4.7%).
  2. Similar GRF between WR and traditional power clean loading were observed.
  3. Positive acute technique changes for power clean performance with WR (barbell rearward displacement increased by 17.8%).
  4. Greater beneficial changes found with 12% than 5% BM redistribution.

 

Practical Applications:

  1. Provides a means to acutely increase power clean barbell velocity and power output.
  2. Due to reduced barbell load, enables training for less technically proficient lifters or lifters returning from injury, while minimising injury risk (e.g. wrist mobility limitations).
  3. Enables lifters to focus on technical aspects of the lift (minimising the horizontal displacement of the barbell).
  4. May be suitable for athletes who perform high velocity movements.

 

Link to Publication

 

 

Training Study: Redistributing Load Using Wearable Resistance During Power Clean Training Improves Athletic Performance

Marriner, Cronin (5)

 

Purpose Statement:

To investigate how power clean training with WR over a 5-week period effects power clean maximum strength performance in resistance trained males.

 

Introduction:

WR of 12% attached to the posterior of the upper and lower body (Figure 2) was used during a 5-week training study into the effects on power clean lifting. Two groups of eight recreational trained males completed power cleans either with load redistributed from the bar to the body via WR, or via traditional power clean training. Both groups performed two sessions a week in an undulating periodised plan. Technique variables during power clean bar path are shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Technique variables during power clean bar path.

(DxL = furthest forward position to catch, DxT = start position to catch, Dx2 = start position to beginning of 2nd pull, DxV = 2nd pull position to forward position CxH = barbell catch height)

 

Key Findings:

  1. Significant increase (4.2%) in 1RM power clean in WR group compared to traditional loading.
  2. Barbell velocity increased at 70 and 90% 1RM (ES= 0.16 to 0.74) in the WR group.
  3. Power output increased at 50, 70 and 90% 1RM (ES = 0.33 to 0.62) in the WR group.
  4. Similar GRF between WR and traditional loading.
  5. Positive technique changes for power clean performance with WR at 70 and 90% 1RM (ES = 0.23 to 0.96).

 

Practical Applications:

  1. Provides a means to chronically increase power clean barbell velocity and power output.
  2. Method to increase 1RM power clean.
  3. Due to reduced barbell load, enables training for less technically proficient lifters or lifters returning from injury, while minimising injury risk (e.g. wrist mobility limitations).
  4. Enables lifters to focus on technical aspects of the lift (minimising the horizontal displacement of the barbell).

 

Link to Publication

Leave a comment