Comparison of The Hang High Pull and Loaded Jump.96020

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316281520
Comparison of the Hang High-Pull and Loaded Jump Squat for the
Development of Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics
Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · January 2019

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001941
CITATIONS READS
3 1,015
4 authors, including:
Dustin J Oranchuk Zachary Switaj

Auckland University of Technology Timberland
15 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Eric Drinkwater
Deakin University
43 PUBLICATIONS 571 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Validity of Bar Sensei™ in Determining Barbell Velocity and a Novel Measurement of Starting Strength View project
Strength and power responses from acute cluster-set training View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dustin J Oranchuk on 24 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001941
Comparison of the Hang High-Pull and Loaded Jump Squat for the Development of
Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics
D
Running Head: Hang-Pull vs Loaded-Jump in Developing Vertical Jump & Isometric
Force
TE
Dustin J. Oranchuk1,2, Tracey L. Robinson1, Zachary J. Switaj1, Eric J. Drinkwater3
1
Department of Human Performance & Physical Education, Adams State University, Alamosa,
Colorado, USA.
EP
2
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
3
Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University,
Melbourne, Australia.
C
*Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk
3-95 Grier Place

C
Calgary Alberta, Canada, T2K-5Y5
Phone: 203-970-9654
A
Email: dustinoranchuk@gmail.com
Funding Disclosure: None.
Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

HANG-PULL VS LOADED-JUMP IN DEVELOPING VERTICAL JUMP & ISOMETRIC FORCE 1
ABSTRACT
Weightlifting movements have high skill demands and require expert coaching. Loaded jumps
have a comparably lower skill demand, but may be similarly effective for improving explosive
performance. The purpose of this study was to compare vertical jump performance, isometric
force, and rate of force development (RFD) following a ten-week intervention employing the
D
hang high-pull (hang-pull) or trap-bar jump squat (jump-squat). Eighteen NCAA Division II
swimmers (8 males, 10 females) with at least one year of resistance training experience
TE
volunteered to participate. Testing included the squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ)
and the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vertical ground reaction forces were analyzed to
obtain jump height and relative peak power. Relative peak force, peak RFD and relative force at
EP
five time bands were obtained from the IMTP. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a
hang-pull (n = 9) or jump-squat (n = 9) training group and completed a ten-week, volume-
equated, periodized training program. While there was a significant main effect of training for
both groups, no statistically significant between-group differences were found (p ≥ 0.17) for any
C
of the dependent variables. However, medium effect sizes in favor of the jump-squat training
group were seen in SJ height (d = 0.56) and SJ peak power (d = 0.69). Loaded jumps seem
C
equally effective as weightlifting derivatives for improving lower-body power in experienced
athletes. Since loaded jumps require less skill and less coaching expertise than weightlifting,
A
loaded jumps should be considered where coaching complex movements is difficult.
Keywords: weightlifting; strength; power; coaching; hex-bar

HANG-PULL VS JUMP-SQUAT IN DEVELOPING VERTICAL JUMP & ISOMETRIC FORCE 2
INTRODUCTION
Maximal muscle power and explosive strength, or the ability to rapidly produce force, are
important for performance in a wide variety of sports (2,12,28,29). Although swim training and
events are generally considered upper-body dominant and endurance based activities, high level
swimming requires substantial lower-body power for success (2,3,40). The ability to have a fast
D
start and an explosive push off from each wall is heavily based on lower-body power, and are
therefore important in the results of especially short distance swimmers (2,3). Beretic and
TE
colleagues (2) found that isometric peak force (PF), rate of force development (RFD) and time to
50% of peak force were all positively correlated to start performance and swimming
performance as a whole (2). Similarly, start times in swimming have been found to be
significantly related to squat strength, jump height, peak and relative power (40).
EP
The use of high velocity resistance training methods such as weightlifting movements
(i.e., cleans, snatches) and their variations (e.g. hang high-pulls) may be more effective for
C
developing the lower-body muscle characteristics of maximal power and RFD compared to low
velocity traditional strength training (e.g. squats, deadlifts) (6,29). Although the weightlifting
C
movements and their variations are effective for improving lower-body maximal power and RFD
(12,23,29), movement proficiency requires high skill level (18). Due to this high skill
A
requirement, many coaches are unwilling or unable to commit the necessary time and resources
to teach these weightlifting movement skills (36). Alternatively, jump training, including the use
of plyometrics and loaded jumps, are effective means of improving performance in explosive
events (37), but have a relatively lower skill requirement, both from the athlete and coaching
perspective. Adaptations from jump training have proven effective for improving maximal

muscle power and RFD, which are key to high level performance in many sports (37,39). The
use of alternative high velocity loaded movements, such as the loaded jump, may provide a
similar training effect as weightlifting, but in a less technically demanding way (36).
To reduce the necessary skill component required for movement proficiency in
D
weightlifting, the snatch and clean movements can be modified by removing the catch phase to
focus solely on the pulling action. Of these, the hang high-pull (hang-pull) is a commonly
TE
performed variant that closely mimics the traditional power clean (8,34). The hang-pull’s
absence of a pull from the floor, and the catch on the shoulders, makes the movement easier to
learn compared to the traditional weightlifting movements (31,32,34). The shortened range of
motion and elimination of the catch, permit a greater overload and/or higher rates of acceleration
EP
compared to the power clean (8,34). While Haug et al. (24) demonstrated that performance
benefits may be seen with as little as one month of weightlifting training, coaching the hang
position, scoop (or “transition”) and second pull requires coaching several skill progressions (15)
C
that may not be feasible in a large group setting; while loaded jumps require only teaching the
athlete to jump correctly.

C
To date, very few studies have compared performance improvements after training
A
weightlifting derivatives directly to jump training (37). Based on the limited scientific data,
there appears to be no difference in performance outcomes between training methods employing
weightlifting or unloaded vertical jumping (37); however, the effect of loaded jumps compared
directly to weightlifting skills has yet to be investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this study
was to compare the effects of a ten-week training intervention using either loaded jumps or the

hang-pull on the development of lower-body power, force production and RFD. Considering the
value of lower-body power to swimmers, the selected sample was NCAA Division II swimmers.
It was hypothesized that the loaded jump-squat would result in greater improvements in jump
height, peak power and RFD measures, while the hang-pull would result in greater peak force
improvement.
D
METHODS
TE
Experimental Design
A matched pair, randomized design compared two, ten-week periodized strength training
programs utilizing either the hang-pull or the jump-squat as high velocity resistance training
movements. Eighteen swimmers, who were in a preparatory training cycle, were randomly
EP
allocated into either a hang-pull (4 male, 5 female) or jump-squat (4 male, 5 female) training
group. Pre- to post-intervention changes in jump height, peak power, isometric peak force and
RFD were compared.

C
Subjects
C
All athletes were recruited from the University swim team and randomly assigned to one
of the two groups. Groups were balanced for sex, training history and power clean and trap-bar
A
deadlift one repetition maximums (1RM). The physical characteristics of age, height and body
mass (mean ± SD) for the male athletes were 19.6 ± 2.7 y (18-22 y), 180.0 ± 8.4 cm, 76.2 ± 11.2
kg, and the female athletes were 21.4 ± 3.0 y (18-24 y), 167.9 ± 6.8 cm, 62.6 ± 8.3 kg,
respectively. Only athletes with at least one full year of strength training experience, including
weightlifting derivatives and loaded jumps, were recruited. Athletes were excluded if they had

any injury that precluded their participation in maximal strength training in the six months prior
to commencing the study, while athletes who did not complete at least 80% of the prescribed
training sessions were excluded from statistical analysis. Of the 18 athletes included in the
statistical analysis, 14 completed 100%, two completed 95% and two completed 90% of the
prescribed training sessions, therefore no subjects were excluded due to this criteria. The study
D
was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board and Human Research Ethics
Committee and informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
TE
Training Program Interventions
Two volume-equated, ten-week periodized strength training programs were implemented
with one program utilizing the loaded trap-bar jump-squat while the comparison program utilized
EP
the hang-pull as the only explosive lower-body training movement. The first four weeks of each
intervention program used a volume focus with a progressive increase in volume each week
(Table 1) (30). The second four weeks of the intervention used an intensity focus with a
C
progressive increase in intensity each week (Table 2) (30). The final two weeks of the
intervention were programed as an unloading phase in which volume and intensity were step
C
reduced (Table 3) (30).

A
[Table 1 about here]

Training loads were individualized for each athlete for both the hang-pull and jump-squat
based off recent 1RM performances in the power clean and trap-bar deadlift. In the hang-pull
group, the average intensity across all ten weeks was 70% of power clean 1RM, which has been
found to maximize peak power output (9,33). Similarly, the average intensity used in the jump-
squat across all ten weeks was 20% of each individual’s trap-bar deadlift 1RM, which has been
D
reported to produce the highest peak power outputs (38). The prescribed loads for the hang-pull
and jump-squat groups are approximately the relative intensities identified by Cormie et al. (10)
TE
as achieving peak power. Thus, while the two exercise groups were working at different relative
intensities, they were matched for peak power.
Testing Procedures
EP
Countermovement (CMJ) and Squat Jumps (SJ)
Ten minutes after a prescribed ten-minute standardized warm-up (Table 4), the athletes
performed five CMJs, followed by five SJs. The CMJ and SJ were separated by a five-minute
C
rest while each individual jump was separated by five seconds. The CMJ was performed with a
rapid descent to a self-selected depth, immediately followed by a maximal ascent (5,22). During
C
the SJ, the athlete descended to a knee angle of 90 degrees, as previously measured with a
goniometer (1). This position was held for three seconds before a verbal command to jump was
A
given (1). A SJ was considered successful if the athlete gave a maximal effort and there was no
visible countermovement (1). Athletes were instructed to keep their hands on their hips for both
the SJ and CMJs (1,4). All jumps were monitored by the same researcher and strong verbal
encouragement was provided to ensure each jump was performed maximally.

Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull (IMTP) Testing
Isometric mid-thigh pull testing occurred 48 hours after the aforementioned jump testing.
Following the same standardized ten-minute general warm-up used on the jump testing day, each
D
athlete performed two IMTP warm-up trials at 50 and 75% of maximal effort (1,21). Maximal
IMTPs were performed in a custom power-rack set-up, with each athlete using straps to prevent
TE
loss of grip (21). A barbell (Werksan, Moorsetown, NJ) was attached under immovable power-
rack catches that were raised or lowered to accommodate athletes of different heights. Knee
angles for all athletes were set between 135-145° of flexion as confirmed by a handheld
goniometer prior to testing (21). Once body position was stabilized, as verified by watching the
EP
subject and force-time graph, the subjects were given a countdown of “3, 2, 1, Pull” (21).
Minimal pre-tension was allowed to ensure there was no slack in the subject’s body prior to
initiation of the pull (21). Athletes performed three maximal IMTP trials, with the instruction to
C
pull against the bar with maximal effort as quickly as possible (1,21,31). Each maximal
isometric trial was performed for five seconds with three minutes between IMTPs. All athletes
C
were given strong verbal encouragement along with visual feedback of the force-time tracing
during each trial (1,21). The knee angle and barbell height were recorded to ensure the same
A
position was achieved for post-testing. Five days post-intervention, post-testing was performed
in the same order and manner as pre-testing.

Data Collection
All jumps and IMTP data were collected on force plates (PASCO Scientific, Roseville,
CA) with jumps sampled at 500 Hz (14) and IMTPs sampled at 1000 Hz (19). The SJ and CMJ
vertical ground reaction forces (Fz) were analysed using a custom MATLAB (Mathworks,
Natick, MA) script to obtain relative peak power and takeoff velocity, which was used to
D
calculate jump height. Peak isometric force relative to body mass, peak RFD and relative force
at five time bands were obtained from the IMTP ground reaction forces (Fz) using Capstone
TE
(PASCO Scientific, Roseville, CA) software and analyzed in a separate custom MATLAB
(Mathworks, Natick, MA) script.
Jump Analysis
EP
Vertical velocity (V) of the center of mass (COM) was calculated by time integration of
the instantaneous acceleration ((Fz˙m-1)-g, where m = body mass in kg, g = 9.81 m˙s-2), and
COM position was obtained by time integration of V (25). Jump height (JH) was derived from
C
the vertical takeoff velocity (Vto) (JH = Vto2/(2g)) (25) . Instantaneous power was obtained by
taking the product of concurrent values of Fz and V throughout the entire sampling period (25).
C
Peak power was calculated from the highest instantaneous power during the concentric range of
each jump (1).

A
Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Analysis
All force-time curves were analyzed with the use of custom MATLAB (Mathworks,
Natick, MA) analysis software. Data was filtered using a fourth-order Butterworth filter with a
20 Hz cut-off frequency and onset of effort was set at 2.5% of body mass (13). Each force-time

curve was used to measure relative isometric peak force (N/kg), relative force at 50, 100, 150,
200 and 250 ms, and peak rate of force development (N/s) (21). Peak RFD was defined as the
highest rate of change in force as measured across a 20 ms sampling window (21).
Statistical Analysis
D
The data were analyzed using the 2016 SPSS Version 24 (IBM Corporation, Armonk,
NY) statistical analysis software. The data was first assessed for normality and equality of
TE
variance using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and Levene’s test was used to test the assumption of
homogeneity of variance. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to evaluate the
intra-individual changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention and to compare the
differences between groups. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Cohen’s effect sizes
EP
(d) were calculated to measure the magnitude of practical effect, with the following criteria used:
0-0.2 as trivial, 0.2-0.5 as small, 0.5-0.8 as medium, and > 0.8 as large (7). Cohen’s d ≥ 0.5 was
considered to be a practically important difference. All data are reported as mean ± SD.
C
RESULTS
C
Table 5 indicates the changes in vertical jump and isometric force-time characteristics
over the 10-week intervention.

A

Vertical Jump Characteristics
SJ and CMJ significantly improved following each intervention with respect to relative
peak power (p = 0.011; 2.3 ± 3.5 W/kg and p = 0.003; 3.7 ± 4.5 W/kg respectively) and jump
height (p = 0.003; 2.5 ± 3.1 cm and p < 0.001; 3.9 ± 2.5 cm respectively).
D
The increase in SJ height from jump-squat training (3.4 ± 2.5 cm) was not significantly
different (p = 0.247) than that of the hang-pull training (1.7 ± 3.1 cm), although there was a
TE
medium effect size (d = 0.56). Additionally, the relative SJ peak power increase among jump-
squat group members (3.5 ± 2.8 W/kg) was not significantly greater (p = 0.166) than the hang-
pull group (1.2 ± 3.8), although there was a medium effect size (d = 0.69).
EP
The increase in the CMJ height of the hang-pull group (3.9 ± 3.1 cm) was not
significantly different (p = 0.978) to the jump-squat group (3.9 ± 1.7 cm), and represented a
trivial effect size (d= 0.04). For the CMJ, between group differences in relative peak power for
C
the jump-squat group (4.2 ± 6.3 W/kg) and the hang-pull group (3.1 ± 2.3 W/kg), were not
significant (p = 0.613), and represented a small effect size (d = 0.23).

C
Isometric Force-Time Characteristics

A
There was a significant main effect for improved normalized force output (3.6 ± 3.0
N/kg, p < 0.001), peak RFD (570 ± 595 N/s, p = 0.001), and relative force at each of the five
time bands (p < 0.001).

The difference between improvements of isometric peak force increase after the jump-
squat intervention (3.9 ± 2.8 N/kg) was not significantly different (p = 0.65) than the hang-pull
intervention (3.3 ± 2.0 N/kg), and represented a trivial-to-small effect size (d = 0.20). There
were also no significant (p = 0.561, d = 0.28) differences in the improvements in peak RFD
experienced after undergoing the jump-squat intervention (655 ± 753 N/s) compared to the hang-
D
pull intervention (486 ± 440 N/s). Differences in relative force between hang-pull and squat-
jump groups were not significantly different at any of the measured time bands (p ≥ 0.388), and
TE
all had trivial to small effect sizes (d ≤ 0.42).
DISCUSSION
The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of a ten-week training
EP
intervention using loaded jumps or the hang-pull on the development of lower-body power, force
and RFD. While both groups significantly improved jump height and power as well as isometric
PF and RFD, no statistically significant differences were found between the jump-squat group
C
and the hang-pull group for any of the dependent variables. These results support the hypothesis
that loaded jumps are at least equally as effective compared to the hang-pull for developing
C
lower-body power, force and RFD in trained athletes. There is, however, a potentially
meaningful practical advantage when it comes to developing concentric muscle action, as SJ

A
height (d= 0.56) and peak power (d = 0.69) exhibited meaningful practical effects in favor of
loaded jump training, albeit too unpredictable to be statistically significant. In the case of having
limited time and/or coaching resources, loaded jumps should be considered the option of choice
for developing these attributes.

Reaching peak power is best accomplished by lifting at a load and velocity specific to the
desired task (9,38). The window for both is quite small as too heavy a load will result in an
excessive decrease in velocity, and too light of a load is insufficient to optimize force (9,38).
Therefore, it could be concluded that although unloaded jumps are most specific to improving
take-off velocity, and therefore jump height and peak power in some athletes (11), they may lack
D
sufficient force to optimally train power in others (37). Unloaded movements are far towards the
velocity side of the force-velocity curve, and are therefore not specific to power or force
TE
adaptations for all athletes (9,12). The same can be said for research that has examined the
effects of only plyometric, only resistance or combined plyometric and resistance training
programs (6,17,23). Several studies have found that the combination of resistance training and
plyometrics is the most effective for improving force, power and velocity measures, likely
EP
because both sides of the force-velocity curve were being stimulated (6,11,17,23). The training
program completed in the current study was designed to target all aspects of the force-velocity
curve as traditional periodized strength training was implemented alongside the hang-pull or
C
jump-squat. This may help explain why both groups improved to a similar extent, as the
majority of the training program implemented was identical, regardless of group.

C
Weightlifting movements and loaded jumps have each been found to increase, or at least
A
substantially correlate to jump performance (9,25,35). Both weightlifting derivatives and loaded
jumps are high velocity movements that require rapid displacement of the body and/or barbell
(9), which has been found to be specific to the velocity and biomechanics of an unloaded jump
(20). Additionally, jumping movements and weightlifting derivatives both use the same
musculature in nearly identical sequences (20). As a result, training the weightlifting movements

and/or loaded jumps would help an athlete activate the neuromuscular system in a manner that is
specific for improving unloaded jumping and other measures of explosive power (6).
The jump-squat group increased their relative peak force and peak RFD by 11.5% and
15.3% respectively, while the hang-pull group improved their relative peak force and peak RFD
D
by slightly less: 10.1% and 9.7%, respectively. The relative loads that can be used to train power
are higher in the hang-pull (70% of power clean 1RM) compared to the jump-squat group (20%
TE
of trap-bar deadlift 1RM) (9,38), thus placing the hang-pull considerably closer to the force side
of the force-velocity curve, compared to loaded jumps (34). However, this placement is not as
drastic as the different placement on the force-velocity curve between loaded jumps and other
movements such as the IMTP or weightlifting movements from the knee or floor (34).
EP
Therefore, it would make sense that neither the jump-squat nor the hang-pull would have a
significantly different training effect on isometric peak force, and that the improvements in peak
force were most likely due to the traditional resistance training program that was completed
C
following the hang-pull or jump-squat exercises in both groups. This hypothesis would have
been best tested with the use of a control group. However, when researching sports teams, a
C
control group is often not practical since excluding some athletes from specific exercises may
compromise the overall development of the team. This hypothesis is supported in the current
A
literature as studies by Fatourous et al. (17) and Harris et al. (23) both compared strength training
only to plyometric only and combined strength and plyometric training. Both studies observed
that although the combined training groups experienced significant improvements in both
plyometric and strength metrics, the strength training only and plyometric training only groups
improved significantly in strength and plyometrics, respectively (17,23). Both the hang-pull and

jump-squat, when loaded for maximal peak power, are considered high velocity and relatively
low force exercises (9,34). Implementing these exercises into the volume-equated strength
training program, which was primarily focused on increasing force outputs, resulted in groups
that were minimally different in actual stimulus applied.
D
During the IMTP there were no significant differences between the hang-pull and loaded
jumps training groups in peak RFD or in relative force at 50, 100, 150, 200 or 250 ms. Since
TE
peak RFD is considered useful in predicting some types of sports performance (31), but may not
be sufficiently reliable (20,26), relative force at progressive time points was also analyzed to
ensure the voracity of the peak RFD findings. Since no significant between intervention
differences were found in any of the rate-dependent variables, it seems unlikely that choosing
EP
between the hang-pull and loaded jumps will make a meaningful difference in improving an
athlete’s performance.
C
Although the primary aim of the present study was to examine exercise choices for
resistance training pertaining to a variety of athletes, including direct measures of swimming

C
performance such as time-trials and/or performance from the start blocks would have been
valuable (2,40). Additionally, although SJ and CMJs are considered to be highly reliable over
A
time (27), controlling for loading depth during the CMJ testing would have been valuable as
athletes may adopt variable strategies when jumping. It should also be noted that the prescribed
loads for the jump-squat and hang-pull groups were based on reaching maximal peak power
(9,10,33,36). Although this loading prescription was used in an effort to standardize the groups,

the load that peak power is achieved may not necessarily be the most optimal load to improve
performance in all sports (22).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of the current study show that loaded jumps may be equally effective as
D
weightlifting derivatives for improving athletic performance measures such as force, RFD,
power and vertical jump height. Although weightlifting derivatives have been ingrained in
TE
strength and conditioning culture (16), they require expert coaching, specialized equipment and
considerable time to learn and perform properly (18). Strength and conditioning coaches who
may have difficulty implementing weightlifting movements may use loaded jumps as a
comparatively easier exercise choice to coach and implement in order to train velocity and power
EP
(18,35). Even coaches with expert coaching skills may have difficulties implementing
weightlifting derivatives in large team settings where there may be 30 or more athletes to a single
coach; therefore implementing loaded jumps may not only be equally effective, but may also
C
offer greater safety (35). Beyond having a reduced learning curve compared to the weightlifting
movements, loaded jumps do not require platforms or bumper plates for safe execution, which
C
potentially makes them a practical choice to a greater number of coaches, athletes and facilities.
Not only do loaded jumps require less equipment, have lower coaching demands and are
A
potentially easier for the majority of athletes to learn, but the current study suggests that they can
be as effective as weightlifting movements for improving certain aspects of athletic performance.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Matt Jordan of the Canadian Sport Institute Calgary
for his contribution to this study.
Funding Disclosure
D
None.
TE
Conflict of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose in this study.
REFERENCES
EP
1. Bailey, C, Sato, K, Alexander, R, Chaing, C, and Stone, MH. Isometric force production
symmetry and jumping performance in collegiate athletes. Trainology 2: 1–5, 2013.
2. Beretić, I, Durovic, M, Okicic, T, and Dopsaj, M. Relations between lower body

C
isometric muscle force characteristics and start performance in elite male sprint
swimmers. J Sports Sci Med 12: 639–645, 2013.

C
3. Bishop, C, Cree, J, Read, P, Chavda, S, Edwards, M, and Turner, A. Strength and
conditioning for sprint swimming. Strength Cond J 35: 1–6, 2013.

A
4. Canavan, PK, Garrett, GE, and Armstrong, LE. Kinematic and kinetic relationships
between an olympic-style lift and the vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res 10: 127–
130, 1996.
5. Carvalho, A, Mourão, P, and Abade, E. Effects of strength training combined with
specific plyometric exercises on body composition, vertical jump height and lower

limb strength development in elite male handball players: a case study. J Hum Kinet
41: 125–132, 2014.
6. Channell, BT, and Barfield, JP. Effect of Olympic and traditional resistance training on
vertical jump improvement in high school boys. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1522–1527,
2008.
D
7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
TE
8. Comfort, P, Allen, M, and Graham-Smith, P. Comparisons of peak ground reaction force
and rate of force development during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 1235–1239, 2011.
9. Comfort, P, Fletcher, C, and McMahon, JJ. Determination of optimal loading during the
EP
power clean, in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2970–2974, 2012.
10. Cormie, P, McCaulley, GO, Triplett, NT, McBride, JM. Optimal loading for maximal
power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 340-
C
349, 2007.
11. Dayne, A, McBride, J, Nuzzo, J, Triplett, T, Skinner, J, and Burr, A. Power output in the
C
jump squat in adolescent male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 25: 585-589, 2011.
12. de Villarreal, E, Requena, B, and Cronin, JB. The effects of plyometric training on sprint
A
performance: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 26: 575–584, 2012.
13. Dos’Santos, T, Jones, PA, Comfort, P, Thomas, C. Effect of different onset thresholds on
isometric mid-thigh pull force-time variables. J Strength Cond Res, Post Acceptance:
Doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001765

14. Dos'Santos, T, Jones, PA, Kelly, J, McMahon, JJ, Comfort, P, and Thomas, C. Effect of
sampling frequency on isometric midthigh-pull kinetics. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
11: 255–260, 2016.
15. Duba, J, Kraemer, WJ, and Martin, G. A 6-step progression model for teaching the hang
power clean. Strength Cond J 29: 26–35, 2007.
D
16. Ebben, WP, Carroll, RM, and Simenz, CJ. Strength and conditioning practices of
National Hockey League strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 18:
TE
889–897, 2004.
17. Fatouros, IG, Jamurtas, AZ, Leontsini, D, Taxildaris, K, Aggelousis, N, Kostopoulos, N,
and Buckenmeyer, P. Evaluation of plyometric exercise training, weight training, and
their combination on vertical jumping performance and leg strength. J Strength Cond
EP
Res 14: 470–476, 2000.
18. Fees, M. Power clean teaching progression. Athl Ther Today 2: 46, 1997.
19. García-López, J, Peleteiro, J, Rodgríguez-Marroyo, JA, Morante, JC, Herrero, JA, and
C
Villa, JG. The validation of a new method that measures contact and flight times
during vertical jump. Int J Sports Med 26: 294-302, 2005.

C
20. Garhammer, J, and Gregor, R. Propulsion forces as a function of intensity for
weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 129–134, 1992.
A
21. Haff, GG, Ruben, RP, Lider, J, Twine, C, and Cormie, P. A comparison of methods for
determining the rate of force development during isometric midthigh clean pulls. J
Strength Cond Res 29: 386–395, 2015.

22. Harris, N, Cronin, J, Hopkins, W, and Hansen, K. Squat jump training at maximal power
loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on Sprint Ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742-1749,
2008.
23. Harris, GR, Stone, MH, O'Bryant, HS, Proulx, CM, and Johnson, RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight-training methods.
D
J Strength Cond Res 14: 14–20, 2000.
24. Haug, WB, Drinkwater, EJ, and Chapman DW. Learning the hang power clean: Kinetic,
TE
kinematic, and technical changes in four weightlifting naive athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 29: 1766-1779, 2015.
25. Jakobsen, MD, Sundstrup, E, Randers, MB, Kjær, M, Andersen, LL, Krustrup, P, and
Aagaard, P. The effect of strength training, recreational soccer and running exercise
EP
on stretch-shortening cycle muscle performance during countermovement jumping.
Hum Mov Sci 31: 970–986, 2012.
26. Kawamori, N, Rossi, SJ, Justice, BD, Haff, EE, Pistilli, EE, O'Bryant, HS, Stone, MH,
C
and Haff, GG. Peak force and rate of force development during isometric and
dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed at various intensities. J Strength Cond Res
C
20: 483–491, 2006.
27. McMaster, DT, Gill, N, Cronin, J, and McGuigan, M. A brief review of strength and
A
ballistic assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Med 44: 603-623, 2014.
28. Nibali, ML, Chapman, DW, Robergs, RA, and Drinkwater, EJ. A rationale for assessing
the lower-body power profile in team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 27: 388–
397, 2013.

29. Seitz, LB, Reyes, A, Tran, TT, Saez de Villarreal, E, and Haff, GG. Increases in lower-
body strength transfer positively to sprint performance: a systematic review with
meta-analysis. Sports Med 44: 1693–1702, 2014.
30. Stone, MH, Stone, ME, and Sands, W. Principles and Practice of Resistance Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.
D
31. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, Carlock, J, Callan, S, Dickie, D, Daigle, K, Cotton, J, Smith, SL,
and Hartman, M. The importance of isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of-
TE
force development in sprint cycling. J Strength Cond Res 18: 878–884, 2004.
32. Suchomel, T, DeWeese, B, Beckham, G, Serrano, A, and French, S. The hang high pull:
a progressive exercise into weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J 36: 79–83,
2014.
EP
33. Suchomel, TJ, Beckham, GK, and Wright, GA. Effect of various loads on the force-time
characteristics of the hang high pull. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1295–1301, 2015.
34. Suchomel, TJ, Wright, GA, Kernozek, TW, and Kline, DE. Kinetic comparison of the
C
power development between power clean variations. J Strength Cond Res 28: 350–
360, 2014.
C
35. Swinton, PA, Stewart, AD, Lloyd, R, Agouris, I, and Keogh, JW. Effect of load
positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted vertical jumps. J Strength

A
Cond Res 26: 906–913, 2012.
36. Takano, B. Coaching optimal technique in the snatch and the clean and jerk: Part II.
Strength Cond J 9: 52–56, 1987.

37. Teo, SY, Newton, MJ, Newton, RU, Dempsey, AR, and Fairchild, TJ. Comparing the
effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump vs. weightlifting program on athletic
power development. J Strength Cond Res 30: 2741–2748, 2016.
38. Turner, TS, Tobin, DP, and Delahunt, E. Optimal loading range for the development of
peak power output in the hexagonal barbell jump squat. J Strength Cond Res 29:
D
1627–1632, 2015.
39. Wang, R, Hoffmanm JR, Tanigawa, S, Miramonti, AA, La Monica, MB, Beyer, KS,
TE
Church, DD, Fukuda, DH, and Jeffrey, SR. Isometric mid-thigh pull correlates with
strength, sprint and agility performance in collegiate rugby union players. J Strength
Cond Res 30: 3051-3056, 2016.
40. West, DJ, Owen, NJ, Cunningham, DJ, Cook, CJ, and Kilduff, LP. Strength and power
EP
predictors of swimming starts in international sprint swimmers. J Strength Cond Res
25: 950–955, 2011.

C
Table 5 legend
C
SJ = Squat jump; CMJ = Countermovement jump; IMTP = Isometric mid-thigh pull

Reported as mean ± SD * denotes significant difference (p < 0.05)
Effect size of 0-0.2 = trivial, 0.2-0.5 = small, 0.5-0.8 = medium and ≥ 0.8 = large
A

Table 1. Resistance Training Program Weeks 1-4
Accumulation Phase Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Exercise (Monday) Sets X Reps X Load / Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull 4 Sets X 5 Reps X 60% /120s 4 Sets X 6 Reps X 60% /120s 5 Sets X 5 Reps X 63% /120s 3 Sets X 6 Reps X 63% /120s
D
Or
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 4 Sets X 5 Reps X 10% /120s 4 Sets X 6 Reps X 10% /120s 5 Sets X 5 Reps X 13% /120s 3 Sets X 6 Reps X 13% /120s
TE
B1: Back Squat 4 Sets X 7 Reps @ 75%/ 90s 4 Sets X 8 Reps @ 75%/ 90s 4 Sets X 9 Reps @ 75% /90s 3 Sets X 10 Reps @ 75% /90s
B2: DB RDL 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /90s 3 Sets X 10-12 Reps /90s
C1: Alternating DB Bench 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s
EP
C2: 1-Arm Cable Row 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 10-12 Reps/60s
D: Injury Prevention Circuit
Exercise (Friday) Sets X Reps X Load / Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull
Or
4 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 65% /120s
C 4 Sets X 3+2 Reps X 65% /120s 5 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 68% /120s 3 Sets X 3+2 Reps X 68% /120s
C
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 4 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 15% /120s 4 Sets X 3+2 Reps X 15% /120s 5 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 18% /120s 3 Sets X 3+2 Reps X 18% /120s
A
B1: Bench Press 4 Sets X 7 Reps @ 75% /90s 4 Sets X 8 Reps @ 75% /90s 4 Sets X 9 Reps @ 75% /90s 3 Sets X 10 Reps @ 75% /90s
B2: Pull-ups (weighted) 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /90s 3 Sets X 8-10 Reps /90s
C1: DB SLDL 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 10-12 Reps /60s
C2: Lateral Lunges 4 Sets X 8 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 8 Reps /60s

Transmutation Phase Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Exercise (Monday) Sets X Reps X Load / Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull 6 Sets X 5 Reps X 65% /210s 6 Sets X 4 Reps X 70% /180s 6 Sets X 3 Reps X 75% /180s 4 Sets X 3 Reps X 80% /180s
D
Or
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 6 Sets X 5 Reps X 15% /180s 6 Sets X 4 Reps X 20% /180s 6 Sets X 3 Reps X 25% /180s 4 Sets X 3 Reps X 30% /180s
TE
B1: Back Squat 5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 80% /120s 5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 82.5% /120s 5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 85% /120s 3 Sets X 4 Reps @ 87.5% /120s
B2: GHR 5 Sets X 6-8 Reps /120s 5 Sets X 6-8 Reps /120s 5 Sets X 6-8 Reps /120s 3 Sets X 6-8 Reps /120s
C1: Incline DB Bench 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 6-8 Reps /60s
EP
C2: BB Bench Row 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 4 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s 3 Sets X 8-10 Reps /60s
Exercise (Friday) Sets X Reps X Load / Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull
Or
6 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 70% /180s
C 6 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 75% /180s 6 Sets X 2+1 Reps X 80% /180s 3 Sets X 2+1 Reps X 85% /180s
C
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 6 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 20% /180s 6 Sets X 2+2 Reps X 25% /180s 6 Sets X 2+1 Reps X 30% /180s 3 Sets X 2+1 Reps X 35% /180s
A
B: Trap-Bar Deadlift 5 Sets X 6 Reps @ 80% /120s 5 Sets X 5 Reps @ 82.5% /120s 5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 85% /120s 3 Sets X 4 Reps @ 87.5% /120s
C1: Military Press 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 6-8 Reps /90s 3 Sets X 6-8 Reps /90s
C2: Chin-up (weighted) 4 Sets X 5-6 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 5-6 Reps /90s 4 Sets X 5-6 Reps /90s 3 Sets X 5-6 Reps /90s

Realization Phase Week 1 Week 2
Exercise (Monday) Sets X Reps X Load /Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull 5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 75% /120s 3 Sets X 3 Reps @ 70% /120s
D
Or
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 5 Sets X 4 Reps @ 25% /120s 3 Sets X 3 Reps @ 20% /120s
TE
B: Back Squat 4 Sets X 5 Reps @ 85% /120s 3 Sets X 5 Reps @ 75% /120s
C1: DB Shoulder Press 4 Sets X 6 Reps /60s 2 Sets X 6 Reps /60s
C1: Back Extension 4 Sets X 10 Reps /60s 2 Sets X 10 Reps /60s
EP
Exercise (Friday) Sets X Reps X Load / Rest Sets X Reps X Load /Rest
A: Hang High-Pull 5 Sets X 2+2 Reps @ 75% /120s 3 Sets X 1+1 Reps @ 70% /120s
Or
A: Trap-Bar Jump Squat 5 Sets X 2+2 Reps @ 25% / 120s

C 3 Sets X 1+1 Reps @ 20% /120s
C
B: Half Squat 4 Sets X 5 Reps @ 90% /180s 2 Sets X 5 Reps @ 90% /180s
A
C1: Push Press 3 Sets X 8 Reps /90s 2 Sets X 8 Reps /90s
C2: 1-Arm DB Row 3 Sets X 8 Reps /90s 2 Sets X 8 Reps / 90s

Table 4. Ten-Minute Warm-up Circuit: Completed prior to each testing session
Exercise Duration/Distance
A: Light Jogging 5 minutes

B1: Knee to Chest March 2 x 10 meters
B2: Ankle Cradle March 2 x 10 meters
B3: High Knee Skip 2 x 10 meters
D
B4: Butt Kick Skip 2 x 10 meters
B5: Lunge + Elbow to Instep 1 x 10 meters
B6: Lunge + Reach 1 x 10 meters
TE
Rest 15 seconds between exercises
EP
C
C
A

Table 5. Changes in Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics from 10-Week Intervention
Variable Hang-Pull Jump-Squat p-value Effect Size (d)

SJ Peak Power (W/kg) +1.2 ± 3.8 +3.5 ± 2.8 0.17 0.69
SJ Height (cm) +1.7 ± 3.1 +3.4 ± 2.5 0.25 0.56
CMJ Peak Power (W/kg) +3.1 ± 2.3 +4.2 ± 6.3 0.61 0.23
CMJ Height (cm) +3.9 ± 3.1 +3.8 ± 1.7 0.98 0.04
IMTP Peak Force (N/kg) +3.3 ± 2.0 +3.9 ± 2.8 0.65 0.20
D
PRFD (N/s) +486 ± 440 +655 ± 753 0.56 0.28
Force at 50 ms (N/kg) +2.2 ± 1.5 +2.7 ± 2.5 0.67 0.24
Force at 100 ms (N/kg) +2.1 ± 1.7 +3.0 ± 2.5 0.39 0.42
Force at 150 ms (N/kg) +3.4 ± 2.2 +2.9 ± 2.3 0.71 0.22
TE
Force at 200 ms (N/kg) +3.4 ± 2.1 +3.7 ± 2.5 0.78 0.13
Force at 250 ms (N/kg) +2.8 ± 2.4 +3.8 ± 2.5 0.43 0.40
EP
C
C
A
View publication stats

Comparison of The Hang High Pull and Loaded Jump.96020

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comparison of The Hang High Pull and Loaded Jump.96020

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · January 2019

Dustin J Oranchuk Zachary Switaj

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time Characteristics

*Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk

3-95 Grier Place

Calgary Alberta, Canada, T2K-5Y5

Funding Disclosure: None.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

hang-pull (n = 9) or jump-squat (n = 9) training group and completed a ten-week, volume-

equally effective as weightlifting derivatives for improving lower-body power in experienced

loaded jumps should be considered where coaching complex movements is difficult.

Keywords: weightlifting; strength; power; coaching; hex-bar

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

To reduce the necessary skill component required for movement proficiency in

athlete to jump correctly.

there appears to be no difference in performance outcomes between training methods employing

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

RFD were compared.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Committee and informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Two volume-equated, ten-week periodized strength training programs were implemented

reduced (Table 3) (30).

[Table 1 about here]

[Table 2 about here]

[Table 3 about here]

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

intensities, they were matched for peak power.

encouragement was provided to ensure each jump was performed maximally.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

[Table 4 about here]

Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull (IMTP) Testing

in the same order and manner as pre-testing.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

(Mathworks, Natick, MA) script.

each jump (1).

Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Analysis

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

highest rate of change in force as measured across a 20 ms sampling window (21).

intra-individual changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention and to compare the

over the 10-week intervention.

[Table 5 about here]

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Vertical Jump Characteristics

significant (p = 0.613), and represented a small effect size (d = 0.23).

Isometric Force-Time Characteristics

time bands (p < 0.001).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

meaningful practical advantage when it comes to developing concentric muscle action, as SJ

for developing these attributes.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

majority of the training program implemented was identical, regardless of group.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

that were minimally different in actual stimulus applied.

resistance training pertaining to a variety of athletes, including direct measures of swimming

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

performance in all sports (22).

be as effective as weightlifting movements for improving certain aspects of athletic performance.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association