Portions of the force-velocity relationship targeted by weightlifting exercises

Abstract

We compared the force-velocity (F-V) characteristics between jump squat (JS) and weightlifting (hang clean [HC] and HC pull [HCP]) to determine lower limb F-V portions targeted by weightlifting exercises. Ten weightlifters performed JS at 0% (body weight only) to 70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) for back squat, and HC and HCP at 30‒90% and 30‒110% of their 1RM for HC, respectively. Force and velocity values at each relative load were plotted to determine the F-V features of JS, HC, and HCP. Linear regression was used to evaluate each participant's JS F-V results to obtain individual F-V relationships. Regression equations evaluated the JS force at a given velocity for each relative load of HC and HCP. HC produced significantly less force than JS at given velocities for 30%, 40%, and 50% 1RM. Furthermore, HCP produced significantly less force than JS at a given velocity for 30% 1RM and exhibited less force than JS at a given velocity for 40% 1RM with moderate effect size. HC and HCP produce comparable forces to JS within the velocity ranges of 60‒90% and 50‒110% 1RM, respectively. Thus, weightlifting exercises target low‒moderate-velocity portion of the lower limb F-V relationship.

Keywords: Force–velocity characteristics; Hang clean; Hang clean pull; Jump squat; Power training; Weightlifting.

Fig. 1

Starting, lowered, and finishing position of hang clean.

Fig. 2

Starting, lowered, and finishing position of hang clean pull.

Fig. 3

Starting, lowered, and finishing position of jump squat.

Fig. 4

Comparison of F–V characteristics obtained from averaged values of _rF_pp and V_pp at each relative load of JS, HC, and HCP. The dashed line represents the lower limb F–V relationship, shown with linear regression. F–V force–velocity, _rF_pp relative force at peak power, V_pp velocity at peak power, JS jump squat, HC hang clean, HCP hang clean pull.

Fig. 5

Comparison of _rF_pp between JS and HC at a given V_pp of different HC loads (% 1RM). The dashed line represents the lower limb F–V relationship. The numbers within the red circles represent HC loads (%1RM). *P ≤ 0.05 between JS and HC. _rF_pp relative force at peak power, V_pp velocity at peak power, JS jump squat, HC hang clean, F–V force–velocity.

Fig. 6

Comparison of _rF_pp between JS and HCP at a given V_pp of different HCP loads (% 1RM). The dashed line represents the lower limb F–V relationship. The numbers within the green circles represent HCP loads (%1RM). *P ≤ 0.05 between JS and HCP. _rF_pp relative force at peak power, V_pp velocity at peak power, JS jump squat, HCP hang clean pull, F–V force–velocity.

Fig. 7

Entire F–V relationship (dashed line). Specific F–V regions effectively targeted by JS, HC, and HCP are shown using blue, red, and green lines, respectively. The green area is where JS can safely target assuming that 40% 1RM is the maximal feasible weight that can be safely landed with. F–V force–velocity, JS jump squat, HC hang clean, HCP hang clean pull.