Research article - (2022)21, 504 - 516
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2022.504
Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives
Timothy J. Suchomel1,4,, Shana M. McKeever2, Justin D. Nolen3, Paul Comfort4,5
1Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha
2Divine Savior Holy Angels High School, Milwaukee
3Health Performance Institute, Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, Highland Park
4Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester UK
5Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

Timothy J. Suchomel
✉ Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA
Email: tsuchome@carollu.edu
Received: 12-08-2022 -- Accepted: 28-09-2022
Published (online): 01-12-2022

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre- and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g = -0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g = -0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.

Key words: Weightlifting, Olympic weightlifting, countermovement jump, isometric-mid thigh pull, force-velocity profile, rate of force development

Key Points
  • There were no significant or practically meaningful changes in vastus lateralis or biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, or fascicle length for any group.
  • The PULL group produced the greatest CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power adaptations.
  • The PULL and OL groups produced similar benefits in rapid force production; however, peak force adaptations favored the OL group.
  • Despite visible shifts in the force-velocity curves of the PULL and OL groups, none of the changes were statistically significant.








Back
|
Full Text
|
PDF
|
Share