6th Annual Judith Ramaley Celebration of Research and Creative Scholarship
|
Poster #85 Intensity has a Greater Effect on Power and Velocity than the Type of Clean Variation. Michelle Potter Faculty Mentor: Phillip Appicelli PURPOSE: It is common for athletes to perform several clean variations in their training. The clean variations often used include the power clean, hang clean, below the knee clean, and a mid-thigh pull. However, each of these variations has the potential to elicit differing power, force, and velocity values. Further, the load or intensity that is used can elicit different values. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect that intensity and type of clean variation have on peak power and velocity. METHODS: The study was completed with 7 Division II track and field athletes. All subjects had at least one year experience with Olympic weight lifting. Each subject was tested over a two week time period. Prior to testing, all subjects performed a standardized dynamic warm-up. The first day consisted of 1RM testing of the power clean. After at least three days of rest, the subjects completed repetitions for the power clean and mid-thigh clean pull variations. After another three days of rest, the subjects completed repetitions of the hang clean and below the knee clean. Testing was completed with loads of 30%, 60%, and 90% of power clean 1RM in a randomized order. Subjects completed three attempts at each intensity for each lift. A rest time of 30 seconds was allowed between each repetition attempt and a rest time of 2 minutes between sets. The Ballistic Measurement System was used for assessment of peak power and velocity. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the data across lifts and intensities with post hoc testing where applicable. RESULTS: There was a significant (p<.05) main effect of intensity on peak power. Peak power increased from 30% (574.3 ± 38.09 W) to 60% (927.7 ± 45.33 W) regardless of clean variation. Peak power at 90% (976.2 ± 54.99) was also significantly greater than 30% but no different than that obtained at 60%. There was no significant difference in peak power among the different clean variations. There was also a significant (p<.05) main effect of intensity on peak velocity. Peak velocity was the highest at the 30% loads (2.46 ± .13 m/s) and significantly decreased at 60% (2.09 ± .09 m/s) with a further significant decrease at 90% loads (1.59 ± .109 m/s), regardless of type of clean variation. There was no significant difference in peak velocity among the different clean variations. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: It can be concluded that in order to obtain highest peak power values, intensities from 60-90% 1 RM should be used when doing different clean variations. Therefore, coaches could use a lower intensity (e.g. 60%) to work on speed while still maintaining a higher power output. Similarly, coaches could use a higher intensity (e.g. 90%) to work on force/strength while also maintaining a high power output. In order to generate greater velocities, intensities should be progressively decreased from 90 to 30% of 1RM loads. |
|