tony-marshall@xxxxxx on 19/10/2011
Someone once said that 'conventional thinking is the enemy of progress' and i want you to keep this in mind as you read the content of the following post:
After reading a recent article in the UKSCA journal written by Silvester, (2011) I wanted to stimulate some discussion about the pros and cons of weightlifting in developing athletic performance, and also to discuss the organisation and the practicalities of teaching weightlifting to athletes. In the above paper, research was reviewed showing that squat jumps (SJ) enabled participants to produce power outputs very similar to and sometimes even higher than weightlifting movements. The exact power output measured for SJ was 4320W (Driss et al., 2001) whereas some of the research cited demonstrated weightlifting power outputs to range from 2950-6981W in competent lifters (Garhammer, 1993, Haff et al., 2001). Additionally, previous research has shown that power output is optimised in a jump squat movement at 0% 1RM and in a power clean at 80% 1RM (Cormie et al., 2007). Jump squats produced higher absolute power outputs than the power clean in this study and the same group of participants completed both power clean and squat jump tests.
Although there is a limited amount of research to support the findings of this study and the researchers used 12 participants in a repeated measures analysis, this data potentially raises questions as to the benefits and practicalities of weightlifting given that power output may not be maximised for an individual during these movements and the difficulty in coaching a team of athletes who have never done it before. If this data can be replicated, what implications may this have for the profession? If we are looking for an end result of performance enhancement then is it more practical, especially in the team environment, to teach ballistic or plyometrics as opposed to weightlifting? Also, does anyone know of any other data that shows weightlifting to be more or less effective than ballistics or plyometrics in the long term?
I currently work voluntarily as an S&C coach with 10 year old soccer players and have 30 minutes to work with them before the head soccer coach takes over the session, so ballistic exercises (such as jump squats) and plyometrics seem like a great alternative to develop power and reactive strength in these kids and is supported by research (Johnson et al., 2011). Just wondering what other students/researchers/practitioners think about the above studies and how the information can be used practically?
References
Cormie, P., Mccauley, G., Triplett, T. and Mcbride, J., 2007. Optimal Loading for Maximal Power Output during Lower-Body Resistance Exercises. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(2) 340-349.
Driss, T., et al., 2001. Effects of external loading on power output in a squat jump on a force platform: a comparison between strength and power athletes and sedentary individuals. J Sports Sci, 19(2) 99-105.
Garhammer, J., 1993. A Review of Power Output Studies of Olympic and Powerlifting: Methodology, Performance Prediction, and Evaluation Tests. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 7(2) 76-89.
Haff, G. G., Whitley, A. and Potteiger, J. A., 2001. A Brief Review: Explosive Exercises and Sports Performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 23(3) 13.
Johnson, B. A., Salzberg, C. L. and Stevenson, D. A., 2011. A systematic review: plyometric training programs for young children. J Strength Cond Res, 25(9) 2623-33.
Silvester, T., 2011. Lower limb power output: A literature review. Professional strength and conditioning, 7(22) 21-25.
dr_paul.gamble@xxxxxx on 21/12/2011
Tony,
Good to see the S&C Interest forum being used!
Right, in answer to the points you raise it is important to recognise that the different training modes you describe probably serve different roles according to the training adaptations they produce.
Olympic lifts and their derivatives are bilateral, predominantly involve concentric force production in a vertical direction. Accordingly, the adaptations produced affect only concentric force and power production - and they show the greatest transfer to bilateral and vertical activities such as vertical jumping.
Within these limitations, one of the greatest strengths of Olympic lifts is that they allow develop the ability to generate power against (sometimes considerable) resistance.
Ballistic resistance training modes are conventionally bilateral and vertical, as with Olympic lifts (although single-limb variations are possible). The greatest strength of this form of training concerns developing eccentric speed-strength abilities and the ability to utilise the eccentric phase in order to ultimately develop greater levels of power in the concentric phase of the movement. This is reflected in improved performance in 'slow' stretch-shortening cycle activities, such as a countermovement jump.
Finally, plyometrics develop power for both 'slow' and 'fast' stretch-shortening cycle activities, and depending on the exercise employed, can be used to develop force and power in both vertical and horizontal direction and various planes of movement. In general, those with a strength training history are better prepared and perhaps benefit most from plyometrics, altho this form of training can also be effective in those with limited history of strength training. From this viewpoint, plyometrics might be employed as 'transfer training', once foundation force and power capabilities have been developed via the other training modes.
In conclusion, the best approach is to employ a blend of these different training modes. If you have limited time, then perhaps ballistic resistance training might be the preferred method given the time it can take for athletes to acquire the necessary skills for Olympic lifting. To be honest, given the age and stage of the kids you're training I would be inclined to employ a more generic strength training approach to develop basic strength and fundamental movement abilities in any case!