Olympic Weightlifting Derivatives for Sports Performance by Chase Overpeck

[This is a guest post by Chase Overpeck. Chase is a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and undergraduate researcher in the Exercise Oncology Research Lab. He holds a USA Weightlifting L-1 and is a certified sports nutritionist through the ISSN. He is currently taking part in the Athletic Lab Coaching Mentorship Program. Chase enjoys competing in weightlifting and coaching baseball in his free time.]

Inclusion of the Olympic lifts, such as the snatch and clean and jerk, within a program can be a polarizing topic for strength and conditioning professionals. Some coaches believe the lifts add an unnecessary degree of complexity and injury risk while others feel there is no substitute for the full variations of these exercises. There are also discrepancies related to coaching and athlete competency for these movements. Within this piece, we aim to build a feasible approach to incorporating derivatives of Olympic lifts within a sports performance program. These lifts most closely reflect movement patterns and force-velocity characteristics of Olympic lifts while simplifying technical complexity. To demonstrate this, we will discuss derivatives of the lifts, how these impact sports performance, and finally how to program these exercises.

WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVES VS OLYMPIC LIFTS

The term “Olympic lifts” refers to the movements featured in olympic weightlifting competitions, the Snatch and the Clean and Jerk. Derivations of these exercises are illustrated in Table 1 below along with a description of how each relates to the specific competition variation. Additionally, the exercises have been grouped based upon emphasis as compared to the competition lifts.

TABLE 1: WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVES

Looking at these exercises, we can begin to develop ideas of how each could be beneficial. Hang variations are useful in minimizing error off the floor and aid sequencing of lower body extension. Power variations limit potential mobility concerns and increase the demand for higher rates of force production due to the increased bar displacement. Clean and snatch pulls allow us to overload the triple extension pattern without being concerned with technical proficiency to pull underneath and catch the barbell. High pulls and jump shrugs concern more dynamic efforts that emphasize greater velocity with lighter loads than traditional pulls. Push jerks minimize the complexity, asymmetry, and recovery footwork of the split position while still allowing for dynamic overhead pressing. Push presses and overhead presses move us back up the force-velocity curve and enhance strength qualities greater than power. Similarly, front squats (overhead squats not included due to the inability for many athletes to greatly overload) isolate the squatting portion of cleans and emphasize strength development, rather than power. As we will discuss later in this piece, understanding an athlete’s needs and technical capability will lead to the best exercise prescription for these lifts.

BENEFITS OF OLYMPIC WEIGHTLIFTING & DERIVATIVES ON SPORTS PERFORMANCE

Olympic lifts and derivatives are included in programs to enhance a movement pattern popularly called triple extension. This position of extended hips and knees and plantarflexion at the ankle occurs in vertical jumping, sprinting, and change of direction tasks (Shattock 2018). These exercises provide a unique ability to emulate these actions while providing a large overload stimulus.

On multiple occasions, Olympic weightlifting and derivative exercises have demonstrated improved lower body strength-power characteristics. Hoffman et al. 2004 explored outcome differences between programs using Olympic weightlifting and derivatives versus powerlifting and found significant increases in vertical jump performance for the weightlifting group compared to powerlifting. Non-significant decreases in 40yd dash time were also noted for the Olympic lifting group compared to powerlifting. One drawback of weightlifting, likely due to the programming choices, showed a non-significant increase in upper body strength (assessed by bench press) for powerlifting compared to weightlifting. Hori et al. 2008 explored correlation of 1 rep max (1RM) hang power clean performance as a predictor of athletic ability and found significant, positive correlations to max strength (p<0.01), jumping (p<0.05), and sprinting (p<0.01). Albeit anecdotally, these sentiments are often seconded by coaches of elite weightlifters as their athletes do not directly train jumping or sprinting, yet perform exceptionally well when assessed. USA Weightlifting even assesses 30m sprint and vertical jump in prospective athletes through their youth combine events. Rate of force production is another unique aspect of Olympic lifts and derivatives. Many of the exercises listed in Table 1 are ballistic in nature and require no deceleration of the barbell (Suchomel et al. 2015). Newton et al. 1996 stated that traditional strength movements (ex: bench press, back squat) can have a deceleration period for up to 50% of the exercise (alterations depending on load). In simple terms, this lack of deceleration allows athletes to focus more on barbell acceleration. When pulling a snatch at the hip, an individual is not concerned with slowing down as this would be counterproductive to succeeding in the lift. The athlete aims to create the necessary vertical bar displacement to quickly pull around the barbell and receive in the catch. Additionally, many Olympic lifts and derivatives (ex: powers, hangs, and pulls) generate the highest power outputs at heavier weights (>70%1RM) compared to relatively lighter loads (>30% to <70%1RM) in traditional strength movements (Soriano et al. 2015). Using these high loads for optimal power output also emphasizes maximal strength adaptations, another critical component of increasing the rate of force production.

IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICE OF WEIGHTLIFTING DERIVATIVES

For the majority of the derivative lifts outlined, we are training with the intent of power development at the forefront. This would lead us to an exercise prescription of 3-6 sets of 3-5 reps at 55-70%1RM. This holds true for ballistic overhead movements as Soriano et al. 2019 cited previous research that found mid-thigh power clean, push press, and squat jump peak power as well as rate of force production are maximized at these intensities.

In exercises like the clean pull and snatch pull, where we can overload the pull without being concerned with the catch, peak power occurs at 90-95%1RM (1RM for pulls is based upon full lift) indicating that we can increase the intensity of these pulls compared to variations of the full lift (Suchomel et al. 2015). Being mindful of increasing intensity, we should see a corresponding lowering of volume for the pulls with recommendations ranging from 3-5 sets of 1-3 reps at 85-100+%1RM.

For non-ballistic derivatives, the primary goal is still to aid the rate of force production. These exercises are better suited for increasing this rate through increased maximal strength rather than increased velocity (especially when compared to the ballistic variations). For these reasons, enhancing general strength and/or maximal strength for these movements would be the most optimal practice for the overall goal of power development. These exercises should be programmed in the range of 80-90+%1RM loading for 1-4 sets of 1-5 reps. This wide range encompasses both submaximal and maximal strength adaptations and should fluctuate based upon where an athlete is at in their respective season.

Exercise selection is another important aspect of the program and concerns two key factors, complementary choice and athlete needs. Complementary choice concerns exercises that can be programmed in cohesion to achieve a desired goal. Providing themes for a session is important for selecting complementary exercises and developing technical proficiency. It would be ideal to provide novice athletes with practice at specific, simple patterns rather than multiple, more complex patterns each session. For example, an improper pairing would be performing hang cleans and snatch pulls in the same session. This creates confusion due to inconsistent contact/grip width as well as different positions in the lifts (pulls 2&3 in clean and pulls 1&2 in snatch). A better approach would be performing both hang snatch and clean variations on one day followed by snatch and clean pulls in the next session or having a snatch focused day (hang and pulls) with a subsequent clean focused session. This provides a clear theme for each session by focusing on a particular variation or a specific lift at multiple positions.

Exercise order is another aspect of complementary choice. In general, sessions should move from more to less technically demanding work and power/speed focus to strength focus (see @athleticlabacademy on Instagram for more on session design). For example, performing hang cleans after front squats and push press would not be optimal as the hang clean requires a higher degree of technicality and power output relative to the other movements. Additionally, pulls can be performed in a complex (i.e. within a set) with a more complete lift (ex: power clean/snatch) variation; however, pulls performed as an individual movement should still be performed following the more technically demanding/lighter lifts like hang, block, or power variations.

Finally, meeting the needs of an athlete is the primary role of a coach. When incorporating weightlifting derivatives, coaches must understand the movement capacity of their athlete to enhance performance and minimize injury. If an athlete has poor coordination when performing a push press with adequate loading, it makes little sense to progress them to a push jerk, adding more weight, and performing a more dynamic movement. On the flip side, an athlete that is proficient at power snatches, but never performs snatch pulls, is likely missing out on an overload stimulus despite having the technical coordination to perform the exercise. Whether or not to incorporate lifts with a catch is another consideration based on an athlete’s needs. Sports with greater importance of wrist use (tennis, baseball, etc.) may not benefit from catching variations, but improvements could still be made from dynamic pulling efforts. Contact-sport athletes (football, rugby, etc.) or sports with high eccentric loading (deceleration from a jump in basketball) may see more benefit when including the catch to enhance this ability to absorb force. Prior injuries can also influence the ability for individuals to perform ballistic movement. Athletes with prior shoulder injuries could find ballistic overhead movement (ex: push jerk) to be painful, but non-ballistic (ex: overhead press) to be more accommodating.

CONCLUSION

Olympic weightlifting derivatives are beneficial alternatives to the full Olympic lifts due to their lower technical threshold and proven ability to improve jumping, sprinting, and maximal strength. Coaches should follow appropriate exercise prescription and ordering guidelines as well as design sessions with clear goals to enhance proficiency in their athletes. Finally, the needs of the athlete should always be placed at the forefront of any training plan and recommendations should be made accordingly that will allow the athlete to progress with minimal injury risk.

REFERENCES

1. Shattock, K. (2018). The Use of Olympic Lifts and Their Derivatives to Enhance Athletic / Sporting Performance: A Mental Model. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19149.13288
2. Hoffman, J. R., Cooper, J., Wendell, M., & Kang, J. (2004). Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 18(1), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)018<0129:coovtp>2.0.co;2
3. Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Nosaka, K., & Stone, M. H. (2005). Weightlifting exercises enhance athletic performance that requires high-load speed strength. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24(4), 50-55. https://doi.org/10.1519/00126548-200508000-00008
4. Soriano, M. A., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Rhea, M. R., & Marín, P. J. (2015). The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(8), 1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0341-8
5. Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for implementation and application. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(6), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0314-y
6. Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., Häkkinen, K., Humphries, B. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1996). Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. Journal of applied biomechanics, 12(1), 31-43.
7. Soriano, M. A., Suchomel, T. J., & Comfort, P. (2019). Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 49(6), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01096-8