Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics.
Sports Biomech. 2021 Oct 27 [Online ahead of print]SB

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, η2 ≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Strength Training & Neuromuscular Performance Research Group, Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain. Department of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, University of Murcia, San Javier, Murcia, Spain. Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Frederick Road Campus, Manchester, UK.Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, UK. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Frederick Road Campus, Manchester, UK. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Frederick Road Campus, Manchester, UK. Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI, USA.Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Frederick Road Campus, Manchester, UK.Strength Training & Neuromuscular Performance Research Group, Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain.Department of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, University of Murcia, San Javier, Murcia, Spain.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

34704894

Citation

Soriano, Marcos A., et al. "No Differences in Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Exercises Kinetics." Sports Biomechanics, 2021, pp. 1-13.
Soriano MA, Lake J, Comfort P, et al. No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics. Sports Biomech. 2021.
Soriano, M. A., Lake, J., Comfort, P., Suchomel, T. J., McMahon, J. J., Jiménez-Ormeño, E., & Sainz de Baranda, P. (2021). No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics. Sports Biomechanics, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1993983
Soriano MA, et al. No Differences in Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Exercises Kinetics. Sports Biomech. 2021 Oct 27;1-13. PubMed PMID: 34704894.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics. AU - Soriano,Marcos A, AU - Lake,Jason, AU - Comfort,Paul, AU - Suchomel,Timothy J, AU - McMahon,John J, AU - Jiménez-Ormeño,Ester, AU - Sainz de Baranda,Pilar, Y1 - 2021/10/27/ PY - 2021/10/27/entrez PY - 2021/10/28/pubmed PY - 2021/10/28/medline KW - Push press KW - biomechanics KW - force platform KW - power output KW - push jerk KW - split jerk SP - 1 EP - 13 JF - Sports biomechanics JO - Sports Biomech N2 - This study aimed to compare the kinetics between the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ). Sixteen resistance-trained participants (12 men and 4 women; age: 23.8 ± 4.4 years; height: 1.7 ± 0.1 m; body mass: 75.7 ± 13.0 kg; weightlifting experience: 2.2 ± 1.3 years; one repetition maximum [1RM] PP: 76.5 ± 19.5 kg) performed 3 repetitions each of the PP, PJ, and SJ at a relative load of 80% 1RM PP on a force platform. The kinetics (peak and mean force, peak and mean power, and impulse) of the PP, PJ, and SJ were determined during the dip and thrust phases. Dip and thrust displacement and duration were also calculated for the three lifts. In addition, the inter-repetition reliability of each variable across the three exercises was analysed. Moderate to excellent reliability was evident for the PP (Intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.91-1.00), PJ (ICC = 0.86-1.00), and SJ (ICC = 0.55-0.99) kinetics. A one-way analysis of variance revealed no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, η2 ≤ 0.010) for any kinetic measure between the PP, PJ, and SJ. In conclusion, there were no differences in kinetics between the PP, PJ, and SJ when performed at the same standardised load of 80% 1RM PP. SN - 1752-6116 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/34704894/No_differences_in_weightlifting_overhead_pressing_exercises_kinetics_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.