This review examines the literature on weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives (WOPDs) and provides information regarding historical, technical, kinetic and kinematic mechanisms as well as potential benefits and guidelines to implement the use of WOPDs as training tools for sports populations. Only 13 articles were found in a search of electronic databases, which was employed to gather empirical evidence to provide an insight into the kinetic and kinematic mechanisms underpinning WOPDs. Practitioners may implement WOPDs such as push press, push jerk or split jerk from the back as well as the front rack position to provide an adequate stimulus to improve not only weightlifting performance but also sports performance as: (1) the use of WOPDs is an additional strategy to improve weightlifting performance; (2) WOPDs require the ability to develop high forces rapidly by an impulsive triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles, which is mechanically similar to many sporting tasks; (3) WOPDs may be beneficial for enhancing power development and maximal strength in the sport population; and, finally, (4) WOPDs may provide a variation in training stimulus for the sports population due to the technical demands, need for balance and coordination. The potential benefits highlighted in the literature provide a justification for the implementation of WOPDs in sports training. However, there is a lack of information regarding the longitudinal training effects that may result from implementing WOPDs.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the maximum and rapid force production of Spanish football players and explore the differences between age group and level of competition. Methods: A cross-sectional study was developed to evaluate the peak force (PF), relative PF, and rate of force development over 250 ms (RFD₀₋₂₅₀) during the isometric midthigh pull between groups of football players based on age group (senior vs junior) and level of competition (national vs regional). Using a portable isometric rig, 111 football players performed 2 isometric midthigh-pull trials on a force plate. Two-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc correction was applied, and statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. The PF, relative PF, and RFD₀₋₂₅₀ 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percentiles were also calculated and descriptively reported, separated by age group and level of competition. Results: The analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect of the level of competition for the PF (P < .001), relative PF (P = .003), and RFD₀₋₂₅₀ (P < .001). There was a significant main effect of age group for the PF (P < .001). There was a significant interaction effect of the age group × level of competition for relative PF (P = .014). National players were stronger than regional players on the PF and RFD₀₋₂₅₀ (P < .001). Senior players were stronger than junior players for the PF (P < .001). Conclusions: Maximum and rapid force production are crucial for Spanish football players as they progress in both level of competition and age group. Practitioners should encourage young football players to prioritize strength development to improve their athletic performance.

The assessment of the mechanical power production is of great importance for researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this review was to compare the differences in ground reaction force (GRF), kinematic, and combined (bar velocity x GRF) methods to assess mechanical power production during weightlifting exercises. A search of electronic databases was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 May 2019. The peak power output (PPO) was selected as the key variable. The exercises included in this review were clean variations, which includes the hang power clean (HPC), power clean (PC) and clean. A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria with 53.9% using the GRF, 38.5% combined, and 30.8% the kinematic method. Articles were evaluated and descriptively analysed to enable comparison between methods. The three methods have inherent methodological differences in the data analysis and measurement systems, which suggests that these methods should not be used interchangeably to assess PPO in Watts during weightlifting exercises. In addition, this review provides evidence and rationale for the use of the GRF to assess power production applied to the system mass while the kinematic method may be more appropriate when looking to assess only the power applied to the barbell.

Soriano, MA, García-Ramos, A, Torres-González, A, Castillo-Palencia, J, Ayuso, V, Marín, PJ, and Comfort, P. Validity and reliability of a standardized protocol for assessing the one repetition maximum performance during overhead pressing exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(11): 2988–2992, 2021—The aim of this study was to determine the validity of performing 3 one repetition maximum (1RM) assessments for the push press (PP), push jerk (PJ), and split jerk (SJ) in sequence in one testing session vs. the criterion method (testing on separate days), while determining the between-session reliability of the combined assessment. Twenty-two well-trained men (n = 22; age: 28.5 + 1.3 years; height: 1.80 + 0.04 m; body mass: 84.9 + 1.9 kg; training experience: 4.27 + 4.08 years) participated in this study. The 1RM was assessed in a sequential order in the same testing session (combined 1RM assessment) for the PP, PJ, and SJ on 2 occasions, to determine between-session reliability. The 1RM for each exercise was also examined on 3 separate sessions to compare the results against the combined method. A high reliability, low variability, and low measurement error were evident for the PP (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.960; coefficient of variation [CV] = 1.8%; smallest detectable difference [SDD] = 7.1%), PJ (ICC = 0.978; CV = 1.5%; SDD = 5.4%) and SJ (ICC = 0.987; CV = 0.8%; SDD = 4.6%). In addition, there were no significant (p > 0.05) or meaningful (η² ≤0.001) differences between the single and combined assessments. The high reliability and validity of the combined assessment suggest that practitioners and researchers may simplify the testing procedure by assessing the 1RM during the 3 main overhead pressing exercises in a single testing session.

The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and feasibility of the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) and dynamic strength index (DSI) in semi-professional handball players (seventeen male and eighteen female). A cross-sectional design was used to determine the test-retest reliability of several kinetic metrics registered with a force plates. The peak force, peak relative force, rate of force development (RFD _{0-250 ms}), and impulse _{0-250 ms} were selected from the IMTP test, whereas the peak propulsive force was chosen from the countermovement jump test to obtain the DSI. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), standard error of the measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated. A paired sample t-test was also performed. No significant differences were found between the testing sessions for all variables, except for peak propulsive force for all players (p = 0.036) and DSI for female players (p = 0.037). Reliability for all kinetic metrics was good to excellent (ICC = 0.78-0.97), with low variability (CV ≤ 8.64%), being the SEM scores lower than SDD. In conclusion, the IMTP test and DSI are highly reliable and feasible tools for assessing neuromuscular performance in semi-professional handball players.

Objective: To (1) compare the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) performance between the push press, push jerk, and split jerk and (2) explore these differences between weightlifters, CrossFit athletes, and a mixed group of athletes. Methods: Forty-six resistance-trained males (age 28.8 [6.4] y; height 180.0 [6.0] cm; body mass 84.1 [10.2] kg; weightlifting training experience 3.64 [3.14] y) participated in this study. The 1RM performance of the push press, push jerk, and split jerk was assessed during the same session in a sequential order (ie, combined 1RM assessment method). Thirty-six participants were retested to determine between-sessions reliability of the 1RM values. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) showed a high between-sessions reliability for the push press (ICC = .98; 95% CI, .95–.99), push jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00), and split jerk (ICC = .99; 95% CI, .98–1.00). There was a significant main effect of exercise (η² = .101) and exercise × group interaction (η² = .012) on 1RM performance (P < .001), whereas the main effect of group did not reach statistical significance (P = .175). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that the weightlifting overhead press derivatives affect 1RM performance. In addition, the interaction of exercise and sport group was caused by the higher differences in 1RM performance between exercises for weightlifters compared with CrossFit and a mixed group of athletes. Therefore, strength and conditioning professionals should be aware that the differences in 1RM performance between weightlifting overhead-press derivatives may be affected by sport group.