How many power moves are enough?

[Paul1]

My question is whether doing power cleans (or power snatches) develop power in planes of motion, ranges of motion, or muscle groups that are not really part of the power clean?

For instance, a lot of conditioning programs for sports will use things like overhead med ball throws for overhead throwing power and twisting / lateral med ball throws for torsional power.

Also, the power clean emphasizes power from the hip drive, but the explosive part of a clean is not even close to the full range of motion our lower bodies get from a squat. (I'm not counting the deadlift part of a power clean, which isn't so much a power move). Doing squat jumps starting from a lower squat seems like it would develop power over a greater range of motion. Also, there are certain lateral and torsional jumps that are part of plyometric training that would emphasize a different sort of power development than from hip drive.

So I guess my question is whether or not it's necessary to have a more complicated power "curriculum" than to only do power cleans. If we want the most neuromuscular efficiency and the most explosiveness, over the greatest range of motion from the maximum number of basic human movements, then does developing the power clean automatically translate to these other movements?

[Mark Rippetoe]

"Moves???" Christ. Jane Fonda does "moves." How many did I put into the novice program? One, right? So maybe I think you just need one, unless there is a good reason to add more. Which might occur later, and might be why the power snatch is also in the book.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

" then does developing the power clean automatically translate to these other movements?"

Wouldn't doing those movements develop the power needed for those movements?

If you are talking about training for a specific activity, then there will be additional things you need to train for that activity. But which activity are you talking about, which movements? We can't all be good at everything.

[Paul1]

"Moves???" Christ. Jane Fonda does "moves." How many did I put into the novice program? One, right? So maybe I think you just need one, unless there is a good reason to add more. Which might occur later, and might be why the power snatch is also in the book.

Fine, let's call them power development training maneuvers.

I like these olympic-style lifts a lot, so I alternate the power clean and power snatch. (I do the snatch in the workout with deadlifts because it's lower weight).

At the same time the mechanics are pretty similar between the two lifts. My question was really whether the power development that one gets from olympic lifts should be expected to improve power from different muscle movements -- do you improve motor unit recruiting efficiency in other movement patterns that you're not specifically training with the power cleans? Or are power cleans improving power only in similar movement patterns?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Fine, let's call them power development training maneuvers.

Let's just call them "exercises."

My question was really whether the power development that one gets from olympic lifts should be expected to improve power from different muscle movements -- do you improve motor unit recruiting efficiency in other movement patterns that you're not specifically training with the power cleans? Or are power cleans improving power only in similar movement patterns?

Do you believe that the strength developed from squats improves force production capacity in other movement patterns? Or do you believe that only when force production capacity is developed in the specific movement pattern in which it is intended to be applied can it be useful to that movement pattern?

[Paul1]

Do you believe that the strength developed from squats improves force production capacity in other movement patterns? Or do you believe that only when force production capacity is developed in the specific movement pattern in which it is intended to be applied can it be useful to that movement pattern?

Well, I think that a squat will primarily improve force production in related movement patterns (not identical, but related). So squats will improve force production with lunges, jumps, etc. But I'd be surprised if squats have a major impact on an upper body pulling movement, except insofar as squats improve the hormonal milieux for muscle growth and improve core stability. If you're, say, a rock climber and you need upper body pulling strength, then you need some training specificity for that.

By the same token, I can see a power clean improving force production for a saggital plane hip drive. So this may improve power generation with jumps, kettlebell swings, and it would probably improve things like turns in swimming and starts off a block for sprinters. But if you're, say, a boxer or a pitcher and you need upper body explosive power, then will power cleans sufficiently train upper body power? (yes, yes, I know a lot of their power comes from a hip drive, but there is also arm speed).

I'm none of the above. But if it's important to develop strength in all major movement patterns (and this can be accomplished with a few core lifts), why restrict power training to only one movement pattern?

And the other question was one of range of motion. You're a big proponent of using a full range of motion for all lifts, and if I read you correctly you discourage playing too much with grip width for bench presses, pull ups, etc, in part because it decreases range of motion.

A deep squat jump, theoretically, would train power over a larger range of motion than would a power clean, and in a similar but deeper movement pattern. If you do it weighted, then it's scalable like a power clean. (You could argue, though, that any jump is infinitely scalable because as long as you're jumping progressively higher over time you're applying more force to produce the increased height).

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, I think that a squat will primarily improve force production in related movement patterns (not identical, but related). So squats will improve force production with lunges, jumps, etc. But I'd be surprised if squats have a major impact on an upper body pulling movement, except insofar as squats improve the hormonal milieux for muscle growth and improve core stability. If you're, say, a rock climber and you need upper body pulling strength, then you need some training specificity for that.

By the same token, I can see a power clean improving force production for a saggital plane hip drive. So this may improve power generation with jumps, kettlebell swings, and it would probably improve things like turns in swimming and starts off a block for sprinters. But if you're, say, a boxer or a pitcher and you need upper body explosive power, then will power cleans sufficiently train upper body power? (yes, yes, I know a lot of their power comes from a hip drive, but there is also arm speed).

Surprise! The squat makes your bench improve. Two guys training, one benching and squatting and the other benching only, the guy doing both gets stronger at benching. You should stop thinking in terms of body parts, like a Physical Therapist, and start thinking about the whole system.

But if it's important to develop strength in all major movement patterns (and this can be accomplished with a few core lifts), why restrict power training to only one movement pattern?

Because 1.) you don't have to train each separate movement pattern to make the whole system either stronger or more powerful. Strength is a general systemic adaptation, and power is the rapid expression of that strength, largely controlled by genetics but developable incrementally. Power is extremely dependent on force production capacity, and for the vast majority of athletes any increase in strength increases power. And 2.) we're dealing with novices here. They neither require nor benefit from excessive variety/specialization/complexity in training.

A deep squat jump, theoretically, would train power over a larger range of motion than would a power clean, and in a similar but deeper movement pattern. If you do it weighted, then it's scalable like a power clean. (You could argue, though, that any jump is infinitely scalable because as long as you're jumping progressively higher over time you're applying more force to produce the increased height).

Stress fractures are an inconvenient, very common side-effect of such plyometric foolishness. This is a reason they went out of fashion.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

"I'm none of the above. But if it's important to develop strength in all major movement patterns (and this can be accomplished with a few core lifts), why restrict power training to only one movement pattern?"

Why is it important to be good at thing you do not do? If you want to work on the movements you listed above, why not play those sports? I've trained at several boxing gyms (becuase they had the cheapest access to bumpers) and they all did some kind of training that increased power for punching.

Sure, you could add clap or other explosive upper body movements, but what about back flips, throws (objects or people), sprinting, breast stroke, kicks, tackling drills, etc.

[Paul1]

Surprise! The squat makes your bench improve. Two guys training, one benching and squatting and the other benching only, the guy doing both gets stronger at benching.

Fair enough -- but that is synergy. If you have a guy doing ONLY squats and a guy doing ONLY benches, I would bet that the guy doing only benches will bench more than the guy doing only squats. I understand the systemic adaptive processes, but at the same time if you're going to force adaptations in bench press strength then your most efficient move will be progressively loading the bench press -- right?

power is the rapid expression of that strength, largely controlled by genetics but developable incrementally. Power is extremely dependent on force production capacity, and for the vast majority of athletes any increase in strength increases power.

Yes, I understand that (and I've read your points about how a strong deadlift will increase your clean). But if power is force per unit time, the strength moves will increase the force -- but the explosive training will decrease the 'per unit time' part. So if power per se has value (above and beyond sheer strength), then the question remains how systemically -- how broadly -- one power move will translate to anatomically different moves.

I was just at an NIH grant writing seminar and a colleague was presenting a proposal about power training for frail elderly, because a major problem is their ability to get up from a seated position. This requires a certain amount of power, not just sheer strength (if we are to think of getting our ass off of a chair as a kind of incomplete jump). This seems like it bears some similarity to the hip drive of a power clean -- but the movement also requires them to press down with their arms for leverage. So a hip drive type movement would seem to train the lower body and truncal part of standing up. But would it train the upper body part? Would there be upper body power that follows from the lower body hip drive training?

Stress fractures are an inconvenient, very common side-effect of such plyometric foolishness. This is a reason they went out of fashion.

Ok, what about unweighted moves? Just max effort jumps. You aren't adding weight, but if you're adding height to each jump with successive workouts, that's by definition an incremental increase in force production. Greater distance, in the face of gravity, requires a greater expression of force, right? And if you're gaining muscular weight as part of the program anyway, you're adding an incremental load too.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Fair enough -- but that is synergy. If you have a guy doing ONLY squats and a guy doing ONLY benches, I would bet that the guy doing only benches will bench more than the guy doing only squats. I understand the systemic adaptive processes, but at the same time if you're going to force adaptations in bench press strength then your most efficient move will be progressively loading the bench press -- right?

Sure, but this is beside the point, which is that when the system as a whole is trained, the whole system adapts, and sports use the whole system, not pieces of it. So the best way to train is big movements that make the most difference in the systemic adaptation you want.

Yes, I understand that (and I've read your points about how a strong deadlift will increase your clean). But if power is force per unit time, the strength moves will increase the force -- but the explosive training will decrease the 'per unit time' part. So if power per se has value (above and beyond sheer strength), then the question remains how systemically -- how broadly -- one power move will translate to anatomically different moves.

You have to understand how limited the body's potential to decrease the "per unit of time" part actually is. Basically, the more broad the effects of the exercise, the more broadly the adaptation affects the system. This has been discussed at length in the vertical jump-related threads.

I was just at an NIH grant writing seminar and a colleague was presenting a proposal about power training for frail elderly, because a major problem is their ability to get up from a seated position. This requires a certain amount of power, not just sheer strength (if we are to think of getting our ass off of a chair as a kind of incomplete jump). This seems like it bears some similarity to the hip drive of a power clean -- but the movement also requires them to press down with their arms for leverage. So a hip drive type movement would seem to train the lower body and truncal part of standing up. But would it train the upper body part? Would there be upper body power that follows from the lower body hip drive training?

Does your colleague work for the government? Because only a government worker could complicate so simple a concept as getting up out of a chair. Power has nothing to do with it, unless you want old people jumping out of chairs. It is strength in the hips and legs, and nothing more.

Ok, what about unweighted moves? Just max effort jumps. You aren't adding weight, but if you're adding height to each jump with successive workouts, that's by definition an incremental increase in force production. Greater distance, in the face of gravity, requires a greater expression of force, right? And if you're gaining muscular weight as part of the program anyway, you're adding an incremental load too.

The problem is that this doesn't happen. A vertical jump is maximally increasable by 20-25% IN TOTAL. As such it holds little potential for use as an actual exercise -- its primary value lies in its ability to identify explosive genetic capacity.

You must be off work today.