You could be reading the full-text of this article now if you...

If you have access to this article through your institution,
you can view this article in

Effect of Interrepetition Rest on Power Output in the Power Clean

Hardee, Justin P.; Travis Triplett, N.; Utter, Alan C.; Zwetsloot, Kevin A.; Mcbride, Jeffrey M.

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182474370
Original Research
Abstract

Abstract: Hardee, JP, Triplett, NT, Utter, AC, Zwetsloot, KA, and Mcbride, JM. Effect of interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 26(4): 883–889, 2012—The effect of interrepetition rest (IRR) periods on power output during performance of multiple sets of power cleans is unknown. It is possible that IRR periods may attenuate the decrease in power output commonly observed within multiple sets. This may be of benefit for maximizing improvements in power with training. This investigation involved 10 college-aged men with proficiency in weightlifting. The subjects performed 3 sets of 6 repetitions of power cleans at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 0 (P0), 20 (P20), or 40 seconds (P40) of IRR. Each protocol (P0, P20, P40) was performed in a randomized order on different days each separated by at least 72 hours. The subjects performed the power cleans while standing on a force plate with 2 linear position transducers attached to the bar. Peak power, force, and velocity were obtained for each repetition and set. Peak power significantly decreased by 15.7% during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 5.5% (R1: 4,303 ± 567 W, R6: 4,055 ± 582 W) during P20 and a decrease of 3.3% (R1: 4,549 ± 659 W, R6: 4,363 ± 476 W) during P40. Peak force significantly decreased by 7.3% (R1: 2,861 ± 247 N, R6: 2,657 ± 225 N) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 2.7% (R1: 2,811 ± 327 N, R6: 2,730 ± 285 N) during P20 and an increase of 0.4% (R1: 2,861 ± 323 N, R6: 2,862 ± 280 N) during P40. Peak velocity significantly decreased by 10.2% (R1: 1.97 ± 0.15 m·s−1, R6: 1.79 ± 0.11 m·s−1) during P0 in comparison with a decrease of 3.8% (R1: 1.89 ± 0.13 m·s−1, R6: 1.82 ± 0.12 m·s−1) during P20 and a decrease of 1.7% (R1: 1.93 ± 0.17 m·s−1, R6: 1.89 ± 0.14 m·s−1) during P40. The results demonstrate that IRR periods allow for the maintenance of power in the power clean during a multiple set exercise protocol and that this may have implications for improved training adaptations.

Author Information

Neuromuscular and Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina

Conflict of interest: The authors recognize no conflicts of interest. The results of this study do not constitute endorsement by the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Address correspondence to Jeffrey M. McBride, mcbridejm@appstate.edu.

Copyright © 2012 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.