Fundamental

What are weightlifting derivatives?

Tim Suchomel

Content of fundamentals article

Article summary
What are weightlifting derivatives?
How do catching and pulling derivatives compare?
- Load acceptance
Implementing weightlifting derivatives
- Loading alternatives
Conclusion

Article summary

Weightlifting derivatives are variations of the competition lifts (i.e., snatch and clean and jerk) that either modify or omit a portion of the lift. They can be classified as catching, pulling or overhead pressing derivatives
Weightlifting exercises and their derivatives are great tools that may provide athletes with several benefits, including rapid force production stimuli, postural strength, coordination and external load acceptance
Catching or pulling derivatives can achieve similar training outcomes when the same relative intensities are prescribed
If an athlete cannot get into a proper front squat or overhead squat position due to injury or lack of mobility, they may be better off performing basic pulling derivatives and other traditional strength exercises while they learn the proper positioning
Practitioners should coach maximal intent during the triple extension movement of the second pull, regardless of whether the athlete is performing a catching or pulling variation.

What are weightlifting derivatives?

Weightlifting derivatives are variations of the competition lifts (i.e., snatch and clean and jerk) that either modify or omit a portion of the lift. Weightlifting derivatives may be classified as catching, pulling or overhead pressing derivatives. Catching derivatives are snatch and clean variations that include the catch phase that takes place during the competitive lifts, but modify either the starting position – mid-thigh, hang, knee or floor – or the catch depth, as in the “power” variation where the athlete catches the bar at or above a parallel depth squat ^[43-45].

Like catching derivatives, pulling derivatives start in a variety of positions. However, they remove the catch phase to focus on the extension of the hip, knee and ankle joints ^[43-45].

Finally, overhead pressing derivatives such as the push press, push jerk and split jerk are exercise variations that entail lifting the barbell off a squat rack, blocks or stands without first performing the clean ^[46]. Figure 1 lists catching, pulling and overhead pressing derivatives.

Each of the weightlifting derivative types have unique qualities that may serve athletes within various strength training phases. Although the amount of literature focused on overhead pressing derivatives is growing, the remaining discussion focuses on catching and pulling derivatives based on the volume of literature available.

**Figure 1.** Weightlifting catching, pulling and overhead pressing derivatives.

How do catching and pulling derivatives compare?

When the strength & conditioning community thinks about weightlifting movements, most individuals likely picture a snatch or clean variation that includes the catch phase. This is probably because of the familiarity of strength & conditioning practitioners with these movements within the Olympics, but also due to the research that shows their potential benefits over other training methods ^[27-30]. While weightlifting catching derivatives may benefit postural strength, train the triple extension movement of the hip, knee, and ankle joints, and provide an effective load acceptance stimulus ^[43,45], athletes decelerate near the end of the triple extension to prepare for the catch phase. Because catching the bar in either an overhead or front rack position and reaching a standing position from a squat constitutes success with the lift, athletes may fail to achieve maximal extension during the second pull due to a focus on the catch. Since athletes produce the greatest force, impulse and power output during the second pull ^[6], researchers have examined the differences between catching derivatives and pulling derivatives as training stimuli.

The first known studies that compared catching and pulling derivatives in non-weightlifters were by Comfort et al in 2011 ^[47,48]. They concluded that the mid-thigh pull and mid-thigh power clean produced greater force, rate of force development and power output compared to the power clean and power clean from the knee when all the lifts had the same load. Suchomel et al. ^[49-52] expanded on this research with alternative derivatives and concluded that the jump shrug and hang high pull produced greater force, velocity, power output, rate of force development, impulse and work compared to the hang power clean across a spectrum of loads – 30, 45, 65, and 80% 1RM hang power clean – with the greatest differences at the lightest loads. Additional studies supported these findings when comparing the jump shrug ^[53,54] and hang high pull ^[55] with the hang power clean.

Collectively, the cross-sectional studies concluded that certain catching and pulling derivatives may provide a similar training stimulus at the same load. However, pulling derivatives may provide a favorable strength-power stimulus when the load varies.

While cross-sectional comparisons can provide insight into the differences between different catching and pulling derivatives, training intervention studies that implement these exercises over multiple training blocks give us more information.

Biomechanically similar catching and pulling derivatives (e.g., mid-thigh power clean vs. mid-thigh pull) using the same relative percentages of the athletes’ 1RM power clean for eight weeks resulted in both groups improving their countermovement jump performance and rapid force production characteristics during an isometric mid-thigh pull ^[56]. Even so, there were no practically meaningful differences between groups, which supports the findings of previous cross-sectional studies ^[47-48]. Catching or pulling derivatives can therefore achieve similar training outcomes when the same relative intensities are prescribed. Moreover, depending on the technical competency of the athlete, strength & conditioning practitioners do not have to worry about providing the athlete with an effective training stimulus by catching or not catching. Ultimately, practitioners have more tools in their coaching toolbox.

A second limitation of catching derivatives is their loading potential. For example, we can not prescribe loads greater than an athlete’s 1RM snatch or clean. This may limit the peak force production potential – the strength stimulus – of catching derivatives.

In contrast, athletes can execute weightlifting pulling derivatives with loads up to 120% 1RM with some exercises ^[57] and 140% 1RM with others ^[58-62]. Performing a clean pull from the floor at 102.5% 1RM and a mid-thigh pull at 135% 1RM produced greater improvements in dynamic (1RM power clean) and isometric strength (isometric mid-thigh pull peak force) than performing power cleans from the floor at 82.5% 1RM. The improvements extended to short sprint (10, 20, 30 m), 505 change of direction, and squat and countermovement jumps performance ^[70,71].

On the opposite end of the loading spectrum, practitioners may find it difficult to prescribe loads below 50% of an athlete’s 1RM with a catching derivative since athletes may not put forth maximal effort. Interestingly, the amount of work the lower body performs during minimal effort cleans decreases compared to maximal effort ^[63]. Furthermore, practitioners may find that if athletes do provide maximal effort with light loads during catching derivatives, athletes may perform the lifts with inefficient technique, such as over-pulling the bar during clean variations, negatively impacting the training stimulus. Certain weightlifting pulling derivatives like the jump shrug and hang high pull, though, may provide an effective velocity and power training stimulus with loads < 50% 1RM ^{[49-52, 64-69]}.

This research does not suggest that practitioners should not prescribe catching derivatives. It merely suggests that practitioners should prescribe weightlifting derivative exercises and load combinations that address the goals of each individual training phase.

Load acceptance

Weightlifting catching derivatives may provide an athlete with an external load acceptance stimulus. Because pulling derivatives omit the catch phase, many practitioners believe catching derivatives are more “complete” exercises and should be performed to induce a load acceptance stimulus. However, if athletes hold onto the bar following the second pull phase, they may receive a load acceptance stimulus when the bar descends to the mid-thigh (power) position (Figure 2). Pulling derivatives are also superior to the hang power clean for producing external work, as measured by force plates. Two studies found that greater work was performed externally ^[73] and at the joint level. Additionally, the clean pull from the knee produced greater work on a force platform than the power clean from the knee, and similar work as the clclean from the knee ^[74].

One gap in this research is measuring activation of the core stabilization musculature. That information will let practitioners draw more concrete conclusions about the differences between catching and pulling derivatives, as both variations undoubtedly activate this musculature.

**Figure 2.** Countermovement shrug sequence from left to right: starting position, countermovement, 2^nd pull (triple extension), peak bar height following pull, and load acceptance.

Implementing weightlifting derivatives

Both catching and pulling derivatives can provide athletes with an effective strength-power stimulus throughout their training program. There are several things that the practitioner should consider when programming various exercise and load combinations.

First, athletes should be able to perform the selected exercise with appropriate technique. For example, if an athlete cannot get into a proper front squat or overhead squat position due to injury or lack of mobility, they may be better off performing basic pulling derivatives and other traditional strength exercises while they learn the proper positioning ^[43]. This delivers an effective training stimulus via pulling variations that may Pulling variations also serve as effective progression exercises on the road to the athletes eventually turning over and catching the bar ^[75-82]. Practitioners should coach maximal intent during the triple extension movement of the second pull, regardless of whether the athlete is performing a catching or pulling variation.

Second, weightlifting derivatives exist on a continuum, and various exercise and load combinations may provide similar training stimuli. Thus, practitioners should choose exercise and load combinations that effectively train the desired goals within each training phase. For example, the goals of a general strength phase include improving the force production ceiling and rapid force production characteristics ^[26]. This is a window to program weightlifting derivatives that allow an athlete to use heavy loads (potentially greater than their 1RM catching variation) and light to moderate loads.

Third, select exercise and load combinations based on an athlete’s strength-power needs and the specific demands of their sport, event or position. Practitioners may consider prescribing exercise and load combinations that are more strength-speed oriented (i.e., moving heavy loads quickly) with linemen and forwards, and combinations that are more speed-strength oriented (i.e., moving light loads quickly) with skill players (e.g., wide receivers) and backs.

Loading alternatives

Not all practitioners have their athletes perform 1RM testing with a catching variation either due to time, poor or inconsistent technique, facility resources or they simply may not value 1RM testing. Regardless, this is an important issue to consider since pulling derivatives are often prescribed based on percentage of a 1RM catching variation, and not all practitioners prescribe catching variations.

Basing load on body mass does not account for differences in relative strength between athletes and may therefore be difficult to implement. Prescribing load based on percentages of a squatting variation runs into similar pitfalls. On the other hand, practitioners may consider using set-repetition best ^[87-89]. Set-repetition bests are an alternative for prescribing loads for pulling derivatives. Practitioners estimate a theoretical 1RM for each exercise based on what the athlete performs in training, and then prescribes percentages based on the estimated 1RM. This method may be best with force-dominant pulling derivatives that use progressively heavier loads: mid-thigh pull, countermovement shrug, hang pull.

Finally, practitioners may consider using velocity zones to train specific strength-power characteristics. This is the “gray area” ^[43,44] in which a variety of exercise and load combinations may produce the same velocity and, in doing so, train similar characteristics. Figure 3 displays GymAware peak barbell velocities for a variety of weightlifting derivatives across a spectrum of loads.

Practitioners should consider the following points if they opt for this method. First, weightlifting derivatives require peak velocity since the movement speeds through various parts of a lift vary based on exercise technique, which impacts mean velocity. In contrast, the greatest velocities during snatch and clean variations occur during the second pull phase. Second, coaches may need additional equipment to measure movement velocity. Devices vary in terms of cost and reliability, and accurate measurements are necessary to ensure effective exercise and load prescription. Finally, practitioners should be wary of exercise technique when assessing movement velocity, as athletes must not sacrifice technique to achieve a higher velocity.

**Figure 3.** Peak barbell velocities for clean catching and pulling derivatives at various 1RM percentages. Unpublished data from Suchomel and colleagues.

Conclusion

Weightlifting exercises and their derivatives are great tools that may provide athletes with several benefits, including rapid force production stimuli, postural strength, coordination and external load acceptance. Based on the literature available, weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives can provide effective training stimuli to improve strength, sprint, change of direction, and jump performance. However, practitioners should implement them using exercise and load combinations specific to the desired training goals during each training phase.

Do athletes have to use weightlifting movements in their training? No. However, there is a large amount of evidence that supports their inclusion. Moreover, weightlifting derivatives comprise part of a holistic program alongside other methods and movements.

References

Show

Schödl G. The Lost Past. Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation; 1992.
Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, Stone ME. Weightlifting: A brief overview. Strength Cond J. 2006;28(1):50-66.
Bonini G. London: The cradle of modern weightlifting. Sports Historian. 2001;21:56-70.
Webster DP. The Iron Game: An Illustrated History of Weight-Lifting. Irvine: John Geddes (Printers); 1976.
Fair JD. The tragic history of the military press in Olympic and world championship competition, 1928-1972. J Sport Hist. 2001;28(3):345-74.
Enoka RM. The pull in Olympic weightlifting. Med Sci Sports. 1979;11(2):131-7.
Häkkinen K, Kauhanen H, Komi VP. Biomechanical changes in the Olympic weightlifting technique of the snatch and clean and jerk from submaximal to maximal loads. Scand J Sport Sci. 1984;6(2):57-66.
Garhammer J. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. Int J Sport Biomech. 1985;1(2):122-30.
Garhammer J. Power clean: kinesiological evaluation. Strength Cond J. 1984;6(3):40, 61-3.
Garhammer J. Energy flow during Olympic weight lifting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14(5):353-60.
Garhammer J. Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12(1):54-60.
Garhammer J. Performance evaluation of Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports. 1978;11(3):284-7.
Enoka RM. Load-and skill-related changes in segmental contributions to a weightlifting movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1988;20(2):178-87.
Garhammer J, Gregor R. Propulsion forces as a function of intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. J Strength Cond Res. 1992;6(3):129-34.
Chiu LZF, Schilling BK. A primer on weightlifting: from sport to sports training. Strength Cond J. 2005;27(1):42-8.
Grabe SA, Widule CJ. Comparative biomechanics of the jerk in Olympic weightlifting. Res Quart Exerc Sport. 1988;59(1):1-8.
Frolov VI, Levshunov NP. The phasic structure of jerk. Tyazhelaya Atletika. 1979:25-8.
Cushion EJ, Goodwin JE, Cleather DJ. Relative intensity influences the degree of correspondence of jump squats and push jerks to countermovement jumps. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(5):1255-64.
Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE, Bull AMJ. Hip and knee joint loading during vertical jumping and push jerking. Clinical Biomech. 2013;28(1):98-103.
Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE, Bull AMJ. Inter-segmental moment analysis characterises the partial correspondence of jumping and jerking. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):89-100.
Kipp K, Suchomel TJ, Comfort P. Correlational analysis between joint-level kinetics of countermovement jumps and weightlifting derivatives. J Sports Sci Med. 2019;18(4):663-8.
Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA, Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, Nosaka K. Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction? J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(2):412-8.
Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ, Morris RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC, et al. The relationship between vertical jump power estimates and weightlifting ability: a field-test approach. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):534-9.
Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, Wood M. Relationship between anaerobic power and olympic weightlifting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1980;20(1):99-102.
DeWeese BH, Bellon CR, Magrum E, Taber CB, Suchomel TJ. Strengthening the springs: Improving sprint performance via strength training. Techniques. 2016;9(3):8-20.
Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength: Training considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48:765-85.
Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development: weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):433-7.
Teo SY, Newton MJ, Newton RU, Dempsey AR, Fairchild TJ. Comparing the effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump versus weightlifting program on athletic power development. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(10):2741-8.
Otto III WH, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Spiering BA. Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1199-202.
Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):129-35.
Chaouachi A, Hammami R, Kaabi S, Chamari K, Drinkwater EJ, Behm DG. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(6):1483-96.
Arabatzi F, Kellis E, De Villarreal ESS. Vertical jump biomechanics after plyometric, weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting+ plyometric) training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(9):2440-8.
Channell BT, Barfield JP. Effect of Olympic and traditional resistance training on vertical jump improvement in high school boys. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1522-7.
Ciacci S, Bartolomei S. The effects of two different explosive strength training programs on vertical jump performance in basketball. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017;58(10):1375-82.
Arabatzi F, Kellis E. Olympic weightlifting training causes different knee muscle-coactivation adaptations compared with traditional weight training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(8):2192-201.
Roberts M, DeBeliso M. Olympic lifting vs. traditional lifting methods for North American high school football players. Turk J Kinesiol. 2018;4(3):91-100.
Morris SJ, Oliver JL, Pedley JS, Haff GG, Lloyd RS. Comparison of weightlifting, traditional resistance training and plyometrics on strength, power and speed: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med, Epub ahead of print. 2022.
Hackett D, Davies T, Soomro N, Halaki M. Olympic weightlifting training improves vertical jump height in sportspeople: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:865-72.
Berton R, Lixandrão ME, Pinto e Silva CM, Tricoli V. Effects of weightlifting exercise, traditional resistance and plyometric training on countermovement jump performance: a meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(18):2038-44.
García-Valverde A, Manresa-Rocamora A, Hernández-Davó JL, Sabido R. Effect of weightlifting training on jumping ability, sprinting performance and squat strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Sports Sci Coach, Epub ahead of print. 2021:17479541211061695.
Comfort P, Jones PA, Thomas C, DosʼSantos T, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ. Changes in early and maximal isometric force production in response to moderate-and high-load strength and power training. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(3):593-9.
Moolyk AN, Carey JP, Chiu LZF. Characteristics of lower extremity work during the impact phase of jumping and weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(12):3225-32.
Suchomel TJ. The gray area of programming weightlifting exercises. Natl Strength Cond Assoc Coach. 2020;7:6-14.
Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, Lake JP. Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J. 2017;39(1):10-20.
Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, Stone MH. Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale for implementation and application. Sports Med. 2015;45(6):823-39.
Soriano MA, Suchomel TJ, Comfort P. Weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives: a review of the literature. Sports Med. 2019;49(6):867-85.
Comfort P, Allen M, Graham-Smith P. Kinetic comparisons during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(12):3269-73.
Comfort P, Allen M, Graham-Smith P. Comparisons of peak ground reaction force and rate of force development during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(5):1235-9.
Suchomel TJ, Sole CJ. Force-time curve comparison between weightlifting derivatives. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(4):431-9.
Suchomel TJ, Sole CJ. Power-time curve comparison between weightlifting derivatives. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(3):407-13.
Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, Kernozek TW, Kline DE. Kinetic comparison of the power development between power clean variations. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(2):350-60.
Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, Lottig J, editors. Lower extremity joint velocity comparisons during the hang power clean and jump shrug at various loads. XXXIInd International Conference of Biomechanics in Sports; 2014; Johnson City, TN, USA.
Kipp K, Comfort P, Suchomel TJ. Comparing Biomechanical Time Series Data During the Hang-Power Clean and Jump Shrug. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(9):2389-96.
Kipp K, Malloy PJ, Smith JC, Giordanelli MD, Kiely MT, Geiser CF, et al. Mechanical Demands of the Hang Power Clean and Jump Shrug: A Joint-Level Perspective. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2018;32(2):466-74.
Takei S, Hirayama K, Okada J. Comparison of the Power Output Between the Hang Power Clean and Hang High Pull Across a Wide Range of Loads in Weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(Suppl 1):S84-S8.
Comfort P, Dos’Santos T, Thomas C, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ. An investigation into the effects of excluding the catch phase of the power clean on force-time characteristics during isometric and dynamic tasks: An intervention study. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:2116-29.
Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O’Bryant HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE, et al. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):95-103.
Comfort P, Jones PA, Udall R. The effect of load and sex on kinematic and kinetic variables during the mid-thigh clean pull. Sports Biomech. 2015;14:139-56.
Comfort P, Udall R, Jones PA. The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1208-14.
Meechan D, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, Comfort P. The effect of rest redistribution on kinetic and kinematic variables during the countermovement shrug. J Strength Cond Res, In press. 2022.
Meechan D, Suchomel TJ, McMahon JJ, Comfort P. A comparison of kinetic and kinematic variables during the mid-thigh pull and countermovement shrug, across loads. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(7):1830-41.
Meechan D, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, Comfort P. A comparison of kinetic and kinematic variables during the pull from the knee and hang pull, across loads. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(7):1819-29.
Dæhlin TE, Krosshaug T, Chiu LZF. Distribution of lower extremity work during clean variations performed with different effort. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:2242-9.
Takei S, Hirayama K, Okada J. Comparison of the power output between the hang power clean and hang high pull across a wide range of loads in weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res, Epub ahead of print. 2020.
Kipp K, Comfort P, Suchomel TJ. Comparing biomechanical time series data during the hang-power clean and jump shrug. J Strength Cond Res, Epub ahead of print. 2019.
Kipp K, Malloy PJ, Smith J, Giordanelli MD, Kiely MT, Geiser CF, et al. Mechanical demands of the hang power clean and jump shrug: A joint-level perspective. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:466-74.
Suchomel TJ, Taber CB, Wright GA. Jump shrug height and landing forces across various loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(1):61-5.
Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, Wright GA. Effect of various loads on the force-time characteristics of the hang high pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(5):1295-301.
Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, Wright GA. Lower body kinetics during the jump shrug: impact of load. J Trainol. 2013;2:19-22.
Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, Comfort P. Training with weightlifting derivatives: The effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(7):1808-18.
Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, McMahon JJ, Comfort P. The effect of training with weightlifting catching or pulling derivatives on squat jump and countermovement jump force-time adaptations. J Funct Morphol Kines. 2020;5:28.
Suchomel TJ, Giordanelli MD, Geiser CF, Kipp K. Comparison of joint work during load absorption between weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35:S127-S35.
Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, Comfort P. Load absorption force-time characteristics following the second pull of weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(6):1644-52.
Comfort P, Williams R, Suchomel TJ, Lake JP. A comparison of catch phase force-time characteristics during clean derivatives from the knee. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:1911-8.
DeWeese BH, Suchomel TJ, Serrano AJ, Burton JD, Scruggs SK, Taber CB. The pull from the knee: Proper technique and application. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(1):79-85.
Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ. The power clean and power snatch from the knee. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(4):98-105.
Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham GK, Serrano AJ, Sole CJ. The jump shrug: A progressive exercise into weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J. 2014;36(3):43-7.
Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham GK, Serrano AJ, French SM. The hang high pull: A progressive exercise into weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J. 2014;36(6):79-83.
DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, Burton JD. The midthigh pull: Proper application and progressions of a weightlifting movement derivative. Strength Cond J. 2013;35(6):54-8.
DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, Sams ML. The clean pull and snatch pull: Proper technique for weightlifting movement derivatives. Strength Cond J. 2012;34(6):82-6.
DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, Sams ML. The pull to knee—Proper biomechanics for a weightlifting movement derivative. Strength Cond J. 2012;34(4):73-5.
DeWeese BH, Scruggs SK. The countermovement shrug. Strength Cond J. 2012;34(5):20-3.
Lopes dos Santos M, Jagodinsky A, Lagally KM, Tricoli V, Berton R. Determining the peak power output for weightlifting derivatives using body mass percentage: A practical approach. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:88.
Lopes dos Santos M, Berton R, Jagodinsky AE, Torry MR, Lagally KM. The effect of load based on body mass percentage on peak power output in the hang power clean, hang high pull, and mid-thigh clean pull. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, Epub ahead of print. 2021.
McKeever SM, Sijuwade O, Carpenter L, Suchomel TJ. The effect of load placement on the power production characteristics of three lower extremity jumping exercises in resistance-trained women [Abstract]. J Strength Cond Res, In press. 2021.
Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, Sijuwade O, Carpenter L, McMahon JJ, Loturco I, et al. The effect of load placement on the power production characteristics of three lower extremity jumping exercises. J Hum Kinet. 2019;68:109-22.
Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Hornsby WG, Stone MH. Training for muscular strength: Methods for monitoring and adjusting training intensity. Sports Med, Epub ahead of print. 2021.
Stone MH, O’Bryant HS. Weight training: a scientific approach. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess International; 1987.
DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, Stone MH. The training process: Planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):318-24.