all posts post new thread

Barbell Can you get the benefit of the power of the powerclean from a rack pull?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Anatoly

Level 4 Valued Member
This is the power generated by barbell lifting
;
Clean————-3430 watts
Second Pull—-5260 watts
Deadlift———-1200 watts

If the second pull produces the most power could I get the power output benefit from doing a rack pull clean from my mid thighs?
 
This is the power generated by barbell lifting
;
Clean————-3430 watts
Second Pull—-5260 watts
Deadlift———-1200 watts

If the second pull produces the most power could I get the power output benefit from doing a rack pull clean from my mid thighs?
I believe that to get that amount of power for the second pull the first pull needs to be done correctly
 
A rack pull is a grind and the second pull of the clean is a ballistic. Remember that power is generated by force and time. If you were doing a clean pull from the ground and just shrugging then I suppose depending on your technique. Generating power is very specific to the absolute strength, speed strength, and technique of the athlete.
 
The second pull of the power clean is the most ballistic part of the lift because this is where the athlete explodes with triple extension to jump throw the barbell to the rack position.

Simply doing a rack pull from this position will not mimic the power output accomplished by a clean.

Is there a reason you’d want to use this substitution? There are many ways to develop power aside from doing the oly lift variations although they do yield pretty strong results. If you’re committed to using barbells for this reason, high pulls and the power versions are still great contenders.

Alas you could also do k-bell ballistics, bodyweight (jumps, sprints, throws, Plyo pushups) or accommodating resistance like bands and chains. What’s the nature of your goal?
 
I understand weightlifters practising clean pulls from blocks to work on the second pull without momentum as a form of specialised variety, but omitting the pull from the floor when using the clean/power clean as a means of developing power just seems to be a way of short-changing yourself of additional benefits.

If you're injured and are unable to pull from the floor but can still work on the second pull then it makes sense.
 
This is the power generated by barbell lifting
;
Clean————-3430 watts
Second Pull—-5260 watts
Deadlift———-1200 watts

If the second pull produces the most power could I get the power output benefit from doing a rack pull clean from my mid thighs?

I do block pulls sometimes for the reason @Chrisdavisjr said, but ultimately, the competition lift starts at the floor, so I have to train that.

But if you're not a weightlifter...

What's your real world goal?

What do you plan to do with the power you're training?

Because, at the end of the day, numbers are just numbers; in the real world, nobody really cares if you have a big rack pull.

I wouldn't pick any of those just based on which makes the most watts, but according to the real world sport or other application I'm training for, and potential carry-over, first and foremost.
 
Just a thought (not sure why this didn't occur to me earlier), how does the second pull generate more power than the full clean, of which the second pull is one component?
 
Just a thought (not sure why this didn't occur to me earlier), how does the second pull generate more power than the full clean, of which the second pull is one component?
The second pull is just the latter phase of the whole clean where the bar is actually propelled. The first pull sets up the second pull but is not the actual explosive component of the lift and lasts until right after the bar passes the knees.

I think there is a typo in the graph. It should be first pull of clean and second pull.
 
Has to be.

You can't have a full clean (for a given weight) use less power than a sub-component thereof.
Those are likely PEAK power outputs, and not the total watts of the entire lift.

AND/OR
... even if the OP ever chimes back and says they're not (just peak outputs).
The second pull is the most powerful part of the lift; and a shorter ROM....so it wouldn't surprise me.
Look at the low deadlift number. The 1st pull would be "weighted" as low power in the total equation.

Its quite common for Olympic Weightlifters to be able to clean and snatch the same or even MORE from the blocks (bar at or above knee)
THAN their lifts from the floor. So the same "work" in about half the range of motion ("distance").
 
Its quite common for Olympic Weightlifters to be able to clean and snatch the same or even MORE from the blocks (bar at or above knee)
THAN their lifts from the floor. So the same "work" in about half the range of motion ("distance").

Well, that's certainly not true for me.

I'm also not sure it's "quite common". I'd be curious to see some data to back up how common that it is with experienced lifters because, well...physics.

My full snatch / clean is heavier than from blocks, because I already have momentum built up from the 1st pull.

The 2nd pull is additive to that momentum, as opposed to having to overcome dead stop inertia from blocks or from the hang.

I can empirically measure the difference in bar velocity using the Push system, and I get higher peak bar speed with the full lifts.

But as Greg Everett notes:

"Some lifters will be able to clean more from certain block heights than they can from the floor—this is not necessarily a problem, although it can be an indicator of technical or strength issues in the pull from the floor."

So if one can pull more from a block, that's not necessarily a great thing.
 
Last edited:
where have you gotten these numbers?

"A Review of Power Output Studies of Olympic and Powerlifting: Methodology, Performance, Prediction and Evaluation Test"
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: May 1993 - p 76-89

Post #9

Work by Dr John Garhammer, a biomechanist at the Department of Physical Education at California State University reveals some interesting comparisons between exercises in the development of power.

During Entire Snatch or Clean Pull Movements:
34.3 w/kg Men
21.8 w/kg Women

Second Pulls:
52.6 w/kg Men
39.2 w/kg Women

Squat and Deadlift:
12 w/kg Men

For female powerlifters, "estimates indicate that the corresponding values
for women are 60-70% as great".

With this basic breakdown in mind, the power output comparisons of a
100-kilo male lifter in the clean, second pull and deadlift would be as follows.

Clean-------------3430 watts
Second Pull-----5260 watts
Deadlift----------1200 watts

Obviously, there is a huge difference in power outputs. The power output of clean pulls is 2.85 time greater than a deadlift. Second pulls are even higher with power outputs 4.38 times more than deadlifts.

Source:
The "No Deadlift, Deadlift Program
Powerlifting USA Magazine - Sept/2001.
 
Last edited:
I do not have access to the article, and I doubt it's worth paying for so I'll take your woed for what it says, @kennycro@@aol.com . It seems less than likely that the bodyweight of the lifter determines the power output, it would seem much more reasonable to apply a given multiplier to the amount of kg's lifted. But then again, the difference in power that a given lifter generates would also seem to have to be greater over an entire movement than over JUST the second clean component of the same movement. That math does not add up at all. It's like results from a HIT Jedi or something.
 
I must admit I'm still a little unsure of how to interpret these numbers, but I know the name John Garhammer and have no doubt that these results are legit.

I'll have to put aside an hour, get my reading glasses and a strong cup of coffee and see if I can tackle that article to see what's what.
 
So, the there is no value in information like this.

If you taken a few minutes to search for the article, you have found for free online...

Garhammer's Research
I followed your link, which does not let me read it. I have no idea who Garhammer is, but would be unsurprised to find problems with work from that long ago. I am not generally impressed by "Names", especialy ones I have never heard of presenting illogical numbers. It would require a REALLY good explanation (Probably requiring advanced quantum physics) to explain how more force is generated by just the second pull as opposed to a first and second pull combined. That implies negative force generation by the initial pull, which is easily demonstratable as untrue. That's not a very convincing attempt at an argument for a guy that regularly posts essays on here. I wasn't tying to be argumentative about it, it is pretty learly not above some critique on it's face.
 
I followed your link, which does not let me read it. I have no idea who Garhammer is, but would be unsurprised to find problems with work from that long ago.
As I stated, I am sure you can provide greater insight and demonstrate to Garhammer where he went wrong.

You have no idea is spot on.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom