Thread: HATE PowerCleans

If you are doing them properly, go heavier.


BUt, if it is the burn that you are looking for, explosive stuff isn't gonna do it. The a slower eccentric portion of the lift will give that and as we all know, slow and explosive do not go together.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If you are doing them properly, go heavier.


BUt, if it is the burn that you are looking for, explosive stuff isn't gonna do it. The a slower eccentric portion of the lift will give that and as we all know, slow and explosive do not go together.

Do they really actually do anything for your body? Cause I sure as hell don't feel it, and i'm certain its not form.

No, I said go heavy if you are doing them right, not that you were doing them wrong.

Oh, and trust me, they are doing something. Don't gauge progress on soreness.

Cleans are an excellent workout. When I switch to a full on HIT workout in the summer, they will definitly be encorporated into my workout somehow someway.

Originally Posted by LittleKid

Do they really actually do anything for your body? Cause I sure as hell don't feel it, and i'm certain its not form.

they do lots, just depends what you're after. If it's overall conditioning and increased power (strength x speed) that you're after then def do them. Maybe not a classic mass builder but they will help. Look at Olympic sprinters and such, they do these types of lifts for training, do they look small? LOL

Of course cleans do something when you use them, what does a burn have to do with anything?

this thread is stupid and gives me a headache.

Cleans 'don't do anything??!!'



There is possibly no better exercise for promoting full body neuromuscular co-ordination, explosiveness and, if you use the correct weight, hypertrophy than a full clean +/- press/jerk... (although a snatch or overhead squat comes in close).

As stated, a 'burn' means nothing. You could stand in a room and squeeze your butt cheeks together for an hour - by the end of it I can assure you you will feel 'a burn' but I can also assure you that nothing will be produced with that activity.

^ LOL

this thread is stupid and gives me a headache.

ding ding ding ding!!!!!

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Cleans 'don't do anything??!!'



There is possibly no better exercise for promoting full body neuromuscular co-ordination, explosiveness and, if you use the correct weight, hypertrophy than a full clean +/- press/jerk... (although a snatch or overhead squat comes in close).

As stated, a 'burn' means nothing. You could stand in a room and squeeze your butt cheeks together for an hour - by the end of it I can assure you you will feel 'a burn' but I can also assure you that nothing will be produced with that activity.

I wasn't after a burn, read my post.. I don't feel anything.

This thread is stupid? So beginners can't ask questions? Fuck you to.
Although i've been going pretty heavy, i'll experiment and see if I can go heavier.

Originally Posted by LittleKid

I wasn't after a burn, read my post.. I don't feel anything.

Ok. Cleans are about POWER - That is SPEED + STRENGTH.

The move is all about explosiveness and targets a specific muscle fibre type in your body that will not create that typical 'weight training' feeling... Usually it is more of a neuromuscular fatigue you should experience (not a muscle fatigue).

This thread is stupid? So beginners can't ask questions? Fuck you to.
Although i've been going pretty heavy, i'll experiment and see if I can go heavier.

Hey - I never said that your questions were stupid. I just said that these were good exercises.

If you really want to see some changes I suggest you don't just 'go heavy' with the move.

In order to do it correctly you need a decent baseline strength first - So I think you would be better off focusing on your getting your strength up to par (esp your core strength) with things such as deadlifts, squats, rows, chins, hypers etc.

You also have to work on your speed... Neuromuscular facilitation exercises and dynamic effort exercises (box squats, plyometrics etc) can help with that.

You might then want to work on your clean progressions - working towards a full clean and press. Things like high pulls, push-press, jump shrugs, front squats etc...

Also - If you are going to do full cleans then do them as single reps. Clean. Bar Down. Stand up. Rest. Clean. Bar down. Stand up. Rest. This will help you perform each lift correctly and promote more synergy/co-ordination.

hey, they also develop your Traps, my traps are sore as crap when I do em ...

The move is all about explosiveness and targets a specific muscle fibre type in your body that will not create that typical 'weight training' feeling... Usually it is more of a neuromuscular fatigue you should experience (not a muscle fatigue).

I don't agree with that..

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

I don't agree with that..

Which bit?

The explosive bit? (which it is ment to be performed as... )

The muscle fibre bit? (Explosive/max effort moves hit your fast-twitch ATP-PCr fibres)

The neuromuscular fatigue bit? (which is does)

Or the not your typical muscle fatigue bit? (if it is done in explosive single rep way it does not create excessive lactic acid therefore you fail to get that typical 'weight training' burn of lactic acid and you will also not deplete glycogen stores - so you fail to get that 'fatigue' feeling)...

The muscle fibre bit? (Explosive/max effort moves hit your fast-twitch ATP-PCr fibres)

"Regardless of what fiber types are called (so called fast-twitch), the nervous sytem recruits muscle fibers in a very orderly fashion according to the force requirements of a movement rather than by the speed. The well-accepted Size Principle of Recruitment shows that motor neurons are recruited from smallest to largest, depending upon the need (Henneman 1957). This means that every movement starts with the smallest ST fibers and, depending upon the amount of force necessary, intermediate and larger FT fibers may be progressively recruited to perform the work."

Unless this logical progression is wrong, taking into consideration the sequenced recruitment pattern, a body will only utilizes the necessary amount of muscle to complete a movement; the velocity of the movement is of no consequence to this process, or the selection of the fibers. Instead, the fibers brought into practice is dependent on the intensity of the contraction.

Also, the idea that cleans of any kind can specifically bypass ST fibers and hit FT fibers exclusively has been found (from my understanding) physiologically impossible:

Palmieri, G.A. 1983. The principles of muscle fiber recruitment during ballistic movements. National Strength and Conditioning Journal 5: 22-24, 63.

Bell, G.J. and H.A. Wegner. 1992. Physiological adaptations to velocity-controlled resistance training. Sports Medicine 13 (4): 234-244.

I'm also curious to what you mean by neuromuscular fatigue? When I do cleans, being such a coordinated effort, I do them in a higher rep range and typically hit aerobic fatigue. Then my forearms freeze and my biceps and shoulders give out and I have to quit. I don't see how this is different than any other weight training fatigue (if it is, I'm generally curious as to why)? The weakest links in my chain go out before the strongest links in my chain (e.g. forearms before hips); the same thing happens when I do a bench press and my triceps give in before my pectorals do.

The explosive bit? (which it is ment to be performed as... )

It should be noted that being good (and explosive) at hang cleans does not make one a better or more "explosive" defensive lineman, for example. This is also a well documented phenomenon found in motor-learning literature.

If there were only one exercise a person could do, I would suggest the clean and jerk.

Cleans are awesome. They work a large number of muscles, improve power, and require advanced motor coordination.

I have a feeling you aren't doing cleans right. They are a very complex movement, and I have been developing my form for a while; I have implemented them into my training at various times over several years. I still don't think I have very good form.

On a side note, nothing makes my traps sore like cleans. I never used to shrug the bar properly. Once I started doing that I couldn't believe how sore my traps were the next day.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

"Regardless of what fiber types are called (so called fast-twitch), the nervous sytem recruits muscle fibers in a very orderly fashion according to the force requirements of a movement rather than by the speed. The well-accepted Size Principle of Recruitment shows that motor neurons are recruited from smallest to largest, depending upon the need (Henneman 1957). This means that every movement starts with the smallest ST fibers and, depending upon the amount of force necessary, intermediate and larger FT fibers may be progressively recruited to perform the work."

Yes, the size principle states that slow twitch, small motor units are recruited first (small size, low threshold etc etc).. But the size principle does not hold in explosive training and maximal power moves (such as olympic lifts)... In these you can actually reverse this order of recruitment (See work done by O'Shea - His book Quantum Strength & Power is great - and he has done EMG studies to show this).

And I quote:

EMG techniques make it possible to study recruitment order, the relationship between stimulation and the amount of force developed, the type of muscle contraction (concentric vs. eccentric) and the effects of fatigue. EMG analysis in my study showed the approximate percentage of the recruitment of muscle fiber types in the quadriceps of a trained athlete during execution of a one repetition squat with progressively increasing loads.

Starting with 60% of one-repetition maximum, the slow-twitch fibers contribute 60 percent to the effort; fast-twitch fatigue resistant fibers, 30 percent; and fast-twitch fatigable 10 percent. At 100 percent maximum effort, however, the percentage of slow-twitch fibers involved is only 5%, while fast-twitch fatigue resistant is 15 percent, and fast-twitch fatigable is 80 percent.

Thus - rapid, power type movements will primarily recruit FTB fibres.

You can also read this if you are interested:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=547470

I'm also curious to what you mean by neuromuscular fatigue? When I do cleans, being such a coordinated effort, I do them in a higher rep range and typically hit aerobic fatigue. Then my forearms freeze and my biceps and shoulders give out and I have to quit. I don't see how this is different than any other weight training fatigue?

The neuromuscular co-ordination to perform the complex exercise is such that inexperienced lifters can often become 'form fatigued' well before they experience muscle fatigue. Particularly if they have a good baseline strength.

Also - If you read back through my post I said that if they were done as intended (that is - true power moved with max effort, single rep work), then this is when you will not get that muscular fatigue you speak of.

Of course, if you progress into typical rep loads/anaerobic type lifting you will get lactic acid accumulation and muscle fatigue will follow... and, if you take it even further in your rep ranges (so your cardiovascular system has time to co-ordinate getting enough oxygenated blood to your limbs to fuel the movement) you will also get aerobic fatigue...

But essentially, I was stating that as the clean is a power exercise - the repititions will be very low, the movement very fast and the force generated will be maximal. As such it is a completely different type of training/experience to your typical 'weights' exercise.


ps: Yes, I understand that the neural programming/power ability of a clean is non-transferable (eg: See http://faccioni.com/Reviews/Powercleans.htm )

EMG techniques make it possible to study recruitment order, the relationship between stimulation and the amount of force developed, the type of muscle contraction (concentric vs. eccentric) and the effects of fatigue. EMG analysis in my study showed the approximate percentage of the recruitment of muscle fiber types in the quadriceps of a trained athlete during execution of a one repetition squat with progressively increasing loads.

Starting with 60% of one-repetition maximum, the slow-twitch fibers contribute 60 percent to the effort; fast-twitch fatigue resistant fibers, 30 percent; and fast-twitch fatigable 10 percent. At 100 percent maximum effort, however, the percentage of slow-twitch fibers involved is only 5%, while fast-twitch fatigue resistant is 15 percent, and fast-twitch fatigable is 80 percent.

I think you are totally misinterpreting this study.

First of all, where does it say that the FTF fibers were recruited before the ST fibers?

Second, this is not an explosive movement. Maximum effort movements cannot be explosive in the same sense that dynamic effort movements can.

Finally, the ST fibers aren't actually doing less in the final scenario. However, the FT and FTF fibers are doing so much more, that the amount of work the ST fibers perform is drastically reduced in terms of percentages. So, the ST fibers are probably producing a similar level of force in both scenarios, but this amount of force comprises a much smaller piece of the "total force pie" in the second scenario. At least, this is how I'm interpreting it.

(See work done by O'Shea - His book Quantum Strength & Power is great - and he has done EMG studies to show this).

Motor-unit recruitment (as was said earlier) is a function of tension. Your body recruits that which is required to move the weight. Electromyography shows electrical activity, not mechanical tension (long ago, it was posted on here that only an MRI could show muscle tension). Therefore:

EMG techniques make it possible to study recruitment order

However, since fiber recruitment is a function of tension, how is the above statement possible? Is my logic off on this?

Thus - rapid, power type movements will primarily recruit FTB fibres.

If this were true (in good faith, I don't believe it is), is there some benefit to exclusively training "fast-twitch" fibers while (according to this theory) bypassing the "slow-twitch"? Surely it isn't suggested that the largest fibers aren't being trained when doing slow, controlled movements?

Starting with 60% of one-repetition maximum, the slow-twitch fibers contribute 60 percent to the effort; fast-twitch fatigue resistant fibers, 30 percent; and fast-twitch fatigable 10 percent. At 100 percent maximum effort, however, the percentage of slow-twitch fibers involved is only 5%, while fast-twitch fatigue resistant is 15 percent, and fast-twitch fatigable is 80 percent.

I don't know if EMGs can affectively be used in this regard, but assuming it is - they're talking ratios, as in a portion of work from a variable relative to the total work output. All that seems to say is that when doing a one rep max, the slow twitch fibers only contribute to 5 percent of the work performed; at 60 percent/1 rep max, it contributes to 60 percent of the work performed. This would make sense since slow twitch fibers potentially recover fast enough to continue handle loads before the largest fibers are recruited..

Pwr Cleans are great for building explosive power but very poor for stimulating hypertrophy, the TUT is insufficient.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

"Regardless of what fiber types are called (so called fast-twitch), the nervous sytem recruits muscle fibers in a very orderly fashion according to the force requirements of a movement rather than by the speed. The well-accepted Size Principle of Recruitment shows that motor neurons are recruited from smallest to largest, depending upon the need (Henneman 1957). This means that every movement starts with the smallest ST fibers and, depending upon the amount of force necessary, intermediate and larger FT fibers may be progressively recruited to perform the work."

Unless this logical progression is wrong, taking into consideration the sequenced recruitment pattern, a body will only utilizes the necessary amount of muscle to complete a movement; the velocity of the movement is of no consequence to this process, or the selection of the fibers. Instead, the fibers brought into practice is dependent on the intensity of the contraction.

Also, the idea that cleans of any kind can specifically bypass ST fibers and hit FT fibers exclusively has been found (from my understanding) physiologically impossible:

Palmieri, G.A. 1983. The principles of muscle fiber recruitment during ballistic movements. National Strength and Conditioning Journal 5: 22-24, 63.

Bell, G.J. and H.A. Wegner. 1992. Physiological adaptations to velocity-controlled resistance training. Sports Medicine 13 (4): 234-244.

I'm also curious to what you mean by neuromuscular fatigue? When I do cleans, being such a coordinated effort, I do them in a higher rep range and typically hit aerobic fatigue. Then my forearms freeze and my biceps and shoulders give out and I have to quit. I don't see how this is different than any other weight training fatigue (if it is, I'm generally curious as to why)? The weakest links in my chain go out before the strongest links in my chain (e.g. forearms before hips); the same thing happens when I do a bench press and my triceps give in before my pectorals do.

Actually that study is from 1992. I have seen more recent studies that have showen it is possibe to skip fiber types I believe. I need to find one of them.

Originally Posted by P-funk

Actually that study is from 1992. I have seen more recent studies that have showen it is possibe to skip fiber types I believe. I need to find one of them.

I have seen the same info, I will hit medline later today and try to find it.

Also, with the stated study, I am 99% sure EMG analysis would take into account recurring stimuli because 1 impulse does not cause continual contraction.

This topic fascinates me.

Actually that study is from 1992. I have seen more recent studies that have showen it is possibe to skip fiber types I believe. I need to find one of them.

I'd love to see it when you find it

Karp, J.R. Motor unit recruitment strategy in muscle during eccentric contractions. Unpublished master¹s thesis. The University of Calgary, 1997.

Nardone, A., C. Romano and M. Schieppati. Selective recruitment of high-threshold human motor units during voluntary isotonic lengthening of active muscles. Journal of Physiology 409: 451-471, 1989.

The first one is unpublished and the second one is not on MedLine.

Here is an excerpt from an article at

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/...features2.html

There is some evidence to suggest that the size principle could be altered, or even reversed, during certain types of movements ‹ specifically those that contain an eccentric (muscle lengthening) or ballistic component ‹ so that fast-twitch motor units are recruited before slow-twitch motor units.(11,18,25,28,31) It is possible that a preferential recruitment of fast-twitch motor units, if it exists, is influenced by the speed of the eccentric contraction, and can only occur using moderate to fast speeds.(22,25) The pattern of motor unit recruitment may be related to the mechanical pattern of muscle contraction, with the plasticity of the central nervous system enabling the body to select the most efficient pattern of muscle activation to carry out a wide variety of movements of different intensities, duration and speeds.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

If there were only one exercise a person could do, I would suggest the clean and jerk.

Isn't a person better off doing Deadlifts and Military Presses where he can use a greater amount of weight for each individual exercise? Versus having to use less because of the mechanics involved in the Clean and Jerk.

Additionally, I would think there is good chance for injury when switching from lift to press.

Thanks for any advice!

LAM
I don't think time under tension is the only factor involved in hypertrophy. You don't think one's muscles would hypertrophy if he/she did nothing but cleans?

Dale Mabry
That's some interesting stuff. I'm definitely going to have to read that article in full.

cfs3
Well, as I said, if you were only going to do one lift, then I would recommend it. Using each individual lift would be better for pure strength. As well, it would probably be better for hypertrophy in the muscles involved with each individual lift. However, you would be hard pressed to find another lift that is capable of inducing the strength gains, hypertrophy, conditioning, power, and coordination overall.

Any exercise has injury potential. If you practice proper form enough without weight, then you should be fine.