Olympic Weightlifting VS Plyometric Training in Power Development

Muscular power is crucial in sports that involve powerful movement (e.g., jump, sprint, strike), and many methods have been suggested to be useful in developing muscular power. Plyometric training is one of the most common ways to improve performance in jumping and sprinting. The reason behind is that plyometric training is similar to many movements that in actual sports. Also, it highly involves the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), which is an important mechanism that allows the utilisation of elastic energy during eccentric contraction and exerts it at the following concentric contraction (2). The other common method of improving power is Olympic weightlifting training (OLW). One of the essential reasons why OLW is effective is because the ballistic nature of weightlifting movements forces the lift to be finished with high velocity, even the external load is heavy (3). To compare which method could be more effective in improving muscular power, I did a review of studies that compare the effect of the long-term intervention of OLW and plyometric training. There are four eligible studies with various duration (ranged from 8-12 weeks)(1,2,5,7).

Overall, OLW and plyometric training can elicit similar improvements in vertical jump and sprint, but OLW can likely lead to superior enhancement. Interestingly, both Tricoli et al. (7) and Arabatzi et al. (1) measured squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) and found that OLW can enhance SJ performance more than training with plyometric methods. On the other hand, the improvement in CMJ is similar between these two methods. This suggest that OLW can improve fundamental mechanical power of muscle and thereby increase the performance of vertical jump. As for plyometric training, it improves the utilisation of SSC, which is an essential element of CMJ. Since no SSC is involved in SJ, thus less improvement in SJ for the plyometric group was observed in studies. The biomechanics measurement of CMJ in the work of Arabatzi et al. (1) also suggested that OLW improves the concentric power and increases the ROM of the eccentric phase. In contrast, plyometric training could lead to higher eccentric power and lower knee flexion angle at the bottom of CMJ. In terms of vertical jump, we can conclude that OLW and plyometric training can both lead to improvement but with different jumping strategy.

For sprinting, the study done by Tricoli et al. (7) found that OLW improved 10-m sprint speed significantly, but plyometric training did not. Moore et al. (5) showed that OLW elicited more improvement in 25-m sprints with nonsignificant differences. Chauoachi et al. (2) measured both 5-m sprint and 20-m flying sprint and found that OLW is more likely to improve sprint performance in both acceleration and top speed. Studies have shown that sprint acceleration is highly related to force output to the ground since the primary goal of acceleration is to overcome the inertia. Although the utilisation of elastic energy is crucial for acceleration in sprints, it is the concentric muscular power that could lead to an increase in kinetic energy of the centre of mass (4). Thus, it is not surprised that OLW might improve the acceleration of sprints more than plyometric training does. As for the maximum velocity aspect of sprinting, the utilisation of SSC plays a massive role in the performance, since one of the performance determinants of maximum speed sprinting is to minimise the ground contact time. Fast SSC and continuous plyometric exercises could put more emphasis on max velocity sprints. The only study I reviewed that had measured max velocity sprints specifically (flying start) was the work done by Chaouachi et al. (2). However, the training intervention did not involve a high volume of continuous jumps, and perhaps this is why they suggested that OLW has a higher probability of improving 20-m flying sprint compared to plyometric training.

In conclusion, OLW and plyometric training can result in improvement in different aspects of vertical jumps and sprint performance. It is crucial to understand what the aim of the training is before deciding which method to be implemented. The table down here gives a brief comparison of two methods and hope it helps.

Reference

1. Arabatzi, F, Kellis, E, and De Villarreal, ESS. Vertical jump biomechanics after plyometric, weight lifting, and combined (weight lifting + plyometric) training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2440–2448, 2010.

2. Chaouachi, A, Hammami, R, Kaabi, S, Chamari, K, Drinkwater, EJ, and Behm, DG. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1483–1496, 2014.

3. Hackett, D, Davies, T, Soomro, N, and Halaki, M. Olympic weightlifting training improves vertical jump height in sportspeople: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 50: 865–872, 2016.

4. Haugen, T, McGhie, D, and Ettema, G. Sprint running: from fundamental mechanics to practice—a review. Eur J Appl Physiol 119: 1273–1287, 2019.Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04139-0

5. Moore, EWG, Hickey, MS, and Reiser, RF. Comparison of Two Twelve Week Off-season Combined Training Programs on Entry Level Collegiate Soccer Player’s Performance. J Strength Cond Res 19: 791–798, 2005.

6. Suchomel, TJ, Comfort, P, and Lake, JP. Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J 39: 10–20, 2017.

7. Tricoli, V, Lamas, L, Carnevale, R, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body Functional Power Development: Weightlifting vs. Vertical Jump Training Programs. J Strength Cond Res 19: 433, 2005.Available from: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2FR-14083.1