Here is some more feedback from various experts on weightlifting pulling
style (some names have temporarily been withheld until such time that the
persons concerned join our list):

1. This letter was sent to me by one of the most famous Eastern European
lifters, a legendary world champion and one of the few in the world who ever
managed to snatch twice bodyweight in the heavier divisions:

The topic of the week [on the weightlifting pull] was very interesting to me.
I do have only one problem with the flatfooted pull. As they say, “the
flatfooted pull will give you flatfooted results”. We certainly don’t want to
get that. We do know for a fact that the lifters are trying their best to get
to fully extended position before get under the bar. I do not see it
happening, by staying on your heels. Another small detail – if you go to an
extended position of your legs (on your toes), even before you start pulling
with the arms to direct the bar towards the final fixed position, you
will.gain 6-9 cm in height. In my opinion, at a max lift, this will give you
the winning edge. Try a vertical jump off your heels!!!

I was a little bit offended by anyone calling this technique archaic. After
the 2+2=4 [basic method of pulling] was discovered, we haven’t seen any other
[proven] options. Looks like it was good enough [for most of the world's top
lifters].

—————–

2. Bud Charniga, former top US lifter and translator of many Russian books
and articles:

< Mel: I think your alternative # 3 is the closest.>

—————-

3. One of the world’s best-known biomechanists working in the field of
weightlifting wrote:

Although I have not done any research directly related to this issue, I can
say that I have watch and analyzed 100’s of national and world champions
competing using film and or video. This includes many (100+) national and
world records — the most recent videos at the world level include the 1998
Worlds and 1999 Jr. Worlds. I have also watched in person and or on film /
video 1000s of lifts. I would estimate that 99% of successful national and
world level lifts (in competition) that I have seen were done using moderate
to maximal plantarflexion during SN and CL pulls.

I know of no biomechanical reason how NOT using the powerful plantarflexion
muscles through the full range of ankle joint movement could increase pulling
force or duration. I would be interested to see some theoretical explanation
as to how this might be possible. Obviously the elite athletes know by
experience how to pull with maximal force, and they use the ankle joint!!

A simple experiment is to try to pedal a bicycle or jump off the ground with
heel contact only (eliminating plantarflexion)

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

<Any thoughts on this [squat jumps]? I would like some advice as I have a
friend who insists on doing this potentially harmful movement with heavy
weights to increase his “explosiveness”.>

*** You do not necessarily have to jump off the floor when doing “jump
squats”. You can try to produce as much vertical force as possible so that
you may rise high onto your toes without leaving the platform. Explosiveness
is not a quality which is best developed by producing large forces under very
heavy loading, but with less heavy weights which allow one to produce high
RFD (Rate of Force Development) and peak power. This means executing
stretch-shortening or prestretching exercises which have a short coupling
time between the eccentric and subsequent concentric phases of action.

One can also do push presses, push jerks or jerks off racks to achieve some
of the some benefits of squat jumps. An explosive semi squat-good
morning-heel raise hybrid can also be a useful exercise in this regard.

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The discussion on weightlifting pulling styles that I have been enjoying with
Istvan Javorek on IWF list continues:

Istvan Javorek:

In addition, I would like to share some of my ideas from my upcoming book:

The Step-by-step phases of the classical Snatch and Clean & Jerk exercise are:

- Start
- Pull to squat or split:
- First phase of pull with leg extension
- First phase of pull with trunk extension
- Second phase of pull: spontaneous knees bent
- Second phase of pull: straight-arms, elbows turned out
- Second phase of pull: final leg-trunk extension
- Second phase of pull: central of gravity on straight vertical line, body
weight between balls of the feet and heels, slightly more toward the heels

- Second phase of pull: hit the barbell on flat foot

- Second phase of pull: due to the inertia the barbell and the athlete’s body
is in weightless ” in suspension” stage

- Second phase of pull: trapezius action
- Second phase of pull: arms action (flexion- extension for snatch:
flexion-elbows’ rotation forward under the barbell) and preparation of
pressing under the barbell

- Squat or Split:
- Legs’ displacement

- Legs’ action (flexion or split) under the bar
- Pressing the body under the barbell
- Recovery:
- Legs’ extension
- Legs’ replacement: from split the front leg first; from squat one leg at a
time

The first and very important thing to figure out for every individual athlete
is the optimal grip as well as the body balance in the different phases of an
exercise. It is easy to measure the athlete’s body segment and to find out
the most efficient body alignment.

In the starting position the arm’s musculature should be relaxed, just holding
the barbell with a firm hook grip. The elbow-shoulders-head position is the
most favorable position to let the trapezius musculature act during the
shrugging movement. Usually the big technical error is a chain reaction from
this phase of the pull.

The common center of gravity in the start should be balanced in the mid
section of the feet, between the balls of the feet and the heels. During the
first phase of the pull the center of gravity should be shifted back more
toward the heels, but the balls of the feet should never lose contact with
the platform.

The first phase of the Pull: – The athlete contracts his/her extensor muscles
and starts the first phase of the pull. The body weight has already been
shifted toward the heels, and simultaneously is opening the ankles’, knees’,
and hip’s (coxo-femoral) joints. In this way the hip and the shoulders are
doing an upward and simultaneous movement, lifting the weight up from the
platform and up to the knees’ level. From this point the knees are extended
slightly. (In weightlifting never extend the knees to a complete extension
during a pull or a jerk. A little flexion must be in the knees’ joint,
permitting to the athlete to distribute the barbell’s weight equally on the
whole osteo-muscular system, finding the perfect balance on the middle of the
feet, holding the center of gravity between the balls’ of the feet and
gradually more toward the heels.) The athlete’s torso still should be over
the barbell, with a straight, tight back. The elbows turned out, and the
shoulders turned in.

In the beginning of this first phase of the pull it is very important to
extend the barbell and just after that to start the lift, because of the
barbell’s elasticity and the spaces between the holes in the plates and the
barbell’s sleeves. This is the first time when we can apply in weightlifting
Newton’s First law of physics: “Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction”.

The start of the pull has to begin slowly (in any case slower than the next
phase of the pull), similar to the action of a rocket propelling from the
surface. The motion is initiated gradually, and then increased in velocity.
With a fast start, the rocket would fall down because it could not increase
the velocity anymore. This same situation also occurs in weightlifting. In
this phase the common center of gravity is balanced between the balls of the
feet and heels with a tendency more toward the heels. The first phase of the
pull should be executed in this body balance, gradually extending the knees
and holding the trunk with an extended (concave) back straight and over the
bar.

The head position is still in continuation of the back, looking forward down
on the platform. The shoulders are still turned in, elbows turned out and
straight. Further into this phase the athlete straightens his/her knees and
lifts the barbell up to his/her knee level, making a very opened knees angle
and a 90 – 94 degree hip-trunk angle. The most important part of the pull is
the following: the athlete starts to straighten his/her trunk upward, pushing
his/her knees involuntarily forward, shifting the center of gravity back in
the middle of the feet. The athlete is doing an inherent, automatic
movement, bending his/her knees slightly and straightening the back
completely. His/her bodyweight is still flatfooted but shifted more toward
the balls of the feet, with the toes free to move, without any body weight on
them. This is the phase which we refer to incorrectly as the
second knee bend phase.

During the complete motion of the first phase which is actually two different
sub phases (“Up” to the knees, and then “Up” to the upper part of the
“thighs”), it is very important to find the optimal counter-balance position.
When the athlete finishes the so-called “double knee bend” motion he/she is
in the strongest osteo- muscular correlation. This phase is the so-called
“hit” position. In this position the athlete “hits” the barbell with his/her
legs’ and scapular muscles at the same time, and gives to the barbell the
biggest possible upward action . The athlete, with this perfect movement
gives the barbell a projection so that it conforms to the physical laws of
matter in suspension.

On this point is the biggest technical misconception. Several coaches are
teaching the athletes intentionally shifting the body weight all the way
forward onto the toes and to rise up onto the toes. This movement onto the
toes will cause the athlete to swing the bar forward, shifting from its
position of up and behind the vertical line. The barbell’s distance of
travel will be lengthened and will give a false forward trajectory, which is
harmful to the athlete’s knees’, hip’s and shoulders’ joints.

Mel Siff:

*** Neither video analysis or free body diagram analysis shows that
plantarflexed pulling necessarily results in a marked horizontal force
component away from the body. If that happens it is due to deficient
technique or imperfect use of the “hitting” of the bar (often against the
body), as described below in your next comments.

Istvan Javorek:

For maximum efficiency it is best to perform this phase of the pull
flatfooted with the center of gravity in the middle of the foot with a slight
inclination toward and gradually more on the balls of the feet, but not in
any case on the toes. During this phase, the athlete is imitating a
standing and backward acting, double leg bounce, with the knees very slightly
flexed. Actually, when utilizing the combined forces of the legs and
trapezius sufficient power and speed are developed for a maximum and
efficient lift.

To be more understandable I would like to go into more depth in explanation
of this part of the pulling phase. When the athlete “hits” the bar with an
optimal strength in an optimal position, sufficient inertia and velocity can
be developed to be capable of executing the pressing motion under the barbell
with maximum efficiency. (Due to the inertia of the weight, the whole
barbell with the plates becomes suspended and its weight 0.00 kg). On this
weightless in suspension phase of the barbell the athlete body is in
suspension also, because when an athlete “hits” the barbell on a perfect
vertical line, with straight, turned out elbows, and turned in shoulders,
his/her body forms a compact object with the barbell. This is why when the
barbell becomes suspended due to the inertia; the athlete’s body becomes
weightless also.

The athlete, being a human who has learned from an early age to walk on two
feet in a vertical position, the first conditioned reflex, which acts on an
athlete in this weightless stage, is trying to find the platform, (the
supporting surface) for balance. This is the phase when the majority of the
pictures of world champions show the athletes in the “toward the toes”
position. If someone looks more closely at these pictures, they will see
that the athlete actually is not on his toes, and that the balls of his feet
are closer to the platform than his toes.

Mel Siff:

*** No matter what description is offered of what one sees on slow motion or
freeze frame video, the fact is that ANY degree of plantarflexion is revealed
by the heels being raised. Let’s forget whether the lifter is actually
rising to the toes or the balls of the feet – the fact is that some degree of
plantarflexion is taking place, with the extent being determined by the
magnitude of the load and individual characteristics of the lifter. Analysis
certainly shows that premature plantarflexion before the bar reaches a level
nearer the hips tends to be a less efficient way of pulling, but, so far, I
have seen no similar scientific analysis which categorically shows that
well-timed or simply reflexive plantarflexion is inferior to flatfooted
pulling.

Istvan Javorek:

During the “hitting” phase, if the athlete intentionally is getting on
his/her toes, the athlete will project the barbell forward losing the
verticality of the barbell and wasting its benefit. Secondly for this reason
and as an effect of it, the athlete will lose the benefit of being a compact
object with the barbell, which is not possible when the bar is mowing
forward.

Mel Siff:

*** As I have noted before, this is not necessarily true. It is usually a
result of poor technique. If it is, let’s see even a very basic free body
diagram analysis which corroborates this point of view. By the way, some of
the world’s top lifters also jump backwards with the bar, an action which a
lso lengthens the trajectory followed by the bar – is this method also
inadvisable, even though some coaches actually teach it?

Finally, if an athlete gets on his/her toes intentionally, he/she will ruin
this weightless, “in suspension” momentum (phase). Consequently, it becomes
difficult and potentially dangerous to accomplish the next phase of the
exercise, because the law of gravity, which attracts all objects toward the
center of the earth, will influence the motion further. This phase in our
situation is the squatting or splitting and pressing under the barbell
(squat, split and power snatch, squat, split or power clean).

Mel Siff:

*** Aha! Since you are now adding the word “intentionally” to the discussion,
you seem to be heading more in the direction of my Alternative #3 stated in
my original letter on pulling, namely: “Alternative # 3. Most lifters don’t
really concern themselves with what happens to their heels during the pull
and that they simply focus on pulling as powerfully as possible, no matter
whether this involves plantarflexion or not.” Would this be correct?

Istvan Javorek:

I do not contest that results can be achieved in this phase by an athlete,
when he/she finishes the movement with the center of gravity more toward the
balls of the feet, with a slight heel raise, (due to the before-mentioned
weightless stage, but not intentionally). But I do believe and state, that
rising intentionally on toes is not correct. Actually I consider, balancing
on the side edges and flat foot with a slight heel raise better, with an easy
shifting of the center of gravity toward the balls of the feet. See Nicu Vlad
1984 Olympic champion’s 220 kg clean and jerk and Pavel Kuznetsov’s world
record clean and jerk photo sequences. (Photos by Bruce Klemens). This style
of displacing the feet is much more, efficient, beneficial and advantageous
in my opinion for placing the body in the proper position for the next phase
(replacing the feet). Also if you look at Vardanian sequences you see what I
mean the adaptation of perfect technique to a particular athlete.

The first phase of the pull should be slower in comparison with the vertical
“hitting” phase, which requires the most explosive motion of a snatch or
clean exercise. The barbell must be continuously in the closest possible
position to the athlete’s body. In this phase the athlete is pushing his
feet into the platform, like driving a nail into the platform with his/her
heel. As a confirmation of the previously mentioned Newtonian law of
physics, the barbell will action upward due to the plates’ opposite reaction
and at the same time due to the tremendous, continuation action of the
trapezius musculature. This is the “momentum” when the athlete must press
his/her body under the bar for a perfect clean or snatch. On this phase it is
so important to “meet” the bar on its maximal position during that
weightless situation. This is the so-called “momentum” of a lift.

My good friend Bud Charniga, told me a year ago, that he was analyzing since
I had a clinics at USAWL Federation in 1984 or 1985 my statements about flat
footed technique, and year by year became more convinced the correctness of
my technique and Bud took hundreds of photos at the major international
events).

Mel Siff:

*** Interestingly, Bud also tends to go along more with the suggestion
offered in my Alternative #3. Does this mean that we are heading towards
some sort of consensus or is there still some merit in my other alternatives?

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Here is some discussion from the IWF list between Istvan Javorek and myself
on the weightlifting pull:

Mel Siff wrote:

<I have just completed several hours of normal and slow motion viewing of
video tapes of several recent weightlifting championships, including the
European and World Championships from 1999 onwards in an attempt to assess if
most of the world’s top lifters indeed use the allegedly more efficient
pulling with little or no plantarflexion (heel raise) method vs the style of
pulling with prominent plantarflexion, as has been claimed by some present
day coaches. What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant
degree of plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so,
assuming that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.

This suggests one of several things:

Alternative # 1 The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient
manner and would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted
pulling style?>

Istvan Javorek:

It would not help changing a consecrated athlete’s technique, but would be
more detrimental to his/her performance, due to “confusion” in neuromuscular
coordination (pathways). After Ivan Bosko , former Soviet Union head coach,
arrived in Romania and we started implementing the flat footed technique we
did correct as much as possible any technical errors of the “old ” lifters,
but mostly, we were teaching the flatfooted technique with the new generation
of athletes from the beginning .

Mel Siff:

<Alternative # 2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling
style produces better results for them. In other words, different pulling
styles suit different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits
most lifters.

Istvan Javorek:

How I mentioned, if an athlete learned with plantarflexion, would be pretty
hard and time-consuming changing into flatfooted technique. It is obvious
that all of them feel more comfortable with the already-formed pathways- and
so will lift more with their technique. But this statement does not mean that
his/her plantarflexion technique is more beneficial than the flatfooted and
does not exclude the he/she would not lift more (in case of learning from the
beginning) with the flatfooted technique.

[Mel Siff: Not does it mean that the flatfooted technique is universally
superior - I am still trying to find some published biomechanical studies
which have shown that the flatfooted style is more efficient than any other
style of pulling.]

So forget about those “already formed” athletes. Start with the young ones,
from the beginning with the right technique. I have been coaching
weightlifting since 1968 and I have not met any beginning athlete to consider
suiting more plantarflexion versus flatfooted technique. It is the coach’s
duty and knowledge to adopt the right methods of finding out how to modulate
an athlete’s individual physical characteristics into the right technique. In
case of taller athletes for example, it could be a higher start position,
etc. But with a young beginner the most important to develop the right
musculature with the perfect technique and form. Then every athlete will
feel obviously easier with flatfooted technique.

[Mel Siff: Why is this "obvious"? It is obvious that any athlete will feel
that any well-established technique is easier than any attempts at trying a
novel style. So far, if one compares lifts of plantarflexed vs flatfooted
pulling style lifters across the bodymass divisions and over the years, there
does not appear to be any trend showing that either style of pulling produces
superior totals or safer lifting. Once again, I am seeking scientific or
biomechanically models which show that one of the two styles is suprior or
inferior to the other, but nobody has yet supplied the requested evidence.
Does it exist or do we simply have to rely on opinion and subjective
experience until such evidence one day emerges?]

Mel Siff:

<Alternative # 3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what
happens to their heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling
as powerfully as possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or
not.>

Istvan Javorek:

A lot of athletes are taught with bad technique at their clubs. Coming up to
the national teams, a national team coach can do just one thing: try to
correct small technical mistakes, but in the long run let the athlete to
perform how he/she learned .

Conclusion: An athlete who learned with plantarflexion, or let’s say with
improper technique, probably never will be able of correcting his/her habit)
and especially with heavy weight will act with his/her) very well formed
conditioning reflex way(pathway).

[Mel Siff: Are you stating categorically that plantarflexed lifting is
universally inferior to flatfooted pulling? If so, once again I respectfully
request seeing research which shows this to be true in terms of biomechanics,
thermodynamics or superior results for a large population of lifters of
different bodymass and different anthropometrics. Do you consider
Alternative # 3 also to be incorrect? Is there no room for individual choice
of pulling style? ]

When we tried in Romania, (after Ivan Bosko’s arrival) to correct or change
the old lifters’ technique, we learned that it is almost impossible, because
of the very strong pathways. So we better started with the young athletes to
teach very successfully.

Lifting very heavy weight with plantarflexion does not mean that the
respective athlete has good technique!! I’m sure if he or she would learn
(as a young beginner) the right technique he/she would be able to lift more.
Several times great coaches also do not pay too much time changing an
athlete’s technique for two reason: a)they are already successful with the
plantarflexion technique b)would make more damage than good to their
improvement.

[Mel Siff: Lifting very heavy weights or winning a world event with a
flatfooted style also does not mean that the lifter has good technique. Both
styles of pulling produce exceptional results - can we prove scientifically
that one style is universally superior to the other? Even in the absence of
laboratory biomechanical analysis, we can certainly use basic free body
diagram (theoretical) methods to show that premature plantarflexion is less
efficient than late stage plantarflexion, but I have not yet seen similar
free body analysis which shows that flatfooted pulling produces a more
efficient overall lift than plantarflexed pulling. So, even if nobody can
produce the required laboratory analysis comparing the two styles of pulling,
can anyone please produce some basic free body or other theoretical analyses
to take this comparison beyond the subjective level of commentary that we
have seen so far? Any offers from anyone? ]

As an example: In Romania in the late 1930s there was a young man from a
mountain village who, without too much preparation jumped over 7.50 cm in the
long jump using the grouping style and became Balkan champion. So, all of
the coaches from the national team became over excited and they were trying
to teach him Jesse Owens’s hitch kicking technique. So, after torturing the
poor guy for more than a year, he jumped 7.20 or so!!!

CONCLUSION : ** Never try to change a high performance athlete’s Technique!!
But make corrections and adjustments!! **

5. My main point is how Newton stated in his famous third law of physics:
“every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. Now. If your action is
forward (up on toes, moving the common center of gravity of body forward, the
reaction will be the athlete’s body will move in other direction and the bar
gets away from the torso.

[Mel Siff: Neither video studies nor biomechanical analyses show that
plantarflexion necessarily results in an accentuated horizontal force
component away from the body. The brushing or hitting of the bar against the
body in either style of pulling will produce that sort of horizontal force
component very easily. If the bar swings away from the body during
plantarflexed pulling that is more a consequence of poor technqiue than any
inherent weakness in that pulling style.]

And what is the most important: ** Never mix up a biomechanically correct
technique with any individual athlete’s technique. It does not matter if an
athlete is a world champion, still could have several technical mistakes,
which if are corrected could improve his/her performance.**

[Mel Siff: I fully agree with all of what you have written in this paragraph,
but both the flatfooted and plantarflexed styles may be executed efficiently
or inefficiently. ]

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

For those who may not yet have studied some photographs of the flatfooted and
plantarflexed pulling styles as used by some of the world’s top lifters, go
to the following files in our Supertraining Files section:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files/Pulls1.jpg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/files/Pulls2.jpg
It was written:

> Also pulling is not as big a problem as other matters of technique,
> such as the jerk. Although clean and jerk performances have fallen
> since the 1980s, there are two two snatch records that have exceeded
> the old world records and lifters on average seem to have a higher
> snatch: C&J ration than before. As for the C&J, it is rare to see a
> lifter fail to rack the bar so the pull is rarely the limiting factor
> in the C&J.

Mel Siff:

> [The pull is a crucial aspect of lifting, especially in the snatch, since
> it decrees where and when you are able to drop under the bar to
> catch it and stabilise most efficiently. One cannot compare the lifts today
> with those of several years ago because the IWF idiotically altered the
> bodymass divisions. Incidentally, to which snatch records are you
> referring? ]

Someone anonymously wrote:

The comments above include Mutlu’s 138.5 kg@56 and Markov’s 165 kg@69 snatches
versus the old records in the 56 and 67.5 kg categories (135 & 160).
As you well know, lifts done in today’s bodyweight classes can be
compared to lifts in the old weight classes using the various formula
methods, if not by inspection alone.
Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Here is some discussion that I have been having on the IWF list with the
well-known Denis Reno, long-time producer of Denis Reno’s Weightlifting
Newsletter regarding my weightlifting pull letter.

Denis Reno writes:

<< Dr. Mel — Here is my 10 second answer. I have been coaching over 30
years, writing about it for almost as long, and am a usaw International
coach. Top lifters work very hard to get the bar to their crotch while
keeping their shoulders above or in front of the bar. Then they work hard
and fast to get their hips under the bar on the pull/screw under. They don’t
worry during that max lift about the details. However, solid foot
contact makes a lot of sense from very many perspectives! And I hope that
their coaches drill them in proper technique (which I guess is very similar
for most competant coaches). I’ve never heard a coach tell a lifter to get
to their toes early in the pull (before it gets to their crotch) but I’ve
seen those heels raise off of the platform in a
number of record lifts by world caliber lifters before the bar was above the
hips. >>

*** I am very familiar with your well-known Newsletter and am very pleased
that you responded to this question, something that very few top coaches and
lifters have done.

My original letter was not referring to the obviously unwise premature rising
to the toes, but the fact that many lifters do rise to the toes during the
last stages of the pull before the drop and thrust under the bar. Solid foot
contact is indeed sensible for most of the lift right until the final stage
directly preceding the thrust under the bar — I certainly was not suggesting
some sort of “calf raising” during the earlier stages of pulling. I have
raised this topic again because many new lifters and coaches are becoming
thoroughly confused about the apparently contradictory views about the pull.
And all the responses that I have received so far have been based entirely
upon opinion and empirical observation, not on actual biomechanical studies.

Some have even expressed annoyance and frustration that I cannot grasp the
“obvious”, because “all top lifters today use the flatfooted style” (which a
videographic analysis shows to be patently untrue). Well, as a scientist who
enjoys Weightlifting, I cannot simply accept the obvious or the opinions
without something a little more substantial to answer all the questions that
arise. So far, I lean more towards the view that one needs to simply produce
a well timed very powerful pull following a suitable trajectory, without
stressing either flat feet or heel raising — so that the body will
reflexively and naturally produce the appropriate ankle action as part of the
whole linked kinematic system.

So, in short, has ANYONE out there seen any studies on the different styles
of ankle action pulling? There have been many studies of weightlifting
technique up to the stage when some coaches started proclaiming that one
should not allow the heels to rise during any stage of the pull. Some
coaches have remarked that the foot tends to supinate and rise to the toes
only to allow the lifter to shift the feet a little outwards for the squat
under, but not to actually raise the body or bar any higher. Any comments
on that point of view?

Denis, if you or anyone else would care to join this discussion on my
Supertraining forum, where many lifters and coaches have already offered
their opinions, it would be a pleasure to have you there. Your views are
most important to us. Our home page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA

Here is the next episode in the saga of Russian kettlebell lifting.

Kettlebell Lifting (continued)

PART 2

Extracts from Bud Charniga’s translations of the 1984 Russian Weightlifting
Yearbook (obtainable from www.dynamic-eleiko.com).

Kettlebell lifting requires two physical qualities: strength and endurance,
the combination of which produces a new quality- strength-endurance.

Flexibility, coordination and speed are qualities that are not involved in
kettlebell lifting; one should understand however, that kettlebell lifting is
unlike gymnastics, acrobatics, figure skating and many other sports.

As is known, strength and endurance develop and are perfected over a rather
wide age-range, therefore, results in kettlebell lifting can increase over a
longer period of time and over a wider age-range.

Let’s look at the effectiveness, or in other words, the training results of
kettlebell workouts. If a means of physical education can have all of the
aforementioned positive qualities, but its training-effect is low and it does
not exert a strong influence on the body, then on the whole, the value of
such a means will be low.

One can determine the influence of various means of physical education by
testing the athletes and comparing the test results during workouts with
different types of exercises.

We studied (at the Voronezhsky Farming Institute) the influence of kettlebell
lifting on the development of fundamental physical qualities over several
years. Based on the results of the first control tests: 1,000 metre
cross-country, 100 metre run, pull-ups, standing long-jump; three study
groups were formed from the students who took part two experimental (19 men)
and one control (21 men), of equivalent capabilities. We obtained the
following data. The initial mean results in the 1000 metre cross-country, was
3 min 48 sec for the experimental groups and 3 min 45 sec for the control
group. At the end of the first year of training the results were:
experimental groups 3 min 11 sec; the control group 3 min 13 sec. After two
years of training the results were: experimental groups 3 min 2 sec; the
control group 3 min 9 sec.

The pull-up results changed in the following way. The initial mean result
over a year (in the experimental groups — 6.3 times and 6.8 times in the
control group) increased to 8.8 in the experimental groups and to 8.38 in the
control group. By the end of the second year of study the experimental
group’s results increased to 9.8 times and the control group to 9.25 times.
The standing long jump dynamics were as follows. The initial mean in the
experimental groups was 204 cm and 203.7 cm in the control group. This
increased to 211.2 cm after one year of sessions in the experimental groups
and to 207.2 cm in the control group. At the end of the second year of
training these figures increased to 213.3 cm and 210.3 cm respectively.

The results of the 100 metre tests were as follows. In the experimental
groups the initial mean result was 14.4 sec; after the first year of training
it improved to 13.62 sec and after the second to 13.44 sec. Improvement in
the control group was somewhat slower. The initial result was 14.37 sec.
After the first year of training the mean result was 13.69 sec and after the
second year 13.48 sec.

The results of the experimental groups were higher than those of the control
group in all of the tests. The absolute improvements in the tests were: 100
metre run– Kettlebell lifters, 0.96 sec; control group, 0.86 sec; in the
cross-country –experimental groups, 0.46 sec and 0.36 sec in the control
group; in the standing long jump 9.3 cm and 6.6 cm respectively; in pull-ups
3.59 times for the kettlebell lifters and 2.45 times for the control group.

As is known, the Physical Work Capacity PWC170 test [see Siff MC,
"Supertraining" for details] is an important indicator of an athlete’s
general _physical work-capacity. Athletes who participate in cyclic types of
sports usually have the highest PWC170 scores. Kettlebell exercises are
cyclic, therefore we assumed that the work-capacity of kettlebell lifters is
high.

We studied .22 athletes who were either master of sport or Class I. The
PWC170 fluctuated in the range of 1180 to 1622 Kg M/min and the group mean
was 1486 Kg M/min. The relative PWC170 was 19.5 Kg M/min per kilo of
bodyweight.

So, kettlebell lifting, is quite suitable as a means of physical education
for a wide range of sports. The appropriateness of kettlebell lifting is
associated with the possibility of individual workouts, the technical
simplicity of the exercises, the ease of obtaining equipment, and the
possibility of training and competing with people of different ages.
Kettlebell lifting develops basic physical qualities and increases physical
work capacity. All of these lead one to consider kettlebell lifting an
effective means of physical education.

——————–

Attempts to devise Universal Rules of Competition and Classification Norms in
Kettlebell Lifting

Starodubtsev M V

The growing popularity and the “mass character” of Kettlebell lifting; its
transformation from a regional small- departmental sport, to a sport which
will be included in the Unified All-Soviet Classification System makes it
necessary to devise universal rules of competition and classification norms
for kettlebell lifters. Our purpose was to answer the following questions:

1. To determine the competition program.
2. To determine the optimal number and range of weight classes..
3. To devise evaluation tables for objective team scoring.
4. To establish equivalent work classification norms for all weight classes.

The Competition Program.

At present there are two events in kettlebell lifting — the Snatch with one
kettlebell and the Clean & Jerk with two kettlebells. These can be agreed on.
We think there is reason to believe that there are more significant and
effective exercises for Candidates to Master of Sport (CMS) and Masters of
Sport (MS); namely:

1. Snatch with two kettlebells, similar to the snatch with a barbell (in a
half-squat or full squat position) or by lifting the kettlebells between the
legs. Repetition snatches, executed without losing tempo.

2. Clean and jerk with two kettlebells with multiple cleans and jerks (same
number of cleans as jerks). After jerking the kettlebells, lower them into
the hang position and without losing tempo, lift them to the shoulders for
repetition jerks.

By way of comparison, firstly, these exercises involve more muscle groups;
secondly, they have a symmetrical influence on the body; thirdly, they reduce
the possible number of repetitions, thereby lowering the probability of
injuring the hands and shortening competitions. The clean and jerk with two
kettlebells can be utilized by the other classifications and the snatch with
one kettlebell is not executed by turns, but alternately with each hand
switching the kettlebell from hand to hand in the hang position. This enables
the athlete to avoid asymmetric development and will contribute to equalizing
the number of lifts by each hand.

Quantity and Range of Weight Classes. The optimal number and range of weight
classes is determined by correlation equations expressing the dependence of
results in the competition exercises on the athlete’s bodyweight. Let’s look
at how such equations are established. We used the results of the all-Soviet
competition held April 22-24, 1983 in Klaiped as the initial data….

For the rest of the article, see 1984 Weightlifting Yearbook.

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Some of you have expressed an interest in kettlebell lifting, so here is some
Russian information on this topic, based upon Bud Charniga’s translations of
the 1984 Russian Weightlifting Yearbook (obtainable from his website at
www.dynamic-eleiko.com). This is the first of two episodes.

PART 1

Kettlebell Lifting

From the Editors.

Weightlifting Yearbook, 1984 Fizkultura I Sport, Moscow

In September of 1981 the decree of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union “To further raise the mass character of Physical
Culture and Sport” gave new impetus to the development of all “mass” forms of
strength training; which, besides the classic Olympic type ‘of weightlifting,
folk exercises with weights, such as kettlebells, as well as other loads,
apparatus and training devices for the development of strength-athletic
gymnastics, are included.

The leaders in the development of these mass types, who at present are in the
organizational stage, have recruited many hundreds of thousands of our
citizens and have formed an Athletic Gymnastics and Kettlebell Commission
under the auspices of the USSR Weightlifting Federation. Beginning with this
issue, the editorial-board is starting a new section “Kettlebell Lifting”
which can be subsequently expanded to publications on athletic gymnastics.

The reader’s attention is directed to the following two articles, in which
objectives and methodological questions of kettlebell lifting are outlined.
Furthermore the methodology of assessing competition results of a Kettlebell
lifter in light of the scheme to prepare classification norms is presented as
part of the Unified All-Soviet sport classification of 1985-1988. These
articles are not only sources of information but they are serve to open
further discussion (therefore, it is possible that not all of the authors’
viewpoints and recommendations will be universally accepted by the readers).

Kettlebell lifting is a very old and, at the same time, a young sport. It is
very old because kettlebell exercises have been around since time immemorial.
It is young because up until the present time, there were no rules of
competition or classification norms on the all-Soviet scale. Undoubtedly, as
kettlebell lifting develops rules, classification requirements and norms will
be subjected to revision.

———————–

Kettlebell Lifting as an Effective Means of Physical Education

Voropayev V I

In recent years interest in one of the national types of sport — Kettlebell
lifting has increased significantly. The number engaged in organizing groups
and sections-in the physical culture and state-farm collectives, schools,
industries and the armed-forces, have increased. Many competitions, of
different scale, are being held. They are becoming more wide-spread.

However, along with the great number of enthusiasts of this type of sport
there are people who consider it an antiquated and ineffective means of
physical education. Over a period of several years we researched kettlebell
lifting as an effective means of physical education.

It is known that if physical exercise lacks two fundamental qualities –
accessibility and effectiveness, it loses its value as a means of physical
education. We attempted to analyze kettlebell lifting in this-light.

Accessibility implies the following:

1. The technique of the exercise is relatively simple.

There are three exercises in Kettlebell lifting competition: press one
kettlebell, clean and jerk two kettlebells and snatch one kettlebell. These
are cyclic exercises with comparatively small weights. They are mastered
rather quickly since there is no non-support phase (as in weightlifting) or
complex movement of the athlete (as in gymnastics and acrobatics).

Although the general center of mass shifts, it is identical in each phase of
the exercise. It has been demonstrated in practice that an athlete of average
physical development can acquire the technique of the Kettlebell triathlon in
4-6 months. This enables one to devote more time to the development of
physical qualities per se.

2. The Ability to train Individually or in Groups.

The best form of training organization is the study group. However, working
aboard a ship, at a field-camp, working shifts and many other occupations do
not permit one to train in a group; but one must train periodically with an
experienced coach, who controls the training plan. Training alone with
kettlebells does not require a sport hall or large area. One can lift
kettlebells in practically any place which has about 4-5 sq m of free space.

3. The Simplicity of the Training Equipment.

The training equipment for Kettlebell lifting is the least difficult to
obtain in comparison with many other sports. The training and competition
costumes are trunks, vest and any athletic shoes. It should be pointed out
that a kettlebell is a durable piece of equipment. Kettlebell practice is not
limited by large exploitation. This gives Kettlebell lifting a significant
advantage over many others, which require a large expenditure on materials
for workouts.

Everything that concerns training materials, of course, should be considered
somewhat more broadly. The Kettlebell lifter should use barbells, run, throw,
do flexibility exercises and take part in skiing and other sports that
require additional training equipment. This is also true for other types of
sports. Thus, track and field athletes lift weights, exercise with medicine
balls, play different sport games, lift kettlebells and do gymnastics.
Therefore, when one speaks of obtaining training equipment, one has to bear
in mind that this is in reference only to the equipment needed for this one
sport.

4. Small Risk of Injury.

Studies of the Kettlebell triathlon indicate the exercises are not dangerous.
These exercises are not associated with great risk when correctly executed.
Tearing of the skin on the palm of the hands due to the improper preparation
of the apparatus (the handle of the kettlebell should be smooth, carefully
polished and rust-free) is the most common injury. This type of injury can
occur even with a smooth, polished kettlebell, but this happens after a lot
of tearing in workouts, when the hands are tired. Consequently, the type of
injury associated with Kettlebell lifting is not due to the nature of the
sport itself, but to outside factors, which can be avoided.

5. The wide age-range of Participants.

The value of any means of physical education increases considerably if it can
be utilized by different age groups. As a means of physical education,
kettlebell lifting has such value. Although the age-range of kettlebell
lifters at present has not been fully researched; practice has shown, that
the ages of the participants varies over a wide range. The average age of
the. competitors at the 1980 regional tournament in Lipetsk was 26 years. The
oldest competitor was 49 and the youngest 16 years old. At the 1981 republic
tournament in Kazan, the mean age was 25.5 years. The oldest competitor was
48 and the youngest was 15 years old. At the moment, the move to expand the
age limits of the participants is one of the problems in athletics. In many
types of sports, athletes who begin at 16-17 years of age are considered to
have no prospects, and competitions in some sports are converted to
“children’s competitions”…..

END OF PART 1

TO BE CONTINUED

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

The following article discusses the correlations between the Olympic lifts
and various tests of physical structure and function. Note that there is a
high correlation between Weightlifting Performance in both lifts and HEIGHT
of the pull during the snatch and the clean — this relates to the discussion
on lifting pulling techniques that we are also analysing at the moment.

———————–

Predictive Value of Physical Development Tests, Physical and Technical
Preparedness on the Structural-Functional State of Weightlifters in the
Pre-Competition Period

Yasyunas VA & Gailyunene AV

[Some extracts appear below -- see the full article in the 1982 Russian
Weightlifting Yearbook translated by Bud Charniga at www.dynamic-eleiko.com]

The rapid growth of results in weightlifting is the result of many factors.
The most important role here is the constant improvement in training methods.

The perfecting of training methods is manifested by the increased volume of
the training means, the increase in the volume and intensity of the training
loads and the control of the athlete’s state (physical, technical,
functional). Control of the individual aspects of the athlete’s preparedness
requires special attention.

It is known that the given controls serve as the objective basis for planning
the training loads (Vorobyev, 1971; Zatsiorsky, 1979). In conjunction with
the influence that the different training methods have on the body’s organs
and systems, the athlete’s strength, speed or endurance improve. This rise in
work capacity is displayed in the form of structural and functional
adaptation. Direct or indirect changes in adaptive response enable one to
draw conclusions about the physiological effect of training and help to
determine the athlete’s state of trainability.

Programmed tests are repeatedly criticized because competition achievements
(or training) do not always coincide with test results. However, the
generalized assessments of a complex of tests, correlated with adequate loads
helps to yield an objective assessment concerning the state of trainability
at a given time. The use of these tests can be of great assistance to the
trainer in determining the effectiveness and the detection of deficits in
training and contribute to more rational training methods.

Moroz (1951), Vorobyev (1964-1971), Roman (1965), Sokolov (1970), Chernyak
(1967-1971), Ippolitov (1975), Oleshko (1980) and other authors have
attempted to determine weightlifters’ level of physical and technical
preparedness. However, the specialised literature indicates that these and
other authors used many different tests and their data was collected under
the most diverse conditions. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the data
obtained by the different authors.

Our purpose was to find the most informative tests for determining the level
of physical development, physical and technical preparedness, and the
structural-functional state of weightlifters in the pre-competition period.

Twenty-six weightlifters ages 16-26 of which 16 were Masters of Sport (group
A) and 10 were class I and candidates for Master of Sport (group B) took part
in the study.

The following tests and measurements were used to test the weightlifters’
physical and technical preparedness: vertical jump (V M Abalakov’s method),
vertical jump with 25% and 50% of the subject’s bodyweight on the shoulders,
standing long jump, 5 consecutive standing long jumps, 30 meter sprint from a
walking start, standing and hand dynomometer tests, best snatch and the clean
and jerk, height of the lift for snatch and clean pulls, back squat, static
pull and its ratio to best snatch and best clean and jerk and the criteria of
technical preparedness (Chernyak, 1978).

Considering the fact that the structural-functional criteria of physical
development assessments in weightlifting play an important role not only for
sport selection and orientation, but for the diagnosis and prognosis of sport
mastery, for determining models and standard characteristics and for the
assessment of trainability growth we studied the following indicators: Bruksh
index (%), Erisman index (cm), Vital index (ml/kg), ratio of height to the
length of the lower extremities, Pine index, Adiposity index (kg/m^2), body
surface area (sq m), body length (cm), body mass, bone and muscle tissue (in
kg and % respectively), combined sum of bone and muscle mass (kg); heart
rate, blood pressure and other indices (Kozlov & Gladysheva, 1977; Aulik,
1979; Jackson & Pollock, 1977 and others).

However, not all of the indices studied were of equivalent significance for
diagnosis and prognosis.

From the data in Table 1 it can be seen that there is a statistically
significant correlation for Masters of Sport and Class I athletes with the
maximum snatch in the 16 indices studied.

The highest correlation (r > 0.8) in both groups was between maximum snatch,
back squat, body mass, Pine index, active body mass, height of the lift in
the snatch and height of the lift in the clean.

A statistically significant correlation was obtained (Table 2) with the
maximum clean and jerk and 17 indices for the Masters of Sport and with 11
indices for the class I athletes.

The highest correlation (r > 0.8) in group ‘A’ was between the maximum clean
and jerk and the back squat, body mass, active body mass, combined sum of
bone and muscle mass and height of the lift in the clean.

The highest correlation in group ‘B’ was between the maximum clean and jerk
and grip strength, body mass, height of the lift in both the snatch and the
clean and jerk.

The data indicates that there is a high negative correlation between certain
tests and achievements in the competition exercises. It has been shown that
the most informative indices for determining physical development in the
pre-competition period are the following:

Group A

1. Grip strength
2. Thigh Extension Strength
3. Body mass
4. Pine index
5. Standing Dynamometer strength

Group B

1. Grip strength
2. Torso strength
3. Body mass
4. Body height (length)

Indices of Physical Preparedness

Group A

1. Back Squat

Group B

1. Five consecutive standing long jumps
2. Standing long jump

The structural states of weightlifters in the pre-competition period are best
characterized by the following indicators: body mass, active body mass,
combined sum of bone and muscle mass, body surface area and absolute muscle
tissue mass.

Indices of Technical Preparedness

Group A

1. Height of the lift in the snatch
2. Height of the lift in the snatch pull
3. Height of the lift in the clean
4. Height of the lift in the clean pull
5. Criteria of technical preparedness in the snatch

Group B

1. Height of the lift in snatch pull
2. Height of the lift in the clean pull
3. Height of the lift in the clean
4. Criteria of technical preparedness in the snatch

Table 1 Correlation between Maximum Snatch and Test Results for Weightlifters
of Various Qualification

Master of Sport Test Indices Correlation coefficient r

1. Grip strength 0.598
2. Thigh extension strength 0.784
3. Back squat 0.804
4. Static pull 0.733
5. Body mass 0.805
6. Pine index 0.804
7. Adipose index 0.738
8. Body surface area 0.674
9. Bone tissue, absolute mass 0.618
10. Muscle tissue, absolute mass 0.760
11. Active body mass 0.806
12. Combined sum of bone and muscle tissue 0.773
13. Height of the lift in snatch pull 0.694
14. Height of the lift in the snatch 0.845
15. Height of the lift in the clean 0.845
16. Criteria of technical preparedness in snatch 0.714

Table 1 continued

Candidate for Master of Sport and Class I Lifters

Test Indices Correlation coefficient, r

1. Standing long jump 0.705
2. Five consecutive standing long jumps 0.724
3. Grip strength 0.762
4. Back squat 0.609
5. Torso strength 0.606
6. Body mass 0.794
7. Body length 0.710
8. Bone tissue, absolute mass 0.563
9. Muscle tissue, absolute mass 0.792
10. Active Body mass (kg) 0.820
11. Combined sum of bone and muscle masses 0.791
12. Height of the lift in snatch pull 0.715
13. Height of the lift in clean pull 0.795
14. Height of the lift in the snatch 0.879
15. Height of the lift in the clean 0.872
16. Criteria of technical preparedness in snatch 0.861

Table 2 Correlation between Maximum Clean & Jerk and Test Results

Master of Sport Test Indices Correlation coefficient, r

1. Grip strength 0.702
2. Thigh extension strength 0.729
3. Back squat 0.813
4. Static pull 0.757
5. Body mass 0.849
6. Pine index -0.821
7. Adipose index 0.733
8. Body surface area 0.732
9. Bone tissue, absolute mass -0.573
10. Muscle tissue, absolute mass 0.777
11. Active mass of the body 0.843
12. Combined sum of bone and muscle tissue 0.804
13. Height of the lift in snatch pull 0.621
14. Height of the lift in clean pull 0.637
15. Height of the lift in the snatch 0.849
16. Height of the lift in the clean 0.899
17. Criteria of technical preparedness in snatch 0.779

Table 2 continued

Candidate for Master of Sport and Class I Lifters

Test Indices Correlation Coefficient, r

1. Five consecutive standing long jumps 0.689
2. Grip strength 0.820
3. Back squat 0.759
4. Static pull 0.762
5. Body mass 0.800
6. Pine index -0.658
7. Muscle tissue, absolute mass 0.735
8. Active mass of the body 0.717
9. Combined sum of bone-muscle tissue 0.780
10. Height of the lift in the snatch 0.800
11. Height of the lift in the clean 0.854

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

Member 1:

<<Even if you do not consider technique or differences in lifting styles
(flat-footed vs. plantarflexed), you have to agree that the extra 2-3 inches
of bar height you will gain just by extending onto the balls of the feet
could be paramount to a successful max lift.>>

Member 2:

<This is only true if the peak velocity occurs following the plantarflexion
(and before the squat under). If peak velocity occurs prior to
plantarflexion, and the lifter continues to rise onto the toes, they lose
valuable time that could be used to get under the bar because the bar has
begun to decelerate.>

Dr Mel Siff:  True, but no experienced lifter who uses some degree of plantarflexion
times the plantarflexion action in that inefficient manner.

Member 1:

<<Also, from a biomechanical perspective, it does not make sense that one can
get a more powerful pull by NOT extending the ankles. Considering that the
force applied to the bar during the lift is proportionately related to the
sum of all joint torques, if you have more joints generating extension
torques, you will obviously have higher totals (assuming technique is not a
factor).>>

Member 2:

<But if plantarflexion occurs subsequent to full hip and knee extension, the
hip and knee extensor musculature can no longer apply force to raise the
barbell (or the barbell/lifter system). Therefore, can plantarflexion apply
force greater than that already applied by the hip and knee extensors to
continue to (postively) accelerate the barbell? It is not simply a matter of
applying greater force, or having greater power, the timing of these
variables is equally important (Enoka, MSSE, 1979).>

Dr Mel Siff:

*** Of course, you will have noticed in Enoka’s 1979 paper that two velocity
peaks were identified: one before the bar reached knee level and the next, of
slightly greater magnitude, after the “double knee-bend” action. Moreover,
the lifters in his study were using the “old” plantarflexed style, so we
cannot judge which kinesiological differences occur when a flatfooted pull is
used. Anyway, it is extremely difficult to produce any degree of forceful
plantarflexion after full hip and knee extension, because the body
reflexively integrates plantarflexion into a linked chain of joint extending
actions involving an optimal sequence of knee, hip and ankle extending
actions. A simple experiment – lock your knee and hips, and do not extend
your trunk and see how high you can jump off the ground using ankle
plantarflexion alone.

Member 2:

<This is not to suggest that lifters should not ALLOW plantarflexion to
occur. However, it should be considered that plantarflexion may be a
function or artifact of the vertical momentum of the lifter/barbell system
created by the hip and knee extensors (from Newton, an object in motion …),
rather than consequence of a conscious effort to rise onto the toes.>

Dr Mel Siff:

*** In other words, this comment supports alternative #3 in my original
letter on this topic. Yet, there are some coaches who vehemently militate
against allowing the heels to leave the platform. Just to remind those who
may not have read my original letter, here is its closing statement:

<What I saw was that most lifters still pull with a significant degree of
plantarflexion, so it would be interesting to know why this is so, assuming
that this method should be regarded as archaic and inefficient.

This suggests one of several things:

1. The majority of modern lifters are lifting in an inefficient manner and
would improve their totals if they changed to the more flatfooted pulling
style.

2. Those lifters have found that the plantarflexed pulling style produces
better results for them. In other words, different pulling styles suit
different individuals, but that the plantarflexed style suits most lifters.

3. Most lifters don’t really concern themselves with what happens to their
heels during the pull and that they simply focus on pulling as powerfully as
possible, no matter whether this involves plantarflexion or not.

Which of the above possibilities is correct? Or are there other alternatives?
>

Dr Mel Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/