WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.279
I think utilising clean pools is obviously very

00:00:03.279 --> 00:00:06.799
easy to administer, especially in a competition

00:00:06.799 --> 00:00:08.779
environment. You just have to stick the weights

00:00:08.779 --> 00:00:12.679
on. And also it's biomechanical similarity to

00:00:12.679 --> 00:00:15.039
what you're about to do on the platform is pretty

00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:19.480
high, right? So I think its use is warranted.

00:00:19.480 --> 00:00:21.839
However, you have to be aware it might have positive

00:00:21.839 --> 00:00:24.039
effects on some individuals, but it can also

00:00:24.039 --> 00:00:28.079
have some negative effects. All right. Welcome

00:00:28.079 --> 00:00:30.460
to Evidence Strong Show, Sham. It's my pleasure

00:00:30.460 --> 00:00:32.679
to have you for the third time. First person

00:00:32.679 --> 00:00:36.780
ever to achieve that. And today we are talking

00:00:36.780 --> 00:00:39.600
post -activation potentiation. But before we

00:00:39.600 --> 00:00:41.899
start, could you please briefly introduce yourself?

00:00:42.100 --> 00:00:44.100
Firstly, thank you very much for having me on

00:00:44.100 --> 00:00:46.179
for the hat trick, Alex. Very much appreciated.

00:00:46.520 --> 00:00:49.619
So my name is Sham Chavda. I'm the program lead

00:00:49.619 --> 00:00:52.380
at Middlesex University London Sport Institute

00:00:52.380 --> 00:00:55.060
for the Masters of Strength and Conditioning

00:00:55.060 --> 00:00:58.100
Distance Education. I also work as the lead performance

00:00:58.100 --> 00:01:00.920
scientist and coach at British Weightlifting.

00:01:01.060 --> 00:01:03.960
Excellent. We will be talking about your latest

00:01:03.960 --> 00:01:07.140
paper. So the title is Effect of Post -Activation

00:01:07.140 --> 00:01:10.120
Potentiation on Weightlifting Performance and

00:01:10.120 --> 00:01:13.900
Endocrinological Responses. So let's start with

00:01:13.900 --> 00:01:16.859
what post -activation potentiation is in the

00:01:16.859 --> 00:01:19.000
context of Olympic weightlifting. Yeah, sure.

00:01:19.159 --> 00:01:21.980
So post -activation potentiation is essentially

00:01:21.980 --> 00:01:25.840
using conditioning stimulus that helps elicit

00:01:25.900 --> 00:01:29.560
greater neural drive and force output in a specific

00:01:29.560 --> 00:01:32.239
muscle fiber and actually probably more recently

00:01:32.239 --> 00:01:34.760
the terminology has changed and it is probably

00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:37.640
a reflection i have on this paper is the term

00:01:37.640 --> 00:01:40.719
of post -activation performance enhancement so

00:01:40.719 --> 00:01:43.400
pape as opposed to pat so in the instance of

00:01:43.400 --> 00:01:46.040
weightlifting we were looking at utilizing a

00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:49.299
conditioning stimulants that may help us elicit

00:01:49.299 --> 00:01:52.799
greater forces and power output during a weightlifting

00:01:52.799 --> 00:01:54.900
movement so specifically we wanted to understand

00:01:55.120 --> 00:01:59.019
And if a supramaximal clean pull at 120 % of

00:01:59.019 --> 00:02:02.640
someone's 1RM clean would impact the force and

00:02:02.640 --> 00:02:06.359
barbell mechanics of a clean performed at 90%.

00:02:06.359 --> 00:02:10.680
And also whether that 120 % clean pull would

00:02:10.680 --> 00:02:14.240
alter any endocrinological responses as heavy

00:02:14.240 --> 00:02:17.280
loading has also been posited to acutely increase

00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:20.419
things like serum testosterone, which may enhance

00:02:20.419 --> 00:02:23.000
the force production of an individual. How did

00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:25.990
you design the study? So this study was a collaborative

00:02:25.990 --> 00:02:29.210
study with our biomedical team over at Middlesex

00:02:29.210 --> 00:02:32.689
and primarily was conducted by two excellent

00:02:32.689 --> 00:02:35.610
MSE students, you know, a little while ago now,

00:02:35.750 --> 00:02:38.729
one of them being Dr. Angela Sorensen, of course,

00:02:38.729 --> 00:02:41.110
who you've had on the podcast before, fantastic

00:02:41.110 --> 00:02:43.810
coach and researcher. So essentially the way

00:02:43.810 --> 00:02:45.669
we set this up, it was a randomized controlled

00:02:45.669 --> 00:02:48.909
experiment involving eight ranked collegiate

00:02:48.909 --> 00:02:52.129
weightlifters and they attended two separate.

00:02:52.479 --> 00:02:55.280
testing days, of course, with the order session

00:02:55.280 --> 00:02:58.139
randomized. So in both sessions, we standardized

00:02:58.139 --> 00:03:00.580
the Walmart, which was essentially clean related

00:03:00.580 --> 00:03:03.740
barbell Walmart, followed by working up to 80

00:03:03.740 --> 00:03:06.900
% of 1RM clean performance, performing three

00:03:06.900 --> 00:03:10.360
reps at each load. And these were clustered by

00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:13.759
around 30 seconds between reps and two to three

00:03:13.759 --> 00:03:16.319
minutes between sets. So very typical kind of

00:03:16.319 --> 00:03:19.219
session type. warmup as you would expect in training.

00:03:19.340 --> 00:03:22.639
So the two sessions we had, one of them was a

00:03:22.639 --> 00:03:25.180
control and the other was the experimental session.

00:03:25.419 --> 00:03:28.340
So in the control session, following the warmup,

00:03:28.400 --> 00:03:32.439
the athletes performed three clean lifts at 90

00:03:32.439 --> 00:03:36.780
% of one RM with one minute between each repetition.

00:03:36.879 --> 00:03:39.780
And this session allowed us to establish like

00:03:39.780 --> 00:03:43.469
a baseline. measurement for ground reaction forces

00:03:43.469 --> 00:03:45.710
of the clean, as well as the barbell mechanic

00:03:45.710 --> 00:03:48.310
measured by integrated force plates and motion

00:03:48.310 --> 00:03:51.449
capture. And it also allowed us to obtain baseline

00:03:51.449 --> 00:03:55.189
endocrinological status via saliva samples. On

00:03:55.189 --> 00:03:58.009
the experimental session, they'd come in, they'd

00:03:58.009 --> 00:04:00.669
do their normal warmup up to that 80%, but then

00:04:00.669 --> 00:04:03.189
following that 80%, they performed clean pools.

00:04:03.430 --> 00:04:06.509
So they performed the clean pools doing a single

00:04:06.509 --> 00:04:10.650
repetition at 100 to 120 % of one RM. This was

00:04:10.650 --> 00:04:13.710
followed by a three minute recovery period. So

00:04:13.710 --> 00:04:16.990
the condition stimulus was 120 % at one hour

00:04:16.990 --> 00:04:19.589
in clean pool. The timeframe following that was

00:04:19.589 --> 00:04:22.589
three minutes. And then they conducted three

00:04:22.589 --> 00:04:25.850
repetitions at 90 % on the force plates with

00:04:25.850 --> 00:04:29.110
the motion capture. And in both cases, during

00:04:29.110 --> 00:04:31.410
the control and the experimental, we took the

00:04:31.410 --> 00:04:34.689
saliva samples before the warmup and 15 minutes

00:04:34.689 --> 00:04:37.709
after the last clean performance. Who did you

00:04:37.709 --> 00:04:39.970
invite to the study? It was a very... very small

00:04:39.970 --> 00:04:44.230
sample that we used so arguably it was quite

00:04:44.230 --> 00:04:46.569
underpowered to be very open and transparent

00:04:46.569 --> 00:04:49.589
but the level were regional to national weightlifters

00:04:49.589 --> 00:04:53.329
but when you look at the subject statistics you

00:04:53.329 --> 00:04:55.430
can see the spread is quite large particularly

00:04:55.430 --> 00:04:58.209
with relative strength and also half being male

00:04:58.209 --> 00:05:00.430
half being female so i think the relative strength

00:05:00.430 --> 00:05:03.290
spread was cleaning between one to one and a

00:05:03.290 --> 00:05:05.449
half times body weight which relative to other

00:05:05.449 --> 00:05:07.170
studies that i've published and other people

00:05:07.170 --> 00:05:09.750
have published is probably on the the lower end

00:05:09.750 --> 00:05:12.550
of the relative strength ratio right quickly

00:05:12.550 --> 00:05:15.250
going back to only using eight participants it

00:05:15.250 --> 00:05:17.930
becomes very difficult in our where where we're

00:05:17.930 --> 00:05:21.209
based to get a higher sample size of people who

00:05:21.290 --> 00:05:24.310
are familiar with Declean. But what it did allow

00:05:24.310 --> 00:05:26.410
us to do, and I think this is really important,

00:05:26.529 --> 00:05:28.449
it allowed us to take a step forward to try and

00:05:28.449 --> 00:05:31.350
analyze individuals and discuss that a little

00:05:31.350 --> 00:05:33.129
bit more. And I think that becomes even more

00:05:33.129 --> 00:05:35.449
important, particularly when looking at responses

00:05:35.449 --> 00:05:37.750
within weightlifting and weightlifters, because

00:05:37.750 --> 00:05:39.829
it is an individual sport. And when you look

00:05:39.829 --> 00:05:43.149
at some of the potentiating research, it also

00:05:43.149 --> 00:05:45.870
suggests that there often is an individual response

00:05:45.870 --> 00:05:47.709
that we need to look out for. So I think that

00:05:47.709 --> 00:05:50.009
was a nice opportunity to try and discuss and

00:05:50.009 --> 00:05:52.509
exploit. What did you measure? Our biomedical

00:05:52.509 --> 00:05:55.910
team, they... obtain testosterone and cortisol

00:05:55.910 --> 00:06:00.290
and the ratio between the two using saliva collective

00:06:00.290 --> 00:06:03.670
via swabs and or the kinetic measures so the

00:06:03.670 --> 00:06:06.689
ground reaction forces we used force plates where

00:06:06.689 --> 00:06:10.370
we extracted vertical peak force as well as the

00:06:10.370 --> 00:06:13.829
impulse of waiting one which is essentially the

00:06:13.829 --> 00:06:16.370
first pool the unweighting phase which typically

00:06:16.370 --> 00:06:20.250
refers to the transition and then waiting two

00:06:20.250 --> 00:06:23.110
which typically refers to the second pool and

00:06:23.110 --> 00:06:26.290
this is vertical ground reaction forces and along

00:06:26.290 --> 00:06:28.810
that we had synchronized some motion capture

00:06:28.810 --> 00:06:31.170
to it so we could get some barbell information

00:06:31.170 --> 00:06:35.410
as well and from that we extracted vertical peak

00:06:35.410 --> 00:06:39.029
barbell height and we looked at that as a ratio

00:06:39.029 --> 00:06:41.699
to the height of the actual athlete so Did they

00:06:41.699 --> 00:06:43.720
pull the bar higher, essentially? And we also

00:06:43.720 --> 00:06:45.939
looked at peak power of the barbell as well.

00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:48.579
So was there an ability to transfer all those

00:06:48.579 --> 00:06:50.819
ground reaction forces into the barbell following

00:06:50.819 --> 00:06:53.040
the conditioning stimulus? The strong points

00:06:53.040 --> 00:06:56.439
are that you went with the clean quite high.

00:06:56.540 --> 00:06:58.980
90 % cleans are hard, even for weightlifters

00:06:58.980 --> 00:07:02.100
to execute. And you had force plates and motion

00:07:02.100 --> 00:07:04.660
capture, which are state -of -the -art tools

00:07:04.660 --> 00:07:07.980
to really look at what is going on in terms of

00:07:07.980 --> 00:07:11.079
forces during the movement. So let's... That's

00:07:11.079 --> 00:07:14.319
awesome. The minus would be low sample size.

00:07:14.579 --> 00:07:18.220
Yeah, of course. And I also think maybe the strength,

00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:20.800
the relative strengths within the group as well,

00:07:20.899 --> 00:07:23.620
I think was probably too widespread. What have

00:07:23.620 --> 00:07:26.800
you found? Yep. So ultimately the group findings

00:07:26.800 --> 00:07:28.959
suggested there wasn't any difference between

00:07:28.959 --> 00:07:30.920
the control and the experimental, which is a

00:07:30.920 --> 00:07:33.560
shame because we always hope to find something.

00:07:33.779 --> 00:07:37.279
But what we did notice is that there were definitely

00:07:37.279 --> 00:07:40.089
subject specific responses, meaning some. Some

00:07:40.089 --> 00:07:42.850
did see positive changes, i .e. there was an

00:07:42.850 --> 00:07:45.449
increase in impulse and impede force, but also

00:07:45.449 --> 00:07:48.889
some showed some negative changes, meaning that

00:07:48.889 --> 00:07:52.250
impulse and force actually reduced. And I think

00:07:52.250 --> 00:07:54.680
that goes back... to what i mentioned earlier

00:07:54.680 --> 00:07:57.060
around the advantage of looking at individual

00:07:57.060 --> 00:07:59.860
responses is it's quite important and quite nice

00:07:59.860 --> 00:08:02.740
particularly within an individual sport but when

00:08:02.740 --> 00:08:05.879
we try to understand why we had these results

00:08:05.879 --> 00:08:08.600
i think it comes down to a number of multiple

00:08:08.600 --> 00:08:11.680
factors which i think is important to try and

00:08:11.680 --> 00:08:14.920
outline so the first one i think is to do with

00:08:14.920 --> 00:08:17.560
the time frame following the conditioning activity

00:08:17.560 --> 00:08:21.240
of 120 clean pool so we use three minute now

00:08:21.240 --> 00:08:23.879
potentially that might might be too short to

00:08:23.879 --> 00:08:25.980
create a meaningful change across the board but

00:08:25.980 --> 00:08:27.839
there was a reason why we chose three minutes

00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:30.360
which we cover in the paper and that tends to

00:08:30.360 --> 00:08:33.649
be your last warm -up lift prior to going on

00:08:33.649 --> 00:08:35.929
the platform in a competition, would probably

00:08:35.929 --> 00:08:40.070
be around two to three minutes before you step

00:08:40.070 --> 00:08:42.409
out for your first lift. There has been some

00:08:42.409 --> 00:08:45.990
evidence that has suggested three minutes between

00:08:45.990 --> 00:08:48.549
clean attempts is actually more beneficial for

00:08:48.549 --> 00:08:51.450
enhancing force production. So we decided to

00:08:51.450 --> 00:08:53.970
go with that shortest timeframe of three minutes.

00:08:54.190 --> 00:08:56.149
But also if you think from a tactical perspective,

00:08:56.330 --> 00:08:58.870
if you have a group of athletes clustered together

00:08:58.870 --> 00:09:01.929
and there are changes occurring on the board...

00:09:02.120 --> 00:09:04.399
pushing your athlete later and later down the

00:09:04.399 --> 00:09:07.279
line in terms of getting on the platform, then

00:09:07.279 --> 00:09:10.899
maybe three minutes is probably about right.

00:09:11.179 --> 00:09:13.179
And of course, there's far more we can discuss

00:09:13.179 --> 00:09:15.899
around timings and future research moving forward.

00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:18.279
So we utilised three minutes and that could be

00:09:18.279 --> 00:09:21.019
too short. And the influence this can have on

00:09:21.019 --> 00:09:23.419
the outcome is that during a heavy conditioning

00:09:23.419 --> 00:09:26.120
stimulus, the central nervous system recruits

00:09:26.120 --> 00:09:28.820
high threshold motor units, primarily type 2

00:09:28.820 --> 00:09:31.539
muscle fibres, for increasing rate coding. and

00:09:31.539 --> 00:09:33.879
this is what allows us to develop that high amount

00:09:33.879 --> 00:09:37.299
of force right but if the time after the conditioning

00:09:37.299 --> 00:09:39.740
activity is too short then of course fatigue

00:09:39.740 --> 00:09:42.279
is going to kick in which will then lead to a

00:09:42.279 --> 00:09:44.940
reduction in rate coding reduce my unit recruitment

00:09:44.940 --> 00:09:48.240
and ultimately a decrement in the athlete's ability

00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:51.860
to produce force so getting the timing is critical

00:09:51.860 --> 00:09:55.620
to utilize a heightened central nervous system

00:09:55.620 --> 00:09:58.120
potentiation but of course it is and then you're

00:09:58.120 --> 00:09:59.980
going to get a reduction in performance so it

00:09:59.980 --> 00:10:02.649
could be that the time frame was too short and

00:10:02.649 --> 00:10:05.129
future research may want to look at time frames

00:10:05.129 --> 00:10:08.350
which are slightly longer and you know we see

00:10:08.350 --> 00:10:10.490
that in some of our results where some people

00:10:10.490 --> 00:10:12.929
did respond positively some people didn't but

00:10:12.929 --> 00:10:15.009
as a group there wasn't any real significant

00:10:15.009 --> 00:10:17.429
difference i wanted to ask whether you found

00:10:17.429 --> 00:10:20.149
any differences between female and male athletes

00:10:20.149 --> 00:10:22.710
yeah so i think so it wasn't something we looked

00:10:22.710 --> 00:10:25.690
at directly but what i did look at in a little

00:10:25.690 --> 00:10:28.149
bit more detail after the after the publication

00:10:28.149 --> 00:10:31.009
and even during the process was actually whether

00:10:31.009 --> 00:10:34.169
the strength level would affect the outcomes

00:10:34.169 --> 00:10:37.169
and our that back into male and female as well

00:10:37.169 --> 00:10:39.570
and the reason we didn't compare male and female

00:10:39.570 --> 00:10:42.509
although we could have again it's you're comparing

00:10:42.509 --> 00:10:45.230
four against four so the conclusion we get from

00:10:45.230 --> 00:10:47.230
that probably isn't very generalizable right

00:10:47.230 --> 00:10:50.529
but when we looked at stronger individuals they

00:10:51.149 --> 00:10:55.029
tended to show us well stronger individuals overall

00:10:55.029 --> 00:10:58.590
are able to exhibit higher contraction capabilities

00:10:58.590 --> 00:11:01.950
and produce more force right and because of that

00:11:01.950 --> 00:11:04.309
they're more likely to elicit central and peripheral

00:11:04.309 --> 00:11:07.169
fatigue because of the absolute loading and the

00:11:07.169 --> 00:11:09.490
absolute forces that they're producing so this

00:11:09.490 --> 00:11:12.230
increased fatigue might mask any potentiation

00:11:12.230 --> 00:11:14.090
especially if you're using a three minute time

00:11:14.090 --> 00:11:16.210
frame so they might need longer to recover right

00:11:16.210 --> 00:11:19.090
with a weaker individual they're not going to

00:11:19.090 --> 00:11:22.460
be producing as much. as much force and the absolute

00:11:22.460 --> 00:11:24.539
loads they're lifting is going to be less even

00:11:24.539 --> 00:11:26.580
the relative loads going to be less as well of

00:11:26.580 --> 00:11:29.740
course but they may also have lower type 2 fiber

00:11:29.740 --> 00:11:32.620
type composition they'll have reduced neuromuscular

00:11:32.620 --> 00:11:35.639
efficiency and lower motor unit recruitment so

00:11:35.639 --> 00:11:38.399
they actually might need less time between the

00:11:38.399 --> 00:11:41.460
conditioning activity and the the performance

00:11:41.460 --> 00:11:43.980
measure so maybe three minutes would be okay

00:11:43.980 --> 00:11:47.299
in this instance but i think if if we look at

00:11:47.299 --> 00:11:51.049
this in a broader perspective our results show

00:11:51.049 --> 00:11:54.259
that the strongest male so coming back around

00:11:54.259 --> 00:11:56.500
to comparing men and female the strongest male

00:11:56.500 --> 00:11:59.639
had the most positive effect as well as the strongest

00:11:59.639 --> 00:12:02.340
female so when we looked at individuals and how

00:12:02.340 --> 00:12:04.720
they responded because i wanted to use this to

00:12:04.720 --> 00:12:07.159
implement with some of my lifters the strongest

00:12:07.159 --> 00:12:09.779
male strongest relative male had the most positive

00:12:09.779 --> 00:12:12.879
changes across all those measures strongest female

00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:15.659
also had the most positive changes across the

00:12:15.659 --> 00:12:18.919
measures and when we look when i kind of rank

00:12:18.919 --> 00:12:23.080
how each in individual based on their relative

00:12:23.080 --> 00:12:26.019
strength responded the females seemed to have

00:12:26.019 --> 00:12:29.039
followed a pattern that I kind of expected so

00:12:29.039 --> 00:12:31.139
the strongest one had the most response the next

00:12:31.139 --> 00:12:33.559
one was the second strongest and then third and

00:12:33.559 --> 00:12:36.200
fourth were just flipped over so the the fourth

00:12:36.200 --> 00:12:38.779
strongest or the weakest female actually had

00:12:38.779 --> 00:12:41.960
the third most positive responses compared to

00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:44.679
the third strongest but when we look at the males

00:12:44.679 --> 00:12:47.659
it was very random so the strongest male had

00:12:47.659 --> 00:12:50.750
the most responses and then after that it was

00:12:50.750 --> 00:12:53.629
no responses. Then after that, it was lots of

00:12:53.629 --> 00:12:55.330
responses. And after that, it was no responses.

00:12:55.429 --> 00:12:58.710
So it kind of explains why we had an overall

00:12:58.710 --> 00:13:01.889
finding of no differences between the control

00:13:01.889 --> 00:13:04.029
and the experiment. But when you take a bit of

00:13:04.029 --> 00:13:06.629
a deeper dive into the information, it does give

00:13:06.629 --> 00:13:09.210
us a little bit more of an idea around the potential

00:13:09.210 --> 00:13:11.730
of the effect of strength and also potentially

00:13:11.730 --> 00:13:14.789
how that distributes itself within males and

00:13:14.789 --> 00:13:18.110
females. Would you have any comments about endocrinological

00:13:18.110 --> 00:13:23.330
responses? Yeah. So the idea behind this was

00:13:23.330 --> 00:13:27.669
that it's been positive that having increased

00:13:27.669 --> 00:13:31.330
serum testosterone increases your force output,

00:13:31.570 --> 00:13:36.330
but also doing high intensity activities. can

00:13:36.330 --> 00:13:39.610
also alter your testosterone cortisol ratio so

00:13:39.610 --> 00:13:43.570
if it's too intense then of course your cortisol

00:13:43.570 --> 00:13:47.169
is going to start to kick up right and the thought

00:13:47.169 --> 00:13:50.370
was well will this conditioning activity keep

00:13:50.370 --> 00:13:53.590
our hormonal status either unchanged or will

00:13:53.590 --> 00:13:56.029
it positively influence it and be a potential

00:13:56.029 --> 00:13:58.950
factor as to why we might be able to produce

00:13:58.950 --> 00:14:01.629
more force or not so that's the reason we kind

00:14:01.629 --> 00:14:04.529
of went into it And unfortunately, nothing came

00:14:04.529 --> 00:14:07.049
out of that. There wasn't anything we could really,

00:14:07.070 --> 00:14:09.850
really discuss on the testosterone and cortisol

00:14:09.850 --> 00:14:12.669
side other than we didn't, or the conditioning

00:14:12.669 --> 00:14:15.490
activity didn't seem to alter it. All right,

00:14:15.490 --> 00:14:18.629
so let's bring it all... together. So for the

00:14:18.629 --> 00:14:21.570
coaches, what they should take out of the study?

00:14:21.690 --> 00:14:25.309
So I think utilizing clean pools is obviously,

00:14:25.450 --> 00:14:28.830
it's very easy to administer, especially in a

00:14:28.830 --> 00:14:30.929
competition environment. You just have to stick

00:14:30.929 --> 00:14:34.429
the weights on. And also it's biomechanical similarity

00:14:34.429 --> 00:14:37.129
to what you're about to do on the platform is

00:14:37.129 --> 00:14:42.039
pretty high, right? So I think it's use. is warranted

00:14:42.039 --> 00:14:44.399
however you have to be aware it might have positive

00:14:44.399 --> 00:14:46.779
effects on some individuals but it can also have

00:14:46.779 --> 00:14:49.940
some negative effects so i think it's important

00:14:49.940 --> 00:14:54.039
to understand what your athlete is used to or

00:14:54.039 --> 00:14:59.259
what they prefer during times where tactically

00:14:59.259 --> 00:15:02.419
the board starts to change so you need to make

00:15:02.419 --> 00:15:05.659
a decision do they do a reduced load and do a

00:15:05.659 --> 00:15:07.720
power variant which would also be incredibly

00:15:07.720 --> 00:15:10.580
interesting to to study and look at a potential

00:15:10.580 --> 00:15:13.320
whether that potentiates to go on the platform

00:15:13.320 --> 00:15:17.519
um or do they like to do a pull instead which

00:15:17.519 --> 00:15:20.620
in that case you can look at varying intensities

00:15:20.620 --> 00:15:25.360
to see where an athlete is able to keep their

00:15:25.610 --> 00:15:27.830
keep or maintain their performance or maybe even

00:15:27.830 --> 00:15:31.250
optimize it so it is very individualized based

00:15:31.250 --> 00:15:34.629
off our findings again that supports that narrative

00:15:34.629 --> 00:15:37.809
of it is individualized if it works for some

00:15:37.809 --> 00:15:39.649
but they don't like doing a heavy clean pool

00:15:39.649 --> 00:15:41.950
and they prefer doing a lighter power clean you're

00:15:41.950 --> 00:15:44.990
probably not going to sell to them do 120 clean

00:15:44.990 --> 00:15:47.740
pool before you go out on the three minutes before

00:15:47.740 --> 00:15:49.340
you go out on the platform it's probably not

00:15:49.340 --> 00:15:52.019
a good sell right so i think it certainly depends

00:15:52.019 --> 00:15:55.779
on what the athlete and coach kind of agree on

00:15:55.779 --> 00:15:59.299
and whether it they find a utility in it or not

00:15:59.299 --> 00:16:02.840
but i think The bigger thing to take into consideration

00:16:02.840 --> 00:16:08.039
is regardless of the negative effects that the

00:16:08.039 --> 00:16:11.500
clean pool had on some of the lifters, they still

00:16:11.500 --> 00:16:14.059
all managed to clean the weight. So actually

00:16:14.059 --> 00:16:16.720
the outcome was still the same. It's just that

00:16:16.720 --> 00:16:19.139
they didn't produce as much force. So they actually

00:16:19.139 --> 00:16:22.919
did it with less, less force production and in

00:16:22.919 --> 00:16:25.559
more of a negative and more fatigued state. So

00:16:25.559 --> 00:16:27.279
you do wonder if you were to go heavier than

00:16:27.279 --> 00:16:30.639
90%, would that then, would that... impact the

00:16:30.639 --> 00:16:33.480
actual outcome of the performance measure which

00:16:33.480 --> 00:16:35.940
is making a successful lift and in the context

00:16:35.940 --> 00:16:38.279
of weightlifting that's what matters so irrespective

00:16:38.279 --> 00:16:41.159
of on my peak force went down of who cares you

00:16:41.159 --> 00:16:42.980
made the lift and that That is quite important

00:16:42.980 --> 00:16:45.360
from a scientific perspective. When we're trying

00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:47.419
to find these nuances to optimize performance,

00:16:47.899 --> 00:16:51.000
of course, this absolutely matters. And I think

00:16:51.000 --> 00:16:53.940
maybe coaches might want to try and experiment

00:16:53.940 --> 00:16:56.840
within their own environment, maybe using things

00:16:56.840 --> 00:16:59.899
like measuring velocity, for example, if they

00:16:59.899 --> 00:17:03.019
don't have access to force plates. Last two questions.

00:17:03.100 --> 00:17:06.700
The first one is one piece of wisdom from you

00:17:06.700 --> 00:17:09.720
as an expert to all the coaches. Oh, I definitely

00:17:09.720 --> 00:17:12.559
wouldn't call myself an expert. but I will keep

00:17:12.559 --> 00:17:15.940
striving towards that. So I think if I could

00:17:15.940 --> 00:17:19.420
pass on one piece of wisdom. I think people should

00:17:19.420 --> 00:17:22.500
stay curious and where possible, test your hunches

00:17:22.500 --> 00:17:25.339
and your hypothesis because curiosity means,

00:17:25.599 --> 00:17:28.119
you know, we're keen to develop and we want to

00:17:28.119 --> 00:17:30.720
better understand our practices. And I think

00:17:30.720 --> 00:17:33.359
that's really important to understand the why

00:17:33.359 --> 00:17:36.779
behind what we do. And don't be afraid to be

00:17:36.779 --> 00:17:38.980
challenged on your thoughts and practices as

00:17:38.980 --> 00:17:41.500
well, as often or not, that's where kind of growth

00:17:41.500 --> 00:17:45.559
occurs. And as coaches, practitioners, as scientists,

00:17:45.980 --> 00:17:49.410
I believe that's where... we should be kind of

00:17:49.410 --> 00:17:51.730
placing ourselves in a place of what do we need

00:17:51.730 --> 00:17:54.809
to understand or what don't i understand and

00:17:54.809 --> 00:17:57.829
how can i develop my understanding of that area

00:17:57.829 --> 00:18:00.849
because then we grow as a scientific community

00:18:00.849 --> 00:18:03.450
to then be able to share you know great information

00:18:03.450 --> 00:18:05.769
and we can pick and choose what works in our

00:18:05.769 --> 00:18:08.250
own environments because at the end of the day

00:18:08.250 --> 00:18:11.210
we don't just do what we do because we enjoy

00:18:11.210 --> 00:18:13.529
it but it's also because we want to get the best

00:18:13.529 --> 00:18:15.970
out of our athletes so being challenged on our

00:18:15.970 --> 00:18:18.650
practices and following up on our curiosities

00:18:18.650 --> 00:18:21.809
means not only do we develop but also it means

00:18:21.809 --> 00:18:25.160
as a proxy our athletes will benefit from it

00:18:25.160 --> 00:18:27.920
as well. Awesome. Thank you. Last question is

00:18:27.920 --> 00:18:30.660
where people can find you if they want to ask

00:18:30.660 --> 00:18:32.900
a question or follow your work, where should

00:18:32.900 --> 00:18:35.880
they go? Yeah, sure. So people can catch me on

00:18:35.880 --> 00:18:41.859
socials or via email. My email is s .chavda at

00:18:41.859 --> 00:18:47.779
mdx .ac .uk. And my socials are shy underscore

00:18:47.779 --> 00:18:51.980
the number two. tweet uh that's for x um and

00:18:51.980 --> 00:18:55.180
instagram is coach underscore chavda right sham

00:18:55.180 --> 00:18:58.500
thank you so much for today and for for the last

00:18:58.500 --> 00:19:01.240
three years oh yeah thank you very much for the

00:19:01.240 --> 00:19:03.799
the hat trick opportunity very much appreciate

00:19:03.799 --> 00:19:05.660
it and i think you're you're doing a great job

00:19:05.660 --> 00:19:08.039
with uh disseminating some really useful information

00:19:08.039 --> 00:19:10.079
out there with these great practitioners and

00:19:10.079 --> 00:19:12.099
scientists that you've had on the podcast so

00:19:12.099 --> 00:19:14.319
so thank you thank you sham cheers