Technique
The Clean Compared with Its Special Assistance Exercises
English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1982 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1982), pp. 36–38: the text is paraphrased, not translated; data tables are given in full with English labels.
Aim and method
Assistance exercises make up 80% of training lifts, yet the power clean and clean from knee-level blocks, common aids to the clean, lacked comprehensive study. In 25 Masters and International Masters of Sport, vertical ground force, knee angles, bar height and speed were recorded in the clean (90% of maximum) and both exercises (80%, maximal effort up to the squat under); Wilcoxon paired test. Phases (Podlivaev 1976): 1st up to lift-off (MOSh), 2nd preliminary acceleration, 3rd amortisation, 4th final acceleration, 5th unsupported and 6th supported squat.
Power clean
- Faster overall and in each phase thanks to the lighter load. Forces in kilograms were slightly lower, but amortisation was quicker, with less knee flexion and little speed loss, and peak bar speed was significantly higher.
- Knee angles matched the clean except at the 3rd/4th boundary (larger).
- Improves clean technique and special qualities, especially speed.
Table 1. Clean (90%) vs power clean (80%): kinematics at phase boundaries and dynamics in the phases
| Parameter | Phase | Clean, x̄ ± σ | Power clean, x̄ ± σ | Difference | P |
| Knee angle, degrees | 1st | 95 ± 12.5 | 94 ± 7.1 | +1 | > 0.05 |
| 2nd | 157 ± 10.4 | 158 ± 8.4 | −1 | > 0.05 | |
| 3rd | 142 ± 7.5 | 147 ± 5.2 | −5 | < 0.01 | |
| 4th | 172 ± 6.3 | 171 ± 7.7 | +1 | > 0.05 | |
| Ground force F, % of bar weight | Lift-off (MOSh) | 124 ± 8.2 | 127 ± 7.6 | −3 | > 0.05 |
| Maximum | 144 ± 15.7 | 147 ± 8.2 | −3 | > 0.05 | |
| Minimum | 74 ± 23.3 | 82 ± 17.9 | −8 | < 0.01 | |
| Maximum | 182 ± 15.6 | 187 ± 13.6 | −5 | < 0.01 | |
| Phase duration, s | 2nd | 0.51 ± 0.03 | 0.46 ± 0.04 | +0.05 | < 0.01 |
| 3rd | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | +0.02 | > 0.05 | |
| 4th | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | +0.03 | > 0.05 | |
| 5th | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | −0.01 | > 0.05 | |
| Bar speed, m/s | 2nd | 1.14 ± 0.09 | 1.21 ± 0.07 | −0.07 | < 0.01 |
| 3rd | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 1.15 ± 0.09 | −0.13 | < 0.01 | |
| 4th | 1.62 ± 0.07* | 1.71 ± 0.12 | −0.09 | < 0.01 | |
| Bar height H, cm | 2nd | 53 ± 5 | 54 ± 4 | −1 | > 0.05 |
| 3rd | 62 ± 4 | 65 ± 4 | −3 | > 0.05 | |
| 4th | 86 ± 5 | 88 ± 3 | −2 | > 0.05 | |
| H max | 105 ± 5 | 119 ± 3 | −14 | < 0.01 |
* Given as 1.62 ± 0.17 in Table 2.
Clean from blocks at knee level
- The higher start raised lift-off force; ground forces exceeded the clean's, especially in the explosion (peak 225% of bar weight).
- Bar speed was significantly higher (peak 2.09 m/s) and rose almost uniformly. The explosion was much faster, amortisation faster even than in the power clean (the short 2nd phase reflects the high start); knee flexion was smaller and the switch to the 4th phase came at more obtuse angles — more explosive muscle action.
- Develops explosive strength (peak forces in minimal time).
Table 2. Clean (90%) vs clean from blocks at knee level (80%): kinematics at phase boundaries and dynamics in the phases
| Parameter | Phase | Clean, x̄ ± σ | Clean from blocks*, x̄ ± σ | Difference | P |
| Knee angle, degrees | 1st | 95 ± 12.5 | 133 ± 7.4 | −38 | < 0.01 |
| 2nd | 157 ± 10.4 | 162 ± 3.8 | −5 | < 0.01 | |
| 3rd | 142 ± 7.5 | 152 ± 5.6 | −10 | < 0.01 | |
| 4th | 172 ± 6.3 | 177 ± 3.9 | −5 | < 0.01 | |
| Ground force F, % of weight | Lift-off (MOSh) | 124 ± 8.2 | 144 ± 5.1 | −20 | < 0.01 |
| Maximum | 144 ± 15.7 | 166 ± 3.7 | −22 | < 0.01 | |
| Minimum | 74 ± 23.3 | 139 ± 15.6 | −65 | < 0.01 | |
| Maximum | 182 ± 15.6 | 225 ± 19.8 | −43 | < 0.01 | |
| Phase duration, s | 2nd | 0.51 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | +0.33 | < 0.01 |
| 3rd | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | +0.05 | > 0.01 | |
| 4th | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | +0.03 | > 0.05 | |
| 5th | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | −0.02 | > 0.05 | |
| Bar speed, m/s | 2nd | 1.14 ± 0.09 | 1.35 ± 0.07 | −0.21 | < 0.01 |
| 3rd | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 1.41 ± 0.12 | −0.39 | < 0.01 | |
| 4th | 1.62 ± 0.17 | 2.09 ± 0.09 | −0.47 | < 0.01 | |
| Bar height H, cm | 2nd | 53 ± 5 | 57 ± 4 | −4 | > 0.05 |
| 3rd | 62 ± 4 | 64 ± 3 | −3 | > 0.05 | |
| 4th | 86 ± 5 | 89 ± 3 | −3 | > 0.05 | |
| H max | 105 ± 5 | 108 ± 3 | −3 | > 0.05 |
* Headed “power clean” in the source, evidently carried over from Table 1; the difference for 62 vs 64 is printed as −3.
Conclusion
Both exercises, at 80% of the best clean and jerk, suit perfecting the classical clean.