Bad Science

High pulls vs cleans

Triple extension in the high pulls

I was asked on Tuesday by an athlete who is quite new to weight lifting why I would teach cleans which are quite complex, if high pulls also work the triple extension.
The answer is that I have got a lot of time with this athlete, so can afford to work on his technique without sacrificing his work that will lead to strength and power development. The clean will then enable him to perform the jerks without using a rack.

But, the question is an excellent one, and should be asked by Coaches before they do any exercise or series of techniques, instead of doing something because everyone else is doing it.

• Some National Governing Bodies specifically want cleans coached – why? If time is limited, then
• dumbbell cleans
•  jump squats
• wave squats
•  high pulls

are all useful alternatives for developing power.

Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column in The Guardian is a good read and is an example of how to examine wild claims and pseudo science. This type of objectivity is uncommon in a lot of Coaching practice.

It is especially interesting to read how the over complication of diet has led to a new brand of celebrity nutritionists who are being discredited due to their lack of scientific underpinning.

I keep telling coaches and athletes that they should look at what they are trying to achieve, and find tools that do that job most efficiently.

However, many people become attached to the “magic exercise” or “magic food” and then reverse engineer its usefulness to match the aims.

Further reading:

• Force, power and acceleration   ( a look at the science and terminology).
• Fuelling athletes in the real world  ( great summary of how to present complex information in simple terms).