Kinematical Analysis of the Snatch in Elite Male Junior Weightlifters of Different Weight Categories

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the technical pattern of the snatch in elite junior weightlifters of different weight categories. The sample was a group of 33 men weightlifters from different weight categories. The comparative study included 2 groups, taking into account weight categories. Group A included 17 weightlifters from the lightest categories, 56 and 62 kg; group B included 16 weightlifters from the heaviest categories, 85 and 105 kg. Three-dimensional photogrammetry technique was utilized. Regarding group differences, we can conclude that lifters belonging to heavier categories are more efficient, as they manage to have longer barbell propulsion trajectories, which allows them to exert actions on the barbell for a longer period, especially in the initial lifting phase. They attain greater barbell vertical velocity (p = 0.029), a longer vertical bar trajectory normalized on first pull (p = 0.011), and a greater, although limited, bar height loss on the catch (p = 0.008). Besides, intergroup differences evidence that heavier category lifters observe a different temporal organization of the movement based on a longer first pull (p = 0.000), a shorter transition (p = 0.030), and a longer turnover (p = 0.049). No significant differences were found in the analyzed angular parameters during the first and second pull. We believe the intergroup differences found not to be determining enough to consider a technical model adapted to the characteristics of each body weight category. This confirms that a successful lift is multifactor based and individual dependent. Given its transcendence, this evidence should be taken into account in the technical training of young lifters.

Examination of a lumbar spine biomechanical model for assessing axial compression, shear, and bending moment using selected Olympic lifts

“…Results of previous studies do support the compressive and shear force and bending moment results seen for our spinal model. Kinematic analyses for barbell vertical velocity 25 and angular displacement 51 show the same patterns as our model with declines at the knee and ankle during transition from the first pull to the second pull, a peak at the second pull, and a rapid decline thereafter.…”

“…For example, Campos and co-workers reported no kinetic differences among the power clean, hang power clean and midthigh power clean in a sample of 16 collegiate female athletes, 25 but this was not the case in elite male rugby players, 19,20 indicating that spinal forces and moments may vary among these lifts. Additionally, Escamilla et al 13 reported significant biomechanical differences between the conventional and summon deadlifts, supporting the application of this model during these common variations.…”

“…For the snatch, kinematic analyses have been performed demonstrating differences in both spatial and temporal variables among competitive lifters in different weight classes 25 and of different genders 26,27 and in kinetics due to gender. 28 As was the case with the deadlift and power clean, variations in kinematics were also seen with different loading patterns during the snatch 29 and for younger, compared to older, competitors.…”

Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives: Rationale for Implementation and Application

“…The majority of research on the biomechanical aspects of weightlifting has been focused on the snatch exercise [72, 73, 76, 79, 81-91, 93-96, 98]. Some of this literature reports the use of three dimensional kinematics to track the bar bath and examine joint characteristics [76,84,90,95], while other literature reports investigations of the snatch technique of various populations [72, 73, 81-83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 96, 98]. The remaining weightlifting literature has discussed the technique of the clean and power clean [28,77,78,97], hang power clean [77,80], jerk [71], clean pull and snatch pull [63], hang high pull [61], jump shrug [60], and mid-thigh pull [62] as well as examined technique changes of the clean, power clean, and jerk [87,92,98].…”

A toy model that predicts the qualitative role of bar bend in a push jerk

“…Many of the recent studies have focused on the snatch and clean (Enoka, 1979;1983;1988;Garhammer, 1979;1980;1982;1991;Gourgoulis et al, 2002;Haff et al, 2003;Gourgoulis et al, 2004;Campos et al, 2006;Berning et al, 2008;Lauder and Lake, 2008) with comparatively little work done on the jerk, despite evidence that the majority of missed clean and jerks were due to errors in the jerk phase (Medvedev, Masalgin, Herrera, and Frolov, 1982;Grabe and Widule, 1988). While most weightlifters understand that the elasticity of the bar has a profound effect on the outcome of the lift, many of these studies assume the barbell is a completely rigid object.…”