Effect Of The Catch Position On Power Characteristics In Snatch Derivatives

It has been determined that a strong relationship exists between an athlete’s ability to develop high levels of muscular power and athletic performance (Baker, Nance, & Moore, 2001). Therefore, the ability to train lower body muscular power using weightlifting movements, primarily the power clean, has been heavily studied (Kawamori & Haff, 2004). Little or no research has focused on the kinetic or kinematic variables involved in the snatch and variations of the snatch movement. The purpose of this study was to compare the peak power output (PP), peak force (PF), and peak velocity (PV) of three different hang snatch variations: jump shrug (JS), high pull (HP), and hang snatch (HS), at four different relative loads to determine the effect of the overhead catch position on power output. Nine athletic males with at least 2 years of power snatch training experience and no previous competitive weightlifting experience were included in the study. Subjects completed 3 repetitions of the JS, HP, and HS at v relative loads of 30, 45, 65, and 80% of their predetermined 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HS on a force plate. The order of movements performed and order of loads were randomized. PP, PF, and PV were measured using a force plate and potentiometers, and each repetition was recorded. Only the attempt with the highest peak power output (PP) for each individual at each load was used for comparison. The main results from this study showed significant interactions between exercises did occur for PF and PV. However, no significant differences in PP were found between the three exercises used in this study. When comparing the load interactions for PF and PV a significant difference was noted between all 4 loads used. However, no differences in PP occurred between the loads used. Differences in PP for load and exercise interactions were noted, JS produced the greatest amounts of PP at the loads of 30 and 45% 1RM HS while, HS produced the greatest amount of PP at higher loads of 65 and 80% 1RM HS. Results provided by this study may be useful to strength and conditioning professionals when programing the HS movement and its derivatives. Since only minor significant differences were present during the exercise and load interactions between the 3 exercises using HS variations such as the JS or HP for an athlete who is injured or has a hard time grasping the HS technique may still provide beneficial when training for PP.