Tuesday, 18 July 2006

TUG2-2: 11:30 - 11:45

EXPLORING THE BIOMECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WEIGHTLIFTING

JERK
Jason Lake, Mike Lauder and Rosemary Dyson
University of Chichester, Chichester, West Sussex, UK
The vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and front foot sagittal plane movement of the
weightlifting jerk were recorded from seven weightlifters. Average knee flexion during the
dip phase was 58 9 degrees (mean SD) at an average angular velocity of 125 16
degrees.s-1 exerting a vertical impulse of 138 17.3 Ns. The peak rate of force
development was 17.2 4.86 BW.s-1, the VGRF continuing to increase from a propulsion
impulse of 113.7 31.2 Ns to a peak drive phase value of 3.5 1.2 BW, extending the
knees by 54 9 degrees. The front foot catch phase peak impact VGRF was 3.4 1.2
BW loading at a rate of 285 119 BW.s-1. The results indicate that although loading rates
are not excessive during the catch phase, careful consideration should be given before
introducing the jerk into the strength and conditioning program of the inexperienced.
KEY WORDS: athlete, force, jerk, kinematics, strength.

INTRODUCTION: The clean and jerk allows the greatest loads to be lifted from the ground
to arms length overhead during weightlifting competition. Jerk performance is illustrated in
Figure 1. At the beginning of the movement the barbell is positioned across the lifters
anterior deltoids (Fig 1, a). A rapid countermovement (~13% of body height, Grabe and
Widule, 1988) (Fig 1, a-b) contributes to explosive lower limb extension (Fig 1, b-c). The bar
is vertically displaced by ~18% of body height (Grabe and Widule, 1988), enabling the lifter
to rapidly descend underneath it by splitting the legs fore and aft catching the bar on locked
arms overhead (Fig 1, d).

Figure 1. The three main phases of the weightlifting jerk: a-c illustrates the countermovement,
encompassing the dip (b-c) and drive phase, and c-d the fore and aft split.

During the jerk relatively large loads are lifted explosively through ranges of motion that are
mechanically similar to many sporting movements (Garhammer and Gregor, 1992). For this
reason, the jerk is increasingly included in athlete strength and conditioning (S&C) programs
(Kawamori and Haff, 2004). Given the recent increase in research interest regarding the
kinetic underpinnings of common S&C exercises (Kawamori et al., 2005; Tricoli et al., 2005)
surprisingly little is known about the weightlifting jerk. This lack of knowledge extends to the
loading characteristics of the jerk catch phase. With this in mind the aim of the present

XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006, Salzburg Austria

Tuesday, 18 July 2006

TUG2-2: 11:30 - 11:45

investigation was to assess biomechanical characteristics of the weightlifting jerk with

specific focus given to countermovement and front foot impact force/time parameters.
METHODS: Following a thorough explanation of the experimental aims and procedures,
seven recreational weightlifters (male n=6, female n=1) provided written informed consent to
participate in the study. The mean (SD) height, mass and jerk load characteristics of the
subjects were 1.74 0.4 m, 81.5 14.6 kg, and 65 20 kg, respectively. Following a thorough
warm up, participants performed progressively heavier single jerks until they reached ~80%
of their estimated one repetition maximum (1 RM) with which two single lifts were performed;
subjects resting as necessary between lifts (Reiser et al., 1996). These lifts were averaged
(Kawamori et al., 2005) for later analysis. Two Kistler 9281 force platforms (0.4 by 0.6 m,
Kistler, Alton, UK) recorded the vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) of each trial. They
were positioned with the 0.6 m edges parallel to each other, the lifter performing the dip and
drive phase with both feet on one platform while the front foot landed on the second platform
during the catch phase. An Opus technologies personal computer running Bioware 3.21
software recorded the VGRF at a sampling frequency of 200Hz for 3 seconds. The split front
foot lower limb movement was recorded using a Peak high-speed video camera (Peak
Performance Technologies Inc, Englewood, Colorado) at a sampling frequency of 200 Hz.
The camera was positioned on a tripod at a height of 0.8 m, 5 meters from and perpendicular
to the lifters sagittal plane. The movement was recorded onto SVHS videotape using
Panasonic high-speed AG-5700-E video recorder. Reflective 3-D markers were positioned
on the following anatomical landmarks: the greater trochanter of the femur, lateral epicondyle
of the knee, and the tip of the lateral malleolus. The centres of these markers were then
manually digitised at 200Hz using a Panasonic AG-MD 830 video player and Peak Motus 32
software for Windows 98 and then low pass filtered using a Butterworth filter with a cut off
frequency of 6 Hz. These anatomical landmarks defined the thigh and shank segments of the
two-segment model that rotated in two dimensions around the knee. A trigger switch was
used to synchronise video and force platform data through a synchronization unit (Peak
performance Technologies Inc, Englewood, Colorado).
The dip un-weighting, eccentric braking, and concentric propulsion phases were identified by
the changes in hip vertical velocity over time (Takarada et al., 1997). From this the bilateral
drive and unilateral catch phase peak VGRF values and phase durations were determined.
The braking and propulsion impulses were calculated as the area under the force/time curve
during the eccentric and concentric phases respectively. Peak rate of force development
(PRFD) values were calculated from the change in force over a 5 ms sampling period, while
the impact-loading rate (LR) was calculated as the change in VGRF to impact peak divided
by its duration. From the two-segment model knee angular displacement, average knee
angular velocity; hip vertical displacement and peak velocities were calculated according to
the methods of Grabe and Widule (1988). Estimates of the peak power output (PPO) were
calculated by multiplying the hip vertical velocity by the VGRF. Vertical GRF, PPO and hip
vertical displacement values were normalised for each individual's body weight (BW) and
height (BH) respectively. All data were exported to Microsoft Excel for analysis and are
presented as mean (SD).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The 80% 1RM jerk loads used during the present
investigation were ~76% of the mean subject body weight. A graphical representation of the
typical VGRF/ time interaction is shown in Figure 2.

XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006, Salzburg - Austria

Tuesday, 18 July 2006

TUG2-2: 11:30 - 11:45

Jerk VGRF
5.00

VGRF (BW)

4.00

Start

UW

Ecc Con

Catch impact

3.00

Drive

2.00
1.00 0

Catch
0.5

1.5

0.00
-1.00

Time (s)
Figure 2. Typical VGRF/time curve of the weightlifting jerk performed with 80% of 1 RM. The dip
phase consisted of the un-weighting and eccentric/braking phase, which were referred to as UW and
Ecc respectively, while the drive phase was referred to as Con.
Table 1. Mean (SD) peak values of jerk performance.

Braking
impulse (Ns)
138 17.3

Propulsion
impulse (Ns)

Peak RFD
(BW.s-1)

Peak
propulsion
VGRF (BW)

Peak catch
phase VGRF
(BW)

113.7 31.2

17.2 4.86

3.5 1.2

3.4 1.2

Peak catch
loading rate
(BW.s-1)
285.24
118.7

The mean knee flexion for the group was 58 9 degrees at an average angular velocity of
125 16 degrees.s-1 during the dip phase. The resultant negative vertical displacement of
the hip was retarded by an impulse of 138 17.3 Ns, achieving a final displacement of 11
2% of body height. The knee angular velocity values were similar to those reported by
Kauhanen et al. (1984), while the hip vertical displacement was within the optimum range
outlined by Grabe and Widule (1988). The total dip phase duration was 4600.08
milliseconds (ms), which was greater than those reported by Kauhanen et al. (1984). This
may be explained by the UW phase duration of 290 160 ms, which was greater than that
reported by Grabe and Widule (1988), while the Eccentric phase duration of 170 30 ms
was consistent with their findings. The PRFD of 17.2 4.86 BW.s-1 (13.52.9 kN.s-1) (Table
1) was recorded ~120ms after the negative maximum VGRF value of the UW phase. This
was much less than PRFD values recorded for dynamic clean pulls (Haff et al., 2000), but
similar to those recorded for counter-movement vertical jumping (Wilson et al., 1995). During
the 70ms Concentric phase (Figure 2) PRFD declined while the VGRF continued to increase,
from an average propulsive impulse of 113.7 31.2 Ns, to a peak of 3.5 1.2 BW (Table 1).
The mean knee extension was 54 9 degrees at an average angular velocity of 211 43
degrees.s-1. The VGRF value was much less than those reported by Kauhanen et al. (1984)
(4.4 to 5.5BW) for district and elite level lifters, respectively. This may be explained by the
higher standard weightlifters and the loads lifted of ~100% 1 RM that were studied by these
researchers (Kauhanen et al., 1984). Despite this the knee angular displacements (Grabe
and Widule, 1988) and angular velocities (Kauhanen et al., 1984) were in good agreement
with the literature. The estimated relative PPO values of 34 9.5 W.kg-1 (3046 472.5 W)
recorded during the present investigation were slightly less than those reported by
Garhammer (1980). However, it should be considered that not only were the lifters studied by
Garhammer (1980) of a much higher standard than the present investigations, but both the

XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006, Salzburg Austria

Tuesday, 18 July 2006

TUG2-2: 11:30 - 11:45

vertical and horizontal work of the bar and the vertical work of the bodies centre of mass was
included in his calculations.
Following the maximum knee extension, the knees split so that the lifter could descend
underneath the bar to catch it on locked arms overhead. During this phase the front foot
impact VGRF reached a peak of 3.4 1.2 BW over a 20ms period, generating an impact
loading rate of 285.3 118.7 BW.s-1 (Table 1). The catch phase data of one subject was
excluded from the analysis because his performance was atypical. Despite previous
concerns about the injury potential of the jerk (Whittle et al., 1988) the loading rates were
much less than those previously reported for cricket fast bowling (Hurrion et al., 2000).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study provided an insight into the kinetic mechanisms
underpinning jerk performance, indicating the large peak power output and peak rate of force
development generated during jerk performance. The peak rate of force development was
similar to those elicited in vertical jump performance and support the use of the jerk in
strength and conditioning programmes.
REFERENCES:
Garhammer, J. (1980) Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 12, 54-60.
Garhammer, J. and Gregor, R. (1992). Propulsion Forces as a Function of Intensity for Weightlifting
and Vertical Jumping, Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 6, 129-134.
Grabe, S.A., and Widule, C.J. (1988) Comparative biomechanics of the jerk in Olympic weightlifting.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 1-8.
Haff, G.G., Kirksey, B., Stone, M.H., Warren, B., Johnson, R.L., Stone, M., OBryant, H., and Proulx,
C. (2000) The effect of 6 weeks of creatine monohydrate supplementation on dynamic rate of force
development. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 326-433.
Hurrion, P.D., Dyson, R., Hale, T. (2000) Simultaneous measurement of back and front foot ground
reaction forces during the same delivery stride of the fast-medium bowler. Journal of Sports Sciences,
18, 993-997.
Kauhanen, H., Hakkinen, K., and Komi, P.V. (1984) A biomechanical analysis of the snatch and clean
and jerk techniques of Finnish elite and district level weightlifters. Scandinavian Journal of Sports
Science, 6, 47-56.
Kawamori, N. and Haff, G.G. (2004) The optimal training load for the development of muscular power.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 675-684.
Kawamori, N., Crum, A.J., Blumert, P.A., Kulik, J.R., Childers, J.T., Wood, J.A., Stone, M.H., Haff,
G.G. (2005) Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean:
Identification of the optimal load. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 698-708.
Reiser, R.F., Smith, S.L., Rattan, R. (1996) Science and technology to enhance weightlifting
performance: The Olympic program. Strength and Conditioning, August 1996, 43-51.
Takarada, Y., Hirano, Y., Ishige, Y., Ishii, N. (1997) Stretch induced enhancement of mechanical
power output in human multi-joint exercise with counter-movement. Journal of Applied Physiology, 83,
1749-1755.
Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., Ugrinowithsch, C. (2005) Shot term effect on lower body
functional power development: Weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 19, 433-437.
Whittle, M.W., Sargeant, A.J., and Johns, L. (1988) Computerised analysis of knee moments during
weightlifting. In Biomechanics XIB, de Groot, G (Ed), p. 885-888. Free University Press, Amsterdam.
Wilson, G.J., Lyttle, A.D., Ostrowski, K.J., and Murphy, A.J. (1995) Assessing dynamic performance: A
comparison of rate of force development tests. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 9, 171181.

XXIV ISBS Symposium 2006, Salzburg - Austria