National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on

Weightlifting for Sports Performance

Paul Comfort1,2, G. Gregory Haff1,2, Timothy J. Suchomel1,3, Marcos A. Soriano4, Kyle C. Pierce5,
W. Guy Hornsby6, Erin E. Haff1,7, Lesley M. Sommerfield8, Shyam Chavda9,10, Stephanie J.
Morris11, Andrew C. Fry12, Michael H. Stone13.
1Universityof Salford, Greater Manchester, UK. 2Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western
Australia. 3Carroll
University, Wisconsin, USA. 4Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain.
5
Louisiana State University, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA. 6West Virginia University, Morgantown, West
Virginia, USA. 7Australian Weightlifting Federation, Chandler, Queensland, Australia. 8Tyler
independent School District, Texas, USA. 9London Sports Institute, Middlesex University, London, UK.
10
British Weightlifting, Leeds, UK. 11Cardiff Metropolitan university, Cardiff, UK. 12University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 13East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA.

Abstract
The origins of weightlifting and feats of strength span back to ancient Egypt, China, and Greece, with
the introduction of weightlifting into the Olympic Games in 1896. However, it was not until the 1950’s
that weightlifting training was adopted by strength coaches working with team sports and athletics,
with weightlifting research in peer reviewed journals becoming prominent since the 1970’s. Over the
last few decades researchers have focused on the use of weightlifting to enhance performance in non-
weightlifters, due to the biomechanical similarities (e.g., rapid forceful extension of the hips, knees,
and ankles) associated with the second pull phase of the clean and snatch, the drive / thrust phase of
the jerk and athletic tasks such as jumping and sprinting. The highest force, rate of force development
power outputs have been reported during such movements, highlighting the potential for such tasks
to enhance these key physical qualities in athletes. Additionally, the ability to manipulate barbell load
across the extensive range of weightlifting exercises and their derivatives permits the strength and
conditioning coach the opportunity to emphasize the development of Strength-Speed and Speed-
Strength, as required for the individual athlete. As such, the results of numerous longitudinal studies
and subsequent meta-analyses demonstrate the inclusion of weightlifting exercises into strength and
conditioning programs result in greater improvements in force-production characteristics and
performance in athletic tasks, than general resistance training or plyometric training alone. However,
it is essential that such exercises are appropriately programmed adopting a sequential approach
across training blocks (including exercise variation, loads, and volumes) to ensure the desired
adaptations, while strength and conditioning coaches emphasize appropriate technique and skill
development of athletes performing such exercises.
Section 1: Biomechanics of Weightlifting - considerations for strength and conditioning

1.1 Historical perspective of the evaluation of the snatch and clean and jerk in weightlifting
competitions

The origins of weightlifting and feats of strength can be traced back ~4000 years in Egypt and
~2500 years in China and Greece (242, 314), with the first world weightlifting championship being held
in London in 1891 (27, 274) and the introduction of the sport into the modern Olympic Games in
Athens in 1896, where the one-hand snatch, and clean and jerk lifts were contested. In 1925 the
Féderation Internationale Haltérophile (predecessor of the International Weightlifting Federation)
published the first authentic list of World Records, including the following exercises: one hand (right
and left) snatch, one-hand (right and left) clean and jerk, and the two-hand lifts: press, snatch and
clean and jerk (242, 314). However, when introduced at the Amsterdam Olympic Games in 1928, the
weightlifting program was limited to three lifts: the press, snatch and clean and jerk (commonly
performed as a split snatch and split clean), with the press being excluded from competition after the
1972 Olympics, leaving only the snatch, and clean and jerk performed in competitions today (92, 274,
314). For more information, readers are referred to: https://iwf.sport/weightlifting_/history/.
Weightlifting research, regarding the biomechanics of weightlifting, originated in the 1970s,
highlighting the high forces, rate of force development (RFD) and power output produced during
weightlifting movements (19, 85, 87, 96, 99-105, 117-119, 152, 219). Much of this research focused
on the biomechanics of the snatch and clean and jerk during competition (19, 99-102) comparisons
between sexes (103) comparisons between levels of performance (152) methods of predicting
performance (104) (e.g., power clean and power snatch, pulling variations [i.e., weightlifting
derivatives]) used by weightlifters (42, 68, 85, 96, 117, 118). Of particular importance to strength and
conditioning professionals is the dynamic correspondence between weightlifting movements and
vertical jump performance (41, 42, 68, 105) with Garhammer and Gregor (105) reporting similarities
in the propulsive phases of the snatch and countermovement jump.
Additional observations supporting the notion that there is a dynamic correspondence
between weightlifting exercise and other sporting activities are the fact that the transition phase
during the pull, generally referred to as the ‘double knee bend’, stimulates a stretch-shortening cycle
(SSC) response (35, 85-87, 106, 274) as does the initial dip during the jerk and its variations (97, 107).
In contrast, the second pull phase (aka. from the power position through to full extension) and the
thrust phase during the jerk and its variations facilitates the production of the greatest forces, RFD,
and power outputs, due to the rapid extension of the knees, hips, and ankles (85, 100, 101, 117, 219).
Such observations and biomechanical similarities highlight the potential for using these exercises to
enhance overall athleticism in non-weightlifters. In fact, Chiu and Schilling (39) suggested that the
factors related to the double knee bend in the weightlifting movements exert a dynamic
correspondence with many of the central movements that underpin sports performance.
It is consistently noted that due to the lower barbell displacements required to successfully
perform the clean compared to the snatch (55-65% vs. 62-78% of the lifters height), the loads lifted in
the clean are ~18-20% heavier than those achieved during the snatch, as a result of the differences in
barbell displacement (278) These observations highlight that the clean and jerk may be used to
emphasize force production (Strength-Speed), while the snatch may be used to emphasize movement
velocity (Speed-Strength) (152), although the actual targeted outcome will be mitigated by the load
used when performing the exercise. Moreover, when performing the power snatch, where the barbell
displacement is notably greater than the snatch, peak velocity during the pulling motion must be
greater than what is typically observed during the snatch. Similarly, due to the increased displacement
required in the power clean and power snatch, higher RFD and impulse have generally been observed
when compared to the clean and snatch (152).
When pulling motions (i.e., pulling derivatives) have been examined it has been noted that
they allow the athlete to utilize loads well above those used during the snatch or clean (96) because
of the removal of the catch from the movement (48, 53, 279, 284). For example, it is well documented
loads of between 100-140% of the athlete’s maximum snatch or clean can be used when only
performing the pulling motion, permitting a Strength-Speed emphasis. The use of higher loads in the
pulling motions performed from the knee or mid-thigh does offer some benefits to non-weightlifters
as programming pulls performed from the floor with loads between 80-102.5% of 1RM and the mid-
thigh pull with loads between 105-135% of 1RM have been reported to result in enhanced jumping,
sprinting and change of direction (COD) performance (289, 290). However, it is important to note that
these activities should be carefully structured as part of a holistic periodized training plan.
Weightlifting movements are commonly divided into distinct phases to make each of these
complex, multi-joint movements easier to understand, coach, and perform. Breaking the movements
into their key phases enables the strength and conditioning coach, and athlete, to develop a better
grasp of each component and how to perform them and have permitted researchers to evaluate
specific phases and components of each exercise. The snatch and clean consist of 5 phases: 1) 1st pull
(aka. lift off), 2) transition (aka. double knee bend), 3) 2nd pull (aka. power position to full extension),
4) catch, and 5) recovery. The jerk consists of 4 phases: 1) dip, 2) drive (aka. thrust), 3) catch, and 4)
recovery.
1.2 Adoption of weightlifting exercises in strength and conditioning

Prior to much of the weightlifting research becoming widely available, some coaches (often
with weightlifting backgrounds) had already adopted weightlifting training methodologies to enhance
the force production capabilities of their athletes (254, 302). For example, Alvin Roy, credited with
being the first professional strength coach, originally implemented weightlifting style training with
high school athletes in the early 1950’s, and in the National Football League later in the same decade
(254, 302). Similarly, Boyd Epley, the founder of the National Strength and Conditioning Association,
implemented strength training, including weightlifting, at the University of Nebraska from the early
1970’s (254). O’Bryant (212) as part of his dissertation, implemented several weightlifting style
programs, with an emphasis on squats and pulling derivatives, in high schools in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana from 1978 – 1980. Strength and conditioning coaches incorporate weightlifting exercises
and their derivatives (e.g., power clean, power snatch, clean pulls, snatch pulls) into their athletes’
training programs due to the high forces, RFD and power outputs exerted during these exercises (85,
119, 133, 152, 272, 279, 284). Additional biomechanical similarities have been noted between
weightlifting, jumping, sprinting and COD in terms of the rapid and forceful extension of the knees,
hips, and ankles (plantar flexion) (31, 32, 41, 42, 68, 105, 133), with maximal performance in
weightlifting exercises reported to be strongly associated with performance in jumping (31, 32, 105,
132), sprinting (132, 267) and COD tasks (132). Weightlifting exercises have also been reported to
result in some of the highest power outputs of any exercises commonly used in training (100, 103,
104, 274), with weightlifters also demonstrating greater force and power outputs during unloaded
and loaded jumps, compared to powerlifters, sprinters, and wrestlers (190, 273).
Interestingly, it is during the second pull phase of the clean and snatch and the thrust phase
during the jerk where the greatest force, RFD, and power outputs are generated, whether the clean,
snatch, pulling variations (catch phase excluded), or jerk variations are performed by weightlifters (35,
85, 100, 101, 117, 134, 152, 155, 156, 158, 161, 163, 219, 272, 312). However, it should be noted that
the joint level contributions to the whole lift do vary with load (158, 159, 162, 163). Peak force and
RFD are higher in the power clean and power snatch, compared to the clean and clean pull and snatch
and snatch pull, respectively, when performed with maximal loads, even though the loads are lower
during these power variations (118). These differences are likely due to the greater impulse required
to accelerate the barbell to achieve the greater displacement associated with the power variations.
Additionally, pulling variations are also commonly employed by weightlifters, to enhance barbell
acceleration through the rapid production of high forces (85, 87, 270, 272, 274, 276, 277).
It was not until more recently that comparisons between weightlifting exercises and their
derivatives have been evaluated in non-weightlifters, including the effect of load, on kinetic (i.e., force,
RFD, power) and kinematic (i.e., velocity and displacement) variables (43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53, 68, 280-
282, 297, 298). Interestingly, the second pull phase still results in the greatest kinetic and kinematic
outputs, even when performed in isolation (mid-thigh power clean and mid-thigh clean pull) (43, 46,
48, 53). Such pulling derivatives also permit a Strength-Speed emphasis, with the use of loads ranging
up to 140% of the 1RM during the power clean (48, 49, 51, 53, 194-196, 279, 284, 289, 290).

1.3 Comparisons to other modes of exercise

There are numerous modes of training (e.g., general strength training, ballistic training,
plyometric training, body weight training) that are all beneficial to the development of muscular
strength and power, with each mode having its own advantages and disadvantages (292). For
example, bodyweight training is accessible for all and requires minimal or no equipment; however,
adding load relies on one moving from a bilateral, to split stance or unilateral stance and is then
somewhat limited. General strength training is easy to progress in terms of load, but results in
deceleration throughout a large part of the range of motion (115, 210, 266) with much lower rates of
acceleration in traditional strength exercises (e.g., squat, bench press and deadlift) when compared
to weightlifting exercises (106). Ballistic training eliminates the deceleration phase associated with
general strength training but cannot be loaded to the extent that traditional strength exercises and
weightlifting movements can. As such, weightlifting movements are often considered to be semi-
ballistic. Plyometric training provides excellent transference to some sporting tasks, emphasizes
movement velocity and stimulation of the fast SSC (ground contact times <250 ms), but as with ballistic
training, is difficult to externally load while maintaining short ground contact time and the time under
tension is limited. Weightlifting, especially certain derivatives, can be used to train across a wide
variety of loads, like ballistic training (e.g., jump shrug at loads of 30-60% 1RM hang power clean) (113,
279, 280, 284, 294-296, 298), while pulling derivatives can be performed at high loads (e.g., mid-thigh
clean pulls and hang clean pulls at loads ≤140% 1RM power clean) (48, 53, 146, 194, 196, 279, 284,
313) with a ballistic intent, minimizing the deceleration phase associated with strength training.
Ideally, a combination of these different training methods should be included in an athlete’s training
program, with each appropriately emphasized / de-emphasized, ensuring appropriate
individualization to efficiently achieve the predetermined goals of each training block (113, 292).

1.4 Weightlifting training interventions in comparison to other training modalities

Numerous training interventions have been published in which researchers have reported the
improvements in sport and related performance (e.g., jump, sprint, and COD) being associated with
the implementation of weightlifting-based training methods (10-12, 37, 38, 40, 44, 127, 131, 137-139,
142, 143, 215, 216, 225, 234, 270, 289, 290, 301, 306). Additionally, the authors of a recent meta-
analysis concluded that weightlifting training results in greater (g ≥ 0.95) improvements in maximum
strength, jump height, linear sprint, and change of direction performance when compared to
traditional resistance training (201). Furthermore, Morris et al. (201) also reported that when
weightlifting training is compared to plyometric training, there was not statistically significant (p >
0.05) difference in the improvements in performance between conditions, albeit with small to
moderately (g = 0.31-0.69) greater improvements in favor of weightlifting. These findings are in line
with findings reported in earlier meta-analyses (24, 109). However, it is important to consider that one
advantage that weightlifting training offers over ballistic and plyometric training is the fact that
notable increases in maximal force production will also occur, in addition to improvements in rapid
force production.
It is, however, important to note that not all study findings support the conclusions of Morris
et al. (201), Hackett et al. (109), and Berton et al. (24). For example, Helland et al. (128) have reported
that weightlifting does not transfer to jumping and sprint performance to the same degree as
motorized strength and power training or free weight strength and power training. Careful inspection
of Helland and colleagues’ (128) weightlifting-based training program reveals that the authors only
utilized weightlifting movements (i.e., snatch, clean, power snatch, and power clean) and did not
implement any weightlifting derivatives or other strength training methods in their intervention,
which may partially explain why there was a lack of transference to sports-based training methods.
Additionally, the subjects had minimal experience in strength training, particularly with weightlifting
movements, and the weightlifting technique was not explicitly described. As such, it is likely that any
improvements in weightlifting would be attributed to technique rather than muscular adaptations.
Conversely, most of the studies in which the results illustrate enhanced performance with
weightlifting exercises have utilized training programs that have integrated weightlifting movements
into a training program that either includes combinations of weightlifting derivatives and traditional
strength training methods (i.e., squatting, pressing etc.) or traditional strength training and plyometric
training. Based upon the results of several meta-analyses (24, 109, 201) strength and conditioning
professionals should integrate weightlifting, strength development, and plyometric training methods
into a more holistic programming strategy when attempting to enhance sports performance in other
sports.
The combination of general strength training and weightlifting exercises in a complementary
manner makes sense, as strength underpins performance in athletic tasks (64, 65, 115, 291-293), since
increases in strength are associated with increases in RFD (2, 3, 7, 8, 181, 319) This is supported by the
findings of a recent study where training at high loads (80-90% 1RM) resulted in greater improvements
in rapid force production (e.g., force at 50-, 100-, 150-, 200-, 250 ms) compared to training at
moderate loads (60-82.5%1RM) (47). Increasing force over a given epoch results in an increased
impulse (mean force x time), with relative impulse determining acceleration of the athlete or any
object (e.g., barbell, ball) that the impulse is applied to, thereby enhancing performance through an
increased movement velocity. Additionally, using musculoskeletal modelling, Kipp (156) reported that
both strength training and Speed-Strength training would reduce the relative effort during the first
and second pull phases of weightlifting exercises.

Section 2: Weightlifting Derivatives

2.1 Weightlifting catching, pulling and overhead derivatives
In addition to the main competitive lifts (i.e., snatch and clean and jerk) associated with the
sport of weightlifting, there are numerous weightlifting derivatives that may be programmed by
strength and conditioning coaches. Weightlifting derivatives are modifications of the competition lifts
that allow for key positions to be strengthened and enhanced. Weightlifting derivatives are broken
into three classifications, including 1) catching, 2) pulling, and 3) overhead pressing. Catching
derivatives alter the depth at which the barbell is caught so that the top of the thigh is above parallel
(usually with the term ‘power’ prior to clean or snatch) and can also be initiated from a variety of
positions (e.g., floor, knee, hang, or mid-thigh) (279, 284, 312) (Table 1). Pulling derivatives are
modifications to the competitive lifts that remove the catch phase from the exercise and can be
initiated from a variety of positions (e.g., floor, knee, hang, or mid-thigh) (279, 284, 312). Finally, the
overhead pressing derivatives (e.g., push press, push jerk, split jerk) are performed either separate to
the clean, during training, by taking the bar off blocks or stands (262), or in combination to the clean,
power clean or front squat exercises, exercises that may proceed the overhead pressing derivatives,
forming a training structure called weightlifting complex (Table 1). In addition, weightlifting complexes
could lead to a more efficient way of implementing weightlifting derivatives for enhancing athletic
performance in non-weightlifters and improving sport performance in weightlifters. As an example,
practitioners could prescribe a weightlifting complex composed of a power clean, a push press and a
push jerk with a load equivalent to 80% 1RM of the power clean, targeting a power emphasis, but
using different derivatives (Figure 1).
Table 1. Weightlifting exercises and derivatives.
Catching Pulling Overhead Pressing
Derivatives* Derivatives** Derivatives
Mid-thigh clean/snatch Mid-thigh pull Push press
Countermovement clean/snatch Countermovement shrug Push jerk
Clean/snatch from the knee Pull from the knee Split jerk
Hang clean/snatch*** Hang pull*** Behind the neck push press/jerk**
Clean/snatch Pull from the floor Behind the neck split jerk**
Hang high pull
Jump shrug
* = All clean/snatch variations can be performed with a partial squat (power) or full squat catch
** = All derivatives may be performed with either clean or snatch grip
*** = Starting with the legs extended, initiated by flexing the hips to perform a countermovement down to the knees
(both above and below the knee commonly used), followed by the double knee bend and rapid triple extension
Note: Variations from mid-thigh and the knee can start with the barbell resting on blocks, or with the athlete holding
the barbell and lowering to the start position and briefly pausing. Currently, there is minimal research comparing the
kinetics or kinematics of these variations.

Weightlifting Catching Derivatives

The historic use of catching derivatives is likely due to the familiarity of strength and
conditioning coaches with the movements from the sport of weightlifting, but also due to the research
that has supported their use compared to other resistance training methods (131, 217, 301, 306).
There are several advantages of weightlifting catching derivatives including postural strength,
coordinated loaded triple extension and flexion of the knee, hip, and ankle joints providing a load
acceptance stimulus (54, 199, 288), albeit comparable to that of a jump landing (199) and co-
contraction of the spinal stabilizing muscles. Additionally, having to catch the barbell ensures high
levels of intent to sufficiently displace the barbell to the required catch height.
While catching derivatives are inherently more complex than pulling variations due to
additional catching component, Haug et al. (126) indicated that four weeks (2 sessions per week [20-
30 minutes]) of learning the hang power clean yielded improvements in squat jump and
countermovement jump power output. It is important to note that while learning the weightlifting
movements, the strength and conditioning coach can implement targeted strength development in
other focused exercises such as squats, deadlifts, and presses. This ensures that while the athlete is
learning the lifts the barbell loads do not need to be excessive, with an emphasis on refining technique,
as they are exposed to adequate stimuli from focused strength exercises to continue to develop their
strength in key movements. As such, if the athlete is not familiar with weightlifting exercises, the load
should be increased in a progressive and conservative manner, while appropriate technique is
developed (see section 4.1 for more detail). While some authors have suggested using loads calculated
based on a percentage of body mass for novice lifters (178, 179), this practice does not account for
the notable differences in relative strength between individuals and should therefore be discouraged.

Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives

Weightlifting pulling derivatives have similar benefits as the catching derivatives, specifically
the coordinated triple extension movement. In contrast to catching derivatives, pulling derivatives are
less limited from a loading standpoint due to the removal of the catch phase, reducing the complexity
and the need to displace the bar to a sufficient height to permit the catch, permitting loads >100% of
the 1RM of the catching derivative (48, 49, 51, 53, 114, 194-196, 289, 290). In fact, researchers have
reported that certain pulling derivatives may be prescribed with loads up to 120% of a 1RM catch
variation from the floor (114) and even 140% from the knee or mid-thigh (48, 49, 51, 53, 194-196, 289,
290). This opportunity for higher loads permits a greater Strength-Speed emphasis compared to
catching variations, thereby enhancing maximal force and rapid force production (279, 284, 289, 290).
On the lower end of the loading spectrum (e.g., 30-60% 1RM), athletes can still maximize their effort
due to the ballistic nature of certain pulling derivatives, such as the jump shrug (157, 160, 280, 294-
296, 298) and the hang high pull (157, 282, 294, 295, 298-300). During the jump shrug and hang high
pull, velocity and therefore power output tends to be maximized with loads as low as 30-45% of a
hang power clean 1RM (281, 294, 295, 298, 300).
An additional benefit of weightlifting pulling derivatives may be a decreased technical
complexity compared to catching derivatives. The omittance of the catch phase decreases the relative
complexity of pulling derivatives, which may make them inherently easier to teach and learn. In fact,
many of the pulling derivatives are key components of the International Weightlifting Federation
approved teaching progressions for the full competition lifts (148), as discussed in several coaching
and technique articles (72-74, 147, 148, 200, 228, 274, 275, 285-287). As such, these variations are
more easily included in the training program for beginners, while the technique of the more technically
demanding lifts is developed and refined. It is important that sound technique and maximal intent is
used during pulling derivatives, as the athlete could simply ‘go through the motions’ when the need
for maximal intent is reduced by removing the catch. When used in isolation from the weightlifting
movements, pulling derivatives may lack the magnitude of co-contraction of the core musculature
(i.e., erector spinae, rectus abdominus, quadratus lumborum, etc.) associated with the catch phase of
the catching derivatives; however, research is required to quantify potential differences. Additionally,
since the bar does not have to be displaced to a sufficient height to ensure that the catch is possible,
some athletes may lack intent when performing these exercises, as such the strength and conditioning
coach should cue the athlete to use maximal intent or substitute the exercises for one where the
athlete displays intent. Ideally, the pulling derivatives should not be used as replacements for catching
derivatives but should serve as complementary exercises which broaden the strength and conditioning
coach’s “toolbox” of exercises.

Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives

In weightlifting, the jerk phase of the clean and jerk is the primary weightlifting overhead
pressing exercise that takes place in competitions (262, 274, 275). During training practices, the jerk
is subdivided into several groups of assistance exercises to be developed: a) strengthening exercises
as the overhead press, push press, jerk drives and jerk dips and, b) technique exercises as the
push/split jerk (depending on the preferred technique of the lifter and including the front rack and
behind the neck variations), jerk lockouts, and jerk recoveries (147). However, in non-weightlifters,
the push press, push jerk, and split jerk (including the front rack and behind the neck variations) are
the most common overhead pressing derivatives utilized in strength and conditioning programs for
developing athletic performance (Table 1) (262). These complex, ballistic multi-joint movement
patterns require the lifter to generate high forces via rapid extension of the hips, knees, and ankles
(i.e., triple extension), transmitting these through the trunk to the upper extremities (213, 262), to
provide a sufficient impulse to accelerate the barbell overhead. These exercises share similar lower
body propulsion kinematics which includes the dip (unweighting and breaking phase of a quick partial
squat) and drive/thrust phase (rapid extension of the hips, knees, and plantar flexion of the ankles)
(166, 167, 258, 261). The main differences between lifts occur after the lower body propulsion phase
regarding the displacement of the barbell and the catch position (258, 261). During the push press,
the barbell is accelerated upward via the extension of the legs and pressed upward through the full
flexion of the shoulders and extension of the elbows, while the feet do not leave the ground. When
performing the push jerk, after completing the extension phase the athlete re-bends their knees and
catches the barbell in a ¼ squat position, while in the split jerk the athlete moves their feet into a split
position when receiving the barbell (258, 261, 262). Additionally, the position of the barbell with
respect to the lifter’s body and the hand spacing may subdivide the push press, push jerk and split jerk
into different complementary exercises such as the snatch grip push press or jerk which is initiated
from a position behind the neck (Table 1) (94, 147, 262).
Researchers have suggested that weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives may enhance
muscular strength development in non-weightlifters (262), since these exercises allow athletes to lift
heavy loads in a ballistic manner. In fact, the jerk is the only sporting task where the human being has
been able to lift three times their body mass overhead (274). Researchers have recently reported that
exercise selection impacts the one-repetition maximum (1RM) performance between the push press,
push jerk, and split jerk (257, 258, 261), where the largest loads are presumably lifted during the split
jerk, followed by push jerk (95% of the normalized split jerk performance) and push press (87% of the
normalized split jerk performance) (257, 258, 261), with the differences attributable to differences in
barbell displacement between lifts. However, these differences could be even greater in elite
weightlifters, as Roman (236) reported that the push jerk was about 90% of the maximum split jerk
performance. Therefore, these differences are extended based on technical competence, where
greater differences between the push press, push jerk, and split jerk 1RM performances have been
reported for skilled weightlifters (22%) compared to CrossFit® athletes (11%) and a mixed group of
athletes (14%) (258). Therefore, strength and conditioning coaches should be aware of the differences
in the 1RM performance between the push press, push jerk, and split jerk when prescribing training
loads to achieve the desired adaptations and that these differences may also be affected by the
athlete’s technical competence.
According to Hori and colleagues (133) the weightlifting overhead pressing derivatives can be
classified as Strength-Speed exercises since the jerk is the exercise where the largest loads are lifted
to an overhead position, and, furthermore, to succeed in the lift, it must be performed quickly, with
the propulsion phase lasting 259±24 ms (107, 262, 274). The combination of the force, due to the
heavy loads that can be lifted, and velocity (barbell speeds: 1.06 – 1.9 m·s-1) (102, 107, 119, 152, 166),
results in an ideal stimulus for targeting the ability to develop the Strength-Speed necessary to
enhance athletic performance. This is also supported by several researchers reporting high power
outputs (2500 – 6760 W) and propulsion forces during the push press, push jerk, and split jerk (52,
100, 102-104, 119, 152, 167) which are notably greater than those produced during the back squat
(104), likely due to the ballistic nature of the overhead lifts and a shorter range of motion.
Interestingly, the loads that maximize power production are generally >70%1RM (52, 94, 119, 152,
166, 167, 180). Therefore, strength and conditioning coaches should consider using the push press,
push jerk, and split jerk with loads ≥70%1RM to target the development of Strength-Speed in sporting
populations (Figure 1).
Interestingly, there are no meaningful differences in lower-body kinetic differences between
the push press, push jerk, and split jerk when performed at the same standardized load (80%1RM push
press) (261). Although further research comparing the effect of load and exercise is needed,
considering that heavier loads may hypothetically be lifted during the push jerk and split jerk based
on their higher 1RM performances (257, 258, 261), these exercises could potentially generate greater
propulsion forces and power outputs (Figure 1). In fact, the ability to lift heavier loads depends greatly
upon the ability to rapidly generate force (103-105), to provide a sufficient impulse (force x time) to
accelerate the athletes' mass and the barbell. Therefore, athletes should master the push jerk and
split jerk exercises to achieve greater propulsion forces and power development by means of lifting
heavier relative loads when the training goal is improving maximal Strength-Speed development.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram comparing weightlifting exercise and the interaction of load (as a
percentage of 1RM, pulling derivatives based on 1RM hang power clean / snatch) on Speed-Strength
and Strength-Speed emphasis. Velocity is based on the velocity of the system center of mass and not
the barbell

2.2 Effect of Exercise and Load on Kinetics and Kinematics

The results of several surveys of strength and conditioning coaches have highlighted the
perceived importance of prescribing weightlifting exercises and their derivatives (79-83, 255). The
results of these surveys are not surprising as combining weightlifting exercises and the derivatives
with traditional resistance training exercises (e.g., squat and deadlift variations) have been reported
to provide a superior training stimulus over other forms of resistance training resulting in greater
improvements in sporting tasks (e.g., jumping, short sprint, COD performance) (10-12, 24, 37, 38, 40,
44, 127, 131, 137-139, 142, 143, 215, 216, 225, 234, 289, 290, 301, 306). Strength and conditioning
coaches must, however, decide which exercise and load combinations will address specific training
goals (e.g., Strength-Endurance, Strength-Speed, Speed-Strength) while also considering the athlete’s
technical competency, mobility, relative strength, and injury status.
 Comfort and colleagues (43, 46) conducted the first known studies comparing weightlifting
derivatives in non-weightlifters, identifying that the mid-thigh power clean and mid-thigh pull resulted
in greater force, RFD, and power output compared to the power clean and the power clean from the
knee, although there were no differences between the mid-thigh power clean and mid-thigh pull.
Suchomel et al. (294, 295, 297, 298) investigated alternative weightlifting derivatives, reporting that
greater force, velocity, power output, RFD, impulse, and work were produced during the jump shrug
and hang high pull when compared to the hang power clean across a spectrum of loads (30, 45, 65,
80% 1RM hang power clean). Interestingly, the authors also indicated that the greatest differences
existed at the lightest load, with similar conclusions by other researchers who have compared the
jump shrug (157, 160) or hang high pull (300) with the hang power clean.
The effect of load on the kinetic and kinematic outputs of weightlifting derivatives has been
evaluated by numerous researchers (45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 157, 160, 194, 196, 280-282, 296-300). A
comparison of exercises and the interaction of load, on force and velocity is illustrated in Figure 1. In
general, lower loads result in a higher velocity allowing for a Speed-Strength emphasis, while higher
loads result in greater force and RFD allowing for Strength-Speed to be emphasized, with the greatest
power output occurring across a spectrum of loads, due to the interaction between force and velocity
(45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 58, 60, 194, 196, 281, 282, 298) (Figure 1). The highest velocities across weightlifting
derivatives occur during the jump shrug when light loads (30-45% 1RM hang power clean) are used
(157, 160, 280, 281), with the highest force generated during the pulling variations when loads >100%
of the 1RM power clean are used (48, 49, 51, 53, 194, 196). The addition of a countermovement,
during pulling derivatives (e.g., hang clean pull vs. clean pull from the knee, or countermovement
shrug vs. mid-thigh clean pull) further increases the force, velocity and therefore power at all loads
(49, 51, 194, 196), although it is essential that the athlete has sufficient postural control during the
deceleration phase of the countermovement.
The snatch and clean permit higher loads to be used in comparison to the power snatch and
the power clean, respectively, due to the requirement of a greater barbell displacement during the
‘power’ variations. As a result of a greater barbell displacement with relatively lighter loads, higher
RFD and impulse have been observed during the power clean and snatch when compared to the clean
and snatch (152). Similarly, due to the lower barbell displacements required to successfully perform
the clean (55-65% vs. 62-78% of the lifters height) the amount of load lifted in the clean and jerk are
~18-20% heavier than those achieved during the snatch (278), highlighting that the clean and jerk may
be used to emphasize Strength-Speed, while the snatch may be used to emphasize movement Speed-
Strength (152), although these are dependent on the loads used (Figure 1).
 While cross-sectional comparisons provide insight on the potential performance differences
between the use of weightlifting derivatives, greater insight can be found from intervention studies.
Comfort et al. (44) compared the effect of eight weeks of in-season training with biomechanically
similar catching or pulling derivatives (e.g., power clean vs. clean pull from the floor) using identical
loading schemes (i.e., the same relative loads). While both training groups improved, the authors
indicated that there were no significant or meaningful differences in the changes between the groups
when comparing peak or rapid force production during the isometric mid-thigh pull or
countermovement jump performance. These findings are supported by the comparable force,
velocity, and power output characteristics across weightlifting exercises when performed between
loads of ~70-90% 1RM (Figure 1) (56, 57, 60, 65, 116, 189, 259, 260, 284).
Suchomel and colleagues (289, 290) recently expanded this research, exploiting the force and
velocity emphasis potential of pulling derivatives. In addition to the load-matched catch and pull
groups examined by Comfort et al. (44), a third training group used the same pulling derivatives as the
pull group, but also used phase-specific loading to provide either a force (e.g., loads >100%1RM power
clean) or velocity (e.g., lighter loads [30-60% 1RM power clean] and more ballistic exercises) overload
stimulus. Based upon the results of this work, the overload group demonstrated greater
improvements in dynamic (1RM power clean) and isometric strength (isometric mid-thigh pull peak
force), short sprint (10-, 20-, 30 m sprint time), COD and countermovement jump and squat jump
performances compared to the other groups (289, 290). As such, strength and conditioning coaches
should program weightlifting exercises and their derivatives to emphasize specific characteristics (e.g.,
Strength-Speed, or Speed-Strength) in a sequential manner, to ensure appropriate adaptations.

Section 3: Physiological Adaptations and Required Stimuli

3.1 Desirable physiological adaptations required to enhance specific physical characteristics

Numerous neuro-muscular factors can be manipulated to improve characteristics of force

production, with the process considered multi-factorial, and adaptative responses intertwined, but
with different adaptive processes emphasized depending on the stimulus (220, 292). These adaptative
responses include morphological changes (e.g., increased cross sectional area [CSA], pennation angle,
fascicle length), increased bone mineral density, metabolic adaptations, alterations to tendon
stiffness, and changes to several neurological factors (265, 269). The progression of these adaptive
responses are generally impacted by the individual's initial strength levels (62-65, 223) and their
training history (124, 141, 233). In fact, the sequence of the training process allows for the adaptations
from one phase of training to influence the responses associated with subsequent training phases
which highlights that it is extremely important that the training process is carefully planned and
appropriately sequenced (71, 110, 113, 268, 318).
While a relationship between muscle CSA and force production capacity is evident (14, 15, 34,
120, 135, 188, 198, 202, 240, 317, 318), the magnitude of this association varies notably, with
neurological, architectural (e.g., pennation angle, fascicle length, etc.), and fiber type differences likely
explaining this variation (1, 2, 28, 34, 145, 187). Although Narici, Roi, Landoni, Minetti and Cerretelli
(207) suggest that changes in CSA account for 50-60% of the changes in force production. More
importantly, increasing muscle mass prior to a period of training in which strength development is
emphasized allows for the strength phase to be potentiated (71, 198, 271, 318), largely as a result of
the increased work capacity and greater muscle mass available for neurological and architectural
adaptations associated with strength development (14, 15, 271, 275). Additionally, hypertrophied
muscles tend to have greater pennation angles than non-hypertrophied muscles, resulting in
increased cross bridge formation due to fiber packing (153, 154) and muscle gearing, which may
enhance force production capability (13, 75, 232).
During the Strength-Endurance phase, the training aims are to improve or refine exercise
technique in preparation for the subsequent, higher load phases, enhance physical work capacity,
increase the strength of connective tissues, so that they can tolerate greater loads, and potentially
increase muscle mass (unless in a weight categorized sport) (28, 70, 110, 270, 271). In contrast, during
the Strength-Speed phase, the primary goal is to increase the force generating capacity of the muscle,
taking advantage of any morphological changes of the muscles. This is achieved through improved
muscular efficiency through architectural (e.g., increased pennation angle, increased sarcomeres in
parallel) (2, 136, 206) and neurological adaptations (e.g., synchronization of motor units, motor unit
discharge rates) (4, 5, 21, 169, 197). Additionally, increases in tendon stiffness due to adaptations
during the high-volume Strength-Endurance phase and high load Strength-Speed phase, should
enhance muscular force transmission resulting in improvements in rapid force production (RFD) and
power development during the Speed-Strength phase (181, 235, 265, 269).
The aims during the Speed-Strength phase are to take advantage of the increased force
production capacity developed during the Strength-Speed phase, to optimize RFD, accelerative
capability, movement velocity and power development (70, 71, 110, 113, 124, 186). Some
improvements in these characteristics may occur simply because of supercompensation from the
previous training phase, as training volumes are generally reduced during the Speed-Strength phase
with non-compatible training stimuli reduced or removed to minimize fatigue. In addition, some of
the improvements are due to further neurological and architectural adaptations (2, 3, 7, 8, 181, 268).
 Progressive increases in volume load result in the greatest hypertrophic adaptations (29, 98,
211, 245), achieved via moderate loads (60-80% 1RM) performed for relatively high repetitions (8-12
repetitions) (98, 110, 246), with the associated metabolic stress providing a potential stimulus for
muscle hypertrophy and endurance related adaptations (93, 243, 244). Interestingly, weekly volume
load, rather than training frequency, seems to dictate the magnitude of hypertrophic adaptations,
with greater improvements from more frequent training if there is an increase in total volume load
(98, 247, 250). Slightly lower loads (<60% 1RM) that are performed for higher repetitions (≥15
repetitions) may be advantageous when emphasizing endurance related adaptations due to metabolic
stress (93, 243, 244, 246).
High load (≥80% 1RM, for ≤6 repetitions) training elicits the greatest increases in force
production (110, 184, 223, 246, 248, 249) and RFD (3, 4, 6, 8, 47, 185). As with hypertrophy, when
weekly volume is matched, training frequency does not appear to influence the magnitude of
adaptations to strength training (69). However, in contrast, a mixed method approach (combination
of high load [≥80% 1RM] low velocity and low load [≤60% 1RM] high velocity exercises) appears to be
most effective at enhancing Speed-Strength (110, 113, 124, 151, 208, 209, 264, 271, 304, 305),
although simply enhancing strength in weaker individuals is equally as effective (59, 61, 62, 65, 292,
293). During a Speed-Strength phase, the volume loads should be reduced compared to the Strength-
Speed phase to offset any negative effects associated with cumulative fatigue (110, 113, 266, 268,
270, 271, 275).

3.2 Training guidelines for absolute strength, Strength-Endurance, Strength-Speed, Speed-Strength

The prescribed exercise and load combinations should elicit the desired adaptations within each
resistance training phase. Although specific to weightlifting derivatives, Suchomel and colleagues
(279, 284, 289, 290) have suggested that this may be accomplished by prescribing specific exercise
and load combinations based on their loading potential, and the force or velocity profile of each
exercise (i.e., loads >100% 1RM catching variation for pulls, versus 30-45% 1RM hang power clean for
the jump shrug), which can be particularly useful if adopting a mixed methods approach during Speed-
Strength development.

Strength-Endurance Phase
If strength and conditioning coaches aim to use weightlifting exercises in later training phases,
it may be beneficial to incorporate pulling variations within this phase to solidify and refine the
technique of the pull and increase work capacity (70, 270, 275, 279, 284). Moreover, using these
exercises will help improve an athlete’s work capacity due to the total body nature of the exercises.
While incorporating weightlifting derivatives within this phase is feasible (218, 270, 275) this practice
results in a high metabolic cost (239) resulting in intra-set fatigue, which may not be a concern when
the athlete is not within a competitive phase of their annual training plan. To minimize fatigue within
a training session, and provide an opportunity for additional coaching (e.g., in less experienced
athletes), researchers have reported that clean pulls from the floor may be incorporated in a strength-
endurance phase (3 sets of 10 repetitions) using cluster sets (e.g., 2 sets of 5 repetitions within each
set of 10) with a 30-40 second rest interval (111, 289, 290). Using cluster sets in this manner may not
only promote a higher quality of work, but they may also allow for the strength and conditioning coach
to provide feedback to the athlete and permit the use of greater loads for a higher number of
repetitions (e.g., 12 repetitions of squats using 80% 1RM, using clusters of 2 or 4 repetitions) (308-
310). As such, the higher loads and higher volumes could potentially lead to greater hypertrophy (214),
increased work capacity, and greater force production (290). In fact, researchers have implemented
loads as high as 82.5% of the participant’s 1RM power clean using clean pulls from the floor, for sets
of 10 repetitions, during the Strength-Endurance phase (289, 290).
While a spectrum of weightlifting exercises may be used during the Strength-Endurance
phase, strength and conditioning coaches should consider an athlete’s technical competency, relative
strength, the complexity of the chosen exercise(s), and the goal(s) of the training phase. For example,
if an athlete is unable to consistently perform the prescribed exercise(s) for a higher volume of
repetitions due to either poor technique or a lack of positional strength, other exercises could be
prescribed, or the load should be reduced. To improve work capacity within this phase, strength and
conditioning coaches should use weightlifting exercises that have a moderate-large displacement and
allow for moderate to moderately heavy loads to be implemented, such as pulling derivatives.
However, due to the technical complexity and fatigue associated with Strength-Endurance training,
the full lifts (i.e., clean and jerk, and snatch) are rarely incorporated during this phase.
It is also important to understand how the physiological demand of the exercise impacts
exercise technique and perceived exertion. Hardee et al. (123) reported that performing six
consecutive repetitions, in a traditional set format, with the power clean at 80% 1RM led to an
increased horizontal displacement of the barbell by the final repetition, which was not observed when
cluster sets were implemented. This research group also indicated that perceived exertion increased
across multiple sets using this exercise and load combination, but was reduced when using cluster sets
(122). During the Strength-Endurance phase, catching variations may be best implemented using
cluster sets to ensure maintenance of technique and movement velocity, while also providing an
opportunity for additional feedback and coaching.
 Because weightlifting pulling derivatives have decreased complexity due to the omittance of
the catch phase, it may be possible to maintain technique across additional repetitions, with heavier
loads, compared to catching derivatives, especially when the displacement is reduced (e.g., hang pull,
mid-thigh pull, countermovement shrug) (195). Meechan et al. (195) recently reported no change in
kinetics, kinematics, or RPE during the countermovement shrug for 3 sets of 6 repetitions using
traditional set structures, or when implementing rest-redistribution. Thus, to address the work
capacity demands of a Strength-Endurance phase, exercises such as the clean/snatch pull from the
floor may serve as effective exercises. However, because the 1st pull (i.e., moving the load from the
floor to the knee) may double the work and duration of a repetition (152), less technical derivatives
that remove the 1st pull may serve as effective alternatives and may not require cluster sets to be used
(195).

Strength-Speed Phase
The primary goals of strength phases include increasing maximal force production capacity
(i.e., peak force) and rapid force production (70, 268, 292). The Strength-Speed phase can be divided
into subphases of general strength (e.g., 3 sets of 5 repetitions, moderately heavy to heavy loads [70-
80% 1RM]) and absolute strength (e.g., 3 sets of 3 repetitions, heavy to very heavy loads [80-
90%1RM]) to elicit increases in maximal force production. Weightlifting exercises that utilize heavier
loads often have a decreased displacement (e.g., clean vs. power snatch) and fall under the Strength-
Speed category (Table 1 & Figure 1) (152, 278). As such, along with the clean and the snatch performed
at high loads (e.g., 80-95% 1RM), weightlifting pulling derivatives may be favored during Strength-
Speed phases due to the ability to prescribe loads ≥ 100% 1RM of an athlete’s 1RM catching variation
(48, 53, 96, 114, 117, 118, 191-194, 196, 236, 238). As noted above, researchers have examined loads
as high as 140% 1RM with several pulling variations (e.g., hang pull, pull from the knee, mid-thigh pull,
countermovement shrug) (48, 53, 194-196), although for pulls from the floor loads of <120% 1RM may
be preferred, depending upon the targeted training outcome (96, 192, 193, 236). This may provide
strength and conditioning coaches with several options based on their athletes’ technical competency
while also addressing positional strength demands. For example, sprinters require large magnitudes
of force and high RFD when accelerating from the starting blocks and to maintain high speeds and
may thus benefit from utilizing pulling derivatives that develop these characteristics within these
positions (74).
While heavy pulling derivatives may aid in the development of maximal force production, the
development of rapid force production characteristics may also require the use of loads lighter than
those previously discussed, ensuring that an appropriate range of loads is used (64, 65, 113, 208, 209,
279, 283, 284). During the Strength-Speed phase, weightlifting exercises that use moderately heavy
loads (70-80% 1RM; Table 1 & Figure 1) may be prescribed to promote rapid force production (289,
290); however, Comfort et al. (47) reported greater improvements in rapid force production in
response to heavy loads (80-90% 1RM) compared to moderate loads (60-82.5% 1RM). It is likely that
weaker athletes will enhance both maximal and rapid force production effectively by simply
emphasizing high loads with maximal intent (21, 59, 61, 62, 65). While researchers have reported
improved force production characteristics using exclusively catching or pulling derivatives (289, 290),
prescribing combinations of pulling, catching and overhead pressing derivatives within strength
phases may also provide athletes with a unique training stimulus and prevent staleness, while
maximizing increased in performance.

Speed-Strength Phase
The objectives during a Speed-Strength phase include further development and / or peaking
of rapid force production and power output (70, 268, 292). Because these neuromuscular
characteristics may be enhanced with the combination of exercises that emphasize either force or
velocity, it is recommended that a combination of both heavy and light loads be implemented (71,
113, 151, 208, 209, 268, 284, 292, 303-305). Using this strategy, strength and conditioning coaches
can prescribe a wide variety of exercises from both the Strength-Speed and Speed-Strength categories
to ensure that the targeted outcomes are developed (Table 1 & Figure 1). Training focusing on heavy
loads versus loads that elicit peak power has been reported to result in preferential adaptations at
those specific loads rather than across a spectrum of loads (124, 125, 151, 303-305), with the use of a
combination of loading paradigms resulting in greater adaptations across loads (124, 208, 303-305).
Examples of this type of programming using a variety of weightlifting derivatives have been shown by
Suchomel and colleagues (289, 290) who programmed as high as 110% 1RM and as low as 30% 1RM
with the countermovement shrug (force emphasis, e.g., Strength-Speed) and jump shrug (velocity
emphasis, e.g., Speed-Strength), respectively, within the same phase of training. It is also important
that strength and conditioning coaches are mindful of the total training volume during this phase, to
minimize residual fatigue.
It is important to note that strength and conditioning coaches may provide several exercise
and load combinations that address an athlete’s needs based on their sport/event and position. For
example, American football linemen require a greater Strength-Speed emphasis. Thus, while the
primary exercise and load combinations prescribed to these athletes may emphasize Strength-Speed,
Speed-Strength exercises that can be loaded with moderately heavy loads (e.g., hang power
clean/snatch) may enhance rapid force production for these individuals. In contrast, a defensive back
may require a greater emphasis on exercises that target Speed-Strength development but will also
benefit from using heavier loads (e.g., hang clean/snatch pull) to develop Strength-Speed. Ideally, a
phased sequential approach to training should be adopted, with the targeted attributed being based
on the results of an assessment of the athlete’s athletic performances and force-production
characteristics at the end of each training phase.

4: Coaching Weightlifting Exercises

4.1 Pedagogical approaches and feedback strategies

Learning of a motor skill often occurs more rapidly with greater capacity to maintain it during
highly sensitive periods of life, such as adolescence (256). This is likely a result of the brain’s plasticity
during these developmental periods, allowing for greater development of neural circuits (256). It is
often argued that weightlifting movements are too time consuming or complex to teach athletic
populations. In contrast, Solum, Lorås and Pedersen (256) found that motor skill learning can be
indifferent between adolescents and adults, with greater variability in skill acquisition observed in
adolescents due to their lack of movement repertoire. Therefore, strength and conditioning coaches
should ensure appropriate technique is developed, and refined, to reduce injury risk, maximize the
athlete’s opportunity to adapt, and enhance transferability into sports performance (228). The
purpose of this section, therefore, is to provide the reader with a pedagogical template and feedback
considerations to develop weightlifting skills regardless of age and/or ability.

Each of the weightlifting movements (i.e., snatch, clean and jerk) can be taught to be
performed as the full version; however, within the progressions provided for each movement, partial
movements, or derivatives may also be used as specific training tools. Depending on the training age,
physical capabilities, demands, or goals of the sport the athlete is involved in, a strength and
conditioning coach may decide that some of these derivatives are better suited to meet the needs of
the athlete at a particular point in time.

Phases of the Weightlifting Movements

Morris et al. (200) (Table 2) highlights the specific positions of each phase of the snatch, clean
and jerk, illustrating where the bar starts and finishes in each of the subsequent phases for the clean
and jerk and the snatch. Breaking the movements into these phases enables the strength and
conditioning coach, and athlete, to obtain a better grasp of each component and how to perform
them, which is especially important once the athlete starts the task of ‘chaining’ the elements
together. The snatch and clean consist of 5 phases: 1) 1st pull (aka. lift off), 2) transition (aka. double
knee bend), 3) 2nd pull (aka. power position to full extension), 4) catch, and 5) recovery. The jerk
consists of 4 phases: 1) dip, 2) drive, 3) catch, and 4) recovery.
Table 2: Phases of the clean and jerk, and snatch, reproduced with permission from Morris et al.
(200)
Phase Clean and Jerk Snatch
1st Pull From lifting the barbell off the floor From lifting the barbell off the floor to
to a position in which the barbell is a position in which the barbell is
immediately at the patella immediately at the patella

Transition From a position in which the barbell From a position in which the barbell is
is immediately at the patella to a immediately at the patella to a position
position in which the barbell is in which the barbell is positioned at
positioned mid-thigh the upper thigh

2nd Pull From a position in which the barbell From a position in which the barbell is
is positioned at the mid- thigh the positioned at the upper- thigh the
athlete should extend at the hips, athlete should extend at the hips, knees
knees and ankles moving the bar to a and ankles moving the bar to a
position of maximal barbell height position of maximal barbell height

Catch From a position of maximal barbell From a position of maximal barbell

height to a position in which the bar height to a position in which the bar is
is caught resting on the anterior caught above head in an overhead-
deltoids, in a front-squat position squat position

Recovery From a position in which the bar is From a position in which the bar is
caught resting on the anterior caught above head in an overhead-
deltoids to a standing position with squat position to a standing position
the bar remaining in a front-rack with the bar remaining above head.
position

Dip From standing, with the bar in a

front-rack position to a quarter-squat
position with the bar remaining in a
front-rack position

Drive From a quarter-squat position with

the bar remaining in a front-rack
position to a position of maximal
barbell height, with the athlete
extending at the hips, knees, and
ankles
Catch From a position of maximal barbell
height to a position in which the bar
is caught above head in a split-
stance position
 Recovery From a position in which the bar is
caught above head in a split-stance
position to a standing position with
the bar remaining above head.

Pedagogical Approaches

A key issue that strength and conditioning coaches must consider is the order in which they
will teach the component parts of the weightlifting movements. The method chosen will likely exert a
notable bearing on how easily the athlete can achieve fluidity in the movement when all parts are
‘chained’ together, creating the complex movement patterns associated with weightlifting. The need
to adopt a step-by-step teaching method has been supported in the scientific and coaching literature
(77, 78, 84). There are two common teaching approaches typically used when instructing weightlifting:
1) forward chaining (aka. bottom-up approach), and 2) reverse chaining (aka. top-down approach).
Briefly, in forward chaining, parts of the skill are learned in the order in which they will naturally occur,
while with reverse chaining, the key parts of the skill are learned in reverse.

The main argument for using forward chaining is that it seems logical and is readily justified on the
grounds that if a skill is not initiated properly, it will not be completed correctly. However, the use of
forward chaining potentiates other behaviors, which as skill complexity increases, become
detrimental to both the learning process and performance outcomes (237). Forward chaining
progressions usually results in skills that are executed well in the initial stages but deteriorate and
exhibit weaknesses and faults as the sequences progress (237).

With reverse chaining, as each new step is learned, it is followed by parts of the lift that are
already familiar and practiced. The rationale behind this approach is to provide lower complexity
movements to the athlete during early stages of development, as illustrated in Figures 2-4. The
complexity, in this instance, is governed by the number of phases an athlete must chain together
and/or the speed of movement. For example, the overhead squat provides a key opportunity for the
strength and conditioning coach to assess movement quality under load, at a slow speed, prior to
advancing on to more ballistic derivatives, such as the snatch balance (Figure 2). In some cases, the
progression need not be from the top (i.e., the overhead squat), but can also be from a point where
the strength and conditioning coach is able to optimize adaptation while concurrently laying the
foundation to a more complete movements, adding to the athlete’s exercise toolbox (i.e., using snatch
pulls from the power position [aka. start of the second pull] to power snatches from the knee).

The major advantages of reverse chaining over forward chaining progressions are as follows (237):
● Interference does not occur since each new element precedes all previously “learned”
elements (i.e., the learner thinks of and executes a new technique element and follows it with
what has been done successfully before)
● Each step in the progression does not increase in difficulty since undivided attention can be
focused on the new skill
● Attention is focused only on the new step and then established elements are performed to
finish in the terminal position
● There is a lack of tension/anxiety in the learner because of the simplicity of the task and its
steps
● Step sizes are small, providing a high rate of success

It is important to note that the reverse-chain approach of teaching weightlifting movements is the
chosen method advocated by both the NSCA (23) and the International Weightlifting Federation (148).

Figures 2-4 illustrate the teaching and learning progressions of the snatch, clean, and jerk. In
figures 2 and 3 the first column identifies the phase of the lift with the second column providing the
exercise that best develops that phase. Naturally, not all athletes will be able to execute the
progressions and therefore, regressions have also been provided in column 3 to help further simplify
the movement and develop relevant movements competencies. The last two columns, "Transitions"
and "Auxiliary", provide exercises which help develop the appropriate sequencing and positional
strength required to achieve the exercises outlined in the progression and regressions. Much like
figures 2 and 3, the first two columns figure 4 identify the phase of the lift and the exercise that best
develops that phase. Columns 3 and 4 provide transitional and auxiliary exercises to help develop the
appropriate sequencing and positional strength required to achieve the exercises outlined in the
progression. However, column 4 provides an alternative progression to aid in the transition from the
back to the front of the head by further simplifying the order to all movements from behind, then all
movements from in front.
Figure 2: Snatch Progression

Figure 3: Clean Progression

Figure 4: Jerk Progression

Stages of Learning

In 1967, Paul Fitts and Michael Posner proposed three stages of learning motor skills, which
they defined as the cognitive, associative, and autonomous stages (144). They proposed that while
learning a new motor skill, an individual passes through several changes that can be categorized into
one of the three stages. It is important to note that transition from one stage to the next is not an
acute change, but one that happens gradually. Recognizing the stage that the athlete is performing in
will help the strength and conditioning coach address their needs appropriately.

The cognitive stage is characterized by inconsistent and inefficient performance, slower

movements, and a high degree of mental effort. Movements are slow and deliberate. At this stage,
because the novice athlete is unable to use internal or kinesthetic feedback to adjust movement, they
will often require a lot of external feedback. It is best for athletes in this stage to eliminate distractions
and provide adequate space for the desired skill to be performed. Even a seasoned athlete will
experience the cognitive stage when learning a new skill. They may progress at a faster rate as they
may have previous skill experience related to the new movement, but they will still display
characteristics from the cognitive stage (144).
 As athletes move into the associative stage, movements become more fluid, consistent, and
efficient. Some parts of the skill become more “automatic” as less thinking is required. However, there
will still be aspects of the skill that require mental attention. Utilization of internal feedback begins to
occur for the athlete as they begin to sense what proper movement patterns feel like and identify
when they do not perform them accurately, but they may not know how to adjust their movement to
correct it. A coach’s feedback can reinforce the athlete’s internal feedback and help them to identify
areas needing improvement as well as how to make corrections (144).

The final stage of learning is the autonomous stage. At this point, motor programs are well-
defined and ingrained. Movement is smooth, accurate, and consistent, requiring little mental
attention to perform the skill as it has become automatic. Athletes, at this stage, can use their thought
processes on other important aspects of the lift instead of thinking of how to produce the desired skill
movement (144). Feedback will allow such athletes to fine-tune the skill, improving the effectiveness
and efficiency of the movement.

Types of Feedback and Forms of Communication

A variety of communication methods should be used to aid the beginner athlete in the
development of body position awareness, practicing accuracy and timing, and achievement of
movement fluency and confidence. There are a variety of methods that all fall in 3 principal areas:
verbal, visual, and kinesthetic (Table 3). A key factor that differentiates these methods is the extent to
which they are effective in communicating meaningful feedback to the athlete. Because athletes learn
best via a variety of ways, it is recommended that different methods be used in combination when
teaching weightlifting movements to a beginner. Whichever method(s) is employed, it is essential that
when providing it for the purpose of learning, that strength and conditioning coaches consider how
the athlete is interacting with the given task, and that all feedback is simple, precise, and clear.

Verbal instruction and cues both have pivotal roles in coaching weightlifting, where
instruction provides the necessary information about the task with cues providing an opportunity to
shift the athletes focus of attention to movement outcomes (165). The cues provided should be short
in their delivery while utilizing “buzz” words as opposed to long sentences, thus avoiding exposing the
athlete to information overload. The choice of the appropriate “buzz” words as well as the timing of
implementing them is critical. Likewise, verbal communication should be appropriate to the
individual’s stage of development (164). For example, children typically possess lower levels of
vocabulary and comprehension skills; therefore, language should be simple and non-technical, and
dialogue should be clear and concise. In this scenario, analogies and metaphors can serve as a useful
tool to encourage an external focus of attention, whilst also helping children process information more
effectively making the content relatable to them and condensing several task-relevant cues into a
single metaphor. An example of a feedback loop is provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Feedback loop example within a working set. Note: feedback is not always needed at every
stage, as this may lead to too much information being provided to the athlete.

Visual feedback and instruction via video capture or demonstrations can be coupled with
verbal feedback to enable the athlete to contextualize the information provided to them. Additionally,
methods of video feedback which capture key phases enable the strength and conditioning coach and
athlete to monitor and highlight technical faults and/or improvements over time. This also provides
further learning opportunities for the athlete to become more aware of how to optimize technique
(263). It is important to note, however, that with beginners, too frequent use of video viewing may
lead to being over conscious of errors and/or become negative towards their abilities (140), leading
to over dependence on visual over kinesthetic feedback. When using video feedback, strength and
conditioning coaches need to be cognizant of the coaching objective that they are striving for and not
deviate from it simply to incorporate video feedback.

Finally, having the athlete associate specific phases with something tangible may also provide
an opportunity to develop technical proficiency, which is commonly referred to as kinesthetic
awareness. Kinesthetic awareness can be defined as the athlete’s ability to “feel” a position, whether
that be a certain muscle group under strain (e.g., the quadriceps, hamstrings, and back during the 1st
pull), or knocking over an upright foam roller with the barbell's weight plate to signify a rearward
trajectory of the barbell during the 1st pull. This can also then be associated with a coaching cue to
reinforce appropriate movement patterns. An example of how these varying methods of feedback can
be used within a session is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Advantages/Disadvantages of different communication methods. Adapted from Isaac (140)

Method: Advantages: (effective in…) Disadvantages: (less effective Possible Issues:

in…)
Verbal  Providing short, simple movement  Describing body/limb positions ! Avoid using
Instruction instruction (e.g., “finish”, “aggressive”) during phases of the lift terminology that
beginners will be
 Providing work quantity (e.g., “do  Making changes in movement unfamiliar and/or will
another rep”, “3 rep’s please”) patterns not have sufficient
 Providing safety instruction (e.g., “stay  Correcting timing issues proprioceptive
in the center of the platform”) knowledge to associate
it with a particular body
 Providing meaningful communication to action
a beginner when using analogies and
metaphors ! Relying too frequently
on verbal cuing in early
skill acquisition
! May lead to the
athlete becoming
overly reliant on verbal
feedback over
kinesthetic/spatial skill
development
Reinforcement  Strengthening/increasing the frequency  Maintaining value if used too ! Reinforcement should
of desired behavior via positive (and frequently be intermittently
sometimes negative) reinforcement provided, or it
 Situations where the coach is diminishes in value
 Rewarding efforts and improvements to not able to observe performance
training behavior and/or technical or all of an athlete’s performances ! Appropriate use
performance depends on the coach’s
interpersonal skills
 Motivating the continued use of current
strategies to improve technique ! Appropriate use is
dependent on coach’s
 Reassuring current efforts that are
knowledge and
having a beneficial effect
understanding of
weightlifting technique
Demonstrating  Providing spatial and temporal  Creating immediate change in ! Demonstrations
(aka modelling) information naturally and instinctively body positions or movement usually need to be
patterns performed multiple
 Providing information in an expedient
times for the learner to
manner  Situations where the coach is process the necessary
unable to perform an adequate information
 Providing a basic plan of what’s going to
demonstration appropriately
be done (e.g., new exercise introduction)
 Providing a contrast of correct and ! A beginner can miss
incorrect position(s) or movement(s) the main point of the
demonstration
! Poor demonstrations
can cause problems for
the athlete’s skill
acquisition
Video Replay  Enhancing understanding of the skill  Less valuable if not ! Too frequent viewing
(replayed at a slower speed) accompanied by quality verbal may lead to being over
information conscious of errors,
 Enhancing understanding of the skill (as
developing more
it can be replayed)  Dependent on the knowledge internal focus, and/or
and analytical skills of the viewer become negative
 Showing a specific position or technical
element that requires correction  Time intensive towards their abilities
 Identifying movement characteristics  Can be disruptive to the normal ! Too frequent viewing
(by using slow-motion or video scrubbing) flow of coaching and training may lead to being
overly dependent on
 Can be overwhelming to visual over kinesthetic
beginners due to the amount of development
information provided (visually
and/or verbally) ! Video/movement
analysis requires
specific skills not
necessarily developed
by coaches
! Coaches need to be
cognizant of the
coaching objective
striving for and stick to
it
! Video in training can
be disruptive to the
athlete and/or to the
training environment
Discovery  Improving timing, coordination, and  Introduction of new exercises ! Success of this
Learning fluency of movement or movements to a beginner strategy depends on
the knowledge,
 Developing balance and stability  Developing basic body positions experience, and
(they are not always intuitive or confidence of the coach
 Developing the kinematics of
“natural”) to best know when to
performance of complex movements (e.g.,
speed and acceleration characteristics of  Solving persistent technical allow the beginner to
the body, vertical and horizontal errors or problems experiment and when
displacement of the bar) to intervene
! The coach needs to
know how and when to
impose appropriate
spatial or temporal
constraints
Manual  Providing proprioceptive information as  Correcting movement errors ! Requires practice to
Manipulation to how the required body position should (vs. positional errors) perfect appropriate
feel methods/strategies to
employ
 Correcting basic body or limb positions
(while the athlete is stationary)
  Time saving ! Requires the athlete’s
permission first to
perform
! Relies on a thorough
understanding and
knowledge of body
positions as they relate
to weightlifting
technique

Feedback timing

It is important to note that the timing of feedback is crucial when coaching weightlifting
movements. Terminal feedback is given at the end of the attempt whether this is after a particular
repetition within a set or at the end of the set itself. This can be helpful for athletes learning a new
skill as it permits them to concentrate on performing the skill or movement itself, and not solely
focusing on feedback (144). Withholding immediate feedback gives the athlete time to evaluate their
performance, identify positive elements (e.g., did the athlete effectively perform the movement cues
that the strength and conditioning coach provided), and mistakes made. Even though an athlete in the
cognitive stage of learning is unable to effectively use internal and kinesthetic feedback, it is still good
practice to start asking questions as to how the movement felt to begin the process of listening for
the internal voice.

Athletes that are more skilled or are in the stages of refining their technique can experience
concurrent feedback. Concurrent feedback is providing feedback during the performance of a skill or
movement. Athletes in the autonomous stage of learning benefit more from this type of feedback
timing as the skill or movement that they are performing requires little thought allowing attention to
be shifted to areas where they can improve. However, a strength and conditioning coach must be
careful about providing too much feedback. An athlete, especially in the early stages of learning, can
come to rely solely on that feedback at a detriment to their spatial and kinesthetic awareness. It is
also important to note that athletes respond differently to feedback, in general, and to different types
of feedback. Ultimately, a strength and conditioning coach needs to know their athlete, learn how
they respond to feedback, and which types of feedback are the most effective for them.

4.2 Considerations for Beginners

The term beginner, or novice, applies to individuals who have little to no previous experience
with, in this case, the weightlifting movements. This could include athletes who have a higher training
age with other strength training activities (i.e., resistance training, powerlifting, etc.) or knowledge
about resistance training, but have not performed the weightlifting movements. A beginner to
weightlifting movements will experience notable challenges when learning these highly complex
movement patterns that test body position, balance, and stability as well as the speed and timing of
each movement (140). Some strength and conditioning coaches are reluctant to introduce novice
athletes to weightlifting-based training methods as they feel that they are overly time consuming
and/or too difficult to teach. However, the use of a well-organized, disciplined, and systematic plan
with investment in technical development of weightlifting movements and ongoing technical
refinement in weightlifting training, will promote later success in an athlete’s career (126, 200). This
occurs by promoting habitual improvements in athleticism over time to improve performance, reduce
injury risk, and enhance health and wellbeing (89). This is a common and important goal in a long-
term athlete development plan.

Preparation of training

When preparing to introduce weightlifting movements to a beginner, it is essential that a

structured teaching plan is established to guide the athlete in the development of their weightlifting
literacy. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that the important phases in the teaching progression
are not missed, and the athlete is provided with a movement curriculum that allows them to develop
their weightlifting skills more easily. In the initial stages of development, to ensure proper technique
is developed, strength and conditioning coaches should follow appropriate coaching progressions to
aid implementation of a structured and systematic approach that progresses logically based on
technical competency, to ensure that the athlete learns the movements in a timely and effective
manner (200). To obtain technical competency, the full lifts are often broken into several key phases
referred to as movement chaining (e.g., reverse chaining), or “chunking” (200), allowing the athlete
to focus on learning discrete parts of the lift. Ultimately, the complex, multi-joint movements
associated with weightlifting are broken into smaller, more manageable pieces that can be combined
to create more complex movement patterns (Figures 2-4). By decreasing the range of movement and
overall lift complexity, the learning situation is simplified for the beginner. Another benefit of this
approach is that it allows strength and conditioning coaches to identify movement deficiencies or
technical errors and allows for more specific exercise prescription targeting the identified issues.
Based on the theory of “chunking,” beginner athletes can work on these components in isolation, and
then string the individual exercises / movements together to create a sequenced movement pattern
(112).

The use of an exercise progression (Figures 2-4) provides a comprehensive approach to

integrate different phases of each weightlifting movement for training, from beginner to advanced,
identifying the training focus and coaching considerations at each stage (200). Regardless of the stage
of training, the simultaneous development of movement skills (i.e., competency, autonomy, and
refinement), and physical capacities (i.e., motor and body control, basic strength, Strength-Speed, and
Speed-Strength) should be considered, with exercise prescription and selection adjusted accordingly
(200). The amount of time spent in any phase of the progression should be based on individual ability
and need. It is, however, important to note that each athlete’s rate of progression through the learning
process will be highly individualized. While the athlete’s stage of maturation should be considered,
their level of technical competency should dictate how quickly they advance through the teaching
progression.

Building confidence

The role of the strength and conditioning coach is far greater than just developing the athlete’s
physical competency or their overall performance capacity. A strength and conditioning coach is an
educator, teaching the athlete not only the skills of weightlifting, in this case, but also how to train
effectively as well as develop the athlete as a person (140). Building confidence, developing positive
self-worth, responsibility, and integrity are important outcomes of the beginner’s coaching process
(149). To establish the development of such attributes, it is essential that the strength and
conditioning coach ensures that the athlete maintains an appropriate progression rate which is based
on their abilities. Central to this process, the strength and conditioning coach should select challenges
with a relatively low task difficulty that will allow the athlete to train the optimal challenge point based
on the benefits of an errorless learning strategy. Finding the right balance between the task difficulty
and the athlete’s confidence will lead to an increase in the athlete’s self-efficacy, further improving
the learning process (165).

Technique and accuracy focused

In the initial stages of learning, strength and conditioning coaches should focus on developing
the athlete’s technical literacy over maximizing their strength development. As such loading should
be incremental and progressive, albeit conservative. This is an essential aspect of developing sound
lifting technique because: 1) lifting to maximal or near-maximal loads, as a beginner, may lead to
technical errors which may become ingrained, making it more difficult to modify or rectify technical
errors during the later stages of the athlete’s development; 2) athletes who develop sound technique
during the early stages of their development tend to have more opportunities to use progressively
heavier loads to target specific neuromuscular adaptations. Training adaptations may be affected by
lifting technique as this can influence an athlete’s ability to produce force which is especially relevant
in weightlifting. Therefore, if proper technique enhances or improves force production, then poor
technique has the potential to impair improvements in motor control, coordination, muscle activation,
and motor unit recruitment (200).
 Another important focus when teaching a beginner, a complex skill, such as weightlifting, is
developing accuracy rather than the speed of the movement. The long-term result of this strategy,
known as the speed-accuracy trade-off (241), is that athletes will exhibit improved technical
performance, consistency, and confidence. As accuracy is gained and the learner moves with improved
consistency in the part of the skill being learned, greater attention can be given to the speed of the
movement and use of maximal intent. Furthermore, by concentrating on accuracy and consequently
slowing down the movement, the athlete will be better able to acquire, process, and interpret
proprioceptive feedback. This will also help the strength and conditioning coach intervene and provide
appropriate feedback in a timely manner. Conversely, if the initial focus is on speed of movement, it
is more likely that errors in technical performance will become evident, ingrained, and harder to fix as
the athlete develops (140). Beginner athletes may find learning certain phases of the weightlifting
movements difficult. In their effort to achieve “perfect” technique, the body’s ability to perform
naturally organized the motor actions is interrupted; thus, becoming overly conscious and slowing it
down (251). Therefore, to avoid this issue, providing a single externally focused cue that helps
minimize the biggest limiting factor will likely yield a positive outcome and enhance the learning
process.

A key issue that strength and conditioning coaches must consider is the order in which they
will teach the component parts of the key weightlifting movements (i.e., snatch, clean and jerk). The
method chosen will likely have a bearing on how easily the athlete can achieve fluidity in the
movement when all parts are chained together to create the complex movement patterns associated
with weightlifting. There are two common teaching methods that have been previously discussed in
section 4.1: forward chaining (aka. bottom-up approach) and reverse chaining (aka. top-down
approach).
Fundamental movement skills

Solid weightlifting technique is based on underlying fundamental skills and movement abilities. In the early stages of learning, it is critical to develop
body awareness and control as well as foundational movement competencies before advancing the beginner to higher order tasks. The goal of starting with
these developmental skills and capacities is to establish underpinning qualities from which specific weightlifting technical competency can be set. Exercises
that focus on the proper position and control of the back and torso, hip hinging, squatting (both unilateral and bilateral), overhead stability, and general body
weight control are essential prerequisites used to not only establish fundamental skills but also to develop base strength levels to progress onto more
weightlifting specific movements (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Weightlifting exercise progressions. RDL = Romanian deadlift; BHN = behind neck; OH = overhead; CMJ = countermovement jump; BW = bodyweight;
SG = snatch grip. Exercises are ordered by increasing movement complexity and increasing technical specificity from the bottom of the pyramid working
upward as indicated by increased color depth. Adapted with permission from Morris et al. (200).
Chaining of skills

An athlete is ready to begin chaining different skills together based upon the following factors:

1) No key elements of technique are poorly performed or constant errors in either lift.

2) Demonstrates movement fluency in performing both exercises. Movement fluency is the

ability to perform repetitions repeatedly without hesitation or excessive conscious control
(140). This includes small degrees of natural movement variability that commonly occur.

3) Responds effectively to coaching instruction or feedback to vary their body position, body
movement or movement of the bar.

It is important to note that timing issues will usually occur when the beginner makes initial
attempts to chain two or more parts of a skill together. As the athlete works through the chaining
process, the athlete should be given autonomy to work through these challenges under the guidance
and positive reinforcement from the strength and conditioning coach. To ingrain these new movement
patterns, the strength and conditioning coach should ensure that an appropriate amount of time is
allotted for the athlete to master the new movement skill.

Prioritizing errors and frequency of feedback

It is likely that beginners will demonstrate multiple errors and inconsistencies in their
movement patterns while they are trying to master the skills associated with weightlifting. As such,
the beginner needs consistent and positive guidance from the coach to help them understand how to
interpret the proprioceptive feedback they will receive from weightlifting movements. Strength and
conditioning coaches should avoid attempting to correct or provide feedback for every problem that
is noted during each lift and be more focused in their approach. As discussed in section 4.1, strength
and conditioning coaches should prioritize and attempt to address one error at a time, precisely and
clearly, through a variety of communication methods. Feedback need only be given if the athlete’s
performance is outside the bandwidth of correctness (168).

The bandwidth approach is a useful method for reducing the frequency of feedback for small
errors in technical performance that occur. The need to provide feedback is typically triggered when
errors in performance are outside what the strength and conditioning coach might consider a
tolerance limit. This tolerance limit, or “bandwidth of correctness” as it is referred to by Lee, White,
and Carnahan (168), is determined largely by the width (wide or narrow) of the bandwidth that the
strength and conditioning coach sets. The narrower the bandwidth, the more frequent feedback is
provided as more efforts for a beginner will likely fall outside the tolerance limits. Conversely, the
wider the bandwidth, the strength and conditioning coach will feel less need to provide feedback.

From the learner’s point of view, overly frequent correction by the strength and conditioning
coach will likely lead to a loss in confidence in one’s performance ability as well as a loss of movement
fluency. In determining how wide to set the bandwidth, the crucial concept to be considered is that
lower frequencies of feedback have been shown to facilitate skill learning (140) and provide the
athlete with a degree of ownership of their training. The beginner may benefit from the use of the
performance-bandwidth approach as it may increase their proprioceptive sense and reduce the
possibility of becoming hyper-sensitive to technical flaws. The strength and conditioning coach should
strive to reinforce what the athlete is doing well and prioritize technical errors for feedback and
coaching intervention. From a skill acquisition perspective, it is not necessary to provide immediate
feedback after a performance, as delaying this feedback will allow the athlete to reflect on their
performance and process internal feedback (9). This can aid in building movement confidence and
autonomy as the athlete learns through kinesthetic awareness. Possessing considerable knowledge
and understanding of the technical model of a particular movement will help to guide a strength and
conditioning coach to how narrow or wide to set their view of the “bandwidth correctness” and assist
in determining when and when not to provide feedback to the athlete.

Table 4: Examples of bandwidths of correctness. Adapted with permission from Isaac (140)
Inside the bandwidth of correctness (no feedback Outside the bandwidth of correctness (feedback
needed) needed)
▪ The error made is not a safety issue. ▪ The error may increase injury risk if repeated.
▪ The error is just a natural variation of human ▪ The error results from a deliberate and
performance. unhelpful strategy made (invented) by the
▪ The error is the first instance, see what happens athlete.
next rep. ▪ The athlete repeats the same error on two
▪ The error made is due to fatigue or anxiety. consecutive attempts: provide feedback before
▪ The error is a result of the individualization of 3rd attempt.
technique due to limited flexibility or joint range ▪ The athlete shows no change in movement
of motion. despite being given time and opportunity to
▪ The athlete makes a different error after implement feedback given.
correctly attempting to implement the coach’s ▪ The athlete interprets feedback incorrectly.
feedback.

Types of errors

A strength and conditioning coach will be able to better construct and implement appropriate
correction feedback strategies and techniques as well as help to prioritize the correction of errors (i.e.,
 critical vs. non-critical) when they understand the different types of errors they will come across,
including how, when, and why they occur. Errors typically can be found in the following categories:

● Body position

● Movement characteristics

● Balance and stability

● Lack of confidence

● Flexibility or movement limitations

● “bracing” ability of the body

Table 5 illustrates each type of error and provides weightlifting examples that strength and
conditioning coaches will likely see when working with beginners (140).

Table 5: Movement Errors associated with weightlifting. Adapted with permission from Isaac (140)
BODY POSITION ERRORS BALANCE & STABILITY ERRORS
● Shoulders behind the bar at mid-thigh position ● Loss of balance in receiving positions for the
in the pull snatch, clean or jerk
● The upper body is not vertical in the dip for the ● Loss of balance at any stage of the pull (not
jerk always obvious)
● Foot placement too wide or too narrow in ● Inability to land and remain flat-footed in the
receiving positions snatch or clean receiving position
● Excessive anterior pelvic tilt in the receiving ● Loss of balance in recovery
position for the jerk ● Forward rotation of the upper body in the dip for
● Hips too high in the start position of the pull the jerk
● Less than 180° extension of the body at the
finish of the pull RIGIDITY ERRORS
● Receiving position for the snatch is not ● Rounding of the back in the pull
sufficiently upright ● Inability to brace the upper body in the dip for
● Elbows too low in the receiving position for the the jerk
clean ● Hyperextension of the back in the jerk receiving
● Arms bending in the pull before full extension position
of the body ● Back foot instability or collapse in the jerk
● Knees not tracking over the toes in squats ● Inability to brace the body in the receiving
position for the clean

ERRORS IN MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ERRORS DUE TO LACK OF CONFIDENCE

● Movement under the bar before achieving full ● Abrupt changes in foot movement and landing
extension in the pull as the bar weight approaches perceived
● Dipping too fast in the jerk maximum
● Foot lift too high during movement under the ● Hesitancy to drop under the bar as the bar
bar weight approaches perceived maximum
● Lack of acceleration in the final stages of the ● Increased effort at the start of the pull causing
pull changes in body position and timing
● Hips rising before the shoulders at the start of ● Diving under the bar – attempts to drop quickly
the pull under the bar but resulting in incomplete
● Bar slows significantly in the middle of the pull extension in the pull
● Excessive backward rotation of the upper body ● Lack of commitment to complete the lift
in the middle or end stages of the pull
● Inability to keep the bar close to the body in the ERRORS DUE TO LACK OF FLEXIBILITY
pull ● Inability to position the bar on the shoulders
● Uneven extension of the arms in the lockout correctly in the clean or jerk because of shoulder
(press out) flexibility issues
● Restricted shoulder girdle elevation resulting in
poor lockout
● Inability to extend the elbows to 180 degrees
● Lack of depth in receiving position

Some errors may be classified as more critical than others and require immediate intervention
while others pose less consequence and can be addressed later (Table 4). The underlying principle is
that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the athlete to implement corrective action on two faults
simultaneously (140). If a strength and conditioning coach affirms any of the following, then the error
should be considered a high priority and necessitates an immediate response:

 If the error is not fixed now, will it become ingrained and harder to fix later? (e.g., pulls with
arms, raises hips at the start of the pull)
 Does the error immediately impact overall movement success? (e.g., excessive horizontal
displacement of the bar leading to an inability to stabilize overhead)
 Does the error prevent the achievement of the primary objective of the exercise? (e.g., torso
collapses in the transition between the dip/drive phases of the jerk)
 Does the error endanger the safety of the athlete? (e.g., athlete puts the bar too far behind
the head in a snatch balance)

However, it is important to note that in early learning, athletes typically display multiple errors where
some, occasionally, are not more than a random event and not typical of an athlete’s skill. Therefore,
careful observation, examination, and evaluation by the strength and conditioning coach is warranted
in determining what, if any, feedback, or intervention is needed. It is recommended to observe and
assess the athlete for several sets, and over several sessions, to obtain a valid evaluation of the quality
of their body positions and movement characteristics before making their assessment known to the
athlete. Prior to any feedback or corrective action being provided, the strength and conditioning coach
should consider when the best time to implement it would be. Athletes do not always benefit from
immediate intervention by a strength and conditioning coach to correct an error (140). For
information regarding feedback timing, please refer to section 4.1.

4.3 Considerations for Children and Adolescents

Despite misconceptions regarding the safety of using weightlifting-based training with

children and adolescents, there is a substantial body of evidence advocating weightlifting as a safe
and beneficial form of resistance training for children and adolescents (20, 88, 89, 170-175, 226, 228,
315). Lower injury incidence rates are also reported from long-term weightlifting in comparison to
other sports (30, 121, 226). However, appropriate instruction and logical progression, based on
technical proficiency, is a key premise for ensuring safe and effective weightlifting training with youth
populations (30, 226, 227).

The Benefits of Weightlifting for Youth

As with adult populations, exposing children and adolescents to weightlifting-based training

can elicit improvements in motor control, strength, power, speed, COD speed, and cardiorespiratory
fitness (36-38, 137-139, 150, 225, 253, 316). Furthermore, weightlifting can improve body composition
(36), reduce injury risk factors (225) and result in adaptations beneficial for bone formation and
growth (55, 311). The benefits of using weightlifting-based exercises with youth arguably outweigh
the risks, with researchers suggesting the injury risk of weightlifting-based training is markedly less
than in other popular youth sports (e.g., soccer, rugby, cricket, and athletics) (30, 121, 226). Children
have a lower risk of resistance training-related joint sprains and muscle strains than adults, with most
injuries in children being accidental in nature and preventable with appropriate supervision (205). It
is recommended that a strength and conditioning coach to athlete ratio of 1:10, or lower, is employed
when coaching young athletes, to ensure proper technique and establish a safe environment (307).
To enhance training adaptations and reduce injury risk, adult-based training programs should not be
superimposed on children or adolescents. In accordance with leading consensus on long-term athletic
development (170), the design, delivery, and progression/regression of a young athlete’s training
program should consider the influence of growth and maturation and the psycho-social needs of the
individual.

Trainability of Weightlifting Performance in Youth

 Childhood is the optimal time to develop coordination and movement competency, as
neuroplasticity is at its highest (22, 33). Childhood is also a timeframe during which bone mineral
density can be enhanced (108). To take advantage of this heightened sensitivity during childhood,
strength and conditioning coaches should consider introducing athletes to weightlifting-based training
methods before the adolescent growth spurt (76, 108). When coaching novice, inexperienced
children, it is important that athletic motor skill competencies (AMSC), proposed as the foundational
movements that underpin all athletic movements (174), are developed first. Once movement
proficiency in the AMSC is established, weightlifting literacy can then be developed (200). Such an
approach aims to avoid any motor proficiency barriers manifesting as the exercise complexity
increases (252). Less structured, exploratory training using ‘animal or superhero shapes’, obstacle
courses or playground-based games may be used to introduce the AMSC, before progressing on to
more structured versions of the weightlifting movements with increased load (177, 200). As well as
providing an element of novelty to training, these game-based activities enable children to learn and
refine AMSC with fun-based challenges. Although there is no minimum age requirement for
performing the weightlifting movements, athletes should have the emotional maturity to accept and
follow coaching instructions and handle the attention demands, before being introduced to a
structured training program (88, 204).

Strength and conditioning coaches should be mindful that children within the same
chronological age group will likely differ in biological maturation, which can influence training
responsiveness, movement competency, and associated injury risk (95, 171, 173, 175). When working
with youth athletes, strength and conditioning coaches should be mindful of the circum-pubertal stage
of maturation, which is commonly indicative of a period of ‘adolescent awkwardness.’ This phase is
synonymous with potential disruptions in motor coordination because of increases in lever lengths,
height of center of mass, and body mass, accompanied by a reduction in mobility, possibly owing to
reduced musculotendinous stiffness and alterations in collagen properties within the tendon (130,
174, 175, 182). During this phase, the coach may consider prescribing weightlifting derivatives (e.g.,
hang variations) which have a reduced complexity in comparison to the full movements, in addition
to reducing external load. Supplementary strength training in isometric positions or performing
exercises with reduced ranges of movement (i.e., power variations) may be advantageous to continue
to develop strength during this 'awkward adolescent’ stage.

The post-pubertal stage of maturation is associated with altered sex hormone concentrations,
leading to natural increases in muscle mass and force producing capabilities (95, 231). Therefore,
adolescent athletes may respond more favorably to training methods that also promote structural
changes in addition to targeting the neuromuscular system (173, 221, 222). Provided technical
proficiency in the weightlifting movements have been established, greater external loads may be used
during weightlifting-based training to provide a progressive overload stimulus and take advantage of
the naturally occurring physiological adaptations. Additionally, adolescents may experience improved
proprioception at this stage (173) and increased cognitive maturity (164). These changes may allow
them to better understand and adapt to the complexities of the weightlifting movements and increase
their ability to self-correct movement errors.

Cumulatively, the existing pediatric exercise literature indicates that growth and maturation
can influence how youth respond to acute and chronic forms of exercise (22, 76, 170, 176, 221, 222,
231). By considering the relationship between training-induced adaptations and those resulting from
growth and maturation, researchers suggest that a strength and conditioning coach can heighten the
training response (176, 221, 222). However, while the influence of maturation is important to
consider, of all the variables that will likely influence program design and exercise prescription,
technical competency in the movements should be the primary factor that dictates an athlete’s
program prescription and rate of progression.

4.4 Long-term athletic development

Long-term athletic development (LTAD) refers to the “habitual development of athleticism

over time to improve health and fitness, enhance physical performance, reduce the relative risk of
injury, and develop the confidence and competence of all youth” (170). In addition to improving health,
physical activity, and sports performance, LTAD takes a holistic approach and considers physical and
psychological factors in youth development. The NSCA LTAD position statement includes ten pillars to
assist strength and conditioning coaches in its successful implementation (Table 6).

Table 6. Ten pillars for successful long-term athletic development based on Lloyd et al (170).
Pillar Description
1 Long-term athletic development pathways should accommodate for the highly
individualized and non-linear nature of the growth and development of youth.

2 Youth of all ages, abilities and aspirations should engage in long-term athletic
development programs that promote both physical fitness and psychosocial wellbeing.
3 All youth should be encouraged to enhance physical fitness from early childhood, with a
primary focus on motor skill and muscular strength development.
4 Long-term athletic development pathways should encourage an early sampling
approach for youth that promotes and enhances a broad range of motor skills.
5 Health and wellbeing of the child should always be the central tenet of long-term athletic
development programs.
6
 Youth should participate in physical conditioning that helps reduce the risk of injury to
ensure their on-going participation in long-term athletic development programs.
7 Long-term athletic development programs should provide all youth with a range of
training modes to enhance both health- and skill-related components of fitness.
8 Strength and conditioning coaches should use relevant monitoring and assessment tools
as part of a long-term athletic development strategy.
9 Strength and conditioning coaches working with youth should systematically progress
and individualize training programs for successful long-term athletic development.
10 Qualified professionals and sound pedagogical approaches are fundamental to the
success of long-term athletic development programs.

For LTAD to be successful, growth and maturation need to be considered. Growth refers to
the quantifiable change in anthropometrics, body composition, body size, or the size of specific
regions of the body, and is a constantly evolving process, whereas maturation refers to the qualitative
structural and functional system change towards a mature state and is variable among body systems
(26). During this time, as bodies are evolving in a non-linear fashion (183), youth may go through a
period of temporary disruption in motor control and coordination termed “adolescent awkwardness”
(229). Adolescent awkwardness may also lead to reduced force production and decreased
performance in speed and jumping ability (25, 230), which can lead to an increased risk of injury (129).
The increase in height of the center of mass and body mass during the adolescent growth spurt,
without corresponding neuromuscular adaptations, can lead to altered movement patterns and the
development of risk factors for injury (129). The extent, timing, and tempo of maturation can
significantly vary between youth of the same chronological age (26). This also means that how youth
respond and recover from training can vary immensely (22), such as during adolescent awkwardness.
Therefore, strength and conditioning coaches should consider growth-related changes when
implementing LTAD programs and be able to modify motor patterns with reduced loads.
In addition to navigating physical development throughout the maturation process, a sound
approach to LTAD is needed to counteract the effects of lack of movement skills and general physical
activity seen in youth today. Inactivity during childhood is associated with being overweight or obese
(203), leading to undeveloped fundamental movement skills and therefore, a lack of confidence and
competence in their ability to perform movements (17, 18). This can lead to a decrease in physical
activity and eventually negative health outcomes later in life (90, 91). Therefore, to encourage an
active lifestyle and facilitate longer sporting careers, youth should engage in a variety of sports or
activities (referred to as sampling) (67, 173).
Several models to create a framework for youth development have been proposed over the
past three decades. In a recent review, Pichardo et al. (225) reported three models that have largely
influenced how athletes are developed: the Developmental Model of Sports Performance (66), the
LTAD model (16), and the Youth Physical Development model (173). These models provide a
framework to develop athleticism based on chronological age and/or maturation. The NSCA’s position
statement on LTAD refers to athleticism as “the ability to repeatedly perform a range of movements
with precision and confidence in a variety of environments, which require competent levels of motor
skills, strength, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, and endurance” (170). Figure 6 illustrates
how each model aligns with each other and how the emphasis may change as youth move towards
adulthood. It should be noted that if an adult or novice/beginner youth athlete has not gone through
the early stages of development (e.g., fundamentals) then the athlete should enter the model at the
beginning as opposed to the stage that corresponds to their chronological age (171). Irrespective of
age, a novice/beginner athlete must exhibit technical competency in fundamentals before moving on
to more complex movements.
Figure 6: Illustration comparing three models of long-term athletic development. DMSP =
Development Model of Sports Participation, LTAD = Long-term Athlete Development model, YPD =
Youth Physical Development model. In the LTAD model, closed boxes align to chronological age and
dashed boxes to maturation. In the YPD model, the font size represents the importance of a fitness
component at a given stage, shaded boxes identify interactions between training adaptations and
maturation: bold box = puberty (mainly neural adaptations), dashed box = pubertal (hormonal and
neural adaptations. FMS = fundamental movement skills, SSS = sport=specific skills, MC = metabolic
conditioning. Note: Adapted from Pichardo et al. (224)
 Pichardo et al. (224) proposed a model for developing weightlifting in youth based on the
LTAD model of Balyi and Hamilton (16) and adapted from the youth weightlifting LTAD model
presented by Lloyd et al. (171). This model employs four stages: Fundamental Weightlifting Skills
(FUNdamentals), Learning Weightlifting (Learning to Train), Training Weightlifting (Training to Train)
and Performance Weightlifting (Training to Compete/Win). Figure 7 illustrates that training structure
should increase with each stage and that training emphasis shifts from physical literacy (fundamental
movement skills) to technical competency to performance. These guidelines can help strength and
conditioning coaches design training sessions and realistic outcomes during each stage of training.

Figure 7. A summary of weightlifting training models. Adapted from Pichardo et al. (224)

Similarly, Morris et al. (200) details a long-term approach to develop weightlifting skills
progressing from beginner to advanced, highlighting the training prescription, exercise selection, skill
development, and physical capacity at each stage (Figure 9). Physical capacities (motor control and
body weight management) and skill development (movement competency) need to be considered at
each stage before progressing to the next stage to develop the highest level of skill and performance
and prevent injuries. Similarly, weightlifting exercise progressions should start with motor
competencies (e.g., squat, hinge, push, pull, brace) and progress to foundational strength exercises
(e.g., back squat, Romanian deadlift, strict press) and then to specific weightlifting movements and
derivatives (e.g., clean from thigh, push jerk, power snatch) (Figure 6). As with any training, it is
imperative to consider individual needs and maturation status and have a qualified professional
implement these programs so that youth can enjoy life-long physical activity.
Figure 8. Long-term development of weightlifting performance progression scheme Note: Novice
athletes are introduced at the outside of the circle and training progressions inward in all directions,
progressing from beginner to novice, intermediate and advanced stages indicative of a reduced color
depth. Reproduced with permission from Morris et al. (200)

Summary
The inclusion of weightlifting exercises into appropriately planned training programs, that are
appropriately sequenced to take advantage of the development of specific physical characteristics,
results in enhanced force production characteristics and performance in athletic tasks. It is important,
to ensure that the exercise selection, including loading, sets, repetitions, and frequency are carefully
selected to ensure an appropriate stimulus to elicit the desired neuromuscular adaptations. While
making such decisions, the strength and conditioning coach should also be mindful of the skill level
and the technical competent in performing the selected weightlifting exercise(s), to ensure that they
are performed safely and with intent. To assist with the development of technique, it is important to
adopt a long-term development approach, not only to develop technical competency, but to continue
to refine the skilled aspects of these exercises, to maximize desired stimulus and the resulting
adaptations.
References

1. Aagaard P and Andersen JL. Correlation between contractile strength and myosin heavy chain
isoform composition in human skeletal muscle. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 30,
1998.
2. Aagaard P, Andersen JL, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Leffers A-M, Wagner A, Magnusson SP, Halkjaer-
Kristensen J, and Simonsen EB. A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human
pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. The Journal
of Physiology 534: 613-623, 2001.
3. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P. Increased rate of
force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J
Appl Physiol 93: 1318-1326, 2002.
4. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P. Neural adaptation
to resistance training: changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. J Appl Physiol (1985)
92: 2309-2318, 2002.
5. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson SP, Halkjaer-Kristensen J, and Dyhre-
Poulsen P. Neural inhibition during maximal eccentric and concentric quadriceps contraction:
effects of resistance training. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89: 2249-2257, 2000.
6. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Trolle M, Bangsbo J, and Klausen K. Effects of different strength
training regimes on moment and power generation during dynamic knee extensions.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 69: 382-386, 1994.
7. Andersen LL and Aagaard P. Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic muscle
contractile properties on contractile rate of force development. Eur J Appl Physiol 96: 46-52,
2006.
8. Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Zebis MK, and Aagaard P. Early and late rate of force development:
differential adaptive responses to resistance training? Scand J Med Sci Sports 20: e162-169,
2010.
9. Anderson DI, Magill RA, Sekiya H, and Ryan G. Support for an explanation of the guidance
effect in motor skill learning. Journal of motor behavior 37: 231-238, 2005.
10. Arabatzi F and Kellis E. Olympic weightlifting training causes different knee muscle-
coactivation adaptations compared with traditional weight training. J Strength Cond Res 26:
2192-2201, 2012.
11. Arabatzi F, Kellis E, and Saez De Villarreal E. Vertical Jump Biomechanics after Plyometric,
Weight Lifting, and Combined (Weight Lifting + Plyometric) Training. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research 24: 2440-2448 2010.
12. Ayers JL, DeBeliso M, Sevene TG, and Adams KJ. Hang cleans and hang snatches produce
similar improvements in female collegiate athletes. Biology of sport 33: 251-256, 2016.
13. Azizi E, Brainerd Elizabeth L, and Roberts Thomas J. Variable gearing in pennate muscles.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 1745-1750, 2008.
14. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Lanza MB, and Folland JP. Effect of long-term
maximum strength training on explosive strength, neural, and contractile properties. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 32: 685-697, 2022.
15. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Morales-Artacho AJ, McKeown A, Appleby CL,
and Folland JP. Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all
contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training. European Journal of
Applied Physiology 117: 631-640, 2017.
16. Balyi I and Hamilton A. Long-term athlete development: Trainability in childhood and
adolescence. . Olympic coach 16: 4-9, 2004.
17. Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, and Beard JR. Does childhood motor skill
proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 2137-2144, 2008.
18. Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, and Beard JR. Childhood motor skill
proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health 44: 252-259, 2009.
19. Baumann W, Gross V, Quade K, Galbierz P, and Schwirtz A. The Snatch Technique of World
Class Weight lifters at the 1985 World Championships. International Journal of Sport
Biomechanics 4: 68-89, 1988.
20. Behm DG, Faigenbaum AD, Falk B, and Klentrou P. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology
position paper: resistance training in children and adolescents. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 33:
547-561, 2008.
21. Behm DG and Sale DG. Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-
specific training response. J Appl Physiol 74: 359-368, 1993.
22. Behringer M, Vom Heede A, Matthews M, and Mester J. Effects of strength training on motor
performance skills in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Exerc Sci 23: 186-206,
2011.
23. Berninger D, Caulfield S, Erickson J, Haff GG, Krall K, McHenry P, Kurtz M, Sahli S, Sandoval B,
Szymanski D, Thomson B, and Young M. Foundations of Coaching Lifts: Hands-on Approach to
Coaching Lift Progressions. Colorado Springs, USA.: National STrength and Conditioning
Association, 2016.
24. Berton R, Lixandrao ME, Pinto ESCM, and Tricoli V. Effects of weightlifting exercise, traditional
resistance and plyometric training on countermovement jump performance: a meta-analysis.
J Sports Sci 36: 2038-2044, 2018.
25. Beunen G and Malina RM. Growth and physical performance relative to the timing of the
adolescent spurt. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 16: 503-540, 1988.
26. Beunen GP and Malina RM. Growth and biologic maturation: relevance to athletic
performance in the child and adolescent athlete. Oxford, UK. : Blackwell Publishing 2005.
27. Bonini G. London: The Cradle of Modern Weightlifting. The Sports Historian 21: 56-70, 2001.
28. Brechue WF and Abe T. The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in
powerlifting performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 86: 327-336, 2002.
29. Burd NA, Holwerda AM, Selby KC, West DWD, Staples AW, Cain NE, Cashaback JGA, Potvin JR,
Baker SK, and Phillips SM. Resistance exercise volume affects myofibrillar protein synthesis
and anabolic signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men. The Journal of Physiology
588: 3119-3130, 2010.
30. Byrd R, Pierce K, Rielly L, and Brady J. Young weightlifters' performance across time. Sports
Biomech 2: 133-140, 2003.
31. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, and Armstrong LE. Kinematic and Kinetic Relationships Between an
Olympic-Style Lift and the Vertical Jump. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 10:
127-130, 1996.
32. Carlock JM, Smith SL, Hartman MJ, Morris RT, Ciroslan DA, Pierce KC, Newton RU, Harman EA,
Sands WA, and Stone MH. The Relationship Between Vertical Jump Power Estimates and
Weightlifting Ability: A Field-Test Approach. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
18, 2004.
33. Casey BJ, Galvan A, and Hare TA. Changes in cerebral functional organization during cognitive
development. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15: 239-244, 2005.
34. Castro MJ, McCann DJ, Shaffrath JD, and Adams WC. Peak torque per unit cross-sectional area
differs between strength-trained and untrained young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27: 397-
403, 1995.
35. Cedar WES, W.G. H, S. M, and M.H. S. The Double Knee Bend: Characteristics and Coaching
Points. NSCA Coach 6: 13-21, 2019.
36. Chaabene H, Prieske O, Lesinski M, Sandau I, and Granacher U. Short-Term Seasonal
Development of Anthropometry, Body Composition, Physical Fitness, and Sport-Specific
Performance in Young Olympic Weightlifters. Sports (Basel) 7, 2019.
37. Channell BT and Barfield JP. Effect of Olympic and Traditional Resistance Training on Vertical
Jump Improvement in High School Boys. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22:
1522-1527, 2008.
38. Chaouachi A, Hammami R, Kaabi S, Chamari K, Drinkwater EJ, and Behm DG. Olympic
weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance
improvements than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1483-1496, 2014.
39. Chiu L and Schilling BK. A primer on weightlifting: From sport to sports training. Strength &
Conditioning Journal 27: 42-48, 2005.
40. Ciacci S and Bartolomei S. The effects of two different explosive strength training programs
on vertical jump performance in basketball. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 58: 1375-1382, 2018.
41. Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE, and Bull AMJ. Hip and knee joint loading during vertical jumping and
push jerking. Clinical Biomechanics, 2012.
42. Cleather DJ, Goodwin JE, and Bull AMJ. Intersegmental moment analysis characterizes the
partial correspondence of jumping and jerking. Journal of strength and conditioning research
27: 89-100, 2013.
43. Comfort P, Allen M, and Graham-Smith P. Comparisons of peak ground reaction force and rate
of force development during variations of the power clean. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1235-1239,
2011.
44. Comfort P, Dos'Santos T, Thomas C, McMahon JJ, and Suchomel TJ. An Investigation Into the
Effects of Excluding the Catch Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During
Isometric and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 32: 2116-2129, 2018.
45. Comfort P, Fletcher C, and McMahon JJ. Determination of optimal load during the power clean
in collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2962-2969, 2012.
46. Comfort P, Graham-Smith P, and Allen M. Kinetic comparisons during variations of the Power
Clean. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3269-3273, 2011.
47. Comfort P, Jones PA, Thomas C, Dos'Santos T, McMahon JJ, and Suchomel TJ. Changes in Early
and Maximal Isometric Force Production in Response to Moderate- and High-Load Strength
and Power Training. J Strength Cond Res 36: 593-599, 2022.
48. Comfort P, Jones PA, and Udall R. The effect of load and sex on kinematic and kinetic variables
during the mid-thigh clean pull. Sports Biomech 14: 139-156, 2015.
49. Comfort P, McMahon JJ, Ball N, and Hewitt JC. Biomechanical comparison of the mid-thigh
clean pull performed with and without a countermovement. . Presented at National Strength
and Conditioning Association: National Conference, Las Vegas, 2017.
50. Comfort P, McMahon JJ, and Fletcher C. No Kinetic Differences During Variations of the Power
Clean in Inexperienced Female Collegiate Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 27: 363-368 2013.
51. Comfort P, McMahon JJ, Hewitt JC, and Ball N. Biomechanical comparison of the hang clean
pull and clean pull from the knee. Presented at National Strength and Conditioning
Association: National Conference, Las Vegas, 2017.
52. Comfort P, Mundy P, Graham-Smith P, Jones A, Smith LC, and Lake JP. Comparison of peak
power output during exercises with similar lower-limb kinematics. Journal of Trainology 5: 1-
5, 2016.
53. Comfort P, Udall R, and Jones P. The affect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during
the mid-thigh clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1208-1214, 2012.
54. Comfort P, Williams R, Suchomel TJ, and Lake JP. A Comparison of Catch Phase Force-Time
Characteristics During Clean Derivatives From the Knee. J Strength Cond Res 31: 1911-1918,
2017.
55. Conroy BP, Kraemer WJ, Maresh CM, Fleck SJ, Stone MH, Fry AC, Miller PD, and Dalsky GP.
Bone mineral density in elite junior Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 1103-1109,
1993.
56. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. The influence of body mass on calculation of power
during lower-body resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1042-1049, 2007.
57. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement techniques in
dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech 23: 103-118, 2007.
58. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve
analysis during the jump squat: impact of load. J Appl Biomech 24: 112-120, 2008.
59. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, and McBride JM. Power versus strength-power jump squat training:
influence on the load-power relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 996-1003, 2007.
60. Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, and McBride JM. Optimal loading for maximal power
output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 340-349, 2007.
61. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic
power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582-1598, 2010.
62. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Influence of strength on magnitude and
mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1566-1581, 2010.
63. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Influence Of Training Status On Power Absorption
& Production During Lower Body Stretch-Shorten Cycle Movements. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research 24: 1, 2010.
64. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1-
-biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med 41: 17-38, 2011.
65. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Developing Maximal Neuromuscular Power: Part 2
- Training Considerations for Improving Maximal Power Production. Sports Medicine 41: 125-
146 2011.
66. Côté J. The Influence of the Family in the Development of Talent in Sport. The Sport
Psychologist 13: 395-417, 1999.
67. Côté J, Lidor R, and Hackfort D. ISSP position stand: To sample or to specialize? Seven
postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite
performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7: 7-17, 2009.
68. Cushion EJ, Goodwin JE, and Cleather DJ. Relative Intensity Influences the Degree of
Correspondence of Jump Squats and Push Jerks to Countermovement Jumps. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 30: 1255-1264, 2016.
69. Cuthbert M, Haff GG, Arent SM, Ripley N, McMahon JJ, Evans M, and Comfort P. Effects of
Variations in Resistance Training Frequency on Strength Development in Well-Trained
Populations and Implications for In-Season Athlete Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-
analysis. Sports Med 51: 1962-1982, 2021.
70. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and Stone MH. The training process: Planning for strength–
power training in track and field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. Journal of Sport and Health
Science 4: 308-317, 2015.
71. DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, and Stone MH. The training process: Planning for strength–
power training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. Journal of Sport and
Health Science 4: 318-324, 2015.
72. DeWeese BH and Scruggs SK. The Countermovement Shrug. Strength & Conditioning Journal
34: 20-23, 2012.
73. DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ, Scruggs SK, and Burton JD. The Midthigh Pull: Proper Application
and Progressions of a Weightlifting Movement Derivative. Strength & Conditioning Journal 35:
54-58, 2013.
74. DeWeese BH, Suchomel TJ, Serrano AJ, Burton JD, Scruggs SK, and Taber CB. The pull from the
knee: Proper technique and application. Strength & Conditioning Journal 38: 79-85, 2016.
75. Dick TJM and Wakeling JM. Shifting gears: dynamic muscle shape changes and force-velocity
behavior in the medial gastrocnemius. J Appl Physiol (1985) 123: 1433-1442, 2017.
76. Dobbs IJ, Oliver JL, Wong MA, Moore IS, Myer GD, and Lloyd RS. Effects of a 4-Week
Neuromuscular Training Program on Movement Competency During the Back-Squat
Assessment in Pre– and Post–Peak Height Velocity Male Athletes. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 35, 2021.
77. Duba J, Kraemer WJ, and Martin G. A 6-Step Progression Model for Teaching the Hang Power
Clean. Strength & Conditioning Journal 29, 2007.
78. Duba J, Kraemer WJ, and Martin G. Progressing From the Hang Power Clean to the Power
Clean: A 4-Step Model. Strength & Conditioning Journal 31: 58-66, 2009.
79. Duehring MD, Feldmann CR, and Ebben WP. Strength and conditioning practices of United
States high school strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2188-2203,
2009.
80. Durell DL, Pujol TJ, and Barnes JT. A survey of the scientific data and training methods utilized
by collegiate strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 17: 368-373, 2003.
81. Ebben WP and Blackard DO. Strength and conditioning practices of National Football League
strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 15: 48-58, 2001.
82. Ebben WP, Carroll RM, and Simenz CJ. Strength and conditioning practices of National Hockey
League strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 18: 889-897, 2004.
83. Ebben WP, Hintz MJ, and Simenz CJ. Strength and conditioning practices of Major League
Baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 19: 538-546, 2005.
84. Ebel K and Rizor R. Teaching the Hang Clean and Overcoming Common Obstacles. Strength &
Conditioning Journal 24, 2002.
85. Enoka RM. The pull in olympic weightlifting. Med Sci Sports 11: 131-137, 1979.
86. Enoka RM. Muscular control of a learned movement: the speed control system hypothesis.
Exp Brain Res 51: 135-145, 1983.
87. Enoka RM. Load- and skill-related changes in segmental contributions to a weightlifting
movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20: 178-187, 1988.
88. Faigenbaum A and McFarland J. Relative Safety of Weightlifting Movements for Youth.
Strength & Conditioning Journal 30, 2008.
89. Faigenbaum AD, Kraemer WJ, Blimkie CJR, Jeffreys I, Micheli LJ, Nitka M, and Rowland TW.
Youth Resistance Training: Updated Position Statement Paper From the National Strength and
Conditioning Association. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23, 2009.
90. Faigenbaum AD and Myer GD. Exercise deficit disorder in youth: play now or pay later. Curr
Sports Med Rep 11: 196-200, 2012.
91. Faigenbaum AD, Stracciolini A, and Myer GD. Exercise deficit disorder in youth: a hidden truth.
Acta Paediatr 100: 1423-1425; discussion 1425, 2011.
92. Fair JD. The Tragic History of the Military Press in Olympic and World Championship
Competition, 1928-1972. Journal of Sport History 28: 345-374, 2001.
93. Fink J, Kikuchi N, and Nakazato K. Effects of rest intervals and training loads on metabolic
stress and muscle hypertrophy. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 38: 261-268, 2018.
94. Flores FJ, Sedano S, and Redondo JC. Optimal Load and Power Spectrum During Jerk and Back
Jerk in Competitive Weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31: 809-816, 2017.
95. Ford P, De Ste Croix M, Lloyd R, Meyers R, Moosavi M, Oliver J, Till K, and Williams C. The long-
term athlete development model: physiological evidence and application. J Sports Sci 29: 389-
402, 2011.
96. Frolov VI, Efimov NM, and Vanagas MP. Training weights for snatch pulls. Societ Sports
Reviews 18: 58-61, 1983.
97. Frolov VI and Levshunov NP. The phasic structure of jerk. . Tyazhelaya Atletika 25: 8, 1979.
98. Fry AC. The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations. Sports Medicine
34: 663-679, 2004.
99. Garhammer J. Performance evaluation of Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports 11: 284-287,
1979.
100. Garhammer J. Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 54-60,
1980.
101. Garhammer J. Energy flow during Olympic weight lifting. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 353-360,
1982.
102. Garhammer J. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. Int J Sports Biomech 1: 122-
130, 1985.
103. Garhammer J. A comparison of maximal power outputs between elite male and female
weightlifters in competition. Int J Sports Biomech 3: 3-11, 1991.
104. Garhammer J. A Review of Power Output Studies of Olympic and Powerlifting: Methodology,
Performance Prediction, and Evaluation Tests. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 7: 76-89, 1993.
105. Garhammer J and Gregor R. Propulsion Forces as a Function of Intensity for Weightlifting and
Vertical Jumping. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 6: 129-134, 1992.
106. Garhammer JJ. Weight lifting and training, in: Biomechanics of Sport. C Vaughn, ed. Boca
Raton: CRC Press, 1989, pp 170-207.
107. Grabe SA and Widule CJ. Comparative Biomechanics of the Jerk in Olympic Weightlifting.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 59: 1-8, 1988.
108. Gunter KB, Almstedt HC, and Janz KF. Physical activity in childhood may be the key to
optimizing lifespan skeletal health. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 40: 13-21, 2012.
109. Hackett D, Davies T, Soomro N, and Halaki M. Olympic weightlifting training improves vertical
jump height in sportspeople: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports
Medicine 50: 865, 2016.
110. Haff GG. Periodization, in: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. GG Haff, NT
Triplett, eds. Champaign, Illinois, USA: Human Kinetics, 2016, pp 583-604.
111. Haff GG, Burgess S, and Stone MH. Cluster training: theoretical and practical applications for
the strength and conditioning professional. . Professional Strength and Conditioning 12: 12-
17, 2008.
112. Haff GG and Haff EE. Weightlifting for young athletes in: Strength and conditioning for young
athletes. RS Lloyd, JL Oliver, eds. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2020, pp 155–187.
113. Haff GG and Nimphius S. Training Principles for Power. Strength & Conditioning Journal 34: 2-
12 2012.
114. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O'Bryant HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE, Pierce K, and Stone MH. Effects
of Different Set Configurations on Barbell Velocity and Displacement During a Clean Pull. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 17: 95-103, 2003.
115. Haff GG, Whitley A, and Potteiger JA. A Brief Review: Explosive Exercises and Sports
Performance. Strength & Conditioning Journal 23: 13, 2001.
116. Haines T, McBride JM, Skinner J, Woodall M, Larkin TR, Kirby TJ, and Dayne AM. Effect Of Load
On Bar, Body And System Power Output In The Power Clean. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 24: 1, 2010.
117. Häkkinen K. A biomechanical analysis of variations of the snatch pull exercise. Journal of
Human Movement Studies 15: 229-243, 1988.
118. Häkkinen K and Kauhanen H. A biomechanical analysis of selected assistant exercises of
weightlifting. Journal of Human Movement Studies 12: 271-288, 1986.
119. Häkkinen K, Kauhanen H, and Komi PV. Biomechanical changes in the Olympic weightlifting
technique of the snatch and the clean & jerk from submaximal to maximal loads. Scand J
Sports Sci 6: 57-66, 1984.
120. Häkkinen K and Keskinen KL. Muscle cross-sectional area and voluntary force production
characteristics in elite strength- and endurance-trained athletes and sprinters. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 59: 215-220, 1989.
121. Hamill BP. Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 8, 1994.
122. Hardee JP, Lawrence MM, Utter AC, Triplett NT, Zwetsloot KA, and McBride JM. Effect of inter-
repetition rest on ratings of perceived exertion during multiple sets of the power clean. Eur J
Appl Physiol, 2012.
123. Hardee JP, Travis Triplett N, Utter AC, Zwetsloot KA, and McBride JM. Effect of Interrepetition
Rest on Power Output in the Power Clean. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
26: 883-889 2013.
124. Harris GR, Stone M, O'Bryant HS, Proulx CM, and Johnson R. Short-term performance effects
of high power, high force or combined weight training methods. J Strength Cond Res 14: 14-
20, 2000.
125. Harris NK, Cronin JB, Hopkins WG, and Hansen KT. Squat jump training at maximal power loads
vs. heavy loads: effect on sprint ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742-1749, 2008.
126. Haug WB, Drinkwater EJ, and Chapman DW. Learning the Hang Power Clean: Kinetic,
Kinematic, and Technical Changes in Four Weightlifting Naive Athletes. J Strength Cond Res
29: 1766-1779, 2015.
127. Hawkins SB, Doyle TL, and McGuigan MR. The effect of different training programs on
eccentric energy utilization in college-aged males. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1996-2002, 2009.
128. Helland C, Hole E, Iversen E, Olsson MC, Seynnes O, Solberg PA, and Paulsen G. Training
Strategies to Improve Muscle Power: Is Olympic-style Weightlifting Relevant? Med Sci Sports
Exerc 49: 736-745, 2017.
129. Hewett TE, Myer GD, and Ford KR. Decrease in neuromuscular control about the knee with
maturation in female athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86: 1601-1608, 2004.
130. Hirtz P and Starosta W. Sensitive and Critical Periods of Motor Co-ordination Development
and its Relation to Motor Learning. . Journal of Human Kinetics 7: 19-28, 2002.
131. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, and Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power
lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129-135, 2004.
132. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA, Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, and Nosaka K. Does
Performance of Hang Power Clean Differentiate Performance of Jumping, Sprinting, and
Changing of Direction? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22: 412-418 2008.
133. Hori N, Newton RU, Nosaka K, and Stone MH. Weightlifting Exercises Enhance Athletic
Performance That Requires High-Load Speed Strength. Strength & Conditioning Journal 27,
2005.
134. Hornsby WG, Cedar WES, S. M, and M.H. S. The Power Position: Characteristics and Coaching
Points. . NSCA Coach 5: 6-12, 2018.
135. Ikai M and Fukunaga T. Calculation of muscle strength per unit cross-sectional area of human
muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte
Physiologie einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie 26: 26-32, 1968.
136. Ikegawa S, Funato K, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T, and Kawakami Y. Muscle Force per
Cross-sectional Area is Inversely Related with Pennation Angle in Strength Trained Athletes.
 The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22: 128-131
110.1519/JSC.1510b1013e31815f31812fd31813, 2008.
137. Ince I. Effects of split style Olympic weightlifting training on leg stiffness vertical jump change
of direction and sprint in collegiate volleyball players. Universal Journal of Educational
Research 7: 24-31, 2019.
138. İnce İ. Comparison of Training Effects of Split-Style Olympic Lifts and Squat-Style Olympic Lifts
on Performance in Collegiate Volleyball Players. Physical Educator 77: 668-686, 2020.
139. Ince I and Senturk A. Effects of plyometric and pull training on performance and selected
strength characteristics of junior male weightlifters. Physical Education of Students 23: 120-
128, 2019.
140. Isaac L. Coaching Weightlifting Illustrated: A systematic approach to coaching beginners in
Olympic Weightlifting. . Hobart Australia: Lionel Isaac, 2021.
141. Issurin VB. Generalized training effects induced by athletic preparation. A review. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 49: 333-345, 2009.
142. James LP, Comfort P, Suchomel TJ, Kelly VG, Beckman EM, and Haff GG. The impact of power
clean ability and training age on adaptations to weightlifting-style training. J Strength Cond
Res 33: 2936-2944, 2019.
143. James LP, Gregory Haff G, Kelly VG, Connick MJ, Hoffman BW, and Beckman EM. The impact
of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and ballistic training.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 28: 1494-1505, 2018.
144. Jensen M. Pedagogy of Coaching, in: Coaching for Sport Performance T Baghurst, ed. New
York, USA.: Routledge, 2020, pp 38-74.
145. Jones EJ, Bishop PA, Woods AK, and Green JM. Cross-Sectional Area and Muscular Strength.
Sports Medicine 38: 987-994, 2008.
146. Jones L. The pulling movement. Strength & Conditioning Journal 13, 1991.
147. Jones L. Assistance Lifts and Exercises, in: International Weightlifting Federation - Level 2:
Coaching Manual. L Jones, K Pierce, eds. Budapest, Hungary.: International Weightlifting
Federation, 2014, pp 59-83.
148. Jones L, Pierce K, and Keelan M. International Weightlifting Federation Club Coach Manual:
Level 1. . Hungary: International Weightlifting Federation, 2010.
149. Jowett S. Coaching effectiveness: the coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion
in Psychology 16: 154-158, 2017.
150. Kaabi S, Mabrouk RH, and Passelergue P. Weightlifting Is Better Than Plyometric Training to
Improve Strength, Counter Movement Jump, and Change of Direction Skills in Tunisian Elite
Male Junior Table Tennis Players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research Published
ahead of print, 2022.
151. Kaneko M, Fuchimoto T, Toji H, and Suei K. Training effect of different loads on the force-
velocity relationship and mechanical power output in human muscle. Scand J Med Sci Sports
5: 50-55, 1983.
152. Kauhanen H, Häkkinen K, and Komi PV. A biomechanical analysis of the snatch and clean and
jerk techniques of Finish elite and district weightlifters. Scandinavian Journal of Science Sports
6: 47-56, 1984.
153. Kawakami Y, Abe T, and Fukunaga T. Muscle-fiber pennation angles are greater in
hypertrophied than in normal muscles. J Appl Physiol (1985) 74: 2740-2744, 1993.
154. Kawakami Y, Abe T, Kuno SY, and Fukunaga T. Training-induced changes in muscle architecture
and specific tension. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 72: 37-43, 1995.
155. Kipp K. Relative importance of lower extremity net joint moments in relation to bar velocity
and acceleration in weightlifting. Sports biomechanics: 1-13, 2020.
156. Kipp K. Joint and pull phase specific relative effort in weightlifting and simulated training
effects. Sports Biomech: 1-13, 2021.
157. Kipp K, Comfort P, and Suchomel TJ. Comparing Biomechanical Time Series Data During the
Hang-Power Clean and Jump Shrug. J Strength Cond Res 35: 2389-2396, 2021.
158. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick M. Correlations between Internal and External Power Outputs
during Weightlifting Exercise. J Strength Cond Res E-pub ahead of print, 2012.
159. Kipp K, Harris C, and Sabick MB. Lower Extremity Biomechanics During Weightlifting Exercise
Vary Across Joint and Load. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25: 1229-1234,
2011.
160. Kipp K, Malloy PJ, Smith JC, Giordanelli MD, Kiely MT, Geiser CF, and Suchomel TJ. Mechanical
Demands of the Hang Power Clean and Jump Shrug: A Joint-Level Perspective. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 32: 466-474, 2018.
161. Kipp K and Meinerz C. A biomechanical comparison of successful and unsuccessful power
clean attempts. Sports Biomechanics 16: 272-282, 2017.
162. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick M, and Harris C. Kinematic and Kinetic Synergies of the Lower
Extremities During the Pull in Olympic Weightlifting. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 28: 271-
278, 2012.
163. Kipp K, Redden J, Sabick MB, and Harris C. Weightlifting Performance Is Related to Kinematic
and Kinetic Patterns of the Hip and Knee Joints. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 26: 1838-1844 1810.1519/JSC.1830b1013e318239c318231d318232, 2012.
164. Kushner AM, Kiefer AW, Lesnick S, Faigenbaum AD, Kashikar-Zuck S, and Myer GD. Training
the developing brain part II: cognitive considerations for youth instruction and feedback. Curr
Sports Med Rep 14: 235-243, 2015.
165. Laakso LA. Optimizing Verbal Communication in the Instruction of Weightlifting to
Weightlifting Naïve Athletes. Strength & Conditioning Journal 43, 2021.
166. Lake JP, Lauder M, and Dyson R. Exploring the biomechanical characteristics of the
weightlifting jerk. Presented at XXIVth International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports,
Salzberg, Austria, July 14-18, 2006.
167. Lake JP, Mundy PD, and Comfort P. Power and impulse applied during push press exercise. J
Strength Cond Res 28: 2552-2559, 2014.
168. Lee TD, White MA, and Carnahan H. On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning:
exploring the guidance hypothesis. J Mot Behav 22: 191-208, 1990.
169. Leong B, Kamen G, Patten C, and Burke JR. Maximal motor unit discharge rates in the
quadriceps muscles of older weight lifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: 1638-1644, 1999.
170. Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ, Micheli LJ, Myer GD,
and Oliver JL. National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on Long-
Term Athletic Development. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30, 2016.
171. Lloyd RS, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD, Stone MH, Oliver JL, Jeffreys I, and Pierce KC. UKSCA
position statement: Youth resistance training. . Prof Strength Cond 26: 26-39, 2012.
172. Lloyd RS, Faigenbaum AD, Stone MH, Oliver JL, Jeffreys I, Moody JA, Brewer C, Pierce KC,
McCambridge TM, Howard R, Herrington L, Hainline B, Micheli LJ, Jaques R, Kraemer WJ,
McBride MG, Best TM, Chu DA, Alvar BA, and Myer GD. Position statement on youth resistance
training: the 2014 International Consensus. British Journal of Sports Medicine 48: 498-505,
2014.
173. Lloyd RS and Oliver JL. The Youth Physical Development Model: A New Approach to Long-Term
Athletic Development. Strength & Conditioning Journal 34, 2012.
174. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Howard R, De Ste Croix MBA, Williams CA, Best TM, Alvar
BA, Micheli LJ, Thomas DP, Hatfield DL, Cronin JB, and Myer GD. Long-Term Athletic
Development- Part 1: A Pathway for All Youth. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 29, 2015.
175. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Meyers RW, Moody JA, and Stone MH. Long-Term Athletic Development
and Its Application to Youth Weightlifting. Strength & Conditioning Journal 34, 2012.
176. Lloyd RS, Radnor JM, De Ste Croix MBA, Cronin JB, and Oliver JL. Changes in Sprint and Jump
Performances After Traditional, Plyometric, and Combined Resistance Training in Male Youth
Pre- and Post-Peak Height Velocity. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30, 2016.
177. Lloyd RSM, S. & Granacher, U. . Motor Skill Training for Young Athletes in: Strength and
Conditioning for Young Athletes RS Lloyd, JO Oliver, eds. Oxford, UK. : Routledge., 2020.
178. Lopes Dos Santos M, Berton R, Jagodinsky AE, Torry MR, and Lagally KM. The effect of load
based on body mass percentage on peak power output in the hang power clean, hang high
pull, and mid-thigh clean pull. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2021.
179. Lopes dos Santos M, Jagodinsky A, Lagally KM, Tricoli V, and Berton R. Determining the Peak
Power Output for Weightlifting Derivatives Using Body Mass Percentage: A Practical
Approach. Front Sports Act Living 3, 2021.
180. Loturco I, Kobal R, Maldonado T, Piazzi AF, Bottino A, Kitamura K, Abad CCC, Pereira LA, and
Nakamura FY. Jump Squat is More Related to Sprinting and Jumping Abilities than Olympic
Push Press. Int J Sports Med 38: 604-612, 2017.
181. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, Folland J, Tillin N, and Duchateau J. Rate of force
development: physiological and methodological considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 1091-
1116, 2016.
182. Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Boesen J, Johannsen F, and Kjaer M. Determinants
of musculoskeletal flexibility: viscoelastic properties, cross-sectional area, EMG and stretch
tolerance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 7: 195-202, 1997.
183. Malina RM, Bouchard C, and Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and physical activity. . Champaign,
Illinois: Human Kinetics., 2004.
184. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, Townsend JR, Wells AJ, Jajtner AR, Beyer KS, Boone
CH, Miramonti AA, Wang R, LaMonica MB, Fukuda DH, Ratamess NA, and Stout JR. The effect
of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-
trained men. Physiological reports 3: e12472, 2015.
185. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Wang R, Gonzalez AM, Townsend JR, Wells AJ, Jajtner AR, Beyer KS,
Boone CH, Miramonti AA, LaMonica MB, Fukuda DH, Ratamess NA, and Stout JR. Resistance
training intensity and volume affect changes in rate of force development in resistance-
trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 2367-2374, 2016.
186. Matveev LP and Zdornyj AP. Fundamentals of sports training. Moscow: Progress Publishers,
1981.
187. Maughan RJ and Nimmo MA. The influence of variations in muscle fibre composition on
muscle strength and cross-sectional area in untrained males. The Journal of Physiology 351:
299-311, 1984.
188. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, and Weir J. Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal
muscle. The Journal of Physiology 338: 37-49, 1983.
189. McBride JM, Haines TL, and Kirby TJ. Effect of loading on peak power of the bar, body, and
system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats. J Sports Sci 29: 1215-1221, 2011.
190. McBride JM, Triplett-Mcbride T, Davie A, and Newton RU. A Comparison of Strength and
Power Characteristics Between Power Lifters, Olympic Lifters, and Sprinters. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 13: 58-66, 1999.
191. Medvedev AS. Training content of weightlifters in the preparatory period. Soviet Sports
Reviews 17: 90-93, 1982.
192. Medvedev AS, Frolov VI, Lukashev AA, and Krasov EA. A comparative analysis of the clean and
clean pull technique with various weights. . Soviet Sports Reviews 18: 17-19, 1983.
193. Medvedev AS, Frolov VI, Lukshev AA, and Krasov EA. A comparative Analysis of Clean
Technique and Clean Pulls with Various Loads in: 1981 Weightlifting Yearbook. SL Lelikov, AS
Medvedev, YS Povetkin, PA Poletayev, RA Roman, YA Sandalov, AV Chernyak, eds. Moscow,
Russia: Fizukultura i Sport, 1981, pp 61-68.
194. Meechan D, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, and Comfort P. A Comparison of Kinetic and Kinematic
Variables During the Pull From the Knee and Hang Pull, Across Loads. J Strength Cond Res 34:
1819-1829, 2020.
195. Meechan D, McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, and Comfort P. The effect of rest redistribution on
kinetic and kinematic variables during the countermovement shrug. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research In Press, 2022.
196. Meechan D, Suchomel TJ, McMahon JJ, and Comfort P. A Comparison of Kinetic and Kinematic
Variables During the Midthigh Pull and Countermovement Shrug, Across Loads. J Strength
Cond Res 34: 1830-1841, 2020.
197. Milner-Brown HS, Stein RB, and Lee RG. Synchronization of human motor units: possible roles
of exercise and supraspinal reflexes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 38: 245-254, 1975.
198. Minetti AE. On the mechanical power of joint extensions as affected by the change in muscle
force (or cross-sectional area), ceteris paribus. European Journal of Applied Physiology 86:
363-369, 2002.
199. Moolyk AN, Carey JP, and Chiu LZF. Characteristics of Lower Extremity Work During the Impact
Phase of Jumping and Weightlifting. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27: 3225-
3232, 2013.
200. Morris SJ, Oliver JL, Pedley JS, Haff GG, and Lloyd RS. Taking A Long-Term Approach to the
Development of Weightlifting Ability in Young Athletes. Strength & Conditioning Journal 42:
71-90, 2020.
201. Morris SJ, Oliver JL, Pedley JS, Haff GG, and Lloyd RS. Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional
Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with
Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 2022.
202. Moss BM, Refsnes PE, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K, and Jensen J. Effects of maximal effort
strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power
and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 75: 193-199, 1997.
203. Must A and Tybor DJ. Physical activity and sedentary behavior: a review of longitudinal studies
of weight and adiposity in youth. International Journal of Obesity 29: S84-S96, 2005.
204. Myer GD, Lloyd RS, Brent JL, and Faigenbaum AD. How Young is "Too Young" to Start Training?
ACSM's health & fitness journal 17: 14-23, 2013.
205. Myer GD, Quatman CE, Khoury J, Wall EJ, and Hewett TE. Youth Versus Adult Weightlifting
Injuries Presenting to United States Emergency Rooms: Accidental Versus Nonaccidental
Injury Mechanisms. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23: 2054-2060 2009.
206. Narici M, Franchi M, and Maganaris C. Muscle structural assembly and functional
consequences. Journal of Experimental Biology 219: 276-284, 2016.
207. Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE, and Cerretelli P. Changes in force, cross-sectional
area and neural activation during strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 59: 310-319, 1989.
208. Newton RU, Hakkinen K, Häkkinen A, McCormick M, Volek J, and Kraemer WJ. Mixed-methods
resistance training increases power and strength of young and older men. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34: 1367-1375, 2002.
209. Newton RU and Kraemer WJ. Developing Explosive Muscular Power: Implications for a Mixed
Methods Training Strategy. Strength & Conditioning Journal 16: 20-31, 1994.
210. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K, Humphries B, and Murphy AJ. Kinematics, kinetics and
muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. Journal of Applied Biomechanics
22: 31-43, 1996.
211. Nóbrega SR, Scarpelli MC, Barcelos C, Chaves TS, and Libardi CA. Muscle Hypertrophy Is
Affected by Volume Load Progression Models. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research Published Ahead of Print, 2022.
212. O'Bryant HO. Periodization: a Hypothetical Training Model for Strength and Power. Louisiana
State University, 1982.
213. O'Shea P. Getting a Grip on the Push Press. Strength & Conditioning Journal 21, 1999.
214. Oliver JM, Jenke SC, Mata JD, Kreutzer A, and Jones MT. Acute Effect of Cluster and Traditional
Set Configurations on Myokines Associated with Hypertrophy. Int J Sports Med 37: 1019-1024,
2016.
215. Oranchuk DJ, Mannerberg JM, Robinson TL, and Nelson MC. Eight Weeks of Strength and
Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 34, 2020.
216. Oranchuk DJ, Robinson TL, Switaj ZJ, and Drinkwater EJ. Comparison of the Hang High-Pull and
Loaded Jump Squat for the Development of Vertical Jump and Isometric Force-Time
Characteristics. J Strength Cond Res 33: 17-24, 2019.
217. Otto WH, III, Coburn JW, Brown LE, and Spiering BA. Effects of Weightlifting vs. Kettlebell
Training on Vertical Jump, Strength, and Body Composition. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 26: 1199-1202, 2012.
218. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, McBride J, Triplett T, Sands WA, Lamont HS, Stone ME, and
Stone MH. Strength gains: block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among
track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7: 161-169, 2012.
219. Payne AH, Slater WJ, and Telford T. The Use of a Force Platform in the Study of Athletic
Activities. A Preliminary Investigation. Ergonomics 11: 123-143, 1968.
220. Pearcey GEP, Alizedah S, Power KE, and Button DC. Chronic resistance training: is it time to
rethink the time course of neural contributions to strength gain? Eur J Appl Physiol 121: 2413-
2422, 2021.
221. Peitz M, Behringer M, and Granacher U. Correction: A systematic review on the effects of
resistance and plyometric training on physical fitness in youth- What do comparative studies
tell us? PLoS One 13: e0207641, 2018.
222. Peitz M, Behringer M, and Granacher U. A systematic review on the effects of resistance and
plyometric training on physical fitness in youth- What do comparative studies tell us? PLoS
One 13: e0205525, 2018.
223. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, and Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-
analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res 18: 377-382, 2004.
224. Pichardo AW, Oliver JL, Harrison CB, Maulder PS, and Lloyd RS. Integrating models of long-
term athletic development to maximize the physical development of youth. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 13: 1189-1199, 2018.
225. Pichardo AW, Oliver JL, Harrison CB, Maulder PS, Lloyd RS, and Kandoi R. Effects of Combined
Resistance Training and Weightlifting on Motor Skill Performance of Adolescent Male
Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 33, 2019.
226. Pierce K, Byrd R, and Stone MH. Position Statement and Literature Review: Youth weightlifting
Olympic Coach 17: 10-12, 1999.
227. Pierce K, Byrd R, and Stone MH. Youth weightlifting. Is it safe? Weightlifting USA 17, 1999.
228. Pierce KC, Hornsby WG, and Stone MH. Weightlifting for Children and Adolescents: A
Narrative Review. Sports Health: 19417381211056094, 2021.
229. Quatman-Yates CC, Quatman CE, Meszaros AJ, Paterno MV, and Hewett TE. A systematic
review of sensorimotor function during adolescence: a developmental stage of increased
motor awkwardness? Br J Sports Med 46: 649-655, 2012.
230. Quatman CE, Ford KR, Myer GD, and Hewett TE. Maturation leads to gender differences in
landing force and vertical jump performance: a longitudinal study. Am J Sports Med 34: 806-
813, 2006.
231. Radnor JM, Oliver JL, Waugh CM, Myer GD, and Lloyd RS. The Influence of Maturity Status on
Muscle Architecture in School-Aged Boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci 32: 89-96, 2020.
232. Randhawa A, Jackman ME, and Wakeling JM. Muscle gearing during isotonic and isokinetic
movements in the ankle plantarflexors. European Journal of Applied Physiology 113: 437-447,
2013.
233. Rhea MR. Determining the Magnitude of Treatment Effects in Strength Training Research
Through the Use of the Effect Size. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 18: 918-
920, 2004.
234. Roberts M and DeBeliso M. Olympic lifting vs. traditional lifting methods for North American
high school football players. Turkish Journal of Kinesiology 4: 91-100, 2018.
235. Roberts TJ. Contribution of elastic tissues to the mechanics and energetics of muscle function
during movement. Journal of Experimental Biology 219: 266-275, 2016.
236. Roman RA. Fundamentals of Training Methods, in: The Training of the Weightlifter AS
Medvedev, ed. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport, 1986, pp 39-77.
237. Rushall BS. Some practical application of psychology in physical activity settings, in: The Pursuit
of Sport Excellence. KW Kim, ed. Seoul, Korea: Korean Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 1996, pp 638-656.
238. Sandau I and Granacher U. Effects of the Barbell Load on the Acceleration Phase during the
Snatch in Elite Olympic Weightlifting. Sports (Basel) 8, 2020.
239. Scala D, McMillan J, Blessing D, Rozenek R, and Stone M. Metabolic Cost of a Preparatory
Phase of Training in Weight Lifting: A Practical Observation. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research 1, 1987.
240. Schantz P, Randall-Fox E, Hutchison W, TydÉN A, and ÅStrand PO. Muscle fibre type
distribution, muscle cross-sectional area and maximal voluntary strength in humans. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica 117: 219-226, 1983.
241. Schmidt RA, Sherwood DE, Zelaznik HN, and Leikind BJ. Speed-accuracy trade-offs in motor
behavior: Theories of impulse variability. , in: Motor Behavior Berlin, Heidelberg.: Springer
1985, pp 79-123.
242. Schodl G. The Lost Past. Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation, 1992.
243. Schoenfeld B. Potential Mechanisms for a Role of Metabolic Stress in Hypertrophic
Adaptations to Resistance Training. Sports Medicine 43: 179-194, 2013.
244. Schoenfeld BJ. The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application to Resistance
Training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24, 2010.
245. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, and Krieger JW. Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations
Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J
Strength Cond Res 31: 3508-3523, 2017.
246. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, and Plotkin DL. Loading Recommendations for Muscle
Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum.
Sports 9: 32, 2021.
247. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, and Krieger JW. Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on
Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine:
1-9, 2016.
248. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, and Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- vs. High-
Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29: 2954-2963, 2015.
249. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, and Alvar BA. Effects of
Different Volume-Equated Resistance Training Loading Strategies on Muscular Adaptations in
Well-Trained Men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28: 2909-2918, 2014.
250. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, and Tiryaki-Sonmez G. Influence of
Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 29: 1821-1829, 2015.
251. Schutts KS, Wu WFW, Vidal AD, Hiegel J, and Becker J. Does Focus of Attention Improve Snatch
Lift Kinematics? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 31, 2017.
252. Seefeldt V. Developmental motor patterns: Implications for elementary school physical
education. . Psychology of motor behavior and sport 36 314-323, 1980.
253. Servedio FJ, Bartels RL, Hamlin RL, Teske D, Shaffer T, and Servedio A. The effects of weight
training, using olympic style lifts, on various physiological variables in pre-pubescent boys. .
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 17: 288, 1985.
254. Shurley JP and Todd JS. “The Strength of Nebraska”: Boyd Epley, Husker Power, and the
Formation of the Strength Coaching Profession. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 26, 2012.
255. Simenz CJ, Dugan CA, and Ebben WP. Strength and conditioning practices of National
Basketball Association strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res 19: 495-504,
2005.
256. Solum M, Lorås H, and Pedersen AV. A Golden Age for Motor Skill Learning? Learning of an
Unfamiliar Motor Task in 10-Year-Olds, Young Adults, and Adults, When Starting From Similar
Baselines. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 2020.
257. Soriano MA, Garcia-Ramos A, Calderbank J, Marin PJ, Sainz de Baranda P, and Comfort P. Does
Sex Impact the Differences and Relationships in the One Repetition Maximum Performance
Across Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Exercises? J Strength Cond Res, 2020.
258. Soriano MA, Garcia-Ramos A, Torres-Gonzalez A, Castillo-Palencia J, Marin PJ, de Baranda PS,
and Comfort P. Comparison of 1-Repetition-Maximum Performance Across 3 Weightlifting
Overhead Pressing Exercises and Sport Groups. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 15: 862-867, 2020.
259. Soriano MA, Jimenez-Reyes P, Rhea MR, and Marin PJ. The Optimal Load for Maximal Power
Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 45: 1191-
1205, 2015.
260. Soriano MA, Kipp K, Lake JP, Suchomel TJ, Marin PJ, Sainz De Baranda MP, and Comfort P.
Mechanical power production assessment during weightlifting exercises. A systematic review.
Sports Biomech: 1-27, 2020.
261. Soriano MA, Lake J, Comfort P, Suchomel TJ, McMahon JJ, Jiménez-Ormeño E, and Sainz de
Baranda P. No differences in weightlifting overhead pressing exercises kinetics. Sports
Biomechanics: 1-13, 2021.
262. Soriano MA, Suchomel TJ, and Comfort P. Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A
Review of the Literature. Sports Med 49: 867-885, 2019.
263. Souissi MA, Ammar A, Trabelsi O, Glenn JM, Boukhris O, Trabelsi K, Bouaziz B, Zmijewski P,
Souissi H, Chikha AB, Driss T, Chtourou H, Hoekelmann A, and Souissi N. Distance Motor
Learning during the COVID-19 Induced Confinement: Video Feedback with a Pedagogical
Activity Improves the Snatch Technique in Young Athletes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18,
2021.
264. South MA, Layne AS, Stuart CA, Triplett NT, Ramsey M, Howell ME, Sands WA, Mizuguchi S,
Hornsby WG, 3rd, Kavanaugh AA, and Stone MH. Effects of Short-Term Free-Weight and
Semiblock Periodization Resistance Training on Metabolic Syndrome. J Strength Cond Res 30:
2682-2696, 2016.
265. Stone MH. Implications for connective tissue and bone alterations resulting from resistance
exercise training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20: S162-168, 1988.
266. Stone MH. Explosive Exercise and Training. Strength & Conditioning Journal 15, 1993.
267. Stone MH, Byrd R, Tew J, and Wood M. Relationship between anaerobic power and olympic
weightlifting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 20: 99-102, 1980.
268. Stone MH, Hornsby WG, Haff GG, Fry AC, Suarez DG, Liu J, Gonzalez-Rave JM, and Pierce KC.
Periodization and Block Periodization in Sports: Emphasis on Strength-Power Training-A
Provocative and Challenging Narrative. J Strength Cond Res 35: 2351-2371, 2021.
269. Stone MH and Karatzeferi C. Connective tissue and bone response to strength training, in:
Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine: Strength and Power in Sports. PV Komi, ed. Oxford, UK. :
Blackwell, 2003, pp 343-360.
270. Stone MH, O'Bryant H, and Garhammer J. A hypothetical model for strength training. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness 21: 342-351, 1981.
271. Stone MH, O'Bryant H, Garhammer J, McMillan J, and Rozenek R. A Theoretical Model of
Strength Training. Strength & Conditioning Journal 4: 36-39, 1982.
272. Stone MH and O'Bryant HO. Weight Training: A scientific Approach. . Minnesota: Burgess
International Group, 1987.
273. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, and Schilling B. Power and
Maximum Strength Relationships During Performance of Dynamic and Static Weighted Jumps.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 17: 140-147, 2003.
274. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and Stone ME. Weightlifting: A Brief Overview. Strength &
Conditioning Journal 28: 50-66, 2006.
275. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and Stone ME. Weightlifting: Program Design. Strength &
Conditioning Journal 28, 2006.
276. Stone MH, Smith D, and Rush ME. Metabolic cost of an Olympic weight training session.
Presented at American College of Sports Medicine 24th Annual Conference, Chicago, 1977.
277. Stone MH, Ward T, Smith D, and Rush M. Olympic Weightlifting: Metabolic consequencies of
a workout., in: Science in Weightlifting. J Terauds, ed. Del Mar, California.: Academic
Publishers, 1979, pp 55-68.
278. Storey AG and Smith H. Unique Aspects of Competitive Weightlifting. Sports Medicine 42: 769-
790, 2012.
279. Suchomel T, Comfort P, and Stone M. Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives: Rationale for
Implementation and Application. Sports Medicine 45: 823-839, 2015.
280. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright GA. Lower body kinetics during the jump shrug: impact
of load. Journal of Trainology 2: 19-22, 2013.
281. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright GA. The impact of load on lower body performance
variables during the hang power clean. Sports Biomechanics 13: 87-95, 2014.
282. Suchomel TJ, Beckham GK, and Wright GA. The effect of various loads on the force-time
characteristics of the hang high pull. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29:
1295-1301, 2015.
283. Suchomel TJ and Comfort P. Weightlifting for Sports Performance in: Advanced Strength and
Conditioning: An evidence-based approach. AN Turner, C P., eds. New York: Routledge, 2022,
pp 283-306.
284. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, and Lake JP. Enhancing the Force-Velocity Profile of Athletes Using
Weightlifting Derivatives. Strength & Conditioning Journal 39: 10-20, 2017.
285. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham GK, Serrano AJ, and French SM. The Hang High Pull: A
Progressive Exercise Into Weightlifting Derivatives. Strength & Conditioning Journal Publish
Ahead of Print, 2014.
286. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Beckham GK, Serrano AJ, and Sole CJ. The Jump Shrug: A
Progressive Exercise Into Weightlifting Derivatives. Strength & Conditioning Journal 36: 43-47
2014.
287. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, and Serrano AJ. The power clean and power snatch from the knee.
Strength & Conditioning Journal: In Press, 2016.
288. Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, and Comfort P. Load Absorption Force-Time Characteristics Following
the Second Pull of Weightlifting Derivatives. J Strength Cond Res 31: 1644-1652, 2017.
289. Suchomel TJ, McKeever SA, McMahon JJ, and Comfort P. The Effect of Training with
Weightlifting Catching or Pulling Derivatives on Squat Jump and Countermovement Jump
Force-Time Adaptations. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology 5, 2020.
290. Suchomel TJ, McKeever SM, and Comfort P. Training With Weightlifting Derivatives: The
Effects of Force and Velocity Overload Stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 34: 1808-1818, 2020.
291. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Hornsby WG, and Stone MH. Training for Muscular
Strength: Methods for Monitoring and Adjusting Training Intensity. Sports Medicine, 2021.
292. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, and Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength:
Training Considerations. Sports Medicine 48: 765-785, 2018.
293. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic
Performance. Sports Med 46: 1419-1449, 2016.
294. Suchomel TJ and Sole CJ. Force-Time-Curve Comparison Between Weight-Lifting Derivatives.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: 431-439, 2017.
295. Suchomel TJ and Sole CJ. Power-Time Curve Comparison between Weightlifting Derivatives. J
Sports Sci Med 16: 407-413, 2017.
296. Suchomel TJ, Taber CB, and Wright GA. Jump Shrug Height and Landing Forces Across Various
Loads. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 11: 61-65, 2016.
297. Suchomel TJ and Wright GA. Power development comparisons between power clean
variations at different relative loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 27: S76-
77, 2013.
298. Suchomel TJ, Wright GA, Kernozek TW, and Kline DE. Kinetic Comparison of the Power
Development Between Power Clean Variations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 28: 350-360, 2014.
299. Takei S, Hirayama K, and Okada J. Is the Optimal Load for Maximal Power Output During Hang
Power Cleans Submaximal? Int J Sports Physiol Perform: 1-7, 2019.
300. Takei S, Hirayama K, and Okada J. Comparison of the Power Output Between the Hang Power
Clean and Hang High Pull Across a Wide Range of Loads in Weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res
35: S84-S88, 2021.
301. Teo SYM, Newton MJ, Newton RU, Dempsey AR, and Fairchild TJ. Comparing the Effectiveness
of a Short-Term Vertical Jump vs. Weightlifting Program on Athletic Power Development. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30: 2741-2748, 2016.
302. Todd T. Al Roy: The first modern strength coach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance 79: 14-16, 2008.
303. Tohji H, Suei K, and Kaneko M. Effects of combined training programs on force-velocity
relation and power output in human muscle. Journal of Biomechanics 25: 756, 1992.
304. Toji H and Kaneko M. Effect of multiple-load training on the force-velocity relationship. J
Strength Cond Res 18: 792-795, 2004.
305. Toji H, Suei K, and Kaneko M. Effects of combined training loads on relations among force,
velocity, and power development. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 22: 328-336, 1997.
306. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, and Ugrinowitsch C. Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body
Functional Power Development: Weightlifting Vs.Vertical Jump Training Programs. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19: 433-437, 2005.
307. Triplett NT and Chandler JM. NSCA Strength and Conditioning Professional Standards and
Guidelines. Strength & Conditioning Journal 39, 2017.
308. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Brown LE, Banyard HG, Williamson BD, Bishop LG, Hopper
AJ, and Haff GG. Cluster Sets: Permitting Greater Mechanical Stress Without Decreasing
Relative Velocity. International journal of sports physiology and performance 12: 463-469,
2017.
309. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Brown LE, Petkovic A, Frick J, and Haff GG. Effects of Cluster
Sets and Rest-Redistribution on Mechanical Responses to Back Squats in Trained Men. Journal
of Human Kinetics 58: 35-43, 2017.
310. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Oliver JM, Kreutzer A, and Haff GG. Different Cluster Sets
Result in Similar Metabolic, Endocrine, and Perceptual Responses in Trained Men. J Strength
Cond Res 33: 346-354, 2019.
311. Virvidakis K, Georgiou E, Korkotsidis A, Ntalles K, and Proukakis C. Bone mineral content of
junior competitive weightlifters. Int J Sports Med 11: 244-246, 1990.
312. Vorobyev AN. A Textbook on Weightlifting. Budapest International Weightlifting Federation
1978.
313. Waller M, Piper T, and Miller J. Coaching of the Snatch/Clean Pulls With the High Pull Variation.
Strength & Conditioning Journal 31, 2009.
314. Webster D. The iron game. An illustrated history of weight-lifting. Irvine: John Geddes Printers,
1976.
315. Wilson G, Bird SP, O'Connor D, and Jones J. Resistance training for children and youth: a
position stand from the Australian Strength and Conditioning Association. Australian Strength
and Conditioning Association, 2017.
316. Wong P-l, Chamari K, and Wisløff U. Effects of 12-Week On-Field Combined Strength and
Power Training on Physical Performance Among U-14 Young Soccer Players. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 24, 2010.
317. Young A, Stokes M, and Crowe M. Size and strength of the quadriceps muscles of old and
young women. Eur J Clin Invest 14: 282-287, 1984.
318. Zamparo P, Minetti AE, and di Prampero PE. Interplay among the changes of muscle strength,
cross-sectional area and maximal explosive power: theory and facts. Eur J Appl Physiol 88:
193-202, 2002.
319. Zaras N, Stasinaki A-NE, Spiliopoulou P, Arnaoutis G, Hadjicharalambous M, and Terzis G. Rate
of Force Development, Muscle Architecture, and Performance in Elite Weightlifters.
International journal of sports physiology and performance: 1-8, 2020.