Artigo de Neuro

“Improvement of Kinetic, Kinematic, and Qualitative Performance Variables of the Power Clean With the Hook Grip”
by Oranchuk DJ et al.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The article
appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by
the submitting author. It has not been copyedited, proofread, or formatted
by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: Improvement of Kinetic, Kinematic, and Qualitative Performance Variables of the
Power Clean With the Hook Grip
Authors: Dustin J. Oranchuk1, Eric J. Drinkwater2, Riki S. Lindsay3, Eric R. Helms1, Eric T.
Harbour1, and Adam G. Storey1
Affiliations: 1Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of

Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 2Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and
Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. 3Institute for Health and Sport,
Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: August 17, 2018
©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0577
Original investigation
Improvement of kinetic, kinematic, and qualitative performance variables of the power clean
with the hook grip
Running Head: Hook-grip and power clean performance
Authors: Dustin J. Oranchuk1, Eric J. Drinkwater2, Riki S. Lindsay3, Eric R. Helms1, Eric T.
Harbour1, Adam G. Storey1
1 Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of
Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

2 Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University,
Melbourne, Australia
3 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
*Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk

+64 027 800 8555
AUT-Millennium, 17 Antares Place, Mairangi Bay
Auckland, New Zealand
dustinoranchuk@gmail.com
Abstract word count: 250 words
Text-only word count: 3500 words
Number of figures: 3
Number of tables: 1
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank Dr. Allan Carman and Dr. Scott Brown for
their invaluable technical support.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The power clean (PC) and other weightlifting movements are commonly used in the
development of muscular power. However, there is a paucity of research examining the use of the
hook-grip (HG) in weightlifting performance. Therefore the purpose of this study was to compare
one repetition maximum (1RM) and kinetic, kinematic, and qualitative variables across a range of
loads (75-100%) during PC performance with a HG and a closed-grip (CG). Methods: Eleven
well-trained males (PC 1RM = 113.4 ± 15.9 kg, 1.34 x body mass) with at least three months of
HG experience volunteered to participate. Following a familiarization session, 1RM testing with

the HG and CG were completed five to seven days apart in a randomized order. Barbell kinetic
and kinematic variables were recorded via a force platform and dual linear position transducer
system. Results: All subjects had a greater 1RM with the HG when compared to the CG (p <
0.001, ES = 0.43). Peak velocity (ES = 0.41-0.70), peak power (ES = 0.43-0.61), peak force (ES
= 0.50-0.57) and catch height (ES = 0.40-0.96) were significantly greater (p < 0.05) when utilizing
the HG at all, or most of the submaximal intensities. Additionally, subjects reported significantly
greater perceptions of grip security, power and technical competency at submaximal, but not
maximal loads. Conclusions: Therefore, athletes and coaches who implement weightlifting
movements in their physical preparation should adopt the HG where possible. Furthermore,
researchers and sports scientists should control and report the grip type used when performing
weightlifting-type movements.
KEYWORDS: Biomechanics, force, resistance training, velocity, weightlifting

INTRODUCTION
Optimizing muscle power and rapid force production are important for peak performance
in several sports.1,2 Weightlifting movements such as the power clean (PC) closely mirror many
unloaded athletic movements as they are ballistic and biomechanically similar to jumping,
sprinting and change of direction tasks.3,4 Weightlifting movements are therefore commonplace in
strength and conditioning settings,5 due to the kinetic and kinematic similarities with propulsive
athletic movements and their ability to improve key kinetic and kinematic variables.6-8 For
example, Hoffman et al.7 compared the effects of 15-weeks of weightlifting and powerlifting
training and found that weightlifting leads to greater improvements in the 40-yard dash and vertical
jump. Additionally, while recent studies have found that jump training leads to similar or greater
vertical jump improvements,9,10 weightlifting remains a relevant tool for increasing performance
in an array of tasks.11,12
Kinetic analyses of the PC reveal four distinctive phases; 1) the first pull, initiated from the
ground, 2) an unweighted phase (“the scoop”) occurs as the extending knees of the lifter re-bend
below the barbell as the torso extends vertically, 3) the second pull, initiated when the lifter
maximally extends through the hips, knees and ankles whilst shrugging in the vertical plane and,
4) the catch as the lifter thrusts the elbows forward to receive the barbell across the shoulders.13,14
Previous investigators have stated that the second pull is the most important phase of the PC and
is associated with the highest barbell velocity,15 peak force13 and corresponding peak power
output.14 During the second pull, an inverse relationship exists between PC load and peak barbell
velocity with previous investigators reporting barbell velocities of ~2.8 m/s (30% 1RM), ~2.38–
2.52 m/s (50% 1RM), ~2.23–2.26 m/s (70% 1RM) and ~1.95–2.04 m/s (90% 1RM) across a
spectrum of loads.16,17 Due to the high force, high-velocity nature of the PC, greater power outputs
may occur at heavier loads when compared to other traditional compound movements such as the
back squat (high force) or jump squat (high velocity) exercise. Therefore, the optimal PC load for
peak power is reported to occur between 70-80% of 1RM (~46–53 W/kg) depending on the utilized
calculation method.17-19
In the sport of weightlifting, it is common practice for athletes to utilize the hook-grip (HG)
(Figure 1) during the pull.20 The HG anecdotally prevents the barbell from rotating in the hands,
therefore facilitating a secure grip.20 Additionally, athletes and coaches report that a relatively
minimal amount of muscular effort is required to maintain a secure grip.20 The lower levels of
muscular tension in the finger, wrist and elbow flexors, enables the arms to remain passive.20 This
increased passivity, combined with a more secure grip leads to a greater transfer of force from the
prime movers of the legs and back through the arms to the barbell, enabling greater force and
power production.20 Routine training with increases in force and power lead to greater
physiological adaptations that may benefit sports performance.4,6,21 Although many coaches and
athletes tend to utilize training methodologies from experts, few non-weightlifting coaches and
athletes adopt the HG as it is considered uncomfortable.20
Although the literature recognizes the HG,22,23 objective quantification of its potential
benefits have not occurred. Having quantitative evidence regarding the contribution the HG makes
to weightlifting pulling kinetics and kinematics would allow strength and conditioning coaches to
determine whether they should acclimate their non-weightlifting athletes to the HG for long-term
benefits. Furthermore, as weightlifting derivatives are commonly used by researchers and sports
scientists to quantify the physiological adaptations of an intervention,5,8 a standardized grip
selection may be essential to ensure valid and reliable performance outputs. Therefore, the purpose
of this study was to compare kinetic, kinematic and qualitative performance variables of maximal
and submaximal PCs with and without the HG. It was hypothesized that the HG would enable
higher maximal loads to be lifted, enable greater force, velocity and power outputs at submaximal
and maximal loads and would be perceived as beneficial when compared to a closed-grip (CG).
METHODS
Experimental Design
A within-group, repeated measures design was implemented to compare the kinetic,
kinematic and qualitative performance variables between submaximal (75-95%) and maximal
(1RM) PC loads, with and without the HG. Across three testing sessions, 11 strength and power
athletes completed a familiarization session, and in randomized order, a 1RM testing session with
a CG, and with a HG. Peak velocity, power, vertical force, and vertical barbell displacement, as
well as subjective reports, were compared between the two 1RM conditions.
Subjects
A minimum sample size of eight subjects was calculated using G*Power to detect effect
sizes of 0.25, where α=0.05 and β=0.80. As peak power is one of the key differences between
weightlifters and other athletes, and is also one of the most widely collected variables in the
weightlifting literature,14 peak power was considered the main variable of interest for the power
analysis. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between repeated CG trials of peak power
was determined to be 0.91 (p<0.001). Therefore, 11 subjects were recruited on the anticipation of
attrition. Subjects (N=11) were recruited from local weightlifting (n=8) and athletics clubs (n=3).
The subject characteristics of age, height, body mass, and recent (<3 months) self-reported PC
1RM (mean±SD) were 28.1±5.6 years, 176.2±6.4 cm, 84.7±11.1 kg and 113.4±15.9 kg
respectively. All subjects were required to be injury free for at least three months before data
collection and must have been able to PC at least body mass. All subjects were required to have at
least three months of experience utilizing the HG. The Auckland University of Technology
Research Ethics Committee approved the study, and all subjects gave informed consent. All
subjects were instructed to refrain from strenuous physical activity and avoid alcohol, and
ergogenic aids for at least 24 hours before each session.
Testing Procedures
Five to seven days separated each session and all testing procedures were completed across
three laboratory visits completed at the same time of day. Following the familiarization session,
subjects completed, in randomized order, PC 1RM testing sessions using CG and HG in the second
and third sessions. Subjects were required to wear tight fitting clothing and the same footwear of
their choice on all occasions. No belts, knee, or wrist supports were permitted. Calibrated 20 kg
weightlifting barbell, bumper plates, and incremental discs (Eleiko, Halmstad, Sweden) were
utilized in each session. A standardized dynamic warm-up (Table 1) was completed before each
session. The standardized dynamic warm-up was followed by a systematic sequence of relative
loads which consisted of the subjects performing 8 repetitions at 50% of the self-reported 1RM, 3
repetitions at 60%, 2 repetitions at 70%, and 1 repetition at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 100%.18
Three to five minutes of rest separated each set. If possible, the subjects continued to progress
beyond their self-reported 1RM, and strong verbal encouragement was provided. To ensure correct
PC technique was maintained, each session was supervised by an experienced weightlifting coach
and Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist. A questionnaire was verbally administered to
the subjects following each set and measured by a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire
consisting of the following statements; 1) ‘my grip felt secure off the floor’, 2) ‘my grip felt secure
in the second pull’, 3) ‘I felt powerful’ and, 4) ‘I felt fast racking the bar’. Responses of ‘one’,
‘two’, “three’, ‘four” and ‘five’ corresponded to ‘completely disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree
nor disagree’, ‘agree’ and ‘completely agree’, respectively. The criteria for a successful PC
required the subjects to rack the barbell on their shoulders cleanly, with their thighs above parallel14
as determined by video recording. Calcium carbonate lifting chalk was provided during each
testing occasion.
Familiarization
During the initial visit to the laboratory, the subjects’ height and body mass were recorded
using a stadiometer and digital scale. The subjects’ self-reported 1RM PC was entered into an
Excel spreadsheet to standardize the loading sequence for the session. Using a CG, the subject
followed the loading sequence until they felt unable to continue, or until three consecutive failed
attempts occurred. The maximal load completed during the familiarization session was used to
standardize the loading protocol for the subsequent sessions. The familiarization only utilized the
CG, as all subjects were required to have significant experience utilizing the HG before the study.
Closed-Grip and Hook-Grip Testing
The subjects returned to the laboratory for either CG or HG 1RM testing five to seven days
following the familiarization session. Following the standardized warm-up, the subjects
progressed through the standardized loading sequence until they felt unable to continue, or until
three consecutive failed attempts occurred. If a subject completed the planned loading protocol,
they were individually consulted and encouraged to attempt heavier loads. Five to seven days after
the first 1RM testing session, the subject returned to the laboratory and completed the same testing
protocol from the previous week, with the opposite grip.

Data Collection and Analysis
Kinetics and Kinematics
Kinetic and kinematic data were collected via a dual linear position transducer (LPT)
(Fittech, Australia) system sampling at 500 Hz.19 The LPT system was interfaced with a custom
LabVIEW (National Instruments, Austin, TX) software. Data were filtered using a low-pass
fourth-order zero-lag Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 16 Hz based on residual
analysis and visual inspection of the kinetic data, in-line with similar research.24,25 The LPTs were
positioned directly under the sleeves of the loaded barbell and attached with Velcro straps and
were calibrated before each session. Linear position transducers have been determined by previous
research to be highly valid (ICC≥0.97) when compared to high-speed motion capture, and a
standard error of the estimate between the LPT and high-speed video of 3.6–14.4 W (1–3%).26
Described in detail by Cormie, McBride and McCaulley,19 the “kinematic method” was used to
obtain peak and mean barbell velocity (m.s-1) and force (N). Average values were calculated from
the beginning of the second pull to the time at which peak force, velocity, or power occurred.19
The barbell load and velocity determined peak and mean barbell power at each time point.19 Catch
height was defined as the vertical height at which the downward movement of the barbell was
ceased.
Statistical Analysis
Each subject completed all sessions. Before analyses, data were split into five submaximal
intensities to examine the effect of the HG at different absolute intensities: 75-79%, 80-84%, 85-
89, 90-94% and 95+%.27 Each absolute intensity was based on the maximal load lifted throughout
the study procedures. Thus, if a subject completed 100 kg during the HG condition, the statistical
analysis would compare PCs at 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95 kg completed with the HG and CG. Therefore,
only 1RM values differed between the HG and CG conditions. If multiple trials within a percentage
range were completed, the results were averaged to create a single data point.27
One-way MANOVAs with repeated measures were used to identify differences between
CG and HG across all dependent variables at each intensity using the SPSS statistical analysis
software (Version 25, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Thus, a total of six MANOVA’s were
conducted, one for each level of intensity, with each containing CG and HG comparisons for each
dependent variable. Where significant differences were found for grip, univariate tests were
assessed for each variable to determine between-grip (CG and HG) differences. Excel (version
2016; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) was used to calculate effect sizes and 95%
confidence limits for differences between CG and HG. Due to the limited sample size, qualitative
descriptors of standardized Hedges’ g effect sizes (ES) were assessed using these criteria: trivial
<0.2, small 0.2-0.49, moderate 0.5-0.79, large >0.8.28 Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
The reliability of the 1RM for each variable with the CG was assessed by a typical error of measure
(TEM) as ΔSD÷√2.
RESULTS
One Repetition Maximum
All subjects lifted the greatest loads during the HG condition. Power clean 1RM was 6.8
kg greater when utilizing the HG (109.4±17.2 kg), compared to the CG (102.6±14.6 kg) (ES=0.43
95%CL[0.27-0.58], p<0.001). Test-retest reliability (TEM) was 0.39 kg or 0.38%.
Kinetics and Kinematics
TEMs for peak velocity, peak force, peak power and catch height were 0.05 m/s (2.52%),
78 N (4.29%), 152 W (5.04%), and 0.08 m (9.13%) respectively.

Peak velocity (Figure 2a) was significantly higher during the HG condition with small to
moderate effect sizes at 75% (0.06 m/s, [0.01, 0.10], p=0.02, ES=0.41), 80% (0.07 m/s, [0.01,
0.13], p=0.03, ES=0.49), 85% (0.10 m/s, [0.06, 0.13], p<0.001, ES=0.70), 90% (0.09 m/s, [0.03,
0.14], p<0.001, ES=0.69), and 95% (0.08 m/s, [0.04, 0.13], p<0.001, ES=0.69). The difference
was trivial and non-significant at 1RM (0.02 m/s, [-0.04, 0.08], p=0.47, ES=0.18).
Peak force (Figure 2b) was significantly higher during the HG condition with small to
moderate effect sizes at 80% (177 N, [63, 291], p<0.001, ES=0.50), 85% (206 N, [101, 311],
p<0.001, ES=0.57), and at 1RM (171 N, [7, 334], p=0.04, ES=0.43). There were no significant
differences in peak force at 75% (48 N, [-43, 138], p=0.27, ES=0.15), 90% (58 N, [-87, 204],
p=0.39, ES=0.17), or 95% (98 N, [-39, 234], p=0.14, ES=0.28).
Peak power between intensities was non-statistically different (p=0.23) with trivial to small
effect sizes (ES=-0.26-0.29) (Figure 2c). Peak power was significantly higher during the HG
condition with small to moderate effect sizes at 80% (352 W, [116, 588], p<0.001, ES=0.53), 85%
(436 W, [214, 657], p<0.001, ES=0.61), 90% (278 W, [69, 487], p=0.01, ES=0.43), and 95% (285
W, [71, 499], p=0.01, ES=0.45), and approached significance at 1RM (240 W, [-22, 504], p=0.07,
ES=0.38).
Catch height (Figure 2d) was significantly higher during the HG condition with small to
large effect sizes at 85% (0.04 m, [0.01, 0.07], p=0.01, ES=0.40), 90% (0.10 m, [0.05, 0.15],
p<0.001, ES=0.89), and 95% (0.11 m, [0.05, 0.16], p<0.001, ES=0.96), and approached
significance at 75% (0.02 m, [0.00, 0.05], p=0.09, ES=0.25). Peak power was not significantly
different at 80% (0.01 m, [0.00, 0.03], p=0.12, ES=0.18) or 1RM (-0.04 m, [-0.10, 0.01], p=0.13,
ES=-0.37).
Lifting kinetics and kinematics were generally improved with the HG, with 15 of the 24
comparisons reaching statistical significance (p<0.05) and an additional two with p<0.10. Only
four of the 24 comparisons were trivial in magnitude (ES<0.20) while all others were small to
large (ES=0.25-0.96).
Questionnaire
All qualitative questionnaire scores at all submaximal intensities were higher (p<0.05,
Figure 3a-d) by moderate to very large amounts (ES=0.61-1.29) during the HG condition when
compared to the CG condition. The HG had a non-significant (p≥0.13), but small to moderate
magnitude of effect (ES=0.31-0.70), on all perceived variables at 1RM.
DISCUSSION
The principal hypotheses that greater loads, higher velocities, and more power would be
produced using the HG were supported. When using the HG, subjects achieved a higher PC 1RM
(6.7%, ES=0.43). Additionally, peak velocity at all loads except 1RM was higher when using HG
(2.7-5%, ES=0.41-0.70). Thus, athletes produced higher power outputs when utilizing the HG by
moving the same absolute loads at greater velocities at submaximal intensities, and by lifting
greater loads at 1RM. These increases when using the HG may enable athletes to utilize greater
loads and express higher power in training which could enable greater overload and facilitate
adaptations benefitting athletic performance.4,21 Interestingly, the difference in peak power was
not significantly different (ES=-0.26-0.29, p≥0.23) between intensities for either grip. Therefore,
if athletes are trying to optimize peak power outputs in the PC, discriminating between submaximal
loads (≥75% of 1RM) appears unnecessary.

Catch height tended to be higher with HG at submaximal intensities, and most notable at
the higher intensities of 90-94% of 1RM (12%, ES=0.89) and 95%+ (13.2%, ES=0.96). However,
catch heights were slightly, but meaningfully lower at 1RM (-5.2%, ES=0.37) during the HG
condition, despite failing to reach statistical significance (p=0.13). These differences might reflect
the fact that athletes were able to move the same absolute loads more powerfully when using the
HG, completing the lifts at a higher position at submaximal intensities without having to
compensate for the inferior concentric output by dropping lower for the catch when using CG.
This interpretation is supported by the subjective ratings of the athletes at 1RM for the question:
“I felt fast racking the bar,” in which there was a moderate ES favouring the HG condition along
with a reasonably low, but non-significant p-value (ES=0.60, p=0.17).
The subjective ratings of the subjects at all loads largely reflected the objective outcomes.
Subjects generally felt they had a more secure grip off the floor and during the second pull, felt
more powerful overall, and felt more proficient racking the bar when using the HG. However, we
recruited subjects who were experienced using the HG and their subjective experience could have
been a reflection of a lack of familiarity with the CG. However, it doesn’t appear that a lack of
familiarity with CG caused greater 1RMs to be lifted during the HG condition. The subjects lifted
0.38% less (ES=0.03, p<0.001) during the 1RM test with CG when compared to the CG
familiarization 1RM session, suggesting that no acute learning effect was present.
To date, this is the only study examining the HG. Thus, additional research is needed to
fully elucidate the quantitative results and practical nuances of its implementation. Questions
remain, including: do individuals with different hand sizes have an advantage when using HG?
How does the HG impact the performance of other weightlifting derivatives? What are the effects
of lifting straps on weightlifting performance? Additionally, while the subjects felt more
comfortable with the HG, the underpinning kinetic and kinematic factors enabling greater loads,
higher velocities and powers have yet to be determined. For example, ground reaction forces were
not collected through force plates, but estimated via the kinematic method.19 Therefore, future
research on grip would be wise to examine bar-path variables,16,18 ground reaction force
characteristics29 and include joint level kinematics.30 Most importantly, strength and conditioning
professionals need to know whether the improved acute kinetic, kinematic and strength outcomes
from using the HG translate to superior adaptations and performance over time, which can only be
answered by a longitudinal training study.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Athletes and coaches who implement weightlifting movements in their physical
preparation should adopt the HG. However, caution should be practiced when converting an athlete
to the HG as initial discomfort may acutely decrease performance. Despite the potential to improve
power, maximal force, peak velocity, and the subjective perception of having greater grip security,
adapting to the HG can be a barrier to practical implementation. Therefore, some practitioners may
choose to utilize lifting straps. However, for safety reasons, it is generally recommended that straps
only be used with pulling variations rather than full or power versions of the weightlifting
movements as straps limit the lifter from being able to move out from under the bar in the case of
a missed lift. Finally, sports scientists and researchers should control for, and report the utilized
grip in testing and training interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study support the widely accepted convention of competitive
weightlifters. Greater PC loads possible, and clear trends in favour of the HG are found in kinetic
and kinematic variables at a variety of loads. These improved force, velocity and power outputs
are likely to contribute to physical adaptations that are of interest to a wide range of athletes.
Additionally, perceptions of grip security, power and technical competence were greater with the
HG when compared to the CG condition, which could improve confidence and proficiency when
performing weightlifting movements.

REFERENCES
1. Nibali ML, Chapman DW, Robergs RA, Drinkwater EJ. A rationale for assessing the
lower-body power profile in team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:388-397.
2. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, de Villarreal E, Haff GG. Increases in lowerbody strength
transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports
Med. 2014;44:1693-1702.
3. Canavan PK, Garrett GE, Armstrong LE. Kinematic and kinetic relationships between an
Olympic-style lift and the vertical jump. J Strength Cond Res. 1996;10:127-130.
4. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after
ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:1582-1598.
5. Ebben WP, Carroll RM, Simenz CJ. Strength and conditioning practices of National
Hockey League strength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:889-
897.
6. Channell BT, Barfield JP. Effect of Olympic and traditional resistance training on vertical
jump improvement in high school boys. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1522-1527.
7. Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J. Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional
power lifting training programs in football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):129-
135.
8. Oranchuk DJ, Mannerberg JM, Robinson TL, Nelson MC. Eight weeks of strength and
power training improves club head speed in collegiate golfers. J Strength Cond Res.
2018;Ahead of print.
9. Oranchuk DJ, Robinson TL, Switaj ZJ, 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. 2017;Ahead of print.
10. Helland C, Hole E, Iversen E, et al. Training strategies to improve muscle power: Is
Olympic-style weightlifting relevant? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(4):736-745.
11. Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, Ugrinowitsch C. Short-term effects on lower-body
functional power development: weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. J
Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):433-437.
12. Teo SY, Newton MJ, Newton RU, Dempsey AR, Fairchild TJ. Comparing the
effectiveness of a short-term vertical jump vs. weightlifting program on athletic power
development. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(10):2741-2748.
13. Souza AL, Shimada SD, Koontz A. Ground reaction forces during the power clean. J
Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(3):423-427.
14. Storey A, Smith HK. Unique aspects of competitive weightlifting: Performance, training
and physiology. Sports Med. 2012;42(9):769-790.
15. Häkkinen K, Kauhanen H, Komi P. Biomechanical changes in the Olympic weightlifting
technique of the snatch and clean and jerk from submaximal to maximal loads.
Scandinavian Journal of Sports Sciences. 1984;6(2):57-66.
16. Marriner CR, Cronin JB, Macadam P, Storey A. Redistributing load using wearable
resistance during power clean training improves athletic performance. Eur J Sport Sci.
2017;17(9):1101-1109.
17. Cormie P, McCaulley G, Triplett N, McBride J. Optimal loading for maximal power
output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(2):340-
349.
18. Winchester JB, Erickson TM, Blaak JB, McBride JM. Changes in bar-path kinematics
and kinetics after power-clean training. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):177-183.
19. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement techniques in
dynamic lower body resistance exercises. J Appl Biomech. 2007;23(2):103-118.
20. Tsuruda CI. The hook grip. Natl Str Cond Assoc J. 1989;11(2):40-41.
21. Hori N, Newton RU, Andrews WA, Kawamori N, McGuigan MR, Nosaka K. Does
performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and
changing of direction? J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(2):412-418.
22. Suchomel TJ, DeWeese BH, Serrano AJ. The power clean and the power snatch from the
knee. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(4):98-105.
23. Favre M, Peterson MD. Teaching the first pull. Strength Cond J. 2012;34:77-81.
24. Comfort P, Udall R, Jones PA. The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables
during the midthigh clean pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1208-1214.
25. Kilduff LP, Bevan H, Owen N, et al. Optimal loading for peak power output during the
hang power clean in professional rugby players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2007;2(3):260-269.
26. Drinkwater EJ, Galna B, McKenna MJ, Hunt PH, Pyne DB. Validation of an optical
encoder during free weight resistance movements and analysis of bench press sticking
point power during fatigue. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(2):510-517.
27. Glassbrook DJ, Brown SR, Helms ER, Duncan SJ, Storey AG. The high-bar and low-bar
back-squats: A biomechanical analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;Ahead of print.
28. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and
interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141(1):2-18.
29. Suchomel TJ, Sole CJ. Force-time-curve comparison between weight-lifting derivatives.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(4):431-439.
30. Kipp K, Malloy P, Smith JC, et al. Mechanical demands of the hang power clean and
jump shrug: A joint-level perspective. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(2):466-474.
Figure 1: The hook-grip.

Figures 2 a, b, c, d: Kinetics and kinematic power clean variables between closed-grip and hook-
grip.
Figure 3 a, b, c, d: Difference between HG and CG on qualitative Likert questionnaire scores

during the power clean.
Table 1. Standardized dynamic warm-up
Exercise Duration/Repetitions
A: Cycle ergometer 5 minutes

B1: Side-to-side leg swings 10 repetitions
B2: Front-to-back leg swings 10 repetitions
B3: Body-weight squat 10 repetitions
B4: Forward lunge + vertical reach 10 repetitions
B5: Push-up 10 repetitions
B6: Shoulder I,Y,T,W 10 repetitions
C: Unloaded barbell cleans Self-selected
Rest 15 seconds between exercises


Artigo de Neuro

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Artigo de Neuro

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

“Improvement of Kinetic, Kinematic, and Qualitative Performance Variables of the Power Clean With the Hook Grip”

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

Section: Original Investigation

Affiliations: 1Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of

Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Acceptance Date: August 17, 2018

©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Running Head: Hook-grip and power clean performance

Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

3 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

*Corresponding author: Dustin J. Oranchuk

Abstract word count: 250 words

Text-only word count: 3500 words

HG experience volunteered to participate. Following a familiarization session, 1RM testing with

KEYWORDS: Biomechanics, force, resistance training, velocity, weightlifting

athletes adopt the HG as it is considered uncomfortable.20

scientists to quantify the physiological adaptations of an intervention,5,8 a standardized grip

A within-group, repeated measures design was implemented to compare the kinetic,

ergogenic aids for at least 24 hours before each session.

Closed-Grip and Hook-Grip Testing

protocol from the previous week, with the opposite grip.

Data Collection and Analysis

Kinetics and Kinematics

fourth-order zero-lag Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 16 Hz based on residual

One Repetition Maximum

95%CL[0.27-0.58], p<0.001). Test-retest reliability (TEM) was 0.39 kg or 0.38%.

Kinetics and Kinematics

78 N (4.29%), 152 W (5.04%), and 0.08 m (9.13%) respectively.

p=0.39, ES=0.17), or 95% (98 N, [-39, 234], p=0.14, ES=0.28).

magnitude of effect (ES=0.31-0.70), on all perceived variables at 1RM.

loads (≥75% of 1RM) appears unnecessary.

with a reasonably low, but non-significant p-value (ES=0.60, p=0.17).

answered by a longitudinal training study.

Athletes and coaches who implement weightlifting movements in their physical

grip in testing and training interventions.

performing weightlifting movements.

Figure 1: The hook-grip.

Figure 3 a, b, c, d: Difference between HG and CG on qualitative Likert questionnaire scores

Table 1. Standardized dynamic warm-up

A: Cycle ergometer 5 minutes

Rest 15 seconds between exercises

Вам также может понравиться