This document presents a study comparing the vertical ground reaction force and rate of force development between the hang power clean and weighted counter squat jump in two athletes with different training backgrounds. Athlete 1 trained regularly with Olympic lifts while Athlete 2 did not. The results showed Athlete 1 performed better with the hang power clean while Athlete 2 performed better with the weighted counter squat jump. Based on the findings, a 8-week Olympic lifting program was prescribed for Athlete 2 to improve rate of force development, while a more advanced program was given to Athlete 1. Limitations and directions for future research were also discussed.

1. Richard L. Rosenblum
Advanced Biomechanics (PEMJ–561) Spring 2016: Motion Analysis Report & Training Program
Due Date: May 1st 2016

2. Introduction:
All sports require a coordinated activation of muscles through different planes of
motion that fight against or are assisted with various kinematic influences. Muscle activation
will ultimately provide an external force and power that will translate into a skilled movement
(or unskilled movement incase of a novice) (Komi, 2003). The explosive movements such as
vertical jumping, cutting, pushing or throwing an object can be enhancing through well
designed programs that follow the concept of specificity. Variations of Olympic weightlifting
(snatch, jerk, clean) have been shown to increase vertical jump height between 2.8% to 9.5%
(MacKenzie, et al, 2014). Enhancing maximal force and rate of force development during a
competitive season may increase an athlete’s preparedness, which may lead to improvement of
performance over an opponent and further improve an athlete’s chances of receiving a
scholarship.
Research has shown that Division 1 football players develop more speed, power, and
agility over their Division II and Division III counterparts. A similar advantage holds true for
varsity compared to junior varsity athletes at the high school level (Haff, Stone, 2016). It is not
surprising that strength and conditioning programs have surged in the last 20 years in part due
to more robust research linking weightlifting to improved performance through enhancing an
athlete’s rate of force development.
Methods to increase force development range from using different apparatuses from
bodyweight, kettlebells, barbells, dumbbells, and bands to accommodate range of motion.
However, the barbell Olympic lifts (specifically the upward phase of the power clean) tends to
generate the greatest rate of force development (MacKenzie, et al, 2014). Yet there still seems
to be controversy on how to prescribe these movements while some coaches have chosen to
eliminate them completely from training programs. Opponents of these advanced lifts argue
that these movements require too many resources to coach properly, are not biomechanically
similar, and don’t transfer to athletic movements. Others argue that bodyweight and weighted
plyometerics increase peak power compared to Olympic lifting (Bruce-Low, 2007). There is
consensus that moving light loads will have a high power output. However, body weight
training moves relatively small loads which leads to less exertion of maximal force and smaller
rates of force development (McLellan et al., 2011). The Olympic lifts require a moderate –heavy
load to be moved very quickly which maximizes power producing and maximal force capacity of

3. the individual performing the lifts (Garhammer, 1980, 1993). In addition, Tricoli et al., (2005)
showed that an 8-week Olympic lifting program, consisting of power clean, jerks, and high pulls,
improved performance in the squat jump, counter movement jump, 10m/30m sprint speeds,
and agility tests compared to an intensive bodyweight plyometric program.
Based on the findings described above, the purpose of this experiment is to compare
the vertical ground reaction force and rate of force development in the hang power clean (HPC)
and weighted counter squat jump (WCSJ) in athletes who have different levels of training and
provide evidence of a training program that is appropriate for their experience level. In our
experiment athlete 1 typically trains with the Olympic lifts and while athlete 2 trains without
the Olympic lifts.
Methods
Two college age physically active males volunteered to participate in this experiment.
These athletes were considered advanced as they both had over one year of training
experience and strength trained at least 3x weekly (Baechle, Earle, 2008). Athlete 1 was familiar
with the hang power clean exercise who employed it on a routine basis for at least 1 year and
free from injury. Athlete 2 was unfamiliar with the HPC but was accustomed to weighted
plyometric exercises. Athletes warmed up on their own and performed two successful trials of
the hang power clean (115lbs) and WCSQ (35lbs), only the highest values were recorded. To
complete the WCSQ and HPC the participants followed a similar protocol described by
Mackenzie et al, (2014). For the WCSQ they were instructed to squat to depth that they felt
would allow them to jump as high as possible in one smooth motion. For the HPC participants
started standing up tall with the weight and cued to explosively hinge at the hips until the bar
reached mid shin before initiating the second pull of the HPC.
Data collection and analysis
Two Bertec force plates with amplifiers, an analog-to-digital board, a MotionMonitor
motion analysis system, and a calculator was used for this experiment. The force plate
automatically calculated maximum force while rate for force development was calculated by

4. reviewing raw data of force output, adding the frames that corresponded with initiation of counter
movement and triple extension (time just before leaving the ground for the WCSQ) and dividing
that number by 2000. To properly collect data the force plate was zeroed (by holding down and
letting go the main button on each amplifier until the LEDs turn green) the MotionMonitor system
was turned on and set to collect vertical and anterior-posterior force output. The subjects then
stepped forward and placed one foot on each force plate and instructed briefly how to do each
movement and to ensure that they land with a foot on each force plate. On the “GO” command
the subject then completed the WCSQ or the HPC.
Results:
Participants characteristics
Athlete 1
Age Height Weight
25 170.1cm 83kg
Athlete 2
Age Height Weight
21 177.8cm 68kg
Discussion and training program:
According to the results athlete 1 was able to develop more vertical ground reaction
force and rate of force development in the HPC compared to the WCSJ. Athlete 2 saw just the
opposite effect where the rate for force development and vertical ground reaction force was
higher in the WCSJ than the HPC. It can be argued that athlete 2 does not possess the required
neuromuscular development to develop a high rate of force development for the power clean.
Therefore, a program that introduces athlete 2 to the basics of Olympic lifting style would be
recommended. The 8-program below (Athlete 1 program) is based off of the Matveyev’s
periodization model and Tricoli et al. (2005) who implemented an 8-week Olympic weightlifting
program to resistance trained males who had no Olympic weightlifting experience. Athlete 2,
who has more weightlifting experience, is prescribed a more intensive program that contains

5. 13% more volume and a more advanced progression of exercises. Additionally, research from
Comfort et al. 2011 examined the rate of force development in different variations of the
power clean. He discovered that the rate of force development is significantly higher (p < 0.001)
when performing Olympic lifting variations from a mid thigh position compared to below knee
positions. The programs below highlight recommendations from current literature.
Athlete 1 program Athlete 2 program
Note: 1RM= Repetition Maximum
Clean pull
Clean high pull

6. Future Directions
There are a few limitations with the performed experiment and current research. The
weight used for the HPC and WCSJ was the same for both athletes. Ideally a 70% 1RM for the
HPC would have been used to assess both athletes during the force plate trials. In addition,
there seams to be confusion between the application of ideal combination of Olympic lifting
exercises and the percentage of 1RM that leads to the greatest improvement rate of force
development. Some authors claim that loads 50%-90% 1RM with the power clean show no
difference while others claim that training between 30%-80% 1 RM with the clean pull is ideal
(Comfort et al., 2011). Also, most studies on Olympic weightlifting are relatively small, typically
under 20 people. This warrants further research investigating these lifts. However, there exists
solid evidence that Olympic lifting techniques are superior to bodyweight plyometrics in
developing explosive strength and are linked to improving performance in the 10m, 30m, and
vertical jumping (Tricoli et al., 2005). Coaches should analyze the cost to benefit ratio before
prescribing any advanced weightlifting movements. Professional supervision, proper coach to
athlete ratio, safe facilities, athlete maturity, and patience are standards of excellence that will
facilitate a motivational environment while decreasing risk of injury.
References:
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Bruce-Low, S. (2007). EXPLOSIVE EXERCISES IN SPORTS TRAINING: A CRITICAL REVIEW. Journal of
Exercise Physiology, 10(1), 21-30.
Comfort, P., Allen, M., & Graham-Smith, P. (2011). Comparisons of Peak Ground Reaction Force
and Rate of Force Development During Variations of the Power Clean. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 25(5), 1235-1239.
Haff, G. G., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Methods of Developing Power With Special Reference to
Football Players. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 37(6), 2-16.
Hartmann H, Bob A, Wirth K, and Schmidtbleicher D. Effects of different periodization models on
rate of force development and power ability of the upper extremity. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 23: 1921-1932, 2009
Garhammer J. Power production by Olympic Weightlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 54-60, 1980

7. Garhammer J. A review of power output studies of Olympic and powerlifting: Methodology,
performance prediction, and evaluation tests. J Strength Cond Res 7: 37-78, 1993.
Komi, P. V. (2003). STRENGTH AND POWER IN SPORT (Vol. III). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing
Company.
Mackenzie, S. J., Lavers, R. J., & Wallace, B. B. (2014). A biomechanical comparison of the
vertical jump, power clean, and jump squat. Journal of Sports Sciences, (June), 1–10.
Mclellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I., & Gass, G. C. (2011). The Role of Rate of Force Development on
Vertical Jump Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(2), 379-385.
Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2005). Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body
Functional Power Development: Weightlifting vs. Vertical Jump Training Programs. J Strength Cond Res
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 433.