Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Biomechanical analysis of the snatch technique in

junior elite female weightlifters
Sezgin Korkmaz & Erbil Harbili
To cite this article: Sezgin Korkmaz & Erbil Harbili (2015): Biomechanical analysis of the
snatch technique in junior elite female weightlifters, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2015.1088661
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1088661

Published online: 11 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Download by: [Karolinska Institutet, University Library]

Date: 13 September 2015, At: 08:32

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1088661

Biomechanical analysis of the snatch technique in junior elite female weightlifters

Sezgin Korkmaza and Erbil Harbilib
a
School of Physical Education and Sports, University of Mehmet Akif Ersoy, Burdur, Turkey; bSchool of Physical Education and Sports, University
of Seluk, Konya, Turkey

ARTICLE HISTORY

Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

ABSTRACT

The strength and technical competence of junior female lifters play a decisive role not only for their
current but also adulthood performance. The objective of this study was to investigate the threedimensional kinematics of the snatch technique in junior female weightlifters. Ten elite junior female
weightlifters participated in the study. Two cameras operating at 50 fields per second were used to
record the lifts. The heaviest successful lifts were selected for the kinematic analysis. The kinematical
data were obtained using a motion analysis system. The duration of the first pull was significantly
longer than that of the other phases (P < 0.05). Maximum extension angle and velocity of the lower
limb joints were significantly greater in the second pull (P < 0.05). The greatest extension angle was
found in the knee joint during the first pull, while the greatest extension angle was observed in the hip
joint during the second pull (P < 0.05). Maximum extension velocity of the knee and hip joints was
significantly greater than that of the ankle in both phases (P < 0.05). In addition, the vertical velocity of
the barbell and the absolute and relative power outputs was significantly higher in the second pull than
in the first pull (P < 0.05). In the snatch lifting of junior female weightlifters, the angular kinematics of
lower limb joints, the linear kinematics and trajectory of the barbell and other energy characteristics are
similar to and consistent with the values reported in literature for adult female weightlifters.

1. Introduction
Although its history is not as old in women as it is in men,
weightlifting is becoming increasingly popular among women.
Women first participated in the World weightlifting championship in 1987 (Garhammer, 1991). By gaining Olympic status in
2000 Sydney Olympic games, they competed in the snatch
and the clean & jerk categories like men (Hoover, Carlson,
Christensen, & Zebas, 2006). Currently, women compete in
seven body weight categories (48, 53, 58, 63, 69, 75, +75 kg)
in Olympic weightlifting.
Studies on the biomechanics of the snatch performance
focused mainly on the differences in adult female weightlifters
(Akku, 2012; Hoover et al., 2006; Ikeda et al., 2012), between
adult and adolescent males (Gourgoulis, Aggeloussis, Kalivas,
Antoniou, & Mavromatis, 2004), and between genders
(Garhammer, 1991, 1998; Gourgoulis et al., 2002; Harbili,
2012). Female weightlifters in nine categories in 1987 could
generate higher short-term power outputs than previously
documented, but not as much as men in absolute values or
relative to body mass (Garhammer, 1991). It was also reported
that in the 1998 World Weightlifting Championship, the duration of the pull in women weightlifters for each type of lift
increased by 12% as compared with the 1987 results. It was
also found that for the snatch lift, the second pull power
values increased by 33%, while the duration of the second
pull decreased by 30%. According to reported values from the
1998 World Championship, women lifted greater loads and
exerted more power in the second pull than men, but the
CONTACT: Erbil Harbili
2015 Taylor & Francis

eharbili@selcuk.edu.tr

Accepted 24 August 2015

KEYWORDS

Women weightlifter;
mechanical work; power
output

durations of their second pull, their maximum vertical barbell

velocity, and their maximum barbell height were lower
(Garhammer, Kauhanen, & Hakkinen, 2002). In studies comparing performances of female and male weightlifters, the biomechanical differences between lifts of both sexes were
reported to have resulted from womens recent participation
in weightlifting, a lack of experience and skills, insufficient
training, and other variables (Garhammer, 1991, 1998;
Garhammer et al., 2002; Gourgoulis et al., 2002; Hoover et al.,
2006).
In the present literature, there were no studies that investigated the biomechanics of junior (1720 years of age) female
weightlifters performance. Storey and Smith (2012) reported
that further research addressing the performances of female
weightlifters and younger and older weightlifters of both
sexes was required. In addition, currently, there were a number of varied coaching and training philosophies around the
world, and further research was required to substantiate the
best type of training programme for male and female weightlifters of various age groups. Hence, by demonstrating subtle
differences in strength and technical competence of junior
female lifters, kinematic analysis of the snatch performance
in junior female weightlifters could improve the training programmes and enable weightlifters to sharpen their skills,
which is important for not only their current but also adulthood performance.
Additionally, three-dimensional kinematic analysis could
provide more dependable data than two-dimensional analysis
of competitive movements where only one camera is used,

School of Physical Education and Sports, University of Mehmet Akif Ersoy, Burdur, Turkey

S. KORKMAZ AND E. HARBILI

because two-dimensional analyses are generally faced with

certain problems: the first concerns the obstructed view of
the knee behind the weights themselves over a fairly wide
range of movement, allowing less than adequate precision in
measurement; the second concerns the projection of body
angles in a single plane, which may overestimate and distort
the true values (Baumann, Gross, Quade, Galbierz, & Schwirtz,
1988). Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate
the three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch technique in junior female weightlifters.

2. Methods
Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

2.1. Participants
Ten 17- to 20-year-old junior female weightlifters of Turkish
national weightlifting team participated in this study (Table 1).
The snatch lifts were performed under competitive conditions
during the national team camp. Each weightlifter performed
three snatch attempts with one minute rest in between. The
heaviest successful snatch lifts were chosen for kinematic
analysis. This study was conducted in accordance with the
guidelines set forth by the Institutional Review Board. All
participants signed informed consent forms approved by the
University Ethics Committee.

2.2. Procedures
The snatch lifts were recorded using two digital cameras (Sony
DCR-TRV18E, Tokyo, Japan), which captured images at 50
fields per second. Two digital cameras were positioned on
the diagonal level of the platform at a distance of 7 m from
the weightlifters, forming an approximate 45 angle with the
sagittal plane of the weightlifters.
The lift-off of the barbell from platform was used for a
synchronising event for the cameras. Selected points on the
body and the barbell were digitised manually using the Ariel
Performance Analysis System (APAS, San Diego, CA, USA) to
calculate the linear kinematics of the barbell and the angular
kinematics of the lower limb (the hip, knee, and ankle joints).
The digitised points included the little toe, ankle, knee, hip,
and shoulder on the right side of the body, and the digitised
point on the barbell was located on the medial side of the
right hand. A rectangular cube (length of 250 cm, depth of
100 cm, and height of 180 cm) was used to calibrate. The
calibration frame was placed on the platform before the

snatch lifts and recorded. The three-dimensional spatial coordinates of the selected points were calculated using the
direct linear transformation procedure with 12 control points.
The mean reconstruction errors described in RMS values were
1.3, 2.4, and 2.6 mm for the X-, Y-, and Z-directions, respectively. A Butterworth low-pass digital filter was used to
smooth the raw position-time data. Based on the residual
analysis, a cut-off frequency of 4 Hz was selected
(Garhammer & Whiting, 1989).
The snatch lift was divided into six phases: the first pull, the
transition, the second pull, the turnover under the barbell, the
catch phase, and the rising from the squat position (Figure 1).
The phases were determined according to the change in
direction of the knee angle and the height of the barbell
(Baumann et al., 1988; Gourgoulis, Aggelousis, Mavromatis, &
Garas, 2000; Hkkinen, Kauhanen, & Komi, 1984). The first five
phases of the lift, from the lift-off of the barbell to the catch
phase, were studied in this study.
The horizontal and vertical displacements and velocities
were calculated as the linear kinematics of the barbell, and
extension angles and velocities of the ankle, knee, and hip
joints were analysed to investigate the angular kinematics of
the lower limb. A vertical line drawn through the starting
position of the barbell was used as a reference to determine
the horizontal displacement of the barbell (Garhammer, 1985).
Movement of the barbell towards the lifter was regarded as a
positive horizontal displacement, and movement of the barbell away from the lifter represented a negative horizontal
displacement (Figure 2).
Work done against the gravity during the first and second
pull was calculated from changes in the barbells mechanical
energy. Mechanical energy is the sum of the barbells kinetic
energy (KE) and potential energy (PE):
KE

mv2
2

PE mgh
where m is the mass of the barbell, v is its velocity, h is its
height, and g is the acceleration of gravity. Power output was
calculated by dividing work done during each phase by its
duration (Garhammer, 1993). Calculated power outputs
included only the work done against the gravity. The relative
work and power values were calculated by dividing the absolute work and power values by the body mass.

Table 1. Physical characteristics of junior female weightlifters.

Participants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(mean s)

Category (kg)
48
53
53
58
58
63
69
69
75
+75

Age (years)
19
20
19
19
20
18
17
20
17
19
18.80 1.14

Body mass (kg)

46.3
48.8
53.2
53.4
60.1
60.7
66.3
69.5
65.9
88.2
61.24 12.28

Height (m)
1.57
1.58
1.65
1.55
1.67
1.65
1.64
1.73
1.63
1.64
1.63 0.05

Barbell mass (kg)

73
70
75
77
79
85
84
79
80
90
79.20 5.96

Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES

Figure 1. The phases of the snatch lift. The first pull (A), the transition (B), the second pull (C), the turnover under the barbell (D), the catch phase (E), and rising
from the squat position (F).

2.3. Statistical analysis

Results are presented as mean (s). The hypotheses of normality and homogeneity of the variance were analysed via
KolmogorovSmirnov and Levene tests, respectively. The
duration of the phases and the horizontal displacement of
the barbell were compared using a repeated measures oneway ANOVA. A 3 2 repeated measures ANOVA (3 lower limb
joints 2 phases) was employed to analyse the angular kinematics of the lower limb. Post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were used to locate the differences. When a significant
interaction was found, a paired t-test was used to evaluate the
kinematic differences between the first and second pull. A
one-way ANOVA was used to examine the differences
between the angular kinematics of the lower limb joints in
both phases. Effect sizes (2) were reported as partial eta

Figure 2. Typical barbell trajectory of the snatch. (A) Horizontal displacement of

the barbell toward the athlete during the first pull. (B) Horizontal displacement
of the barbell away from the athlete during the second pull. (C) Maximum
barbell height. (D) Drop displacement of the barbell and horizontal displacement of the barbell toward the athlete.

squared. All statistical analyses were performed using the

Statistical Package for Social Science version 15.0 (SPSS Inc,
Chicago, IL, USA). An a level of 0.05 was considered significant.

3. Results
Significant differences were found between the duration of
the phases in the snatch technique (F(4, 36) = 113.05, P < 0.05,
2 = 0.926). The duration of the first pull phase (0.632 0.10 s)
was significantly greater than that of the transition
(0.106 0.04 s), the second pull (0.156 0.03 s), the turnover
under the barbell (0.216 0.01 s), and the catch phase
(0.362 0.06 s) (P < 0.05). On the other hand, the duration
of the catch phase was significantly greater than the transition, the second pull and the turnover under the barbell
(P < 0.05). In addition, the duration of the turnover under
the barbell was significantly greater than the duration of the
transition and the second pull phases (P < 0.05).
In junior female weightlifters, the knee angle was
65.95 10.91 on average in the starting position of the
snatch. The knee angle at the end of the first pull, the
transition, and the second pull phases was consistent with
the pattern of extensionflexionextension reported in the
literature (Table 2). Concerning the angular kinematics of
the lower limb, a significant interaction between joint and
phase factors was found in the extension angle of the
joints (F(2, 27) = 133.31, P < 0.05, 2 = 0.908). The result
revealed that the hip extension angle in the second pull
with respect to the first pull was greater than those of the
ankle and knee joints. Similarly, significant main effects
were demonstrated for both joint (F(2, 27) = 70.28,
P < 0.05, 2 = 0.839) and phase (F(1, 27) = 589.02,
P < 0.05, 2 = 0.956). The pairwise comparisons revealed
that the maximum extension angle of the ankle, knee, and
hip joints was significantly greater in the second pull than
in the first pull (Table 2). On the other hand, the extension
angle of the knee joint was significantly greater than that
of the ankle and hip joints during the first pull; and the
ankle joint extension angle was significantly greater than
that of the hip (F(2, 27) = 31.27, P < 0.05). During the
second pull, it was observed that the hip joint extension

S. KORKMAZ AND E. HARBILI

Table 2. The angular kinematics of the ankle, knee, and hip joints during the
first and the second pull (mean s).
First pull
Maximum extension angle
Ankle ()
Knee ()
Hip ()
Flexion of the knee joint during
the transition phase ()
Maximum extension velocity
Ankle (rad s1)
Knee (rad s1)
Hip (rad s1)

Second pull

t-Value

118.02 6.14 138.17 5.49 6.829*

135.86 13.25 169.93 4.54 7.524*
101.66 8.18 200.64 5.59 30.340*

5.41 0.87 11.583*

6.45 0.95 4.568*
6.89 0.73 9.083*

Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

Note: *P < 0.05.

angle was significantly greater than the knee and ankle

joint extension angles, and the knee joint extension angle
was significantly greater than that of the ankle joint (F
(2, 27) = 356.23, P < 0.05). The greatest extension angle
was found in the knee joint during the first pull while the
greatest extension angle was observed in the hip joint
during the second pull.
A significant joint phase interaction was found in extension velocities of the joints (F(2, 27) = 3.40, P < 0.05,
2 = 0.202). The result demonstrated that the hip extension
angle in the second pull with respect to the first pull was
greater than that of the knee joint. Similarly, significant main
effects were demonstrated for both joint (F(2, 27) = 42.38,
P < 0.05, 2 = 0.758) and phase (F(1, 27) = 175.04, P < 0.05,
2 = 0.866). The pairwise comparisons demonstrated that the
maximum extension velocity of the lower limb joints was
significantly greater in the second pull than in the first pull
(Table 2). The extension velocities of the knee and hip joints
were significantly greater than the angular velocity of the
ankle joint both in the first (F(2, 27) = 28.85, P < 0.05) and
the second pull (F(2, 27) = 7.80, P < 0.05).
After the beginning of descent from maximum height,
the horizontal displacement of the barbell towards the
weightlifter was significantly greater than both horizontal
displacement towards the weightlifter in the first pull and
the horizontal displacement far from the weightlifter in the
second pull (F(2, 18) = 11.17, P < 0.05, 2 = 0.554) (Table 3).
The linear vertical velocity of the barbell was significantly

Table 3. The linear kinematics of the barbell during the snatch (mean s).
Horizontal kinematics
Horizontal displacement toward weightlifter in the first pull
(cm)
Horizontal displacement away from weightlifter in the
second pull (cm)
Horizontal displacement toward weightlifter after beginning
of descent from maximum height (cm)
Vertical kinematics
Barbell height at the end of the first pull (m)
Barbell height at the end of the second pull (m)
Maximal height of the barbell (m)
Drop displacement of the barbell (m)
Maximum vertical velocity of the barbell in the first pull
(m s1)
Maximum vertical velocity of the barbell in the second pull
(m s1)

First pull
Absolute work (J)
Relative work (J kg1)
Absolute power (W)
Relative power (W kg1)

289.50
4.80
449.90
7.70

54.78
1.03
93.01
2.21

Second pull
268.60
4.60
1439.30
24.10

43.78
1.42
101.82
3.90

t-Value
0.783
0.327
22.195*
14.421*

Note: *P < 0.05.

8.46 7.44

1.36 0.44
3.97 0.88
3.68 1.06

Table 4. Absolute and relative mechanical work and power output during the
first and the second pull (mean s).

1.71 4.66
1.42 5.55
6.95 4.29*

0.55
0.99
1.23
0.18
1.02

0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.21

1.82 0.08**

Notes: *Significant difference than in the first and the second pull (P < 0.05);
** significant difference than in the first pull (P < 0.05).

greater in the second pull than in the first pull (t(9) = 13.55,
P < 0.05).
While no significant differences were found between the
absolute and relative mechanical work values in the first and
second pull phases (Table 4), the absolute and relative power
outputs in the second pull phase were significantly greater
than that of the first pull phase (P < 0.05).

4. Discussion
4.1. Angular kinematics
In the Olympic weightlifting, the pull refers to the initial part
of the lift in which the barbell is displaced from the floor to
waist height (Enoka, 1979). The pull, consisting of two stages
of extension separated by a period of flexion, is also referred
to as the double knee-bend technique (Burdett, 1982; Enoka,
1979). The knee flexion during the transition phase is utilised
to realign the lifter, relative to the barbell (Enoka, 1979).
During knee bending, stored elastic energy in the knee extensor muscles is used for explosive power, which is necessary
during the second pull (Enoka, 1979; Garhammer & Gregor,
1992). Thus, the transition phase is very critical and should be
executed quickly with a small knee flexion to be effective
(Enoka, 1979; Garhammer & Gregor, 1992; Gourgoulis et al.,
2000; Gourgoulis, Aggeloussis, Garas, & Mavromatis, 2009).
Although female weightlifters flexed their knees significantly
less and slower than men lifters in the transition phase
(Gourgoulis et al., 2002), in junior female lifters, knee flexion
during the transition phase in the present study was smaller
(8) and faster (1.65 rad s1) than the values which were
stated elsewhere for both adolescent male (Gourgoulis et al.,
2004) and adult female weightlifters (Gourgoulis et al., 2002).
In addition, the extension angles and velocities of the joints in
the present study were consistent with literature, except maximum hip extension angle in the second pull (Gourgoulis et al.,
2000, 2002, 2004). It was observed that maximum hip angle in
junior female lifters (200) was greater as compared with
adolescent male (177) and adult female (184). The greater
hip extension angle in the second pull indicated that the
junior female lifters body was pulled more backward close
to full extension due to the greater contribution of hip extensors, and that flexibility was relatively higher in junior female
weightlifters.

4.2. Kinematics of the barbell

There are three key positions for horizontal displacement of
the barbell during the snatch (Garhammer, 1985). The first is
towards the lifter in the first pull, the second is away from

Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES

the lifter during the second pull, and the third is towards
the lifter once the barbell began to descent from peak
height (Garhammer, 1985). The horizontal displacement of
the barbell during the lift should be considered an effective
application of muscle power (Isaka, Okada, & Funato, 1996).
The amount of the barbell horizontal displacement during
the lift should be small for a good lifting technique, an
effective application of muscle power, and the prevention
of energy loss resulting from excessive horizontal movements of the barbell (Isaka et al., 1996). The greater the
variation in the horizontal displacement of the barbell, the
more energy a lifter must exert to control the loaded barbell (Burdett, 1982; Hoover et al., 2006). In the present
study, the barbell trajectory of the junior female weightlifters during the snatch was similar to bar trajectory of the
adult female and male weightlifters. Significant differences
were found between horizontal displacements of the barbell. However, consistent with literature, backward horizontal displacement of the barbell relative to the starting
position was approximately 1020 cm for the snatch
(Stone, OBryant, Williams, Johnson, & Pierce, 1998). It was
reported in the literature that the snatch lift patterns of the
elite women weightlifters were similar to those of the males
(Akku, 2012), and the toward-away-toward pattern of the
barbell did not alter according to gender (Gourgoulis et al.,
2002). Although an optimal pattern was demonstrated for
the snatch lift (Garhammer, 1985), this toward-away-toward
pattern was observed in less than half of women weightlifters competing in 69-kg category (Hoover et al., 2006). In
another study, it was reported that barbell trajectories of
Japanese female weightlifters, except for the 53-kg class,
crossed the vertical reference line with great forward displacement of the barbell (Ikeda et al., 2012). In the present
study, inexcessive backward horizontal displacement of the
barbell was observed in 80% of the junior female weightlifters, and inexcessive forward horizontal displacement was
seen in only 20%. According to literature, as the skill level
increases in female weightlifters, excessive horizontal displacements (both towards front and back) seem to disappear
(Gourgoulis et al., 2002).
The barbell height at the end of the first and second pull
phases, maximal height of the barbell, and drop displacement of the barbell were consistent with values reported for
elite female weightlifters (Garhammer et al., 2002; Harbili,
2012; Hoover et al., 2006). The linear vertical velocity of the
barbell during the first and the second pull in the present
study was similar to that of elite female weightlifters in 69kg category (Harbili, 2012). Furthermore, until the end of
second pull, a continuous increase in vertical linear velocity
of the barbell is necessary for a good technique (Bartonietz,
1996). However, in one of the last studies, in which female
Japanese weightlifters and the best weightlifters at the 2008
Asian Weightlifting Championship were compared, the high
forward velocity of the barbell observed by Ikeda et al.
(2012) suggested that Japanese weightlifters might need
to reconsider the way of applying the force to the barbell
during the second pull (Ikeda et al., 2012). It was showed
that the vertical velocity of the barbell decreased during the
transition between the first pull and second pull (Gourgoulis

et al., 2000, 2002, 2004). Such a decrease causes two peaks

in the vertical linear velocity of the barbell during the total
pull. In the present study, a decrease was seen in vertical
linear velocity (approximately 10%) in three junior weightlifters during the transition phase. Baumann et al. (1988)
reported that the existence of two clear velocity peaks
was an indicator of an ineffective technique, because the
negative momentum of the barbell should additionally be
overcome by the lifter (Gourgoulis et al., 2009).

4.3. The mechanical work and power output

According to literature related to the biomechanics of the
snatch technique, it was shown in several previous studies
that the mechanical work performed during the first pull
was greater than that performed during the second pull,
and the power output during the second pull was greater
than that of the first pull (Baumann et al., 1988; Enoka, 1979;
Garhammer, 1980, 1985, 1991; Gourgoulis et al., 2000).
Garhammer (1991) reported that the first phase of the total
pull is relatively slow and can be considered strength
oriented, while the second pull is faster and can be considered more power oriented. In 1987, women compared less
favourably to men in slower strength-oriented lower extremity activities than in faster power-oriented lower extremity
activities (Garhammer, 1991). In 2010, the greater work
values during the first pull suggested an increase in the
strength of female weightlifters and their acquisition of a
snatch pattern similar to that of male weightlifters (Akku,
2012). Elite women weightlifters in 69-kg weight category
during the 2010 World Weightlifting Championship were
less efficient than men in the first pull of the snatch lift,
whereas they were as efficient as men in the second pull
(Harbili, 2012). In the present study, there were no significant
differences in the mechanical work between the first and the
second pull, except for power output values. Mechanical
work values were similar during the first and the second
pull. Although this similarity was different from the findings
of two studies in literature (Akku, 2012; Gourgoulis et al.,
2000), it was consistent with one study by Gourgoulis et al.
(2002). Gourgoulis et al. (2002) reported that women showed
similar work outputs during the first and the second pulls. It
was demonstrated as a reason that as women lifters skill
levels grow, they generate a larger amount of work during
the first pull than during the second pull. However, the
similarity observed in mechanical work in the present study
might be due to mechanical factors. As the vertical velocity
of the barbell was more effective on the mechanical work
than the vertical displacement of the barbell, the relatively
slower first pull might have led to a decrease in the work
output while the relatively faster second pull might have
resulted in an increase.

5. Conclusions
In this study, it was observed that the angular kinematics of
lower extremity in female weightlifters during the snatch
lift, the linear kinematics and trajectory of the barbell, and
other energy characteristics are consistent with and similar

Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 08:32 13 September 2015

S. KORKMAZ AND E. HARBILI

to the values in literature for adult female weightlifters. In

junior female weightlifters, the second-first pull ratio of the
mechanical work done was similar to values reported in
literature for adult female weightlifters. On the other hand,
when the whole data for junior female weightlifters was
considered, it was observed that the snatch was consistent
with the linear kinematics of the barbell reported for male
weightlifters in literature, and it was rather different in
terms of mechanical work and power output. The reason
for this might be that adolescents have lower ability in
executing the movement powerfully. Therefore, in order
for researchers and coaches to observe whether the load
could cause technical deficiencies in junior female weightlifters, the snatch technique might be executed with the
unloaded barbell, at 30%, 60%, and 100% of the one repetition maximum for each athlete, noting that technique could
be as decisive as strength.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This study was not supported by any external funding.

References
Akku, H. (2012). Kinematic analysis of the snatch lift with elite female
weightlifters during the 2010 World Weightlifting Championship. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26, 897905.
Bartonietz, K. E. (1996). Biomechanics of the snatch: Toward a higher
training efficiency. Strength and Condtonng Journal, 18, 2431.
Baumann, W., Gross, V., Quade, K., Galbierz, P., & Schwirtz, A. (1988).
The snatch technique of World Class Weightlifters at the 1985
World Championships. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics,
4, 6889.
Burdett, R. G. (1982). Biomechanics of the snatch technique of highly
skilled and skilled weightlifters. Research Quarterly, 53, 193197.
Enoka, R. M. (1979). The pull in Olympic weightlifting. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 11, 131137.
Garhammer, J. (1980). Power production by Olympic weightlifters.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 12, 5460.
Garhammer, J. (1985). Biomechanical profile of Olympic weightlifters.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 122130.
Garhammer, J. (1991). A comparison of maximal power outputs between
elite male and female weightlifters in competition. International Journal
of Sport Biomechanics, 7, 311.

Garhammer, J. (1993). A review of power output studies Olympic and

power lifting: Methodology, performance prediction and evaluation
tests. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7, 7689.
Garhammer, J. (1998). Weightlifting performance and techniques of men
and women. In P. V. Komi (Ed.), International conference on weightlifting
and strength training (pp. 8994). Lahti: Gummerus Printing.
Garhammer, J., & Gregor, R. (1992). Propulsion forces as a function of
intensity for weightlifting and vertical jumping. Journal of Applied
Sport Science Research, 6, 129134.
Garhammer, J., Kauhanen, H., & Hakkinen, K. A. (2002, October).
Comparison of performances by woman at the 1987 and 1998 world
weightlifting championships. In Science for Success Congress, Jyvaskyla,
Finland, 24. Retrieved from http://www.csulb.edu/;atlastwl/
98vs87womenWLcompare(poster).pdf
Garhammer, J., & Whiting, W. C. (1989). Comparison of three data smoothing techniques for determining weightlifting kinematics. Scandinavian
Journal of Sports Science, 11, 97104.
Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Mavromatis, G., & Garas, A. (2000). Threedimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch of elite Greek weightlifters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 643652.
Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Antoniou, P., Chritoforidis, C., Mavromatis,
G., & Garas, A. (2002). Comparative 3-dimensional kinematic analysis of
the snatch technique in elite male and female Greek weightlifters. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16, 359366.
Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Garas, A., & Mavromatis, G. (2009).
Unsuccessful vs. successful performance in snatch lifts: A kinematic
approach. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23, 486494.
Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Kalivas, V., Antoniou, P., & Mavromatis, G.
(2004). Snatch lift kinematics and bar energetics in male adolescent
and adult weightlifters. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 44, 126131.
Hkkinen, K., Kauhanen, H., & Komi, V. P. (1984). Biomechanical changes in
the Olympic weightlifting technique of the snatch and clean and jerk
from submaximal to maximal loads. Scandinavian Journal of Sports
Sciences, 6, 5766.
Harbili, E. (2012). A gender-based kinematic and kinetic analysis of the
snatch lift in elite weightlifters in 69-kg category. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 11, 162169.
Hoover, D. L., Carlson, K. M., Christensen, B. K., & Zebas, C. J. (2006).
Biomechanical analysis of women weightlifters during snatch. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 627633.
Ikeda, Y., Jinji, T., Matsubayashi, T., Matsuo, A., Inagaki, E., Takemata, T., &
Kikuta, M. (2012). Comparison of the snatch technique for female
weightlifters at the 2008 Asian championships. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 26, 12811295.
Isaka, T., Okada, J., & Funato, K. (1996). Kinematic analysis of the barbell
during the snatch movement of elite Asian weightlifters. International
Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 12, 508516.
Stone, M. H., OBryant, H. S., Williams, F. E., Johnson, R. L., & Pierce, K. C.
(1998). Analysis of bar paths during the snatch in elite male weightlifters. Strength and Condtonng Journal, 20, 3038.
Storey, A., & Smith, H. K. (2012). Unique aspects of competitive weightlifting:
Performance, training and physiology. Sports Medicine, 42, 769790.
doi:10.1007/BF03262294