ArticlePDF Available

Exploring The Power Clean

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The power clean and its variations are prescribed by strength and conditioning coaches as part of the ‘big three’ to develop “total body strength”. This article explores the application of the power clean and its variations to athletic performance and introduces strength and conditioning coaches to teaching progressions, with specific emphasis on developing the correct body positioning required for the power clean. Teaching components are addressed with special reference to taller athletes. It is recommended that strength and conditioning coaches teach the hang clean follow a progression model to decrease movement complexity when advancing athletes to the power clean.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring the Power
Clean
Thomas Huyghe1,2, Brent Goriss3, Ernest DeLosAngeles4,5, Stephen P. Bird5,6
1UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain, 2International
Sports Management and Business Department, Sports Studies, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3Townsville Fire, Australian Women’s National Basketball League, QLD Australia, 4Ignite
NBA G League, California, United States, 5Sport and Exercise Science Research Group, Centre for Health Research,
School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, QLD Australia, 6Basketball New Zealand,
Wellington New Zealand
Huyghe, T., Goriss, B., DeLosAngeles, E., Bird, S. P. (2021).Exploring The Power Clean.
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning
https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v1i1.95
ABSTRACT
The power clean and its variations are prescribed by
strength and conditioning coaches as part of the ‘big
three’ to develop “total body strength”. This article
explores the application of the power clean and its
variations to athletic performance and introduces
strength and conditioning coaches to teaching
progressions, with specic emphasis on developing
the correct body positioning required for the power
clean. Teaching components are addressed with
special reference to taller athletes. It is recommended
that strength and conditioning coaches teaching the
hang clean follow a progression model to decrease
movement complexity when advancing athletes to
the power clean.
POWER CLEAN TERMINOLOGY
When prescribing weightlifting derivatives to
enhance athletic performance, strength and
conditioning coaches often think of the power clean
(PC), with teaching instructions dating back to the
1980’s [6, 14, 20, 27]. However, the term ‘clean’
refers to a large collection of weightlifting-type pulling
exercises [9, 37, 38], with these movement patterns
designed to enhance explosive strength linked to
athletic performance [19]. The clean movement can
be performed with a number of variations which
primarily relate to the starting position (Table 1) and
may be performed from a static position off technique
blocks or with the bar lowered to a hang position at
the knee, for example from the high, mid and low pull
position [8, 33]. The ‘clean pull’ variation involves
the phase between the rst and second pull of the
movement only [9], whereas the power clean, hang
power clean and mid-thigh power clean all involve the
rst pull, transition, second pull, catch and recovery
phase [8, 11, 12]. The terminology used to describe
power clean variations are consistent throughout the
literature, with variations in the starting position of
the bar in the hang clean with the bar starting from
either the thighs [11, 12] or knees [8].
RESEARCH EXAMINING THE POWER CLEAN
To date, the majority of research examining the power
clean and its variations has focussed on two aspects,
these being 1) kinetic and kinematic outcomes; and
2) teaching progression models. Firstly, the kinetic
outcomes achieved by performing power clean
derivatives, based on their starting positions (i.e., off
technique blocks or from the high, mid or low pull
position) result in observed differences in kinetic
and kinematic patterns between novice and skilled
lifters. Kipp et al. [23] examined the kinetic and
kinematic patterns of the hip and knee joints when
performing a power clean (85% 1RM) to identify
associations between weightlifting biomechanics
and performance. A greater lift mass was associated
with less hip extension motion during the rst pull
and second-knee bend transition, a smaller knee
extension moment during the rst pull, and a greater
a knee extension moment during the second pull.
Additionally, faster and earlier temporal transition
from knee exion to extension at the beginning of the
second pull was also associated with higher lift mass.
Notably, the two kinematic patterns correlated with
weightlifting performance were related to hip motion
characteristics: 1) The correlation between hip joint
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021
extension motion during the rst pull and rapid
extension during the second pull, relative 1RM, links
steady and controlled hip motion to greater relative
lift mass; and 2) A smaller hip joint motion during
the transition between the rst pull and second pull
is signicantly correlated to greater relative 1RM.
This suggests the importance of rapid hip and
trunk motion along with knee extension moments in
relation to weightlifting performance.
A valuable coaching reference suggested by Stone
and colleagues [29] is that of torso angle remaining
constant and controlled during the rst pull, which
is associated with higher load lifted. Anecdotally,
our experience with taller athletes (i.e., basketball
players) suggests they are more likely to exhibit
forward trunk exion and instability of the trunk
during the initial phase leading into the rst pull.
This in turn will result in the lifter performing the rst
pull with the lower back as the shoulders do not
remain vertically aligned over the mid-foot. Such
positioning may unfavourably increase hip joint
motion leading into the transition phase and second
pull, resulting in larger hip joint motion between
the transition and second pull. This reduces the
athlete’s ability to rapidly triple extend in the second
pull, as hip extension and knee extension are
required to be performed over a greater range of
motion. Stone et al. [29] suggest that such reference
points will assist coaches to effectively teach power
clean techniques, especially to taller athlete, with
signicant improvements in bar path reported within
4-weeks of coaching.
Winchester and colleagues [40] report that during
the transition between the rst pull and second pull,
the highest rate of force development and peak force
expression occurs, which highlights the importance
of both a slight increase in knee joint motion and
rapid transition from knee exion to knee extension
at the beginning of the second pull. In the transition
phase, taller lifters tend to exhibit less knee exion
during the double knee bend, accompanied by
forward trunk exion. Comparatively, greater peak
extension motions of the hip and knee are reported
for highly skilled world class lifters compared with
skilled collegiate lifters during the rst and second
pull phases [5]. Elite weightlifters extend their knee
and ankle joints more rapidly during these phases
[15]. Strength and conditioning coaches should
pay particular attention to the applied force onto
the barbell from the rst pull with different kinematic
patterns of knee and hip exion and extension, and
hip and knee joint motion of taller lifters, as this will
affect the kinetic output of the lift. For example,
excessive hip exion during the transition phase
is detrimental as too much hip exion-extension
motions may lead to excessive “hipping” of the
barbell and cause undesirable barbell trajectories
associated with unsuccessful weightlifting attempts.
A more common outcome when observing taller
athletes.
From a coaching perspective, biomechanical
determinants are a signicant contributing factor
to the success of the hang power clean, especially
for taller athletes at higher loads [5, 23, 39]. Given
the complexity of the such weightlifting movements,
kinetic and kinematic analysis, although not easily
quantied, is a valuable tool for strength and
conditioning coaches to provide instruction focusing
on proper bar path during the movement [39].
Strength and conditioning coaches are encouraged
to use visual and verbal feedback to track bar path
with athletes learning power clean and its variations,
with the kinematics of the lift represented by trunk,
hip and knee patterns of movement. There are many
software programs on the market that may be used
to assist the strength and conditioning coach such
as Spark Motion Pro, Coach’s Eye and Form Check.
Secondly, in order to reinforce proper technique,
several teaching progressions models have been
proposed for the power clean to assist athletes
achieving technical prociency. Hedrick [17]
outlines a 12-step progression model for teaching
the power clean, which utilises a sequential order of
performance. It is suggested that due to the complex
nature of teaching the clean, each step in the teaching
progression should build on the previous technical
prociency, therefore, making such complex skill
acquisition easier. However, given the complexity of
the power clean, Duba and colleagues [11] highlight
the importance of teaching and mastery of the hang
power clean preceding the teaching of the power
clean. The authors outlined an initial 6-step teaching
progression model, however this may be reduced
to a 4-step teaching model when progressing from
the hang power clean to the power clean [12]. Two
exercises considered essential in the execution of
the hang power clean are the Romanian deadlift
(RDL) and the front squat (FSq) [3, 4]. Specically,
the postural positioning and exibility required for
successful execution of the RDL and FSq greatly
inuences an athlete’s technical prociency in
the hang power clean. The recommended 6-step
hang power clean teaching progression [11], and
subsequent 4-step teaching model [12] progressing
to the power clean are based upon the different
phases of the exercise. With emphasis on execution
Exploring the Power Clean
2
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Huyghe, T., Goriss, B., DeLosAngeles, E., Bird, S. P.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
3
Table 1. Overview of power clean variations and sport-specic applications
Power Clean Variation Primary Muscles Used Comments Sport-Specic Applications
Clean
BB/KB/DB/MB/LM
Gluteus, quadriceps, spinal erectors, abdom-
inals, quadratus lumborum.
The Olympic lift that involves pulling from the
oor and catching in a squat is multi-joint uti-
lizing a fast movement velocity. Often used
by athletes to enhance muscular power and
strength.
Weightlifting, Football, Rugby, Track and
Field, Wrestling.
Hang Clean
BB/KB/DB/MB/LM
Gluteus, hamstrings, spinal erectors, abdomi-
nals, quadratus lumborum.
The hang starting position can be benecial
for those with mobility restrictions. Used to
increase explosive performance of the lower
body.
Football, Rugby, Track and Field, Wrestling.
Jump Shrug
BB/TB/KB/DB/ MB/LM
Gluteus, hamstrings, spinal erectors, abdomi-
nals, quadratus lumborum, calves.
Loads greater than 1RM of clean can be
applied. Can also be implemented during
speed-strength phase with light-moderate
loads.
Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball.
Clean Pull
BB/TB/KB/DB/ MB/LM
Hip adductors/abductors, spinal erectors,
abdominals.
Easy to teach and execute for novice lifters.
It is versatile at various speeds and start
heights. Can be performed at loads greater
than 1RM of clean.
Basketball, Volleyball, Baseball, Soccer.
Muscle Clean Shoulder musculature, upper back quadri-
ceps.
Helpful to learn and reinforce proper upper
body mechanics of the clean leading into
front rack position.
Weightlifting, Basketball, Volleyball.
Power Clean Gluteus, hamstrings, spinal erectors, upper
back, spinal erectors.
This variation is caught in a quarter squat
position. Enhances explosive power of the
lower body.
Weightlifting, Football, Basketball, Baseball,
Volleyball.
Sandbag Clean Anterior deltoid, External oblique, Erector
spinae, Gluteus medius.
Allows for variations in movement degrees
and benecial for building work capacity. Early off season.
Water Bag Clean Anterior deltoid, External oblique, Erector
spinae, Gluteus medius.
Involves greater core muscle activation and
a reduced load placed on lower back. Late phase rehabilitation.
KB Clean
DA/SA
Anterior deltoid, Quadriceps, Hamstrings,
Gluteus maximus.
Efcient way of teaching the clean to novice
lifters. Is an effective complementary meth-
od to plyometrics and other techniques to
enhance strength and power.
Football, Baseball, Basketball, Volleyball,
Tennis, Wrestling.
DB Clean
DA/SA
Anterior deltoid, Quadriceps, Hamstrings,
Gluteus maximus.
The ability to train the movement unilaterally.
Benecial for movement restrictions or in
rehabilitation.
Football, Baseball, Basketball, Volleyball,
Tennis, Wrestling
Option abbreviations: BB = Barbell; TB = Trap Bar; KB = Kettlebell; DB = Dumbbell; MB = Medicine Ball; LM = Landmine; DA = Double Arm; SA = Single Arm
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Exploring the Power Clean
mastery of the hang power clean, the rst pull and
transition phase of the power clean are integrated
into the second pull and catch phase of the hang
power clean (Figure 1).
APPLICATION TO SPORT
From an athletic development perspective, both
the acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
application of the power clean and its weightlifting
variations have been linked to athletic preparation
programming. For instance, many athletes seek
enhanced speed strength capabilities with power
development the primary physiological characteristic
determining successful athletic performance [18].
As power output is one of the most important
factors in the athletic performance [1, 2, 16], there
is much interest in the transfer-of-training effect
of weightlifting exercises such as the hang power
clean and power clean, and potential effectiveness
to improve the athlete’s capability of power, and
subsequently athletic performance. Importantly, from
an athletic perspective, Hori and colleagues [19]
examined whether athletes with high performance in
a hang power clean transfers to high performances
in sprinting, jumping and change of direction. The
authors reported that performance of 1RM hang
power clean could differentiate performance of
jumping and sprinting. Athletes in the top half of
1RM hang power clean (relative to body mass)
had higher performance of jumping and sprinting,
demonstrating higher maximum strength (1RM front
squat both absolute and relative), and higher peak
power output (counter-movement jump; CMJ 40kg
relative; and CMJ relative). That is to say – athletes
with high performance in the 1RM hang power clean
possesses greater maximum strength and power
deemed essential for peak performance of jumping
and sprinting. Relative 1RM hang power clean,
front squat, power output in CMJ 40 and CMJ, jump
height, and time in the 20-m sprint were signicantly
correlated, ranging from r = 0.51–0.60. This is of
potential signicance to strength and conditioning
coaches as it is reasonable to assume that the
hang power clean shares similar strength qualities
required for fundamental athletic performance tasks
such as jumping and sprinting.
Examining the differences in peak vertical ground
reaction force (Fz) and rate of force development
(RFD) in elite rugby league players, Comfort et al. [8]
had athletes perform one set of three repetitions at
60% one-repetition maximum (1RM) (power clean)
of the power clean, hang power clean, mid-thigh
power clean and mid-thigh clean pull. The mid-thigh
variations produce signicantly greater Fz compared
to the power clean and hang power clean when
performed at the same relative load (60% 1RM). It
was hypothesized that the higher Fz outputs between
4
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
Figure 1. Four-step teaching progression for the power clean. The clean deadlift and clean
deadlift + hang power clean combo provide the foundation for successful exercise progression.
Adapted from Duba et al. [12].
5
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Huyghe, T., Goriss, B., DeLosAngeles, E., Bird, S. P.
the mid-thigh variations was due to their kinematic
similarity, and the reduced displacement when
performing the technique. The authors suggested
that greater loads (>100% 1RM power clean) can be
used when performing the mid-thigh clean pull and
would therefore be best implemented in a maximal
strength phase, whilst the mid-thigh hang power
clean would be used in a power phase due to its
ability to maximize Fz and RFD.
From a coaching point of view, the mid-thigh power
clean and mid-thigh clean pull have practical
benets for less experienced athletes as they are
easier to learn and require less technical experience
[8]. The lower limb kinematics during the mid-thigh
variations have been reported to replicate the joint
angles achieved during phases of running and
jumping. Research indicates that hang power clean
peak power occurs at submaximal loads (70%
1RM power clean) [21], however, power output will
progressively decrease with the performance of
multiple continuous repetitions. Therefore, training in
a cluster set conguration with rest periods of 10 to
30 seconds between repetitions may help athletes
maximise and maintain power output compared
to traditional protocols where repetitions are done
continuously without rest [35]. From a sport-specic
point of view, we have successfully used such an
approach with professional basketball players.
Additionally, within the professional basketball
environment, we have witnessed the preferred
type of power clean variations used amongst elite
basketball players to be the hang power clean and
mid-thigh clean pull. As previously reported, from
a the kinetic outcomes perspective, Fz and RFD
have been shown to be maximised in a hang power
clean and mid-thigh clean pull [8], which are highly
desirable for anaerobically-based sport athletes,
where sprinting, jumping, and dynamically change
of direction are critical elements. Research by Hori
et al. [19] demonstrated that higher performance
of the 1RM hang power clean was associated with
higher performance in such elements.
The kinematic demands on range of motion and joint
angle during the performance of the hang power
clean and mid-thigh clean pull are less demanding on
athletes with longer limbs compared to the traditional
power clean from the oor. Athletes with longer limbs
are required to undergo greater ranges of motion,
especially in the lower body, during the rst pulling
phase of a power clean from the oor. The correct
starting position from the oor is often challenging
for longer-limbed athletes to attain. As such, the rst
pull is performed through a greater joint angle range
of motion and does not produce the maximal drive
force to transfer into the transition phase and second
pull, thereby limiting the RFD. The mid-thigh clean
pull has also been successfully used amongst taller
athletes demonstrating limited ability to perform the
catch phase of the hang power clean effectively.
The catch phase can be challenging due to the slow
rotation of the elbows underneath the bar with loads
of more than 60-70% 1RM power clean. The athletes
have also found it challenging to catch the bar with
the elbows elevated and facing forwards, rather
catching with the elbows facing downwards and
depressed. This ultimately places more load bearing
stress on the wrists, which is a common complaint
amongst taller athletes. To alleviate this issue, given
the athlete’s training history and technical ability, we
have coached two modications to the lift. One is
the addition of a potentiated pull immediately prior to
commencing the hang clean. The athlete performs
one repetition of a potentiated pull, briey resets
and immediately performance the hang clean. The
second modication is the addition of a no catch
release, thereby alleviating eccentric loading and
force absorption of the catch. Verbal cues include (i)
Drive everything from the oor as one; (ii) Shoulders
to your ears; and (iii) Pull under the bar.
Teaching Components
The following brief overview provides explanation for
the teaching components of the hang clean:
1. Setup: The hang power clean begins from
the hang position, which is the position at
which the ‘second pull’ (the most powerful
fragment of the movement) in the power clean
exercise commences (Figure 2) [11, 32, 33].
In preparation of performing the hang clean,
technique boxes (lifting blocks) or safety bars
of a squat rack should be oriented in front of
the patella region of the athlete (relative to the
athlete’s anthropometrics), above the proximal
attachment of the patellar tendon [33]. Once the
setup is completed, the athlete stands with his or
her feet approximately shoulder width apart and
holds the bar in “hook grip” (ngers over thumb).
Following correct hand and feet placement, the
athlete bends the knees, pushing the hips back
as they descend into a hang position with the bar
located right above knee level (quarter to half
front squat), with the eyes kept up and forward.
The bar is vertically aligned with the midfoot
keeping toes slightly pointed outward. Strength
and conditioning coaches may use various action
and posture cues to get into a safe and effective
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Exploring the Power Clean
6
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
hang position such as “back tight”, “get tall”,
“push the hips back”, “lean over the bar”, “keep
the bar close”, “long arms”, “elbows out”, “sit on
the heels” as common examples based upon
individual perceptions and adaptations [11]. In
turn, this will enable the athlete to avoid ‘energy
leaks’ throughout the movement, improve control
over the bar, and consequently produce the
greatest possible forces into the ground while
assuring proper and safe movement quality.
2. Execution: In order to proceed from the initial
hang position towards the peak power position,
a “tight” torso must be maintained ensuring
muscular tension in the hamstrings, glutes, and
lower back (erector spinae muscles) facilitated
by a deep inhale prior to the ascent [11, 33].
When the athlete transitions towards the peak
power position, his or her back extends and
hips move forward at the same instant while
the bar ascends vertically (up and into the
body). To avoid friction and deceleration during
this phase, the bar should remain as close as
possible to the body without touching the thighs
until arriving at the peak power position. Once
the bar reaches midthigh level, the momentum
created in the ascent should be exploited as an
explosive triple extension movement as soon
as reaching the peak power position reected
by aggressive extension of the hips, knees
and ankles (“big jump”) while shrugging the
shoulders (“bring your shoulders to your ears”)
(Figure 3a). As result of this aggressive full
extension, the athlete should carry forward the
momentum of the bar by bringing the elbows
up and out (upright row) as the bar continues to
Figure 2. Set position for the hang power clean.
Figure 3. (a) Explosive triple extension movement reected by aggressive extension of the hips, knees
and ankles (“big jump”) while shrugging the shoulders. (b) The ‘catch’ in a front rack position. (c) The
‘nish’ position. Elbows pointed up and forward into the front squat position.
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Huyghe, T., Goriss, B., DeLosAngeles, E., Bird, S. P.
7
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
move up vertically and close to the body. Finally,
the athlete drops his or her body underneath the
bar while rapidly shifting the elbows up, out, and
around the bar (“rotate your elbows around the
bar”) [11]. Importantly, the athlete should hold
the bar in a relaxed manner to allow greater
exibility in the wrists. This motion allows the
athlete to ‘catch’ the bar in a front rack position
landing at footed (Figure 3b) and nish the
entire exercise by driving through the heels with
the elbows pointed up and forward into the hang
clean and front squat end position (Figure 3c).
3. Common mistakes: Addressing common
mistakes and reinforcing proper exercise
technique throughout the training year is critical
in ensuring player safety, minimizing injury risk,
and evoking the appropriate transfer of training
stimulus produced by the hang clean [13, 20,
33]. One of the most common mistakes seen in
athletes is pulling with the lower back, because
of the shoulders not vertically aligned over the
midfoot. To correct this issue, the strength and
conditioning coach may instruct the athlete to
lean against a robust vertical structure (e.g.,
squat rack) with the arms hanging forward as a
simulation of holding the bar and commencing
a hang clean followed by an RDL movement
keeping the shoulders in contact with the
squat rack (Figure 4). This corrective exercise
inherently teaches the athlete to bring the hips
forward while keeping the shoulders over the
midfoot line [32]. Another common mistake seen
in athletes occurs during the nal phase of the
hang clean as the bar is forcefully received in
the catch position. This is often the result of
poor movement syntonisation. Therefore, proper
timing (receiving the bar at the same moment the
bar transitions from ascension to descension)
in combination with exed knees is essential to
absorb the load of the bar and avoid unnecessary
stress on the body. Additional common errors in
technique include: lack of postural integrity (e.g.,
rounded back); executing the triple extension
too early (before the bar reaches midthigh level)
causing the bar to fade away from the body or
overarching the lower back; ‘dipping’ under the
bar too early (not taking full advantage of the
triple extension); pointing the elbows downwards
during the ‘catch’ causing the athlete to lean
forward and lose control over the bar [32].
4. Teaching progressions: Traditionally, the 6-step
progression model has been suggested as a
method to teaching the hang power clean
and consists of breaking down the movement
(decomposition) in subsequent steps (whole-
part-whole method) [11]. However, a ‘constraints-
led approach’ (athlete-centered) to teaching
complex movements (exploring complete
movements in its entireness) has recently
been favoured over the traditional top-down,
coach-controlled approaches based upon skill
acquisition theory leading to more autonomy
by the athlete [36]. Through this constraints-led
approach, ecological validity is optimized by
adjusting the conditions to perform and rene the
lifters hang clean technique, rather than verbally
instructing decomposed, isolated, and inherently
different skills. Practically, this approach requires
Figure 4. Squat rack corrective exercise.
Teaches the athlete to bring the hips forward
while keeping the shoulders over the midfoot line.
8
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Exploring the Power Clean
coaches to set out problems rather than provide
solutions, and design specic conditions for
practice from which movement solutions emerge
in each athlete respectively [36]. For instance,
chalk on the barbell may be applied to show the
athlete where contact was made on the thigh
and allow exploration of different timings from
the start of the second pull. Figure 5 displays
external objects (pole rails progressing to a
15-cm mat) in front of the athlete which may be
used as visual cues to reduce forward barbell
passage and excessive horizontal displacement
[36].
Variations
As with all exercises, there are several variations
that can be applied to the power clean. We have
used derivatives of the power clean as teaching
progressions, while still training the performance
qualities in less technically procient athletes.
Examples of power clean variations, derivatives and
implements include:
1. Start position. In the sport of weightlifting and
in most strength and conditioning programs, the
power clean is taught by starting from the oor.
However, the start position can be modied
based on individual goals, capacities, and
environment. The most common start positions
are starting at the oor, below the knee, just
above the knee and below the hip fold [10, 13,
31]. The start positions may also be taught
from a static position or dynamic position [30,
31]. A static position starts from either the oor,
blocks, safety bars or a stationary hang position.
A dynamic start allows for a countermovement
to take place, thus the athlete utilizes the
stretch shortening cycle and already has
developed a given amount of force before [30].
2. End Position. The typical end position of the
power clean is catching the barbell in a front
rack position, this is often referred to as the catch
phase. The catch phase provides an additional
benet by developing force absorption qualities
[31]. However, some athletes report signicant
wrist discomfort while attempting to catch a loaded
barbell in front rack position. The mechanical
demands on the wrist and shoulders during
the catch phase is a signicant consideration
in relation to potential risk of injury. According
to Suchomel et al., [34] weightlifting derivatives
may possess a unique load absorption prole.
Research examining the jump shrug and high
pull variation demonstrates that eliminating
the catch phase may produce comparable or
greater force velocity characteristics during the
concentric phase of the power clean [22, 28, 32].
Such variations and derivatives may be used,
dependent on the technical ability of the athlete
and desired strength characteristic targeted.
3. Implement training. There are several
implements which can be used to provide clean
variations to aid in learning clean technique.
These include performing clean variations with
kettlebells, dumbbells, sandbags and waterbags
(Figure 6), which can be used to complement
or augment traditional training [25, 26]. Trap
bars or hex bars have also been used to teach
clean pull derivatives. The design of the trap
bar puts athletes in a much more anatomical
advantageous start position by reducing the
Figure 5. External objects may be used as visual cues to reduce
forward barbell passage and excessive horizontal displacement.
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Huyghe, T., Goriss, B., DeLosAngeles, E., Bird, S. P.
9
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
stress on the lower back, allowing for a more
upright set position, which may promote more
optimal execution of triple extension in a loaded
squat jump [24]. While unstable variations such
as sandbags or waterbags, offer perturbative
forces that require continuous body stabilization,
especially at high velocities. Calatayud et al., [7]
reported greater muscle activation of the core
when during the waterbag clean in comparison
to the traditional barbell version.
CONCLUSION
Due to its ability to develop total body strength and
potential for enhancing athletic performance [19] the
hang power clean and power clean are fundamental
weightlifting exercises and part of the ‘big three’
prescribed by strength and conditioning coaches.
This includes the squat, deadlift and power clean.
The highlighted hang power clean and power
clean variations represent advanced, functionally
integrated sport-specic applications. For athletes
to perform these variations successfully they require
signicant core strength, procient deadlift and
front squat technique, and unilateral balance. As
with the deadlift and squat, the hang power clean
and power clean variations are dependent not
only on the athletes short and long-term goals, but
importantly, their technical lifting competence. For
athletes targeting speed strength qualities (i.e.,
increase power develop), the hang power clean
and power clean are an essential component of the
training program. Upon mastering the deadlift [3]
and front squat [4], an athlete’s ability to develop
the correct body positioning required in the 4-step
teaching progression for the power clean [12] is
greatly enhanced. This is often the limiting factor
resulting in failure in obtaining the correct catch
position of the power clean. It is essential that
strength and conditioning coaches prescribing the
hang clean, and power clean variations allow time
for the athlete to gain technical lifting competence.
Through mastery of both the deadlift [3] and front
squat [4], the athlete maximizes their potential to
gain technical prociency in the hang power clean
and power clean, thereby transferring their athletic
abilities from the training oor to the sporting domain.
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, D.F. Power training: The key to athletic
success. Strength Cond J. 15: 7-11. 1993.
2. Baker, D. and S. Nance The relation between running
speed and measures of strength and power in
professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res. 13: 230-235. 1999.
3. Bird, S.P. and B. Barrington-Higgs Exploring the
deadlift. Strength Cond J. 32: 46-51. 2010.
4. Bird, S.P. and S. Casey Exploring the front squat.
Strength Cond J. 34: 27-33. 2012.
5. Burdett, R.G. Biomechanics of the snatch technique
of highly skilled and skilled weightlifters. Res Q Exerc
Sport. 53: 193-197. 1982.
6. Burgener, M. The Power Clean. NSCA Journal. 10:
50-55. 1988.
7. Calatayud, J., J.C. Colado, F. Martin, J. Casaña, M.D.
Jakobsen, and L.L. Andersen Core muscle activity
during the clean and jerk lift with barbell versus
sandbags and water bags. Int J Sports Phys Ther.
10: 803-810. 2015.
8. Comfort, P., M. Allen, and P. Graham-Smith Kinetic
comparisons during variations of the power clean. J
Strength Cond Res. 25: 3269-3273. 2011.
9. Deweese, B.H., A.J. Serrano, S.K. Scruggs, and
Figure 6. Sandbag hang clean variation.
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021 Exploring the Power Clean
10
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee IUSCA, London, UK. This article is an
open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
M.L. Sams The clean pull and snatch pull: Proper
technique for weightlifting movement derivatives.
Strength Cond J. 34: 82-86. 2012.
10. Deweese, B.H., T.J. Suchomel, A.J. Serrano, J.D.
Burton, S.K. Scruggs, and C.B. Taber Pull from the
knee: Proper technique and application. Strength
Cond J. 38: 79-85. 2016.
11. Duba, J., W.J. Kraemer, and G. Martin A 6-Step
progression model for teaching the hang power
clean. Strength Cond J. 29: 26-35. 2007.
12. Duba, J., W.J. Kraemer, and G. Martin Progressing
from the hang power clean to the power clean: a
4-step model. Strength Cond J. 31: 58-66. 2009.
13. Ebel, K. and R. Rizor Teaching the hang clean and
overcoming common obstacles. Strength Cond J. 24:
32-36. 2002.
14. Garhammer, J. Power Clean: Kinesiological
Evaluation. NSCA Journal. June-July: 25-28. 1984.
15. Gourgoulis, V., N. Aggeloussis, A. Garas, and G.
Mavromatis Unsuccessful vs. successful performance
in snatch lifts: a kinematic approach. J Strength Cond
Res. 23: 486-494 2009.
16. Haff, G.G. and M.H. Stone Methods of developing
power with special reference to football players.
Strength Cond J. 37: 2-16. 2015.
17. Hedrick, A. Teaching the clean. Strength Cond J. 26:
70-72. 2004.
18. Hedrick, A. and H. Wada Weightlifting movements:
do the benets outweigh the risks? Strength Cond J.
30: 26-34. 2008.
19. Hori, N., R.U. Newton, W.A. Andrews, N. Kawamori,
M.R. Mcguigan, and K. Nosaka Does performance
of hang power clean differentiate performance of
jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction? J
Strength Cond Res. 22: 412-8. 2008.
20. Johnson, J. Teaching the power clean and the hang
power clean. NSCA Journal. 4: 52-54. 1982.
21. Kawamori, N., A.J. Crum, P.A. Blumert, J.R. Kulik,
J.T. Childers, J.A. Wood, M.H. Stone, and G.G. Haff
Inuence of different relative intensities on power
output during the hang power clean: identication of
the optimal load. J Strength Cond Res. 19: 698-708.
2005.
22. Kipp, K., P.J. Malloy, J.C. Smith, M.D. Giordanelli, M.T.
Kiely, C.F. Geiser, and T.J. Suchomel Mechanical
demands of the hang power clean and jump shrug:
A joint-level perspective. J Strength Cond Res. 32:
466-474. 2018.
23. Kipp, K., J. Redden, M.B. Sabick, and C. Harris
Weightlifting performance is related to kinematic and
kinetic patterns of the hip and knee joints. J Strength
Cond Res. 26: 1838-1844. 2012.
24. Lockie, R.G. and A. Lazar Exercise technique:
Applying the hexagonal bar to strength and power
training. Strength Cond J. 39: 24-32. 2017.
25. Lyons, B.C., J.J. Mayo, W.S. Tucker, B. Wax, and R.C.
Hendrix Electromyographical comparison of muscle
activation patterns across three commonly performed
kettlebell exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 31: 2363-
2370. 2017.
26. Manocchia, P., D.K. Spierer, A.K. Lufkin, J. Minichiello,
and J. Castro Transference of kettlebell training to
strength, power, and endurance. J Strength Cond
Res. 27: 477-84. 2013.
27. Newton, H. Power clean: Teaching the beginner
Practical applications. NSCA Journal. 6: 37-59. 1984.
28. Oranchuk, D.J., T.L. Robinson, Z.J. Switaj, and E.J.
Drinkwater 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.
29. Stone, M.H., H.S. O’bryant, F.E. Williams, R.L.
Johnson, and K.C. Pierce Analysis of bar paths during
the snatch in elite male weightlifters. Strength Cond J.
20: 30-38. 1998.
30. Suchomel, T.J., P. Comfort, and J.P. Lake Enhancing
the force-velocity prole of athletes using weightlifting
derivatives. Strength Cond J. 39: 10-20. 2017.
31. Suchomel, T.J., P. Comfort, and M.H. Stone
Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for
implementation and application. Sports Medicne. 45:
823-39. 2015.
32. Suchomel, T.J., B.H. Deweese, G.K. Beckham, A.J.
Serrano, and S.M. French The hang high pull: A
progressive exercise into weightlifting derivatives.
Strength Cond J. 36: 79-83. 2014.
33. Suchomel, T.J., B.H. Deweese, and A.J. Serrano
The power clean and power snatch from the knee.
Strength Cond J. 38: 98-105. 2016.
34. Suchomel, T.J., M.D. Giordanelli, C.F. Geiser, and K.
Kipp Comparison of joint work during load absorption
between weightlifting derivatives. J Strength Cond
Res. 35: S127-S135. 2021.
35. Tufano, J.J., L.E. Brown, and G.G. Haff Theoretical and
practical aspects of different cluster set structures: A
systematic review. J Strength Cond Res. 31: 848-867.
2017.
36. Verhoeff, W.J., S.K. Millar, A.R.H. Oldham, and J.
Cronin Coaching the power clean: A constraints-led
approach. Strength Cond J. 42: 16-25. 2020.
37. Waller, M., T. Piper, and J. Miller Coaching of the
snatch/clean pulls with the high pull variation. Strength
Cond J. 31: 47-54. 2009.
38. Whaley, O. and R. Mcclure Another perspective on
teaching the pulling movements. Strength Cond J.
19: 58-63. 1997.
39. Winchester, J.B., T.M. Erickson, J.B. Blaak, and J.M.
Mcbride Changes in bar-path kinematics and kinetics
after power-clean training. J Strength Cond Res. 19:
177-83. 2005.
40. Winchester, J.B., J.M. Porter, and J.M. Mcbride
Changes in bar path kinematics and kinetics through
use of summary feedback in power snatch training. J
Strength Cond Res. 23: 444-454. 2009.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Weightlifting exposes athletes to significant loads, potentially placing the knee joint in an abnormal mechanical environment and leading to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Once an ACL injury occurs, it can affect athletes’ competitive ability to varying degrees and even prematurely end their career. Understanding the biomechanical mechanisms of ACL injuries in weightlifters helps in comprehensively understanding the stress patterns and degrees on ACL during human movement, and identifying potential injury-causing factors, thereby enabling the implementation of appropriate preventive measures to reduce the occurrence of injuries. This study aimed to explore the biomechanical mechanisms of ACL injuries during the jerk dip phase of clean and jerk in weightlifters, providing a theoretical basis for the prevention of ACL injuries in weightlifting sports. Methods: This study utilized the German SIMI Motion 10.2 movement analysis system and the AnyBody simulation system to analyze the kinematic and dynamic parameters of a 109 kg + class weightlifter (height: 191 cm, age: 22 years, weight: 148 kg, athletic level: elite) performing a 205 kg clean and jerk (non-injured) and a 210 kg clean and jerk (ACL injury occurred). The differences in kinematic and dynamic indicators of lower limb joints under injured and non-injured jerk dip conditions were investigated. ◦ Results: Knee joint torque during non-injured clean and jerk was consistently positive (i.e., external rotation) but turned from positive to negative (i.e., from external rotation to internal rotation) during injured clean and jerk and reached a maximum internal rotation torque of 21.34 Nm at the moment of injury. At every moment, the muscle activation and simulated muscle force of the quadriceps and gastrocnemius during the injured clean and jerk were higher than those during the non-injured clean and jerk. By contrast, the muscle activation and simulated muscle force of the semitendinosus, semimembranosus, biceps femoris, and soleus during non-injured clean and jerk were higher than those during injured clean and jerk. The knee joint internal rotation angle during injured clean and jerk first increased and then declined, reaching a peak at 46.93 at the moment of injury, whereas it gradually increased during non-injured clean and jerk. The proximal tibia on the left side during the injured clean and jerk moved forward faster by 0.76 m/s compared with that during the non-injured clean and jerk. Conclusions: The small muscle activation and simulated muscle force of the hamstring and soleus could not resist timely and effectively the large muscle activation and simulated muscle force of the quadriceps (especially the medial quad) and gastrocnemius. As such, the force applied to the ACL could exceed its ultimate load-bearing capacity. Kinematic indicators in the athlete’s injured lift demonstrated certain disparities from those in their non-injured lift. Knee internal rotation and tibial anterior translation during the jerk dip phase of weightlifting might be the kinematic characteristics of ACL injuries.
Article
Full-text available
THE HEXAGONAL (HEX) BAR CAN OFTEN BE FOUND IN TRAINING FACILITIES; THIS ARTICLE WILL DESCRIBE HOW THIS EQUIPMENT COULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE STRENGTH AND POWER TRAINING OF ATHLETES. THE UNIQUE BAR DESIGN MEANS THAT THE HEX BAR COULD BE USED FOR DIFFERENT EXERCISES, INCLUDING THE DEADLIFT, FARMER'S WALK, AND JUMP SQUAT. THE LITERATURE REGARDING THESE EXERCISES WILL BE DISCUSSED, AND THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE PRACTICAL APPLICATION FOR THE STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PROFESSIONAL. IN ADDITION, THE REQUIRED EXECUTION FOR THE LOW- AND HIGH-HANDLE HEX BAR DEADLIFT, HEX BAR FARMER'S WALK, AND HEX BAR JUMP SQUAT WILL BE DOCUMENTED.
Article
Full-text available
Weightlifting movements have high skill demands and require expert coaching. Loaded jumps have a comparably lower skill demand, but may be similarly effective for improving explosive performance. The purpose of this study was to compare vertical jump performance, isometric force, and rate of force development (RFD) following a ten-week intervention employing the hang high-pull (hang-pull) or trap-bar jump squat (jump-squat). Eighteen NCAA Division II swimmers (8 males, 10 females) with at least one year of resistance training experience volunteered to participate. Testing included the squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ) and the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vertical ground reaction forces were analyzed to obtain jump height and relative peak power. Relative peak force, peak RFD and relative force at five time bands were obtained from the IMTP. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a hang-pull (n = 9) or jump-squat (n = 9) training group and completed a ten-week, volume-equated, periodized training program. While there was a significant main effect of training for both groups, no statistically significant between-group differences were found (p ≥ 0.17) for any of the dependent variables. However, medium effect sizes in favor of the jump-squat training group were seen in SJ height (d = 0.56) and SJ peak power (d = 0.69). Loaded jumps seem equally effective as weightlifting derivatives for improving lower-body power in experienced athletes. Since loaded jumps require less skill and less coaching expertise than weightlifting, loaded jumps should be considered where coaching complex movements is difficult.
Article
Full-text available
WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVATIVES MAY BE IMPLEMENTED IN A SEQUENCED PROGRESSION THROUGHOUT THE TRAINING YEAR TO OPTIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATHLETE’S STRENGTH, RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND POWER OUTPUT. WEIGHTLIFTING MOVEMENTS AND THEIR DERIVATIVES CAN BE PROGRAMMED EFFECTIVELY BY CONSIDERING THEIR FORCE–VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS TO MEET THE SPECIFIC TRAINING GOALS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING PHASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TYPICAL APPLICATION OF PERIODIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the joint- and load-dependent changes in the mechanical demands of the lower extremity joints during the hang power clean (HPC) and the jump shrug (JS). Fifteen male lacrosse players were recruited from an NCAA DI team, and completed three sets of the HPC and JS at 30%, 50%, and 70% of their HPC 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM HPC) in a counterbalanced and randomized order. Motion analysis and force plate technology were used to calculate the positive work, propulsive phase duration, and peak concentric power at the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Separate three-way analysis of variances were used to determine the interaction and main effects of joint, load, and lift type on the three dependent variables. The results indicated that the mechanics during the HPC and JS exhibit joint-, load-, and lift-dependent behavior. When averaged across joints, the positive work during both lifts increased progressively with external load, but was greater during the JS at 30% and 50% of 1-RM HPC than during the HPC. The JS was also characterized by greater hip and knee work when averaged across loads. The joint-averaged propulsive phase duration was lower at 30% than at 50% and 70% of 1-RM HPC for both lifts. Furthermore, the load-averaged propulsive phase duration was greater for the hip than the knee and ankle joint. The joint-averaged peak concentric power was the greatest at 70% of 1-RM for the HPC and at 30% to 50% of 1-RM for the JS. In addition, the joint-averaged peak concentric power of the JS was greater than that of the HPC. Furthermore, the load-averaged peak knee and ankle concentric joint powers were greater during the execution of the JS than the HPC. However, the load-averaged power of all joints differed only during the HPC, but was similar between the hip and knee joints for the JS. Collectively, these results indicate that compared to the HPC the JS is characterized by greater hip and knee positive joint work, and greater knee and ankle peak concentric joint power, especially if performed at 30 and 50% of 1-RM HPC. This study provides important novel information about the mechanical demands of two commonly used exercises and should be considered in the design of resistance training programs that aim to improve the explosiveness of the lower extremity joints.
Article
Full-text available
When performing a set of successive repetitions, fatigue ensues and the quality of performance during subsequent repetitions contained in the set decreases. Oftentimes, this response may be beneficial, as fatigue may stimulate the neuromuscular system to adapt, resulting in a super-compensatory response. However, there are instances in which accumulated fatigue may be detrimental to training or performance adaptations (i.e. power development). In these instances, the ability to recover and maintain repetition performance would be considered essential. By providing intermittent rest between individual repetitions or groups of repetitions within a set, an athlete is able to acutely alleviate fatigue, allowing performance to remain relatively constant throughout an exercise session. Within the scientific literature, a set that includes intermittent rest between individual repetitions or groups of repetitions within a set is defined as a cluster set. Recently, cluster sets have received more attention as researchers have begun to examine the acute and chronic responses to this relatively novel set structure. However, much of the rest-period terminology within the literature lacks uniformity and many authors attempt to compare largely different protocols with the same terminology. Additionally, the present body of scientific literature has mainly focused on the effects of cluster sets on power output, leaving the effects of cluster sets on strength and hypertrophy relatively unexplored. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to further delineate cluster set terminology, describe the acute and chronic responses of cluster sets, and explain the need for further investigation of the effects of cluster sets.
Article
Full-text available
THE POWER CLEAN AND POWER SNATCH FROM THE KNEE CAN BE USED IN THE TEACHING PROGRESSION OF THE CLEAN AND SNATCH EXERCISES BECAUSE THEY EMPHASIZE POSITIONAL STRENGTH DURING THE TRANSITION PHASE, USE THE DOUBLE KNEE BEND TECHNIQUE, AND TRAIN THE TRIPLE EXTENSION OF THE HIP, KNEE, AND ANKLE JOINTS.
Article
Full-text available
The pull from the knee is a weightlifting movement derivative that can be used in the teaching progression of the clean and snatch exercises. This exercise emphasizes positional strength during the transition phase and the triple extension of the hip, knee, and ankle joints that is characteristic of weightlifting movements.
Article
Traditionally, strength and conditioning coaches have used explicit instructions when changing movement behavior. Recent work has questioned the efficacy of this approach. Whether explicit instruction is best for facilitating movement change is discussed along with an alternative approach. A brief review of traditional coaching methods is undertaken, highlighting differences between the traditional “coach-centered approach” and an “athlete-centered, constraints-led approach.” The constraints-led approach is applied to coaching the power clean. This provides an example of how strength and conditioning practitioners may approach the coaching of movement using methods that align with contemporary coaching as well as skill acquisition theory.
Article
This study examined the lower-extremity joint level load absorption characteristics of the hang power clean (HPC) and jump shrug (JS). Eleven Division I male lacrosse players were fitted with 3-dimensional reflective markers and performed 3 repetitions each of the HPC and JS at 30, 50, and 70% of their 1 repetition maximum (1RM) HPC while standing on force plates. Load absorption joint work and duration at the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared using 3-way repeated-measures mixed analyses of variance. Cohen’s d effect sizes were used to provide a measure of practical significance. The JS was characterized by greater load absorption joint work compared with the HPC performed at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.84), knee (p < 0.001, d = 1.85), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 1.49). In addition, greater joint work was performed during the JS compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.89), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.74), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.66). The JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC at the hip (p < 0.001, d = 0.94), knee (p = 0.001, d = 0.89), and ankle joints (p < 0.001, d = 0.99). In addition, the JS had a longer loading duration compared with the HPC performed at 30% (p < 0.001, d = 0.83), 50% (p < 0.001, d = 0.79), and 70% 1RM HPC (p < 0.001, d = 0.85). The JS required greater hip, knee, and ankle joint work on landing compared with the load absorption phase of the HPC, regardless of load. The HPC and JS possess unique load absorption characteristics; however, both exercises should be implemented based on the goals of each training phase.
Article
The purpose of this study was to compare the muscle activation patterns of three different kettlebell (KB) exercises using electromyography (EMG). Fourteen resistance-trained subjects completed a one-arm swing (Swing), one-arm swing style snatch (Snatch), and a one-arm clean (Clean) using a self-selected 8-10 RM load for each exercise. Trial sessions consisted of subjects performing 5 repetitions of each kettlebell exercise. Mean EMG was used to assess the muscle activation of the biceps brachii (BB), anterior deltoid (AD), posterior deltoid (PD), erector spinae (ES), vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), contralateral external oblique (EO), and gluteus maximus (GM) during each lift using surface electrodes. The mean EMG was normalized using maximal voluntary contractions obtained from manual muscle testing. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the muscle activation patterns of the ES (Swing > Snatch), EO (Snatch, Clean > Swing), and VL (Swing > Clean) across the three KB exercises. We conclude that while the KB Swing, Snatch, and Clean are total body exercises, they place different demands on the ES, contralateral EO, and the VL. Therefore, KBs represent an authentic alternative for lifters, and the Swing, Snatch, and Clean are not redundant exercises.