You are on page 1of 8

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(2), 290297 2002 National Strength & Conditioning Association

Biomechanical Analysis of the Knee During the Power Clean


AARON L. SOUZA1,2,3
1

AND

SEAN D. SHIMADA1,3

Biomechanical Consultants of California, Davis, California 95616; 2Human Engineering Research Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206; 3Human Performance Laboratory, California State University of Sacramento, Sacramento, California 95825.

ABSTRACT
To our knowledge, no scientic literature has examined the 3-dimensional forces acting at the knee joint during a power clean. Ten male weightlifting subjects (25.9 years, SD 3.54) performed 1 set of the power clean at 60 and 70% of their maximal collegiate level for 5 repetitions. The subjects displayed a large compressive, moderate anterior, and a small degree of lateral and medial force at the knee during both percentage lifts. The majority of these forces occurred during the second pull phase or the catching phase of the lift. Lifters with decreased weight/system weight percentages displayed a more efcient lift that placed less stress on the knees. This analysis may provide invaluable information in the assessment of weight percentages used for Olympic weightlifters throughout the training year.

ing the power clean (3, 13, 20). Therefore the purpose of this study was to describe the 3-dimensional forces associated with the knee when performing a power clean. This study focuses on the knee because of the elevated incidence of injury (1, 2, 5, 6, 1416), high degree of stress and strain it encounters (18, 21, 23, 24, 26), and its complex kinematics (4, 810, 17, 19, 22, 25) during the power clean. This study will provide a foundation for future weightlifting studies investigating the dynamics of the knee.

Methods
Experimental Approach Collegiate male Olympic weightlifters were used to assess the 3-dimensional forces occurring at the knee during a power clean. This type of analysis has not been performed to our knowledge; therefore, a great need for this research exists. The last recorded maximum clean achieved by each subject during competition was utilized. Percentages were taken from the maximum clean and used as a starting point for the power clean lifts. Subjects Ten collegiate male subjects with at least 1 year of weightlifting competition experience volunteered for the study. Written informed consent was obtained prior to any experimental testing. The California State University of Sacramento Institutional Review Board approved the study. Subjects were healthy and without history of musculoskeletal injuries. The mean subject mass, height, age, and years of experience were 91.4 16.2 kg, 176.7 8.5 cm, 25.9 3.6 years, and 3.1 3.4 years, respectively. Table 1 displays the subjects mass, maximum clean, and the 60 and 70% power clean from the maximum clean. Kinematic Measurement Instruments The Peak Motus 3D motion analysis system (Peak Performance Technologies, Inc., Englewood, CO) was used to collect spatial data relating to the knee. Four

Key Words: collegiate weightlifters, knee biomechanics, 3-dimensional knee forces, Olympic lifts Reference Data: Souza, A.L., and S.D. Shimada. Biomechanical analysis of the knee during the power clean. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(2):290297. 2002.

Introduction
trength coaches frequently implement the power clean in their athletes training regimen; however, opinions between researchers and coaches regarding the type of exercise and load necessary to optimize performance differ (1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 1416, 18, 21, 24, 26 28). The power clean is one of the many complex training exercises that consist of the rst pull, unweighted, second pull, and catch phases used to strengthen the clean. Speed, power, and precision are needed to perform the most optimal technique when executing the power clean. Many researchers theorize that a periodization schedule incorporating high volumes with less weight early in training gives the knee joints a chance to build up a resistance, protecting against the potential for injury (24, 27). However, no scientic literature to our knowledge has described the forces acting on the knee joints dur290

Analysis of Knee During Power Clean 291

Table 1. Subjects weight, maximum competition clean system weight, and 60 and 70% of system weight power clean (Olympic bar, bumper plates plus weight of subject). Maximum System System clean weight 60% weight 70% (N) (N) (N) 1,324.35 1,079.10 882.90 1,030.05 1,569.60 1,667.70 981.00 1,177.20 1,226.25 1,030.05 1,581.96 1,574.90 1,205.94 1,547.72 2,004.97 2,157.22 1,255.88 1,720.58 1,594.32 1,501.03 1,714.40 1,682.81 1,294.23 1,650.73 2,161.93 2,323.99 1,353.98 1,838.30 1,716.95 1,604.03

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Weight (N) 787.35 927.44 676.20 929.69 1,063.21 1,156.60 667.28 1,014.26 858.57 883.00

formed 5 repetitions of the power clean at 60% of maximum weight cleaned for trial 1. The subject then rested at least 10 minutes between percentage lifts to avoid exhaustion. While 1 subject rested, the weight on the bar was changed and another subject performed the 60% lifts. The subjects performed the 60% lift rst followed by the 70% to ensure that fatigue did not become a factor. Once the 2 subjects completed the 2 percentage lifts, 2 more subjects were put into the rotation and all 4 VHS videotapes were replaced.
Data Acquisition From Video and Force Plate Collection of data was initiated when the bar rst began to ex. The forces were collected in 3 dimensions (Fx, Fy, and Fz). Digitization of the video began 5 frames before lift-off and 5 frames after the nishing point of the lift (with the subject in an erect position). Statistical Analyses Ground reaction forces were collected and transformed into a local coordinate system. Maximal knee exion/extension angles, 3-dimensional forces, and the time at which they occurred were determined using MATLAB (Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA) Threedimensional knee forces included a description of the forces acting along the shaft of the tibia and forces medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior to the knee joint as a percentage of system weight. The maximal forces and knee angle for 5 trials of each percentage lift were obtained, and a mean maximal value was calculated. System weight was used to compare the percent increase observed with each lift. The system weight consists of the lifters weight plus the weight on the bar (60 or 70% of the maximum).

VHS recorders (Panasonic AG 2560, Panasonic, Secaucus, NJ) documented the lifts. One 60 Hz camera (Philips TC 351A, Philips, Silicon Valley, CA) was set perpendicular to the subject at 5 m. The second and third cameras were positioned 90 from each other at a 45 angle from the midsagittal line from the subject. A fourth camera was set posterior to the lifter at 5 m. Backlights were placed behind the respective cameras to provide illumination of the reective markers. A 3dimensional scaling rod was positioned in the eld of view and lmed for 2 minutes.
Kinetic Measurement System An AMTI force plate (Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA) collected kinetic data at 500 Hz. The peak event and video control unit was used to synchronize the kinematic and kinetic data. Preparation of Subjects On the day of data collection, each subject wore a singlet (1-piece lifting suit) and lifting shoes with a raised heel. Four reective markers were placed on the following anatomical sites of the right side: greater trochanter of the femur, head of bula, lateral malleolus of the bula, and the head of the fth metatarsal. Equipment Setup An Olympic lifting bar was placed over the force plate so that the subjects right and left foot would be positioned on the force plate and normal surfaced oor, respectively. The bar and hand position were marked with white tape to ensure the reproducibility of the lift within each trial. The bar (20 kg) was loaded with a combination of 20-, 15-, 10-, 5-, 2.5-, or 1.25-kg rubber bumper plates on each side. Study Design All of the subjects warmed up with 40% of their maximal clean for 5 repetitions for 3 sets. The subjects per-

Results
All subjects completed the 60 and 70% power clean lifts on their assigned day. The subjects performed 5 lifts of each percentage with a 10-minute rest between each percentage lift. None of the subjects reported any injuries or problems during the testing sessions. Maximal 3-dimensional forces (Fz, Fy, and Fx), knee exion/extension angle, and time of occurrence were investigated by analyzing the kinematic (Peak Motus) and kinetic (AMTI force plate) data.
Compressive Forces ( Fz) The greatest amount of force occurred in the z direction, which translates to a large compressive force along the tibia and on the medial and lateral menisci. The average maximal tibial compressive force/system weight percentage was 92.13 8.51% occurring at 1.34 0.36 seconds with a knee angle of 155.06 5.66 for the 60% lift. During the 70% lift, an average tibial compressive force/system weight percentage calculated was 89.34 8.93% at 1.43 0.24 seconds with a knee angle of 154.31 6.62 (Figure 1).

292 Souza and Shimada

Figure 1. Subject 5s knee angle (degrees) during a 70% power clean.

Figure 2. Compressive forces (Fz) acting on subject 5s knee during a 70% power clean.

Maximal compressive forces occurred at the end of the second pull phase of the power clean. All but 2 subjects had an increase in compressive force when the 60 and 70% lifts were compared; however, only 2 subjects displayed a higher compressive force/system weight percentage when increasing from the 60% to the 70% lift (Table 2). Figure 2 displays the compressive forces acting on 1 subjects right knee during a 70% lift. Six of the subjects generated maximal compressive forces earlier in time during the 60% lift when compared with the 70% lift. The remaining 4 subjects displayed the opposite results with the greatest compressive forces occurring later in the 60% lift and earlier during the 70% lift. Half of the subjects knee angles were extended more in the 60% lift when compared with the 70% lift.

Medial Forces ( Fy) A relatively small amount of medial force on the knee was observed. The average maximal tibial medial force/system weight percentage was 7.75 3.58% for all subjects, which occurred at 1.34 0.36 seconds with a knee angle of 145.85 7.41 for the 60% lift, compared with 7.31 3.03% at 1.43 0.24 seconds with a knee angle of 147.35 6.03 during the 70% lift. Figure 3 displays the lateral and medial forces acting on subject 5s right knee during the 70% lift. Six of the subjects displayed a higher medial force/system weight percentage when increasing from the 60% to the 70% lift (Table 3). Five of the subjects encountered a decrease in medial force as the mass of the system increased. The remaining ve subjects displayed a smaller force with the 60% lift compared with the 70%

Table 2. Subjects mean maximal compressive force/system weight percentages, knee angle, and time to these occurrences during the 60 and 70% lifts during 5 trials with SD. Time denoted in seconds, knee angles in degrees, and weight/system weight as a percentage. Compressive weight/system weight percentage (60%) 74.31 83.54 94.81 99.32 96.97 102.23 99.49 90.27 92.53 87.78 Compressive weight/system weight percentage (70%) 73.27 78.98 87.08 101.63 92.11 99.45 97.25 91.11 85.73 86.75

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (60%) 1.20 0.70 1.55 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.09 1.67 1.97 1.02 0.21 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.5 0.25 0.31 0.65

Knee angle (60%) 152.86 154.33 163.10 152.06 162.37 155.62 146.76 147.89 154.57 160.99 7.39 14.37 8.84 16.36 10.25 13.08 17.34 13.18 7.88 10.69

Time (70%) 1.02 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.69 1.43 1.31 1.52 1.78 1.11 0.63 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.37 0.62 0.28 0.79

Knee angle (70%) 147.84 154.1 150.1 153.8 163.0 159.85 145.85 159.2 146.6 162.9 9.73 14.52 12.79 12.36 10.29 13.76 11.6 15.15 7.39 4.97

Analysis of Knee During Power Clean 293

the 60% to the 70% lift (Table 4). Seven of the subjects demonstrated a greater lateral force during the 70% power clean lift compared with the 60% lift. The time at which the maximal forces were applied to the knee occurred earlier in the 60% lift for 6 subjects. The remaining 4 subjects displayed the opposite with an earlier time of maximal lateral force applied during the 70% lift. Five of the subjects displayed more extension in the 60% lift, with the remaining 5 displaying greater extension during the 70% lift. The subjects appeared to encounter maximal lateral forces at the beginning of the racking or catching phase (Figure 3).
Posterior Forces ( Fx) A relatively small posterior force was observed at the knee. The average maximal tibial posterior force/system weight percentage was 2.54 1.66% for all the subjects occurring at 1.34 0.36 seconds with a knee angle of 165.12 9.97 for the 60% lift compared with 3.48 1.78 at 1.43 0.24 seconds with a knee angle of 164.71 8.84 during the 70% lift. Seven of the subjects displayed a higher posterior force/system weight percentage when increasing from the 60% to the 70% lift (Table 5). Nine of the subjects displayed an increase in posterior force with the addition of the system mass. Six subjects encountered maximal posterior forces earlier in time with the 60% lift. Half of the subjects displayed a greater degree of knee extension during the 60% lift compared with the 70% lift. Five of the subjects displayed an increase in knee angle during the 70% lift. Figure 4 displays the anterior and posterior forces acting on subject 5s right knee during a 70% power clean. This relatively small maximal force was observed at the end of the second pulling phase of the lift. Anterior Forces ( Fx) Relatively moderate anterior force acting on the knee was observed. The average maximal tibial anterior

Figure 3. Lateral and medial forces (Fy) acting on subject 5s knee during a 70% power clean.

lift. Six of the subjects experienced maximal medial forces earlier in time during the 60% lift. The remaining 4 subjects encountered maximal medial forces during the 70% lift. The knee was extended more during the 70% lift in 6 subjects, whereas 4 subjects displayed greater knee extension during the 60% lift. Maximal medial forces occurred at the end of the second pull phase of the power clean.
Lateral Forces ( Fy) The subjects displayed a relatively small degree of lateral force on the knee during both the 60 and 70% power clean lifts. The average maximal tibial lateral force/system weight percentage was 11.91 2.23% for all of the subjects, which occurred at 1.34 0.36 seconds with a knee angle of 138.87 7.51 for the 60% lift compared with 12.23 2.17% at 1.43 0.24 seconds with a knee angle of 131.46 16.19 during the 70% lift. Six of the subjects displayed a higher lateral force/system weight percentage when increasing from

Table 3. Subjects mean maximal medial force/system weight, knee angle, and time to these occurrences during the 60 and 70% lifts during 5 trials with SD. Time denoted in seconds, knee angles in degrees, and weight/system weight as a percentage. Medial weight/ system weight percentage (60%) 3.60 11.14 5.45 6.69 5.08 6.19 11.15 15.17 7.17 5.87 Medial weight/ system weight percentage (70%) 5.50 11.43 2.74 6.07 5.66 3.93 9.98 10.02 10.67 7.14

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (60%) 1.20 0.70 1.55 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.09 1.67 1.97 1.02 0.21 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.50 0.25 0.31 0.65

Knee angle (60%) 141.21 140.87 141.79 156.45 155.96 133.97 147.50 142.82 144.22 153.66 23.31 17.17 16.64 13.77 4.83 16.70 7.03 8.03 18.12 12.98

Time (70%) 1.02 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.69 1.43 1.31 1.52 1.78 1.11 0.63 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.37 0.62 0.28 0.79

Knee angle (70%) 141.69 136.72 149.3 146.8 155.2 149.4 150.8 155.8 146.0 142.0 34.25 3.28 17.20 5.75 10.47 12.53 13.45 12.71 5.63 15.99

294 Souza and Shimada Table 4. Subjects mean maximal lateral force/system weight percentages, knee angle, and time to these occurrences during the 60 and 70% lifts during 5 trials with SD. Time denoted in seconds, knee angles in degrees, and weight/system weight as a percentage. Lateral weight/ system weight percentage (60%) 19.59 12.81 11.51 7.32 10.0 6.41 6.09 8.99 20.58 15.97 12.86 10.55 13.00 15.93 11.64 12.40 9.77 7.80 11.52 13.58 Lateral weight/ system weight percentage (70%) 16.51 9.38 12.81 13.09 11.69 13.36 12.29 8.6 12.31 12.24

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (60%) 1.20 0.70 1.55 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.09 1.67 1.97 1.02 0.21 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.50 0.25 0.31 0.65

Knee angle (60%) 149.45 152.31 127.96 133.56 142.66 139.18 137.56 132.31 137.16 136.58

Time (70%) 1.02 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.69 1.43 1.31 1.52 1.78 1.11 0.63 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.37 0.62 0.28 0.79

Knee angle (70%) 95.91 155.7 127.2 137.7 129.9 144.8 124.8 137.3 120.9 140.4 16.02 10.42 12.73 18.26 11.04 13.10 3.63 11.44 3.79 16.56

Table 5. Subjects mean maximal posterior force/system weight percentages, knee angle, and time to these occurrences during the 60 and 70% lifts during 5 trials with SD. Time denoted in seconds, knee angles in degrees, and weight/system weight as a percentage. Posterior weight/ system weight percentage (60%) 6.11 2.33 13.80 10.14 5.16 2.24 3.89 23.17 16.82 4.43 3.38 2.19 1.68 2.61 5.18 3.92 1.01 0.66 0.33 4.43 Posterior weight/ system weight percentage (70%) 5.02 3.89 3.26 5.62 5.06 4.14 2.02 0.46 0.93 4.37

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (60%) 1.20 0.70 1.55 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.09 1.67 1.97 1.02 0.21 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.50 0.25 0.31 0.65

Knee angle (60%) 166.57 166.45 165.87 169.92 171.56 162.23 173.80 164.26 138.71 171.79

Time (70%) 1.02 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.69 1.43 1.31 1.52 1.78 1.11 0.63 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.37 0.62 0.28 0.79

Knee angle (70%) 147.3 171.1 153.6 163.7 173.6 162.2 169.7 171.1 161.5 173.3 37.60 1.59 6.10 1.55 4.48 3.15 10.93 10.13 2.56 3.06

Figure 4. Anterior and posterior forces (Fx) acting on subject 5s knee during a 70% power clean.

force/system weight percentage was 41.20 4.78% for all subjects occurring at 1.34 0.36 seconds with a knee angle of 117.78 9.41 during the 60% lift compared with 41.72 4.01% at 1.43 0.24 seconds with a knee angle of 111.06 12.31 during the 70% lift. Five of the subjects displayed a higher anterior force/ system weight percentage when increasing from the 60% to the 70% lift (Table 6). Eight of the subjects experienced a greater amount of anterior force in the 70% lift compared with the 60% lift. Of these 8 subjects, 5 experienced maximal anterior forces earlier in time during the 60% lift compared with the 70% lift. Furthermore, 7 of the subjects displayed a greater degree of extension in the 60% lift. The maximum force appears to occur at the beginning of the racking or catching phase during the power clean. Figure 5 displays an overlay of the knee forces (compressive, an-

Analysis of Knee During Power Clean 295

Table 6. Subjects mean maximal anterior force/system weight percentages, knee angle, and time to these occurrences during the 60 and 70% lifts during 5 trials with SD. Time denoted in seconds, knee angles in degrees, and weight/system weight as a percentage. Anterior weight/ system weight percentage (60%) 3.86 11.15 6.26 1.49 4.03 4.13 17.48 10.58 9.87 18.44 42.26 38.23 40.54 51.52 40.22 35.00 35.69 44.10 44.30 40.11 Anterior weight/ system weight percentage (70%) 7.79 1.39 3.18 4.81 4.13 2.24 4.07 5.63 3.68 12.30 38.64 45.78 40.52 45.24 38.57 36.80 39.33 45.65 48.04 38.61

Subject (n 10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (60%) 1.20 0.70 1.55 1.33 1.42 1.50 1.09 1.67 1.97 1.02 0.21 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.50 0.25 0.31 0.65

Knee angle (60%) 112.57 113.89 111.85 107.15 122.32 118.20 125.14 133.31 128.66 104.68

Time (70%) 1.02 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.69 1.43 1.31 1.52 1.78 1.11 0.63 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.37 0.62 0.28 0.79

Knee angle (70%) 85.75 122.0 111.5 99.60 115.4 106.9 128.7 117.7 117.9 105.2

Figure 5. Compressive force ( ), anterior/posterior force (0), and lateral/medial force ( ) acting on the knee on subject 5s knee during a 70% power clean.

terior/posterior, and lateral/medial) during a 70% power clean.

Discussion
The compressive forces in this study were shown to be the largest force produced for all subjects during both power clean lifts. The main object of the power clean is to lift the weight from the oor up to the shoulders in as straight a vertical line as possible (8). This creates a reaction force in the opposite direction. The greatest power needed is during the second pull phase (7), making it reasonable for the maximum force to occur during this period of time. Garhammer (7) observed the 1975 U.S. National Weightlifting Championships and found that the 52142 kg lifters produced an average power of 2498.43 Js 1 during the rst pulling sequence of the clean. The average power

produced during the upper clean or second pull phase was 3685.29 Js 1 or 67.55% higher when compared with the rst portion of the clean. Garhammer (7) additionally found that rebending of the knees in preparation of the second pull phase placed the body in a much more optimal power-producing position. The author demonstrated that more explosive power is needed during the second pull phase when performing a clean. Enoka (4) investigated 5 experienced weightlifters performing the pull. He found that the subjects ground reaction force on average was 153% of the system weight during the second pull phase compared with the rst pull phase of 131%. This study found that the maximal compressive forces occurred during the end of the second pull with the knee at 155.06 and 154.31 of extension during the 60 and 70% lift, respectively. An increase in compressive force was seen between the 60 and 70% lift; however, only 2 of the subjects displayed an increase in compressive force/system weight percentage. This increase in system weight percentage suggests that the 2 subjects performed the 70% lift with a awed technique when compared with the 60% lift. Subject 1 displayed the smallest force/system weight percentage and performed the 70% lift with the same efciency. Subject 6 displayed a less efcient lift, producing the highest force/system weight percentage during the 60% lift and 1 of the highest percentages during the 70% lift. A relatively small amount of medial force was observed in all of the subjects during both percentage lifts. The majority of the medial force occurred during the end of the second pull phase for all of the subjects. Subject 1 displayed only 3.60% (medial weight/system weight), demonstrating that a small amount of force is wasted on medial movement. However, subject 8 displayed 15.17% of unnecessary medial motion, creating

296 Souza and Shimada

a loss of energy that may have otherwise been used for the vertical movement needed to lift the weight to the shoulders. A relatively minimal degree of lateral knee force was produced during both percentage power clean lifts. The maximum lateral force was observed to occur during the early part of the catching phase. This may in part be due to the lifter laterally rotating the feet and landing on the ground at footed in preparation to catch the bar falling downward. Subject 1 displayed the highest force/system weight percentage change (3.65%), indicating that during the transition of the bar from the knees to the shoulders the subject may have kicked his legs out too fast with too much force. Subject 8 performed the 60 and 70% lifts with the lowest force/system weight percentage, demonstrating that the lift still can be performed without a large amount of lateral movement. A relatively small amount of posterior force was observed during both lifts for all subjects. The maximum posterior force appears to occur during the end of the second pull phase because of the lifters extending the hips, knees, and ankles in an attempt to place the maximum amount of vertical force to the bar. Subject 8 displayed the lowest force/system weight percentage in both the 60 and 70% lifts, demonstrating that the lifter remained straight in full extension during the second pull phase and saved potentially wasted energy. The posterior force experienced during both percentage lifts for all of the subjects was seen as small and may be due to a slight hyperextension of the knee (12). A moderate quantity of anterior force was produced during both percentages of the power clean lift. During the racking phase, the lifter wants to catch the bar when the velocity on the bar is at zero, its highest point. If the bar is caught after this point, the lifter must contend not only with gravity placed on the bar, but also the added downward velocity, which creates increased overall force by the muscle and structures of the body to stop it. All of the subjects encountered maximal anterior force on the knee at the beginning of the catching phase at 117.78 and 111.06 for the 60 and 70% power cleans, respectively.

limited by analyzing the power clean at 60 and 70% of maximum clean, a foundation has been laid to provide information about what occurs at the knee during a power clean. This analysis may provide valuable information for strength and conditioning coaches when establishing weight guidelines for the power clean that are to be used throughout the training year. However, there will always be different opinions from researchers and strength coaches on what amount of weight is needed during training to produce well conditioned athletes (1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 1416, 18, 21, 24, 2628). After increasing the system weight, a smaller weight to system weight percentage change implies that the lifter has achieved the same technique used during the lower-weight lifts, demonstrating that technique is not lost. Technique is the most important aspect to Olympic weightlifting when victory is the goal. This biomechanical analysis of the knee during the power clean provides a signicant expansion to the scientic body of knowledge of weightlifting.

References
1. 2. BASFORD, J. Weightlifting, weight training and injuries. Orthopedics 8:10511056. 1985. CHANDLER, J., D. WILSON, AND M. STONE. The effect of the squat exercise on knee stability. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21:299 303. 1989. CROSS, T. Rationale and coaching points for Olympic style lifting to enhance volleyball performance. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 15(6):5961. 1993. ENOKA, R. The pull in Olympic weightlifting. Med. Sci. Sports 11:131137. 1979. FITZGERALD, B., AND G. MCLATCHIE. Degenerative joint disease in weight lifters: Fact or ction. Br. J. Sports Med. 14:97101. 1980. FRANKLE, M. Weightlifting, weight training and injuries. Orthopedics 9:29. 1986. GARHAMMER, J. Power production by Olympic weightlifters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 12:5460. 1980. GARHAMMER, J. Bridging the gap: Power clean, kinesiological evaluation. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 6(3):40, 6163. 1984. GRIEVE, D. The defeat of gravity in weightlifting. Br. J. Sports Med. 5:3741. 1970. HAKKINEN, K., H. KAUHANEN, AND P. KOMI. Biomechanical changes in the Olympic weightlifting technique of the snatch and the clean and jerk from submaximal to maximal loads. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 6:5766. 1984. HAMILL, B. Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:5357. 1994. HARNER, C., J. XEROGEANES, G. LIVESAY, G. CARLIN, B. SMITH, T. KUSAYAMA, S. KASHIWAGUCHI, AND S. WOO. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: An interdisciplinary study. Am. Orthopaed. Soc. Sports Med. 23:736745. 1995. JUDGE, L. Preseason preparation for the collegiate shot-putter. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 14(3):2026. 1992. KLEIN, K. The deep squat exercise as utilized in weight training for athletes and its effect on the ligaments of the knee. J. Assoc. Phys. Mental Rehabil. 10:1418. 1956. KONIG, M., AND K. BIENER. Sport-specic injuries in weight lifting. Schweiz Z Sportmed. 38:2530. 1990. KOTANI, P., N. ICHIKAWA, W. WAKABAYASHI, T. YOSHII, AND M. KOSHIMURE. Studies of spondylolysis found among weight lifters. Br. J. Sports Med. 6:47. 1971.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

Practical Applications
The power clean is an exercise utilized to increase the performance of the clean and jerk. The weight caught in a power clean uses a shorter time period compared with the clean, thus creating greater forces that are numerically unknown. A biomechanical analysis of the power clean investigating the knees of 10 collegiate weightlifters revealed that a vast amount of compressive, moderate amount of anterior, and small amount of medial and lateral forces are produced when performing the power clean. Although this study may be

13. 14.

15. 16.

Analysis of Knee During Power Clean 297


17. KREIGHBAUM, E., AND K. BARTHELS. Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1985. KULUND, D., J. DEWEY, C. BRUBAKER, AND J. ROBERTS. Olympic weight-lifting injuries. Physician Sportsmed. 6:111119. 1978. KUTZER, B., AND H. THEODOR. Weight Training Manual for Beginning and Intermediate Weight Training. Sacramento: California State University, 1997. MARSIT, J. Strength and conditioning for womens basketball. Strength Cond. 16(1):7074. 1994. MEYERS, E. Effect of selected exercise variables on ligament stability and exibility of the knee. Res. Q. 42:411422. 1971. REISER, R., S. SMITH, AND R. RATTAN. Science and technology to enhance weightlifting performance: The Olympic program. Strength Cond. 18(4):4351. 1996. SAKANE, M., G. LIVESAY, R. FOX, T. RUDY, T. RUNCO, AND S. WOO. Relative contribution of the ACL, MCL, and bony contact to the anterior stability of the knee. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 7:9397. 1999. 24. STONE, M. Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22:457462. 1990. 25. STONE, M. Explosive exercise and training. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 15(3):715. 1993. 26. STONE, M., A. FRY, M. RITCHIE, L. STOESSEL-ROSS, AND J. MARSIT. Injury potential and safety aspects of weightlifting movements. Strength Cond. 16(3):1521. 1994. 27. TOTTON, L. General safety considerations for the power clean. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 8(4):6567. 1986. 28. VON THRON, J. Weight trainingBenet or hazard. J. Fla. Med. Assoc. 67:405406. 1980.

18. 19.

20. 21. 22.

Acknowledgments
The National Strength and Conditioning Association Student Research Grant funded this investigation.

23.

Address correspondence to Aaron L. Souza, alsst136@ pitt.edu.

You might also like