ANTHROPOMETRY AND BARBELL TRAJECTORY IN THE
SNATCH LIFT FOR ELITE WOMEN WEIGHTLIFTERS
LESLIE J. MUSSER, JOHN GARHAMMER, RALPH ROZENEK, JILL A. CRUSSEMEYER,
EMMY M. VARGAS
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Long Beach, California
ABSTRACT
Musser, LJ, Garhammer, J, Rozenek, R, Crussemeyer, JA, and
Vargas, EM. Anthropometry and barbell trajectory in the snatch lift
for elite women weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 28(6): 1636–
1648, 2014—The primary objective of this study was to examine
relationships between anthropometry and horizontal barbell dis-
placement during the pulling phase of the snatch lift (SN) in elite
women weightlifters. Secondary objectives included description of
anthropometric and displacement characteristics, and examina-
tions of SN performance and competitive experience. Thirty-six
women weightlifters competing at the 2009 Pan American Cham-
pionships participated. Participants were measured for standing
height, upper limb, trunk, thigh, and shank lengths, and completed
a questionnaire about competition and training experience. Hori-
zontal displacement from lift-off to first pull maximum (Dx1) and
from first pull to second pull maximum (Dx2) was determined from
the heaviest successful SN using 2-dimensional video analysis.
Significant correlations (p # 0.05) existed between thigh and
lower-limb lengths and Dx2 in 53 kg participants; lower-limb length
and Dx1 in 75 kg participants; and horizontal displacement and
body segment ratios involving the upper and lower extremity in
multiple weight classes. Correlations between anthropometry
and Dx1 also reached significance with participants grouped by
barbell trajectory type. Except for the trunk and thigh, body seg-
ment lengths were significantly different (p # 0.05) between
weight classes. Significantly different body proportions existed in
48 kg participants compared with all other classes. Multiple thigh
and trunk variables were significantly correlated with performance.
Horizontal displacement values were similar to previous reports in
the literature. Few significant relationships existed between dis-
placement and performance, and none were found for competitive
experience. Understanding relationships between anthropometry
and barbell trajectory may be useful for optimizing SN technique.
KEY WORDS female, kinematics, biomechanics
Address correspondence to Leslie J. Musser, ljmusser@gmail.com.
28(6)/1636–1648
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1636 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
INTRODUCTION
S
uccessful performances in the sport of weightlifting
are the product of extensive physical and mental
preparation that pairs strength and power with tech-
nical mastery. In the snatch lift (SN), the first of 2
events contested, the barbell is lifted from the ground and in
one continuous motion is received in a squat position fixed at
arm’s length overhead (1,14–17,21). The SN can be divided
into the following 5 phases according to the change in knee
angle and height of the barbell (1,14–17,21): the first pull, the
transition, the second pull, the turnover under the barbell, and
the catch. The first pull begins with barbell lift-off and ends
with the first maximum knee extension as the barbell reaches
knee height. The transition from first to second pull begins
once the knees begin to flex as the barbell moves past the
knees and ends with the first maximum knee flexion, or the
“power” position. The second pull begins from the position of
the first maximum knee flexion and ends with the second
maximum knee extension. The second maximum knee exten-
sion corresponds with the “top” or “finish” of the second pull.
It is also referred to as the triple extension position because of
the simultaneous extension of the knee, ankle, and hip joints.
After the second maximum knee extension, the turnover under
the barbell begins and ends at the position of maximum ver-
tical height of the barbell. The catch begins from the position
of maximum vertical height of the barbell and ends once the
barbell has been received and stabilized overhead.
The SN can also be described in terms of how the barbell
moves in relation to the athlete. During the first pull, barbell
movement is upward and typically backward toward the athlete.
The barbell begins moving forward away from the athlete during
the transition and then moves almost straight upward during the
second pull. From its position of maximum vertical height, the
barbell moves downward and backward toward the athletes
until it is received overhead in the catch. This movement
sequence creates a characteristic S-shaped barbell trajectory path
when the lift is viewed in the sagittal plane (Figure 1).
Barbell trajectory has long been of interest to sport
scientists and coaches as an informative and objective means
of evaluating technique in both the SN and clean lift. Analysis
of the 2-dimensional movement pattern created by the
barbell provides an insight into the characteristics of barbell
displacement in the vertical and horizontal directions. The
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

barbell trajectory. Furthermore,

despite numerous studies re-
porting on the frequency and
distribution of general barbell
trajectory types (Figure 1) as
described by Vorobyev (37),
a consensus has not been
reached in the literature over
which is considered optimal.
The type 1 barbell trajectory,
with the least net horizontal
displacement, is considered the
most energy-efficient pulling
pattern (10,37). Yet, trajectory
information obtained from the
highest caliber athletes over
the past 50 years does not over-
whelmingly reflect the use of
this pattern (8,11,32). Charac-
terized by an increase in net
horizontal displacement in the
direction toward the athlete,
the type 2 barbell trajectory
was described as “non-rational”
by Vorobyev. This pulling pat-
Figure 1. Examples of the 3 general barbell trajectory types shown with first pull horizontal displacement (Dx1)
tern does not intersect with the
and second pull horizontal placement (Dx2) variables. vertical reference line and ne-
cessitates a jumping movement
backward by the athlete to
receive and stabilize the weight
magnitude of horizontal movement can be measured in overhead (2,7,34). Yet, a type 2 pulling pattern is frequently
relation to an imaginary reference line vertically projected observed in elite men and women competing internationally
from the center of the initial position of the barbell. Research (1,2,7,9,17,19,21,22,34). Analyses have also revealed that
has demonstrated that the presence of a relatively limited a higher proportion of type 2 pulling patterns existed among
amount of horizontal displacement created by the use of the men and women athletes lifting a greater amount of weight
double knee bend pulling technique is more effective than relative to body mass (2,21,34). However, the role of individ-
strict vertical elevation of the barbell as depicted and ual anthropometric differences on barbell trajectory type is
explained by Enoka (5). This is because of the improvement unknown. The type 3 barbell trajectory was considered to be
in leverage that occurs when the perpendicular distances the least desirable pulling pattern because of the path of the
between the athlete-barbell system center of gravity and barbell crossing the vertical reference line at 3 points (37).
the working joints are minimized; permitting the reemploy- The number of years of competitive weightlifting experi-
ment of the knee extensor muscles through their greatest ence is an important consideration when comparing barbell
force producing range of motion, and maximum contribution trajectory data between participants. As is the case with
from the back and hip extensors resulting in greater barbell complex motor skills, weightlifting requires considerable
acceleration (5). The stored elastic energy and stretch-reflex practice over time to attain a high level of skill mastery. A
facilitation of the final knee extension may also be used to weightlifter with numerous years of training and competition
maximize the explosive power required during the lift (24). experience will have established a movement pattern that is
Although horizontal barbell displacement is considered an more consistent between attempts compared with a novice
essential element of optimal lifting technique (22), horizontal weightlifter. There is also general agreement that highly
movement resulting from the application of horizontal forces skilled athletes will also use an optimum sequential pattern
should be limited because of the additional energy required of intersegmental coordination when compared with the less
during the pulling phase and to stabilize the weight during skilled (5). Relative to the individual, this would enable more
the catch (2,15,22,34). weight to be lifted because of greater efficiency. Research
Even with use of the double knee bend technique, a large examining barbell trajectory in the SN under competitive
amount of variability exists between athletes with regard to conditions has shown a smaller range in horizontal

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1637

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch
displacement among men competitors lifting more weight
relative to body mass compared with those lifting less, but
these studies did not include the number of years of weight-
lifting experience (2,34). There is a limited amount of
research that takes experience into account when examining
barbell kinematics (16, 23). Furthermore, those research
(16, 23) do not include any information about women
weightlifters.
It has also been suggested that the variability observed in
barbell trajectories between athletes, and the optimum
trajectory for a given athlete, may be influenced by relative
body segment lengths and other leverage factors (8–10).
Most reports investigating the segment lengths and propor-
tions of weightlifters have focused on men. Some of these
reports are descriptive and comparative in nature (3,4,33,35),
whereas others have attempted to establish a relationship
between body proportions and level of skill (6,18,26,29,36).
Only one of these reports included a comparison of anthro-
pometric characteristics between athletes in different weight
classes (26). To the authors’ knowledge, only sport scientists
from the former Soviet Union have discussed the effects of
athlete anthropometry on pulling technique (27,28,31,32).
Few have investigated body segment lengths or proportions
in women weightlifters (13,25).
Although there is extensive information exploring the
biomechanics of the SN, men have been the subject of this
research in the majority of cases. Regarding anthropometric
considerations, the literature on weightlifters is limited
compared with many other Olympic sports, particularly
for women competitors. Accordingly, an anthropometric
relationship to barbell kinematics that focuses on barbell
displacement in the horizontal direction has yet to be
investigated for women weightlifters. Information about
competitive experience is also absent from most weightlift-
ing research making its role unclear with respect to the
variation in technique observed among participants at
national and international competitions (2,19,20,34).
The primary objective of this study was to examine
relationships between anthropometry and horizontal barbell
displacement during the pulling phases of the SN in elite
women weightlifters. Two secondary objectives also existed
to provide additional perspective on the variables examined
in the primary objective. First, the anthropometric character-
istics of women weightlifters were to be investigated. This
involved examining anthropometry across all participants,
comparing anthropometry between participant groups, and
examining anthropometry based on performance in the SN.
Second, the characteristics of horizontal barbell displace-
ment in the SN were to be investigated. This involved
examining horizontal barbell displacement across all partic-
ipants, comparing horizontal barbell displacement between
participant groups, examining horizontal barbell displace-
ment based on performance in the SN, and examining
horizontal barbell displacement based on the number of
years of competitive experience. Comparisons performed
the TM
1638 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
between participants involved analyses with athletes
grouped by weight class and grouped by barbell trajectory
type. Examinations based on performance in the SN were
made according to the heaviest successful SN in the
competition.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To achieve the objectives of this investigation, women
weightlifters competing in the 2009 Pan American Cham-
pionships were measured for standing height and body
segment lengths and given a questionnaire to obtain
competitive experience and additional training information.
Barbell movement was quantitatively analyzed using
2-dimensional video analysis to obtain horizontal displace-
ment values during the pulling phase of the SN and to
determine barbell trajectory type for the SN according to
those described by Vorobyev (37).
Subjects
This study included 36 women weightlifters competing in
the 2009 Pan American Championships in Chicago, Illinois,
from June 4–6, 2009. Medals were awarded for the heaviest
SN, clean and jerk (CJ), and total in each weight class. The
top 3 athletes in the SN for each weight class participated in
the study. This resulted in an overall equal distribution of
participants who medaled in the SN vs. those who did not.
Participants represented 12 of the member nations within
the Pan American Weightlifting Federation, and several par-
ticipants were competitors at the 2008 Beijing Olympic
Games. Participants were made aware of the procedures,
risks, and benefits associated with the study before providing
informed consent. Participants also signed a video release
document. The procedures used in this study were approved
by a university Institutional Review Board for the protection
of human subjects.
Mean values for age, body mass, heaviest successful SN
in the competition, heaviest successful CJ in the competi-
tion, personal record in the front squat (FSQ), personal
record in the back squat (BSQ), and the number of years of
competitive weightlifting experience are presented accord-
ing to weight class in Table 1. Participant age ranged from
18 to 37 years (23.70 6 4.20 years) and body mass ranged
from 44.00 to 74.98 kg (59.30 6 9.50 kg). Competitive
weightlifting experience ranged from 3.50 to 14.25 years
(8.00 6 2.64 years). All gold medalists had more than 7
years of competitive weightlifting experience.
Procedures
Recruiting and data collection occurred on the day of
competition for each weight class at the competition venue.
After the third attempt in the CJ, participants were given
a written questionnaire to complete asking about the number
of years of competitive weightlifting experience, and heaviest
successful FSQ and BSQ. The questionnaire was followed by
the collection of anthropometric measurements. Participants
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

were measured for standing height using a wall scale with

the head in the Frankfort plane. Each participant was

Competitive experience† (y)

measured once while in stocking feet. A large sliding caliper
(GPM Gneupel, Switzerland) was used to measure the
following body segment lengths: (a) upper limb (acromion

1.80
3.84
2.39
2.14
2.75
1.01
2.64
process to center of clenched fist), (b) trunk (acromion
process to greater trochanter), (c) thigh (greater trochanter
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.21
8.96
6.44
9.43
9.33
8.49
8.00
to femoral lateral condyle), and (d) shank (femoral lateral
condyle to lateral malleolus). The greater trochanter and
femoral lateral condyle were used as the estimated hip joint
and knee joint center of rotation, respectively. Body segment
landmarks were identified before measurements were taken.
Back squat† (kg)

15.91
09.96
17.32
09.17
20.17
27.25
33.37 During body segment length measurements, the participants
stood erect with the left upper limb relaxed at the side of the
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

body and the right upper limb abducted approximately 908

119.38
130.60
157.00
174.17
163.33
169.00
147.78

from the body with the hand in a clenched fist. Each seg-
ment was measured in triplicate following the order listed
above, and all measurements were taken on the right side of
Front squat† (kg)

10.61
09.88
16.33
04.92
16.33
17.46
28.83

the body. Lower limb length was determined by the com-

bined length of the thigh and shank. Body mass was ob-
tained from the calibrated digital scale used at the official
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

athlete weigh-in for the competition.

102.38
111.20
138.67
144.17
141.67
141.00
125.75

Video records of the SN lifts performed by women at the

2009 Pan American Championships were captured at 60 Hz
using a commercial grade video camera (PV-GS200; Pana-
Clean and jerk* (kg)

15.42

sonic USA, Newark, NJ, USA). The camera was mounted on

8.36
8.87
8.99
9.83
9.14
7.65

a tripod 15.85 m to the right side of the competition platform

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

center providing a sagittal plane view of the right side of the

84.29
96.20
114.00
112.83
118.00
119.00
105.82

athletes and barbell discs, and matching the side of the body
the anthropometric measures were taken from. The field of
view was approximately 3.00 m horizontal by 2.25 m
vertical. The optical axis of the camera passed 0.71 m above
11.90
8.35
7.30
2.25
7.67
7.23
6.52
Snatch* (kg)

the platform surface for all sessions, with the exception of the
48B/53B session, where the optical axis of the camera
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

passed 0.58 m above the platform surface. Video field

70.25
74.40
86.67
90.00
94.33
94.00
84.14

calibration was performed using a level 0.50 m square

pattern that was recorded while held on top of the largest
*Heaviest successful attempt made in the competition.
TABLE 1. Descriptive characteristics (mean 6 SD).

weight disc facing the camera at the end of each lifting

Body mass (kg)

1.44
0.58
0.62
0.40
0.52
1.28
9.51

competition session. Video recordings for each lift began

before the separation of the barbell discs from the compe-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

tition platform and ended when the barbell discs returned to

46.87
52.30
57.29
62.56
68.36
73.97
59.32

the platform. The heaviest successful SN for each participant

was individually edited from a copy of the master videotape
using Dartfish software (version 4.5; Dartfish, Fribourg,
3.03
4.11
4.06
5.66
4.25
4.88
4.34

Switzerland). Each lift chosen for kinematic evaluation was

Age (y)

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

analyzed using Ariel Performance Analysis Software (APAS;

22.42
23.17
23.22
27.33
22.84
23.40
23.68

†Self-reported value.

revision 3.7; Ariel Dynamics Incorporated, Trabuco Canyon,

CA, USA). The center of the largest disc visible on the video
record was manually digitized at 60 Hz. Raw coordinate
48 kg (n = 8)
53 kg (n = 5)
58 kg (n = 6)
63 kg (n = 6)
69 kg (n = 6)
75 kg (n = 5)
Weight class

All (n = 36)

data for one successful lift were smoothed using a cubic

spline function option incorporated in the APAS software.
An adjustable smoothing parameter was varied until the
smoothness of acceleration-time data was visually consid-
ered a most realistic fit. This corresponded to an adjustable
smoothing parameter of 0.2. The smoothing parameter was

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1639

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch
then fixed at this value and used for the analysis of all other
lifts, and to calculate barbell kinematics as well. Barbell
position relative to the vertical reference line was used to
determine displacement in the horizontal direction during
the pulling phase of the lift. Two horizontal displacement
values were obtained for each participant in the SN: (a)
first pull displacement (Dx1), defined as the change in
x-coordinate position between lift-off and first pull maxi-
mum; and (b) second pull displacement (Dx2), defined as the
change in x-coordinate position between first pull maximum
and second pull maximum. Dx2 was calculated by taking the
absolute value of the difference between first pull maximum
and second pull maximum x-coordinate positions. First pull
maximum refers to the maximum horizontal displacement of
the barbell toward the athlete in the first pull. Second pull
maximum refers to the maximum horizontal displacement of
the barbell away from the athlete in the second pull. A
negative Dx1 value indicates the position of the barbell
behind the vertical reference line (on the same side of the
vertical reference line as the lifter). A positive Dx1 value
indicates the position of the barbell forward of the vertical
reference line (on the opposite side of the vertical reference
line as the lifter). Dx2 values are positive because of the
method by which they were calculated and do not specify
directionality as a result. Barbell trajectory type classifica-
tions were determined visually from graphed x-y coordinate
trajectory data according to the general barbell trajectory
types described by Vorobyev (37).
Statistical Analyses
Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS Statistics
(version 17.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). To
address the primary objective of this study: (a) Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to
examine relationships between anthropometry and horizon-
tal barbell displacement with participants pooled, grouped
by weight class, and grouped by barbell trajectory type; and
(b) partial correlation coefficient (r) controlling for the influ-
ence of weight class was used to examine relationships
between anthropometry and horizontal barbell displacement
with participants grouped by barbell trajectory type. To
address the first additional objective of this study: (a) one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine
significant differences in anthropometry between athletes
when grouped by weight class and by barbell trajectory type;
(b) Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
used to examine relationships between anthropometry and
weight of the heaviest successful SN with participants
pooled and grouped by weight class; and (c) partial correla-
tion coefficient controlling for the influence of weight class
was used to examine relationships between anthropometry
and weight of the heaviest successful SN when participants
were grouped by barbell trajectory type. To address the sec-
ond additional objective of this study: (a) ANOVA was used
to determine significant differences in horizontal barbell dis-
the TM
1640 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
placement between athletes when grouped by weight class
and by barbell trajectory type; (b) Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships
between horizontal barbell displacement and weight of the
heaviest successful SN with participants pooled and grouped
by weight class; (c) partial correlation coefficient controlling
for the influence of weight class was used to examine rela-
tionships between horizontal barbell displacement and
weight of the heaviest successful SN with participants
grouped by barbell trajectory type; (d) Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficient was used to examine rela-
tionships between horizontal barbell displacement and years
of competitive weightlifting experience with participants
pooled and grouped by weight class; and (e) partial correla-
tion coefficient controlling for the influence of weight class
was used to examine relationships between horizontal bar-
bell displacement and years of competitive weightlifting
experience with participants grouped by barbell trajectory
type. For the ANOVA tests performed, homogeneity of var-
iances was tested using the Levene statistic, and the Gabriel
post hoc test was selected because of the unequal sample
sizes between weight classes and barbell trajectory types. If
variances were unequal, the Games-Howell post hoc test
was used. Omega squared (v2) was calculated to estimate
effect size for significant findings. The level of significance
was set at p # 0.05 for all statistical tests performed.
RESULTS
Anthropometric variables were not significantly correlated
with horizontal barbell displacement when participant data
were pooled; however, significant correlations existed with
participants grouped by weight class. Lower extremity
segment lengths in the 53 and 75 kg participants appeared
to be significantly correlated with horizontal displacement
values (Table 2). Correlation coefficients also reached signif-
icance between body segment ratios and horizontal dis-
placement in the 48, 53, 63, and 75 kg classes (Table 2).
With participants grouped by barbell trajectory type, signif-
icant correlations between anthropometry and horizontal
displacement existed for Dx1 only (Table 2). When control-
ling for weight class, no significant relationships were found
between anthropometry and horizontal barbell displacement
with respect to barbell trajectory type.
Athlete standing height and body segment lengths are
presented in Table 3. Comparison of anthropometry between
weight classes showed significant differences for all measure-
ments except trunk and thigh length. The significant differ-
ences that existed were with respect to height (F5,30 = 10.57,
p # 0.05, v2 = 0.58), upper limb length (F5,30 = 13.89, p #
0.05, v2 = 0.64), shank length (F5,30 = 12.12, p # 0.05, v2 =
0.61), and lower limb length (F5,30 = 7.78, p # 0.05, v2 = 0.49).
Gabriel post hoc test results revealed the significant differences
in height to be between the 75 kg and 53 and 58 kg classes,
and between the 48 kg and 63, 69, and 75 kg classes. Partic-
ipants in the 48 kg class were also significantly different from
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Athlete body segment ratios

are presented in Table 3. Signifi-
TABLE 2. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r) for anthropometric
and horizontal barbell displacement variables.* cant results existed for compari-
sons of body segment ratios
Anthropometric Displacement between weight classes. Partici-
Group variable variable r p pants were found to be signifi-
Weight class cantly different with respect to
48 kg (n = 8) Upper limb/thigh Dx1 0.74 0.038 the following ratios: upper
Upper limb/lower limb Dx1 0.72 0.044 limb/thigh (F5,30 = 5.14, p #
Upper limb/thigh Dx2 0.65 0.082 0.05, v2 = 0.36), upper limb/
53 kg (n = 5) Height Dx1 20.84 0.078 shank (F5,30 = 2.95, p # 0.05,
Thigh Dx2 20.99 0.002
Shank Dx2 20.82 0.091 v 2 = 0.21), upper limb/height

Lower limb Dx2 20.94 0.016 (F5,30 = 6.17, p # 0.05, v2 =

Thigh/trunk Dx2 20.85 0.071 0.41), thigh/shank (F5,30 = 6.80,
Thigh/height Dx2 20.96 0.010 p # 0.05, v2 = 0.45), thigh/
Shank/height Dx2 20.84 0.072 lower limb (F5,30 = 6.19, p #
Trunk/lower limb Dx2 0.84 0.075
Lower limb/height Dx2 20.87 0.059 0.05, v2 = 0.41), shank/trunk
63 kg (n = 6) Upper limb/thigh Dx1 0.80 0.056 (F5,30 = 4.47, p # 0.05, v2 =
Upper limb/lower limb Dx1 0.83 0.043 0.34), shank/lower limb (F5,30 =
75 kg (n = 5) Lower limb Dx1 20.93 0.020 6.19, p # 0.05, v2 = 0.41),
Shank Dx2 20.81 0.097 shank/height (F5,30 = 7.16, p #
Upper limb/shank Dx2 0.82 0.090
Upper limb/lower limb Dx2 0.92 0.030 0.05, v2 = 0.45), and trunk/
Shank/trunk Dx2 20.99 0.002 upper limb (F5,30 = 2.97, p #
Trajectory type 0.05, v2 = 0.22). According to
Type 1 (n = 5) Thigh/trunk Dx1 0.83 0.080 Gabriel post hoc test results,
Trunk/upper limb Dx1 20.88 0.049 significant differences existed
Trunk/height Dx1 20.93 0.021
Type 2 (n = 19) Height Dx1 20.63 0.003 between the 48 kg and 53, 63,
Upper limb Dx1 20.61 0.006 and 69 kg classes in upper
Shank Dx1 20.59 0.008 limb/thigh ratio, 48 and 53 kg
Lower limb Dx1 20.56 0.013 class in upper limb/shank ratio,
Upper limb/shank Dx1 0.50 0.030 and 48 kg and 53, 58, 63, 69, and
Thigh/shank Dx1 0.44 0.062
Thigh/lower limb Dx1 0.45 0.054 75 kg classes in upper limb/
Shank/trunk Dx1 20.57 0.012 height ratio. The 48 kg class
Shank/lower limb Dx1 20.45 0.054 was also significantly different
Shank/height Dx1 20.45 0.056 from 53, 63, and 69 kg classes
Trunk/upper limb Dx1 0.49 0.032 in thigh/shank ratio; 63 and 69
Trunk/lower limb Dx1 0.39 0.095
Trunk/height Dx1 0.42 0.076 kg classes in thigh/lower limb
Type 3 (n = 12) Height Dx1 20.64 0.026 ratio; 63 and 75 kg classes in
Lower limb Dx1 20.58 0.050 shank/trunk ratio; 63 and
Upper limb/shank Dx2 0.51 0.088 69 kg classes in shank/lower
*The level of significance was p # 0.05.
limb ratio; 53, 58, 63, 69, and
75 kg classes in shank/height
ratio; and 58 kg class in trunk/
upper limb ratio. No significant
differences existed between
53, 58, 63, 69, and 75 kg classes in upper limb length; 53, 58, weight classes for upper limb/lower limb, thigh/trunk, thigh/
63, 69, and 75 kg classes in shank length; and 58, 63, 69, 75 kg height, trunk/lower limb, trunk/height, or lower limb/height
classes in lower limb length. A significant difference also ratios. Significant differences did not exist between barbell tra-
existed between barbell trajectory types and trunk length jectory types with respect to body segment ratios.
(F2,33 = 4.55, p # 0.05, v2 = 0.17). Gabriel post hoc test Correlations reached significance for relationships between
results revealed the significant differences in trunk length anthropometry and weight of the heaviest successful SN.
existed between participants displaying types 1 and 2, and With participants pooled, SN weight was significantly corre-
types 1 and 3. No other significant differences existed in lated with the following: height (r = 0.66, p # 0.05), upper
standing height or body segment lengths between barbell limb length (r = 0.70, p # 0.05), trunk length (r = 0.42, p #
trajectory types. 0.05), shank length (r = 0.62, p # 0.05), lower limb length

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1641

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1642

Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 3. Anthropometric and horizontal barbell displacement characteristics (mean 6 SD).

Weight class

Variable All (n = 36) 48 kg (n = 8) 53 kg (n = 5) 58 kg (n = 6) 63 kg (n = 6) 69 kg (n = 6) 75 kg (n = 5)

Upper limb (cm) 55.51 6 3.78 49.96 6 3.47 55.80 6 2.08 56.55 6 1.09 56.6 6 1.87 57.53 6 1.51 59.12 6 1.92
Trunk (cm) 49.22 6 2.90 47.28 6 2.61 50.68 6 1.71 48.02 6 3.77 49.35 6 2.70 50.83 6 3.19 50.24 6 1.30
Thigh (cm) 35.39 6 2.45 34.48 6 2.42 34.44 6 1.95 36.53 6 1.76 34.55 6 3.30 35.15 6 1.52 37.74 6 2.34
Shank (cm) 32.47 6 3.46 27.68 6 2.30 32.02 6 1.48 32.55 6 2.08 35.20 6 2.25 34.57 6 2.48 34.68 6 1.90
Lower limb (cm) 67.86 6 4.64 62.15 6 4.36 66.48 6 3.32 69.07 6 1.79 69.75 6 3.74 69.72 6 2.93 72.42 6 2.32
Height (cm) 155.11 6 6.20 148.00 6 4.96 152.8 6 2.75 154.33 6 3.09 157.17 6 4.57 158.42 6 3.99 163.26 6 3.63
TM

Upper limb/thigh 1.57 6 0.11 1.45 6 0.04 1.62 6 0.06 1.55 6 0.10 1.65 6 0.14 1.64 6 0.09 1.57 6 0.07
Upper limb/shank 1.72 6 0.12 1.81 6 0.11 1.74 6 0.04 1.74 6 0.11 1.61 6 0.11 1.67 6 0.08 1.71 6 0.14
Upper limb/lower limb 0.82 6 0.03 0.80 6 0.03 0.84 6 0.02 0.82 6 0.03 0.81 6 0.03 0.83 6 0.02 0.82 6 0.04
Upper limb/height 0.36 6 0.02 0.34 6 0.02 0.37 6 0.01 0.37 6 0.01 0.36 6 0.01 0.36 6 0.01 0.36 6 0.02
Thigh/trunk 0.72 6 0.07 0.73 6 0.06 0.68 6 0.05 0.77 6 0.09 0.70 6 0.09 0.69 6 0.07 0.75 6 0.06
Thigh/shank 1.10 6 0.13 1.25 6 0.08 1.08 6 0.03 1.13 6 0.12 0.99 6 0.12 1.02 6 0.09 1.09 6 0.10
Thigh/lower limb 0.52 6 0.03 0.56 6 0.02 0.52 6 0.01 0.53 6 0.02 0.49 6 0.03 0.50 6 0.02 0.52 6 0.03
Thigh/height 0.23 6 0.01 0.23 6 0.01 0.23 6 0.01 0.24 6 0.01 0.22 6 0.02 0.22 6 0.01 0.23 6 0.01
Shank/trunk 0.66 6 0.07 0.59 6 0.05 0.63 6 0.04 0.68 6 0.08 0.72 6 0.07 0.68 6 0.06 0.69 6 0.04
Shank/lower limb 0.48 6 0.03 0.44 6 0.02 0.48 6 0.01 0.47 6 0.02 0.51 6 0.03 0.50 6 0.02 0.48 6 0.03
Shank/height 0.21 6 0.02 0.19 6 0.01 0.21 6 0.01 0.21 6 0.01 0.22 6 0.01 0.22 6 0.01 0.21 6 0.01
Trunk/upper limb 0.89 6 0.06 0.95 6 0.08 0.91 6 0.04 0.85 6 0.05 0.87 6 0.05 0.88 6 0.05 0.85 6 0.04
Trunk/lower limb 0.73 6 0.06 0.76 6 0.06 0.76 6 0.05 0.70 6 0.07 0.71 6 0.06 0.73 6 0.06 0.69 6 0.03
Trunk/height 0.32 6 0.02 0.32 6 0.02 0.33 6 0.01 0.31 6 0.02 0.31 6 0.02 0.32 6 0.02 0.31 6 0.01
Lower limb/height 0.44 6 0.02 0.42 6 0.02 0.44 6 0.02 0.45 6 0.02 0.44 6 0.02 0.44 6 0.02 0.44 6 0.01
Dx1 (cm) 25.66 6 3.15 24.46 6 2.42 26.54 6 1.85 26.48 6 4.21 26.02 6 3.81 26.65 6 3.77 24.10 6 2.39
Dx2 (cm) 6.55 6 2.85 7.96 6 2.79 3.82 6 1.77 5.90 6 1.49 7.00 6 0.84 5.67 6 1.76 8.34 6 5.25

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

(r = 0.66, p # 0.05), upper limb/thigh ratio (r = 0.34, p #
0.05), upper limb/height ratio (r = 0.55, p # 0.05), thigh/
shank ratio (r = 20.37, p # 0.05), thigh/lower limb ratio (r
= 20.37, p # 0.05), shank/trunk ratio (r = 0.40, p # 0.05),
shank/lower limb ratio (r = 0.37, p # 0.05), shank/height ratio
(r = 0.48, p # 0.05), trunk/upper limb ratio (r = 20.34, p #
0.05), and lower limb/height ratio (r = 0.43, p # 0.05). Signif-
icant correlations between anthropometry and SN weight also
existed with participants grouped by weight class, but only in
the 48, 58, and 69 kg classes. In the 48 kg class, thigh length (r =
0.71, p = 0.05) and thigh/height ratio (r = 0.73, p # 0.05) were
significantly correlated with SN weight. In the 58 kg class, trunk
length (r = 0.83, p # 0.05), shank/trunk ratio (r = 20.84, p #
0.05), trunk/upper limb ratio (r = 0.93, p # 0.05), trunk/height
ratio (r = 0.85, p # 0.05), and lower limb/height ratio (r =
20.85, p # 0.05) were significantly correlated with SN weight.
In the 69 kg class, trunk length (r = 0.85, p # 0.05), upper limb/
lower limb ratio (r = 0.92, p # 0.05), shank/trunk ratio (r =
20.92, p # 0.05), trunk/upper limb ratio (r = 0.96, p # 0.05),
trunk/lower limb ratio (r = 0.97, p # 0.05), trunk/height ratio (r
= 0.89, p # 0.05), and lower limb/height ratio (r = 20.95, p #
0.05) were significantly correlated with SN weight. Significant
correlations existed between anthropometry and SN weight
with participants grouped by barbell trajectory type. For type
1 lifts, upper limb length (r = 0.96, p # 0.05), thigh length (r =
0.88, p # 0.05), shank length (r = 0.97, p # 0.05), lower limb
length (r = 0.99, p # 0.05), upper limb/height ratio (r = 0.92, p
# 0.05), shank/trunk ratio (r = 0.90, p # 0.05), and lower limb/
height ratio (r = 0.96, p # 0.05) were significantly correlated
with SN weight. For type 2 lifts, height (r = 0.54, p # 0.05),
upper limb length (r = 0.47, p # 0.05), shank length (r = 0.51, p
# 0.05), and lower limb length (r = 0.49, p # 0.05) were sig-
nificantly correlated with SN weight. For type 3 lifts, height (r =
0.70, p # 0.05), upper limb length (r = 0.81, p # 0.05), lower
limb length (r = 0.72, p # 0.05), upper limb/height ratio (r =
0.60, p # 0.05), and trunk/upper limb ratio (r = 20.58, p #
0.05) were significantly correlated with SN weight. Correlations
also reached significance when controlling for weight class with
participants grouped by barbell trajectory type. For type 1 lifts,
lower limb length (r = 0.98, p # 0.05), thigh/height ratio (r =
0.96, p # 0.05), and lower limb/height ratio (r = 0.97, p # 0.05)
TABLE 4. Frequencies of general barbell trajectory types.
Weight class
Trajectory
type All (n = 36) 48 kg (n = 8) 53 kg (n = 5) 58 kg (n = 6) 63 kg (n = 6) 69 kg (n = 6) 75 kg (n = 5)
1 5 3 0
2 19 3 5
3 12 2 0
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
were significantly correlated with SN weight. For type 3 lifts,
trunk length (r = 0.65, p # 0.05) and trunk/height ratio (r =
0.65, p # 0.05) were significantly correlated with SN weight.
Barbell trajectory type frequencies are presented in Table 4.
For all participants, the distribution of barbell trajectories was
14% type 1, 53% type 2, and 33% type 3. Of the 19 partic-
ipants with type 2 classified lifts, 68% medaled in the SN,
whereas 42% of the 12 athletes with type 3 medaled in the
SN. None of the athletes with type 1 medaled. There was
a 72% type 2 and 28% type 3 distribution among medalists,
and gold medalists in each weight class exclusively exhibited
a type 2 pattern.
Horizontal displacement values are presented in Table 3. For
all participants, Dx1 ranged from 211.5 to 0.1 cm (25.7 6 3.2
cm) and Dx2 ranged from 1.6 to 15.6 cm (6.6 6 2.9 cm).
Analysis of variance results indicated no significant differences
between weight classes with respect to either horizontal dis-
placement variable. However, barbell trajectory types were
found to be significantly different with respect to both hori-
zontal displacement variables. One-way analysis of variance
results showed a significant difference between barbell trajec-
tory types and Dx1 (F2,33 = 38.88, p # 0.05, v2 = 0.67). Gabriel
post hoc test results revealed that the significant differences in
Dx1 existed between types 1 and 2, types 1 and 3, and types 2
and 3. A significant Levene statistic was obtained for Dx2
indicating the assumption of homogeneity of variance was
not met. The Brown-Forsythe F was used to correct for this
violated assumption, and results indicated that barbell trajec-
tory types were significantly different with respect to Dx2
(FBF 2,16.79 = 6.97, p # 0.05, est. v2 = 0.22). Results of the
Games-Howell post hoc procedure showed the significant dif-
ferences in Dx2 existed between types 1 and 2.
Correlations between horizontal barbell displacement and
performance in the SN showed mixed results. With partic-
ipants pooled, correlations between horizontal displacement
variables and SN weight did not reach significance. With
participants grouped by weight class, results showed SN
weight was significantly correlated with Dx1 in the 63 kg
weight class (r = 20.85, p # 0.05). No other significant
correlations were found between SN weight and horizontal
displacement in the remaining classes. With participants
1 1 0 0
3 3 4 1
2 2 2 4
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1643
 Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch
grouped by barbell trajectory type, the only significant cor-
relation that existed was between Dx1 and SN weight for the
type 2 pattern (r = 20.55, p # 0.05). However, for all 3
barbell trajectory types, no significant relationships existed
between horizontal barbell displacement and SN weight
when controlling for weight class.
No significant correlations were found between horizontal
barbell displacement variables and years of competitive
weightlifting experience with participants pooled, grouped by
weight class, grouped by barbell trajectory type, or grouped by
barbell trajectory type while controlling for weight class.
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of this study was to examine relation-
ships between anthropometry and horizontal barbell dis-
placement during the pulling phases of the SN in elite
women weightlifters. The anthropometric characteristics
initially analyzed were standing height and body segment
lengths. Significant correlations were found between body
segment lengths and horizontal barbell displacement when
participants were grouped according to weight class, but not
pooled (Table 2). For the sake of discussion, results are
described in terms of a body segment length that is associ-
ated with less horizontal barbell movement. In the 53 kg
class, a strong negative correlation existed between thigh
length and lower limb length and Dx2. As the length of
the thigh and lower limb increased, there was a tendency
for barbell movement to decrease from the first to second
pull maximum. In the 75 kg weight class, a strong negative
correlation was found between lower limb length and Dx1.
As the length of the lower limb decreased, there was a ten-
dency for barbell movement toward the body during the first
pull to decrease (Dx1 was less negative). Because of the small
sample sizes when participants were grouped by weight
class, a number of other correlation coefficients showed
strong to moderate relationships between anthropometry
and horizontal displacement but did not reach statistical
significance at the p # 0.05 level (Table 2).
Significant correlations between body segment lengths
and horizontal displacement only existed for 2 of the 6
weight classes. One possible explanation is the distribution of
barbell trajectory types. Of the 6 weight classes analyzed, the
53 and 75 kg classes displayed the highest frequency of one
type of barbell trajectory (Table 4). Despite the nonsignifi-
cant effect of weight class on horizontal displacement vari-
ables, significant differences did occur for Dx1 and Dx2 with
respect to barbell trajectory type. As a result, the type and
frequency of a particular trajectory exhibited by competitors
in a weight class may have interfered with finding a signifi-
cant relationship between anthropometry and horizontal
displacement. An example of this is the mixed distribution
of barbell trajectory types that occurred in the 48, 58, 63, and
69 kg weight classes. No significant correlations were found
for these weight classes with respect to height or body seg-
ment lengths and horizontal displacement. Conversely, the
the TM
1644 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
high distribution of one type of barbell trajectory in the 53
(100% type 2) and 75 kg (80% type 3) classes may have
inadvertently controlled for the variation in the first and
second pull horizontal displacement present between trajec-
tory types. As a result, the significant correlations between
anthropometric and displacement data could be revealed.
Anthropometry and horizontal barbell displacement were
also examined for body segment ratios. Results are mixed
with respect to the type of body segment ratios associated
with less horizontal displacement during the pulling phases
of the SN (Table 2). Seven statistically significant body seg-
ment ratio relationships were found when participants were
grouped by weight class, but none when participants were
pooled. In the 48 kg class, there appeared to be strong pos-
itive correlations between upper limb/thigh and upper limb/
lower limb ratios and Dx1. As the length of the upper limb
increased in relation to the length of the lower extremity,
there was a tendency for barbell movement toward the body
during first pull to decrease (Dx1 was less negative). In the 53
kg class, a strong negative correlation was found between
thigh/height ratio and Dx2. As the length of the thigh
increased in relation to standing height, there was a tendency
for barbell movement from the first to second pull maximum
to decrease. In the 63 kg class, a strong positive correlation
existed between upper limb/lower limb ratio and Dx1. As
the length of the upper limb increased in relation to the
lower limb, there was a tendency for barbell movement
toward the body during first pull to decrease (Dx1 was less
negative). In the 75 kg class, there appeared to be a strong
positive correlation between upper limb/lower limb ratio
and Dx2, and strong negative correlation between shank/
trunk ratio and Dx2. As the length of the upper limb
decreased in relation to lower limb length, and as the length
of the shank increased in relation to trunk length, there was
a tendency for barbell movement from first to second pull
maximum to decrease.
In addition to examining relationships between anthro-
pometry and horizontal barbell displacement with partic-
ipants pooled and grouped by weight class, participants were
also grouped according to the type of barbell trajectory
pattern displayed. Significant correlations were found
between anthropometry and horizontal barbell displacement
in the first pull when participants were grouped by barbell
trajectory type. For type 1 lifts, a strong negative relationship
was found for trunk/upper limb and trunk/height ratios and
Dx1. As the length of the trunk decreased in relation to the
length of the upper limb and standing height, there was
a tendency for barbell movement toward the lifter during the
first pull to decrease (Dx1 was less negative). With the
exceptions of trunk and thigh lengths, type 2 lifts appeared
to have moderate negative correlations between height and
all other body segments lengths and Dx1. These results
indicate a tendency for barbell movement toward the lifter
during first pull to decrease as standing height and the
lengths of the upper limb, shank, and lower limb decreased.

Moderate correlations were also found for type 2 lifts
between body segment ratios and Dx1. As the length of
the shank and upper limb decreased in relation to the trunk,
and as the length of the upper limb increased in relation to
the shank, there was a tendency for barbell movement
toward the lifter during the first pull to decrease. For type 3
lifts, moderate negative correlations existed between height
and lower limb length and Dx1. As the height and the length
of the lower limb decreased, there was a tendency for barbell
movement toward the lifter during the first pull to decrease.
Results for the type 2 pulling pattern are in agreement with
observations made by sport scientists of the former Soviet
Union: men with proportionately longer upper and lower
limbs relative to the trunk exhibited a first pull barbell
trajectory that moved toward the lifter to a greater degree
than those with proportionately shorter upper and lower
limbs relative to the trunk (27,28,31,32,37). Although results
for the type 3 pattern also suggest an association between
longer limbs and an increase in barbell movement toward the
lifter during the first pull, results for the type 1 pattern con-
tradict these findings. Controlling for the influence of weight
class with respect to barbell trajectory type did not reveal
significant relationships between anthropometry and hori-
zontal barbell displacement during the first or second pull.
A secondary objective of this study was to investigate the
anthropometric characteristics of women weightlifters.
Anthropometric characteristics were again separated into 2
categories (standing height and body segment lengths, and
body segment ratios). Results of comparisons made between
weight classes did not show significantly different means for
trunk and thigh length. These 2 shared features among
women weightlifters may reflect an optimal body segment
length given the fixed dimensions of weightlifting equip-
ment. With the exception of height, all of the significant
differences that existed between weight classes (upper limb,
shank, and lower limb lengths) involved the lightest class, 48
kg. Comparisons made between weight classes of body
segment ratios showed similar results; most nonsignificant
ratios included trunk and thigh lengths, and all significant
ratios involved the 48 kg class. It is a popular opinion among
weightlifting coaches that many of the 48 kg athletes are
anthropometrically unique compared with women compet-
itors in heavier weight classes, and the results of this study
support that observation.
Anthropometric characteristics were also investigated
with participants grouped according to barbell trajectory
type. Significant differences existed in trunk length between
athletes displaying a type 1 pattern compared with types 2
and 3. This suggests that the trunk length may be a factor
related to the type of barbell trajectory best suited for an
athlete. Differences in trunk length with type 1 may also be
related to the high frequency of type 1 in the 48 kg class
compared with other classes. Although the type 2 and 3
patterns were distributed throughout most of the weight
classes, type 1 was predominately found in the 48 kg class
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
(Table 4). The 48 kg class also displayed the shortest mean
trunk length of all weight classes (Table 3). As a result, the
differences in trunk length with type 1 compared with types
2 and 3 may be because of the higher frequency of types 2
and 3 and the longer mean trunk lengths in the other weight
classes. The near-significant results for comparisons of body
mass between barbell trajectory types (p = 0.052) suggests
a trend in the data indicating a difference. Results for body
segment ratios were in contrast to those just discussed for
body segment lengths; body segment ratios did not seem to
be related to barbell trajectory type.
The final component of investigating the anthropometric
characteristics of women weightlifters included examining
anthropometry based on performance in the SN. In general,
results reflect the importance of athlete trunk and thigh
length. When participant data were pooled and grouped by
barbell trajectory type, increases in height and the length of
the upper and lower limbs were linked to more weight lifted
in the SN. An explanation of these results may be the overall
increase in mean height, upper limb, and lower limb lengths
as weight class increased (Table 3). Consequently, results
may be a reflection of the increase in SN weight as body
mass increased because the influence of weight class was not
controlled for. When the influence of weight class was
removed, significant relationships involving trunk and thigh
length were found. Grouping participants by weight class
revealed relationships between anthropometry and SN
weight in the 48, 58, and 69 kg classes. In the 48 kg class,
the strong positive correlations for thigh length and thigh/
height ratio suggest that as thigh length increased, there was
a tendency for SN weight to increase. In the 58 and 63 kg
classes, significant relationships involved the trunk (either
directly or indirectly). These strong correlations suggest that
as the length of the trunk increased, there was a tendency for
SN weight to increase. Grouping participants by barbell tra-
jectory type while controlling for weight class revealed sig-
nificant results for types 1 and 3. For type 1 lifts, an increase
in thigh length relative to height, an increase in lower limb
length, and an increase in lower limb length relative to
height were strongly correlated with an increase in SN
weight. For type 3 lifts, an increase in trunk length and an
increase in trunk length relative to height were moderately
correlated with an increase in SN weight.
The anthropometric findings of this study are in agreement
with previous weightlifting research, where longer trunks
were observed in men of Olympic and international caliber,
and serve as further supporting evidence of the importance of
a longer trunk in SN performance (26,29,33). Findings also
coincide with longer thigh lengths reported in Taiwanese
women weightlifters of higher skill (25). However, the longer
thigh lengths found in women differ from shorter thigh
lengths exhibited by men on the Polish national team relative
to controls (26), Olympians at the Montreal Olympic Games
(33), and other weightlifters ranging from novice to Olympic
caliber (29). Shorter lower limbs relative to height have also
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1645
 Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch
been documented in men of higher skill (18). In addition,
although men of Olympic and international caliber were re-
ported to have shorter upper limb lengths for their height
compared with other athletes and controls (26,33,35), the
upper limb/height ratio among the women weightlifters in
this study did not reach significance.
The other secondary objective of this study was to
investigate the characteristics of horizontal barbell displace-
ment in the SN. Measuring horizontal barbell displacement
relative to a vertical reference line projected from the initial
position of the barbell is a commonly used method in the
literature for quantifying barbell movement (Figure 1). Barbell
movement during the first pull varied considerably among
athletes. In some cases, the barbell moved toward the athlete
just after lift-off (types 1 and 2), whereas in others it moved
away (type 3). However, for 34 of the 36 lifts analyzed, the
maximum x-coordinate position of the barbell during the first
pull was toward the athlete relative to the vertical reference
line. The mean displacement of the barbell during the first pull
was 25.7 cm; within the range given by Garhammer (9) of 4–6
cm. The mean value obtained in this study was also similar in
magnitude and direction of barbell movement toward the lifter
to previous research which found means of 5.3 cm for men
competitors at the concurrent 1996 U.S. National Champion-
ships and North American Central American Caribbean Island
Championships (34), 6.20 and 6.29 cm for men on the Greek
national team (14,17), 5.92 cm for women world champions
(1), 6.0 cm for junior women world champions (30), and 6.1
and 5.0 cm obtained for the women gold medalists and Japa-
nese representatives at the 2008 Asian Championships, respec-
tively (21). Results from this study differed from the smaller
mean values for barbell movement toward the lifter of 1.97 cm
(which includes both successful and unsuccessful attempts;
1.60 cm for heaviest successful attempts) for women compet-
itors in the 69 kg class at the 1999 U.S. National Champion-
ships (20), and 3.65 cm for women on the Greek national team
(14). The magnitude of first pull displacement toward the lifter
for SN gold medalists in this study ranged from 5.5 to 10.5 cm;
also in close agreement with the 4–11 cm and 3–9 cm values
documented by Garhammer (9) in men world and Olympic
champions, respectively. The lack of significant differences in
first pull displacement between men and women weightlifters
has also been reported by Gourgoulis et al. (14).
During the second pull, the barbell moved away from the
body of each athlete. For approximately 53% of lifts analyzed,
the barbell did not cross the vertical reference line. The
maximum x-coordinate barbell position during the second
pull had a mean of 0.9 cm forward of the vertical reference
line. This value may be explained by the near equivalent
distribution of lifts that crossed the vertical reference line
(types 1 and 3) to those that did not (type 2). Dx2 had a mean
value of 6.6 cm, which was similar to those found in previous
research: 7.9 cm was found in successful attempts for men
weightlifters (34), 6.37 cm (which includes both successful
and unsuccessful attempts; 4.70 cm for heaviest successful
the TM
1646 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
attempts) for national-level American women weightlifters
(20), 4.1 cm for women world champions (1), 5 cm for
junior women world champions (30), and 4 and 7.7 cm
for the women gold medalists and Japanese representatives
at the 2008 Asian Championships, respectively (21).
The prevalence of type 2 trajectory lifts in this study adds to
the mixed reports in the literature about the most common
barbell trajectory found for women weightlifters. Some previous
research indicates a propensity toward type 1 (11,14) and type
3 (19) in elite-level competitors, yet these 2 types occurred with
the lowest frequency in the attempts evaluated in this study.
Interestingly, across the 6 weight classes, 72% of medalists and
all gold medalists exhibited type 2 lifts. This finding coincides
with results from world (1) and continental champions (21), as
well as case studies investigating barbell kinematics in world
record holders from China (12,39) and Taiwan (38).
Investigating horizontal barbell displacement in the SN
involved examining data across all participants and comparing
data between participant groups. Results showed significantly
different means between barbell trajectory types with respect to
horizontal barbell displacement. The significant differences for
Dx1 between all trajectory types indicate that the amount of
horizontal barbell movement during the first pull varies based
on the type of pulling pattern. Similarly, the significant differ-
ences for Dx2 between types 1 and 2 indicate that the amount
of horizontal barbell movement between first pull and second
pull maximum varies between type 1 and 2 pulling patterns.
Horizontal barbell displacement was also examined
based on performance in the SN. In this case, a limited
number of significant correlations were found. Correlations
between horizontal displacement and SN weight did not
reach significance with participants pooled. With the
exception of the 63 kg class, results indicate that horizontal
displacement showed no relationship to SN performance
when participants were grouped by weight class. In the
63 kg class, the strong negative relationship found between
Dx1 and SN weight indicates that as barbell movement
toward the lifter during the first pull increased (Dx1 was
more negative), there was a tendency for SN weight to
increase. When participants were grouped by barbell
trajectory type, a moderately strong negative correlation
existed between Dx1 and SN weight for the type 2 pulling
pattern. As barbell movement toward the lifter during the
first pull increased, there was a tendency for SN weight to
increase. When controlling for the influence of weight class
with respect to barbell trajectory type, correlations did not
reach significance for horizontal displacement and SN
weight. Previous research has shown that men and women
weightlifters of higher skill display a smaller amount of
horizontal barbell displacement compared with those of
lesser skill (21,34). The general lack of significant results
between horizontal barbell displacement and SN perfor-
mance in this study may be because of the high level of
skill participants possessed to become a member of a con-
tinental championship team.

Investigating the characteristics of horizontal barbell
displacement in the SN included one final component:
examining horizontal displacement based on the number
of years of competitive experience. One explanation for the
nonsignificant relationships between horizontal displace-
ment and competitive experience may be the extensive
experience possessed by the athletes in this study (Table 1).
If more experience is associated with a higher level of tech-
nical proficiency, it is reasonable to assume the magnitude of
horizontal barbell movement and variation between athletes
may not be statistically significant. This is in agreement with
previous research, where no significant differences were
found in horizontal displacement between groups of men
weightlifters differing in age (16) or groups differing in skill,
but were similar in terms of years of experience (23).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study contributes to the limited body of scientific
knowledge pertaining to women weightlifters. It is also a first
step toward understanding the previously unexplored rela-
tionship between athlete anthropometry and barbell move-
ment. In general, the results of this study indicate that
relationships between anthropometry and horizontal barbell
displacement exist, but vary between weight class and
barbell trajectory type. This suggests relationships between
anthropometry and barbell displacement may be influenced
by additional factors. As a result, information gathered from
investigation of anthropometry and horizontal displacement
may have greater value when interpreted within the context
of weight class or barbell trajectory type. For example,
displacement data used to evaluate technique between
athletes of varying caliber may be more informative if
athletes are in similar weight classes or exhibit similar barbell
trajectory patterns. Displacement data can also be used to
analyze the consistency of lifting technique between at-
tempts for a particular athlete. Both weightlifting coaches
and athletes can benefit from a better understanding of the
association between anthropometry and horizontal displace-
ment to optimize technique based on individual body
dimensions.
The anthropometric characteristics of the participants
in this study may be used as a general representation of
body dimensions in elite women weightlifters. This
information may be helpful for talent identification pur-
poses. The thigh and trunk may be of particular impor-
tance to weightlifting performance based on findings that
the average lengths of these 2 body segments were similar
between weight classes. Information from this study may
also be of assistance when determining the appropriate
weight class for an athlete.
The type 2 trajectory pattern may be advantageous in the
SN based on the high frequency observed in medalists at the
2009 Pan American Championships (72%). In addition to
the modifications in lifting technique discussed by Stone
et al. (34), a type 2 pattern can be created by making contact
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
with the bar at a higher point on the body during the second
pull (on the lower abdomen instead of the upper thigh).
Using this technique, greater hip and back extension is
required during the second pull to adequately elevate the
barbell as demonstrated by the characteristic top pull posi-
tion in world-class Asian and European weightlifters. A
common strategy by which higher body contact is accom-
plished is through wider hand placement. However, a wider
grip can present a significant disadvantage as well. The resul-
tant decrease in trunk angle relative to the horizontal plane
places greater emphasis on the posterior chain musculature
at lift-off and during the first pull. Trunk angle is further
decreased in an athlete with a proportionately shorter trunk
who must take a wider grip to make contact on the lower
abdomen compared with an athlete with a proportionately
longer trunk. Accordingly, the use of a wider grip to make
contact higher on the body would likely be more advanta-
geous for athletes with proportionately longer trunks than
those with proportionately shorter trunks. Results of this
study support this conclusion; proportionately longer trunks
were found among higher performing athletes and those
displaying a type 2 or 3 pulling pattern compared with type
1. In contrast, a proportionately longer lower extremity was
found in athletes displaying type 1. These results suggest that
athletes with a proportionately longer trunk may be best
suited for a type 2 or 3 pulling pattern and a type 1 pattern
may be better suited for athletes with a proportionately lon-
ger lower extremity. An additional consideration regarding
the use of the type 2 pulling pattern is the typical jumping
movement backward when receiving the bar overhead.
Backward movement should be carefully monitored in both
successful and unsuccessful attempts for a given athlete to
establish the characteristics of a successfully executed lift and
to minimize excessive rearward movement linked to unsuc-
cessful SN attempts (34).
The results of this study are not only of importance to
weightlifting coaches and athletes, but to the strength and
conditioning professional as well. Providing information
about factors that influence lifting mechanics in women,
such as anthropometry, may facilitate teaching and skill
acquisition in this population. The presence of women in
the weight room has increased dramatically over previous
decades, in part because of the changes in social percep-
tions, but also as a result of growing public knowledge
about the benefits of increased strength on sports perfor-
mance, health, and injury prevention. The need for the
strength and conditioning professional to understand lifting
mechanics in women is increasingly important as the
number of women participating in sport and athletic
activities continues to grow.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank U.S.A. Weightlifting and
members of the Pan American Weightlifting Federation for
their cooperation in carrying out this study.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2014 | 1647
 Anthropometry and Barbell Trajectory in the Snatch
REFERENCES
1. Akkus‚, H. Kinematic analysis of the snatch lift with elite female
weightlifters during the 2010 World Weightlifting Championship.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 897–905, 2012.
2. Baumann, W, Gross, V, Quade, K, Galbierz, P, and Schwirtz, A. The
snatch technique of world class weight lifters at the 1985 world
championships. Int J Sport Biomech 4: 68–89, 1998.
3. Carter, JEL. Somatotypes of Olympic athletes from 1948 to 1976. In:
Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes: Part 2. Kinanthropometry of
Olympic Athletes. J.E.L. Carter, ed. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1984b.
pp. 80–109.
4. Carter, JEL, Ross, WD, Aubry, SP, Hebbelinck, M, and Borms, J.
Anthropometry of montreal Olympic athletes. In: Physical Structure
of Olympic Athletes: Part 1. The Montreal Olympic Games
Anthropological Project. J.E.L. Carter, ed. Basel, Switzerland: Karger,
1982. pp. 25–52.
5. Enoka, RM. The pull in Olympic weightlifting. Med Sci Sports 11:
131–137, 1979.
6. Fry, AC, Ciroslan, D, Fry, MD, LeRoux, CD, Schilling, BK, and
Chiu, LZF. Anthropometric and performance variables
discriminating elite American junior men weightlifters. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 861–866, 2006.
7. Garhammer, J. Biomechanical Characteristics of the 1978 World
Weightlifting Champions. In: Biomechanics VII-b. A. Morecki, K.
Fidelus, K. Kedzior, and A. Wit, eds. Baltimore, MD: University Park
Press, 1981. pp. 300–304.
8. Garhammer, J. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. Int J
Sport Biomech 1: 122–130, 1985.
9. Garhammer, J. Weight lifting and training. In: Biomechanics of Sport.
C.L. Vaughn, ed. Boca Raton: CRC Publishers, 1989. pp. 169–211.
10. Garhammer, J. Bar trajectories of world champion male and
female weightlifters: Coaching applications, Part 1. Int Olympic
Lifter 10: 7–8, 1990.
11. Garhammer, J. Weightlifting performance and techniques of men
and women. In: First International Conference on Weightlifting and
Strength Training. P.V. Komi, ed. Lahti, Finland: Gummerus Printing,
1998. pp. 89–94.
12. Garhammer, J. Barbell trajectory, velocity, and power changes: Six
attempts and four world records. Weightlifting USA 19: 27–30, 2001.
13. Garhammer, J. Anthropometric Considerations and Lifting Biomechanics
of Chinese Weightlifters [PowerPoint Presentation]. Colorado Springs,
CO: USAW Strength Symposium, 2003. Retrieved from file.
14. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Antoniou, P, Christoforidis, C,
Mavromatis, G, and Garas, A. Comparative 3-dimensional
kinematic analysis of the snatch technique in elite male and female
Greek weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 16: 359–366, 2002.
15. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Garas, A, and Mavromatis, G.
Unsuccessful vs. successful performance in snatch lifts: A kinematic
approach. J Strength Cond Res 23: 486–494, 2009.
16. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Kalivas, V, Antoniou, P, and
Mavromatis, G. Snatch lift kinematics and bar energetics in male
adolescent and adult weightlifters. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 44: 126–
131, 2004.
17. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Mavromatis, G, and Garas, A. Three-
dimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch of elite Greek
weightlifters. J Sport Sci 18: 643–652, 2000.
18. Groppel, JL, Ward, T, and Stone, MH. First class and master
Olympic weightlifters: an anthropometric comparison. In:
Biomechanics of Sport and Kinanthropometry. F. Landry and W.A.R.
Orban, eds. Miami, FL: Symposia Specialists, 1976. pp. 337–341.
19. Hiskia, G. Biomechanical analysis of world and Olympic champion
weightlifters performance. In: Proceedings of the Weightlifting
Symposium. A. Lukacsfalvi and F. Takacs, eds. Budapest, Hungary:
IWF, 1997. pp. 137–158.
the TM
1648 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
20. Hoover, DL, Carlson, KM, Christensen, BK, and Zebas, CJ.
Biomechanical analysis of women weightlifters during the snatch.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 627–633, 2006.
21. Ikeda, Y, Jinji, T, Matsubayashi, T, Matsuo, A, Inagaki, E,
Takemata, T, and Kikuta, M. Comparison of the snatch technique
for female weightlifters at the 2008 Asian Championships. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 1281–1295, 2012.
22. Isaka, T, Okada, J, and Funato, K. Kinematic analysis of the barbell
during the snatch movement of elite Asian weight lifters. J Appl
Biomech 12: 508–516, 1996.
23. Kauhanen, H, Häkinnen, K, and Komi, PV. A biomechanical analysis
of the snatch and clean & jerk techniques of Finnish elite and district
level weightlifters. Scand J Sports Sci 6: 47–56, 1984.
24. Komi, PV and Bosco, C. Utilization of stored elastic energy in leg
extensor muscles by men and women. Med Sci Sports 10: 261–265,
1978.
25. Kuo, Y. The anthropometric study of weightlifters in taiwan. In:
Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Biomechanics in
Sports. Q. Wang, ed. Konstanz, Germany: International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports, 2005. p. 704.
26. Marchocka, M and Smuk, E. Analysis of body build of senior
weightlifters with particular regard for proportions. Biol Sport 1:
55–71, 1984.
27. Medvedyev, AS. A system of multi-year training in weightlifting.
A. Charniga, Jr., trans. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1989.
28. Medvedyev, AS, Kanyevsky, VB, and Lukashev, AA. Position of the
barbell and the athlete’s link at the start. In: 1985 Weightlifting
Yearbook. A.V. Gavrilovyets, S.I. Lelikov, A.S. Medvedyev, P.A.
Poletayev, R.A. Roman, Y.A. Sandalov, and M.V. Starodubtsev, eds.
A. Charniga, Jr., Trans. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1987.
29. Miller, C. Body proportions and Olympic style lifting. Ironman 40:
65–66, 1981.
30. Okada, J, Iijima, K, Fukunaga, T, Kikuchi, T, and Kato, K. Kinematic
analysis of the snatch technique used by Japanese and international
female weightlifters at the 2006 Junior World Championships. Int J
Sport Health Sci 6: 194–202, 2008.
31. Roman, RA. The training of the weightlifter. A. Charniga, Jr., trans.
Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1988.
32. Roman, RA and Shakirzyanov, MS. The Snatch, the Clean and Jerk.
A. Charniga, Jr., Trans. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, 1982.
33. Ross, WD, Ward, RM, Leahy, RM, and Day, JAP. Proportionality of
Montreal Athletes. In: Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes: Part 1.
The Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project. J.E.L. Carter, ed.
Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1982. pp. 81–106.
34. Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Williams, FE, Johnson, RL, and
Pierce, KC. Analysis of bar paths during the snatch in elite male
weightlifters. Strength Cond J 20: 30–38, 1998.
35. Tanner, JM. Physique of the Olympic Athlete. London, United
Kingdom: George Allen Unwin, 1964.
36. Tappen, NC. An anthropometric and constitutional study of
championship weight lifters. Am J Phys Anthropol 8: 49–64, 1950.
37. Vorobyev, AN. A Textbook on Weightlifting. W.J. Brice, trans. Budapest,
Hungary: IWF, 1978.
38. Wang, C and Chiu, H. Variability of barbell trajectory during snatch
for an elite young female weightlifter. In: Proceedings of the 26th
International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports. Y. Kwon, J. Shim,
and I. Shin, eds. Konstanz, Germany: International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports, 2008. pp. 644–647.
39. Yang, C, Li, W, and Gu, Z. Biomechanics analysis of snatching
skills in women topnotch weight lift—A case study. In:
Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Biomechanics in
Sports. Y. Hong, D.P. Johns, and R. Sanders, eds. Konstanz,
Germany: International Society of Biomechanics in Sports,
2000. pp. 380–382.