Table 3.

Descriptive characteristics and kinetic and kinematic results of different studies conducted on WOPDs

Study	Sample characteristics	Training status	Methods	Results	Quality score
Lake et al. [74]	n = 7 subjects Age: ND Sex: B Height: 174 ± 4 cm BM: 81.5 ± 14.6 kg	Recreational weightlifters 1RM C&J: ND ND about experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 80% 1RM C&J (65 ± 20 kg) Assessment devices: 2 FP (200 Hz) High-speed video camera (200 Hz)	1. The PRFD results were: 17.2 ± 4.86 BW·s−1 2. The estimated relative PPO values were: 34 ± 9.5 W·kg−1 and absolute PPO 3046 ± 472.5 W 3. The dip phase duration was 460 ± 0.08 ms	5
Grabe et al. [50]	n = 27 subjects G1 (Master) = 5 Sex: M Age: 18 years (17–20 years) Height: 167 cm (162–173 cm) BM: 629 N (587–662 N) G2 (the rest of WL classes) = 22 Age: 16.8 years Sex: B Height: 163.5 cm (150–174 cm) BM: 578 N (387–662 N)	G1 Professional weightlifters (master) 1RM C&J: ND > 2 years S-P experience G2 Recreational weightlifters 1RM C&J: ND > 2 years S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 100% 1RM J (maximum attempts) Assessment devices: High-speed video camera (30 f·s−1)	1. Master lifters were characterized by a shorter braking phase of 0.136 ms and a greater range of trunk inclination during the split) 2. The dip phase duration was 0.226 ms 3. The depth of the dip was shallower 12.3 % than any other group, correlated with the duration of the braking phase (r = 0.65; p < 0.01). 4. Master athletes presented the best ratio in maximum ascending/descending velocities: 1.23 m·s−1 respect to the rest of the groups 5. The peak ascending velocities (PV) in the thrust were in this study 1.16 m·s−1 less than the optimal range for lightweights (1.4 m·s−1) regarding the importance of the height and weight in developing maximum ascending velocities 6. The duration of the split was 0.285 ms and was also similar to that of elite athletes in other studies	5
Häkkinen et al. [72]	n = 13 subjects G1 = 7 subjects Age: 24.9 ± 3.6 years Sex: M Height: 165.3 ± 6.9 cm BM: 76.0 ± 17.3 kg G2 = 6 subjects Age: 26.5 ± 5.5 years Sex: M Height: 172.7 ± 7.1 cm BM: 76.3 ± 13.2 kg	G1 Professional weightlifters (elite) 1RM C&J: 147.9 ± 29. 7 kg > 2 years S-P experience G2 Recreational weightlifters (district) 1RM C&J: 114.3 ± 25.3 kg > 2 years S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 70, 80, 90, and 100% 1RM C&J Assessment devices: FP Electrical goniometer High speed video camera (40 f·s−1)	1. The PGRF during the J thrust decreased with the increased of barbell load (p < 0.05) in both groups. However, the elite group showed a plateau for loads of 70 and 80% 1RM C&J (210%) and it decreased for the following loads until 188%. The district group followed an almost linear pattern from 198 to 168%. Nonetheless, elite group showed higher PGRF across the spectrum of loads 2. The AV of the barbell during the J thrust decreased significantly (1.5–1.1 m·s−1, p < 0.05) in the elite group as the load of the barbell increased. However, for the district group there was a different pattern, peak bar velocity increased from 1.15 to 1.18 m·s−1 from loads of 70–80% and then decreased to 1.05 m·s−1 following the same pattern as the elite group. Nonetheless, elite group showed higher barbell velocities, specially for loads of 70 and 80% 1RM C&J 3. The average knee angular velocity during the J thrust decreased as the load increased for elite and district groups (from 238 to 218 and from 258 to 242 rad s−1). The average knee angular velocities were similar for both groups 4. The mean time values of the DUB increased as the load of the barbell increased from 128 to 150 ms for the elite group and from 160 to 178 ms for the district group. The elite group was significantly faster at every load level as compared to the district group (p < 0.01–0.05)	6
Garhammer [24]	n = 8 subjects Age: ND Sex: M Height: ND BM: 87.8 kg (different categories from 52 to 142 kg)	Professional weightlifters (elite) 1RM C&J: ND ND about experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 100% 1RM C&J (maximum attempts) Assessment devices: High-speed video cameras (50 f·s−1)	1. PPO in the J was on average 3491 W (2503–4786 W) depending on the lifter’s BM. Although there were exceptions, there was an increase in PPO with BM 2. Descriptively, the J thrust had similar power values than the 2nd pull of clean and snatch	3
Kauhanen [73]	n = 13 subjects G1 = 7 subjects Age: 24.9 ± 3.6 years Sex: M Height: 165.3 ± 6.9 cm BM: 76.0 ± 17.3 kg G2 = 6 subjects Age: 26.5 ± 5.5 years Sex: M Height: 172.7 ± 7.1 cm BM: 76.3 ± 13.2 kg	G1 Professional weightlifters (elite) 1RM C&J: 147.9 ± 29.7 kg > 2 years S-P experience G2 Recreational weightlifters (district) 1RM C&J: 114.3 ± 25.3 kg > 2 years S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 70–100% (10% increase) of 1RM C&J Assessment devices: FP Electrical goniometer High speed video camera (40 f·s−1)	1. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed in the duration of the DUB (split) of the J for the elite group in comparison to the district group (149.3 vs. 178 ms, respectively). It was also supported by a negative correlation between the relative J results and the duration of the drop under the bar (p < 0.05) 2. All the time parameters such as duration of the preparatory dip and J thrust were shorter than for the district group (preparatory dip: 487 vs. 555.3 ms; J thrust: 258.5 vs. 276.2 ms; respectively), although not statistically significant 3. All the forces exerted either: eccentric max. force or concentric max. force were greater for the elite group than for the district group (ecc forces: 178.3 vs. 164.3%; con forces: 185.7 vs. 170.7%), although not statistically significant 4. The PV of the barbell was faster for all the parameters assessed (preparatory dip, J thrust and drop under the bar) in the elite group than in the district group (dip: − 0.44 vs. − 43 m·s−1; thrust: 1.11 vs. 1.06 m·s−1; drop: 2.48 vs. 2.15 m·s−1), although not statistically significant 5. Maximal con forces were correlated positively with knee angles at the eccentric–concentric coupling phase (lesser the knee flexion, greater the force) (p < 0.01) and negatively with the duration of the eccentric phase (p < 0.001)	6
Lake et al. [78]	n = 17 subjects Age: 25.4 ± 7.4 years Sex: M Height: 183 ± 5 cm BM: 87 ± 15.6 kg	Recreationally trained PP 1 RM: 78 ± 13 kg ND about S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: PP Loads employed: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% 1RM PP Assessment devices: FP (500 Hz)	1. PPO was maximized at 75% 1RM (3200 W), whereas MPO was maximized at 65% 1RM (2050 W) 2. JS PPO was 6.7% greater than PP; whereas PP MPO was 10.3% greater than JS MPO 3. The impulse applied during PP with the OL for PPO was lower in PP than in the JS (247.8 vs. 278.7 N·s, respectively). However, there were no difference between MPO for both exercises (233.9 vs. 256.9 N·s, respectively) 4. PP training with the OL could provide a stimulus sufficient to elicit a lower-body power training response 5. PP impulse was maximized with the heaviest load due to the time available to apply force is constrained in this exercise	5
Comfort et al. [80]	n = 11 subjects Age: 22.2 ± 3.5 years Sex: M Height: 176.5 ± 5.56 cm BM: 85.78 ± 14.29 kg	Recreationally trained 1RM PP: 85.4 ± 8.3 kg > 2 years of S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: PP Loads employed: 50, 60 and 70% 1RM PP Assessment devices: 2 FP (1000 Hz)	1. PP PPO varies across loads (50% 1RM: 3676 ± 1020.3 W, 60% 1RM: 4071.1 ± 1552.3 W, 70% 1RM: 1976.2 ± 1416 W), although it was not statistically significant with other exercises and loads (SJ: 50% 1RM: 4257.5 ± 1081.1 W, 60% 1RM: 4430.4 ± 1140.3 W, 70% 1RM: 4195.4 ± 1212 W; MTPC: 50% 1RM: 4479.3 ± 1357.2 W, 60% 1RM: 4352.5 ± 1319.6 W, 70% 1RM: 4739.2 ± 1015.8 W) 2. All the exercises (PP, SJ and MDPC) and load conditions (50, 60, and 70% 1RM) may be used interchangeably without any detrimental effect on PPO when focusing on improving power development	6
Comfort et al. [85]	n = 11 subjects Age: 23 ± 3.5 years Sex: M Height: 178.6 ± 8.5 cm BM: 88.7 ± 13.5 kg	Recreationally trained 1RM PC: 98.9 ± 8.59 kg > 2 years of S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: PP Loads employed: 60% 1RM PC Assessment devices: FP (1000 Hz)	1. PF in the PP (2607 ± 435 N) was not statistically significant in comparison to SJ (2795 ± 522 N) and MDPC (2928 ± 302 N), although MDPC resulted in the highest PF 2. PRFD in the PP (13,959 ± 6821 N·s−1) was not statistically significant in comparison to SJ (11,998 ± 4885 N·s−1) and MDPC (14,243 ± 4216 N·s−1), although MDPC resulted in the highest PRFD 3. PPO in the PP (3708 ± 956 W) was not statistically significant in comparison to SJ (4052 ± 605 W) and (3810 ± 636 W), although SJ resulted in the highest PPO 4. All the exercises may result in similar adaptive responses when focusing on improving rate of force development (strength speed) in athletes	6
Loturco et al. [87]	n = 27 subjects Age: 18.4 ± 1.2 years Sex: M Height: 178 ± 0.7 cm BM: 74.4 ± 9.5 kg	Elite soccer players 1RM PP: ND ND about S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: PP Loads employed: from 30% BM up to decrease in MPP Assessment devices: LPT (1000 Hz)	1. MPV was higher in the PP than JS (1.65 ± 0.22 vs. 1.04 ± 0.09 m·s−1, respectively) 2. MPP was higher in PP than in JS (727 ± 134.8 vs. 698 ± 113.1 W, respectively) 3. JS was more related to lower-limb neuromechanical abilities in team-sport athletes (soccer players) than PP	5
Garhammer [26]	n = 5 subjects Age: ND Sex: M Height: ND BM: 89.6 kg (different categories from 55.7 to 138.5 kg)	Professional weightlifters (elite) 1RM C&J: 198.8 kg (from 147 to 240 kg) ND about experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 100% 1RM C&J (maximum attempts) Assessment devices: High-speed video cameras (50 f·s−1)	1. The average of these subjects was 5184 W for PPO (3548–6953 W) and 3734 W for MPO (2825–4321 W) during the J thrust 2. The average barbell velocity was 1.74 m·s−1 for the J thrust (from 1.6 to 1.9 m·s−1) 3. The efficiency value was 99% during the J thrust. It means that the percent of total work done in the lift resulted in vertical as opposed to horizontal motion 4. Maximum velocities and PPO during the J were closely related to those during the snatch and clean	3
Garhammer [86]	n = 9 subjects Age: ND Sex: F Height: ND BM: 62.4 kg (different categories from 43.9 to 82.6 kg)	Professional weightlifters (elite) 1RM C&J: ND ND about experience	Exercise reviewed: J Loads employed: 100% 1RM C&J (maximum attempts) Assessment devices: High speed cameras (100 Hz)	1. PPO for women in the J thrust is very similar in magnitude (42.5 W·kg−1; 1866–3510 W) to the women’s average relative power output values for snatch and clean 2nd pulls 2. Power output values for the J have been shown to compare closely in magnitude to those for snatch and clean 2nd pulls	3
Flores et al. [16]	n = 13 subjects Age: 25.9 ± 6.9 years Sex: M Height: 174.7 ± 3.3 cm BM: 72.2 ± 9.9 kg	Well-trained weightlifters 1RM J: ND 1RM J from the back: ND > 2 years of S-P experience	Exercise reviewed: J and J from the back Loads employed: 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of 1RM J. 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90% of 1RM J from the back Assessment devices: Accelerometer (100 Hz)	1. The J and J from the back PPO increased from 30 to 90% 1RM. Furthermore, the J from the back elicited a greater PPO than the J for all the loads assessed 2. PPO occurred at a relative intensity of 90% 1RM for the J (3103.34 ± 616.87 W) and the J from the back (3400.22 ± 691.07 W). However, these results were not significantly different from the peak power produced with 80% for both exercises	6
Winwood et al. [79]	n = 6 subjects Age: 24 ± 3.9 years Sex: M Height: 181.6 ± 28.9 cm Weight: 112.9 ± 28.9 kg	Well-trained strongman athletes 1RM C&J: 116.7 ± 20.4 kg > 2 years of S-P experience	Exercise: PJ/PP and LL Loads employed: 70% 1RM C&J Assessment devices: FP High speed cameras (1000 Hz)	1. PPO (5629 ± 1565 W) and MPO (2960 ± 802 W) in the PJ/PP were lower than PPO (6629 ± 2068 W) and MPO (3831 ± 1079 W) during the 2nd pull phase in the clean 2. PPO (5629 ± 1565 W) and MPO in the PJ/PP (2960 ± 802 W) were higher than PPO (3527 ± 1172 W) and MPO (1758 ± 586 W) during the 1st pull phase in the clean and the log lift PPO (3699 ± 618 W) and MPO (1922 ± 591 W) 3. PV (1.82 ± 0.09 m·s−1) and MV (0.97 ± 0.08 m·s−1) in the PJ/PP were lower than PV (2.18 ± 0.17 m·s−1) and MV (1.69 ± 0.15 m·s−1) during the 2nd pull phase in the clean 4. PV (1.82 ± 0.09 m·s−1) and MV in the PJ/PP (0.97 ± 0.08 m·s−1) were higher than PV (1.51 ± 0.2 m·s−1) and MV (0.75 ± 0.15 m·s−1) during the 1st pull phase in the clean and also the log lift PV (1.6 ± 0.1 m·s−1) and MV (0.88 ± 0.07 m·s−1) 5. Impulse in the PJ/PP (345.6 ± 66.8 N·s) was greater than any other part of the C&J exercise (1st pull: 291.8 ± 95.2 N·s; 2nd pull: 164.7 ± 88 N·s) and also the log lift (306.9 ± 56.8 N·s)	6

M men, F female, B both (male and female), BM body mass, WL weightlifting, S-P strength-power, 1RM one repetition maximum, ND no data, G1 group 1, G2 group 2, C&J clean & jerk, J jerk, PP push press, PJ push jerk, MDPC mid-thigh power clean, SJ squat jump, JS jump squat, CMJ counter-movement jump, PC power clean, FP force platform, LPT lineal position transducer, PPO peak power output, PRFD peak rate of force development, GRF ground reaction force, PV peak velocity, MV mean velocity, DUB drop under the bar, MPO mean power output, OL optimal load, PF peak force, MPP mean propulsive power, MPV mean propulsive velocity