{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03561387066541706, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015932521087160263, 'mean_word_length': 5.068181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Biomechanical Analysis of the Strongman Log Lift and Comparison with Weightlifting's Clean and Jerk

This study compared the biomechanical characteristics of the log lift and clean and jerk. Six experienced male strongman athletes performed log lifts and clean and jerks at 70% of their 1RM clean and jerk. Significant (p<0.05) between-exercise kinematic differences were observed throughout all the lifting phases, except at lift completion. The log lift demonstrated significantly greater trunk (↑24%) and hip (↑9%) range of motion than the clean and jerk. Significantly greater peak bar velocities were achieved in the clean and jerk in the second pull (16%) and the jerk (↑14%). While similarities existed in ground reaction force data between the lifts, mean and peak powers were significantly greater (↑40% to ↑64%) in propulsive phases of the clean and jerk. The log lift may be an effective conditioning stimulus to teach rapid triple extension while generating similar vertical and anterior-propulsive forces as the clean and jerk with the same given load.