Barbell Velocity Comparison Between Two Linear Position Transducers During Snatch And Clean High Pulls

BACKGROUND: Linear position transducers (LPTs) are widely used to measure barbell velocity, a key metric in weightlifting movements such as snatch high pulls (SHP) and clean high pulls (CHP), which offer notable performance benefits. A Compact LPT (CLPT) provides a cost-effective alternative to a Traditional LPT (TLPT), necessitating validation for barbell velocity assessment. PURPOSE: This study aimed to validate a CLPT against a TLPT during SHPs and CHPs at various submaximal loads in collegiate athletes, supporting its use as a cost-effective measurement tool. METHODS: Eighteen collegiate hockey and basketball athletes (21 ± 0 years, 7 M/11F) performed submaximal SHPs and CHPs at 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% of 1RM (3 sets per load) on separate days. CLPTs and TLPTs measured peak velocity (PV) and mean velocity (MV) during each repetition. Paired t-tests were used to compare device measurements. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in SHP PV at 50% and 60% 1RM (50%, CLPT: 2.56 ± 0.06 m/s, TLPT: 2.63 ± 0.06 m/s; 60%, CLPT: 2.34 ± 0.06 m/s, TLPT: 2.39 ± 0.06 m/s; p < 0.05), but not at higher loads (70%, CLPT: 2.17 ± 0.05 m/s, TLPT: 2.21 ± 0.05 m/s; 80%, CLPT: 2.01 ± 0.04 m/s, TLPT: 2.04 ± 0.05 m/s; p > 0.05). SHP MV showed no significant differences across all loads (50%, CLPT: 1.64 ± 0.05 m/s, TLPT: 1.64 ± 0.04 m/s; 60%, CLPT: 1.49 ± 0.05 m/s, TLPT: 1.50 ± 0.05 m/s; 70%, CLPT: 1.39 ± 0.04 m/s, TLPT: 1.40 ± 0.03 m/s; 80%, CLPT: 1.26 ± 0.03 m/s, TLPT: 1.27 ± 0.03 m/s; p > 0.05). CHP PV showed no significant differences (50%, CLPT: 2.56 ± 0.06 m/s, TLPT: 2.60 ± 0.06 m/s; 60%, CLPT: 2.35 ± 0.06 m/s, TLPT: 2.38 ± 0.06 m/s; 70%, CLPT: 2.17 ± 0.05 m/s, TLPT: 2.20 ± 0.04 m/s; 80%, CLPT: 2.03 ± 0.04 m/s, TLPT: 2.04 ± 0.04 m/s; p > 0.05). CHP MV also showed no significant differences (50%, CLPT: 1.71 ± 0.06 m/s, TLPT: 1.67 ± 0.05 m/s; 60%, CLPT: 1.57 ± 0.05 m/s, TLPT: 1.54 ± 0.05 m/s; 70%, CLPT: 1.45 ± 0.04 m/s, TLPT: 1.43 ± 0.04 m/s; 80%, CLPT: 1.31 ± 0.04 m/s, TLPT: 1.32 ± 0.04 m/s; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The CLPT showed no significant differences compared to the TLPT used herein in measuring MV for SHPs and CHPs across all loads, as well as PV during CHPs at all loads and SHPs at higher loads. However, the CLPT recorded lower PVs than the TLPT at lower SHP loads. These findings suggest that the CLPT is a valid, cost-effective tool for barbell velocity assessment in strength and conditioning.