## 4 Discussion
Practically, this highlights that, in some situations, the Enode may potentially be a better option than traditional video analysis where the viewing angle and barbell deformation may affect the outputs generated [40]. It is worth noting that the velocity identified at the end of each key phase of the lift (first pull, transition, and second pull) measured by the Enode showed excellent within- and between-session reliability, with SEMs of 0.00 m/s and SDD values no greater than 0.01 m/s. The current results are supported by the findings from [PERSON] and colleagues [14], who found that, in elite German weightlifters, the variability (as measured by SEM) of vertical velocity at the end of each lifting phase was smaller than within time-series-measured phases. This may suggest that weightlifters utilize varied strategies between phases to elicit similar outcomes at the end of each phase, thus leading to discreer measures of velocity being highly reliable. Furthermore, [PERSON] [14] also reported that the transition phase carried the greatest variability, relative to all other end-of-phase velocities. The relevance of obtaining the velocity at the end of each phase is its potential use for identifying the key limiting phase within the lift using a load-velocity profile. Research by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [25] on elite German weightlifters reported that a regression slope with the greatest negative value plotted across ascending loads could help identify the phase where the greatest loss of velocity occurs between each phase. Their study utilized a previously validated, bespoke video capture software [41], which is inaccessible to most coaches. Along with the present findings, the implementation of the load-velocity profiling methods presented by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [25] to identify limitations in technique can now be widely adopted utilizing a commercial IMU sensor with minimal time constraints. While velocity is often the focal point of assessment, with the emergence of new technologies, a novel aspect of this investigation was to also assess vertical and horizontal displacements, which are commonly reported within weightlifting analysis research [12; 16; 1]. Our results indicate that the Enode typically overestimates horizontal displacement with fixed or proportional bias, with large levels of variability present. Interestingly, the present findings seem to report similar SEM's to those presented by [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [14], even though different devices were used to capture the data in these studies. These are important findings, as it has been posited that horizontal displacement and its associated measures, such as the loop of the barbell, are key factors between successful and unsuccessful attempts in the snatch [1]. Conceptually, this makes sense, as the further the bar is from the applied center of pressure and athlete CoM, the greater difficulty the athlete will have applying the necessary forces to accelerate the barbell [24]. However, it should be noted that the extremely large variability observed in measures of horizontal displacement means it should not be used to monitor technical changes as the present findings suggests and we would, therefore, suggest it is simply used as a heuristic within the coaching environment. While this study has provided some practically useful results, it is not without its limitations. Firstly, only 85% 1 RM snatches were analyzed. Although a commonly utilizedintensity, particularly during heavier periods of training, it is not uncommon for loads to be used between 70 and 90% [42]; therefore, the variability reported in the current study could change with load. This is highlighted by the findings of [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [14], who compared the reliability of various barbell waveforms (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) at 85% and 97% in elite German weightlifters.