# Effect of Post-Activation Potentiation on Weightlifting Performance and Endocrinological Responses
## 4 Discussion
Nonetheless, the rest period length could be too short to provide any necessary hormonal responses, with T concentrations found to be suppressed for 13 h after a stressful resistance exercise protocol [27]. However, this is dependent on other factors, such as age, gender and responsiveness. Secondly, in the likely event of competition tactics, the time frame one is expecting may change, and therefore, 3 min may serve as a time to keep the athlete primed. It has also been posited that the onset of PAP will typically occur between 3 and 6 min post-conditioning stimulus in stronger subjects and between 6 and 9 min in weaker test subjects [6], with anything less suggesting that fatigue would not have dissipated to an extent great enough to allow for the maximal expression of PAP [1; 6; 15; 17]. Due to the nature of weightlifting, group analysis may not be the most relevant method of statistical analysis as variation in relative strength, training age, weight class and gender may affect the interpretation and thus the administration of such acute PAP protocols. Therefore, the authors conducted individual analyses to identify which subjects had positively responded to the PAP stimuli, and thus allowing for individualised administration of PAP. Gender was an important factor to consider from a hormonal aspect, with males having a larger amount of serum T, as well as more prominent responsiveness than females, after heavy resistance training [28]. Most notably, subject 3 had demonstrated positive effects across all kinetic and kinematic variables ranging from trivial to very large (ES = 0.10-2.91). Interestingly, the impulse and peak force during W2 displayed moderate to large effect sizes (ES = 1.90-2.51), as did the PBH:Ht and BPP (ES = 2.24 and 1.42, respectively). Since impulse is the product of force and time, the athlete was able to increase the magnitude of force applied to the system, as suggested by the large change in peak force. Consequently, this has increased PP applied to the barbell, therefore owing to a greater vertical displacement relative to the athlete's height. It is also worth noting that the subject was the strongest female, with the second highest training age. While the present study provides evidence on individualised PAP responses in kinetic and kinematic measures of the clean, it should be highlighted that all subjects' lifts were successful. Ultimately, the outcome measure during the clean within competition is whether an athlete can successfully get the bar from the floor to the shoulders within the confines of the technical rulings. Measures relating to kinetics, such as impulse and peak force, may provide insight into the accessibility of force to increase the load lifted during the clean; however, further research is needed on the effect PAP has on such variables. Furthermore, a larger more homogenous group should be tested to reduce the variability in data and thus increase the sensitivity to detect true changes, should they exist. **Practical Application** The results indicate that utilising a supramaximal clean pull of 120% 3 min prior to performing a clean at 90% of 1 RM will likely elicit a positive response for some and not others. Given that the current protocol had little effect on the group, it is suggested that individual analysis of PAP on kinetic and kinematic indices related to weightlifting is conducted in response to load, time and rest period. Identifying a potentiating stimulus for an individual within weightlifting may increase the likelihood of greater accessibility of force, thus increasing the chances of lifting a greater load.