Countermovement vertical jump (CMVJ) performance may be acutely facilitated via potentiation (PAP) due to central and peripheral factors. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of two methods of PAP in trained weightlifters (n=16); group 1: stronger (n=7) and group 2: weaker (n=9) upon unweighted countermovement jumps (CMVJs) over a 15 minute time period. METHODS: A series of maximal unweighted CMVJs were performed prior to, then at, 30, 60, 120, 180, 300, 480, 660, 780, and 900 seconds following two conditions: isometric mid-thigh clean pulls (C1) and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls (C2). Dependent variables included, jump height (JH, cm), peak power (PP, W), peak velocity (PV, m·s-1), and peak force (PF, N). RESULTS: A series of repeated measures ANOVA: conditions (2); time points (10); groups (2) were performed on JH, PP, PV, and PF (p>.05). Significant main effects for JH existed by condition (C1>C2) (p=.001, ES=.571, 1-β=.979, mean diff=.053cm), group (G1>G2) (p=.018, ES=.339, 1-β=.702, mean diff=.053), and time (60s>900s, 120s>900s, 180s>900s) (p=.014, ES=.148, 1-β=.910).Within subjects main effects for JH were seen for the stronger group for JH by condition (C1>C2) (p=.055, ES=.757, 1-β=.947, mean diff=.053cm), and weaker group by condition (C1>C2) (p=.025, ES=.487, 1-β=.676, mean diff=.054cm). Significant main effects existed for PP by condition (C1>C2) (p=.000, ES=.631, 1-β=.995, mean diff=427.9W), group (G1>G2) (p=.008, ES=.405, 1-β=.819, mean diff=1660.1W), and time (60s>480s, 60s>660s, 60s>780s, 60s>900s>120s>900s, 180s>480s, 180s>660s, 180s>780s) (p=.000, ES=.355, 1-β=1.00, mean diff=240.1W ).Within subjects main effects for PP were seen for the stronger group for condition (C1>C2) (p=.055, ES=.761, 1-β=.951, mean diff=516.8W), and time (120s>900s) (p=.000, ES=.471,1-β=.999, mean diff=319.5W). In the weaker group; significant main effects by condition (C1>C2) (p=.025, ES=.485, 1-β=.672, mean diff=339.1W) and time (120s>900s, 180s>480s, 180s>900s, 300s>900s) (p=.003, ES=.281, 1-β=.963, mean diff=319.5W). Significant main effects were seen for jump PV by condition (C1>C2) (p=.001, ES=.536,1-β=.962, mean diff=.177 m·s-1), group (G1>G2) (p=.022, ES=.320, 1-β=.665, mean diff=.298m/s) and by time (60s>900s, 120s>900s, 180s>900s) (p=.016, ES=.145, 1-β=.904). Within subjects main effects for jump PV in the stronger group by condition (C1>C2) (p=.007, ES=.727, 1-β=.911, mean diff=.165m/s), and time (120s>900s) (p=.036, ES=.269, 1-β=.840, mean diff=.073 m·s-1). In the weaker group there were significant main effects for jump PV by condition (C1>C2) (p=.028, ES=.474, 1-β=.654, mean diff=.188 m·s-1). A significant main effect for jump PF by group (G1>G2) (p=.014, ES=.363, 1-β=.747, mean diff=647.0N) and time (60s>baseline) (p=.05, ES=.122, 1-β=.824, mean diff=71.0N) was seen. Within subjects, a significant main effect for jump PF in the weaker group by time (60s>780s) (p=.012, ES=.247, 1-β=.919). There were no significant interactions for any of the dependent variables (p >.05). CONCLUSION: Isometric mid-thigh clean pulls appear to have a greater potentiating effect than dynamic mid-thigh pulls on PP and PV during subsequent CMVJ0’s, and stronger weightlifters tend to have a more favorable response to both conditions. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Whole-body isometric movements may be a more effective at eliciting a potentiation response than dynamic movements in strength and power athletes.