Literature DB >> 10912892

A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts.

R F Escamilla1, A C Francisco, G S Fleisig, S W Barrentine, C M Welch, A V Kayes, K P Speer, J R Andrews.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Strength athletes often employ the deadlift in their training or rehabilitation regimens. The purpose of this study was to quantify kinematic and kinetic parameters by employing a three-dimensional analysis during sumo and conventional style deadlifts.
METHODS: Two 60-Hz video cameras recorded 12 sumo and 12 conventional style lifters during a national powerlifting championship. Parameters were quantified at barbell liftoff (LO), at the instant the barbell passed the knees (KP), and at lift completion. Unpaired t-tests (P < 0.05) were used to compare all parameters.
RESULTS: At LO and KP, thigh position was 11-16 degrees more horizontal for the sumo group, whereas the knees and hips extended approximately 12 degrees more for the conventional group. The sumo group had 5-10 degrees greater vertical trunk and thigh positions, employed a wider stance (70 +/- 11 cm vs 32 +/- 8 cm), turned their feet out more (42 +/- 8 vs 14 +/- 6 degrees). and gripped the bar with their hands closer together (47 +/- 4 cm vs 55 +/- 10 cm). Vertical bar distance, mechanical work, and predicted energy expenditure were approximately 25-40% greater in the conventional group. Hip extensor, knee extensor, and ankle dorsiflexor moments were generated for the sumo group, whereas hip extensor, knee extensor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar flexor moments were generated for the conventional group. Ankle and knee moments and moment arms were significantly different between the sumo and conventional groups, whereas hip moments and moments arms did not show any significantly differences. Three-dimensional calculations were more accurate and significantly different than two-dimensional calculations, especially for the sumo deadlift.
CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanical differences between sumo and conventional deadlifts result from technique variations between these exercises. Understanding these differences will aid the strength coach or rehabilitation specialist in determining which deadlift style an athlete or patient should employ.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10912892     DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200007000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131            Impact factor:   5.411


  17 in total

1.  Optimal effort investment for overcoming the weakest point: new insights from a computational model of neuromuscular adaptation.

Authors:  Ognjen Arandjelović
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Anthropometrical Determinants of Deadlift Variant Performance.

Authors:  Jason M Cholewa; Ozan Atalag; Anastasia Zinchenko; Kelly Johnson; Menno Henselmans
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Examination of a lumbar spine biomechanical model for assessing axial compression, shear, and bending moment using selected Olympic lifts.

Authors:  Moataz Eltoukhy; Francesco Travascio; Shihab Asfour; Shady Elmasry; Hector Heredia-Vargas; Joseph Signorile
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-05-18

Review 4.  The Epidemiology of Injuries Across the Weight-Training Sports.

Authors:  Justin W L Keogh; Paul W Winwood
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Kinetic and kinematic differences between deadlifts and goodmornings.

Authors:  Florian Schellenberg; Julia Lindorfer; Renate List; William R Taylor; Silvio Lorenzetti
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2013-12-07

6.  The Correlation between the Muscle Activity and Joint Angle of the Lower Extremity According to the Changes in Stance Width during a Lifting Task.

Authors:  Jung-Gyu Yoon
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2013-09-20

7.  Effects of stretching and warm-up routines on stability and balance during weight-lifting: a pilot investigation.

Authors:  Rolf Adelsberger; Gerhard Tröster
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-12-20

8.  Effects of barbell deadlift training on submaximal motor unit firing rates for the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris.

Authors:  Matt S Stock; Brennan J Thompson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The existence of a sticking region in free weight squats.

Authors:  Roland van den Tillaar; Vidar Andersen; Atle Hole Saeterbakken
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 2.193

Review 10.  Understanding and Overcoming the Sticking Point in Resistance Exercise.

Authors:  Justin Kompf; Ognjen Arandjelović
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.