Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Sports (Basel). 2018 Aug 31;6(3). pii: E90. doi: 10.3390/sports6030090.

The Effect of Set Up Position on EMG Amplitude, Lumbar Spine Kinetics, and Total Force Output During Maximal Isometric Conventional-Stance Deadlifts.

Author information

1
College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B2, Canada. corey.edington@usask.ca.
2
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. crg091@mail.usask.ca.
3
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. nik469@mail.usask.ca.
4
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. nyp897@mail.usask.ca.
5
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. lmp261@mail.usask.ca.
6
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. jared.stevens@usask.ca.
7
College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B2, Canada. joel.lanovaz@usask.ca.
8
School of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0Z4, Canada. scotty.butcher@usask.ca.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the biomechanical differences between two set up variations during the isometric initiation of conventional barbell deadlifts (DL): Close-bar DL (CBDL), where the bar is positioned above the navicular, and far-bar DL (FBDL), where the bar is placed above the 3rd metatarsophalangeal joint. A cross-sectional, randomized, within-participant pilot study was used. Experienced powerlifters and weightlifters (n = 10) performed three individual isometric pulls of the initiation of both conditions. The CBDL resulted in lower tibia and knee angles and greater pelvis and torso angles than the FBDL (p < 0.05), as well as greater electromyography (EMG) activity in the biceps femoris and upper lumbar erector spinae, but lower activity in the vastus lateralis, and a lower knee extensor moment (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences for ground reaction force, joint reaction lumbar shear and compression forces between the two conditions. Despite the differences in pelvis and torso angles between lifting conditions, the internal joint net moment, internal shear forces, and internal compressive forces were not different between the two lifting styles. The CBDL set up also resulted in greater posterior chain (hamstrings and erector spine) EMG amplitude, whereas the FBDL set up resulted in more anterior chain (quadriceps) amplitude. Lifters and coaches may choose either deadlift style, according to preferences or training goals, without concern for differences in lumbar spinal loading.

KEYWORDS:

biomechanics; deadlift; lumbar spine; powerlifting; strength training; weightlifting

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center