Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study
Deadlift is a measure of the overall strength of the whole body and it is one of the three exercises in the powerlifting competition. There are conventional and sumo variant of deadlift. The aim of this study was to determine the differences between the two lifting techniques from the aspect of kine...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Fizička Kultura |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0350-3828/2021/0350-38282102133J.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797938595067068416 |
|---|---|
| author | Jovanović Mihajlo Kapeleti Marko Ubović Miloš Pažin Nemanja Ilić Duško Mrdaković Vladimir |
| author_facet | Jovanović Mihajlo Kapeleti Marko Ubović Miloš Pažin Nemanja Ilić Duško Mrdaković Vladimir |
| author_sort | Jovanović Mihajlo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Deadlift is a measure of the overall strength of the whole body and it is one of the three exercises in the powerlifting competition. There are conventional and sumo variant of deadlift. The aim of this study was to determine the differences between the two lifting techniques from the aspect of kinematics, kinetics and electromyography. Nine physically active men, average age 29.1 ± 3.3 years, body height 181.0 ± 1.0 cm, body weight 82.3 ± 13.3 kg and body massindex 25.0 ± 3.8 kg/m2 were recruited forthisstudy. Each subject lifted weight close to his own body weight with three repetitions, in three series, for each of the techniques. The speed of one lift was 3 seconds for each of the phases (concentric and eccentric). The angles and amplitudes for the following figurative points were monitored: trunk in relation to the horizontal plane (angle), center of the hip joint and center of the knee joint in the "liftoff" (LO - position in which the weight separates from the ground) and "knee passing" (KP - position in which the weight passes in front of the knee position), i.e. in the liftoff-knee passing (LO-KP), knee passing-lift completion (KP-LC; LC - final, i.e. completely upright body position) and liftoff-lift completion (LOLC) phase. The mechanical work was monitored as a one of the kinetic variables. Electromyographic activity was monitored for the following muscles: m. vastus medialis, m. vastus lateralis, m. rectus femoris, m. gluteus Maximus, m. erector spinae (L3-L4), m. semimembranosus and m. biceps femoris caput longum. The monitored electromyographic variablewasthe average normalized amount of muscle activation in relation to maximal voluntary contraction, for all 18 individual deadlift repetitions (3 series × 3 repetitions × 2 techniques). One-way analysis of variance with repeated measurements (for the amount of muscle activation and performed mechanical work) and two-way analysis of variance with repeated measurements (for angles and amplitudes) were used for statistical data processing. Significant differences were found between techniques in the initial angular positions in all monitored joints (p<0.05), except for the angle in the knee joint where the trend was observed (p=0.0996), as well as in the transit position for the trunk angle relative to the horizontal plane and angle at the hip joint (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between techniques in amplitudes in the hip joint during KP-LC phase (p<0.05) and total amplitude (p<0.05), as well as in the knee joint during LO-KP phase (p<0.05) and total amplitude in the form of a trend (p=0.0996). The performed mechanical work is significantly higher when lifting the load with the conventional deadlift technique (DLcon) (p<0.05). Activation of medial and lateral heads of m. quadriceps femoris is significantly higher (p<0.05) when lifting with sumo deadlift technique (DLsu). It was noticed that activation of postural muscle groups (m. erector spinae, m. gluteus maximum, m. semitendinosus and m. biceps femoris caput longum) is higher when lifting the load with DLcon, but not significantly (p>0.05). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T19:02:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8ace3719a2df4f85b709e5ac48cfa1f4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0350-3828 2217-947X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T19:02:27Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | University of Belgrade, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Fizička Kultura |
| spelling | doaj.art-8ace3719a2df4f85b709e5ac48cfa1f42023-01-31T08:02:34ZengUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Sport and Physical EducationFizička Kultura0350-38282217-947X2021-01-0175213314310.5937/fizkul75-338670350-38282102133JDifferences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic studyJovanović Mihajlo0Kapeleti Marko1Ubović Miloš2Pažin Nemanja3Ilić Duško4Mrdaković Vladimir5PROFEX - Akademija zdravog života, Beograd, SerbiaPROFEX - Akademija zdravog života, Beograd, SerbiaPROFEX - Akademija zdravog života, Beograd, SerbiaAlfa Univerzitet, Fakultet za menadžment u sportu, Beograd, SerbiaUniverzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet sporta i fizičkog vaspitanja, Beograd, SerbiaUniverzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet sporta i fizičkog vaspitanja, Beograd, SerbiaDeadlift is a measure of the overall strength of the whole body and it is one of the three exercises in the powerlifting competition. There are conventional and sumo variant of deadlift. The aim of this study was to determine the differences between the two lifting techniques from the aspect of kinematics, kinetics and electromyography. Nine physically active men, average age 29.1 ± 3.3 years, body height 181.0 ± 1.0 cm, body weight 82.3 ± 13.3 kg and body massindex 25.0 ± 3.8 kg/m2 were recruited forthisstudy. Each subject lifted weight close to his own body weight with three repetitions, in three series, for each of the techniques. The speed of one lift was 3 seconds for each of the phases (concentric and eccentric). The angles and amplitudes for the following figurative points were monitored: trunk in relation to the horizontal plane (angle), center of the hip joint and center of the knee joint in the "liftoff" (LO - position in which the weight separates from the ground) and "knee passing" (KP - position in which the weight passes in front of the knee position), i.e. in the liftoff-knee passing (LO-KP), knee passing-lift completion (KP-LC; LC - final, i.e. completely upright body position) and liftoff-lift completion (LOLC) phase. The mechanical work was monitored as a one of the kinetic variables. Electromyographic activity was monitored for the following muscles: m. vastus medialis, m. vastus lateralis, m. rectus femoris, m. gluteus Maximus, m. erector spinae (L3-L4), m. semimembranosus and m. biceps femoris caput longum. The monitored electromyographic variablewasthe average normalized amount of muscle activation in relation to maximal voluntary contraction, for all 18 individual deadlift repetitions (3 series × 3 repetitions × 2 techniques). One-way analysis of variance with repeated measurements (for the amount of muscle activation and performed mechanical work) and two-way analysis of variance with repeated measurements (for angles and amplitudes) were used for statistical data processing. Significant differences were found between techniques in the initial angular positions in all monitored joints (p<0.05), except for the angle in the knee joint where the trend was observed (p=0.0996), as well as in the transit position for the trunk angle relative to the horizontal plane and angle at the hip joint (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between techniques in amplitudes in the hip joint during KP-LC phase (p<0.05) and total amplitude (p<0.05), as well as in the knee joint during LO-KP phase (p<0.05) and total amplitude in the form of a trend (p=0.0996). The performed mechanical work is significantly higher when lifting the load with the conventional deadlift technique (DLcon) (p<0.05). Activation of medial and lateral heads of m. quadriceps femoris is significantly higher (p<0.05) when lifting with sumo deadlift technique (DLsu). It was noticed that activation of postural muscle groups (m. erector spinae, m. gluteus maximum, m. semitendinosus and m. biceps femoris caput longum) is higher when lifting the load with DLcon, but not significantly (p>0.05).https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0350-3828/2021/0350-38282102133J.pdfmuscle activationmechanical workjoint anglesstrength training |
| spellingShingle | Jovanović Mihajlo Kapeleti Marko Ubović Miloš Pažin Nemanja Ilić Duško Mrdaković Vladimir Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study Fizička Kultura muscle activation mechanical work joint angles strength training |
| title | Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study |
| title_full | Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study |
| title_fullStr | Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study |
| title_short | Differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting: Kinematic, kinetic and electromiographic study |
| title_sort | differences between conventional and sumo variants of deadlifting kinematic kinetic and electromiographic study |
| topic | muscle activation mechanical work joint angles strength training |
| url | https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0350-3828/2021/0350-38282102133J.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jovanovicmihajlo differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy AT kapeletimarko differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy AT ubovicmilos differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy AT pazinnemanja differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy AT ilicdusko differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy AT mrdakovicvladimir differencesbetweenconventionalandsumovariantsofdeadliftingkinematickineticandelectromiographicstudy |