Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug 31;6(3):90.
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

Affiliations

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

Corey Edington et al. Sports (Basel). .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Demonstration of the (A) close bar deadlift and (B) far bar deadlift set up positions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hales M. Improving the deadlift: Understanding biomechanical constraints and physiological adaptations to resistance exercise. Strength Cond. J. 2010;32:44–51. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181e5e300. - DOI
    1. Escamilla R.F., Francisco A.C., Kayes A.V., Speer K.P., Moorman C.T. An electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002;34:682–688. - PubMed
    1. Faigenbaum A.D., Myer G.D. Resistance training among young athletes: Safety, efficacy and injury prevention effects. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010;44:56–63. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.068098. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hancock S., Wyatt F., Kilgore J.L. Variation in barbell position relative to shoulder and foot anatomical landmarks alters movement efficiency. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2012;5:183–195.
    1. Hamlyn N., Behm D.G., Young W.B. Trunk muscle activation during dynamic weight-training exercises and isometric instability activities. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007;21:1108–1112. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources