Improper lifting techniques may increase injury risks and decrease performance. The aim of this study was to compare and contrast biomechanical parameters between sumo and conventional style deadlifts and between high- and low-skilled lifters who participated in the powerlifting event during the 1999 Special Olympics World Games.
Two synchronized video cameras collected 60 Hz of data from 40 subjects. Parameters were quantified at barbell liftoff (LO), when the barbell passed the knees (KP), and at lift completion.
Compared with the conventional group, the sumo group had a 100% greater stance width, 20% smaller hand width, 10% less vertical bar distance, a more vertical trunk at LO, a more horizontal thigh at LO and KP, a less vertical shank at KP, and greater forefoot abduction. The sumo group generated ankle dorsiflexor, knee extensor, and hip extensor moments, whereas the conventional group produced ankle plantar flexor, knee flexor and extensor, and hip extensor moments. Compared with low-skilled lifters, high-skilled lifters had a 40% greater barbell load, 15% greater stance width (sumo group only), greater knee flexion at LO (conventional group only), greater knee extension at KP, a less vertical shank position at LO (sumo group only), 15% less vertical bar distance, less first peak bar velocity between LO and KP (conventional group only), smaller plantar flexor and hip extensor moment arms at LO and KP, and greater knee extensor moment arms at LO.
The sumo deadlift may be more effective in working ankle dorsiflexors and knee extensors, whereas the conventional deadlift may be more effective in working ankle plantar flexors and knee flexors. High-skilled lifters exhibited better lifting mechanics than low-skilled lifters by keeping the bar closer to the body, which may both enhance performance and minimize injury risk.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,284,652
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#2,287
of 8,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,213
of 59,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
