Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1996, 10(8, 250-255 ©1996 National Strength & Conditioning Association Biomechanical Analysis of the Deadlift Michael R.M. McGuigan? and Barry D. Wilson" ‘Dept of Physica! Education, University of Otago, Dunetin, New Zealand; ‘Dept. of Sport Science, The Weiato Polytechnic, Hamilton 2020, New Zealand, Reference Data McGuigan, M.RM., and B.D. Wilson. Biomechanical analysis of the deadlift. J. Strength and Cond. Res. 104): 250-255. 1996, ABSTRACT ‘The purpose of this study was to document the differences kinematics between the Sumo and conventional style deadlift techniques as performed by competitive powerlifters. Video- tapes of 19 conventional and 10 Sumo contestants at two re ‘gional New Zealand powerlifting championships were ana- lyzed. It was found that the Sumo lifters maintained a more Upright posture at liftoff compared to the conventional lifters. ‘The distance required to lift the bar to completion was signifi- cantly reduced in the Sumo technique. No significant differ- ence was found between the techniques as to where the sticks ing point (first deerease in vertical bar velocity) occurred. Key Words: exercise technique, powerlifting, kinemat- ies, sticking region Introduction A large amount of research has been published on com- petitive weightlifting biomechanics, but most of itis on Olympic-style weightlifting (6). The squat (10) and bench press (3) have also been studied extensively, but the deadlift has received almost no attention from biomechanists. As the final lift contested in a powerlifting competition, the deadlift involves gripping, a barbell from the floor with both hands, then raising the weight by extending the knees, hips, and back while holding the arms downward. On completion of the lift, the knees must be locked in a straight position and the shoulders pulled back 9). ‘Thereare two deadlift techniques used by competi- tors: Sumo and conventional. In the Sumo style the lifter stands with feet wide apart and grips the barbell with the arms passing between the legs. In the conventional technique the lifter has a much narrower stance with arms passing outside the legs, Both techniques are com- monly used in competition, yet little research has been published on the differences in the two techniques. Brown and Abani (1) investigated the kinematic and kinetic characteristics of the deadlift as performed by teenage competitive powerlifters. However, their study did not differentiate between the two techniques 250 used in the deadlift. Cholewicki et al. (2) reported the lumbar spine loads in Canadian national-class lifters in competition. No significant difference was found for disc compression force at L4/L5 between Sumo and con- ventional lifters, although there were significantly greater L4/L5 moments and load shear forces in the con- ventional lifters. Hiorn (8) compared the amount of EMG activity in the back musculature between 6 Sumo and 6 conventional lifters. The erector spinae muscles were found to be twice as active in the conventional lifters while 80% of the lifter’s estimated 1-RM was being lifted, Needed is a descriptive study of both techniques as performed by lifters in competition in order to iden- tify specific kinematic differences between the two tech- niques. The Sumo technique is believed to require more skill, and more of the elite lifters use this technique (5), Elite lifters are generally defined as those who lift a greater amount of weight in relation to their body ‘weight, as calculated through the Schwartz formula (9) Fernando (5) stated that the Sumo technique is bio- mechanically more efficient than the conventional technique because more muscles are used and the bar does not travel as far. It was also stated that although conventional lifters hold more world records, Sumo lifters have performed greater lifts in terms of body weight. The present study investigated whether there isa preferred technique among elite competitive power- lifters, The sticking region is known to occur in all ‘weightlifting exercises including the deadlift (6). Success in weightlifting depends on keeping the bar moving up- ward through the lift. The sticking region of the lift is where the upward velocity is momentarily decreased and may even stop. This phenomenon has been studied with respect to the bench press (3) and identified in the squat (11, but there has been no published research into its oc- currence in the deadlift. Pinpointing when it occurs dur- ing the deadlift has implications for training technique and assistance exercises. Specific exercises to train the muscles that are most active atthe sticking point could help decrease the effect. Itis commonly believed that the phase at which the stick- ing point occurs differs between Sumo and conventional deadlift techniques (5). This problem has never been in- vestigated, thus the present study provided an excellent opportunity to gain some understancting in this area,Methods Subjects Subjects for this study were male contestants at twoNew Zealand competitions, the 1992 Canterbury Powerlifting, (Championships and 1992 South Island Championships. Al lifters in both competitions were videotaped and the 29 lifters who completed at least one successful lift were analyzed. The study was approved by the New Zealand Powerlifting Federation (NZPF) and by the chief referee for each competition. In addition, all par- ticipants were informed that the competitions were be- ing videotaped in order to analyze deadlift techniques. Data Collection ‘A Panasonic M7 video camera operating at 25 Hz. was used to record a sagittal view of the competitors per- forming the deadlift. The camera was placed at mid- subject height approximately 10 meters from the plane of movement on the right side, Prior to the videotap- ing, a meter scale was videotaped in the plane of activ- ity asa reference measure. Additional lighting was pro- vided by a floodlight positioned behind the camera. No external markers were used at any stage during the film- ing. Since both competitions were sanctioned by the NZPF, the rules of competition did not allow the appli- ‘cation of external markers to the subjects. All lifts were filmed during both competitions. If no usable video could be obtained of the second deadlift, either because the lifter failed to make the lift or the view was obstructed by others, then the first lift was used for data analysis as the successful lift. This was done because lifters often use their second attempt to equal their personal best and their third attempt to bet- ter their personal best. It was decided that the second deadlift would be more representative of a typical lift. In this way usable video was obtained of 29 lifters, 10 using the Sumo technique and 19 using the conventional technique. Data Analysis ‘The Peak Performance video motion measurement sys- tem (11) was used to digitize each video field (60 Hz). ‘The following landmarks were digitized on the right side of the body: vertex, chin-neck intersect, neck cen- ter, shoulder, elbow, wrist, bar center, hip, knee, ankle, toe, and 4 points around the weight (top, bottom, left, right). This resulted in a stick figure representation of the subject for the video fields digitized. Body segment data were provided by Clauser’s factors for muscular subjects. A fourth-order, zero-lag Butterworth digital filter was used to correct for small errors in the digitiz~ ing process, At least frames before liftoff and 5 frames after the lift were digitized to prevent any endpoint er- rors due to smoothing, A cutoff frequency of 3 Hz was used to smooth the data. This was found to be the best cutoff frequency for smoothing the data without greatly affecting the original values. The Peak system data cal- Biomechanics of the Deadlift 251 culation program was used to calculate segmental cen- ters of mass, linear velocities and accelerations, and angular displacements, velocities, and accelerations. Body angles calculated included those of the ankle, knee, hip, thigh, trunk, shoulder, elbow, and head-neck Three events during the deadlift were marked during, the digitization process (a) bar liftoff, corresponding to the first picture after which the barbell cleared the plat- form; (b) knee passing, corresponding to the first pic- tureafter which the barbell passed the point defined as the knee joint in the digitization process; and (©) lift completion, defined as the point at which the lifter com- pleted the deadlift with the shoulders, hips, and knees locked straight. The angles of the ankle, knee, hip, thigh, trunk, and head-neck were represented over time in order to show changes in body segment orientation during the different stages of the lift. The difference between knee passing and the liftoff values was then calculated for those angles and taken as the ranges of ‘motion (ROM) between liftoff and knee passing. Body segment ROM were also recorded from § frames prior to liftoff until actual liftoff, This was done to determine the ROM of body segments prior to the barbell leaving the floor. Angle-angle diagrams as de- scribed by Enoka (4) were plotted of the relative angle of the knee joint against the absolute angle of the trunk. relative to the right horizontal. These were used to ex- amine the interrelationship between these angles dur- ing the Sumo and conventional deadlift. According to Enoka, this type of graph provicies more detail about the relative timing of the segment actions. Each lifter’s body weight was taken as the value recorded during the official weigh-in. A performance score relative tothe lifter’s body weight was determined. using the Schwartz formula, Performance scores rela- tive to body weight were calculated using the official table of coefficients listed in the IPF rulebook (9). The coefficient determined by actual body weight was mul- tiplied by thelifter’s best deadlift during both competi- tions. Rankings based on these scores were used to de- fine skill level. The amount of weight lifted on each at- tempt and the outcome of the lift (Successful or unsuc- cessful) were recorded during the competition and checked against the official competition recording sheets, and later against the videotape of the competition. Vertical barbell velocity curing the lift was used to determine the position of the sticking point. Based on research by McLaughlin et al. (10) and Eliot et al. (3), the sticking point was defined as the first picture show- ing a decrease in vertical barbell velocity. The highest linear vertical velocity of the barbell for each lift was also determined. Bar path profiles for each lift were in- vestigated by plotting vertical versus horizontal dis- placement. The distance the barbell traveled during the deadlift from liftoff to lift completion was determined for each lift, both in absolute terms and asa percentage of the lifter’s height.252 McGuigan and Wilson Statistical Analysis Since the purpose of this study study was to describe and ‘compare the kinematics of the Sumo and conventional tech- niques, several variables had to be compared. One- way ANOVA was used to compare lift times, position of sticking point, distance to lift completion, and Schwartz score of the Sumo and conventional groups. Also com- pared were body segment orientation at liftoff, ROM prior to liftoff, and ROM from liftoff to knee passing ‘The level of significance was p< 0105. Eifect size (ES) was also calculated for each vari able to estimate the magnitude of the differences be- tween groups using a standardized value. The formula described by Thomas et al. (12) was used: ES M2) / SD, where M1 = mean for Group 1, M for Group 2, and SD = pooled standard deviation. ‘The effect sizes of the variables were used to iden- tify meaningfulness as well as practical significance of the findings. The criteria outlined by Thomas et al. were used to estimate the differences between groups: an ES of 0.2 represented small differences; 0.5 = moderate dif- ferences; and 0.8 = large differences. Results and Discussion Comparison of Deadlift Techniques ‘The 29 subjects in the analysis included 19 conventional and 10 Sumo lifters. Group characteristics are listed in ‘Table 1. Both groups were similar in body weight and load lifted, The Sumo group had an average body ‘weight of 833 kg and lifted 218 kg: conventional lifters ‘weighed an average of 84.8 kg and lifted 215 kg, ‘Segment Angles. Table 2 summarizes the results for the mean segment angles at various stages during the deadlift for each technique. Prior to liftoff the conven- tional lifters had a significantly greater mean range of knee extension than the Sumo lifters (ES = 0.79), and nonsignificantly greater mean ROM for the body seg- ments and hip joint. Results showed that conventional lifters were using knee extension prior to liftoff, possi- bly to generate momentum. Atiftoffthe trunk angle was significantly closer to vertical for the Sumo lifters than for the conventional lifters (ES = 0.92). By having a more upright body ori- entation at liftoff, the Sumo lifters also had significantly larger hip angles (p < 0.01, ES = 1.29). The knee and shank angles were also greater for the Sumo lifters, al- though not significantly so (ES = 0.7). Some similarities were evicient between body seg- ‘ment orientation in both groups. The changes in body seg ‘ment orientation over time for typical lifts are shown in Figure 1 (conventional lifter) and Figure 2 (Sumo lifter). Early in the lift, knee and hip angle both increased while trunk angle decreased, indicating a dominance of knee extension over hip extension during this part ofthe lift, ‘Thisis similar to what Brown and Abani (1) found for the deadlift as performed by adolescent powerlifters. At lft completion, the angles ofthe shank, thigh, and trunk ap- ‘Table 1 General Descriptive ‘Sumo Conventional SDM 35D ES Body weight (kg) 833 1564 848 158 010 Schwarz score (points) 138.3 1643 1338 17.8 025, Load (ke) US 31 2S 33.2 009 Lift ime (see) 21 11 1903 020 Distance to lockout (of height) 2S 42 329% 23 1.46 Sticking region (eof lifttime) 456 151 378 182 045 *p<001 le2 Conventional M ASD ES Variable Range: prior liftoft Hip 25 17 36 20 056 Knee 63 26 102 53° 079 Trunk 26 20 34 27 033 Thigh 46 17 62 34 054 Shank 24 20-35 3.00.40 Head-neck 36 25 «49 «40027 Linott Hip 112 92 67-45 *91.29 Knee 1269 84 1202 95070 Trunk US 84 166 74 * 090 Thigh 1356 60 1365 S407 Shank 25 10.7 386 30 0.70 Head-neck, M9 193 703 20.1 0.70 Range: iftof to knee passing Hip 308 8S $57 109 049 Knee 412 2 4995 036 Trunk 23° 49 259 120 019 Thigh 24 78 21 50 Ol Shank 74 32-42: «33* 029 Head-neck 20 59237 149 * 089 5p <0.05, 7 <0.01 proached 90° while those of the hip and knee approached 180°. Significant differences were noted in the ROM of segment angles from liftoff to knee passing. The Sumo lifters had a significantly greater ROM in the shank, al- though the effect size of 0.29 indicated that the difference ‘was quite small. Conventional lifters had a significantly larger ROM in the head-neck segment (ES = 0.89) ‘The Sumo lifters adopted a more upright trunk ppostureat liftoff, as indicated by the trunkand hipangles (Table 2). A more vertical torso during the squat and deadlift is desirable, according to McLaughlin et al. (10) and Brown and Abani (1). This posture is also recom- mended by Grabiner and Garhammer (7) for general lifting purposes as it keeps the back straight. The con- ventional technique's more stooped-over trunk positionBiomechanics of the Deadlift 253 ‘Angie (degrees) - ete Tee (coon Figare. Body Segment orientation for typical conventional liter Angle (degrees) Tine (Seconds) “ Figure 2, Body segment orientation for typical Sumo lifter. at liftoff relies on the lower back muscles to produce the trunk extension required to complete the lift. Horn (8) found a significant increase in the EMG activity of erector spinae during the conventional technique, This is due to the increased trunk extension required during the con- ventional technique because of the more stooped-over trunk position at liftoff Angle-angle diagrams were plotted of the relative angle of the knee against the absolute angle ofthe trunk fora typical conventional (Figure 3) and Sumo (Figure 4) deadlift. The knee-trunk diagram indicates that the Knee ange (dearoes eta ee “Trunk angle (deqreos) Figure 3, Knee ve. rank angle for typical conventional iter poo an coor), “Trunk angle (degrees) Figure Knee vs. trunk angle fr typical Sumo iter deadlift comprises 3 distinct phases: (a) mainly knee extension; (b) both hip and knee extension; and (©) mainly hip extension. Some differences were noted be- tween groups. Figure 1 shows that the conventional lifters required a greater range of trunk extension to complete the lift once they approached a knee angle of 180°. The Sumo lifters used less trunk extension to com- plete the lift after reaching a 180° knee extension. Since no front-view video of the lifters had been obtained during data collection, it was not possible to quantify the width of the stance and grip in the lifters. It was observed that the Sumo lifters adopted a wider stance by placing their feet outside the arms. This would give them a more stable position and a more upright254 McGuigan and Wilson posture at liftoff. It appears that the lifter’s flexibility, particularly in the gracilis muscles in the early part of the lift, may partially determine how wide a stance can be achieved, Further research is needed to quantify the differences in foot stance width between both techniques to determine which width is best for maximizing the benefits of the Sumo technique without compromising comfort and safety. Another limitation occurred with the 2-D filming. In the Sumo deadlift the legs are considerably outside a plane parallel to the film. This can result in incorrect ‘measurement of knee, hip, ankle, hip, and thigh angles, Further studies using 3-D filming would enable more accurate measurements. Distance of Barbell 1o Lit Completion. The distance the bar traveled from liftoff to lift completion was expressed as a percentage of each lifter’s height (Table 1). It was found that the bar had to travel a significantly greater dis- tance for the conventional lifters (ES = 1.46). On the other hand, the wide foot stance used by the Sumo lifters re- duced by 19% the total distance of bar travel and there- fore the total amount of work required by the lifter. Bar Path. Bar path profiles were compared between techniques using the displacement data. Differences in bar path were assessed by observing the lifters on video and comparing the stick figure outputs. Sumo lifters tended to have a bar path closer to the body compared to conventional lifters (Figure 5). The wide foot stance in the Sumo technique enabled the lifter to hold the barbell closer throughout the lift whereas the narrow stance in the conventional technique meant the weight was farther away from the body, particularly from liftoff to knee passing. It was not until the final part of the lift that the bar was pulied in closer to the body. Grabiner and Garhammer (7) note that one impor- tant factor in lifting an object is to keep the weight as close to the body as possible. A major advantage of the Sumo technique, according to Fernando (5), is that keep- $8097. Boma gs : "ae eo i Figure 5. Bar path profile for conventional (top) and Sumo bottom), ing the bar closer to the body reduces lever arm distance and thus the resistive torque. Cholewicki etal. (2) state that the wide foot stance of the Sumo technique allows the lifter to keep the bar closer to the body than the does conventional technique, thereby shortening the moment arm to the lumbar spine. Our graphs indicate that the Sumo technique kept the weight closer to the lifter. Lift Time, No significant difference was found be- tween the two techniques for total lift time (Table 1). The average lft time of 2.0 se from liftoff to lift comple tion found in this study confirms typical durations of the deadlift that have been reported as approximately 2 sec (6). Sticking Region. The sticking region, defined as the first minimum in vertical barbell velocity, was shown to occur in the deadlift (11). No significant difference was found between both techniques for the point at which the sticking region occurred when expressed as a percentage of total lift time (Table 1). However, in 5 of the 10 Sumo lifters the sticking region occurred in the second half of the lift whereas in only 3 of the 19 conventional lifters did it occur in the second half. There was considerable variability a to where the sticking region occurred in this study, as reflected by the large standard deviations, Fernando (5) found a difference between both techniques asto where the sticking region occurred but did not specify the difference. Unlike the squat and the bench press, in which the sticking region occurs between two peaks for upward barbell velocity, the vertical barbell velocity for the deadlift continued to decrease after the sticking point Figure 6). The deadlift differs from both the squat and the bench press in that the lifting phase occurs immedi- ately, without a preceding lowering phase during which elastic energy could be stored. Garhammer's (6) argu- ‘ment that the recovery of elastic energy is related to the sticking region during the ascent phase of the squat does not apply to the deadlift because it has no lowering phase to precede the lift. Since the position of the sticking region varies be- tween lifters, itis difficult to explain this mechanism in the deadlift, whereas in the squat the position of the sticking region has been found to be reasonably consis tent (10). It may be that structural anatomical factors such as lever lengths are an important consideration, Another explanation may be that the sticking region in the deadlift is a phase in which the most effective Figure 6. Vertical bar velocity vs. time for deadlift.muscles are in a disadvantaged position. This could explain the variability between lifters who have differ- cent muscle strengths and weaknesses. The results show that the Peak system can be used to identify the exact position of the sticking region in the deadlift. This has implications forthe assistance exercises used by powerlifters. Further investigations might reveal the lfter’s body angles a the frame corresponding to the sticking region. Then specific exercises could be recom- ‘mended for that particular part ofthe lift, Horn (8) used EMG to investigate the muscles used during the Sumo and conventional deadlift techniques. Akinetic analysis of the deadlift with torques calculated about the ankle, knee, hip, and lower back, in conjunc- tion with strength testing about these same body joints using an isokinetic dynamometer, could most accurately determine which muscle groups limit performance and should therefore be strengthened. Such data would be useful for advising lifters about specific exercises to strengthen muscles used during the deadlift to lessen the effect of the sticking point. More research is needed to investigate the segment leverages and muscle inter- actions responsible for the sticking point in the deadlift. Solwwartz Score. No significant difference was found between groups on the basis of Schwartz. formula scores. Sumo lifters had a higher average Schwartz score for the deadlift, 138 points, compared to conventional lifters who had an average score of 134 points. The effect size of 0.25 indicated that the difference was small It is believed that elite powerlifters tend to use the Sumo technique (5) but our results did not confirm this Further analysis with langer samples of elite powerlifters could perhaps determine whether they do indeed have a preferred technique. Conclusions The results from the kinematics of the deadlift suggest that the Sumo technique does provide biomechanical advantages in addition to those reported by Horn (8) and Cholewicki et al (2). The following significant dif- ferences were found: 1. Conventionalliters hada significantly greater range of knee extension prior to liftoft 2. Sumo lifters maintained a more upright posture at liftoff, as indicated by a trunk angle significantly reduced by the wide foot stance. 3. The distance the barbell had to travel from liftoff to lift completion was significantly reduced by the ide foot stance used in the Sumo technique 4, The Sumo technique enabled the lifters to keep the bar closer to the body and therefore reduced resis- tance lever arm distances. Practical Applications ‘The Sumo technique offers several biomechanical ad- vantages, the most significant of which appears to be Biomechanics of the Deadlift 255 the more upright trunk posture at liftoff. This requires less trunk extension to complete the lift. The decrease in L4/L5 moments and shear forces reported in the Sumo technique @) indicates a safety advantage for general weight training, Very few weight trainers use this technique but, if performed correctly, the Sumo technique does offer significant biomechanical advan- tages while still allowing an effective overload of the trunk muscles. Lifters may need to develop lower body flexibility to employ this technique successfully. Records of vertical barbell velocity show that a sticking point does occur in the deadlift. Our results in- dicated there was large individual variability as to where the sticking point occurred. No difference was found for the position of the sticking point between the two techniques. The Peak motion analysis system can help identify the first minimum in vertical barbell velocity and therefore the precise sticking region. The lifter can then be advised as to the appropriate angles required for body position in the power rack for training partial ‘movements. For example, the final part of the lift could be trained to accommodate more load and therefore strengthen the muscles at this part of the lift, Further research could investigate the relationship between deadlift technique and performance. No signifi- cant difference was found between the Sumo and con- ventional techniques for Schwartz score. Studies with large samples of elite lifters in competition could help determine whether there isa preferred deadlift technique. ‘Videos of lifters at World Championships would be ideal and could also confirm the differences in the kinematics and kinetics of both techniques. References 1. Brown E1W, and K. Abani. Kinematics and kinetics of the deni Inadolescent poweriftrs. Md. Sci. Sports Ex 17554363, 185. 2. Choleveick J SM. MeGil, and RW. Norman, Lumbar spine loads ‘during the iting of extremely heavy weights. Med. Se. Sports Ere, 251179186, 1991. 3. Elliot BC, Gi. Wilson, and GK, Kere A biomechanical analysis ofthe sticking region in the bench press. Med. Sci. Sports Exe 213450-462. 1989, 4, Bnoka RM. Neuromechanca Basis of Kinesiology. Champaign, IL Human Kinetics, 1988, 5. Femando R. Ponderings from the deadlift zone, Poseliting USA 1213-14. 1989 6, Garhammer]. Weighthfting and training. n: Blomechancsf Sport. CCL. Vaughan, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 189. pp 169-211 7. Grabiner MD, and J.Gathammer. Analysis and assessment of hu ‘man moverent performance. In: Kinesiology nt Applied Antony. J. Rasch, ed. Philadelphia Lea & Febiger 1989, pp 247-258, ', Hom. A biomechanical comparison of Sumo and conventional lenliting tchriques [Abstract] rt]. Sports Med. 9150. 1988. 9. International Powerlifting Fecleration Handbook. Tecra Rules IPE 1992, 10. MeLaughlin TM, CJ. Dillman, and T). Lardner. A kinematic ‘model of performance in the parallel squat by champion ppowerlifers, Mod. Si, Sports 128-133. 197 1, Peak Performance Technologic, Inc. User’ Reference Manual 1998 12. Thomas, JR, W Salazar, and DM, Landers. What is missing inp "05? Bifet size, Res. Q. Exerc, Spr 6244-348. 195.