Biomechanical analysis of the deadlift during the 1999 Special Olympics World Games.

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the squat during varying stance widths.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify biomechanical parameters employing two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) analyses while performing the squat with varying stance widths. METHODS: Two 60-Hz cameras recorded 39 lifters during a national powerlifting championship. Stance width was normalized by shoulder width (SW), and three stance groups were defined: 1) narrow stance squat (NS), 107 +/- 10% SW; 2) medium stance squat (MS), 142 +/- 12% SW; and 3) wide stance squat (WS), 169 +/- 12% SW. RESULTS: Most biomechanical differences among the three stance groups and between 2-D and 3-D analyses occurred between the NS and WS. Compared with the NS at 45 degrees and 90 degrees knee flexion angle (KF), the hips flexed 6-11 degrees more and the thighs were 7-12 degrees more horizontal during the MS and WS. Compared with the NS at 90 degrees and maximum KF, the shanks were 5-9 degrees more vertical and the feet were turned out 6 degrees more during the WS. No significant differences occurred in trunk positions. Hip and thigh angles were 3-13 degrees less in 2-D compared with 3-D analyses. Ankle plantar flexor (10-51 N.m), knee extensor (359-573 N.m), and hip extensor (275-577 N.m) net muscle moments were generated for the NS, whereas ankle dorsiflexor (34-284 N.m), knee extensor (447-756 N.m), and hip extensor (382-628 N.m) net muscle moments were generated for the MS and WS. Significant differences in ankle and knee moment arms between 2-D and 3-D analyses were 7-9 cm during the NS, 12-14 cm during the MS, and 16-18 cm during the WS. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle plantar flexor net muscle moments were generated during the NS, ankle dorsiflexor net muscle moments were produced during the MS and WS, and knee and hip moments were greater during the WS compared with the NS. A 3-D biomechanical analysis of the squat is more accurate than a 2-D biomechanical analysis, especially during the WS.