ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2013
Kinetic and kinematic differences between deadlifts and goodmornings.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Movement Description Language for Functional Training Exercise Analysis.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Load-dependent increase in lumbar kyphosis is associated with posterior pelvic tilt during deadlift.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Female Lower Body Muscle Forces: A Musculoskeletal Modeling Comparison of Back Squats, Split Squats and Good Mornings.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Kinetics in lumbosacral and lower-limb joints of sprinters during barbell hip thrust compared to deadlift and back squat.PloS one · 2021Article
- How to squat? Effects of various stance widths, foot placement angles and level of experience on knee, hip and trunk motion and loading.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Towards Subject-Specific Strength Training Design through Predictive Use of Musculoskeletal Models.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2018Article
- The Influence of Backpack Weight and Hip Belt Tension on Movement and Loading in the Pelvis and Lower Limbs during Walking.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2018Article
- Comparison of the kinematics and kinetics of shoulder exercises performed with constant and elastic resistance.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Towards evidence based strength training: a comparison of muscle forces during deadlifts, goodmornings and split squats.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Loading conditions in the spine, hip and knee during different executions of back extension exercises.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Article
- Review of Modelling Techniques for In Vivo Muscle Force Estimation in the Lower Extremities during Strength Training.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to improve training performance, as well as avoid overloading during prevention and rehabilitation exercises in patients, the aim of this study was to understand the biomechanical differences in the knee, hip and the back between the exercises "Goodmornings" (GMs) and "Deadlifts" (DLs).
methodsThe kinetics and kinematics of 13 subjects, performing GMs and DLs with an additional 25% (GMs), 25% and 50% (DLs) body weight (BW) on the barbell were analysed. Using the kinetic and kinematic data captured using a 3D motion analysis and force plates, an inverse approach with a quasi-static solution was used to calculate the sagittal moments and angles in the knee, hip and the trunk. The maximum moments and joint angles were statistically tested using ANOVA with a Bonferroni adjustment.
resultsThe observed maximal flexion angle of the knee was 5.3 ± 6.7° for GMs and 107.8 ± 22.4° and 103.4 ± 22.6° for DLs with 25% and 50% BW respectively. Of the hip, the maximal flexion angle was 25% smaller during GMs compared to DLs. No difference in kinematics of the trunk between the two exercises was observed. For DLs, the resulting sagittal moment in the knee was an external flexion moment, whereas during GMs an external extension moment was present. Importantly, no larger sagittal knee joint moments were observed when using a heavier weight on the barbell during DLs, but higher sagittal moments were found at the hip and L4/L5. Compared to GMs, DLs produced a lower sagittal moment at the hip using 25% BW while generating the same sagittal moment at L4/L5.
conclusionsThe two exercises exhibited different motion patterns for the lower extremities but not for the trunk. To strengthen the hip while including a large range of motion, DLs using 50% BW should be chosen. Due to their ability to avoid knee flexion or a knee flexion moment, GMs should be preferentially chosen over DLs as ACL rupture prevention exercises. Here, in order to shift the hamstring to quadriceps ratio towards the hamstrings, GMs should be favoured ahead of DLs using 50% BW before DLs using 25% BW.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.