Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30668589›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Electromyographic comparison of the barbell deadlift using constant versus variable resistance in healthy, trained men.

Vidar Andersen, Marius S Fimland, Dag-Andrè Mo, Vegard M Iversen, Tommy M Larsen, Fredrik Solheim, Atle H Saeterbakken

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Core Muscle Activity During Physical Fitness Exercises: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vidar AndersenFaculty of Education, Arts and Sport, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3496-8517
Marius S FimlandDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Dag-Andrè MoFaculty of Education, Arts and Sport, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
Vegard M IversenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Tommy M LarsenFaculty of Education, Arts and Sport, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
Fredrik SolheimFaculty of Education, Arts and Sport, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.
Atle H SaeterbakkenFaculty of Education, Arts and Sport, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Variable, external resistance is proposed to increasingly augment the muscular stress throughout a dynamic movement. However, it is uncertain how different levels of variable resistance affect the activation in the deadlift. The aim of the study was to compare the electromyographic activity of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, vastus lateralis and erector spinae muscles during the barbell deadlift with free weights (FW) alone, with two (FW-2EB), and four elastic bands (FW-4EB) to deload some of the constant external resistance. Fifteen resistance-trained men participated in a cross-over design where resistance loadings were matched using two-repetition maximum loadings in the three different conditions. For the whole movement, both repetitions were analyzed. For the phase-specific analysis, the last repetition was divided into six parts, i.e. the lower, middle and upper phase in both the ascending and descending phase of the movement. The mean deloading contributions from FW-2EB and FW-4EB were 21% and 41%, respectively. In FW-4EB, the erector spinae was activated more in the whole movement (8%, ES = 0.31, p = 0.002) compared to FW-2EB. There was also a tendency towards higher activation in FW-4EB versus FW for the whole movement (5%, ES = 0.18, p = 0.072). There were no significant differences between the conditions in any of the other phases or muscles (p = 0.106-0.926). In summary, a high contribution from variable, external resistance seems to activate the back extensors more than a low contribution.

Indexed as

ElectromyographyAdultCross-Over StudiesHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthPhysical Conditioning, HumanWeight Lifting

Identifiers

PMID30668589
PMCPMC6342300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.