ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Biomechanical analysis of conventional and sumo deadlift.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term performance trajectories in classic powerlifting: an exploratory analysis of 6,524 lifters with sustained competitive engagement.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Beyond the Neutral Spine: A Narrative Review and Modern Framework for Low Back Injury Prevention in Deadlifting.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Introduction: The conventional (CDL) and sumo (SDL) deadlifts are two fundamental techniques used in competitive lifting and as effective exercises for strengthening the knee and hip muscles. This study aims to investigate their biomechanical differences through a comprehensive analysis of joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and muscle activation. Materials and Methods: Thirty experienced male lifters performed both CDL and SDL at 85% of their one repetition maximum (1-RM). Lower limb joint range of motion (ROM), internal joint moments, and muscle activation of key lower limb and spinal muscles were recorded and analyzed. Paired t-tests and Statistical parametric mapping (SPM) were used to compare parameters between lifting techniques (p < 0.025). Results: SDL showed greater ROM in the frontal and transverse planes, particularly at the hip and knee, whereas CDL involved greater hip flexion and ankle dorsiflexion. CDL generated higher hip extension moments, while SDL produced greater frontal and transverse plane joint moments at the hip and knee. Additionally, SDL induced a greater ankle inversion moment. In the transverse plane, ankle moments were higher in CDL during phase 1 and became greater in SDL in phase 2. Regarding EMG peak values, the biceps femoris exhibited greater activation in CDL across both phases. The tibialis anterior and the erector spinae thoracis demonstrated greater activation in CDL during phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. Conversely, the vastus lateralis exhibited higher peak activation in SDL, but only during phase 1. Conclusion: CDL is more effective for targeting posterior chain, particularly the hip extensors, while SDL emphasizes anterior chain involvement and induces greater mediolateral stabilization demands. SDL may be particularly beneficial for knee reinforcement and increases frontal plane demands, supporting its relevance in rehabilitation contexts that require enhanced mediolateral stability. These findings highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate deadlift technique according to specific training or rehabilitation objectives.
Indexed as
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.