ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2025
Analysis of Lumbar Joint Movement and Dynamics of Weightlifters.
Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of Lumbar Joint Movement and Dynamics of Weightlifters.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the effects of different hard pull actions on lumbar joint movement and dynamics in weightlifting and evaluate their contribution to the risk of lumbar spine injury. Method: The study recruited eight national second level and above weightlifters as volunteers, and conducted detailed kinematic and dynamic analysis of different hard pull actions through exercise experiments and finite element analysis (FEA). Result: The lumbar flexion angles of traditional hard pull and hexagonal barbell hard pull were 58° and 55°, respectively, while the lumbar flexion angle of straight leg hard pull was 90°. The first peak torque of straight leg hard pull was 893 N∙m, significantly higher than the traditional hard pull of 749 N∙m and the hexagonal barbell hard pull of 640 N∙m. In terms of stress distribution, the peak stress of straight leg hard pull at the L5 vertebral body was 997 MPa, and the peak stress of L5 trabecular bone was 3.3 MPa, both higher than traditional hard pull and hexagonal barbell hard pull. The peak stress of the lumbar intervertebral disc was also highest in straight leg tension, with the peak stress of the L4-5 lumbar intervertebral disc being 45.6 MPa. Conclusion: Straight leg hard pull causes greater damage to the lumbar spine due to its larger lumbar flexion angle and higher peak stress. The damage to the L5 vertebral body during weightlifting is much higher than that of other lumbar vertebrae. Therefore, it is recommended to reduce straight leg hard pull during weightlifting training and strengthen protective measures for the L5 vertebral body to reduce lumbar spine injury.
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.