ArticlePeerJ2025
A comparison of spinal and lower extremity biomechanics during maximal and sub-maximal deadlifts among strength-trained women.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Load matters: squat and deadlift mechanics near maximal effort.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have examined changes in biomechanical variables in response to different deadlift loads, yet, the effect of sub-maximal and maximal loads on potential deviation in lifting technique remain inadequately understood. Methods: Therefore, this study compared barbell and joint kinematics, net joint moments (NJMs), and surface electromyography (sEMG) amplitude during 70%, 90%, and 100% of three-repetition maximum (3RM) load using statistical parametric mapping. Twelve strength-trained women (age: 23.18 ± 3.46 years, height: 166.72 ± 2.90 cm, body mass: 68.18 ± 7.67 kg) lifted 72.5 ± 9.3 kg, 93.9 ± 16.6 kg, and 102.9 ± 17.6 kg s at 70%, 90%, and 100% of 3RM deadlifts, respectively. Results: The main findings revealed that the maximal load resulted in a significant increase in lower thoracic flexion angles and erector spinae sEMG amplitudes compared to the sub-maximal loads. Additionally, significantly lower hip NJMs were observed with a 70% load compared to 90% and 100% loads. Conclusion: Therefore, increasing loads beyond 90% of 3RM might not be necessary if the goal is to train hip extensor strength through deadlifting. Deadlifting loads beyond 90% of 3RM may be achieved by increasing spinal flexion. This posture may allow strength-trained women to lift beyond the strength capacity of their hip extensors during the final repetition of a 3RM deadlift.
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.