Title |
Towards evidence based strength training: a comparison of muscle forces during deadlifts, goodmornings and split squats
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13102-017-0077-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Florian Schellenberg, William R. Taylor, Silvio Lorenzetti |
Abstract |
To ensure an efficient and targeted adaptation with low injury risk during strength exercises, knowledge of the participant specific internal loading conditions is essential. The goal of this study was to calculate the lower limb muscles forces during the strength exercises deadlifts, goodmornings and splits squats by means of musculoskeletal simulation. 11 participants were assessed performing 10 different variations of split squats by varying the step length as well as the maximal frontal tibia angle, and 13 participants were measured performing deadlift and goodmorning exercises. Using individualised musculoskeletal models, forces of the Quadriceps (four parts), Hamstrings (four parts) and m. gluteus maximus (three parts) were computed. Deadlifts resulted highest loading for the Quadriceps, especially for the vasti (18-34 N/kg), but not for the rectus femoris (8-10 N/kg), which exhibited its greatest loading during split squats (13-27 N/kg) in the rear limb. Hamstrings were loaded isometrically during goodmornings but dynamically during deadlifts. For the m. gluteus maximus, the highest loading was observed during split squats in the front limb (up to 25 N/kg), while deadlifts produced increasingly, large loading over large ranges of motion in hip and knee. Acting muscle forces vary between exercises, execution form and joint angle. For all examined muscles, deadlifts produced considerable loading over large ranges of motion, while split squats seem to be highly dependent upon exercise variation. This study provides key information to design strength-training programs with respect to loading conditions and ranges of motion of lower extremity muscles. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 13 | 22% |
United States | 8 | 14% |
Canada | 7 | 12% |
Germany | 3 | 5% |
Finland | 3 | 5% |
Spain | 2 | 3% |
Belgium | 1 | 2% |
Chile | 1 | 2% |
Turkey | 1 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 9% |
Unknown | 14 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 45 | 78% |
Scientists | 10 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 37 | 23% |
Student > Master | 33 | 20% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
Researcher | 10 | 6% |
Other | 23 | 14% |
Unknown | 35 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 56 | 34% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 10% |
Engineering | 6 | 4% |
Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
Other | 10 | 6% |
Unknown | 42 | 26% |