Content uploaded by Alan Bishop
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alan Bishop on Aug 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMPARING ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM AND THREE
REPETITION MAXIMUM BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND
ECCENTRICALLY LOADED DEADLIFTS
ALAN BISHOP,
1
MARK DEBELISO,
1
TRISH G. SEVENE,
2
AND KENT J. ADAMS
2
1
Department of Physical Education and Human Performance, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, Utah; and
2
Department
of Kinesiology, California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, California
ABSTRACT
Bishop, A, DeBeliso, M, Sevene, TG, and Adams, KJ.
Comparing one repetition maximum and three repetition
maximum between conventional and eccentrically loaded
deadlifts. J Strength Cond Res 28(7): 1820–1825, 2014—
This study determined if an eccentrically loaded deadlift
yields a higher 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and 3RM than
a conventional deadlift and if the 1RM conventional and
eccentrically loaded deadlift can be accurately estimated
from the 3RM (3RM = 93% of 1RM). Division 1 football play-
ers (n= 15; 20.3 61.9 years; 95.8 618.2 kg; 184.4 66.6
cm) participated. Deadlift 1RM and 3RM were measured in
the conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift. Dependent
t-tests showed no significant difference between the 3RM
and 1RM conventional deadlift and the 3RM and 1RM eccen-
trically loaded deadlift (p=0.30andp= 0.20, respectively).
Pearson correlation between the 1RM conventional deadlift
estimate and 1RM conventional deadlift actual was r=0.91
(p#0.01); a dependent t-test indicated the 1RM conven-
tional deadlift estimate was significantly less than the 1RM
conventional deadlift actual (p= 0.007). Pearson correlation
between the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift estimate and
1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift actual was r=0.84(p#
0.01); a dependent t-test indicated the 1RM eccentrically
loaded deadlift estimate was nearly significantly less than
the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift actual (p= 0.061).
Results suggest that conventional and eccentrically loaded
deadlifts may be interchangeable within a training program;
this may elicit the benefits of using a broader variety of ground-
based multijoint compound movements in an athlete’s strength
and power training. Additionally, because of differences
between predicted and actual 1RM scores in the deadlift,
strength coaches should prioritize actual 1RM testing of their
athletes to optimize deadlift training loads across the RM
continuum.
KEY WORDS strength training, calculating 1RM, sticking point
INTRODUCTION
The National Strength and Conditioning Associa-
tion (NSCA) defines the deadlift as an exercise in
which a barbell is lifted from the floor by extending
the hips and knees until the body reaches a fully
erect torso position, then the bar is lowered back to the floor
(18). The deadlift has major applications in strength devel-
opment programs because of the benefits derived from exe-
cuting multijoint, ground-based closed kinetic chain
movements (20). These benefits include high muscle activa-
tion of the trunk, lower, and upper extremity (2,7), improve-
ments in peak power production from the increase in
maximal strength (24), and improvements in functional
movements and injury prevention implications (23).
As training loads used in the deadlift progress to maximum,
repetition failure occurs, stalling progress. One causal factor of
repetition failure in the deadlift is the “sticking point.” A stick-
ing point is defined as the most strenuous movement of a rep-
etition, typically occurring soon after the transition from the
eccentric to concentric phase (18). The sticking point of an
exercise can be seen with the initial decrease in vertical barbell
velocity (15). Research trying to locate the sticking point of
the conventional deadlift found that typically bar velocity
began to decrease during the initial pull on the barbell, with
the sticking point occurring below the knees of the lifter (14).
Training methods to overcome the sticking point in the
deadlift are difficult to pinpoint because of a lack of research
examining deadlift training protocols. Popular methods used
in powerlifting to train the deadlift include the use of bands
and chains (25–27) to increase resistance at the top portion
of the lift, but this still neglects the weakness in the initial
sticking point. Research indicates that the reduction in
weight needed to clear the deadlift sticking point results in
loads, which are not enough to elicit an overload stimulus at
the upper portion of the deadlift (29). Developing a training
Address correspondence to Dr. Kent Adams, kadams@csumb.edu.
28(7)/1820–1825
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1820
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
technique to lift a heavier load through the sticking point
could be an instrumental step in increasing 1 repetition max-
imum (1RM). One way to overcome the sticking point and
thereby train the deadlift with heavier loads may be to perform
the deadlift with an eccentrically loaded countermovement.
The eccentrically loaded deadlift is considered a variation
of the conventional deadlift, and uses the benefit of eccentri-
cally loading the musculature in an attempt to produce greater
force (3,4) (i.e., the stretch shortening cycle [SSC]). In this
movement, the SSC is incorporated by initiating the deadlift
with the bar at an elevated position (i.e., eccentrically loading
the musculature); then on contacting the floor, moving
quickly from the eccentric (lowering) phase into the concen-
tric (pulling) phase of the deadlift; hopefully moving through
the sticking point with heavier weight and completing the full
range of motion (ROM) of the lift.
The SSC is a scientific principle often manipulated in
strength and power training, most commonly seen in the form
of plyometrics (1). By incorporating counter movements, the
SSC has been shown to acutely increase power output in
movements such as the vertical jump (12). Based on the sci-
entific principles behind the SSC and counter movements,
and observations taken directly from strength training, the
eccentrically loaded deadlift has merit as a potential full
ROM training modality, which targets overcoming the stick-
ing point in the conventional deadlift. This is in contrast to
other popular training methods, which incorporate shorten-
ing the ROM of the exercise to lift more weight through
a partial movement (29), but do not target the actual sticking
point. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to
determine if an eccentrically loaded deadlift will yield a higher
1RM and 3RM than a conventional deadlift initiated from the
floor. If so, then heavier loads may be used through a full
ROM deadlift during maximal strength development phases.
The secondary purpose of this study was to see if the 1RM
conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift can be accu-
rately calculated based on the 3RM, where the 3RM is
presumed to reflect 93% of 1RM (18). Percentage relation-
ships are instrumental for determining optimal load and
volume in training progressions. Much research has been
dedicated to finding the optimal percentage chart, however,
results from different research varies greatly between individ-
uals and exercises (including upper and lower body exercises)
(10,11). Additionally, when prescribing intensity percentages
in the deadlift, a problem can arise in quantifying the move-
ment as either an upper or lower body exercise. Because of
the great amount of musculature activated during the deadlift
(7), it could be argued that the deadlift is in fact a total body
exercise. For this reason, more research is needed to establish
training guidelines at different percentages of 1RM.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To determine if an eccentrically loaded deadlift would result
in higher loads lifted than a conventional deadlift and if the
1RM could be calculated based on the 3RM, this study used
a randomized repeated measures cross-over design model.
Subjects were randomly divided into groups, with the first
group testing conventional deadlift the first week and
eccentrically loaded deadlift the second week, whereas the
second group was tested in the eccentrically loaded deadlift
the first week and the conventional deadlift the second week.
The independent variables tested in this study consisted of
the eccentrically loaded and conventional deadlift. The
dependent variable in this study was the amount of weight
lifted by the participant.
Subjects
The participants in this study were 15 freshman division 1
collegiate football players in their first year as active
members of a year round, structured, collegiate training
program (all had a minimum of 6 months of collegiate
strength training and were experienced in the deadlift
exercise), and all had previous strength training experience
in their high school careers. The participants were redshirt
freshmen who were involved in 4 practices a week with the
team. Mean age was 20.3 61.9 years (range, 18–25 years);
mean mass was 95.8 618.2 kg (range, 74.1–129.1 kg); mean
height was 184.4 66.6 cm (range, 172.7–195.6 cm). The
participants were volunteers with no monetary compensa-
tion being provided. This study was approved by the Uni-
versity’s Institutional Review Board, and all participants
signed an informed consent before data collection.
Materials
Materialsusedinthestudyincludedthefollowingstandard
items: a deadlift platform, Olympic barbell, free weights, chalk,
weight collars, and plyometric boxes. Research supports the
use of a standard Olympic-sized barbell to obtain highest 1RM
values, while training the deadlift (19). Therefore, an Olympic-
sized barbell was used to ensure optimal performance.
Procedures
Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=7;
n= 8). After group assignment, participants were brought
in the week before the first data collection to be familiarized
with the testing protocol. After the testing protocol was
explained, the participants practiced the testing procedure,
until they felt comfortable with the conventional and eccen-
trically loaded deadlift exercises. During this familiarization
meeting, the weight was kept at a moderate intensity (less
than 50% of estimated 1RM), but the testing protocol was
performed in the same manner the participants would
encounter during the following 2 weeks of data collection.
Next, one group was tested in the conventional deadlift week
1 and the eccentrically loaded deadlift week 2, whereas the
other group was tested in the eccentrically loaded deadlift
week 1 and the conventional deadlift in week 2. An alternate
(over/under grip) was used in all trials. Testing was con-
ducted in the spring; test days were separated by 7 days
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2014 | 1821
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
and time of day was standardized. Participants were asked to
not alter their normal nutrition and hydration routines dur-
ing the test period.
The conventional deadlift was conducted using standards
outlined by the NSCA (18) in which weight is lifted from the
floor to an erect position and lowered back to the floor. The
eccentrically loaded deadlift was initiated with the participant
standing on the floor and the weighted barbell resting on
a plyometric box. For each lifter, the bar was individually
set to a height in which the lift was initiated with the bar
halfway between the knee and thigh. The participant’s first
movement was to lift the bar off of the boxes to an erect
standing position (as though performing a rack pull). As the
participant lifted the bar from the boxes, 2 spotters moved the
boxes such that they would not be in the path of the loaded
bar during the execution of the remainder of the lift. From the
erect standing position, the participant then lowered the bar
to the floor (i.e., eccentrically loading the musculature), then
on contacting the floor moving quickly (without bouncing)
from the eccentric phase into the concentric pulling phase of
the deadlift, passing through the sticking point, and complet-
ing the full ROM of the lift.
For both the conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift,
a warm-up set of 5–10 repetitions was performed using 40–
60% of the estimated 1RM. After a 2–5-minute rest period,
a set of 3 repetitions was performed at 60–90% of the esti-
mated 1RM, and continued until a 3RM was achieved. Then,
after a 5-minute rest, 3–4 maximal trials of 1 repetition were
performed to determine the 1RM. Rest periods between trials
lasted 2–5 minutes. A complete ROM and proper technique
was required for a lift to be considered successful (i.e., each
subject had to complete the repetition to full trunk extension,
and they were not allowed to continue testing once a weight
was reached that caused technical breakdown, which was
considered head and shoulders tilting over the feet or little
to no knee bend during extension). The test administrator
(a trained strength professional with knowledge and experi-
ence in performing both eccentrically loaded and conven-
tional deadlift RM testing) monitored each lift.
Statistical Analyses
Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) (r) and dependent
t-tests were calculated to determine the statistical compari-
sons and correlations between and among the modalities
(conventional deadlift [CD], eccentric deadlift [ED]). Pear-
son correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if
there were positive relationships between the CD 1RM and
the CD 3RM, CD 1RM and the ED 1RM, ED 1RM and the
ED 3RM, CD 3RM and the ED 3RM, CD 1RM and the CD
1RM estimate, and ED 1RM and the ED 1RM estimate.
Significance for these comparisons was set at a= 0.05
(one-tailed). Assuming an effect size of r$0.70 is meaningful,
a desired power of 80% can be achieved with n=10par-
ticipants (6). This study had a minimum of n=13forall
comparisons.
Dependent t-tests were employed to determine if there
were differences between CD 1RM and the ED 1RM, CD
3RM and the ED 3RM, CD 1RM and the CD 1RM esti-
mate, and ED 1RM and the ED 1RM estimate. Significance
for these comparisons was set at a= 0.05 (one-tailed).
Assuming an effect size of 0.80 is meaningful, 80% power
can be achieved with 13 participants (6).
The dependent variables measured in this study were
1RMs and 3RMs for the modalities of the CD and the ED.
The NSCA recognizes 1RM and 3RM measures as reliable
measures of muscle strength (16). Published reliability coef-
ficients (r$0.90 and ICC $0.90) confirm that 1RMs and
3RMs are extremely reliable measures (13,28).
RESULTS
For this study, 15 volunteers participated in the 1RM and
3RM data collection for both the conventional and eccen-
trically loaded deadlift. During data collection, all 15
participants completed the 3RM testing protocol, however,
2 were unable to complete the 1RM protocol. Data analysis
for the 3RM was based off of all 15 participants, but data
analysis for the 1RM was only based off of those 13
participants who finished the protocol.
The 15 observations included in the 3RM data analysis
yielded a mean 3RM CD of 185.3 616.2 kg and a mean 3RM
eccentrically loaded deadlift of 183.8 612.1 kg. The results of
a dependent t-test indicated that there was not a significant
difference between the 3RM CD and the 3RM eccentrically
loaded deadlift (p= 0.30). (Tables 1 and 2).
The 13 observations included in the 1RM data analysis
yielded a mean 1RM CD of 203.0 618.5 kg and a mean 1RM
TABLE 1. Conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift measures.*
3RM,
mean 6SD,kg
1RM estimate,
mean 6SD,kg
1RM actual,
mean 6SD,kg
PCC 1RM estimate vs.
1RM actual
1RM estimate vs.
1RM actual, p
CD 185.3 616.2 199.3 617.4 203.0 618.5 0.91 0.007
ED 183.8 612.1 194.5 610.8 200.2 619.6 0.84 0.061
*RM = repetition maximum; PCC = Pearson correlation coefficients; CD = conventional deadlift; ED = eccentric deadlift.
Conventional and Eccentrically Loaded Deadlifts
1822
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
eccentrically loaded deadlift of 200.2 619.6 kg. The results of
a dependent t-test indicated that there was not a significant
difference between the 1RM CD and the 1RM eccentrically
loaded deadlift (p= 0.20). (Tables 1 and 2).
For the data collected, a Pearson correlation was calcu-
lated to determine the association between and among the
modalities. For this section, the conventional deadlift will be
referred to as CD and the eccentrically loaded deadlift
initiated from the box will be referred to as ED.
For the CD 1RM vs. CD 3RM, there was a Pearson
correlation of 0.906 and p#0.01. For the CD 1RM vs. ED
1RM, there was a Pearson correlation of 0.801 and p#0.01.
For the ED 1RM vs. ED 3RM, there was a Pearson corre-
lation of 0.835 and p#0.01. For the CD 3RM vs. ED 3RM,
there was a Pearson correlation of 0.825, and p#0.01.
The observed data were also analyzed to determine
whether an 1 RM could be estimated from the 3RM using
the recommendation of 3RM = 93% of 1RM, as outlined by
the NSCA (18). The CD mean estimated 1RM was 199.3 6
17.4 kg with the actual CD mean 1RM being observed at
203.0 618.5 kg. The Pearson correlation between the 1RM
CD estimate and 1RM CD actual was r= 0.91 (p#0.01).
Further, the results of a dependent t-test indicated that the
1RM CD estimate was significantly less than the 1RM CD
actual (p= 0.007) (Table 1).
The eccentrically loaded deadlift mean estimated 1RM
was 194.5 610.8 kg with the actual eccentrically loaded
deadlift mean 1RM observed at 200.2 619.6 kg. The Pear-
son correlation between the 1RM eccentrically loaded dead-
lift estimate and 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift actual
was r= 0.84 (p#0.01). Further, the results of a dependent
t-test indicated that the 1RM eccentrically loaded deadlift
estimate was nearly significantly less than the 1RM eccen-
trically loaded deadlift actual (p= 0.061). From a practi-
tioners perspective, p= 0.061 could be arguably considered
as clinically relevant (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to determine if an
eccentrically loaded deadlift will yield a higher 1RM and
3RM than a CD. Results demonstrated no statistical
difference in weight lifted between either deadlift modality;
and both deadlift modalities exhibited a high correlation to
each other. Although the results did not indicate one
modality was superior to the other, one may consider that
because of the high correlation of weight lifted between the
2 modalities, interchanging these 2 lifts in a training program
may benefit the lifter.
Alternating between the conventional and eccentrically
loaded deadlift would create more diversity in exercises and
may help to prevent staleness and obtaining the beneficial
effects of an additional ground-based compound movement.
In this case, 2 similar movements could be variably
employed that both demonstrate a segmented action (i.e.,
2 distinct movements), consisting of knee and hip extension
and an additional trunk extension (8) and cause significant
activation of the upper lumbar erector spinae muscles, even
more so than the back squat (5,9). When looking at the
trained athlete, the use of ground-based, multijoint, free
weight exercises such as the deadlift allow for the body to
produce a great amount of force, power, and velocity and as
a broader ROM, compared with other training modalities
(2,8).
Also, heavier loads were pulled by 6 of the 13 participants
when initiating the movement from the box and eccentri-
cally loading the deadlift with a countermovement (Table 2).
These results indicate for some participants, there may be
additional practical benefit to incorporating the eccentrically
loaded deadlift into a strength training program; because in
theory, if more weight can be pulled through the full ROM
using the countermovement, more time is spent under ten-
sion at a higher intensity, which equates to a greater total
body training stimulus (3,17,30).
In relation to this point, the coefficient of determination
(r
2
) is a measure of common variance or a measure of com-
mon factors of the 2 variables. As already mentioned, the
PCC (r) between the 1RMs for the concentric deadlift and
eccentrically loaded deadlift was 0.80. Hence, the coefficient
of determination is 0.64. In other words, 64% of both the
concentric deadlift and eccentrically loaded deadlift come
from common factors. This would also indicate that 36%
of the concentric deadlift and the eccentrically loaded dead-
lift come from factors not in common. One could argue that
beneficial factors not in common include possible SSC
mechanisms such as increased time for force activation (3),
preload effects (3), and the recovery of energy stored during
TABLE 2. Individual conventional and eccentrically
loaded 1RM and 3RM deadlift test results (kg).*
Participant CD 3RM CD 1RM ED 3RM ED 1RM
1 215.9 227.3 206.8 NL
2 179.6 206.8 175.0 202.3
3 179.6 197.7 175.0 184.1
4 193.2 227.3 184.1 197.7
5 193.2 215.9 184.1 206.8
6 193.2 227.3 184.1 231.8
7 193.2 206.8 184.1 211.4
8 197.7 206.8 193.2 215.9
9 184.1 197.7 175.0 184.1
10 179.6 193.2 175.0 184.1
11 184.1 206.8 197.7 NL
12 143.2 156.8 156.8 161.4
13 165.9 184.1 179.6 188.6
14 184.1 206.8 193.2 206.8
15 193.2 211.4 193.2 227.3
*CD = conventional deadlift; RM = repetition maxi-
mum; ED = eccentric deadlift; NL = no lift.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2014 | 1823
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the eccentric component of the eccentrically loaded deadlift
(3). Incorporating these SSC-related factors in training may
have important implications in optimal adaptation and trans-
fer of training to the playing field (1,3,16,17). Additionally,
although participants may have failed to lift the weight from
the floor after lowering the eccentrically loaded deadlift, they
were actually engaging in negatives, which could be used as
an effective training stimulus to increase muscle size and
strength in a program (21,22).
An observation from this study which is hard to quantify,
but may be important for future study, is the technical
breakdown in the posterior chain of the eccentrically loaded
deadlifts. It was observed that on failed attempts, there was
a prominent breakdown in the posterior chain, observed
primarily in the rounding of the back. This was not the case
for subjects who could pull more with the eccentric DL (i.e.,
they maintained posterior chain integrity and did not round
their back). Posterior chain strength may have been the
biggest contributing factor to whether or not the participants
pulled a higher load in the eccentrically loaded deadlift
compared with the CD.
The secondary purpose of this study was to determine if
the 1RM conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlift
could be accurately calculated based on the 3RM, where
the 3RM reflects 93% of 1RM (18). Although there was
a high degree of correlation between the predicted values
and the true values, t-tests showed they were still statistically
different for both the concentric and eccentrically loaded
deadlift. The estimated 1RM was less than the actual 1RM
for both the concentric deadlift (p= 0.007) and eccentrically
loaded deadlift (assuming p= 0.061 is clinically relevant).
This finding emphasizes what many strength coaches
already know; percentage relationships across the RM con-
tinuum are important for determining optimal load and vol-
ume in training progressions; but because of the broad
spectrum of athletes, there are no universal conversions that
apply across the board.
Much research has been dedicated to finding the optimal
percentage prediction chart across the RM continuum,
however, results from different research varies greatly among
and between exercises and individuals (10,11). For example,
highly trained athletes have been shown to perform more
repetitions than nontrained athletes at percentage of 1RM
(11). These researchers also found a difference in number of
repetitions performed between upper and lower body exer-
cises at given percentages of 1RM with lower body move-
ments tending to produce a higher volume of repetitions
than intensity guidelines presented by the NSCA (10,11).
Because of the great amount of musculature activated during
the deadlift (7), it could be argued that the deadlift is, in fact,
a total body exercise, recruiting significant lower and upper
body musculature. For this reason, additional difficulties exist
in establishing deadlift training guidelines at different percen-
tages of 1RM using traditional references, highlighting the
importance of actual 1RM testing.
In conclusion, this study found no statistical difference in
weight lifted between a CD 1RM and 3RM and an
eccentrically loaded deadlift 1RM and 3RM, with a high
degree of correlation between the 2 modalities. The results of
this study also suggest that 1RM estimates (based on 3RM =
93% of 1RM) are significantly less than actual 1RM measures
for the CD and nearly significantly less for the eccentrically
loaded deadlift (p=0.061).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Deadlifts are known to be an optimal lift for developing
strength (24). Because of differences between predicted and
actual 1RM scores in the deadlift, strength coaches and prac-
titioners should prioritize actual 1RM testing of their athletes
and clients to optimize deadlift training loads across the RM
continuum. Additionally, this research benefits future deadlift
training protocols by establishing that, in theory, conven-
tional and eccentrically loaded deadlifts may be inter-
changeable within a training program; this may elicit the
benefits of using a broader variety of ground-based, multi-
joint compound movements when training to increase an
athlete’s total body strength. As the athlete’s maximum
strength increases, the percentage of 1RM at which peak
power occurs also increases (24), an important factor in
optimal sports performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the SUU Athletic Department
for use of the Charlie and Renee Norton Strength and
Conditioning Center, as well as the SUU football team for
allowing the participation of its members for this study. No
funding was provided for this study, and the authors have no
conflicts of interest related to this research. Results of this study
do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or
the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, KJ, O’Shea, JP, O’Shea, K, and Climstein, M. The effect of
six weeks of squat, plyometric, or squat-plyometric training on
power production. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 36–41, 1992.
2. Behm, DG, Drinkwater, EJ, and Cowley, PM. Canadian Society for
exercise physiology position stand: The use of instability to train the
core in athletic and nonathletic conditioning. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 35: 109–112, 2010.
3. Blazevich, A. The stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). In: Strength and
Conditioning: Biological Principles and Practical Applications.M
Cardinale, R Newton, and K Nosaka, eds. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2011. pp. 209–221.
4. Cavagna, GA. Storage and utilization of elastic energy in skeletal
muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 5: 89–129, 1977.
5. Chulvi-Medrano, I, Garcia, X, Colado, JC, Morales, J, and
Fuster, MA. Deadlift muscle force and activation under stable and
unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2723–2730, 2010.
6. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
7. Delavier, F. Strength Training Anatomy. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2010.
Conventional and Eccentrically Loaded Deadlifts
1824
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8. Hales, ME, Johnson, BF, and Johnson, JT. Kinematic analysis of the
powerlifting style squat and the conventional deadlift during
competion: Is there a cross-over effect between lifts? J Strength Cond
Res 23: 2574–2580, 2009.
9. Hamlyn, N, Behm, DG, and Young, WB. Trunk muscle activation
during dynamic weight-training exercises and isometric instability
activities. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1108–1112, 2007.
10. Hoeger, W, Barette, S, Hale, D, and Hopkins, D. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum. J Appl Sports Sci Res 1: 11–13, 1987.
11. Hoeger, W, Hopkins, D, Barette, S, and Hale, D. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum: A comparison between untrained and trained males and
females. J Appl Sports Sci Res 4: 47–54, 1990.
12. Markovic, G, Dizdar, D, Jukic, I, and Cardinale, M. Reliability and
factoral validity of squat and countermovement jump tests.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 551–555, 2004.
13. McCurdy,K,Langford,GA,Cline,AL,Doscher,M,andHoff,R.
The reliability of 1-and 3RM tests of unilateral strength in
trained and untrained men and women. J Sports Sci Med 3: 190–
196, 2004.
14. McGuigan, MR and Wilson, BD. Biomechanical analysis of the
deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 10: 250–255, 1997.
15. McLaughlin, T, Dillman, C, and Lardner, T. A kinematic model of
performance in the parallel squat by champion powerlifters. Med Sci
Sports 9: 128–133, 1977.
16. Miyaguchi, K and Demura, D. Relationships between stretch-
shortening cycle performance and maximum muscle strength.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 19–24, 2008.
17. Newton, RU. Strength and conditioning biomechanics. In: Strength and
Conditioning: Biological Principles and Practical Applications.MCardinale,
R Newton, and Nosaka, K, eds. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
pp. 89–101.
18. NSCA—National Strength & Conditioning Association. Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning. Baechle, TR, ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2008.
19. Ratamess, NA, Faigenbaum, AD, Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, and
Kang, J. Acute muscular strength assessment using free weight bars
of different thickness. J Strength Cond Res 21: 240–244, 2007.
20. Rippetoe, M and Kilgor, L. Starting Strength (2nd ed.). Wichita Falls,
TX: The Aasgaard Company, 2008.
21. Roig, M, O’Brien, K, Kirk, G, Murray, R, McKinnon, P, Shadgan, B,
and Reid, WD. The effects of eccentric versus concentric resistance
training on muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: A systematic
review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 43: 556–568, 2009.
22. Schoenfeld, BJ. Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in
skeletal muscle hypertrophy? JStrengthCondRes26: 1441–1453, 2012.
23. Sharrock, C, Cropper, J, Mostad, J, Juhnson, M, and Malone, T. A
pilot study of core stability and athletic performance: Is there
a relationship? Int J Sports Phys Ther 6: 63–74, 2011.
24. Stone,M,O’Bryant,H,McCoy,R,Lehmkuhl,M,andSchilling,B.Power
and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic
and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17: 140–147, 2003.
25. Swinton, PA, Liloyd, R, Agouris, I, and Stewart, A. Contemporary
training practices in elite British powerlifters: Survey results from an
international competition. J Strength Cond Res 23: 380–384, 2009.
26. Swinton, PA, Stewart, A, Agouris, I, Keogh, JL, and Lloyd, R. A
biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts
using submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2000–2009, 2011.
27. Swinton, P, Stewart, Ad, Keogh, JW, Agouris, I, and Lloyd, R.
Kinematic and kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts
performed with and without the inclusion of chain resistance.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 3163–3174, 2011.
28. Tagesson, SKB and Kvist, J. Intra-and interrater reliability of the
establishment of one repetition maximum on squat and seated knee
extension. J Strength Cond Res 21: 801–807, 2007.
29. Wilson, G. Strength and power in sport. In: Applied Anatomy and
Biomechancis in Sport. TR Ackland, ed. Boston, MA: Blackwell
Scientific, 1994. pp. 110–208.
30. Winwood, PW, Keogh, JW, and Harris, NK. The strength and
conditioning practices of strongman competitors. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 3118–3128, 2011.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2014 | 1825
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
