Comparison of Olympic and Hexagonal Barbells With Midthigh Pull, Deadlift, and Countermovement Jump

A Biomechanical Comparison of the Back Squat and Hexagonal Barbell Deadlift

ABSTRACT

Stahl, CA, Regni, G, Tanguay, J, McElfresh, M, Trihy, E, Diggin, D, and King, DL. A biomechanical comparison of the back squat and hexagonal barbell deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 815-824, 2024-Coaches often use different exercises to encourage similar strength adaptations and limit monotony. Anecdotally, the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) exhibits similarities to the back squat (BS). To date, research has not examined the empirical differences between these exercises. This study examined kinematic and kinetic differences between the BS and the HBD across different loads. Sixteen resistance-trained individuals (6 men and 10 women) volunteered to participate. Subjects performed 1-repetition maximum (1RM) testing under BS and HBD conditions. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during performance of both exercises at submaximal (warm-up sets) and maximal (1RM) loads using a 3D motion capture and force-plate system. Results showed that subjects lifted greater 1RM loads in the HBD relative to the BS (p < 0.05; d = -1.75). Kinematic data indicated that subjects exhibited greater maximum forward lean of the trunk and decreased maximum knee flexion while performing the HBD compared with the BS. The BS resulted in higher maximum extension moments at the hip joint than the HBD. Maximum extension moments at the knee joint showed no difference between the exercises. Data suggest that bar design and position facilitate balanced moment arm length at hip and knee joints during performance of the HBD. By contrast, bar position during performance of the BS increases moment arm length at the hip joint, making it a hip-dominant exercise. The present data have implications for the programming of both exercises. Future research should examine differences in muscle-activation strategies between the 2 exercises.

Comparing the Effects of Long-Term vs. Periodic Inclusion of Isometric Strength Training on Strength and Dynamic Performances

ABSTRACT

Lum, D, Joseph, R, Ong, KY, Tang, JM, and Suchomel, TJ. Comparing the effects of long-term vs. periodic inclusion of isometric strength training on strength and dynamic performances. J Strength Cond Res 37(2): 305-314, 2023-This study compared the effects of including isometric strength training (IST) for consecutive 24 weeks (CIST) against a periodic inclusion (PIST) of this mode of training on strength and dynamic performances. Twenty-four floorball athletes (age: 23 ± 2.7 years, stature: 1.74 ± 2.08 m, and body mass: 72.7 ± 14.4 kg) were randomly assigned to the control (CON), CIST, or PIST group. Athletes completed 20-m sprint, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) during pre-test and were tested on weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. All groups performed a similar strength training program twice per week. However, 2 sets of squats were replaced with isometric squat in CIST for all 24 weeks but only on weeks 1-6 and 13-18 for PIST. A significant main effect for time was observed for 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint time, CMJ height, peak force, peak power, time to take-off, modified reactive strength index, IMTP peak force, relative peak force, and force at 200 milliseconds ( p = <0.001-0.037). Isometric strength training for 24 consecutive weeks resulted in greater improvement in 5-m sprint time than CON at week 24 ( p = 0.024, g = 1.17). Both CIST and PIST resulted in greater improvements in 10-m sprint time than CON at various time points ( p = 0.007-0.038 and 0.038, g = 1.07-1.44 and 1.18, respectively). Isometric strength training for 24 consecutive weeks and PIST resulted in greater improvements in 20-m sprint time than CON at week 6 ( p = 0.007 and 0.025, g = 1.65 and 1.40, respectively). The results showed that the inclusion of IST resulted in greater improvements in sprint performance than CON but no significant difference in all measured variables with PIST.

Barbell load distribution and lifting velocity affect bench press exercise volume and perceived exertion

OBJECTIVE

The intensity of barbell bench press exercise is generally prescribed as the load to be lifted for a specific number of repetitions; however, other factors (e.g., execution velocity) can affect bench press exercise intensity. Moreover, no study assessed whether load distribution (i.e., the distance between the disc stacks on the two sides of the barbell) affects exercise intensity. The present study aims to assess how different combinations of load, velocity, and barbell load distribution affect the number of repetitions to failure (REPfailure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPEfatigue) and number of repetitions (REPfatigue) at fatigue onset.

METHODS

Ten males (age 23.3±1.8 years) performed bench press exercises to exhaustion using random combinations of three loads (50%, 65%, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum), three execution velocities (50%, 70%, and 90% of maximal concentric velocity), and two load distributions (narrow and wide). Three separate three-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed to assess the effect of load, velocity, and load distribution on REPfailure, RPEfatigue, and REPfatigue expressed as a percentage of REPfailure.

RESULTS

REPfailure was affected by load (p<0.001), velocity (p<0.001), and distribution (p = 0.005). The interactions between load and velocity (p<0.001) and load and distribution (p = 0.004) showed a significant effect on REPfailure, whereas the interaction between velocity and distribution was not significant (p = 0.360). Overall, more REPfailure were performed using lower loads, higher velocities, and a wider distribution. RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were affected by load (p<0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) and velocity (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and not by distribution (p = 0.510 and p = 0.571, respectively) or the two-way interaction effects. Overall, using higher loads yielded higher RPEfatigue but lower REPfatigue, while RPEfatigue and REPfatigue were higher when slower velocities were used.

CONCLUSION

The current investigation shows that not only load but also velocity and barbell load distribution may influence bench press training volume and perceived exertion.

A Biomechanical Analysis of the Effects of Bouncing the Barbell in the Conventional Deadlift

Krajewski, K, LeFavi, R, and Riemann, B. A biomechanical analysis of the effects of bouncing the barbell in the conventional deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S70-S77, 2019-The purpose of this study is to analyze biomechanical differences between the bounce and pause styles of deadlifting. Twenty physically active males performed deadlifts at their 75% one-repetition maximum testing using both pause and bounce techniques in a within-subjects randomized study design. The average peak height the barbell attained from the 3 bounce style repetitions was used to compute a compatible phase for analysis of the pause style repetitions. Net joint moment impulse (NJMI), work, average vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), vGRF impulse, and phase time were computed for 2 phases, liftoff to peak barbell height and the entire ascent. Additionally, the ankle, knee, hip, and trunk angles at the location of peak barbell bounce height were computed. During the liftoff to peak barbell height phase, although each of the joints demonstrated significantly less NJMI and work during the bounce style, the hip joint was impacted the most. The average vGRF was greater for the bounce; however, the vGRF impulse was greater for the pause. The NJMI results for the ascent phase were similar to the liftoff to peak barbell height phase, whereas work was significantly less for the bounce condition compared with the pause condition across all 3 joints. Strength and conditioning specialists using the deadlift should be aware that the bounce technique does not allow the athlete to develop maximal force production in the early portion of the lift. Further analyses should focus on joint angles and potential vulnerability to injury when the barbell momentum generated from the bounce is lost.

Relationships Between Height, Arm Length, and Leg Length on the Mechanics of the Conventional and High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift

Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Orjalo, AJ, Lazar, A, Liu, TM, Stage, AA, Birmingham-Babauta, SA, Stokes, JJ, Giuliano, DV, Risso, FG, Davis, DL, and Callaghan, SJ. Relationships between height, arm length, and leg length on the mechanics of the conventional and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3011-3019, 2018-The study investigated relationships between arm length (AL) and leg length (LL) and conventional deadlift (CD) and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD) mechanics. Twenty-three resistance-trained subjects (14 men and 9 women) completed a 1 repetition maximum CD and HHBD. A linear position transducer was used to measure lift distance and duration; peak and mean power, velocity, and force; time to peak power and velocity; and work. Right AL and LL were measured, and AL-to-LL ratio (AL:LL) was also calculated. Spearman's correlations (ρ; p ≤ 0.05) computed relationships between anthropometry and deadlift mechanics separately for men and women. For the HHBD, greater height and LL related to greater lift distance and work (ρ = 0.54-0.68); a higher AL:LL related to time to peak power and velocity occurring sooner (ρ = -0.67 to 0.78). For the HHBD, greater height and LL related to greater lift distance and work; a higher AL:LL related to time to peak power and velocity occurring sooner in the lift (ρ = 0.54-0.77). In women, greater height, AL, and LL related to a longer CD lift distance (ρ = 0.67-0.92). For the HHBD, greater height, AL, and LL related to a longer lift distance and greater mean velocity (ρ = 0.69-0.96). There was a negative relationship between AL and lift time (ρ = -0.83), which meant longer arms resulted in a lower HHBD lift time. Arm length may have influenced women more because of the fixed dimensions of the hexagonal bar. Coaches should be cognizant of potential differences in CD and HHBD work when performed by individuals of different body sizes.

Effect of a Hexagonal Barbell on the Mechanical Demand of Deadlift Performance

This study compared typical mechanical variables of interest obtained directly from barbell motion during deadlift performance with a conventional (CBD) and a hexagonal barbell (HBD). Eleven men, proficient with both deadlift variations, volunteered to participate in the study (age: 20.3 ± 0.6 years; height: 175.5 ± 8.5 m; mass: 88.7 ± 19.0 kg; CBD 1RM: 183 ± 22 kg; HBD 1RM: 194 ± 20 kg). During the first session, CBD and HBD 1RM was assessed; during the second session, they performed 3 sets of 1 CBD repetition with 90% 1RM; and in session three, they repeated this process with the HBD. Barbell displacement was recorded at 1000 Hz and mechanical parameters derived from this. Significantly heavier loads were lifted during HBD (6%, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between barbell displacement (p = 0.216). However, HBD was performed significantly faster (15%, p = 0.012), HBD load was accelerated for significantly longer (36%, p = 0.004), and significantly larger mean forces underpinned this (6%, p < 0.001), with more work having been performed (7%, p < 0.001) at greater power outputs (28%, p < 0.001). The results of this study showed that heavier HBD loads can be lifted through the same range of motion faster, and that this load is accelerated for significantly longer. The strategies used to achieve these differences could have a significant effect on training outcomes.