RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HEIGHT, ARM LENGTH,
AND LEG LENGTH ON THE MECHANICS OF THE
CONVENTIONAL AND HIGH-HANDLE HEXAGONAL
BAR DEADLIFT
ROBERT G. LOCKIE,1 MATTHEW R. MORENO,1 ASHLEY J. ORJALO,1 ADRINA LAZAR,2 TRICIA M. LIU,2
ALYSSA A. STAGE,2 SAMANTHA A. BIRMINGHAM-BABAUTA,2 JOHN J. STOKES,2 DOMINIC V. GIULIANO,2
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 03/16/2021
FABRICE G. RISSO,1 DESHAUN L. DAVIS,1 AND SAMUEL J. CALLAGHAN3
1
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA; 2Department of Kinesiology, California State
University, Northridge, Northridge, CA; and 3Center for Exercise and Sport Science, School of Exercise and Health Sciences,
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
ABSTRACT
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 resis-
tance-trained subjects (14 men and 9 women) completed a 1
repetition maximum CD and HHBD. A linear position trans-
ducer 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
(r; 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 (r = 0.54–0.68); a higher AL:LL related to time to
peak power and velocity occurring sooner (r = -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 (r = 0.54–
0.77). In women, greater height, AL, and LL related to a longer
CD lift distance (r = 0.67–0.92). For the HHBD, greater
height, AL, and LL related to a longer lift distance and greater
mean velocity (r = 0.69–0.96). There was a negative relation-
ship between AL and lift time (r = 20.83), which meant longer
Address correspondence to Robert G. Lockie, rlockie@fullerton.edu.
32(11)/3011–3019
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
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 differ-
ences in CD and HHBD work when performed by individuals of
different body sizes.
KEY WORDS anthropometry, lift distance and duration, force,
power, and velocity, hex bar, work
INTRODUCTION
T
he conventional deadlift (CD) performed with an
Olympic bar is a popular strength exercise that
targets the leg, hip, back, and torso musculature
(8,15,35). Use of this exercise has contributed to
improvements in lower-body strength across different pop-
ulations (39,42,44), which provides validation for its use in
resistance training. However, the CD can be difficult for
some individuals because of physical limitations (15). Indeed,
body height, arm length (AL), and leg length (LL) can all
influence how an individual performs the CD (15,27). This
formed part of the reason as to why the hexagonal bar was
designed (40). The hexagonal bar, which can feature high
and low handles (Figure 1), allows the lifter to keep the load
closer to the body during the deadlift exercise, as they lift
within a frame (4,11,40,41).
When compared with the CD, the hexagonal bar deadlift
resulted in less bar displacement (40), changes to the lifting
technique (26), and muscle activation patterns (4). Anecdotal
information has suggested that the hexagonal bar deadlift
could be beneficial for taller individuals because the set-up
position is easier to attain (12,36) and requires a more
upright trunk position (i.e., less trunk flexion) at liftoff
(25,43). The high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD)
should make it even easier for the taller individual to position
themselves within the bar frame because the handle position
could further reduce the resistance moment arm at the
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2018 | 3011
 Anthropometry and the Deadlift
Figure 1. GymAware placement for the conventional deadlift (A) and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (B).
lumbar spine (40). Lockie et al. (25) suggested that a more
advantageous lifting position provided by the HHBD re-
sulted in greater peak power, velocity, and peak and mean
force in a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) lift when compared
with the CD. However, Lockie et al. (25) found that because
of a greater lift distance, greater work was performed in the
1RM CD. An individual’s anthropometry, such as AL and
LL, could also influence factors such as lift distance and
duration, and by extension, the work performed during the
lift. Given that total work performed during resistance train-
ing sets may be the most valid way to measure strength
training load (29), this is notable. However, no research
has investigated the relationships between height, AL, and
LL on the mechanics of the HHBD, and whether this differs
to the CD.
Indeed, there is little research that has investigated the
influence AL and LL may have on the performance of
strength exercises (28). It has been anecdotally believed that
individuals with a longer AL relative to LL (AL:LL ratio)
may have better deadlifting ability (27). Mayhew et al. (28)
found that a shorter LL had a positive effect on CD when
performed by collegiate football players; however, informa-
tion about the mechanics of the lift (i.e., power, velocity,
force, and work) was not provided. By contrast, Mayhew
et al. (27) illustrated that AL, LL, or AL:LL did not correlate
with the CD performed by novice adolescent powerlifters.
After a review of literature, Pereira and Gomes (34) sug-
gested that anthropometry was a poor predictor of 1RM
for most strength exercises. Arm length and LL, however,
may be more of an influence on lift mechanics when per-
forming the HHBD, where the handles are in a fixed posi-
tion. Nonetheless, there is currently no research that has
investigated the relationships between height or limb length
and the HHBD.
Furthermore, there could be differences between the sexes
with how limb length may influence the mechanics of the
CD and HHBD. About the HHBD, a shorter AL could
affect lift mechanics because the arms will need to be
abducted further from the body to grip the bar handles.
This may reduce lift distance, and reduced lift distance in the
HHBD can cause changes to the power, velocity, force, and
the TM
3012 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
work performed (25). This could
be more evident in women
because women tend to have
a smaller body size when com-
pared with men (10,22). The
hexagonal bar has a set design
and distance between the han-
dles, which may not be optimal
for individuals of a smaller body
size, which could affect women
more than men. Furthermore,
Fuster et al. (10) also found that
body height correlated with
pulling strength in collegiate-
aged women but not men. As a result, the authors concluded
that body size in women was a determining factor in pulling
strength. The results from Fuster et al. (10) underscore that
there could be differences between the sexes as to the relation-
ships between height, AL, LL, and AL:LL during the CD and
HHBD. This could be exacerbated in the HHBD because of
the set design of the bar. Further research is needed to confirm
this hypothesis because an individual’s AL and LL could influ-
ence the power, velocity, and force profile of these lifts, in
addition to the work performed during a resistance training
session. This could then influence any resulting long-term
adaptations from the CD or HHBD.
Therefore, this study investigated relationships height,
AL, LL, and AL:LL with the mechanics of the 1RM CD and
HHBD. Resistance-trained men and women were recruited
and analyzed separately. The procedures used in this study
were similar to that used in the study by Lockie et al. (25).
The mechanics of the CD and HHBD were both measured
through a linear position transducer, which was used to
ensure that the recorded data would have practical value
to the strength and conditioning coach because this equip-
ment is used extensively in the field (6,16,25). It was hypoth-
esized that greater height, AL, and LL would relate to
a greater bar displacement for both men and women, which
would also result in greater work being performed. Specific
to the HHBD, it was further hypothesized that these rela-
tionships would be more pronounced for men because AL
would have less impact in women because of the fixed han-
dle width. Last, it was hypothesized that men and women
with a higher AL:LL (i.e., longer arms relative to the legs)
would generate greater peak power, force, and velocity in
both the CD and HHBD.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A cross-sectional analysis of resistance-trained men and
women was conducted to investigate the relationships
between body height, AL, and LL on the mechanics of
the CD and HHBD. All data for the CD and HHBD were
recorded by a linear position transducer. Within 1 testing
session, subjects had their height, AL, and LL measured
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% CI) for 1 repetition maximum (1RM), relative strength derived from
the 1RM, lift distance, and lift time for the conventional deadlift (CD) and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD)
performed by resistance-trained men and women.*

Males (n = 14) Females (n = 9)

Variable CD HHBD CD HHBD

1RM load (kg) 161.56 6 31.03 186.14 6 33.08 92.74 6 26.06 106.04 6 29.32
(143.65–179.48) (167.04–205.24) (72.71–112.78) (83.51–128.58)
Relative strength 1.86 6 0.28 2.15 6 0.32 1.53 6 0.38 1.75 6 0.43
(kg$BM21) (1.70–2.02) (1.96–2.33) (1.24–1.82) (1.42–2.08)
Lift distance (m) 0.53 6 0.05 0.42 6 0.06 0.46 6 0.06 0.37 6 0.04
(0.50–0.56) (0.39–0.45) (0.42–0.51) (0.34–0.40)
Lift time (s) 2.22 6 0.67 1.73 6 0.33 1.97 6 0.38 1.37 6 0.41
(1.84–2.61) (1.54–1.92) (1.67–2.26) (1.06–1.69)

*CI = confidence interval; kg = kilograms; kg$BM21 = kilograms lifted per kilogram body mass.

before they performed the 1RM CD and HHBD in a random-
ized order. The dependent variables included: height, AL, LL,
and AL:LL ratio; 1RM load for the CD and HHBD, and
relative strength derived from both of these lifts; lift distance
and duration; peak and mean power and velocity, and the
relative time at which peak power and velocity occurred within
the lift; peak and mean force; and work.
Subjects
Twenty-three resistance-trained individuals (6 SD age = 22.48
6 1.38 years [all subjects were 18 years or older]; height = 1.73
6 0.12 m; and body mass = 76.81 6 17.77 kg), including 14 men
(age = 22.43 6 1.51 years; height = 1.80 6 0.09 m; and body
mass = 87.36 6 14.20 kg) and 9 women (age = 22.56 6 1.24
years; height = 1.62 6 0.06 m; and body mass = 60.40 6 6.59
kg), volunteered to participate in this study. G*Power software
(v3.1.9.2; Kiel University, Kiel, Germany) confirmed post hoc
that the male sample size of 14 was sufficient for a correlation,
point biserial model, and ensured the data could be interpreted
with a moderate effect level of 0.65 (17) and a power level of
0.84 when significance was set at 0.05 (9). The female sample
size of 9 meant data could be interpreted with a moderate effect
level of 0.70 (17) and a power level of 0.71 when significance was
set at 0.05 (9). Subjects were recruited from the student popu-
lation at the university in which the study was approved. All
subjects were required to be currently resistance training ($3
hours per week) with a focus on either hypertrophy or maximal
strength development; have a strength training history ($2
times per week) of at least 2 years and be experienced with
completing maximal lifts; be experienced with the CD and
HHBD; and free from any musculoskeletal disorders that would
influence their ability to participate in this research. Similar to
Lockie et al. (25), subjects were defined as being strength-
trained, without being elite or competitive strength athletes (e.
g., powerlifters or Olympic lifters). The institutional ethics com-
mittee of California State University, Northridge approved the
procedures used in this study. All subjects received a clear expla-
nation of the study, including the risks and benefits of partici-
pation, and written informed consent was obtained before
testing.
Procedures
The procedures used for this study have been detailed by
Lockie et al. (25). One testing session was completed by all
subjects, with all assessments conducted in the university
strength laboratory. Before data collection, the subject’s age,
height, body mass, AL, and LL were recorded. Height was
measured barefoot using a portable stadiometer (seca, Ham-
burg, Germany). Body mass was recorded by electronic digital
scales (Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The right arm and
right leg were used for the AL and LL measurements, respec-
tively (33). A thin-line metric tape measure (Lufkin, Apex
Tool Group, MD, USA) was used to take these measure-
ments. Arm length was measured as the distance from the
acromion of the scapula, which was determined by palpation,
to the tip of the middle fingertip (3,45). As per Young and
Pryor (45), the AL measurement was taken while the subject
held their arm extended and parallel to the ground. Leg
length was measured when subjects were laying supine on
a portable plinth. Using the procedures detailed by Beattie
et al. (1), LL was measured as the distance from the anterior
superior iliac spine to the medial malleolus. The ratio between
AL and LL was expressed as a percentage and calculated by
the formula: AL:LL = (AL$LL21) 3 100 (27).
The 1RM CD and HHBD were both assessed within 1
session, and the order of the strength tests was randomized
among the sample through the randomization function in
a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA, USA) (25). Subjects refrained from intensive
lower-body exercise and maintained a standardized dietary
intake in the 24-hour period before testing and consumed
water as required throughout the testing session. The

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2018 | 3013

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Anthropometry and the Deadlift

TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% CI) for peak power (PP) and mean power (MP), time when peak
power occurred in the lift, peak velocity (PV), and mean velocity (MV), time when peak velocity occurred in the lift,
peak, and mean force, and work for the conventional deadlift and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift performed by
resistance-trained men and women.*

Males (n = 14) Females (n = 9)

Variable CD HHBD HHBD

PP (W) 777.66 6 204.82 1,139.27 6 379.08 465.82 6 86.61 665.55 6 140.87

(659.40–895.91) (920.40–1,358.14) (399.24–532.39) (557.26–773.83)
Time at PP 66.47 6 12.20 73.77 6 12.13 71.94 6 11.71 73.50 6 6.42
(%) (59.42–73.51) (66.76–80.77) (62.93–80.94) (68.56–78.44)
MP (W) 496.15 6 119.04 562.43 6 116.41 317.99 6 142.81 333.62 6 82.69
(427.42–564.88) (495.21–629.65) (208.21–427.76) (270.05–397.18)
PV (m$s21) 0.48 6 0.13 (0.41–0.56) 0.58 6 0.13 (0.50–0.65) 0.52 6 0.15 (0.40–0.63) 0.62 6 0.10 (0.54–0.70)
Time at PV 67.44 6 11.55 75.84 6 11.81 72.40 6 11.11 75.50 6 6.26
(%) (60.78–74.11) (69.02–82.66) (63.86–80.95) (70.68–80.31)
MV 0.29 6 0.06 (0.25–0.33) 0.58 6 0.13 (0.50–0.65) 0.30 6 0.08 (0.24–0.36) 0.33 6 0.08 (0.27–0.39)
(m$s21)
Peak force 1,796.95 6 344.89 2,142.83 6 374.99 1,010.64 6 252.90 1,229.88 6 338.30
(N) (1,597.82–1,996.09) (1,926.32–2,359.34) (816.24–1,205.40) (969.84–1,489.93)
Mean force 1,312.12 6 554.74 1,603.84 6 569.72 860.43 6 345.61 1,046.91 6 287.03
(N) (991.82–1,632.42) (1,274.89–1,932.78) (594.77–1,126.08) (826.29–1,267.54)
Work (J) 827.96 6 165.90 754.52 6 155.43 409.44 6 90.18 373.98 6 81.56
(732.17–923.75) (664.78–844.27) (340.12–478.75) (311.29–436.67)

*CI = confidence interval; CD = conventional deadlift; HHBD = high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift; W = watts; % = percent;
m$s21 = meters per second; N = newtons; J = joules.

subjects wore the footwear they were most comfortable in to
complete the lifts (i.e., weightlifting or running shoes), and
the same footwear was worn for both lifts. No other support-
ing garments, such as knee wraps or weight lifting belts, were
permitted.
Conventional Deadlift and High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift
Maximal Strength Testing. The procedures for the 1RM CD
and HHBD have been presented by Lockie et al. (25).
The lifts were performed on an Olympic lifting platform.
The CD was performed with an Olympic bar, whereas
the HHBD was performed with a dual-height hexagonal
bar (American Barbell, San Diego, CA, USA). The dis-
tance between the center of the low and high handles
was 0.10 m, whereas the distance between the centers
of the 2 high handles was 0.64 m. As stated, the testing
order for the CD and HHBD was randomized; the meth-
ods in this study will describe the process if CD was
completed first.
The CD 1RM was performed as previously described in
the literature (14,25,37). Subjects initially completed a general
warm-up of 5 minutes cycling on a bicycle ergometer at
a self-selected intensity, followed by a dynamic stretching
routine that was self-selected and lasted for approximately
10 minutes. Four specific warm-up sets were then com-
pleted, with 3-minute recovery between each set. These sets
the TM
were composed of 10 repetitions at 50% of estimated 1RM
by the subject, followed by 5 repetitions at 70% of 1RM, 3
repetitions at 85% 1RM, and 1 repetition at 90% 1RM. After
the warm-up sets, the weight was increased by approxi-
mately 5%, and subjects completed a single repetition. This
process continued until the subjects were unable to complete
a repetition, with 3-minute rest provided between attempts.
Subjects were instructed to lift the bar with as much force as
possible (25). A successful repetition was attained when the
subject was standing with their shoulders positioned behind
the vertical orientation of the bar (37), which was deter-
mined by an investigator positioned adjacent to the subject
(25). This position was attained through the subject extend-
ing the knees, retracting the shoulders, and standing erect
(25,40). If the subject did not attain this position, or if the bar
was lowered at any point during the ascent, the lift was
deemed unsuccessful (25,40). Subjects could self-select their
preferred grip but were not permitted to use a sumo stance
(i.e., the hands on the bar had to be positioned outside the
legs). Not more than 5 attempts were required before the
1RM was attained.
After completion of the 1RM testing for the CD, subjects
rested for 10 minutes before attempting the HHBD. The
warm-up for the second lift involved completing 3 sets; 5
repetitions at 70% of the estimated 1RM, 3 repetitions at 85%
1RM, and 1 repetition at 90% 1RM. The initial, higher

3014 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Spearman’s correlations between height, arm length (AL), leg length (LL), and AL:LL ratio with the
mechanics of the conventional deadlift and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift in resistance-trained men (n = 14).*

Conventional deadlight High-handle hexagonal bar deadlift

Height AL LL AL:LL ratio Height AL LL AL:LL ratio

1RM r 0.33 0.46 0.57 20.19 20.16 0.24 0.42 20.15

p 0.25 0.10 0.03† 0.51 0.58 0.41 0.14 0.62
Relative strength r 20.19 20.04 20.01 20.28 20.68 20.31 20.30 20.09
p 0.51 0.85 0.97 0.33 0.01† 0.28 0.30 0.76
Lift distance r 0.53 0.39 0.51 20.20 0.72 0.41 0.57 20.41
p 0.05† 0.17 0.06 0.50 ,0.01† 0.14 0.04† 0.15
Lift time r 0.21 0.15 0.27 20.35 20.08 20.28 0.02 20.78
p 0.47 0.61 0.36 0.22 0.79 0.33 0.94 ,0.01†
Peak power r 0.41 0.54 0.50 20.10 ,0.01 0.24 0.30 20.02
p 0.15 0.05† 0.07 0.74 0.99 0.41 0.30 0.95
Time at peak power r 20.14 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 20.12 0.16 20.67
p 0.62 0.82 0.81 0.90 0.83 0.70 0.58 0.01†
Mean power r 20.13 20.06 0.08 20.35 20.04 0.43 0.54 0.06
p 0.66 0.83 0.78 0.23 0.89 0.12 0.05† 0.85
Peak velocity r 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.36 0.28 0.27 0.25 20.02
p 0.35 0.33 0.59 0.21 0.34 0.35 0.40 0.96
Time at peak velocity r 0.03 0.31 0.20 0.23 0.08 20.16 0.17 20.77
p 0.91 0.28 0.50 0.44 0.79 0.60 0.56 ,0.01†
Mean velocity r 20.09 20.09 20.24 0.40 0.17 0.21 20.01 0.49
p 0.76 0.77 0.42 0.16 0.56 0.46 0.98 0.08
Peak force r 0.33 0.44 0.56 20.21 20.12 0.14 0.36 20.16
p 0.24 0.12 0.04† 0.46 0.67 0.63 0.21 0.58
Mean force r 0.59 0.73 0.59 0.32 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.20
p 0.03† ,0.01† 0.03† 0.27 0.88 0.50 0.58 0.49
Work r 0.44 0.58 0.72 20.31 0.30 0.39 0.68 20.50
p 0.12 0.03† ,0.01† 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.01† 0.07

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

†Significant (p # 0.05) relationship between the 2 variables.

repetition warm-up was foregone in the second exercise
because the subjects were already warm from the first
exercise (13,25), and 3-minute recovery was provided
between sets. The same loading procedures that were used
for the CD 1RM attempts were also used for the HHBD.
The body position that was required for a successful CD was
also required for the HHBD, except that the subject was
standing erect within the frame of the hexagonal bar (25).
Identical to Lockie et al. (25), the deadlift testing order was
randomized; thus, certain subjects performed the HHBD first.
In addition to the absolute load for both lifts, the 1RM was
also calculated relative to body mass according to the formula:
relative 1RM (kg$BM21) = 1RM$body mass21.
Data were recorded during the CD and HHBD by
a GymAware Powertool linear position transducer (Kinetic
Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia). For the CD,
the external end of the cable was attached on the inside
of the barbell (i.e., inside the sleeves and on the outer part of
the grip section of the bar; Figure 1A) (25). The cable was
attached to the front of the hexagonal bar for the HHBD
(Figure 1B) (25). The unit was then placed on the floor
directly underneath the attachment point, with the magnetic
bottom positioned on top of a weight plate to ensure it did
not move during each lift (7,25). The encoder recorded
velocity and the movement of the bar at 50 Hz for every
3 mm of bar movement (7). Data for each 1RM attempt
were collected and stored on an iPad handheld device
(Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) before being uploaded
to an online database. The data were then exported into
Microsoft Excel before statistical analyses.
The variables recorded from the GymAware software
were similar to those from Lockie et al. (25). These included
lift distance (i.e., displacement of the bar from lift initiation to
lockout) and lift time in seconds. Because a maximal deadlift
only features a concentric phase (30), only concentric varia-
bles were considered (25). These included peak and mean
power (W) and velocity (m$s21), and the relative time (%)
when it occurred during the lift; peak and mean force (N);
and work (J). Power, force, and work were derived relative to
the load on the bar, which was entered into the GymAware

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2018 | 3015

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Anthropometry and the Deadlift

TABLE 4. Spearman’s correlations between height, arm length (AL), leg length (LL), and AL:LL ratio with the
mechanics of the conventional deadlift and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift in resistance-trained women (n = 9).*

Conventional deadlight High-handle hexagonal bar deadlift

Height AL LL AL:LL ratio Height AL LL AL:LL ratio

1RM r 20.53 20.59 20.50 0.03 20.63 20.60 20.58 0.13

p 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.93 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.73
Relative strength r 20.77 20.76 20.73 0.23 20.64 20.62 20.59 0.09
p 0.02† 0.02† 0.03† 0.56 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.81
Lift distance r 0.67 0.92 0.79 20.15 0.96 0.69 0.76 20.19
p 0.05† ,0.01† 0.01† 0.67 ,0.01† 0.04† 0.02† 0.62
Lift time r 20.56 20.58 20.58 0.32 20.54 20.83 20.63 0.12
p 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.41 0.14 0.01† 0.07 0.77
Peak power r 20.32 0.09 20.27 0.42 20.29 0.01 ,0.01 20.20
p 0.40 0.81 0.49 0.27 0.46 0.98 1.00 0.61
Time at peak power r 20.27 20.16 20.15 0.10 20.45 20.58 20.33 20.15
p 0.48 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.23 0.10 0.38 0.70
Mean power r 20.27 20.20 20.15 20.27 0.15 0.41 0.37 20.33
p 0.48 0.60 0.70 0.49 0.70 0.28 0.33 0.38
Peak velocity r 0.23 0.46 0.28 20.03 0.37 0.64 0.63 20.40
p 0.55 0.21 0.47 0.93 0.33 0.06 0.07 0.28
Time at peak velocity r 20.20 20.16 20.20 0.17 20.53 20.51 20.35 20.25
p 0.60 0.68 0.61 0.67 0.14 0.16 0.36 0.52
Mean velocity r 0.42 0.53 0.42 20.15 0.69 0.88 0.82 20.35
p 0.26 0.14 0.26 0.70 0.04† ,0.01† 0.01† 0.36
Peak force r 20.56 20.60 20.55 0.12 20.46 20.38 20.30 20.10
p 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.77 0.21 0.32 0.43 0.80
Mean force r 20.40 20.43 20.42 0.18 20.63 20.60 20.58 0.13
p 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.64 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.73
Work r 20.30 20.26 20.23 0.03 20.03 20.26 20.05 20.30
p 0.43 0.49 0.55 0.93 0.95 0.51 0.90 0.43

*1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

†Significant (p # 0.05) relationship between the 2 variables.

software. All the performance variables measured by the
equipment used in this study have been shown to be reliable
and valid (2,6,19,25).
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were computed using the Statistics
Package for Social Sciences (version 24.0; IBM Corporation,
New York, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD;
95% confidence intervals) were calculated for each variable.
The normality of the data was assessed by visual analysis of
Q-Q plots (32). Stem-and-leaf plots were used to ascertain
whether there were any outliers in the data for each variable.
Any outliers were treated through a winsorization method
(21,25), and men and women were analyzed separately.
Because of the sample size of the male (n = 14) and female
(n = 9) groups (23,24), Spearman’s correlations were used to
determine relationships between height, AL, LL, and AL:LL
with the mechanics of the CD and HHBD. Significance was
set as p # 0.05. The strength of the correlation coefficient (r)
was designated as per Hopkins (18). A r value between 0 to
the TM
0.30, or 0 to 20.30, was considered small; 0.31 to 0.49, or
20.31 to 20.49, moderate; 0.50 to 0.69, or 20.50 to 20.69,
large; 0.70 to 0.89, or 20.70 to 20.89, very large; and 0.90 to
1, or 20.90 to 21, near perfect for relationship prediction.
RESULTS
The men had a mean AL of 0.75 6 0.04 m, LL of 0.94 6
0.05 m, and AL:LL of 80.15 6 2.01%. The women in this
study had a mean AL of 0.68 6 0.03 m, LL of 0.85 6 0.04 m,
and AL:LL of 79.63 6 1.48%. The 1RM, relative strength, lift
distance, and lift time descriptive data for the CD and
HHBD for both sexes are shown in Table 1, whereas the
mechanics data are displayed in Table 2. Table 3 shows the
correlation data for men. For the CD in men, there was
a large, positive relationship between height and lift distance.
Arm length positively related to peak power (large), mean
force (very large), and work (large). Leg length positively
correlated with peak and mean force (both large) and work
(very large). Height also correlated with lift distance for the
HHBD, which was a very large relationship. Arm length did

3016 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

not significantly relate to any HHBD variable. Leg length
had a large negative relationship with relative strength and
large positive relationships with lift distance, mean power,
and work. Arm length:leg length ratio exhibited very large
negative relationships with lift time, and the time at which
peak power and velocity occurred.
The correlation data for the women are displayed in Table
4. For the CD, large negative relationships were found
between height, AL, and LL with relative strength, whereas
positive relationships were found for height (large), AL (near
perfect), and LL (very large) with lift distance. About the
HHBD, height had a near perfect relationship with lift dis-
tance, whereas AL and LL both had large relationships with
this variable. Arm length had a significant, negative relation-
ship with lift time, which was very large. Height (large), AL,
and LL (both very large) also had significant positive rela-
tionships with mean velocity.
DISCUSSION
This is the first study to investigate the relationships between
height, AL, LL, and AL:LL ratio with the HHBD and compare
these relationships with the CD. Furthermore, this study also
investigated men and women separately to ascertain whether
there were any sex differences as to the influence of height, AL,
LL, and AL:LL ratio on the CD and HHBD. The results
indicated that there were selected differences between the sexes
for the potential influence of AL and LL on the mechanics of
the CD and HHBD. These primarily related to lift distance and
the force and work generated during the CD and HHBD.
Nevertheless, there were limited relationships between AL and
LL with power and velocity in the CD and HHBD for both
men and women. The results from this study have implications
for strength and conditioning coaches regarding how they may
monitor the load associated with the CD and HHBD when
performed by men and women of different body sizes.
In support of the studies’ hypotheses, height related to lift
distance for the CD in men, although there were no signif-
icant relationships with AL or LL. This contrasts the find-
ings of Fuster et al. (10), who found that height did not relate
to isometric pulling strength in collegiate-aged men. Leg
length also positively correlated with the absolute load for
the 1RM CD. In strength-trained men, larger individuals can
often lift heavier absolute loads in strength tests (20), which
highlight how this relationship may have occurred. Further-
more, mean force correlated with height, AL, and LL and
work correlated with AL and LL. The further a bar travels
during a lift results in more work being performed and the
more force that needs to be applied during the lift (25,29).
This demonstrated why there were relationships between
AL and LL with mean force and work in this study. For
strength and conditioning coaches, they should be aware
that men with longer limbs will likely need to complete
more work during a maximal CD. This could influence
how a coach programs this exercise when they are training
male athletes with a range of body sizes. Given the value of
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
using total work to measure strength training load (29),
coaches should carefully monitor the work performed dur-
ing the CD for taller athletes, especially if they are attempt-
ing to equate load across a team.
There were very few significant correlations between height,
AL, LL, and AL:LL ratio with the lift mechanics for the CD
performed by women. However, greater relative strength related
to shorter body heights, AL, and LL. These results indicated
that the shorter women in this study lifted a heavier 1RM CD
relative to their body mass. This is similar to what has been
recorded for strength-trained men (5,20), and relative strength is
also an important metric for female athletes (31). In addition,
greater height, AL, and LL related to greater lift distances. Fus-
ter et al. (10) illustrated that height significantly related to pulling
strength in collegiate-aged women in their study (r = 0.27),
although the relationship was stronger in this study (r =
0.67). Similar to men, taller women and women with longer
arms and legs will be required to move the bar a further distance
in the CD. However, this did not translate to increased work.
Work is calculated for strength training repetitions by multiply-
ing the load by the distance it travels (29). Potentially, the taller
women and those with longer limbs may not have lifted a heavy
enough load for this to translate to increased work.
About the HHBD performed by men, both height and LL
correlated with lift distance and the correlation between height
and lift distance was very large. However, peak or mean force
did not correlate with height or limb length, and only LL
correlated with work. The influence of AL may be reduced for
men when using the high handles in the HHBD because the
handle position is fixed, which means the arms must be
abducted at the shoulders for the individual to grip the bar (as
opposed to being held at the side of the body in the CD). There
was also a negative relationship between height and relative
strength measured from the HHBD, which suggested shorter
men demonstrated greater relative strength. This is typical of
strength tests in trained male populations, where athletes of
smaller body sizes can demonstrate higher relative strength
(5,20). However, similar to the CD, men with longer legs may
need to complete more work when performing the HHBD. In
addition to this, there were negative relationships between AL:
LL ratio and lift time and the time when peak power and
velocity were achieved. These relationships suggested that
a higher AL:LL ratio (i.e., longer arms relative to the legs)
related to a shorter lift time, with peak power and velocity
reached earlier in the lift. A higher AL:LL ratio has been
related to the ability to complete the CD (27), and the results
from this study provide some credence to this concept. Reach-
ing peak power and velocity sooner may assist in reducing the
time needed to complete the HHBD, which highlights poten-
tial benefits for those men with a higher AL:LL ratio.
For the HHBD performed by the women, there were no
significant correlations between height, AL, or LL with 1RM
and relative strength. This may have been influenced by the
smaller sample size of women (n = 9) in this study. However,
greater height, AL, and LL did relate to a longer lift distance.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2018 | 3017
 Anthropometry and the Deadlift
In addition to this, there was a negative relationship between
AL and lift time, which suggested that a longer AL related to
a shorter lift time. This was different to the men in this study
and may relate to the advantages of performing a deadlift exer-
cise with relatively longer arms because this can reduce the time
and distance over which the bar needs to travel (27). Further-
more, the effect of AL on the HHBD may be exacerbated for
women. Because women tend to have a smaller body size when
compared with men (10,22), and the dimensions for the hexag-
onal bar are fixed, the lifting position for smaller women may be
less than optimal. As a result, women with a smaller AL may
need to abduct their arms further to grip the bar, which could
then mean the lift duration will be increased in a 1RM HHBD.
Given that certain Olympic bars have been specifically designed
for women, manufacturers should also consider designing sex-
specific hexagonal bars. Last, greater height, AL, and LL all
related to a higher mean velocity in the HHBD. Because the
bar needed to travel further in the HHBD for taller women and
those with longer limbs, this could have meant velocity needed
to be maintained through the duration of the lift.
There were few significant correlations for CD and HHBD
peak and mean power and velocity for either the men or women
(apart from the relationships between HHBD mean velocity
with height, AL, and LL for the women). Indeed, the only other
significant relationship was the correlation between AL and CD
peak power for the men. The ability to generate high lower-
body power is necessary for many athletes, and deadlift exercises
can be prescribed to achieve this adaptation (39,42,44). Achiev-
ing high power and velocity in strength exercises require a great
rate of force development, which is dependent on the neuro-
muscular characteristics of the individual (38). As a result, even if
the bar in the CD or HHBD needs to travel further because of
the height, AL, or LL of the individual, high power and velocity
can still be generated if the individual has the requisite neuro-
muscular coordination and rate of force development.
There are several limitations for this study that should be
noted. The sample size for both men (n = 14) and women (n =
9) in this study was relatively small. Future investigations into the
relationships AL and LL may have on strength exercises such as
the CD and HHBD should attempt to use a greater sample size.
The low-handle hexagonal bar deadlift was not investigated in
this study. Given that previous research has also shown differ-
ences in the technique of this exercise compared with the CD
(4,26,40), future research could investigate the relationships that
height, AL, and LL may have on the mechanics of the low-
handle hexagonal bar deadlift. The biomechanics of the HHBD,
and how height, AL, and LL may influence this, were also not
investigated in this research. Although that was not the focus of
this study, it would be interesting to measure how an individual
adapts their lifting technique in an exercise like the HHBD
relative to their AL and LL. Nonetheless, this is the first study
to investigate the effects of height, AL, and LL on the mechanics
of the CD and HHBD, and whether there were differences
between the sexes. Height and LL influence lifting distance for
men and women in both the CD and HHBD. Arm length also
the TM
3018 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
related to lift distance in the CD for women. Men with longer
limbs will likely complete more work in the CD, and those with
longer legs will complete more work in the HHBD. For women,
longer legs did not relate to work in the CD, but longer legs
could result in more work performed in the HHBD.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Strength and conditioning coaches should be cognizant of the
impact that height, AL, and LL can have on the performance
of the CD and HHBD. Men with longer limbs will need to
generate more force and do more work to complete a 1RM
CD. In the HHBD, it seems that the influence of AL on men is
reduced when using the high handles. Nonetheless, men with
longer arms and shorter legs will reach peak power and
velocity sooner in the HHBD. Men with longer legs, however,
may need to complete more work during the HHBD. Strength
and conditioning coaches should consider the discrepancies in
the work needed to complete a deadlift when programming
among a sample of men of different sizes. For women in the
CD, those with longer arms and legs will lift the bar a greater
distance, but limb lengths do not seem to greatly relate to the
mechanics of the 1RM. For the HHBD, greater AL and LL
related to greater lift distance, longer lift duration, and higher
mean velocity throughout the 1RM lift. Unlike for the men, AL
in women did seem to influence the lift distance and duration
of the HHBD, which could be due to the design of the bar
frame because it may not be optimal for smaller women.
Coaches should consider this when programming the HHBD
for women with different body sizes. Furthermore, because of
the discrepancies in size between men and women (10,22),
manufacturers should consider designing a female-specific hex-
agonal bar for use in strength training.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge their subjects for their contribu-
tion to this study. The authors also thank Ibett Torne, Megan
Beiley, and Jillian Hurley for assisting with data collection.
This research project received no external financial assis-
tance. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Beattie, P, Isaacson, K, Riddle, DL, and Rothstein, JM. Validity of
derived measurements of leg-length differences obtained by use of
a tape measure. Phys Ther 70: 150–157, 1990.
2. Black, M. Reliability and validity of the GymAware optical encoder
to measure displacement data. 2010. Available at: https://kinetic.
com.au/pdf/GA-Report2.pdf. Accessed: August 3, 2016.
3. Callaghan, SJ, Lockie, RG, Jeffriess, MD, and Nimphius, S. The
kinematics of faster acceleration performance of the quick single in
experienced cricketers. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2623–2634, 2015.
4. Camara, KD, Coburn, JW, Dunnick, DD, Brown, LE, Galpin, AJ,
and Costa, PB. An examination of muscle activation and power
characteristics while performing the deadlift exercise with straight
and hexagonal barbells. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1183–1188, 2016.
5. Crewther, BT, Gill, N, Weatherby, RP, and Lowe, T. A comparison of
ratio and allometric scaling methods for normalizing power and
strength in elite rugby union players. J Sports Sci 27: 1575–1580, 2009.

6. Drinkwater, EJ, Galna, B, McKenna, MJ, Hunt, PH, and Pyne, DB.
Validation of an optical encoder during free weight resistance
movements and analysis of bench press sticking point power during
fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 21: 510–517, 2007.
7. Drinkwater, EJ, Moore, NR, and Bird, SP. Effects of changing from
full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics. J
Strength Cond Res 26: 890–896, 2012.
8. Farley, K. Analysis of the conventional deadlift. Strength Cond J 17:
55–57, 1995.
9. Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, and Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39: 175–191, 2007.
10. Fuster, V, Jerez, A, and Ortega, A. Anthropometry and strength
relationship: Male-female differences. Anthropol Anz 56: 49–56, 1998.
11. Gentry, M, Pratt, D, and Caterisano, T. Introducing the trap bar.
Strength Cond J 9: 54–56, 1987.
12. Glielmi, N. Smarter exercise selection for athletes made simple.
2014. Available at: http://www.stack.com/a/exercise-selection.
Accessed: July 12, 2016.
13. Gomo, O and Van Den Tillaar, R. The effects of grip width on
sticking region in bench press. J Sports Sci 34: 232–238, 2016.
14. Graham, JF. Exercise: Deadlift. Strength Cond J 22: 18–20, 2000.
15. Hales, M. Improving the deadlift: Understanding biomechanical
constraints and physiological adaptations to resistance exercise.
Strength Cond J 32: 44–51, 2010.
16. Harris, NK, Cronin, J, Taylor, KL, Boris, J, and Sheppard, J.
Understanding position transducer technology for strength and
conditioning practitioners. Strength Cond J 32: 66–79, 2010.
17. Hopkins, WG. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance
test. Sportscience 8: 1–7, 2004.
18. Hopkins, WG. A scale of magnitude for effect statistics. 2013.
Available at: www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
Accessed: January 9, 2016.
19. Hori, N and Andrews, WA. Reliability of velocity, force and power
obtained from the GymAware optical encoder during
countermovement jump with and without external loads. J Aust
Strength Cond 17: 12–17, 2009.
20. Jacobson, BH, Thompson, BJ, Conchola, EC, and Glass, R A
comparison of absolute, ratio and allometric scaling methods for
normalizing strength in elite American football players. J Athl
Enhancement 2: 1–5, 2013.
21. Lien, D and Balakrishnan, N. On regression analysis with data
cleaning via trimming, winsorization, and dichotomization. Commun
Stat Simul Comput 34: 839–849, 2005.
22. Lindle, RS, Metter, EJ, Lynch, NA, Fleg, JL, Fozard, JL, Tobin, J,
Roy, TA, and Hurley, BF. Age and gender comparisons of muscle
strength in 654 women and men aged 20–93 yr. J Appl Physiol 83:
1581–1587, 1997.
23. Lockie, RG, Schultz, AB, Callaghan, SJ, Jordan, CA, Luczo, TM, and
Jeffriess, MD. A preliminary investigation into the relationship between
functional movement screen scores and athletic physical performance
in female team sport athletes. Biol Sport 32: 41–51, 2015.
24. Lockie, RG, Schultz, AB, Callaghan, SJ, and Jeffriess, MD. The
relationship between dynamic stability and multidirectional speed. J
Strength Cond Res 30: 3033–3043, 2016.
25. Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Lazar, A, Risso, FG, Tomita, TM, Stage, AA,
Birmingham-Babauta, SA, Torne, IA, Stokes, JJ, Giuliano, DV, Davis,
DL, Orjalo, AJ, and Callaghan, SJ. The one-repetition maximum
mechanics of a high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift compared to
a conventional deadlift as measured by a linear position transducer. J
Strength Cond Res 32: 150–161, 2017.
26. Malyszek, KK, Harmon, RA, Dunnick, DD, Costa, PB, Coburn, JW,
and Brown, LE. Comparison of Olympic and hexagonal barbells
with mid-thigh pull, deadlift, and countermovement jump. J Strength
Cond Res 31: 140–145, 2017.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
27. Mayhew, JL, McCormick, TP, Piper, FC, Kurth, AL, and Arnold,
MD. Relationships of body dimensions to strength performance in
novice adolescent male powerlifters. Pediatr Exerc Sci 5: 347–
356, 1993.
28. Mayhew, JL, Piper, FC, and Ware, JS. Anthropometric correlates
with strength performance among resistance trained athletes. J
Sports Med Phys Fitness 33: 159–165, 1993.
29. McBride, JM, McCaulley, GO, Cormie, P, Nuzzo, JL, Cavill, MJ, and
Triplett, NT. Comparison of methods to quantify volume during
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 23: 106–110, 2009.
30. McGuigan, MRM and Wilson, BD. Biomechanical analysis of the
deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 10: 250–255, 1996.
31. Nimphius, S, McGuigan, MR, and Newton, RU. Relationship
between strength, power, speed, and change of direction
performance of female softball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 885–
895, 2010.
32. Nimphius, S, McGuigan, MR, Suchomel, TJ, and Newton, RU.
Variability of a “force signature” during windmill softball pitching
and relationship between discrete force variables and pitch velocity.
Hum Mov Sci 47: 151–158, 2016.
33. Norton, K and Olds, T. Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body
Measurement for Sports and Health Courses. Sydney, Australia: UNSW
Press, 1996.
34. Pereira, MIR and Gomes, PSC. Muscular strength and endurance
tests: Reliability and prediction of one repetition maximum—Review
and new evidences. Rev Bras Med Esporte 9: 325–335, 2003.
35. Piper, TJ and Waller, MA. Variations of the deadlift. Strength Cond J
23: 66–73, 2001.
36. Poloquin Group Editorial Staff. The best deadlift you’re not doing.
2015. Available at: http://main.poliquingroup.com/
ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/1352/The_Best_Deadlift_
Youre_Not_Doing.aspx. Accessed: July 14, 2016.
37. Scott, BR, Slattery, KM, Sculley, DV, Hodson, JA, and Dascombe,
BJ. Physical performance during high-intensity resistance exercise
in normoxic and hypoxic conditions. J Strength Cond Res 29: 807–
815, 2015.
38. Smilios, I, Sotiropoulos, K, Christou, M, Douda, H, Spaias, A,
and Tokmakidis, SP. Maximum power training load determination
and its effects on load-power relationship, maximum strength, and
vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1223–1233, 2013.
39. Stock, MS and Thompson, BJ. Sex comparisons of strength and
coactivation following ten weeks of deadlift training. J Musculoskelet
Neuronal Interact 14: 387–397, 2014.
40. Swinton, PA, Stewart, A, Agouris, I, Keogh, JW, and Lloyd, R. A
biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts
using submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2000–2009, 2011.
41. Swinton, PA, Stewart, AD, Lloyd, R, Agouris, I, and Keogh, JW.
Effect of load positioning on the kinematics and kinetics of weighted
vertical jumps. J Strength Cond Res 26: 906–913, 2012.
42. Thompson, BJ, Stock, MS, Shields, JE, Luera, MJ, Munayer, IK,
Mota, JA, Carrillo, EC, and Olinghouse, KD. Barbell deadlift training
increases the rate of torque development and vertical jump
performance in novices. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1–10, 2015.
43. Winwood, PW, Cronin, JB, Brown, SR, and Keogh, JWL. A
biomechanical analysis of the farmers walk, and comparison with
the deadlift and unloaded walk. Int J Sports Sci Coach 9: 1127–
1143, 2014.
44. Winwood, PW, Cronin, JB, Posthumus, LR, Finlayson, SJ, Gill, ND,
and Keogh, JW. Strongman vs. traditional resistance training effects
on muscular function and performance. J Strength Cond Res 29: 429–
439, 2015.
45. Young, WB and Pryor, L. Relationship between pre-season
anthropometric and fitness measures and indicators of playing
performance in elite junior Australian rules football. J Sci Med Sport
10: 110–118, 2007.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2018 | 3019