THE 1 REPETITION MAXIMUM MECHANICS OF

A HIGH-HANDLE HEXAGONAL BAR DEADLIFT

COMPARED WITH A CONVENTIONAL DEADLIFT AS
MEASURED BY A LINEAR POSITION TRANSDUCER
ROBERT G. LOCKIE,1,2 MATTHEW R. MORENO,2 ADRINA LAZAR,2 FABRICE G. RISSO,2
TRICIA M. LIU,2 ALYSSA A. STAGE,2 SAMANTHA A. BIRMINGHAM-BABAUTA,2 IBETT A. TORNE,2
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 03/16/2021

JOHN J. STOKES,2 DOMINIC V. GIULIANO,2 DESHAUN L. DAVIS,2 ASHLEY J. ORJALO,1,2 AND

SAMUEL J. CALLAGHAN3
1
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California; 2Department of Kinesiology, California State
University, Northridge, California; and 3Centre for Exercise and Sport Science, School of Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith
Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

ABSTRACT (68%) or HHBD (77%) SR. There were no differences in CD

Lockie, RG, Moreno, MR, Lazar, A, Risso, FG, Liu, TM,
Stage, AA, Birmingham-Babauta, SA, Torne, IA, Stokes, JJ,
Giuliano, DV, Davis, DL, Orjalo, AJ, and Callaghan, SJ. The 1
repetition maximum mechanics of a high-handle hexagonal bar
deadlift compared with a conventional deadlift as measured by
a linear position transducer. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 150–
161, 2018—The high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD),
a variation of the conventional deadlift (CD), is said to reduce
the lift range of motion, which may change the mechanics of
or HHBD mechanics between subjects with or without an SR,
and no differences in SR region distance or duration between
the CD and HHBD. Greater force can be generated in the
HHBD, which could have implications for strength-training
adaptations over time.
KEY WORDS peak and mean force, peak power, peak velocity,
sticking region, strength testing, 1RM
INTRODUCTION

the lift. However, no research has investigated this. This study
compared the mechanics between a 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) CD and HHBD. Thirty-one strength-trained subjects
(21 men, 10 women) completed a 1RM CD and HHBD. A
linear position transducer measured lift distance, duration,
and work; and peak and mean power, velocity, and force.
The presence of a sticking region (SR) was determined for
each lift. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
calculated differences between 1RM CD and HHBD mechan-
ics. A one-way ANOVA compared the mechanics of each lift
between subjects who exhibited an SR or not, and the SR
between the CD and HHBD. Significance was set at p ,
0.01. Subjects lifted a greater load in the HHBD (154.50 6
45.29 kg) compared with the CD (134.72 6 40.63 kg). Lift
distance and duration were 22 and 25% shorter during the
1RM HHBD, respectively. The HHBD featured greater peak
power and velocity, and peak and mean force; more work
was done in the CD. Most subjects did not exhibit a CD
Address correspondence to Robert G. Lockie, rlockie@fullerton.edu.
32(1)/150–161
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
T
he deadlift, or the conventional deadlift (CD) as it
will be referred to in this study, is a popular lower-
body focused strength exercise that predominantly
targets the leg, hip, back, and torso muscles
(14,21,34). This exercise involves the lifter gripping the bar
with the hands placed slightly wider than shoulder-width
apart in any position (double overhand or mixed grip), and
while keeping the arms extended, also extending from the
knees and hips (keeping the back straight) to lift the bar from
the ground until the legs are straight (20). The effectiveness
of the CD within training programs for improving strength
has been noted (9,37). However, this exercise can be difficult
for some individuals to perform because of physical limita-
tions (21). Body height, relative torso, leg, and arm length,
and hip impingements affecting range of motion, can all
influence an individual’s ability to safely perform the CD
(21,22,36). In addition to this, after a review of epidemiology
literature, Keogh and Winwood (27) noted that the CD was
among the most injury-causing exercises used by power-
lifters and strongman athletes. Information such as this sup-
ports the need to explore and improve the understanding for
alternative forms of the CD, and several variations have been
designed that can change the inherent technique of the lift.

150 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 1. GymAware placement for the conventional deadlift.
One example is the hexagonal bar deadlift (HBD), which
is now commonly used in strength training programs (30),
and as a resisted jump training tool (40). The hexagonal bar
was designed to increase the safety of the exercise irrespec-
tive of stature, by allowing the load to be kept closer to the
body by creating a barbell frame that the athlete could lift
within (6,17,39,40). These bars also come with low or high
handles, with the low handles being level with the bar; most
research that has investigated the HBD used this bar
(6,30,39,40). Swinton et al. (39) detailed that the low-
handle HBD (LHBD) reduced vertical bar displacement
by approximately 22% when compared with the CD in elite
male powerlifters, and the lifters achieved greater knee flex-
ion during the LHBD (39). The moment arm at the lumbar
spine was also reduced during the LHBD (39), which could
have important implications for the reduction of injury risk
when lifting heavy loads in a deadlift-style exercise (27).
Malyszek et al. (30) found that the LHBD significantly
reduced ankle plantar flexion when compared with the
CD, as the lifter needed to extend the lower-limb joints more
Figure 2. GymAware placement for the high-handle hexagonal bar
deadlift.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
during the CD as they were positioned behind the bar. Fur-
ther to these kinematic changes, Camara et al. (6) illustrated
that when compared with the CD being lifted with loads of
65 and 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), the LHBD
resulted in greater activity of the vastus lateralis in both
the concentric and eccentric phases of the lift in strength-
trained men. This was related to an increased moment at the
knee and reductions in moments at the hip and spine (6,39).
There is much anecdotal information available about
using the high-handle HBD (HHBD) (18,22,36), but cur-
rently no research investigating their use. Similar to the
LHBD, it could be expected that different muscles (e.g.,
the quadriceps) will be recruited and emphasized within
the HHBD (6). It has also been intimated that using the high
handles can reduce the range of motion required in the
lower-body and the bar displacement (36). If this is the case,
the influence on variables such as lift distance and time, as
well as peak and mean power, velocity, force, and work
during a maximal HHBD lift has yet to be documented.
Some context for this is provided by the study conducted
by Winwood et al. (45) on the farmers walk exercise. The
farmers walk initially involves an individual picking up
a heavy load in a manner comparable to the CD, except
high handles are used such as those in the HHBD. Using
a load equivalent to 70% of 1RM for the CD, Winwood et al.
(45) found that when compared with the CD, the farmers
walk resulted in greater vertical force and a more vertical
trunk during the lift, although the range of motion at the
ankle, knees, and hips did not differ between the 2 lifts. The
HHBD could also demonstrate differences in a mechanical
variable such as force when compared with the CD,
although this is yet to be measured in the scientific literature.
Furthermore, as peak power and rate of force development
were greater in a jump squat performed with a low-handle
hexagonal bar because of more favorable load positioning
(40), it is possible that power and velocity could be different
during the HHBD when compared with the CD. Informa-
tion about the mechanics of the HHBD would prove most
valuable for the strength and conditioning coach, as it could
influence how they would program this exercise for their
athletes.
The suggested variation in mechanics of the HHBD could
also lead to changes in other key variables; for example, the
sticking region (SR) within the lift. This term is used to
describe the section of a lift where there is a disproportion-
ately large increase in the difficulty to complete the exercise
(28), and has been defined as the period from peak barbell
velocity until the first local minimum velocity (32,42). How-
ever, contrasting views as to how the SR should be defined
have been presented in the literature (28). Though it has
been suggested that an SR will only occur with lifts above
85% of 1RM (33), Kompf and Arandjelovic (28) asserted that
certain individuals could exhibit no load-velocity minimum
in certain lifts, and thus no SR. This may occur for the
HHBD when compared with the CD. Nonetheless, there
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 151
 High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Mechanics

TABLE 1. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% CI) for absolute and relative strength, lift distance, and lift time for
the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) conventional deadlift (CD) and high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD)
performed with the high handles in strength-trained individuals (n = 31).*

CD HHBD

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

1RM load (kg) 134.7 6 40.6 199.8–149.6 154.5 6 45.3† 137.9–171.1

Relative (kg$BM21) 1.75 6 0.35 1.62–1.88 2.01 6 0.39† 1.87–2.16
Lift distance (m) 0.51 6 0.06 0.48–0.53 0.40 6 0.05† 0.38–0.42
Lift time (s) 2.10 6 0.53 1.91–2.30 1.57 6 0.39† 1.43–1.71

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

†Significantly (p , 0.001) different from the CD.

has been no analysis of the pattern of a maximal HHBD,
let alone whether there is a typical occurrence of an SR in
this exercise.
This study, therefore, investigated the mechanics of the
HHBD versus that of the CD, during a 1RM lift. Thirty-one
strength-trained individuals (21 men, 10 women) were
recruited, and performed 1RM lifts for both the CD and
HHBD. Each lift was measured via a linear position trans-
ducer, which recorded variables such as lift distance (i.e., bar
displacement) and duration, power, velocity, force, and
work. The use of a linear position transducer to measure
each lift was conducted to ensure the data would have
a practical value to the strength and conditioning coach,
because of the use of this type of equipment within the field
(2,5,11,23), and its validity and reliability (4,11,25). The pres-
ence of an SR in each lift was also investigated, and whether
there were differences between subjects who exhibited an
SR and those that did not. It was hypothesized that the
duration of the HHBD would be shorter as the bar displace-
ment would be less. However, subjects would lift a higher
load in the HHBD because of this change in bar range of
movement and the movement pattern itself, which would
lead to increases in peak and mean power, velocity, and force
when compared with the CD. This would relate to the lit-
erature that has acknowledged the biomechanically superior
lifting position that can be attained using a hexagonal bar
when performing a deadlift-style movement (6,17,30,39,40).
It was further hypothesized that the location of any SR for
the HHBD and the CD would differ, because of a difference
in bar displacement between the lifts. However, whether an

TABLE 2. Peak (PP) and mean (MP) power, time at when peak power occurred in the lift, peak (PV) and mean (MV)
velocity, time at when peak velocity occurred in the lift, peak and mean force, and work characteristics (mean 6 SD;
95% CI) for the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) conventional deadlift (CD) and hexagonal bar deadlift (HBD) performed
with the high handles in strength-trained individuals (n = 31).*

CD HBD

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

PP (w) 661.3 6 210.3 584.1–738.4 970.2 6 364.7† 836.5–1,104.0

Time at PP (%) 69.7 6 11.2 65.6–73.8 73.4 6 10.4 69.6–77.2
MP (w) 433.8 6 141.1 382.0–485.5 483.1 6 148.6 428.6–537.6
PV (m$s21) 0.50 6 0.13 0.45–0.55 0.61 6 0.14† 0.55–0.66
Time at PV (%) 71.4 6 11.2 67.3–75.5 75.7 6 10.5 71.8–79.5
MV (m$s21) 0.30 6 0.07 0.27–0.32 0.32 6 0.07 0.29–0.34
Peak force (N) 1,481.4 6 448.6 1,316.8–1,645.9 1781.3 6 509.5† 1,594.4–1968.2
Mean force (N) 1,159.3 6 510.1 972.2–1,346.4 1,419.3 6 489.7z 1,239.7–1,599.0
Work (J) 666.5 6 224.7 584.1–748.9 613.1 6 205.9z 538.1–689.2

*w = watts; % = percent; m$s21 = meters per second; N = Newtons; J = joules.

†Significantly (p , 0.001) different from the CD.
zSignificantly (p , 0.01) different from the CD.

the TM

152 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

kg), including 21 men (age = 23.5 6 3.3 years; height = 1.78 6

Figure 3. Velocity profile of an example subject who exhibited a sticking
region (SR) in the conventional deadlift (CD) and of a subject who did
not.
SR is present would generally not affect the mechanics of the
1RM CD or HHBD.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To compare the differences in the mechanics of the HHBD
and CD, a within-subjects crossover design was used for this
study. Strength-trained men and women were recruited and
performed the 1RM CD and HHBD within 1 testing session,
the order of which was randomized. All data were recorded
by a linear position transducer for both the CD and HHBD,
and the dependent variables included the following: absolute
and relative 1RM loads; 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; work; and the presence of an SR, and if so, the
duration of the presticking region (PrSR), SR, and poststick-
ing region (PoSR) relative to lift time.
Subjects
Thirty-one strength-trained individuals (Mean +/2 SD age =
21–27 years; height = 1.73 6 0.10 m; body mass = 76.6 6 16.7
0.08 m; body mass = 84.8 6 13.8 kg) and 10 women (age =
22.6 6 1.2 years; height = 1.62 6 0.07 m; body mass = 59.3 6
7.1 kg), volunteered to participate in this study. Subjects were
recruited from the student population at the university.
Data were combined for men and women, which has been
done in previous maximal strength research studies (3,7,41).
Preliminary analysis of the CD and HHBD also indicated sim-
ilar patterns of lift mechanics within each exercise between the
sexes. All subjects were required to be currently in resistance
training ($3 hours per week) with a focus on either hypertro-
phy or maximal strength development; have a strength-training
history ($2 times per week) of at least 2 years, and be experi-
enced with completing maximal lifts; be experienced with the
CD and HHBD; and free from any musculoskeletal disorders
that would influence their ability to complete the study.
G*Power software (v3.1.9.2; Universität Kiel, Germany) was
used to confirm that the sample size of 31 was sufficient for
a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), within fac-
tors analysis, and ensured that the data could be interpreted
with a small effect level of 0.15 (24), and a power level of 0.85
when significance was set at 0.05 (15). The California State
University, Northridge’s ethics committee approved the proce-
dures used in this study. All subjects received a clear explana-
tion of the study, including the risks and benefits of
participation, and written informed consent was obtained
before testing.
Procedures
Subjects completed 1 testing session, and all assessments
were conducted in the teaching gym at the university. Before
data collection in the first testing session, the subject’s age,
height, and body mass were recorded. Height was measured
barefoot using a portable stadiometer (seca, Hamburg,
Germany). Body mass was recorded by electronic digital
scales (Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The 1RM for
the CD and HBD were both assessed within the 1 session,
the procedures of which will be detailed. The exercise that
was completed first was randomized among the sample.

TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% CI) for absolute and relative strength, lift distance, and lift time for
the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) conventional deadlift performed by strength-trained individuals with or without
a sticking region.*

No sticking region (n = 21) Sticking region (n = 10)

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

1RM load (kg) 130.1 6 40.9 111.4–148.7 144.5 6 40.3 115.7–173.3

Ratio (kg$BM21) 1.79 6 0.35 1.63–1.96 1.66 6 0.34 1.42–1.90
Lift distance (m) 0.49 6 0.06 0.47–0.52 0.54 6 0.06 0.50–0.58
Lift time (s) 2.15 6 0.61 1.87–2.43 2.00 6 0.31 1.78–2.22

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

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 153

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Mechanics

TABLE 4. Peak (PP) and mean (MP) power, time at when peak power occurred in the lift, peak (PV) and mean (MV)
velocity, time at when peak velocity occurred in the lift, peak and mean force, and work characteristics (mean 6 SD;
95% CI) for the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) conventional deadlift performed by strength-trained individuals with or
without a sticking region.*

No sticking region (n = 21) Sticking region (n = 10)

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

PP (w) 621.4 6 188.8 535.4–707.3 745.0 6 238.0 574.8–915.2

Time at PP (%) 70.9 6 11.6 65.6–76.2 67.2 6 10.3 59.8–74.5
MP (w) 434.9 6 152.4 365.5–504.2 431.6 6 121.5 344.7–518.4
PV (m$s21) 0.49 6 0.14 0.42–0.55 0.52 6 0.12 0.43–0.60
Time at PV (%) 72.3 6 11.8 67.0–77.7 69.4 6 10.0 62.2–76.5
MV (m$s21) 0.29 6 0.08 0.26–0.32 0.31 6 0.05 0.27–0.34
Peak force (N) 1,420.0 6 445.8 1,217.1–1,623.0 1,610.2 6 449.5 1,288.6–1931.7
Mean force (N) 1,035.0 6 519.0 798.7–1,271.2 1,420.3 6 395.9 1,137.1–1703.5
Work (J) 628.4 6 235.2 521.4–735.5 746.6 6 186.6 613.1–880.0

*w = watts; % = percent; m$s21 = meters per second; N = Newtons; J = joules.

Subjects refrained from intensive lower-body exercise and
maintained a standardized dietary intake in the 24-hour
period before testing, and were permitted to consume water
as required throughout the testing session. The subjects were
free to wear the footwear they were most comfortable in to
complete the lifts (i.e., weightlifting shoes or athletic trainers),
and the same footwear was worn for both lifts. No knee
wraps, weightlifting belts, or other supportive garments were
permitted.
Conventional Deadlift and High-Handle Hexagonal Bar
Deadlift Maximal Strength Testing
The 1RM was measured for both the CD and HHBD,
and the procedures were adapted from Scott et al. (35) and
Swinton et al. (39). All lifts were performed on an Olympic
lifting platform. The CD was performed with a traditional
Olympic bar, whereas the HHBD was performed with a dual
Figure 4. Velocity profile of an example subject who exhibited a sticking
region (SR) in the high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD) and of
a subject who did not.
the TM
height hexagonal bar (American Barbell, San Diego, CA).
The distance 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. The testing order for the CD and
HHBD was randomized among the sample by the random-
ization function in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond, WA). The methods here will
describe the process if the 1RM for the CD was completed
first.
The CD 1RM was performed as described by Graham
(20), and subjects were required to maintain a neutral spine
throughout the lift (35). 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. Next, 4 specific warm-up sets were completed,
with 3 minutes recovery between each set. These sets were
composed of 10 repetitions at 50% of 1RM, as estimated 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 increased by approximately 5%
and subjects completed a single repetition. This process con-
tinued until the subjects were unable to complete a single
repetition, with 3 minutes rest provided between attempts.
Subjects were instructed to lift the bar with as much force as
possible. As defined by Scott et al. (35), a successful repeti-
tion was attained when the subject was standing with their
shoulders positioned behind the vertical orientation of the
bar, which was determined by an investigator positioned
adjacent to the subject. This position was attained by the
subject extending the knees, retracting the shoulders, and
standing erect (39). If the subject did not attain this position,
or if the bar was lowered at any point during the ascent (39),
the lift was deemed unsuccessful. Subjects could self-select

154 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 5. Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% CI) for absolute and relative strength, lift distance, and lift time for
the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift performed by strength-trained individuals with or
without a sticking region.*

No sticking region (n = 24) Sticking region (n = 7)

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

1RM load (kg) 159.2 6 46.4 139.6–178.8 138.4 6 40.2 101.3–175.6

Ratio (kg$BM21) 2.03 6 0.41 1.85–2.20 1.96 6 0.35 1.64–2.28
Lift distance (m) 0.41 6 0.06 0.38–0.43 0.40 6 0.06 0.35–0.45
Lift time (s) 1.53 6 0.38 1.37–1.69 1.70 6 0.41 1.32–2.08

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

their preferred grip, but were not allowed to use a sumo
stance (i.e., the hands had to be positioned outside the legs).
No 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
repetition warm-up was foregone in the second exercise as
the subjects were already warm from the first exercise (19),
and 3 minutes recovery was provided between sets. The
same loading procedures that were used for the CD 1RM
attempts were also used for the HBD, along with 3 minutes
recovery between 1RM attempts. 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 while holding the high handles.
As stated, the deadlift testing order was randomized among
the sample. Thus, certain subjects performed the HHBD
first, followed by the 10-minute break, and then the CD. In
addition to the absolute value for both lifts, the 1RM was
also scaled relative to body mass according to the formula:
relative 1RM  ðkg$BM21 Þ ¼ 1RM$body  mass21 .
Data were recorded during each CD and HHBD 1RM
attempt by a GymAware Powertool linear position trans-
ducer (Kinetic Performance Technology, Canberra, Australia).
As described by Drinkwater et al. (12), the GymAware
Powertool features a spring-loaded retractable cable that
passes around a spool integrated with an optical encoder.
The external end of the cable was attached on the inside
of the barbell (i.e., inside the plates, and on the outer part of
the grip section of the bar) for the CD (Figure 1). For the
HHBD, the cable was attached directly underneath the front

TABLE 6. Peak (PP) and mean (MP) power, time at when peak power occurred in the lift, peak (PV) and mean (MV)
velocity, time at when peak velocity occurred in the lift, peak and mean force, and work characteristics (mean 6 SD;
95% CI) for the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift performed by strength-trained
individuals with or without a sticking region.*

No sticking region (n = 24) Sticking region (n = 7)

Variable Mean 6 SD 95% CI Mean 6 SD 95% CI

PP (w) 1,022.8 6 367.8 867.5–1,178.1 790.0 6 312.1 501.4–1,078.7

Time at PP (%) 73.8 6 10.0 69.6–78.0 72.1 6 12.6 60.4–83.7
MP (w) 504.6 6 128.6 450.3–558.9 409.4 6 197.0 227.2–591.6
PV (m$s21) 0.62 6 0.13 0.56–0.68 0.55 6 0.17 0.39–0.71
Time at PV (%) 75.9 6 9.9 71.8–80.1 74.7 6 13.2 62.5–86.9
MV (m$s21) 0.33 6 0.07 0.30–0.36 0.28 6 0.07 0.22–0.35
Peak force (N) 1833.0 6 521.3 1,612.8–2053.1 1,604.3 6 457.0 1,181.7–2026.9
Mean force (N) 1,496.9 6 499.5 1,285.9–1707.8 1,153.6 6 368.8 812.6–1,494.7
Work (J) 632.9 6 212.0 543.4–722.5 547.4 6 182.1 379.0–715.9

*w = watts; % = percent; m$s21 = meters per second; N = Newtons; J = joules.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 155

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Mechanics
Figure 5. Distance covered within each region for those subjects who
exhibited a sticking region in the 1 repetition maximum conventional
deadlift (CD) or high-handle hexagonal bar deadlift (HHBD). m = meters.
of the bar (Figure 2). After the manufacturer recommenda-
tions, the unit was then placed on the floor directly under-
neath the bar (12), with the magnetic bottom positioned on
top of a weight plate to ensure that it did not move during
each lift. The encoder recorded velocity and the movement
of the bar at 50 Hz; barbell load was entered into the soft-
ware to calculate force and power output, for every 3 mm of
bar movement (12). The cable provided no additional resis-
tance to the bar. Data for each 1RM attempt were collected
and stored on an iPad handheld device (Apple, Inc., Cupertino,
CA), before being uploaded to an online database. The data
were then exported from this database and entered into
Microsoft Excel before statistical analyses.
A range of variables were measured for the CD and
HHBD 1RM that were taken from the GymAware software.
These variables included vertical lift distance (i.e., displace-
ment of the bar from lift initiation to lockout) and lift time in
seconds. As a maximal deadlift exercise only features
a concentric phase (32), only concentric variables were con-
sidered. These variables included peak and mean power
(watts) and velocity (meters per second), and the relative
Figure 6. Relative duration as a percentage (%) of the lift time in each
region for those subjects that exhibited a sticking region in the 1
repetition maximum conventional deadlift (CD) or high-handle hexagonal
bar deadlift (HHBD).
the TM
156 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
time (measured as a percentage) when it occurred during
the lift; peak and mean force (Newtons); and work (joules).
Power, force, and work variables were derived relative to the
load on the bar, which was entered into the GymAware
software. The GymAware Powertool has been shown to
produce reliable and valid data (4,11,25). Black (4) stated
that differentiation of displacement data is a valid means of
calculating power and force if the initial parameters are accu-
rately measured. To this end, within a validity and reliability
analysis of the GymAware Powertool, Black (4) reported
typical errors of measurements for a distance of 0.00 m,
duration of 0.01–0.02 seconds, and velocity of 0.01 m$s21.
Hori and Andrews (25) reported high and acceptable reli-
ability for peak velocity (coefficient of variation [CV] = 1.1–
4.6%) as measured by a countermovement jump, although
peak force was less reliable (CV = 4.1–7.9%). Concentric
power has been found to have coefficients of variation of
1.0–3.02% across different strength exercises, indicating high
reliability (11). Collectively, all variables were considered
acceptable for this study.
The power-displacement and velocity-displacement
curves of each 1RM lift were analyzed within the software
to determine when peak power and velocity occurred
within each lift. The velocity-displacement curve was also
used to ascertain whether an SR occurred within the 1RM
CD or HHBD for each subject. The SR was defined as the
period from the first peak barbell velocity until the first
local minimum velocity (32,42). Subjects were defined as
having an SR if there were 2 clear velocity peaks about
a clear decrease in velocity (i.e., the local minimum veloc-
ity). The distance covered within 3 separate regions (PrSR,
SR, and PoSR) were calculated, as well as the relative
duration of each region. Subjects who did not exhibit 2
clear velocity peaks about a dip in velocity (i.e., the bar
velocity for these subjects steadily increased until reaching
one peak) were defined as not having an SR within the
respective 1RM lift (28).
Statistical Analyses
All statistics were computed using the Statistics Package for
Social Sciences Version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Descrip-
tive statistics (mean 6 SD; 95% confidence intervals [CI])
were used to provide the profile for each measured param-
eter. Several statistical approaches were used in this study.
Stem-and-leaf plots were used to ascertain whether there
were any outliers in the data for each variable (26,44). Any
outliers were treated by a winsorization method (26,29). A
repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare differences
in the deadlift variables. This type of analysis was conducted
to minimize the chances of making type I errors, and in
accordance with this, the criterion for significance was set
at p , 0.01 (16). The within-subjects measure (i.e., which
deadlift was completed) represented the CD and HHBD
conditions. As only 2 repeated measures were employed,
the assumption of sphericity, determined by Mauchly’s

test of sphericity, was not applicable (26). All other repeated-
measures ANOVA assumptions were considered. Effect sizes
(d) were also calculated for the between-lift comparison,
where the difference between the means was divided by
the pooled SD (8). A d less than 0.2 was considered a trivial
effect; 0.2–0.6 a small effect; 0.6–1.2 a moderate effect; 1.2–
2.0 a large effect; 2.0–4.0 a very large effect; and 4.0 and
above an extremely large effect (24).
Subjects who did not exhibit an SR in either the CD or the
HBD were also compared with those who did for each
respective lift. A one-way ANOVA (p , 0.01) was used to
derive any differences between these groups for the CD and
HHBD, and effect sizes were calculated. Last, those subjects
who exhibited an SR in the CD were also compared with
those who exhibited an SR in the HHBD. This analysis was
conducted to determine whether the distance and relative
duration of the 3 regions within the lift (i.e., PrSR, SR, and
PoSR) were different between the CD and HHBD. A one-
way ANOVA (p , 0.01) was again used, with effect sizes
calculated.
RESULTS
The absolute and relative 1RM data are displayed in Table 1,
along with the lift distance and duration for the CD and
HHBD. There were significant differences for all of these
variables between the lifts. The HHBD resulted in a 15%
greater absolute (d = 0.46) and relative load (d = 0.70).
The vertical lift distance for the HHBD was 22% shorter
than that of the CD (d = 1.99), which led to a 25% shorter
lift duration (d = 1.14).
The power, velocity, force, and work characteristics of
the CD and HHBD are shown in Table 2. Peak power was
47% significantly greater in the HHBD compared with the
CD (d = 1.04), although there was not a significant differ-
ence in mean power between the lifts (d = 0.34). Corre-
spondingly, peak velocity was 22% significantly greater in
the HHBD (d = 0.81), with no significant difference in
mean velocity (d = 0.29). There were no significant differ-
ences as to when peak power (d = 0.34) and velocity (d =
0.40) occurred in the CD and HBD. Both peak and mean
force were significantly greater in the HHBD compared
with the CD, by 20% (d = 0.62) and 22% (d = 0.52),
respectively. The CD resulted in a 9% greater amount of
work completed during the lift when compared with the
HHBD (d = 0.25).
Twenty-one of 31 subjects (68%) did not exhibit an SR
in the CD. The velocity profile of an example subject who
exhibited an SR in the CD, and one who did not, is shown
in Figure 3. When comparing the load, vertical lift dis-
tance, lift time (Table 3), and mechanics (Table 4) of the
CD between those subjects who exhibited an SR and those
that did not, there were no significant differences (d =
0.02–0.83). More subjects also did not exhibit an SR in
the HHBD (n = 24; 77%). Figure 4 displays the velocity
profile of example subjects who did and did not exhibit an
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
SR in the HBD. There were no significant differences in
the HHBD load, lift distance, lift time (Table 5), and
mechanics (Table 6) when comparing subjects with or
without an SR (d = 0.10–0.78).
Figure 5 displays the distances for each region within the
CD and HHBD for subjects that displayed an SR. There
were no significant differences in the PrSR, SR, or PoSR
distances between the lifts. As shown in Figure 6, there were
also no significant between-lift differences in the relative
duration of the PrSR, SR, or PoSR.
DISCUSSION
It has been stated that the HHBD could reduce the range
of motion required in the exercise when compared with
the CD (36); how this affects the mechanics of the lift have
not been defined. Therefore, this study investigated the
mechanics of the CD and HHBD in strength-trained in-
dividuals. The results indicated that the HHBD reduced
the vertical distance the bar was required to travel to reach
the lockout position, and the 1RM load that could be lifted
was greater for the HHBD compared with the CD. Con-
current with this load increase, peak power, peak velocity,
and peak and mean force all increased. Most subjects did
not exhibit an SR in the CD or the HHBD. These findings
have implications for the strength and conditioning coach,
and how they could use an exercise such as the HHBD
within their training programs.
In line with the studies’ hypothesis, the HHBD resulted
in a significantly greater absolute and relative 1RM when
compared with the CD. Swinton et al. (39) found that
competitive male powerlifters lifted significantly more in
the LHBD when compared with the CD (265 6 41.8 kg vs.
244.5 6 39.5 kg). However, the results from this study are
in contrast to that of Camara et al. (6), who found no
differences in the 1RM achieved in a CD and LHBD in
strength-trained men (approximately 181 kg for both lifts).
The disparity with the 1RM loads from this study to that
of Swinton et al. (39) and of Camara et al. (6) would be
partially due to the different populations investigated (i.e.,
male powerlifters vs. strength-trained men vs. strength-
trained men and women). Nevertheless, the use of the high
handles for the HHBD in the current research would have
contributed to the difference seen in load with the CD. As
was theorized (36), the HHBD led to a reduction in lift
distance and duration compared with the CD. Modifica-
tions to the CD can reduce the distance the bar needs to be
lifted, which may make the exercise relatively easier to
complete and result in a greater load lifted. For example,
the sumo deadlift, which is performed with a wider stance
and the hands positioned on the bar inside the legs, also
resulted in a reduced bar displacement compared with the
CD in powerlifters (32). However, most powerlifters still
use the CD in competition (32), which suggests other fac-
tors would contribute to the greater load lifted in the
HHBD. Indeed, a further factor would be the hexagonal
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 157
 High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Mechanics
bar design that allows the load to be kept closer to the
body within the frame (6,17,39,40), and places the individ-
ual in a biomechanically superior position for producing
the necessary external forces and joint torques to lift
a heavy load (39,40). These results indicate that should
a strength and conditioning coach prescribe the HHBD,
they should do so with the expectation that the individual
should lift a heavier load than the CD.
In athletic populations, force and power development
are important characteristics to develop and is a focus
within strength training programs (1). Thus, strength and
conditioning coaches often select exercises that can
emphasize force and power specifics to their athletes.
The data from this study indicated that the 1RM HHBD
resulted in significant increases in peak power, peak veloc-
ity, and peak and mean force. This supports the previous
research that found that compared with the CD, the
LHBD generated greater peak power and velocity at 65
and 85% 1RM in strength-trained men (6), and across
loads ranging from 30–80% 1RM in male powerlifters
(39). Superior vertical force was demonstrated in a farmers
walk that used a high-handled implement when compared
with the CD (45), and superior power development was
also shown in a jump squat using the LHBD when com-
pared with jump squats using the traditional Olympic bar
placement across the shoulders (40). Although the power
values recorded in this study were less than that docu-
mented by Swinton et al. (39), this would be a function
of the different loading schemes that were analyzed (30–
80% vs. 100%), as well as the measurement techniques
adopted in each study (force plate vs. linear position trans-
ducer). These issues notwithstanding, the data recorded
from this study have notable implications.
Camara et al. (6) intimated that the LHBD placed the
individual in a more advantageous position to generate
power, velocity, and force at the start and throughout the
lift. Though the high handles were used in this study, it is
probable that the current subjects benefited from the lift
position required because of the design of the hexagonal
bar. In addition to this, the body position attained in a lift
such as the HHBD may result in a more upright trunk posi-
tion that will reduce the torque produced in the lumbar
region (39,45). This could potentially allow an individual
to lift a heavier load, and generate greater force, while reduc-
ing some of the injury risk that has been linked to the CD
(27). Future research should incorporate motion capture or
a similar type of analysis to confirm any technique changes
as a result of the high handles in the HHBD. Nonetheless,
the results from this study highlight that when compared
with the CD, a maximal HHBD will lead to a greater peak
and mean force output, in addition to peak power and
velocity.
There were no differences as to the relative time when
peak power and velocity occurred within the CD and
HHBD after the lift initiation or start time was normalized
the TM
158 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
across the CD and HHBD. This indicates that the time
over which the bar is accelerating is similar between the 2
lifts, as power and velocity are increasing throughout this
time. Furthermore, similar to Swinton et al. (39), the cur-
rent data showed that for both the CD and HHBD, the bar
was accelerating for most of the lift (approximately 70–
75% of the total lift time). Collectively, these results show
that the HHBD could be used to emphasize peak power,
peak velocity, and peak and mean force. However, the
long-term adaptations to the use of the HHBD to develop
these capacities are currently unknown. Conventional
deadlift training can improve the force and torque gener-
ation capacities of college-aged men and women (41).
Future research should determine whether this is the case
with the HHBD, especially considering the change in the
range of motion of the bar shown in this study, as well as
the potential differences in lift technique and muscle acti-
vation patterns (6,39).
McBride et al. (31) indicated that the total work per-
formed during resistance training sets was the most valid
way to monitor strength-training load. This was because
work takes into account the force produced during the lift,
as well as the displacement of the bar (31). The CD re-
sulted in a greater amount of work performed during the
lift, which would relate to the further distance the bar
needed to travel. The impact of a reduced bar displace-
ment has been shown in comparisons between the CD and
sumo deadlift, with Escamilla et al. (13) detailing that
greater mechanical work resulted from the CD. This dif-
ference in work could influence how the CD and HHBD
exercises are programmed. Although this study only inves-
tigated a single repetition, it could be theorized that if
there were consistent differences in the work performed
across multiple repetitions of the CD and HHBD because
of differences in bar displacement, an individual would
perform more work with the CD. A greater volume of
work during a 6-week strength training program was
linked to bench press improvements in trained male junior
basketball and soccer players (10). Whether this is the case
for the CD and HHBD, and the potential implications on
hypertrophy or strength adaptations, needs to be con-
firmed through future research. Nonetheless, coaches
could manipulate the work performed in the HHBD by
adjusting the starting position. This may involve using the
low handles as per previous research (6,30,39,40), or per-
forming the HHBD on a small box in the same manner as
a deficit or platform CD (38). Future research should also
measure the work performed during a box or platform
HHBD to ascertain whether this is an appropriate way
to modify this exercise.
This study also showed that most of the subjects did not
exhibit an SR in the 1RM CD (21/31; 68%) or HHBD (24/
31; 77%). The deadlift, in its many forms, is a unique
exercise in that the lifting phase commences immediately
with no eccentric phase (32). This is emphasized within

a 1RM deadlift, as there is only a concentric phase. This
could have some influence on whether there was an SR for
some of the subjects. van den Tillaar et al. (43) found that
5/15 (33%) of their sample did not display an SR in the last
repetition of a 6RM free weight squat, so the absence of an
SR in lower-body strength exercises are not without pre-
cedent. There were also no significant differences between
subjects that exhibited an SR and those that did not in the
load lifted for the CD or HHBD, the duration and distance
of both lifts, and any of the mechanical variables. These
results provide support to Kompf and Arandjelovic (28),
who suggested that rather than considering the SR as the
weak point of the lift, it should be the sticking point that
should be noted, as this is the actual point of failure. The
presence of an SR may be influenced by the inherent tech-
nique of a lifter, which could be why there is greater var-
iation across individuals (28,32). It is outside the scope of
this study to confirm these theories as failed lifts of the
subjects were not analyzed, nor was the actual lifting tech-
nique of the subjects. Nevertheless, the data suggest that
regardless of whether an individual exhibits an SR in the
CD or HHBD or not, the resulting mechanics will be
similar.
The final part of this analysis was to compare those
subjects who did exhibit an SR in the CD and HHBD to
identify any differences in the PrSR, SR, and PoSR between
the 2 lifts. The results indicated that there were no differ-
ences in the distances of these regions, nor the relative
durations, between the CD and HHBD. Even with the
differences in load and bar displacement that occurred, the
location of the SR seemed to be similar in both lifts, although
the SR SDs for the CD and HHBD also implied a degree of
individual variability. McGuigan and Wilson (32) found great
variability as to where the SR occurred when comparing the
CD and sumo deadlift in elite male powerlifters. The dura-
tion of the CD (13.22 6 9.31%) and HHBD (12.75 6 9.03%)
SR from this research was also much shorter than the CD
SR found by McGuigan and Wilson (32) in their sample of
powerlifters (37.8 6 18.2%). The difference in the procedures
used (2-dimensional camera vs. linear position transducer),
and the fact that the powerlifters lifted a much heavier CD
load (215 kg) compared with the subjects from this study
who exhibited an SR (CD = 144.53 6 40.26 kg; HHBD =
138.44 6 40.15 kg), would have influenced the differences in
relative SR duration. Nonetheless, the current findings sug-
gest for those individuals who exhibit an SR in the CD or
HBD, the PrSR, SR, and PoSR distance and duration were
similar between the lifts.
Although this study provides an initial analysis of the
HHBD, there are several limitations that should be noted.
This research only used a linear position transducer to
measure bar kinematics and kinetics. Although this was done
in an attempt to make the data as practical as possible
(2,5,11,23), it would be of value to use motion capture and
force plates to further analyze the technique of the HHBD.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
Patterns of muscle activation during the HHBD would also
be worthy of investigation, given that the LHBD does cause
changes in what muscles are recruited during the lift (6).
This would have important training implications, especially
considering the increases in load, power, velocity, and force
that are present in the HHBD, and what muscles this could
be attributed to. This study also only investigated a 1RM lift
for both the CD and HHBD. It would also be useful to
compare the HHBD and LHBD to ascertain any differences
in load, bar mechanics, and technique. Additionally, future
research should investigate whether some of the key differ-
ences between the exercises (i.e., greater power, velocity, and
force in the HHBD; greater work in the CD) are consistent
across strength, hypertrophy, and endurance sets. The train-
ing adaptations resulting from the long-term use of the
HHBD should also be defined.
Within the context of these limitations, the major findings
of this study were that when compared with the CD, the
HHBD led to a decrease in lift distance and duration during
a 1RM and an increase in the load lifted. The HHBD also
featured greater peak power and velocity, and peak and
mean force. There were no differences in the relative time
when peak power and velocity occurred in the CD and
HBD, and more work was completed in the CD. Most
subjects did not exhibit an SR in the CD or HHBD, and
there were no real differences in the load lifted and the
mechanics of the CD or HHBD when comparing subjects
that did or did not exhibit an SR. Thus, it does not seem that
the appearance of an SR is essential for a successful maximal
lift for the CD or HHBD.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
There are several practical applications for the strength and
conditioning coach that can be drawn from this study. The
design of the hexagonal bar which positions the load closer
to the lifter, along with the high handles that reduces the
displacement of the bar, resulted in a heavier load being
lifted in a maximal HHBD compared with a CD. In addition,
peak and mean force, as well as peak power and velocity,
were greater in the HHBD. For strength and conditioning
coaches who wish to emphasize peak and mean force in
their athletes, the HHBD could be a good exercise to use in
their programs. However, coaches should be cognizant that
the long-term training effects of the HHBD, especially
considering the reduced range of motion, are yet to be
defined. Indeed, a maximal CD resulted in more work being
completed than the HHBD. In addition to this, many
individuals may not exhibit an SR in a maximal CD or
HHBD, although this generally should not impact the
resulting load that can be lifted, or variables such as power,
velocity, force, and work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge our subjects for their
contribution to this study. They also thank Megan Beiley
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 159
 High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift Mechanics
and Jillian Hurley for assisting with data collection. This
research project received no external financial assistance.
None of the authors have any conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, D, Nance, S, and Moore, M. The load that maximizes the
average mechanical power output during jump squats in power-
trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 15: 92–97, 2001.
2. Ball, N, Nolan, E, and Wheeler, K. Anthropometrical, physiological,
and tracked power profiles of elite taekwondo athletes 9 weeks
before the Olympic competition phase. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2752–2763, 2011.
3. Berning, JM, Coker, CA, and Briggs, D. The biomechanical and
perceptual influence of chain resistance on the performance of the
olympic clean. J Strength Cond Res 22: 390–395, 2008.
4. 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.
5. Buttifant, D and Hrysomallis, C. Effect of various practical warm-up
protocols on acute lower-body power. J Strength Cond Res 29: 656–
660, 2015.
6. 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.
7. Cholewicki, J, McGill, SM, and Norman, RW. Lumbar spine loads
during the lifting of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc
23: 1179–1186, 1991.
8. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.
9. Crewther, BT, Heke, TL, and Keogh, JW. The effects of a resistance-
training program on strength, body composition and baseline
hormones in male athletes training concurrently for rugby union 7’s.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 53: 34–41, 2013.
10. Drinkwater, EJ, Lawton, TW, Lindsell, RP, Pyne, DB, Hunt, PH,
and McKenna, MJ. Training leading to repetition failure enhances
bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. J Strength Cond Res
19: 382–388, 2005.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Escamilla, RF, Francisco, AC, Fleisig, GS, Barrentine, SW, Welch, CM,
Kayes, AV, Speer, KP, and Andrews, JR. A three-dimensional
biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1265–1275, 2000.
14. Farley, K. Analysis of the conventional deadlift. Strength Cond J 17:
55–57, 1995.
15. 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.
16. Feise, RJ. Do multiple outcome measures require p-value
adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2 2002. doi: 10.1186/1471-
2288-2-8.
17. Gentry, M, Pratt, D, and Caterisano, T. Introducing the trap bar.
Strength Cond J 9: 54–56, 1987.
18. Glielmi, N. Smarter exercise selection for athletes made simple.
2014. Available at: http://www.stack.com/a/exercise-selection.
Accessed: July 12, 2016.
19. 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.
the TM
160 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
20. Graham, JF. Exercise: Deadlift. Strength Cond J 22: 18–20, 2000.
21. Hales, M. Improving the deadlift: Understanding biomechanical
constraints and physiological adaptations to resistance exercise.
Strength Cond J 32: 44–51, 2010.
22. Haley, A. Exercise of the week: Trap bar deadlift, 2012. Available at:
http://www.stack.com/a/exercise-of-the-week-trap-bar-deadlift.
Accessed: July 14, 2016.
23. Harris, NK, Cronin, J, Taylor, K-L, Boris, J, and Sheppard, J.
Understanding position transducer technology for strength and
conditioning practitioners. Strength Cond J 32: 66–79, 2010.
24. Hopkins, WG. How to interpret changes in an athletic performance
test. Sportscience 8: 1–7, 2004.
25. 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.
26. Jeffriess, MD, Schultz, AB, McGann, TS, Callaghan, SJ, and
Lockie, RG. Effects of preventative ankle taping on planned
change-of-direction and reactive agility performance and ankle
muscle activity in basketballers. J Sports Sci Med 14: 864–876,
2015.
27. Keogh, JW and Winwood, PW. The epidemiology of injuries across
the weight-training sports. Sports Med 47: 479–501, 2017.
28. Kompf, J and Arandjelovic, O. Understanding and overcoming
the sticking point in resistance exercise. Sports Med 46: 751–762,
2016.
29. Lien, D and Balakrishnan, N. On regression analysis with data
cleaning via trimming, winsorization, and dichotomization. Commun
Stat-Simul C 34: 839–849, 2005.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. McGuigan, MRM and Wilson, BD. Biomechanical analysis of the
deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 10: 250–255, 1996.
33. Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, Humphries, BJ, Wilson, GJ, Kraemer, WJ,
and Hakkinen, K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on
the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during
explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
75: 333–342, 1997.
34. Piper, TJ and Waller, MA. Variations of the deadlift. Strength Cond J
23: 66–73, 2001.
35. 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.
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. 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.
38. Swinton, PA, Lloyd, 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.
39. 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.

40. 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.
41. 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.
42. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. The “sticking period” in
a maximum bench press. J Sports Sci 28: 529–535, 2010.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
43. van den Tillaar, R, Andersen, V, and Saeterbakken, AH. The
existence of a sticking region in free weight squats. J Hum Kinet 42:
63–71, 2014.
44. Williamson, DF, Parker, RA, and Kendrick, JS. The box plot: A
simple visual method to interpret data. Ann Intern Med 110: 916–
921, 1989.
45. 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.
VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2018 | 161