BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026
The effect of two types of pyramidal and reverse pyramidal loading on spine and pelvis coordination variability during deadlift.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sajedi Nia Mostafa, Khaleghi Tazji Mehdi, Abbasi Ali
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of pyramidal and reverse pyramidal loading on spine and pelvis coordination patterns and their variability during deadlift.
METHODS: Twelve trained male powerlifters performed deadlifts under two loading protocols: pyramidal (50%, 70%, 90% of 10RM) and reverse pyramidal (same loads in descending order). Segmental coordination (PL-LB, LB-LT, LT-UT) was analyzed using 3D motion capture and a modified vector coding method across concentric and eccentric phases. Coordination pattern frequencies and variability were statistically assessed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM).
RESULTS: In-phase coordination patterns were dominant in the PL-LB and LB-LT couplings across all intensities. However, pyramidal loading led to increased distal dominance and reduced proximal contribution, particularly at 90% intensity. Significant differences in coordination patterns were observed between the two loading strategies, while coordination variability did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION: Pyramidal loading imposes greater neuromechanical demands on trunk segments, increasing the risk of coordination breakdown and potential injury in distal spinal regions. Reverse pyramidal loading may offer a safer alternative for high-load resistance training. Further research is warranted under maximal or fatigue-inducing conditions.
METHODS: Twelve trained male powerlifters performed deadlifts under two loading protocols: pyramidal (50%, 70%, 90% of 10RM) and reverse pyramidal (same loads in descending order). Segmental coordination (PL-LB, LB-LT, LT-UT) was analyzed using 3D motion capture and a modified vector coding method across concentric and eccentric phases. Coordination pattern frequencies and variability were statistically assessed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM).
RESULTS: In-phase coordination patterns were dominant in the PL-LB and LB-LT couplings across all intensities. However, pyramidal loading led to increased distal dominance and reduced proximal contribution, particularly at 90% intensity. Significant differences in coordination patterns were observed between the two loading strategies, while coordination variability did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION: Pyramidal loading imposes greater neuromechanical demands on trunk segments, increasing the risk of coordination breakdown and potential injury in distal spinal regions. Reverse pyramidal loading may offer a safer alternative for high-load resistance training. Further research is warranted under maximal or fatigue-inducing conditions.