Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To investigate the effects of pyramidal and reverse pyramidal loading on spine and pelvis coordination patterns and their variability during deadlift.</p> Methods <p>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).</p> Results <p>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.</p> Conclusion <p>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The effect of two types of pyramidal and reverse pyramidal loading on spine and pelvis coordination variability during deadlift

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月20日

查看全文
  • Mostafa Sajedi Nia,
  • Mehdi Khaleghi Tazji,
  • Ali Abbasi

摘要

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.