COMPARISON OF OLYMPIC AND HEXAGONAL
BARBELLS WITH MIDTHIGH PULL, DEADLIFT,
COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP
KYLIE K. MALYSZEK, ROQUE A. HARMON, DUSTIN D. DUNNICK, PABLO B. COSTA,
JARED W. COBURN, AND LEE E. BROWN
Human Performance Laboratory, Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University,
Fullerton, CA
ABSTRACT
Malyszek, KK, Harmon, RA, Dunnick, DD, Costa, PB,
Coburn, JW, and Brown, LE. Comparison of olympic and
hexagonal barbells with midthigh pull, deadlift, and coun-
termovement jump. J Strength Cond Res 31(1): 140145,
2017Those training for strength and power commonly use
different bars and different lifts. The hexagonal barbell
(HBar) and Olympic barbell (OBar) are frequently used
training implements, and the midthigh pull (MTP) and dead-
lift (DL) are 2 popular exercises. Therefore, the purpose of
this study was to compare force between an HBar and
OBar for a MTP, DL, and countermovement jump (CMJ).
Twenty resistance-trained men (age = 24.05 6 2.09 years,
ht = 178.07 6 7.05 cm, mass = 91.42 6 14.44 kg) vol-
unteered to participate and performed MTP and DL using
both bars and a CMJ. Joint angles were recorded for all
pulls and the bottom position of the CMJ. Peak ground
reaction force (PGRF) was greater in the MTP (3,186.88 6
543.53 N) than DL (2,501.15 6 404.04 N) but not different
between bars. Midthigh pull joint angles were more extended
than DL, and the strongest correlations between isometric
and dynamic performance were seen between DL PGRF
and CMJ impulse (OBar r = 0.85; HBar r = 0.84). These
findings are likely because of the different anatomical charac-
teristics between the MTP and DL and the similarity in joint
angles between the DL and CMJ. Therefore, the DL may be an
optimal choice for athletes in jump-dependent sports, regard-
less of bar.
KEY WORDS isometric, force, performance
Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, leebrown@fullerton.edu.
31(1)/140145
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
140 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
INTRODUCTION
T
he deadlift (DL) is a full-body strength exercise
that is frequently performed in resistance training
settings. It is most often used for strength and
power development, as it allows for the use of
heavy loads, which generate large muscular forces (3,10). It
requires the lifter to grasp the barbell in a position similar to
a squat, then elevate the load in a continuous motion
through extension of the lower back, hip, knee, and ankle
joints (24). It is crucial that the barbell remain close to the
body throughout the lift, ensuring that the load remains
closer to the lifters center of gravity (19).
There are many variations of the DL exercise. One
such variation is the hexagonal bar (HBar) DL. The HBar
enables athletes to perform the DL while the load is
positioned closer to their body, as the lifter is actually
inside the frame of the bar. The HBar also enables the
lifter to keep a more erect posture, reducing strain on the
lumbar spine (12). However, little research has been done
on comparison of the HBar with a conventional DL using
an Olympic bar (OBar). To our knowledge, only one
study (19) has examined this comparison and found that
the HBar DL produced greater peak force, peak velocity,
peak power, and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) compared
with the OBar.
The isometric midthigh pull (MTP) is a static exercise in
which an athlete generates maximum force against a station-
ary bar (1,5,17), whereas peak force and rate of force devel-
opment (RFD) are easily measured. The isometric MTP has
several advantages to gross measures of strength, such as
reduced risk of injury, minimal fatigue, and low technical
errors (5,7). Although isometric peak force has been shown
to correlate well with dynamic performance, this seems to
only be the case in movements with similar joint angles
(1,15,16,23). Therefore, peak force produced during an iso-
metric MTP correlates well with weightlifting movements
(1,7,11,14), such as the second pull of the clean, yet correla-
tion with an isometric DL is unknown.
The HBar is commonly used in many strength and
conditioning settings. However, to properly use it with DL
 the TM

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

Figure 1. Set-up for isometric midthigh pull (MTP) with Olympic bar
(OBar).

Figure 3. Set-up for isometric deadlift (DL) with Olympic bar (OBar).

Figure 2. Set-up for isometric midthigh pull (MTP) with hexagonal bar
(HBar). Figure 4. Set-up for isometric deadlift (DL) with hexagonal bar (HBar).

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 141

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength Between Barbells

TABLE 1. Isometric force values (mean 6 SD) for peak ground reaction force (PGRF) and rate of force development
(RFD) of midthigh pull (MTP) and deadlift (DL) for Olympic bar (OBar) and hexagonal bar (HBar).

OBar MTP HBar MTP OBar DL

PGRF 3,196.28 6 590.29 N 3,177.48 6 531.34 N 2,461.08 6 397.11 N

RFD 2,435.12 6 1,780.90 N$s21 2,826.38 6 1,887.94 N$s21 1,926.54 6 1,181.35 N$s21

HBar DL MTP (collapsed) DL (collapsed)

PGRF 2,541.21 6 414.84 N 3,186.88 6 543.53 N* 2,501.15 6 404.04 N

RFD 1,744.50 6 851.58 N$s21 2,630.75 6 1,707.19 N$s21* 1,835.52 6 952.81 N$s21

*Significantly greater than DL (collapsed).

training, further research is needed to examine how it
compares with the OBar. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to compare MTP and DL isometric strength
between an OBar and an HBar, and their relationship to
dynamic performance.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study used a repeated-measures design to compare
isometric strength between an OBar and HBar and between
an MTP and a DL. Subjects were required to attend 3 days of
testing 2448 hours apart and performed both lifts, using both
bars. Subjects also performed a countermovement jump (CMJ)
to compare isometric strength with dynamic performance.
Subjects
Twenty resistance-trained men (age = 24.05 6 2.09 years,
age range = 2027 years, height = 178.07 6 7.05 cm, mass =
91.42 6 14.44 kg) with at least 1-year experience performing
the DL volunteered to participate. All participants reported
previous experience using the hex bar. They were free from
any musculoskeletal injuries. Before data collection, all sub-
jects were notified of potential risks and gave written
informed consent, approved by the University Institutional
Review Board.
Procedures
Set-Up. For the OBar MTP, the bar was fixed in a power
rack at midthigh level and secured with the use of straps.
TABLE 2. Countermovement jump values
(mean 6 SD) for jump height, ground reaction
force (GRF), and impulse.
Jump height 46.67 6 7.69 cm
GRF 2,390.58 6 341.79 N
Impulse 286.69 6 45.13 N$s21
the TM
A goniometer was used to ensure that the knee angle was
135 degrees. Hands were positioned outside the knees,
using a self-selected grip (Figure 1). The HBar was
secured at the same rack height as the OBar with hands
grasping the low handles with a neutral grip (Figure 2).
For the isometric DL, standard plate height was used for
position of both bars (Figures 3 and 4) and knee angle was
not controlled. The same grips were used for DL and
MTP.
Day 1. Upon arriving at the laboratory, subjects read and
signed an informed consent document. Body mass and height
were obtained using an electronic scale (ES200L; Ohaus
Corporation, Pinebrook, NJ, USA) and stadiometer (Seca,
Ontario, CA, USA). Before testing, subjects performed
a dynamic warm-up consisting of 10 m of walking knee hugs,
walking lunges, and Frankenstein walks. They then performed
a CMJ. An EPIC jump device (EPIC Athletic Performance,
Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, USA) was positioned next to the
force plate. Subjects reach was measured with the dominant
hand. While standing on the plate, subjects performed 3 CMJ
trials, with 1-minute rest between attempts. Although 3 trials
were the minimum performed, subjects continued to perform
trials until they could no longer successfully hit the vanes of
the device. After the completion of CMJ trials, subjects held
still in the bottom position of a countermovement, and ankle,
knee, and hip angles were recorded.
Subjects were then fitted to both bars for both lifts. For the
OBar MTP, a handheld goniometer was used to ensure
a 135-degree knee angle. This bar height was recorded and
maintained for the HBar MTP. Subjects were given lifting
straps to secure their hands to the bar. For familiarization,
they performed 23 trials with each bar and each lift with
a warm-up of 5 pulls at 50% effort, 3 pulls at 75%, and 1 pull
at 90%, with 1-minute rest between sets and 3-minutes rest
between conditions until a consistent effort was shown.
They were instructed to pull against the bar as hard and fast
as possible for 5 seconds. Ankle, knee, and hip angles were
recorded for both bars and lifts.

142 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. Pearson correlations between countermovement jump height, ground reaction force (GRF), impulse and
midthigh pull (MTP), and deadlift (DL) Olympic bar (OBar) and hexagonal bar (HBar) isometric peak ground reaction
force (PGRF).

OBar MTP PGRF HBar MTP PGRF OBar DL PGRF HBar DL PGRF

Jump height 0.57 0.19 0.15 0.18

GRF 0.50* 0.48* 0.77* 0.77*
Impulse 0.60* 0.66* 0.85* 0.84*

*Significant at p # 0.05.

TABLE 4. Comparison of midthigh pull (MTP), deadlift (DL), and countermovement jump (CMJ) joint angles (mean 6
SD) between Olympic bar (OBar) and hexagonal bar (HBar).

MTP DL

CMJ OBar HBar OBar HBar

Ankle (deg) 75.00 6 6.24 82.50 6 3.62* 79.80 6 5.15* 76.15 6 5.42 71.00 6 7.22
Knee (deg) 93.50 6 27.39 135.00 6 0.00* 134.85 6 0.67* 99.85 6 14.14 97.10 6 13.17
Hip (deg) 80.00 6 13.33 129.20 6 12.82* 123.70 6 12.61* 52.70 6 6.75 49.70 6 10.24

*Significantly greater than CMJ.

Significantly less than CMJ.

Day 23. Subjects followed the same warm-up procedures as RESULTS

day 1. They then performed 3 trials each of either an
isometric MTP or DL, using both bars. They were given
1-minute rest between trials and 3 minutes between con-
ditions. On day 3, they followed the same procedures, using
whichever lift had not been tested on day 2.
For all tests, subjects stood on an Advanced Mechanical
Technologies force plate (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA)
sampling at 1,000 Hz. All data were collected and analyzed
with custom LabVIEW (v2013, National Instruments,
Austin, TX, USA) software. For the lifts, isometric peak
ground reaction force (PGRF) and RFD were measured. For
the CMJ, jump height (estimated from the force plate), GRF,
and impulse were measured. The average of the 3 trials was
used for analysis.
Statistical Analyses
A 2 3 2 (lift 3 bar) repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) analyzed all isometric force variables. Signifi-
cant main effects were followed up with simple ANOVAs.
A 2 3 2 3 3 (lift 3 bar 3 joint) repeated-measures
ANOVA analyzed joint angle. Significant interactions
were followed up with dependent t-tests. Pearson corre-
lations analyzed relationships between all CMJ and iso-
metric force variables. Alpha was set at 0.05 to determine
significance.
For PGRF and RFD, there were no interactions or main
effects for bar. However, there were main effects for lift, with
MTP being greater than DL (Table 1).
Countermovement jump values are shown in Table 2.
Countermovement jump impulse was significantly corre-
lated with RFD of OBar DL (0.52). Isometric PGRF of both
bars and lifts showed significant correlations with CMJ GRF
and impulse (Table 3).
For MTP ankle angle, OBar was less dorsiflexed than
HBar and CMJ and HBar also had less dorsiflexion than
CMJ (Table 4). For MTP knee angle, both OBar and HBar
were more extended than CMJ (Table 4). For MTP hip
angle, OBar and HBar were significantly more extended
than CMJ. For DL ankle and knee angles, there were no
differences between OBar, HBar, or CMJ, but CMJ hip angle
was more extended than OBar and HBar (Table 4).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to compare isometric
strength between Olympic and hexagonal barbells for
MTPs and DLs and compare these with dynamic
performance via a countermovement jump. The major
findings were that MTP force was greater than DL for
both bars, MTP joint angles were more extended than

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 143

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength Between Barbells
DL, and the strongest correlations were seen between DL
force and CMJ impulse. These may be because of
anatomical differences of body position between the
MTP and DL, the joint angles of the lifts, and the need
to maximize explosive force during efforts such as iso-
metric pulls and vertical jumping.
Isometric MTP is a commonly used assessment to
measure strength because of its similarity with the second
pull of the clean. A characteristic of this lift is a knee angle of
130140 degrees and an upright trunk, commonly referred
to as the power position as it represents the point, during
weightlifting movements, where the highest forces and
power outputs are achieved (1,14). In comparing weightlift-
ing and powerlifting exercises, Garhammer (11) reported
average power output in the DL to be one-half to one-
third of that developed during the snatch or clean, attributed
to the lower vertical velocities generated throughout the DL.
Additionally, in a review of existing studies of weightlifting
and powerlifting, Garhammer (11) reported that power test-
ing has more potential as a tool for predicting performance
in weightlifting movements than powerlifting. The current
study examined 2 separate lifts that are classically considered
weightlifting specific (MTP) and powerlifting specific (DL).
The DL is commonly used to generate maximum force,
whereas the clean is used to generate maximum power
(14,19,20). Despite the overlap, it has been repeatedly dem-
onstrated that the development of strength and power are
distinct qualities (17). Further, previous research has shown
that the joint angle of isometric tests significantly impacts
the relationship to dynamic performance (1,15). Therefore,
the higher power production during weightlifting move-
ments would result in greater outputs during the isometric
task in a similar position.
The force differences between MTP and DL may also be
because of anatomical differences between the positions.
The conventional DL at heavy loads is commonly viewed as
the most challenging movement for the lumbar spine
(13,18,19), with liftoff to knee being the most difficult (4).
Examining elite powerlifters, Cholewicki et al. (6) found that
loads on the lumbar spine ranged from 14k to 17k Newtons
during the DL. In contrast, the position of the MTP is often
referred to as the power position (14). At MTP, greater
extension angles at the ankle, knee, and hip allow for a more
advantageous length-tension relationship of the muscles
involved than at the DL position. The shorter a muscle,
the less tension it is capable of generating (9,10). As the fibers
are more optimally overlapped at MTP, greater force is able
to be developed than at DL.
Because of the dimensions of the force plate, participants
were required to perform the DL with a conventional stance.
Although all participants had experience performing the DL
with a hexagonal bar, many were powerlifters who used
a sumo-style when performing dynamic DLs with an
Olympic bar. This change in stance may have impacted
some lifters force production. During the sumo-style DL,
the TM
144 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the feet are positioned further apart and turned outward,
with the hands positioned inside the knees (810,18).
Because of the differences in biomechanical positioning,
Escamilla et al. (9,10) found that sumo-style DLs resulted
in 2530% less mechanical work. Additionally, Cholewicki
et al. (6) observed a 10% reduction in L4/L5 moment and
8% reduction in L4/L5 shear force when using the sumo DL
vs. conventional. As subjects were performing maximum iso-
metric actions, differences in forces on the body with the
conventional stance may have affected their force-
generating capability.
Despite greater force for the MTP, the strongest correla-
tions were seen between DL PGRF and CMJ impulse. This
is contrary to what was expected, as, unlike the DL, both the
CMJ and MTP are often used as measures of explosive
performance. Previous research has reported conflicting
results in the relationship between isometric and dynamic
performance. McGuigan et al. (17) found very strong corre-
lations between isometric MTP and vertical jump height,
and with 1RM squat and bench press. Thomas et al. (21)
found that isometric MTP performance did not significantly
correlate with vertical jump peak velocity or jump height;
yet, it did correlate with peak force and peak power. As in
the present study, previous research found low correlation
with dynamic measures of performance and RFD (17,21).
As mentioned, multiple studies have found that the
strength of the relationship between dynamic tasks and
isometric performance are dependent on similarity of
joint angles (1,5,15,16). The lack of correlation between
MTP and CMJ could be attributed to the differential bio-
mechanical characteristics of the 2 movements. The MTP
uses an exclusive isometric muscle action, whereas the
CMJ uses an eccentric muscle action followed by a very
brief isometric and finally concentric muscle action (21).
Thus, the CMJ uses the stretch-shortening cycle, unlike
isometric actions. Additionally, MTP performance relies
solely on maximal force production, whereas CMJ relies
on both maximal force and velocity, a more complex
relationship resulting in power (21).
In the present study, MTP ankle, knee, and hip joint
angles were significantly more extended than DL and CMJ.
However, there were minimal differences between DL and
CMJ angles, with the only difference seen at the hip. This
could explain the stronger correlations between DL and
CMJ variables. Previous research has found the position of
the knee during the first pull to be near the angle where knee
extensor strength is approaching maximum (22). Addition-
ally, both the first pull of the DL and CMJ require the appli-
cation of high force in a short period of time (22). During
a dynamic DL, an explosive concentric action is required to
move the load from the ground; this high reliance on rapid
strength production during liftoff is similar to that required
to lift the body from the ground during a CMJ (22).
Although rapid strength production is also required for
MTP and dynamic weightlifting movements, our subjects

were required to have experience with the DL, but not
weightlifting movements.
Angle differences may be explained by the biomechanical
characteristics of body position specific to each bar. At MTP,
OBar knee angle was maintained at 135 degrees, with HBar
initiated from the same rack height. This produced no
difference in knee flexion between bars. Despite the similar-
ity of knee angle, there were differences between bars as the
HBar requires the lifter to be centered inside the frame while
extending their joints and producing force vertically. With
the OBar, the lifter is positioned behind the barbell.
Therefore, these different body positions result in MTP
ankle and hip angles with the OBar being significantly more
extended than with the HBar.
The above anatomical characteristics are similar for the
DL position, yet rather than controlling knee angle, pulls
were always initiated from standard plate height from the
floor. There were no differences in DL knee angles between
bars, but the OBar ankle angle was significantly more
extended than the HBar. This can likely be explained by
the position of the lifter in relation to the barbell. With the
OBar, the lifter was positioned behind the barbell, with more
extension at the joints as mentioned previously. In contrast,
the HBar positions the lifter inside the bar at a fixed position,
resulting in greater ankle flexion than the OBar.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The findings of the current study indicate minimal difference
in force between hexagonal and Olympic barbells. Therefore,
regardless of bar selection, the position from which the pull is
initiated may play the largest role in force production.
However, athletes and strength coaches interested in vertical
jump performance may benefit by initiating pulling movements
from the DL position as evidenced by the high correlation
with CMJ impulse. Because of similarity in joint angles
between DL and the CMJ, deadlifting with either bar may
be beneficial to athletes whose sports require frequent jumping.
REFERENCES
1. Beckham, G, Mizuguchi, S, Carter, C, Sato, K, Ramsey, M,
Lamont, H, Hornsby, G, Haff, G, and Stone, M. Relationship of
isometric mid-thigh pull variables to weightlifting performance.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 53: 573581, 2013.
2. Bezerra, ES, Simao, R, Fleck, SJ, Paz, G, Maia, M, Costa, PB,
Amadio, AC, Miranda, H, and Serrao, JC. Electromyographic
activity of lower body muscles during the deadlift and still-legged
deadlift. J Exerc Phys 16: 3039, 2013.
3. Bishop, A, DeBeliso, M, Sevene, TG, and Adams, KJ. Comparing
one repetition maximum and three repetition maximum between
conventional and eccentrically loaded deadlifts. J Strength Cond Res
28: 18201825, 2014.
4. Brown, EW and Abani, K. Kinematic and kinetics of the deadlift in
adolescent power lifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23: 11791186, 1985.
5. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I:
Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc
Physiol 4: 121, 2001. Online.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
6. Cholewicki, J and McGill, SM. Lumbar spine loads during the lifting
of extremely heavy weights. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23: 11791186,
1991.
7. Comfort, P, Jones, PA, McMahon, JJ, and Newton, R. Effect of knee
and trunk angles on kinetic variables during the isometric midthigh
pull: Test-retest reliability. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 5863,
2015.
8. Escamilla, RF, Lowry, TM, Osbahr, DC, and Speer, KP.
Biomechanical analysis of the deadlift during 1999 special Olympics
world games. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 13451353, 2001.
9. 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: 12651275, 2000.
10. Escamilla, RF, Fransisco, AC, Kayes, AV, Speer, KP, and
Moorman, CT III. An electromyographical analysis of sumo and
conventional deadlifts. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 682688, 2002.
11. Garhammer, J. A review of power output studies of Olympic and
powerlifting: Methodology, performance prediction, and evaluation
tests. J Strength Cond Res 7: 7689, 1993.
12. Gentry, M, Pratt, D, and Caterisano, T. Introducing the trap bar. Nat
Strength Cond Assoc J 9: 5455, 1987.
13. Granhed, H, Jonson, R, and Hansson, T. The loads on the lumbar
spine during extreme weightlifting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12: 146
149, 1987.
14. Haff, GG, Ruben, RP, Lider, J, Twine, C, and Cormie, P. A
comparison of methods for determining the rate of force
development during isometric midthigh clean pulls. J Strength Cond
Res 29: 386395, 2015.
15. Kawamori, N, Rossi, SJ, Justice, BD, Haff, EE, Pistilli, EE,
OBryant, HS, Stone, MH, and Haff, GG. Peak force and rate of
force development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean
pulls performed at various intensities. J Strength Cond Res 20: 483
491, 2006.
16. Khamoui, AV, Brown, LE, Nguyen, D, Coburn, JW, Noffal, GJ, and
Tran, T. Relationship between force-time and velocity-time
characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 198204, 2011.
17. McGuigan, MR, Newton, MJ, Winchester, JB, and Nelson, AG.
Relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in
recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 24: 25702573, 2010.
18. McGuigan, MR and Wilson, BD. Biomechanical analysis of the
deadlift. J Strength Cond Res 10: 250255, 1996.
19. Swinton, PA, Stewart, A, Agouris, I, Keough, JW, and Lloyd, R. A
biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts
using submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 25: 20002009, 2011.
20. Swinton, PA, Stewart, AD, Keough, JWL, Agouris, I, and Llod, R.
Kinematic and kinetic analysis of maximal velocity deadlifts
performed with and without the inclusion of chain resistance. J
Strength Cond Res 25: 31633174, 2011.
21. Thomas, C, Jones, PA, Rothwel, J, Chiang, CY, and Comfort, P. An
investigation into the relationship between maximum isometric
strength and vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 29:
21762185, 2015.
22. Thompson, BJ, Stock, MS, Shields, JE, Luera, MJ, Munayer, IK,
Mota, JA, Carillo, EC, and Olinghoue, KD. Barbell deadlift training
increases the rate of torque development and vertical jump
performance in novices. J Strength Cond Res 29: 110, 2015.
23. West, DJ, Owen, NJ, Jones, MR, Cook, CJ, Cunningham, DJ,
Shearer, DA, Finn, CV, Newton, RU, Crewther, BT, and Kilduff, LP.
Relationships between force-time characteristics of the isometric
midthigh pull and dynamic performance in professional rugby
league players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 30703075, 2011.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 145