Flexed lumbar spine postures are associated with greater strength and efficiency than lordotic postures during a maximal lift in pain-free individuals

Intervertebral disc deformation in the lower lumbar spine during object lifting measured in vivo using indwelling bone pins

Object lifting is often categorized into squat and stoop techniques, with the former believed to protect the back by maintaining a neutral spine, and the latter considered harmful due to spinal flexion. Despite the widespread promotion of these beliefs, there is no evidence to support such dichotomy, as spinal flexion is not conclusively linked to low back pain. This study aimed to investigate intervertebral disc deformation in the lower lumbar spine during squat and stoop lifting using indwelling bone pins. Five healthy males underwent insertion of Kirschner wires into the L3, L4, and L5 spinous processes, followed by biomechanical data collection using magnetic and optical tracking systems during upright standing, isolated flexion/extension, and object lifting with both squat and stoop techniques. Except for one subject, stoop lifting resulted in up to 90 % greater disc wedging compared to squat lifting, with a significant difference at L4/L5 (p = 0.042). The anterior annulus fibrosus experienced 10 % to 40 % more compression during stoop lifting, but no significant differences were found in posterior annulus fibrosus expansion between techniques. Lever arms were about 35 % longer during stoop compared to squat lifting. These results indicate that even though stoop lifting generally led to greater disc deformation, significant deformation was also observed during squat lifting, challenging the notion of maintaining a neutral spine with this technique. Moreover, the considerable variability observed among participants raises concerns about the suitability of current one-size-fits-all lifting guidelines.

The Effect of Cautionary Versus Resiliency Spine Education on Maximum Deadlift Performance and Back Beliefs: A Randomized Control Trial

ABSTRACT

Scott, KM, Kreisel, BR, Florkiewicz, EM, Crowell, MS, Morris, JB, McHenry, PA, and Benedict, TM. The effect of cautionary versus resiliency spine education on maximum deadlift performance and back beliefs: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e341-e348, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cautionary information about the spine vs. a message of spine resiliency on maximum deadlift (MDL) performance and beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine. This cluster randomized control trial involved 903 military new cadets (n = 903) during their mandatory fitness test in cadet basic training (mean age 18.3 years, body mass index 23.8 kg·m-2, 22% female). Subjects were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The cautionary group received a message warning them to protect their backs while deadlifting, the resiliency group received a message encouraging confidence while deadlifting, and the control group received the standardized Army deadlift education only. The outcome measures were MDL weight lifted and perceived spine vulnerability. Significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. There were no between-group differences in weight lifted (p=0.40). Most subjects believed that the spine is vulnerable to injury. Three times as many subjects who received the resiliency education improved their beliefs about the vulnerability of their spines compared with those receiving the cautionary education (p<0.001). This study demonstrated the potential for brief resiliency education to positively influence beliefs about spine vulnerability, whereas cautionary education did not impair performance.

Evaluation of the lumbar and abdominal muscles behavior in different sagittal plane angles during maximum voluntary isometric extension

Physical positions and lumbar movements are directly related to lumbar disorders. It is known that the sagittal plane angle affects the person's ability to apply extension torque. However, there is no consensus on whether or not muscle activity and co-contractions change at these angles. This paper aimed to investigate the abdominal and lumbar muscles' behavior at different sagittal plane angles during maximum voluntary isometric extension (MVIE). We have evaluated our findings with the aid of a computational biomechanical model. Fourteen healthy males participated. A total of 16 muscles EMG were recorded during the lumbar MVIE on the Sharif Lumbar Isometric Strength Tester device in 5°, 15°, 30°, and 45° flexion. The torque and muscle activity changes and all co-contraction indexes (CCI) between 120 possible muscle pairs were calculated. Finally, the experimental test conditions were modeled in the AnyBody software, and the MVIE torque, muscle activity, and all CCIs were calculated. Also, muscle torque lever arms were calculated at different angles. Results show that MVIE at four angles is 137.94 ± 36.08, 148.63 ± 47.96, 168.09 ± 50.48, and 171.44 ± 53.95 N · m, respectively. Muscle activity and CCI are similar at all angles. The AnyBody model gives similar findings. Muscles torque lever arms change with angle. In conclusion, to determine the safety mode of lifting in the sagittal plane, it seems that the torque differences are due to changes in the geometrical muscle parameters (including the torque lever arm). Despite the almost constant muscular effort, subjects in the 30°-45° bending positions can apply more MVIE.

Impaired Lumbar Extensor Force Control Is Associated with Increased Lifting Knee Velocity in People with Chronic Low-Back Pain

The ability of the lumbar extensor muscles to accurately control static and dynamic forces is important during daily activities such as lifting. Lumbar extensor force control is impaired in low-back pain patients and may therefore explain the variances in lifting kinematics. Thirty-three chronic low-back pain participants were instructed to lift weight using a self-selected technique. Participants also performed an isometric lumbar extension task where they increased and decreased their lumbar extensor force output to match a variable target force within 20-50% lumbar extensor maximal voluntary contraction. Lifting trunk and lower limb range of motion and angular velocity variables derived from phase plane analysis in all planes were calculated. Lumbar extensor force control was analyzed by calculating the Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) between the participants' force and the target force during the increasing (RMSEA), decreasing (RMSED) force portions and for the overall force error (RMSET) of the test. The relationship between lifting kinematics and RMSE variables was analyzed using multiple linear regression. Knee angular velocity in the sagittal and coronal planes were positively associated with RMSEA (R2 = 0.10, β = 0.35, p = 0.046 and R2 = 0.21, β = 0.48, p = 0.004, respectively). Impaired lumbar extensor force control is associated with increased multiplanar knee movement velocity during lifting. The study findings suggest a potential relationship between lumbar and lower limb neuromuscular function in people with chronic low-back pain.

Thoracolumbar And Lumbopelvic Spinal Alignment During The Deadlift Exercise: A Comparison Between Men And Women

Background

A neutral spinal alignment is considered important during the execution of the deadlift exercise to decrease the risk of injury. Since male and female powerlifters experience pain in different parts of their backs, it is important to examine whether men and women differ in spinal alignment during the deadlift.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to quantify the spinal alignment in the upper (thoracolumbar, T11-L2) and lower (lumbopelvic, L2-S2) lumbar spine during the deadlift exercise in male and female lifters. Secondary aims were to compare lumbar spine alignment during the deadlift to standing habitual posture, and determine whether male and female lifters differ in these aspects.

Study Design

Observational, Cross-sectional.

Methods

Twenty-four (14 men, 10 women) lifters performed three repetitions of the deadlift exercise using 70% of their respective one-repetition maximum. Spinal alignment and spinal range of motion were measured using three inertial measurement units placed on the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine. Data from three different positions were analyzed; habitual posture in standing, and start and stop positions of the deadlift, i.e. bottom and finish position respectively.

Results

During the deadlift, spinal adjustments were evident in all three planes of movement. From standing habitual posture to the start position the lumbar lordosis decreased 13° in the upper and 20° in the lower lumbar spine. From start position to stop position the total range of motion in the sagittal plane was 11° in the upper and 22° in the lower lumbar spine. The decreased lumbar lordosis from standing habitual posture to the start position was significantly greater among men.

Conclusions

Men and women adjust their spinal alignment in all three planes of movement when performing a deadlift and men seem to make greater adjustments from their standing habitual posture to start position in the sagittal plane.

Level of Evidence

3.

Misconceptions of physical therapists and medical doctors regarding the impact of lifting a light load on low back pain

BACKGROUND

A common misconception about low back pain (LBP) is that the spine is weak and that lumbar flexion should be avoided. Because the beliefs of health-care professionals (HCPs) influence patients, it is important to understand the attitudes of health care professionals towards LBP and lifting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the perceptions of different categories of HCPs regarding the safety of specific movement strategies used to lift a light load, and their beliefs regarding back pain. The secondary aim was to determine whether certain factors influenced the beliefs of HCPs.

METHODS

Data were collected via an electronic survey. Student and qualified physical therapists (PTs), medical students, and general practitioner (GP) trainees were included. The questionnaire included eight photographs, depicting eight different strategies to lift a light load. Respondents were requested to select the strategy(s) they considered as "unsafe" to use for asymptomatic people with a previous history of LBP and people with chronic LBP. Beliefs and attitudes towards LBP were evaluated using the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ).

RESULTS

Questionnaires from 1005 participants were included. Seventy percent of qualified PTs considered none of the strategies as harmful (versus 32% of PT students, 9% of GP trainees and 1% of medical students). Qualified PTs had higher Back-PAQ scores (mean ± SD: 13.6 ± 5.5) than PT students (8.7 ± 5.7), GP trainees (5.9 ± 5.9) and medical students (4.1 ± 5.2), indicating less misconceptions regarding LBP. Having LBP negatively influenced beliefs while taking a pain education course positively influenced beliefs.

CONCLUSION

Misconceptions regarding LBP and the harmfulness of lifting a light load with a rounded back remain common among HCPs, particularly medical doctors.

Lifting Techniques: Why Are We Not Using Evidence To Optimize Movement?

Lifting something off the ground is an essential task and lifting is a documented risk factor for low back pain (LBP). The standard lifting techniques are stoop (lifting with your back), squat (lifting with your legs), and semi-squat (midway between stoop and squat). Most clinicians believe the squat technique is optimal; however, training on squat lifting does not prevent LBP and utilizing greater lumbar flexion (i.e. stoop) when lifting is not a risk factor for LBP. The disconnect between what occurs in clinical practice and what the evidence suggests has resulted in ongoing debate. Clinicians must ask the right questions in order to apply the evidence appropriately. A proposed clinical framework of calm tissue down, build tissue up, improve work capacity can be used to determine which lifting technique is optimal for a patient at any given time. When applying this clinical framework, clinicians should consider metabolic, biomechanical, physical stress tolerance, and pain factors in order to address the movement system. For example, stoop lifting is more metabolically efficient and less challenging to the cardiopulmonary system. There may be few biomechanical differences in spinal postures and gross loads on the lumbar spine between stoop, squat, and semi-squat lifting; however, each lift has distinct kinematic patterns that affects muscle activation patterns, and ultimately the movement system. Clinicians must find the optimal dosage of physical stress to address all aspects of the movement system to minimize the risk of injury. There is no universal consensus on the optimal lifting technique which will satisfy every situation; however, there may be a lifting technique that optimizes movement to achieve a specific outcome. The calm tissue down, build tissue up, improve work capacity framework offers an approach to determine the best lifting technique for an individual patient at any give time.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

How accurate are visual assessments by physical therapists of lumbo-pelvic movements during the squat and deadlift?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the accuracy of visual assessments made by physical therapists of lumbo-pelvic movements during the squat and deadlift and how much movement is considered injurious.

DESIGN

Quantitative Cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS

14 powerlifters, 10 Olympic weightlifters and six physical therapists.

SETTING

The lifters were recorded simultaneously by video and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) system while performing squats and deadlifts. The physical therapists assessed the videos and rated whether specific lumbo-pelvic movements were visible during the lifts and whether the movement amplitude was considered injurious.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The nominal visual assessments, if there was a movement and if it was considered injurious, were compared to the degrees of movement attained from the IMU system.

RESULTS

During the squat, a posterior pelvic tilt of ≥34° was required to visually detect the movement. For other lumbo-pelvic movements, there was no significant difference in the amount of movement between those who were assessed as moving or not moving their lumbo-pelvic area, nor was there a difference in movement amplitude between those who were assessed as having an increased risk of injury or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists did not consistently detect lumbo-pelvic movements during squats and deadlifts when performed by competitive lifters.