Kinematic adaptations to restricting spine motion during symmetrical lifting

When lifting an object from the ground a person has many possible whole-body movement solutions to accomplish the task. It is unclear why lifters use most of their available lumbar spine flexion range-of-motion despite many ergonomic guidelines advising against doing so. Experimentally restricting spine motion and observing compensatory movement strategies is one approach to address this knowledge gap. A kinematic analysis was performed on 16 participants who completed symmetrical lifting tasks with and without wearing a spine motion-restricting device. Sagittal trunk, lumbar spine, and lower extremity kinematics, along with stance width and foot orientation in the transverse plane were evaluated between restricted and unrestricted lifting conditions. Restricting spine motion required greater ankle dorsiflexion (p < 0.001), knee flexion (p < 0.001), and hip flexion (p < 0.001) motion in comparison to unrestricted lifting. Motion was reallocated such that hip flexion showed the largest increase in restricted lifting, followed by ankle dorsiflexion, then knee flexion compared to unrestricted lifting. Trunk inclination decreased (i.e., more upright) in restricted compared to unrestricted lifting (p < 0.001). Neither stance width (p = 0.163) nor foot orientation (p = 0.228) were affected by restricting spine motion. These adaptive movements observed indicate lower extremity joint motion must be available and controlled to minimize lumbar spine flexion during lifting.

A comparison of augmented feedback and didactic training approaches to reduce spine motion during occupational lifting tasks

Manual handling training may be improved if it relied on the provision of individualized, augmented feedback about key movement features. The purpose of this study was to compare the reduction in sagittal spine motion during manual lifting tasks following two training approaches: didactic (DID) and augmented feedback (AUG). Untrained participants (n = 26) completed lifting tests (box, medication bag, and paramedic backboard) and a randomly-assigned intervention involving 50 practice box lifts. Lifting tests were performed immediately before and after training, and one-week after interventions. Both groups exhibited reductions in spine motions immediately and one-week after the interventions. However, the AUG intervention group elicited significantly greater reductions in 5 of 12 between-group comparisons (3 tasks × 4 spine motion variables). The results of the current study support the use of augmented feedback-based approaches to manual handling training over education-based approaches.

Comparison of 5 Normalization Methods for Knee Joint Moments in the Single-Leg Squat

Ratio scaling is the most common magnitude normalization approach for net joint moment (NJM) data. Generally, researchers compute a ratio between NJM and (some combination of) physical body characteristics (eg, mass, height, limb length, etc). However, 3 assumptions must be verified when normalizing NJM data this way. First, the regression line between NJM and the characteristic(s) used passes through the origin. Second, normalizing NJM eliminates its correlation with the characteristic(s). Third, the statistical interpretations following normalization are consistent with adjusted linear models. The study purpose was to assess these assumptions using data collected from 16 males and 16 females who performed a single-leg squat. Standard inverse dynamics analyses were conducted, and ratios were computed between the mediolateral and anteroposterior components of the knee NJM and participant mass, height, leg length, mass × height, and mass × leg length. Normalizing NJM-mediolateral by mass × height and mass × leg length satisfied all 3 assumptions. Normalizing NJM-anteroposterior by height and leg length satisfied all 3 assumptions. Therefore, if normalization of the knee NJM is deemed necessary to address a given research question, it can neither be assumed that using (any combination of) participant mass, height, or leg length as the denominator is appropriate nor consistent across joint axes.

From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles

Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 16-camera optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Continuous as well as peak compressive, anterior-posterior shear and total loads (resultant load vector of the compressive and shear load vectors) were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For each lifting style, loads increased towards the caudal end of the lumbar spine. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (-0.3 to -1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (-0.2 to -0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9 ± 10.1°) than freestyle (24.2 ± 7.3°) and squat (25.1 ± 8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6 ± 0.7 s), followed by squat (4.9 ± 0.7 s) and stoop (5.9 ± 1.1 s). Stoop lifting produced lower total and compressive lumbar loads than squat lifting. Shear loads were generally higher during stoop lifting, except for the L5/S1 segment, where anterior shear loads were higher during squat lifting. Lifting time was identified as another important factor, considering that slower speeds seem to result in lower loads.

Mechanical Energy Expenditure at Lumbar Spine and Lower Extremity Joints During the Single-Leg Squat Is Affected by the Nonstance Foot Position

Hirsch, SM, Chapman, CJ, Frost, DM, and Beach, TAC. Mechanical energy expenditure at lumbar spine and lower extremity joints during the single-leg squat is affected by the nonstance foot position. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Previous research has shown that discrete kinematic and kinetic quantities during bodyweight single-leg squat (SLS) movements are affected by elevated foot positioning and sex of the performer, but generalizations are limited by the high-dimensional data structure reported. Using a 3D inverse dynamical linked-segment model, we quantified mechanical energy expenditure (MEE) at each joint in the kinetic chain, the total MEE (sum of MEE across aforesaid joints), and the relative contribution of each joint to total MEE during SLSs performed with elevated foot positioned beside stance leg (SLS-Side), and in-front of (SLS-Front) and behind (SLS-Back) the body. Total MEE differed between SLS variations (p = 0.002), with the least amount observed in the SLS-Back (effect size [ES] = 0.066-0.069). Approximately 50% of total MEE was contributed by the knee joint in each SLS variation, whereas MEE at the ankle, hip, and lumbar spine (in absolute and relative terms) varied complexly as a function of the elevated foot position. Total MEE (p = 0.0192, ES = 0.852) and the absolute MEE at the knee and spine was greater in men across the SLS variations performed (p = 0.025-0.036, ES = 0.715-0.766), but only the lumbar spine contribution to total MEE was larger in men across all SLS variations (p = 0.045, ES = 0.607). Otherwise, there were no other sex-specific responses observed. Biomechanically, SLS movements are generally "knee-dominant," but changing elevated foot position effectively redistributes MEE among other joints in the linkage. Consistent with the previous conclusions reached based on discrete kinematic and kinetic data, not all SLSs are equal.

Can a Standardized Visual Assessment of Squatting Technique and Core Stability Predict Injury?

O'Connor, S, McCaffrey, N, Whyte, EF, and Moran, KA. Can a standardized visual assessment of squatting technique and core stability predict injury? J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 26-36, 2020-This study examined whether a standardized visual assessment of squatting technique and core stability can predict injury. Male adolescent and collegiate Gaelic players (n = 627) were assessed using the alternative core/trunk stability push-up test and a developed scoring system for the overhead squat and single-leg squat (SLS) that examined both overall impression and segmental criteria. A single summative score from the overall impression scores of all 3 tests was calculated. Sustained injuries were examined over a season. Results indicated that the single summative score did not predict those that sustained a lower-extremity injury, trunk injury, or whole-body injury, and receiver operating characteristic curves were also unable to generate an optimal cutoff point for prediction. When segmental criteria were included in multivariate analyses, the tests were able to predict whole-body injury (p < 0.0001) and lower-extremity injury (p < 0.0001). However, although specificity was high (80.6%, 76.5%), sensitivity of the models was low (40.2%, 44.2%). The most common score was "good" for the overhead squat (46.4%) and SLS (47.6%), and "good" and "excellent" for the alternative core stability push-up test (33.5%, 49.1%), with "poor" core stability increasing the odds of sustaining a lower-extremity injury (odds ratio = 1.52 [0.92-2.51]). The findings suggest that although segmental scoring could be incorporated by strength and conditioning coaches and clinicians, they should be used predominantly as a preliminary screening tool to highlight players requiring a more thorough assessment.

The Relationship Between a Jump-Landing Task and Functional Movement Screen Items : A Validation Study

Kraus, K, Schütz, E, and Doyscher, R. The relationship between a jump-landing task and functional movement screen items : a validation study. J Strength Cond Res 33(7): 1855-1863, 2019-Sports injuries and athletic performance are complex areas, which are characterized by manifold interdependencies. The landing error scoring system (LESS) is a valid screening tool to examine bilateral jump-landing mechanics, whereas the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) items are thought to operationalize flexibility and motor behavior during low-intense bodyweight patterns. The aim of the study was to explore possible interdependency of the diagnostic information of these screening tools. Fifty-three athletes (age 23.3 ± 2.1 years) were tested in a sport scientific laboratory. In detail, 31 professional soccer players (third division) and 22 collegiate athletes were studied. Linear, partial correlational, and cluster analysis were performed to examine possible trends. Generally, the sportsmen achieved a LESS score of 6.6 ± 2 and a jumping height of 37 ± 7.8 cm. Partial correlational analysis indicates that trunk control (r = 0.4; p < 0.01) is moderately related to landing mechanics, which in turn was negatively related on LESS height (r = -0.67, p < 0.01). In addition, clustering showed by trend that a higher active straight leg raise (ASLR) score is related to better landing mechanics (ASLR score 1: LESS 6.9 ± 1.8; n = 15 vs. ASLR score 3: LESS 5.6 ± 2.1; n = 10). On the task-specific level, jump-landing mechanics were directly related to jumping performance in this cohort with poor mechanics. On unspecific analysis level, kinetic chain length (ASLR) and trunk control have been identified as potential moderator variables for landing mechanics, indicating that these parameters can limit landing mechanics and ought to be optimized within the individual's context. A potential cognitive strategy shift from internal (FMS) to external focus (LESS) and different muscle recruitment patterns are potential explanations for the nonsignificant linear relationship between the FMS and LESS data.

The effects of a simulated occupational kneeling exposure on squat mechanics and knee joint load during gait

Occupational kneeling is associated with an increased risk for tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis. Forces on the knee in the kneeling posture, as well as the greater incidence of meniscus tears among workers, likely contribute to the increased risk. We hypothesise that an additional mechanism may contribute - altered neuromuscular control due to prolonged high knee flexion. Forty participants (20 male, 20 female) completed an evaluation of gait and squatting before, immediately following, and 30 min following a 30 min simulated occupational kneeling exposure. An increase in the peak external knee adduction moment and a delay in vastus medialis activation onset during walking were observed post-kneeling, as well as increased frontal plane knee motion during squatting. This was the first investigation to find changes in high flexion transitions as a result of kneeling. Greater frontal plane knee motion may increase the risk for meniscal tears, and subsequently, knee osteoarthritis. Practitioner Summary: A 30 min simulated occupational kneeling exposure resulted in small but significant gait changes. The greatest effect was on frontal plane knee movement during squatting, which is especially relevant to occupations requiring frequent kneeling/squatting. This increased motion may indicate an increased risk of injury, which supports a link to knee osteoarthritis.

Effect of Ankle Mobility and Segment Ratios on Trunk Lean in the Barbell Back Squat

Fuglsang, EI, Telling, AS, and Sørensen, H. Effect of ankle mobility and segment ratios on trunk lean in the barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res 31(11): 3024-3033, 2017-The barbell back squat is a popular exercise used for both performance enhancing and rehabilitation purposes. However, injuries are common, and people with a history of lower back pain are especially vulnerable. Past studies have shown that higher trunk angles (less forward lean) generate less stress on the lower back; thus, it seems appropriate to investigate the factors presumed to influence the trunk angle. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate how ankle mobility and the segment ratios between the thoracic spine, thighs, and shanks influence the trunk angle in the back squat. While recorded with motion capture, 11 male subjects performed 3 repetitions at approximately 75% of 1 repetition maximum in the squat to a parallel position (thighs horizontal) or lower. Furthermore, subjects performed a weight bearing lunge test to determine maximal range of motion (ROM) of the ankle joint. Segment angles of the shank, thigh, and trunk segments as well as ankle joint angles were calculated by 2-dimensional kinematic analysis. Simple linear and multiple regressions were used to test the correlation between the lower extremity angles, segment ratios, and the trunk angle. On average, subjects had an 11.4 ± 4.4° deficit in dorsiflexion ROM between maximal ROM and ROM in the parallel squat (PS) which was independent of maximal ROM. Ankle mobility showed to significantly negatively correlate with trunk angle, thereby showing that a subject with greater ankle ROM had a more upright torso in the PS position. This study was unable to find a significant correlation between the segment ratios and trunk angle. Furthermore, when combined, no significant relationship between ankle mobility, segment length ratios, and trunk angle were found, although it was noticed that this more complex model showed the greatest R value.

Using verbal instructions to influence lifting mechanics - Does the directive "lift with your legs, not your back" attenuate spinal flexion?

"Use your legs" is commonly perceived as sound advice to prevent lifting-related low-back pain and injuries, but there is limited evidence that this directive attenuates the concomitant biomechanical risk factors. Body segment kinematic data were collected from 12 men and 12 women who performed a laboratory lifting/lowering task after being provided with different verbal instructions. The main finding was that instructing participants to lift "without rounding your lower back" had a greater effect on the amount of spine flexion they exhibited when lifting/lowering than instructing them to lift "with your legs instead of your back" and "bend your knees and hips". It was concluded that if using verbal instructions to discourage spine flexion when lifting, the instructions should be spine- rather than leg-focused.