Trunk Extension Strength and Muscle Activity in Standing and Kneeling Postures

Study Design. A split‐plot experimental design was used to evaluate the influence of posture, trunk angle, and rotational velocity on peak torque output and myoelectric activity during maximal trunk extension maneuvers. Objectives. To determine whether the kneeling posture alters extension torque capabilities in isometric and isokinetic exercises as compared with standing. Also, to ascertain whether recruitment of trunk muscles is modified by such a postural change. Summary of Background Data. Factors such as workplace geometry may force workers to adopt awkward or unusual postures in the performance of manual tasks. An understanding of the limitations placed on strength in unconventional working postures is crucial to the proper design of jobs. Methods. Twenty‐one healthy male subjects (mean age = 36 years ± 7 SD) performed 12 trunk extension exertions in standing and kneeling postures. Isometric tests were performed at 22.5°, 45°, and 67.5° of trunk flexion. Isokinetic tests were done at three velocities: 30°/sec, 60°/sec, and 90°/sec. Electromyographic data were collected from eight trunk muscles to assess muscle recruitment under each condition. A priori orthogonal contrasts were specified for analysis of both torque and electromyographic data. Results. The kneeling posture was associated with a 15% decrease in peak torque output when contrasted with standing; however, no concomitant change in trunk muscle activity was evident. Trunk hyperflexion (isometric tests) and increasing rotational velocity (isokinetic tests) were associated with reduced torque in both postures. Trunk muscle activity was primarily affected by changes in trunk angle and velocity of contraction. Conclusions. A reduced extensor capability exists in the kneeling posture, despite equivalent trunk muscle activity. The similar activation patterns in both postures suggest that the strength deficit does not result from alterations in trunk muscle function. Rather, it may be the consequence of a reduced capability to rotate the pelvis in the kneeling posture, due to a disruption of the biomechanical linkage of the leg structures.

[1]  W. Floyd,et al.  The function of the erectores spinae muscles in certain movements and postures in man * , 1955, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  W Karwowski,et al.  Maximum acceptable lifting loads during seated and standing work positions. , 1987, Applied ergonomics.

[3]  S Gallagher,et al.  Lifting in four restricted lifting conditions: psychophysical, physiological and biomechanical effects of lifting in stooped and kneeling postures. , 1990, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  G. Smidt,et al.  Assessment of Abdominal and Back Extensor Function: A Quantitative Approach and Results for Chronic Low‐Back Patients , 1983, Spine.

[5]  M. Pollock,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Full Range‐of-Motion Isometric Lumbar Extension Strength , 1990, Spine.

[6]  W S Marras,et al.  Measurements of Loads on the Lumbar Spine Under Isometric and Isokinetic Conditions , 1984, Spine.

[7]  M. Nordin,et al.  1988 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: The Triaxial Coupling of Torque Generation of Trunk Muscles during Isometric Exertions and the Effect of Fatiguing Isoinertial Movements on the Motor Output and Movement Patterns , 1988, Spine.

[8]  S Gallagher,et al.  Acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined manual handling tasks in restricted postures. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[9]  William S. Marras,et al.  Trunk motion during lifting: The relative cost , 1986 .

[10]  T P Leskinen,et al.  Postural, epidemiological and biomechanical analysis of luggage handling in an aircraft luggage compartment. , 1986, Applied ergonomics.

[11]  C J Snijders,et al.  Transfer of lumbosacral load to iliac bones and legs Part 2: Loading of the sacroiliac joints when lifting in a stooped posture. , 1993, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  K. Shepard,et al.  Relationship between verbal command volume and magnitude of muscle contraction. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[13]  G B Andersson.  Permissible loads: biomechanical considerations. , 1985, Ergonomics.

[14]  R L Waters,et al.  Electrical activity of muscles of the trunk during walking. , 1972, Journal of anatomy.

[15]  E Poulsen.  Back Muscle Strength and Weight Limits in Lifting Burdens , 1981, Spine.

[16]  J M Morris,et al.  An electromyographic study of the intrinsic muscles of the back in man. , 1962, Journal of anatomy.

[17]  S Gracovetsky,et al.  The Optimum Spine , 1986, Spine.

[18]  Sean Gallagher,et al.  Lifting In Stooped And Kneeling Postures: Effects On Lifting Capacity, Metabolic Costs, And Electromyography Of Eight Trunk Muscles , 1988 .

[19]  C. Snijders,et al.  The Posterior Layer of the Thoracolumbar Fascia|Its Function in Load Transfer From Spine to Legs , 1995, Spine.

[20]  Arnold C. Love,et al.  Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[21]  S Gallagher,et al.  Acceptable workloads for three common mining materials. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[22]  D. Chaffin,et al.  A proposed standard procedure for static muscle strength testing. , 1974, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[23]  O. Lippold,et al.  The relation between force, velocity and integrated electrical activity in human muscles , 1954, The Journal of physiology.

[24]  S. McGill,et al.  A biomechanical perspective of sacro-iliac pain. , 1987, Clinical biomechanics.

[25]  S. Smith,et al.  Quantification of Lumbar Function: Part 1: Isometric and Multispeed Isokinetic Trunk Strength Measures in Sagittal and Axial Planes in Normal Subjects , 1985, Spine.

[26]  A. Schultz,et al.  Loads on the lumbar spine. Validation of a biomechanical analysis by measurements of intradiscal pressures and myoelectric signals. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.