Can we enable individuals to reach further down without rounding their backs before beginning a lift? Examining the influence of starting foot and trunk position on reach depth.

There is disagreement regarding the efficacy of 'safe' lifting recommendations for reducing low back disorder risk. These recommendations commonly focus on minimising lumbar spine flexion, which limits the range of allowable starting lift positions for that person. This study evaluated whether starting postural adaptations could allow a person to reach down further without rounding their lumbar spine before beginning a lift. Reach displacement was measured as participants performed a series of maximal reach tasks under different combinations of stance width, foot orientation and trunk inclination, with their lumbar spine motion restricted. There were no interactions between any of the three postural adaptations or any effect of stance width or trunk inclination. Seventy-nine percent of participants achieved their greatest reach displacement with their feet externally rotated, which contributed to a 4 cm greater reach displacement compared to a neutral foot orientation (p < 0.001).Practitioner summary: This study examined whether aspects of initial posture could influence the ability to adhere to 'safe' lifting recommendations across a range of lift heights. As a component of lifting (re)training interventions, practitioners should consider starting lift posture adaptations (e.g. manipulating foot external rotation) to improve capacity to adhere to recommendations.

Functional Movement Screen Task Scores and Joint Range-of-motion: A Construct Validity Study.

Little is known about the construct validity of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). We aimed to assess associations between FMS task scores and measures of maximum joint range-of-motion (ROM) among university varsity student-athletes from 4 sports (volleyball, basketball, ice hockey, and soccer). Athletes performed FMS tasks and had their maximum ankle, hip and shoulder ROM measured. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate associations between FMS task scores and ROM measurements. 101 university student-athletes were recruited (52 W/49 M; mean age 20.4±1.9 years). In general, athletes with higher FMS task scores had greater ROM compared to those with lower task scores. For example, athletes who scored 2 on the FMS squat task had 4° (95% CI, 1° to 7°) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1, while those who scored 3 on the FMS squat task had 10° (4° to 17°) more uni-articular ankle dorsiflexion ROM compared with those who scored 1. Large variation in ROM measurements was observed. In sum, substantial overlap in joint ROM between groups of athletes with different FMS task scores weakens the construct validity of the FMS as an indicator of specific joint ROM.

Restricting lumbar spine flexion redistributes and changes total mechanical energy expenditure during lifting.

Minimizing lumbar spine flexion during lifting requires greater lower extremity joint motion. However, the effects of these kinematic changes on lumbar and lower extremity joint kinetics are unknown. Further, it is unclear whether the distribution of biomechanical demands throughout the lumbar spine and lower extremity during lumbar spine flexion restricted lifting are modulated by task factors like lift origin height and object mass. This study examined the influence of restricting lumbar spine flexion during lifting on the distribution of biomechanical demands, operationalized as mechanical energy expenditure (MEE), across the lumbar spine and lower extremity joints during lifting tasks. Twenty participants performed a series of lifting tasks that varied by lift origin height, object mass and presence or absence of lumbar spine motion restricting harness. MEE was quantified for the lumbar spine and lower extremity joints and summed across all joints to represent the total MEE. Distributions of MEE were compared across combinations of the three task factors. Total MEE was greater when lifting with restricted spine motion (p < 0.001). MEE was redistributed away from the lumbar spine and predominantly to the hips in the spine restricted conditions (p < 0.001). The nature and magnitude of this effect was modulated by lift origin height for the lumbar spine (p < 0.001) and hips (p < 0.001). Findings demonstrated that biomechanical demands can be shifted from the lumbar spine to the lower extremity when lifting with restricted spine flexion, which might help mitigate overuse injuries through coordinative variability.

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 comparative analysis of lumbar spine mechanics during barbell- and crate-lifting: implications for occupational lifting task assessments.

Purpose. To compare the effects of object handled and handgrip used on lumbar spine motion and loading during occupational lifting task simulations. Methods. Eight male and eight female volunteers performed barbell and crate lifts with a pronated (barbell) and a neutral (crate) handgrip. The mass of barbells/crates lifted was identical across the objects and fixed at 11.6 and 9.3 kg for men and women, respectively. The initial heights of barbells/crates were individualized to mid-shank level. Body segment kinematics and foot-ground reaction kinetics were collected, and then input into an electromyography-assisted dynamic biomechanical model to quantify lumbar spine motion and loading. Results. Lumbar compression and net lumbosacral moment magnitudes were 416 N and 17 Nm lower when lifting a barbell than when lifting a crate (p < 0.001), respectively. There were no between-condition differences in lumbar flexion displacements (p > 0.392) or flexion/extension velocities (p > 0.085). Conclusions. Crate- and barbell-lifting tasks can be used interchangeably if assessing lifting mechanics based on peak spine motion variables. If assessments are based on the spine loading responses to task demands, however, then crate- and barbell-lifting tasks cannot be used interchangeably.

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.