European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 146–156 | Cite as

The role of back muscle endurance, maximum force, balance and trunk rotation control regarding lifting capacity

  • Peter Schenk
  • Andreas Klipstein
  • Susanne Spillmann
  • Jesper Strøyer
  • Thomas Laubli
Original Article

Abstract

Evaluation of lifting capacity is widely used as a reliable instrument in order to evaluate maximal and safe lifting capacity. This is of importance in regard to planning rehabilitation programs and determining working ability. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of basic functions on the lifting capacity measured by the progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE) and the functional capacity evaluation (FCE) tests in a lower (floor to waist) and an upper (waist to shoulder) setting and compare the two test constructs. Seventy-four female subjects without acute low back pain underwent an examination of their lifting capacities and the following basic functions: (1) strength and endurance of trunk muscles, (2) cardiovascular endurance, (3) trunk mobility and (4) coordination ability. A linear regression model was used to predict lifting capacity by means of the above-mentioned basic functions, where the F statistics of the variables had to be significant at the 0.05 level to remain in the model. Maximal force in flexion showed significant influence on the lifting capacity in both the PILE and the FCE in the lower, as well as in the upper, lifting task. Furthermore, there was a significant influence of cardiovascular endurance on the lower PILE and also of endurance in trunk flexion on the lower FCE. Additional inclusion of individual factors (age, height, weight, body mass index) into the regression model showed a highly significant association between body height and all lifting tasks. The r 2 of the original model used was 0.19/0.18 in the lower/upper FCE and 0.35/0.26 in the lower/upper PILE. The model r 2 increased after inclusion of these individual factors to between 0.3 and 0.4. The fact that only a limited part of the variance in the lifting capacities can be explained by the basic functions analyzed in this study confirms the assumption that factors not related to the basic functions studied, such as lifting technique and motor control, may have a strong influence on lifting capacity. These results give evidence to suggest the inclusion of an evaluation of lifting capacity in clinical practice. Furthermore, they raise questions about the predictive value of strength and endurance tests in regard to lifting capacity and work ability.

Keywords

Body height Endurance Gross motor coordination Lifting capacity Trunk strength 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Leanne Pobjoy for her help with the manuscript.

References

  1. Astrand PO (1970) Textbook of work physiology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Biering-Sorensen F (1984) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. Spine 9:106–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer B, Culham EG, Liston RA, Grant T (1998) Normal variability of postural measures: implications for the reliability of relative balance performance outcomes. Scand J Rehabil Med 30:131–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Groothoff JW, Schellekens JM, Goeken LN (2003) Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 13:207–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunce SM, Hough AD, Moore AP (2004) Measurement of abdominal muscle thickness using M-mode ultrasound imaging during functional activities. Man Ther 9:41–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cholewicki J, Juluru K, McGill SM (1999) Intra-abdominal pressure mechanism for stabilizing the lumbar spine. J Biomech 32:13–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dempsey PG, Ayoub MM, Westfall PH (1998) Evaluation of the ability of power to predict low frequency lifting capacity. Ergonomics 41:1222–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Essendrop M, Schibye B, Hansen K (2001) Reliability of isometric muscle strength tests for the trunk, hands and shoulders. Int J Ind Erg 28:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Essendrop M, Maul I, Laubli T, Riihimaki H, Schibye B (2002) Measures of low back function: a review of reproducibility studies. Clin Biomech 17:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gauvin MG, Riddle DL, Rothstein JM (1990) Reliability of clinical measurements of forward bending using the modified fingertip-to-floor method. Phys Ther 70:443–447PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gore CJ, Booth ML, Bauman A, Owen N (1999) Utility of pwc75% as an estimate of aerobic power in epidemiological and population-based studies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:348–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorelick M, Brown JM, Groeller H (2003) Short-duration fatigue alters neuromuscular coordination of trunk musculature: implications for injury. Appl Ergon 34:317–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gross DP, Battie MC (2002) Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 82:364–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Han TS, Schouten JS, Lean ME, Seidell JC (1997) The prevalence of low back pain and associations with body fatness, fat distribution and height. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 21:600–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart DL, Isernhagen SJ, Matheson LN (1993) Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18:682–686PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Saur P, Jansen J (1997) Prediction of success from a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 22:990–1001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyytiainen K, Salminen JJ, Suvitie T, Wickstrom G, Pentti J (1991) Reproducibility of nine tests to measure spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength. Scand J Rehabil Med 23:3–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Isernhagen SJ (1991) Functional capacity evaluation and work hardening perspectives. In: Mayer TG, Mooney V, Gatchel R (eds) Contemporary conservative care for painful spinal disorders. Lea & Febinger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Isernhagen SJ (1992) Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 2:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL, Matheson LM (1999) Reliability of independent observer judgments of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation. Work 12:145–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ito T, Shirado O, Suzuki H, Takahashi M, Kaneda K, Strax TE (1996) Lumbar trunk muscle endurance testing: an inexpensive alternative to a machine for evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:75–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones T, Kumar S (2003) Functional capacity evaluation of manual materials handlers: a review. Disabil Rehabil 25:179–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller A, Hellesnes J, Brox JI (2001) Reliability of the isokinetic trunk extensor test, Biering-Sorensen test, and Astrand bicycle test: assessment of intraclass correlation coefficient and critical difference in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy individuals. Spine 26:771–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kippers V, Parker AW (1987) Toe-touch test: a measure of its validity. Phys Ther 67:1680–1684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Leclerc A, Tubach F, Landre MF, Ozguler A (2003) Personal and occupational predictors of sciatica in the GAZEL cohort. Occup Med (Lond) 53:384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Looze MP de, Groen H, Horemans H, Kingma I, van Dieen JH (1999) Abdominal muscles contribute in a minor way to peak spinal compression in lifting. J Biomech 32:655–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luk KD, Lu WW, Kwan WW, Hu Y, Wong YW, Law KK, Leong JC (2003) Isokinetic and isometric lifting capacity of Chinese in relation to the physical demand of the job. Appl Ergon 34:201–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Matheson LN, Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL (2002) Relationships among lifting ability, grip force, and return to work. Phys Ther 82:249–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer TG, Barnes D, Kishino ND, Nichols G, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H, Mooney V (1988a) Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. I. A standardized protocol and normative database. Spine 13:993–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer TG, Barnes D, Nichols G, Kishino ND, Coval K, Piel B, Hoshino D, Gatchel RJ (1988b) Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. II. A comparison with isokinetic lifting in a disabled chronic low-back pain industrial population. Spine 13:998–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mital A, Nicholson AS, Ayoub MM (1993) Manual materials handling. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Nissinen M, Heliovaara M, Seitsamo J, Alaranta H, Poussa M (1994) Anthropometric measurements and the incidence of low back pain in a cohort of pubertal children. Spine 19:1367–1370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olivieri M, Denier-Bont F, Hallmark ML (1999) Evaluation der funktionellen Leistungsfähigkeit (EFL) nach Susan Isernhagen. Medizinische Mitteilungen 69:15–27Google Scholar
  34. Sinaki M, Limburg PJ, Wollan PC, Rogers JW, Murtaugh PA (1996) Correlation of trunk muscle strength with age in children 5 to 18 years old. Mayo Clin Proc 71:1047–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinberg U, Windberg H (1994) Sonderschrift 9. Leitfaden Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der manuellen Handhabung von Lasten. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsmedizin, BremerhavenGoogle Scholar
  36. Suni JH, Oja P, Laukkanen RT, Miilunpalo SI, Pasanen ME, Vuori IM, Vartiainen TM, Bos K (1996) Health-related fitness test battery for adults: aspects of reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:399–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunnegardh J, Bratteby LE, Nordesjo LO, Nordgren B (1988) Isometric and isokinetic muscle strength, anthropometry and physical activity in 8- and 13-year-old Swedish children. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 58:291–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Troup JD, Foreman TK, Baxter CE, Brown D (1987) 1987 Volvo award in clinical sciences. The perception of back pain and the role of psychophysical tests of lifting capacity. Spine 12:645–657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Westhoff M (1994) The inter-observer reliability of a standardized protocol to measure the physical capacity of the musculoskeletal system. Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Schenk
    • 1
  • Andreas Klipstein
    • 2
  • Susanne Spillmann
    • 2
  • Jesper Strøyer
    • 3
  • Thomas Laubli
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Hygiene and Applied PhysiologySwiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.University Hospital ZurichDepartment of Rheumatology and Institute of Physical MedicineZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of PhysiologyNational Institute of Occupational HealthCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations