Kingma Idsart, Faber Gert S, Bakker Anja J M, van Dieën Jaap H
Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Phys Ther. 2006 Aug;86(8):1091-105.
Lifting technique could, through its effect on low back loading, affect the risk of developing low back pain. In this study, 2 lifting techniques (a straddle technique and a 1-leg kneeling technique), which aimed to reduce low back loading by placing one leg beside a load, were compared with stoop lifting and squat lifting with respect to their effect on low back loading.
Twelve men with no history of low back pain participated in the study.
The subjects lifted wide and narrow 20-kg boxes from 2 initial hand heights. With measured kinematics, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, 3-dimensional spinal forces were calculated.
When the subjects lifted a narrow box from a 290-mm height, peak L5-S1 compression forces were 5,060 (SD = 827), 3,980 (SD = 701), 4,208 (SD = 762), and 4,719 (SD = 1,015) N for the stoop, squat, straddle, and kneeling techniques, respectively. When the subjects lifted a wide box from 50 mm, spinal compression forces were much higher and distributed differently over lifting techniques: 5,926 (SD = 610), 6,868 (SD = 924), 6,472 (SD = 1,042), and 6,064 (SD = 968) N, respectively.
The authors conclude that no single lifting technique can be advised for all lifting conditions.
提举技术可通过对下背部负荷的影响，进而影响发生下背痛的风险。在本研究中，将旨在通过将一条腿置于重物旁以减少下背部负荷的两种提举技术（一种跨立技术和一种单腿跪姿技术）与弯腰提举和深蹲提举在下背部负荷影响方面进行了比较。
12名无下背痛病史的男性参与了本研究。
受试者从两个初始手部高度提起宽和窄的20千克箱子。通过测量运动学、地面反作用力和肌电图，计算三维脊柱力。
当受试者从290毫米高度提起窄箱子时，弯腰、深蹲、跨立和跪姿技术的L5-S1峰值压缩力分别为5060（标准差=827）、3980（标准差=701）、4208（标准差=762）和4719（标准差=1015）牛。当受试者从50毫米高度提起宽箱子时，脊柱压缩力更高，且在不同提举技术上的分布有所不同：分别为5926（标准差=610）、6868（标准差=924）、6472（标准差=1042）和6064（标准差=968）牛。
作者得出结论，无法针对所有提举情况推荐单一的提举技术。
Zotero 插件