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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Astrand PO (1970) Textbook of work physiology. McGraw-Hill, New York
Biering-Sorensen F (1984) Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period. Spine 9:106–119
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 30:131–137
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 13:207–218
Bunce SM, Hough AD, Moore AP (2004) Measurement of abdominal muscle thickness using M-mode ultrasound imaging during functional activities. Man Ther 9:41–44
Cholewicki J, Juluru K, McGill SM (1999) Intra-abdominal pressure mechanism for stabilizing the lumbar spine. J Biomech 32:13–17
Dempsey PG, Ayoub MM, Westfall PH (1998) Evaluation of the ability of power to predict low frequency lifting capacity. Ergonomics 41:1222–1241
Essendrop M, Schibye B, Hansen K (2001) Reliability of isometric muscle strength tests for the trunk, hands and shoulders. Int J Ind Erg 28:379–387
Essendrop M, Maul I, Laubli T, Riihimaki H, Schibye B (2002) Measures of low back function: a review of reproducibility studies. Clin Biomech 17:235–249
Gauvin MG, Riddle DL, Rothstein JM (1990) Reliability of clinical measurements of forward bending using the modified fingertip-to-floor method. Phys Ther 70:443–447
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 31:348–351
Gorelick M, Brown JM, Groeller H (2003) Short-duration fatigue alters neuromuscular coordination of trunk musculature: implications for injury. Appl Ergon 34:317–325
Gross DP, Battie MC (2002) Reliability of safe maximum lifting determinations of a functional capacity evaluation. Phys Ther 82:364–371
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 21:600–607
Hart DL, Isernhagen SJ, Matheson LN (1993) Guidelines for functional capacity evaluation of people with medical conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18:682–686
Hildebrandt J, Pfingsten M, Saur P, Jansen J (1997) Prediction of success from a multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 22:990–1001
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 23:3–10
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, Philadelphia
Isernhagen SJ (1992) Functional capacity evaluation: rationale, procedure, utility of the kinesiophysical approach. J Occup Rehabil 2:157–168
Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL, Matheson LM (1999) Reliability of independent observer judgments of level of lift effort in a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation. Work 12:145–150
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 77:75–79
Jones T, Kumar S (2003) Functional capacity evaluation of manual materials handlers: a review. Disabil Rehabil 25:179–191
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 26:771–777
Kippers V, Parker AW (1987) Toe-touch test: a measure of its validity. Phys Ther 67:1680–1684
Leclerc A, Tubach F, Landre MF, Ozguler A (2003) Personal and occupational predictors of sciatica in the GAZEL cohort. Occup Med (Lond) 53:384–391
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 32:655–662
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 34:201–204
Matheson LN, Isernhagen SJ, Hart DL (2002) Relationships among lifting ability, grip force, and return to work. Phys Ther 82:249–256
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 13:993–997
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 13:998–1002
Mital A, Nicholson AS, Ayoub MM (1993) Manual materials handling. Taylor & Francis, London
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 19:1367–1370
Olivieri M, Denier-Bont F, Hallmark ML (1999) Evaluation der funktionellen Leistungsfähigkeit (EFL) nach Susan Isernhagen. Medizinische Mitteilungen 69:15–27
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 71:1047–1054
Steinberg U, Windberg H (1994) Sonderschrift 9. Leitfaden Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der manuellen Handhabung von Lasten. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsmedizin, Bremerhaven
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 77:399–405
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 58:291–297
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 12:645–657
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, Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Leanne Pobjoy for her help with the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schenk, P., Klipstein, A., Spillmann, S. et al. The role of back muscle endurance, maximum force, balance and trunk rotation control regarding lifting capacity. Eur J Appl Physiol 96, 146–156 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-004-1262-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-004-1262-7