This study evaluated the differences in spinal loading between males and females while performing complex free-dynamic whole body lifts. Twenty males and twenty-five females performed sagittally symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks from mid-shin and knee height origins. Only minor differences between males and females were found in three-dimensional spinal loads. The compressive loads for the females appeared to be independent of the experimental condition (e.g. lifting task or velocity). Females adopted a different kinematic pattern compared to males as well as recruited more antagonistic muscles when performing similar tasks. When spinal tolerance differences are considered, females would be expected to be more at risk of injury during typical lifting tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BigosSJSpenglerDMMartinNAZehJFisherLNachemsonA, Back injuries in industry: A retrospective study. III. Employee-related factors. Spine, 1986; 11: 252–256.
2.
BrownJR, Lifting as an industrial hazard. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J.1973; 34: 292–297.
3.
DavisKGMarrasWSWatersTR, Evaluation of the spinal loading during lowering and lifting. Clinical Biomechanics, 1998; 13: 141–152.
4.
FathallahFAMarrasWSParnianpourM, An assessment of complex spinal loads during dynamic lifting tasks. Spine, 1998; 23: 706–716.
5.
FathallahFAMarrasWSParnianpourMGranataKP, A method for measuring external loads during unconstrained free-dynamic lifting. Journal of Biomechanics, 1997; 30: 975–978.
6.
GargASaxenaU, Physiological stresses in warehouse operations with special reference to lifting technique and gender: A case study. AIHAJ, 1985; 46: 53–59.
7.
GomezTBeachGCookeCHrudeyWGoyertP, Normative database for trunk range of motion, strength, velocity, and endurance with Isostation B-200 lumbar dynamometer. Spine, 1991; 16: 15–21.
8.
GranataKPMarrasWS, An EMG-assisted model of loads on the lumbar spine during asymmetric trunk extensions. Journal of Biomechanics, 1993; 26: 1429–1438.
9.
GranataKPMarrasWS, An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting. Journal of Biomechanics, 1995; 28: 1309–1317.
10.
JagerMLuttmannA, Compressive strength of lumbar spine elements related to age, gender, and other influences. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 1991; 1: 291–294.
11.
JagerMLuttmannALaurigW, Lumbar load during one-handed bricklaying. IJIE1991; 8: 261–277.
12.
JorgensenMJMarrasWSGranataKPWiandB, Female and male trunk geometry, Part II: MRI derived moment-arms of spine loading muscles. Clinical Biomechanics, 2000; (In Review).
13.
KishinoNDMayerTGGatchelRJParrishMMAndersonCGustinLMooneyV, Quantification of lumbar function Part 4: Isometric and isokinetic lifting simulation in normal subjects and low-back dysfunction patients. Spine, 1985; 10: 921–927.
14.
KumarSChaffinDBRedfernM, Isometric and isokinetic back and arm lifting strengths: device and measurement. J Biomech, 1988; 21: 35–44.
15.
MagoraA, Investigation of the relation between low back pain and occupation. 2. Work history. Ind Med Surg, 1970; 39: 504–510.
16.
MarrasWSDavisKG, Spine loading during asymmetric lifting using one vs. two hands. Ergonomics, 1998; 41: 817–834.
17.
MarrasWSDavisKGJorgensenMJ, Biomechanical differences between males and females during symmetric and asymmetric lifting. Spine, 1999b; (In Review).
18.
MarrasWSFathallahFAMillerRJDavisSWMirkaGA, Accuracy of a three dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1992; 9: 75–87.
19.
MarrasWSGranataKP, A biomechanical assessment and model of axial twisting in the thoraco-lumbar spine. Spine, 1995; 20: 1440–1451.
20.
MarrasWSGranataKP, Spine loading during trunk lateral bending motion. Journal of Biomechanics, 1997; 30: 697–703.
21.
MarrasWSGranataKPDavisKG, Variability in spine loading model performance. Clinical Biomechanics, 1999; 14: 505–514.
22.
MarrasWSLavenderSALeurgansSE, et al., The role of dynamic three-dimensional motion in occupationally-related low back disorders. The effects of workplace factors, trunk position, and trunk motion characteristics on risk of injury. Spine, 1993; 18: 617–628.
23.
MarrasWSMirkaGA, Electromyographic studies of the lumbar trunk musculature during the generation of low-level trunk acceleration. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1993; 11: 811–817.
24.
MarrasWSReillyCH, Networks of internal trunk loading activities under controlled trunk motion conditions. Spine, 1988; 13: 661–667.
25.
MarrasWSSommerichCM, A three dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine: I. model structure*. Human Factors, 1991; 33: 129–137.
26.
MarrasWSSommerichCM, A three dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine: II. Model validation. Human Factors, 1991; 33: 139–149.
27.
McNeillTWarwickDAnderssonGSchultzA, Trunk strengths in attempted flexion, extension, and lateral bending in healthy subjects and patients with low-back disorders. Spine, 1980; 5: 529–538.
28.
MirkaGAMarrasWS, A stochastic model of trunk muscle coactivation during trunk bending. Spine, 1993; 18(11): 1396–1409.
29.
MitalA, Maximum weights of lifts acceptable to male and female industrial workers for extended work shifts. Ergonomics, 1984; 27: 1115–1126.
30.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Selected topics in surface electromyography for use in the occupational setting: Expert Perspectives. NIOSH Technical Report DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 91–100, 1991.
31.
RiceVJBSharpMATharionWJWilliamsonTL, The effects of gender, team size, and a shoulder harness on a stretcher-carry task and post-carry performance. Part I: a simulated carry from a remote site. IJIE, 1996; 18: 27–40.
32.
SmithSSMayerTGGatchelRJBeckerTJ, Quantification of lumbar flexion Part 1: isometric and multispeed isokenitic trunk strength measures in sagittal and axial planes in normal subjects. Spine, 1985; 10: 757–764.
33.
YatesJWKamonERodgersSHChampneyPC, Static strength and maximal isometric voluntary contractions of back, arm, and shoulder muscles. Ergonomics, 1980; 23: 37–47.
