Changes in stature and spine kinematics during a loaded walking task

The aim of the present study was to quantify the kinematics of the spine and stature loss induced by the asymmetric load carriage. Six healthy males with no history of low-back disorders walked at their self-selected pace for 8500 m with and without a standard Royal Mail bag (model MB36) containing 17.5% of the participant's body mass. The load was reduced gradually during the task. The loaded condition produced a stature loss double that observed in the unloaded condition. Increased forward leaning (up to 6°) and lateral bending of the spine (up to 12°) was observed with load. Thoracic adjustments occurred in the sagittal plane, changes in the lumbar area occurred in the frontal plane. The data provided evidence against mailbags designs in which the workers cannot alternate the side of the mailbag

Technical note: repeatability of measurement in determining stature in sitting and standing postures

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of sitting and standing postures on the repeatability of a stadiometer designed to detect small variations in spinal length. Two groups of ten healthy subjects, with no previous or known history of back problems, participated in this study. One group was measured in the standing posture, while the other group was measured in a sitting posture. All subjects gave informed consent to participate in this study. Subjects had a set of landmarks defining the spinal contour marked on their backs and then stood in the stadiometer for three series of ten measurements to be performed. At the end of each measurement, the subjects were requested to move away from and then be repositioned in the stadiometer. Subjects improved the repeatability across the measurement series. At the end of the second measurement series, all subjects presented mean standard deviations of 0.43 +/- 0.08 mm (range 0.30-0.50 mm) in the standing posture. In the sitting posture, deviations of less than 0.05 mm were obtained only at the end of the third measurement series (0.48 +/- 0.08 mm; range 0.34-0.62 mm), suggesting that this posture required three measurement series before repeatable measurements could be assured rather than two in the standing posture

Stature loss and recovery in pregnant women with and without low back pain

OBJECTIVES: To assess the loss of stature and its recovery in normal and pregnant women with and without low back pain (LBP) and to examine the relations between spinal shrinkage, recovery, and LBP. DESIGN: Stature changes were measured before and after physical activity in each group and differences in response compared between groups. SETTING: A laboratory environment. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one women (7 pregnant without LBP, 8 pregnant with LBP, 16 nonpregnant with no history of low back disorders) were recruited using convenience sampling. Controls were recruited from the general community; subjects in the pregnant groups were recruited from local primary care groups. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stature change was assessed as the main outcome measure. Changes in stature were interpreted with respect to the woman's stature at the start of the trial. RESULTS: Stature loss induced by a moderate physical activity was similar (P>.05) in all groups (control, -3.99+/-1.13 mm; pregnant no back pain, -4.23+/-1.23 mm; pregnant with back pain, -4.57+/-1.53 mm). Differences were found after 20 minutes in a recovery position (P<.05): the controls were able to recover stature to a greater extent (111.2%+/-13.6%) than the other groups (P<.05). A negative correlation was found between regain in stature and LBP in pregnant subjects (r=-.81, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The pregnant women with LBP were unable to recover stature to the same extent as the controls and pregnant women without LBP. Results suggest that LBP in pregnancy may be related to the woman's diminished ability to recover, rather than the magnitude of the spinal shrinkage imposed during the task

Body mass as a factor in stature change

Background. Back pain is a common condition which has been described as a serious public health problem. Spinal shrinkage has been used as an index of spinal loading in a range of tasks. Epidemiological evidence shows that body mass index (BMI: 30 kg/m2) is related to the development of low back pain however, no studies have described the stature change patterns of obese individuals. This study aimed to compare changes in stature after an exercise task in obese and non-obese individuals

Body mass as a factor in stature change

Background. Back pain is a common condition which has been described as a serious public health problem. Spinal shrinkage has been used as an index of spinal loading in a range of tasks. Epidemiological evidence shows that body mass index (BMI: 30 kg/m2) is related to the development of low back pain however, no studies have described the stature change patterns of obese individuals. This study aimed to compare changes in stature after an exercise task in obese and non-obese individuals

Body mass as a factor in stature change

Abstract Background. Back pain is a common condition which has been described as a serious public health problem. Spinal shrinkage has been used as an index of spinal loading in a range of tasks. Epidemiological evidence shows that body mass index (BMI: 30 kg/m 2 ) is related to the development of low back pain however, no studies have described the stature change patterns of obese individuals. This study aimed to compare changes in stature after an exercise task in obese and non-obese individuals. Methods. Twenty volunteers were divided into two equal groups; obese: BMI &gt; 30 kg/m 2 , non-obese: BMI &lt; 25 kg/m 2 . Stature was measured at 3 min intervals during a 30 min walking task and a 30 min standing recovery period. Tests were performed on two occasions, once with participants loaded during the walking task (10% body mass) and once unloaded. The influence of obesity and load condition on the magnitude and rate of stature change were compared by a two-way ANOVA. Findings. In both groups the stature loss was greater in the loaded than unloaded condition (mean (SD)) (6.52 (1.45) mm and 3.55 (0.93) mm non-obese; 8.49 (1.75) mm and 7.02 (1.32) mm obese: P = 0.016). The obese presented a greater reduction in stature in both task conditions. The obese group were unable to recover stature regardless of the task condition during the recovery period (loaded: 0.06 (0.3) mm; unloaded: 0.32 (0.6) mm; P = 0.013). Interpretation. It was concluded that the acute response of the spine to loading may represent a risk factor for low back pain in the obese, in addition to the chronic adaptations previously reported. A greater period of recovery may be necessary for obese individuals to re-establish intervertebral disc height. These findings may help to explain the high incidence of back disorders in obese individuals