O. Cartas et al., QUANTIFICATION OF TRUNK MUSCLE PERFORMANCE IN STANDING, SEMISTANDING AND SITTING POSTURES IN HEALTHY-MEN, Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976), 18(5), 1993, pp. 603-609
The purpose of this study was to determine trunk muscle performance in
the sitting, semistanding, and standing postures during isometric and
dynamic extension and flexion movements. Twenty-five male subject vol
unteers, with no previous history of back pain participated in the stu
dy. A triaxial dynamometer that measures torque, angular position, and
velocity was used to measure isometric and dynamic motor output. The
dynamometer allows testing in the sitting and standing postures. A cus
tom-designed module also allowed testing in the semistanding posture.
Each subject was tested in two sessions. The first session included th
e physical examination and three trials of isometric maximum voluntary
contractions in the three postures. The second session included the d
ynamic performance against a resistance equal to 50% of the effort, as
measured in the first session. Subjects were instructed to perform fi
ve repetitive flexion and extension cycles as fast and accurately as p
ossible with maximum effort. An analysis of variance with repeated mea
sures design was used to investigate the effects of the postures (stan
ding, semistanding and sitting), the direction of exertion (flexion an
d extension), and the interaction effects of the isometric and dynamic
parameters (maximum and average torque, velocity, power, and range of
motion). The effects of direction (F = 98, P< 0.0001) and the interac
tion of posture and direction (F = 7.9, P < 0.001) were significant. T
he maximum isometric flexion strength was significantly higher in the
standing posture than in semistanding and sitting. The maximum isometr
ic extension was not affected by the posture (sitting, semistanding an
d standing). The average power in standing was twice that of sitting a
nd semistanding (P < 0.0001). During dynamic performances, only the ma
in effects of posture and direction were significant. There was no dif
ference between the semistanding, and sitting postures in terms of the
dynamic performances. Maximum torque and velocity in standing were si
gnificantly higher than in semistanding, and sitting, which should be
considered in the optimization of workplace design.