Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Biomech Eng ; 127(1): 108-13, 2005 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15868793

ABSTRACT

It is believed that nurses risk the development of back pain as a consequence of sudden loadings during tasks in which they are handling patients. Forward dynamics simulations of sudden loads (applied to the arms) during dynamic lifting tasks were performed on a two-dimensional whole-body model. Loads were in the range of -80 kg to 80 kg, with the initial load being 20 kg. Loading the arm downwards with less than that which equals a mass of 20 kg did not change the compressive forces on the spine when compared to a normal lifting motion with a 20 kg mass in the hands. However when larger loads (40 kg to 80 kg extra in the hands) were simulated, the compressive forces exceeded 13,000 N (above 3400 N is generally considered a risk factor). Loading upwards led to a decrease in the compressive forces but to a larger backwards velocity at the end of the movement. In the present study, it was possible to simulate a fast lifting motion. The results showed that when loading the arms downwards with a force that equals 40 kg or more, the spine was severely compressed. When loading in the opposite direction (unloading), the spine was not compressed more than during a normal lifting motion. In practical terms, this indicates that if a nursing aide tries to catch a patient who is falling, large compressive forces are applied to the spine.


Subject(s)
Back/physiology , Lifting , Lower Extremity/physiology , Models, Biological , Movement/physiology , Muscle, Skeletal/physiology , Physical Stimulation/methods , Weight-Bearing/physiology , Adaptation, Physiological/physiology , Computer Simulation , Humans , Muscle Contraction/physiology
2.
Sports Biomech ; 3(2): 195-208, 2004 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15552580

ABSTRACT

This study looks at segmental movements in the jumping header from an optimization viewpoint. Investigations on the header so far have focused on head restriction in the movement but have not clarified how and to what extent body segments influence the performance of the skill. In the present study a biomechanical model was used to analyze the jumping header in simulated competition to give a clear picture of an optimized header. Skilled soccer players headed balls at speeds of 13 m x s(-1) the results indicated that the head moves as a free non-restricted segment in the jumping header and should be allowed to do so, even though much soccer literature says otherwise to prevent injuries. The arm movement showed individual characteristics and gave no general advantages in optimizing ball speed after impact in the header The movement of the legs was, on the other hand, the single most important factor in the skill. Therefore, coaches and players shouldfocus on developing muscle strength in the stomach, back and pelvis and should put no restrictions on head and arm movement to optimize the jumping header.


Subject(s)
Movement/physiology , Muscle, Skeletal/physiology , Physical Endurance/physiology , Soccer/physiology , Adult , Analysis of Variance , Biomechanical Phenomena , Body Composition , Body Mass Index , Humans , Male , Physical Education and Training/methods , Sampling Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Eur J Appl Physiol ; 91(4): 488-92, 2004 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14872249

ABSTRACT

Sudden loading of the spine is not only considered a risk factor for the development of low-back pain but also enables an evaluation of the stability of the spine when conducted under laboratory conditions. In the present study the upper spine was pulled in the anterior direction and the stiffness as well as activity in the erector spinae muscle was measured with different pre-tension in the erector spinae. The results showed that increased activity in the erector spinae prior to loading led to increased stiffness (stiffness coefficients from 297 Nm rad(-1) to 438 Nm rad(-1)) and a decrease in the extra neural signal input to the muscles to maintain the stability. It is therefore clear that increased tension in the erector spinae muscle will create a larger stability of the spine to anterior perturbations. However, contracting the muscles around the spine increases the load on the spinal structures. In 34% of the experiments a silent period in the electromyographic signal was present after loading in the period when the torso was moving in the anterior direction. This phenomenon is discussed.


Subject(s)
Back/physiology , Models, Biological , Movement/physiology , Muscle Contraction/physiology , Muscle, Skeletal/physiology , Spine/physiology , Weight-Bearing/physiology , Adaptation, Physiological/physiology , Adult , Arm/physiology , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/methods , Elasticity , Electromyography/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postural Balance/physiology , Reflex/physiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...