Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting

(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study inv...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Arthur van der Have [verfasserIn] Sam Van Rossom [verfasserIn] Ilse Jonkers [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Applied Sciences - MDPI AG, 2012, 9(2019), 18, p 3794
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:9 ; year:2019 ; number:18, p 3794

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/app9183794

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ075441187

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ075441187
003	DE-627
005	20230309134023.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/app9183794 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ075441187
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a TA1-2040
050		0	\|a QH301-705.5
050		0	\|a QC1-999
050		0	\|a QD1-999
100	0		\|a Arthur van der Have \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.
650		4	\|a lifting technique
650		4	\|a stoop
650		4	\|a squat
650		4	\|a work-related musculoskeletal disorders
650		4	\|a musculoskeletal modeling
650		4	\|a spine
650		4	\|a shoulder
650		4	\|a back loading
653		0	\|a Technology
653		0	\|a T
653		0	\|a Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
653		0	\|a Biology (General)
653		0	\|a Physics
653		0	\|a Chemistry
700	0		\|a Sam Van Rossom \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ilse Jonkers \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Applied Sciences \|d MDPI AG, 2012 \|g 9(2019), 18, p 3794 \|w (DE-627)737287640 \|w (DE-600)2704225-X \|x 20763417 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:9 \|g year:2019 \|g number:18, p 3794
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 9 \|j 2019 \|e 18, p 3794

Indexfelder

author_variant	a v d h avdh s v r svr i j ij
matchkey_str	article:20763417:2019----::qalfigmoehgepajitnmsllaigop
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
callnumber-subject-code	TA
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.3390/app9183794 doi (DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Arthur van der Have verfasserin aut Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG. lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Sam Van Rossom verfasserin aut Ilse Jonkers verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 9(2019), 18, p 3794 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2019 18, p 3794
spelling	10.3390/app9183794 doi (DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Arthur van der Have verfasserin aut Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG. lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Sam Van Rossom verfasserin aut Ilse Jonkers verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 9(2019), 18, p 3794 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2019 18, p 3794
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/app9183794 doi (DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Arthur van der Have verfasserin aut Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG. lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Sam Van Rossom verfasserin aut Ilse Jonkers verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 9(2019), 18, p 3794 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2019 18, p 3794
allfieldsGer	10.3390/app9183794 doi (DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Arthur van der Have verfasserin aut Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG. lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Sam Van Rossom verfasserin aut Ilse Jonkers verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 9(2019), 18, p 3794 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2019 18, p 3794
allfieldsSound	10.3390/app9183794 doi (DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Arthur van der Have verfasserin aut Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier (1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG. lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Sam Van Rossom verfasserin aut Ilse Jonkers verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 9(2019), 18, p 3794 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2019 18, p 3794
language	English
source	In Applied Sciences 9(2019), 18, p 3794 volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794
sourceStr	In Applied Sciences 9(2019), 18, p 3794 volume:9 year:2019 number:18, p 3794
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Applied Sciences
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Arthur van der Have @@aut@@ Sam Van Rossom @@aut@@ Ilse Jonkers @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	737287640
id	DOAJ075441187
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ075441187</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309134023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/app9183794</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ075441187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TA1-2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QC1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arthur van der Have</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">lifting technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">stoop</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">squat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">work-related musculoskeletal disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">musculoskeletal modeling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">spine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">shoulder</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">back loading</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">T</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sam Van Rossom</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ilse Jonkers</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Applied Sciences</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2019), 18, p 3794</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)737287640</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2704225-X</subfield><subfield code="x">20763417</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:18, p 3794</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">18, p 3794</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	T - Technology
author	Arthur van der Have
spellingShingle	Arthur van der Have misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc lifting technique misc stoop misc squat misc work-related musculoskeletal disorders misc musculoskeletal modeling misc spine misc shoulder misc back loading misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
authorStr	Arthur van der Have
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)737287640
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	TA1-2040
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20763417
topic_title	TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting lifting technique stoop squat work-related musculoskeletal disorders musculoskeletal modeling spine shoulder back loading
topic	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc lifting technique misc stoop misc squat misc work-related musculoskeletal disorders misc musculoskeletal modeling misc spine misc shoulder misc back loading misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
topic_unstemmed	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc lifting technique misc stoop misc squat misc work-related musculoskeletal disorders misc musculoskeletal modeling misc spine misc shoulder misc back loading misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
topic_browse	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc lifting technique misc stoop misc squat misc work-related musculoskeletal disorders misc musculoskeletal modeling misc spine misc shoulder misc back loading misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Applied Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id	737287640
hierarchy_top_title	Applied Sciences
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X
title	Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ075441187 (DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198
title_full	Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
author_sort	Arthur van der Have
journal	Applied Sciences
journalStr	Applied Sciences
callnumber-first-code	T
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Arthur van der Have Sam Van Rossom Ilse Jonkers
container_volume	9
class	TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Arthur van der Have
doi_str_mv	10.3390/app9183794
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	squat lifting imposes higher peak joint and muscle loading compared to stoop lifting
callnumber	TA1-2040
title_auth	Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
abstract	(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.
abstractGer	(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.
abstract_unstemmed	(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	18, p 3794
title_short	Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794 https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794 https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417
remote_bool	true
author2	Sam Van Rossom Ilse Jonkers
author2Str	Sam Van Rossom Ilse Jonkers
ppnlink	737287640
callnumber-subject	TA - General and Civil Engineering
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/app9183794
callnumber-a	TA1-2040
up_date	2024-07-03T14:56:03.291Z
_version_	1803570185019326464
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ075441187</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309134023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/app9183794</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ075441187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TA1-2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QC1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arthur van der Have</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(1) Background: Yearly, more than 40% of the European employees suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Still, ergonomic guidelines defining optimal lifting techniques to decrease work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) has not been unambiguously defined. Therefore, this study investigates if recommended squat lifting imposes lower musculoskeletal loading than stoop lifting while using a complex full body musculoskeletal OpenSim model. (2) Methods: Ten healthy participants lifted two different weights using both lifting techniques. 3D marker trajectories and ground reaction forces were used as input to calculate joint angles, moments and power using a full body musculoskeletal model with articulated lumbar spine. In addition, the muscle activity of nine different muscles was measured to investigate muscle effort when lifting. (3) Results: Peak moments and peak joint power in L5S1 were not different between the squat and the stoop, but higher peak moments and peak power in the hip, knee, elbow and shoulder were found during squat lifting. Moment impulses in L5S1 were higher during stoop lifting. This is reflected in higher peak electromyography (EMG) but lower muscle effort in prior described muscles during the squat. (4) Conclusions: Squat lifting imposes higher peak full body musculoskeletal loading but similar low back loading compared to stoop lifting, as reflected in peak moments, peak power, and peak EMG.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">lifting technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">stoop</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">squat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">work-related musculoskeletal disorders</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">musculoskeletal modeling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">spine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">shoulder</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">back loading</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">T</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sam Van Rossom</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ilse Jonkers</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Applied Sciences</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2019), 18, p 3794</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)737287640</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2704225-X</subfield><subfield code="x">20763417</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:18, p 3794</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/app9183794</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c15cc5333b014996953aad9d21077198</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/18/3794</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">18, p 3794</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400194

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Squat Lifting Imposes Higher Peak Joint and Muscle Loading Compared to Stoop Lifting

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?