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
Autor*in: |
Arthur van der Have [verfasserIn] Sam Van Rossom [verfasserIn] Ilse Jonkers [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2019 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Applied Sciences - MDPI AG, 2012, 9(2019), 18, p 3794 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:9 ; year:2019 ; number:18, p 3794 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.3390/app9183794 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ075441187 |
---|
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 |
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 |