[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]
Traditional posterior load carriage: effects of load mass and size on torso kinematics, kinetics, muscle activity and movement stability
Muslim K.a, Nussbaum M.A.b
a Industrial Engineering, Institute of Technology Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
b Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© 2015 Taylor & Francis.Traditional posterior load carriage (PLC), done without the use of an assistive device (e.g. backpack), has been associated with low back pain (LBP) development. This study evaluated the effects of important task demands, related to load mass and size, on potential mechanisms linking traditional PLC with LBP. Nine healthy participants completed PLC tasks with three load masses (20%, 35% and 50% of individual body mass) and three load sizes (small, medium and large). Torso kinematics, kinetics, muscle activity and slip risk were evaluated during PLC on a walkway, and torso movement stability was quantified during PLC on a treadmill. Increasing load mass caused increased torso flexion, L5/S1 flexion moment, abdominal muscle activity and torso movement stability in the frontal plane. Increasing load size also caused higher torso flexion, peak torso angular velocity and acceleration, and abdominal muscle activity. Complex interactive effects of load mass and size were found on paraspinal muscle activity and slip risk. Specific task demands, related to load mass and size, may thus influence the risk of LBP during PLC.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]Abdominal muscle,Assistive devices,Interactive effect,Load carriage,Movement stability,Muscle activities,Paraspinal muscles,spine,Abdominal Muscles,Biomechanical Phenomena,Body Mass Index,Healthy Volunteers,Humans,Kinetics,Low Back Pain,Male,Movement,Range of Motion, Articular,Task Performance and Analysis,Torso,Weight-Bearing,Young Adult[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]kinematics,kinetics,load carriage,slip risk,spine,stability[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1053538[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]