Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1177/00187208251404836

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/00187208251404836
suck pdf from google scholar
41360004!?!41360004

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid41360004      Hum+Factors 2025 ; ? (?): 187208251404836
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • Does the Directive to Avoid Low Back Flexion Hinder Physical Performance? Examining Isometric Strength in Postures Adopted During Light Mass Lifting #MMPMID41360004
  • Pinto BL; Beach TAC; Callaghan JP
  • Hum Factors 2025[Dec]; ? (?): 187208251404836 PMID41360004show ga
  • ObjectiveObserve how instruction to avoid rounding the low back while lifting a relatively light mass impacts isometric lifting strength.BackgroundAs opposed to manual materials handling training directives recommending whole-body techniques such as a squat lift, targeting specific body regions such as low back curvature, theoretically affords workers greater flexibility to organize the rest of the body to reduce musculoskeletal loading without reducing physical performance. However, providing these directives during sub-maximal tasks may not prompt prioritization of physical performance as individuals self-organize, eventually making the intervention ineffective.MethodsForty participants (50% female) lifted a crate with and without the instruction to avoid rounding the low back. Postures at the initiation of crate lifting were replicated to test isometric strength.ResultsAt the group-level, instruction decreased low back flexion (p < 0.0001) but did not change strength (p = 0.862). However, high heterogeneity motivated examining individual responses. Thirty-seven participants (92.5% of the sample) exhibited greater than 40% of their flexion range-of-motion during baseline lifting, a threshold below which passive tissue strain is typically minimized. Yet, 22 participants (55%) were unsuccessful in reducing low back flexion below this threshold with instruction. Independent from these postural response groups, 23 maintained (57.5%), 8 increased (20%) and 9 decreased (22.5%) isometric strength.ConclusionOn average, physical performance potential was maintained in response to a low back postural directive. However, personalized movement coaching is needed to ensure the desired response for all.ApplicationManual materials handling training should include personalized movement coaching that considers both musculoskeletal loading and performance.
  • ?


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box