Is there a low-back cost to hip-centric exercise? Quantifying the lumbar spine joint compression and shear forces during movements used to overload the hips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to quantify joint compression and shear forces at L4/L5 during exercises used to overload the hips. Nine men performed 36 "walking" trials using two modalities: (1) sled towing and (2) exercise bands placed around the ankles. Participants completed forward, backward, and lateral trials with bent and straight legs at three separate loads. Surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded bilaterally from eight torso and thigh sites, upper body and lumbar spine motion were quantified, and hand forces were measured. An EMG-driven musculoskeletal model was used to estimate the muscular contribution to joint compression and shear. Peak reaction, muscle and joint compression and shear forces, and peak gluteus medius and maximus activity were calculated. Significant differences were noted in each dependent measure; however, they were dependent on direction of travel, leg position, and load. The highest joint compression and shear forces for the sled and band conditions were 4378 N and 626 N, and 3306 N and 713 N, respectively. In general, increasing the band tension had little effect on all dependent measures, although a load-response was found during the sled conditions. Before using any exercise to improve hip function, the potential benefits should be weighed against "costs" to neighbouring joints.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".