Cardiovascular Responses to Repetitive McKenzie Lumbar Spine Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Repetitive exercises of the type recommended by McKenzie for the lumbar spine, such as flexion and extension exercises in standing (FIS and EIS) and lying positions (FIL and EIL), have been used in the management of low back pain for over 20 years. The cardiovascular effects of exercises that involve postural stabilization and the arms and of exercises performed in a lying position are well known. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the cardiovascular effects of 4 exercises used in the McKenzie system. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred subjects without cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary disease (mean age=31 years, SD=6.1, range=22-44) and who were representative of people susceptible to low back pain were studied. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 exercise groups (ie, FIS, EIS, FIL, and EIL). Subjects performed sets of 10, 15, and 20 repetitions of the assigned exercise, with a 15-minute rest between sets. Heart rate, blood pressure, and rate-pressure product (an index of myocardial work) were recorded before and after each set of repetitions. RESULTS: After 10 repetitions, flexion and extension in lying were more hemodynamically demanding than in standing. This trend persisted for 15 and 20 repetitions; however, at 20 repetitions, the hemodynamic demands were different across exercise groups (ie, FIL>EIL>FIS>EIS). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Repetitive exercises of the type suggested by McKenzie for the lumbar spine can have cardiovascular effects in people with no cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary conditions. These effects may be important with respect to cardiac work, and patients for whom these exercises are indicated should have a cardiac and pulmonary risk factor assessment to determine whether heart rate and blood pressure should be monitored.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".