Influence of Periodized Strength Training on Females With and Without Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) is a substantial health and socioeconomic burden on western society, with chronic (≥3 months) non-specific (soft tissue) low back pain (CLBP) being the most common diagnosis. A variety of treatments have been employed with varying success. Recently, periodized strength training (PST) was successfully used as a CLBP treatment. Interestingly, results from strength training studies using females with CLBP have shown strength improvements comparable to data on healthy females. PURPOSE: To determine if females with and without CLBP make similar improvements in muscular strength following 12-weeks (wks) of progressive overload strength training. METHODS: Forty five females participated in 2-wks of familiarization, followed by 12-wks of PST. The CLBP (n=15) and no-LBP (n=15) groups completed 12-wks of PST (3-4 days · wk-1) including 5 testing sessions. The control group (C, n=15) was precluded from weight lifting for the duration of the study, but maintained other recreational activities and completed the 5 testing sessions. The weekly training volume and intensity was monitored (average: 1,563 repetitions and 67% 1 repetition maximum). Testing occurred at pre-familiarization (pre-fam), post-fam, and 4, 8 and 12 wks of PST. The CLBP group's mean pain score (10-point scale) was 4.4 prior to familiarization testing. RESULTS: The p-level for all tests was set at ≤0.05. At pre-fam no significant group differences existed for age (yrs), height (m), body mass (kg), or body fat (%), but the no-LBP and C groups were significantly stronger than the CLBP group on leg press (LP; no-LBP=17%; C=15%) and bench press (BP; no-LBP=12%; C=14%). No significant differences in strength existed between training groups post-fam. Each training group showed significant increases in strength across time, but no significant between group differences: CLBP (LP - Wk 4=13%, Wk 8=23%, Wk 12=58%; BP - Wk 4=14%, Wk 8=20%, Wk 12=39%) and no-LBP (LP - Wk 4=15%, Wk 8=22%, Wk 12=54%; BP - Wk 4=12%, Wk 8=21%, Wk 12=36%) No significant group-time interactions were noted. CONCLUSION: Females with CLBP can make significant increases in muscle strength following 12 wks of PST, attaining similar strength increases as females with no-LBP. Sponsored by the Augustana Research and Travel grant.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".