Introduction: The global postural reeducation (GPR) method seems to be an effective method for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effect and durability of 6 weeks of GPR and lumbar stability exercises on movement control, pain and disability in men with chronic nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) with lumbar movement control dysfunction.Methods: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 46 men with non-specific chronic low back pain (LBP) with lumbar movement control dysfunction were selected and randomly divided into three groups (two exercise groups - one control group). Training intervention groups practiced for six weeks, three sessions per week. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Roland Morris questionnaire, and movement control test were used to measure pain, level of physical disability, and lumbar movement control, respectively. Repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to compare the effect and durability of the two training protocols on the dependent variables at a significant level.Results: Results from this research showed that both types of exercises reduced pain (P = 0.001) and improved disability index (P = 0.001) and lumbar movement control (P = 0.001). Our findings suggested that a GPR intervention for 6 weeks (P = 0.040) and inactivity for 4 weeks (P = 0.001) resulted in a greater improvement in disability compared to the lumbar stabilization exercises (LSEs). Conclusion: Both types of exercises seem to be effective in improving lumbar movement control, pain, and disability in people with movement control dysfunction after both training and inactivity. The GPR method improved disability more than the LSEs.

Background: Exercise therapy is one of the most effective methods for dealing with low back pain. The present study aimed to compare to examine the effects of two protocols, i.e., six weeks of lumbar stability exercises (LSE) and global postural reeducation exercises (GPR), followed by a subsequent period of non-training on hip muscle flexibility in men with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) with lumbar movement control impairment (MCI). Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 46 men suffering from NSLBP with lumbar MCI were selected and randomly divided into three groups (i.e., two exercise groups - one control group). Training intervention groups were allowed to perform exercises for 6 weeks, three sessions per week. Universal goniometer was used to measure the flexibility of hip muscles (i.e., hamstring, rectus femoris, external rotator, and tensor fasciae latae). Repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to compare the effect and durability of the two training protocols on the dependent variables at a significant level. Results: The results showed that both training methods increased hamstring muscle flexibility (P=0.001). GPR method was found superior in increasing the flexibility of the right hip of the subjects in the post-test (P=0.032) and follow-up (P=0.024). However, no significant differences were observed in the other hip muscles flexibility. Conclusion: It was concluded that the GPR method, compared to the lumbar stabilization method, had a greater potential to increase the flexibility of shortened muscles by enhancing the contraction of the antagonist muscles to avoid postural asymmetry. It seems both training protocols were effective in improving hamstring muscle flexibility in people with NSLBP suffering from MCI and this result was observed after both training and 4 weeks of inactivity.