Eight Swedish national class weightlifters performed "high-bar" squats and six national class powerlifters performed "low-bar" squats, with a barbell weight of 65% of their 1 RM, and to parallel- and a deep-squatting depth. Ground reaction forces were measured with a Kistler piezo-electric force platform and motion was analyzed from a video record of the squats. A computer program based on free-body mechanics was designed to calculate moments of force about the hip and knee joints. EMG from vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and biceps femoris was recorded and normalized. The peak moments of force were flexing both for the hip and the knee. The mean peak moments of force at the hip were for the weightlifters 230 Nm (deep) and 216 Nm (parallel), and for the powerlifters 324 Nm (deep), and 309 Nm (parallel). At the knee the mean peak moments for the weightlifters were 191 Nm (deep) and 131 Nm (parallel), and for the powerlifters 139 Nm (deep) and 92 Nm (parallel). The weightlifters had the load more equally distributed between hip and knee, whereas the powerlifters put relatively more load on the hip joint. The thigh muscular activity was slightly higher for the powerlifters.

No abstract

The loading moment of force on the hip, knee, and ankle joints of nine healthy men rising from four different types of stools were compared, together with the levels of myoelectrical activity (EMG) in four leg muscles. Two types of stool (stand stools) had higher seats than a normal chair. The other two were of ordinary seat height, but one also had armrests. The bodyweight carried by the different stools when sitting was also measured, and the subject estimated the effort required for each trial. The mean maximum knee moment was over 60% lower when rising from the high stool than from 'ordinary' seat height. The difference between the high and low stand stool was also significant (p less than 0.001). Using the high stool or help of the arms reduced the mean maximum hip moment by about 50%. The mean maximum ankle moment was only marginally influenced by the different stools. Knee moment was influenced more by seat height than was hip moment. Vastus lateralis activity was significantly higher when subjects rose from 'ordinary' height than when rising from either stand stool (p less than 0.001). The rectus femoris muscle was little activated and the semitendinosus muscle was activated earlier when rising from higher seat heights. All subjects estimated the effort of rising from the higher stand stool to be lower than from the lower stand stool or from 'ordinary' height without arm rests. It was concluded that stand stools are good alternatives for workers who change frequently between sitting and standing work.

Sustained joint load in extreme positions (namely maximally flexed or extended positions) has been described as causing pain. The aim of the present study is to analyse eight different sitting work postures with respect to extreme positions, and to assess the mechanical load and the levels of muscular activity arising in defined extreme positions of the cervical spine. Ten healthy female workers from an electronics plant took part in laboratory experiments. For seven of these, levels of neck and shoulder muscular activity in sitting postures with the cervical spine in different manually-adjusted extreme positions were recorded using surface electrodes. Loading moments of force about the bilatei-a1 motion axis of the atlantooccipital joint (Occ-C1) and the spinal cervico-thoracic motion segments (C7-TI) were calculated. Extreme or almost extreme positions occurred in sitting postures with the thoraco-lumbar back inclined slightly backwards or with the whole spine flexed. Electromyographic (EMG) activity levels were very low in the manuallyadjusted extreme positions. The load moment for the OccXl joint when the whole neck was flexed was only 1-2 times the value for the neutral position of the head, but for C7-Tl it increased to 3-6 times. It is concluded that extreme positions of the cervical spine do occur in sitting work postures, and that the levels of muscular activity in such positions are low. Thus, recordings of muscle activity and calcufations of load moment alone are not a sufficient basis for evaluating work postures: thorough recordings of spine positions should be included.

The aim of this study was to calculate the magnitude of the instantaneous muscular power output at the hip, knee and ankle joints during ergometer cycling. Six healthy subjects pedalled a weight-braked bicycle ergometer at 120 watts (W) and 60 revolutions per minute (rpm). The subjects were filmed with a cine camera, and pedal reaction forces were recorded from a force transducer mounted in the pedal. The muscular work at the hip, knee and ankle joint was calculated using a model based upon dynamic mechanics described elsewhere. The mean peak concentric power output was, for the hip extensors, 74.4 W, hip flexors, 18.0 W, knee extensors, 110.1 W, knee flexors, 30.0 W and ankle plantar flexors, 59.4 W. At the ankle joint, energy absorption through eccentric plantar flexor action was observed, with a mean peak power of 11.4 W and negative work of 3.4 J for each limb and complete pedal revolution. The energy production relationships between the different major muscle groups were computed and the contributions to the total positive work were: hip extensors, 27%; hip flexors, 4%; knee extensors, 39%; knee flexors, 10%; and ankle plantar flexors 20%.