Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation

Mayer, Tom G.; Barnes, Dennis; Kishino, Nancy D.; Nichols, Gerry; Gatchel, Robert J.; Mayer, Holly; Mooney, Vert

doi:10.1097/00007632-198809000-00005

Cited by 177 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE)—Test collected data for lifting processes in a resistance condition [49]. Cardiac stresses, muscle fatigue and lifting quality were analysed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The BASE-Program—A Multidimensional Approach for Health Promotion in Companies

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multidimensional assessments for conducting interventions are needed to achieve positive health effects within companies. BASE is an acronym, consisting of B = “Bedarfsbestimmung” (requirements); A = “Arbeitsplatzorganisation” (organisation of work); S = “Schulung des belastungsverträglichen Alltagshandelns” (coaching preventive behaviour at work); E = “Eigenverantwortung und Selbstwirksamkeit” (self-responsibility and self-efficacy). It is a prevention program designed to avoid and reduce work-related musculoskeletal diseases. It was developed to support prevention strategies within companies. It comprises aspects of health protection, ergonomics, exercise and self-efficacy. A comprehensive assessment will identify strain e.g., musculoskeletal discomforts due to body positions or psychological stress. Moreover, the general health status, preferences and barriers for participating in health promotion programs are evaluated. This analysis leads to practical and goal-oriented recommendations and interventions which suit the needs of companies and employees. These are executed onsite in real workplace situations and involve the introduction of first-hand experience in behavioural change. Therefore, this practical approach enhances the employees’ acceptance and self-efficacy for health promotion. This can result in long-term health promoting behaviour. This article presents the outcome and sustainability effects of BASE in three different application fields (logistic, industrial and office workers).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The BASE-Program—A Multidimensional Approach for Health Promotion in Companies

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The box-lift power test, which is a test of total-body lifting power, was performed using a linear encoder and load cell (Figure 2[b]) connected to the integrated data-analysis program. The test is based on a validity and reliability study of a version of the progressive isoinertial lifting test (Mayer et al, 1988) performed by Lohne-Seiler et al (2012). During the box-lift test, 10% for women and 15% for men of the "average" maximum load achieved during the isometric dead-lift test were used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional Versus Functional Strength Training: Effects on Muscle Strength and Power in the Elderly

Lohne-Seiler¹,

Torstveit²,

Anderssen³

2013

Journal of Aging and Physical Activity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to determine whether strength training with machines vs. functional strength training at 80% of one-repetition maximum improves muscle strength and power among the elderly. Sixty-three subjects (69.9 ± 4.1 yr) were randomized to a high-power strength group (HPSG), a functional strength group (FSG), or a nonrandomized control group (CG). Data were collected using a force platform and linear encoder. The training dose was 2 times/wk, 3 sets × 8 reps, for 11 wk. There were no differences in effect between HPSG and FSG concerning sit-to-stand power, box-lift power, and bench-press maximum force. Leg-press maximum force improved in HPSG (19.8%) and FSG (19.7%) compared with CG (4.3%; p = .026). Bench-press power improved in HPSG (25.1%) compared with FSG (0.5%, p = .02) and CG (2%, p = .04). Except for bench-press power there were no differences in the effect of the training interventions on functional power and maximal body strength.

show abstract

“…Many performance tests are currently being used by clinicians, especially in rehabilitation centers. Among these tests, the 6-min walk test (6MWT) [4], the Steep Ramp Test (SRT) [5], the 1-Minute Stair Climbing Test (1MSCT) [6], the Sit-To-Stand test (STS) [7], the Jamar dynamometer test (JAM) [8] and the lumbar protocol of the Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) [9] are widely used in patients with musculoskeletal, neurological, cardiac or pulmonary disease. These tests are easy to administer and do not require expensive devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Minimal clinically important difference” estimates of 6 commonly-used performance tests in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain completing a work-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation program

Benaïm

Blaser

Léger

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFunctional tests are widely used to measure performance in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our objective was to determine the Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the 6-min walk test (6MWT), the Steep Ramp Test (SRT), the 1-min stair climbing test (1MSCT), the sit-to-stand test (STS), the Jamar dynamometer test (JAM) and the lumbar Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients.MethodsA single-center prospective observational study was conducted in a rehabilitation center. Patients with upper-limb, lower-limb or neck/back lesions were included over a period of 21 months. We used the anchor-based method as a reference method, supplemented by the distribution-based and opinion-based approaches, to determine the MCIDs.Results838 chronic musculoskeletal pain patients were included. The estimation method and thelesion location had a significant influence on the results. MCIDs were estimated at +75m and +60m for the 6MWT (lower-limb and neck/back lesions, respectively), +18 steps for the 1MSCT (lower-limb and neck/back lesions) and +6kg for the JAM (upper limb lesions). The anchor-based method could not provide valid estimations for the three other scales, but distribution and opinion-based methods provided rough values of MCIDs for the SRT (+39w to +61w), the STS (-5 sec to -7 sec) and the PILE (+4kg to +7kg).ConclusionThe above MCID estimations for the 6MWT, 1MSCT and JAM can be used in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients participating in vocational multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs or in therapeutic trials. The use of specific anchors might give better estimations of MCIDs for the three other scales in future research.

show abstract

Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation

Cited by 177 publications

References 0 publications

The BASE-Program—A Multidimensional Approach for Health Promotion in Companies

The BASE-Program—A Multidimensional Approach for Health Promotion in Companies

Traditional Versus Functional Strength Training: Effects on Muscle Strength and Power in the Elderly

“Minimal clinically important difference” estimates of 6 commonly-used performance tests in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain completing a work-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About