The influence of a back support harness on spinal forces during sheep shearing

Previous research has classified the occupation of sheep shearing as heavy work where shearers flex their spine and hips for long periods of time, handle awkward loads and expend high amounts of energy. The aim of this research was to investigate the magnitude of spinal forces produced during the shearing phase of the work and to determine whether the use of a commercially available back support harness would reduce these forces. Following discussion on task complexity and risk of back injury with senior shearing instructors, three component tasks of the shearing phase were identified as posing high risk of injury and were prioritized for primary analysis. Although the dragging out of a sheep in preparation for shearing and an unexpected loss of animal control were also identified as being of high risk, technological and instrumentation difficulties precluded their analysis. Twelve experienced shearers were videotaped while shearing with and without the use of a back harness. Surface mounted retro-reflective markers placed on the trunk defined three linked segments: Pelvis, Lumbar and Head, Arms, and Upper Trunk (HAUT). A 3D, link segment, top down, inverse dynamics approach was used to describe the motion and to estimate forces involved during the identified tasks of shearing. The spinal force/time profiles of this sample of shearers demonstrated large compressive and shear forces for all three tasks that are close to the NIOSH and University of Waterloo action limits for compressive and shear forces respectively (McGill 1997, Yingling and McGill 1999, Marras 2000). The use of the back support harness reduced these forces by substantial and statistically significant amounts. This effect was consistent across all three tasks. The results of this study demonstrate the production of high levels of compressive and shear forces within the spine of shearers during the three shearing tasks studied and that the use of a back support harness can substantially reduce these forces. Therefore the use of a back harness may reduce the cumulative load on the spine during shearing thereby moderating damage to the articular structures. However it is not known whether the harness would protect the spine from a sudden or unexpected force.     

The influence of a back support harness on spinal forces during sheep shearing

Previous research has classified the occupation of sheep shearing as heavy work where shearers flex their spine and hips for long periods of time, handle awkward loads and expend high amounts of energy. The aim of this research was to investigate the magnitude of spinal forces produced during the shearing phase of the work and to determine whether the use of a commercially available back support harness would reduce these forces. Following discussion on task complexity and risk of back injury with senior shearing instructors, three component tasks of the shearing phase were identified as posing high risk of injury and were prioritized for primary analysis. Although the dragging out of a sheep in preparation for shearing and an unexpected loss of animal control were also identified as being of high risk, technological and instrumentation difficulties precluded their analysis. Twelve experienced shearers were videotaped while shearing with and without the use of a back harness. Surface mounted retro-reflective markers placed on the trunk defined three linked segments: Pelvis, Lumbar and Head, Arms, and Upper Trunk (HAUT). A 3D, link segment, top down, inverse dynamics approach was used to describe the motion and to estimate forces involved during the identified tasks of shearing. The spinal force/time profiles of this sample of shearers demonstrated large compressive and shear forces for all three tasks that are close to the NIOSH and University of Waterloo action limits for compressive and shear forces respectively (McGill , Yingling and McGill , Marras ). The use of the back support harness reduced these forces by substantial and statistically significant amounts. This effect was consistent across all three tasks. The results of this study demonstrate the production of high levels of compressive and shear forces within the spine of shearers during the three shearing tasks studied and that the use of a back support harness can substantially reduce these forces. Therefore the use of a back harness may reduce the cumulative load on the spine during shearing thereby moderating damage to the articular structures. However it is not known whether the harness would protect the spine from a sudden or unexpected force.     

Quantifying low back peak and cumulative loads in open and senior sheep shearers in New Zealand: Examining the effects of a trunk harness

Sheep shearing requires shearers to adopt sustained flexed postures for prolonged periods of time and has been associated with an increased risk of developing low back pain (LBP). However, these postures do not generally result in acute compressive values at L4/L5 exceeding the action limit proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, despite the high prevalence of LBP in this occupation. Therefore, it may not be peak loading that is responsible for LBP in this occupation but instead it may be the effect of cumulative loading over the course of a workday. The primary purpose of this research was to quantify the low back cumulative load exposure in 12 sheep shearers with and without the aid of a commercial trunk harness. Results revealed a significant reduction in the magnitude of cumulative compression with the use of the trunk harness and therefore its use may potentially reduce the risk of injury. The use of the trunk harness also reduced the time spent in axially twisted postures, which have been associated with LBP. However, using the trunk harness also resulted in increased time spent in laterally bent postures, which has been associated with increased risk for pain and injury.     

Quantifying low back peak and cumulative loads in open and senior sheep shearers in New Zealand: examining the effects of a trunk harness

Sheep shearing requires shearers to adopt sustained flexed postures for prolonged periods of time and has been associated with an increased risk of developing low back pain (LBP). However, these postures do not generally result in acute compressive values at L4/L5 exceeding the action limit proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, despite the high prevalence of LBP in this occupation. Therefore, it may not be peak loading that is responsible for LBP in this occupation but instead it may be the effect of cumulative loading over the course of a workday. The primary purpose of this research was to quantify the low back cumulative load exposure in 12 sheep shearers with and without the aid of a commercial trunk harness. Results revealed a significant reduction in the magnitude of cumulative compression with the use of the trunk harness and therefore its use may potentially reduce the risk of injury. The use of the trunk harness also reduced the time spent in axially twisted postures, which have been associated with LBP. However, using the trunk harness also resulted in increased time spent in laterally bent postures, which has been associated with increased risk for pain and injury.     

An examination of shoulder kinematics and kinetics when using a commercial trunk harness while sheep shearing

Sheep shearing is a very physically demanding occupation, especially on the low back, such that many commercial harnesses have been developed to help reduce the load on the back. Such harnesses have been shown to significantly reduce peak and cumulative low back loads; however, the effect that these harnesses have on the shoulders, which are also highly involved during sheep shearing, has not been previously examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the shoulder postures and cumulative shoulder moments of 12 New Zealand sheep shearers. The use of the trunk harness reduced the percentage of time spent in shoulder flexion greater than 90 degrees and the time spent in shoulder abduction greater than 45 degrees as well as reduced the cumulative net joint flexor, abductor, and adductor shoulder moments by a minimum of 21%, 14%, and 42%, respectively. Therefore, the use of a commercial trunk harness to reduce low back injury may also help to reduce the risk of shoulder injury while sheep shearing.     

Three-dimensional spinal motion and risk of low back injury during sheep shearing

Sheep shearers are known to work in sustained flexed postures and have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). As sustained posture and spinal movement asymmetry under substantial loads are known risk factors for back injury our aim was to describe the 3D spinal movement of shearers while working. We hypothesised that thoraco-lumbar and lumbo-sacral movement would be tri-axial, asymmetric, and task specific. Sufficient retro-reflective markers were placed on the trunk of 12 shearers to define thoraco-lumbar and lumbo-sacral 3D motion during three tasks. Thoraco-lumbar movement consistently involved flexion, left lateral flexion, and right rotation. Lumbo-sacral movement consistently involved right lateral flexion in flexion with minimal rotation. Shearers therefore work in sustained spinal flexion where concurrent, asymmetric spinal movements into both lateral flexion and rotation occur. These asymmetric movements combined with repetitive loading may be risk factors leading to the high incidence of LBP in this occupational group.     

The influence of skill and low back pain on trunk postures and low back loads of shearers

Shearing is a rural occupation developing considerable spinal loads and carrying a high risk of low back pain (LBP). Although the workforce has a skill structure, interaction between skill, spinal loads and LBP is unknown. We examined whether skill and LBP influenced trunk postures and loads within a sample of 80 shearers representing shear skill levels. A progression from junior to open class demonstrated a 100% increase in productivity, less time in severe flexion, more time in neutral lateral bend, and more time in axially twisted postures, with no increase in cumulative compressive and anterior shear forces. LBP prevalence increased linearly from 10% for junior through to 76% for open class shearers. Shearers with a history of LBP generated greater cumulative right medio-lateral shear forces, greater left lateral bend and left axial twist moments. Skill-based training that reduces asymmetric forces may help reduce such high prevalence levels of LBP.

Statement of Relevance: Shearing is an important and physically demanding rural occupation. It requires sustained flexed postures that generate considerable spinal loads and a high risk of LBP. This research examines how skill and a history of LBP it carries interact to influence trunk postures and spinal loads within a sample of shearers.     

Trunk postures and peak and cumulative low back kinetics during upright posture sheep shearing

Sheep shearing is the most demanding occupation in the wool harvesting industry and is known to have a high prevalence of low back pain. While use of a commercially available trunk harness reduces load on the low back, the extreme trunk flexion associated with shearing still remains. A novel, upright posture shearing technique has been designed to allow a more neutral spine posture. This study assessed this upright technique and found significant reductions in both trunk flexion and cumulative low back loading when compared to either the traditional method or the use of the trunk harness. Moments about the shoulder tended to be higher while using the upright shearing technique and further investigation of shoulder kinetics will be required to assess whether this creates injury risk to the upper extremity. Despite increased shoulder moments, the reduction in flexion and cumulative loading with the use of the upright technique has the potential to reduce risk of low back pain among shearers.     

An analysis of the forces required to drag sheep over various surfaces

Some occupational health and safety hazards associated with sheep shearing are related to shearing shed design. One aspect is the floor of the catching pen, from which sheep are caught and dragged to the shearing workstation. Floors can be constructed from various materials, and may be level or gently sloping. An experiment was conducted using eight experienced shearers as participants to measure the force exerted by a shearer when dragging a sheep. Results showed that significant changes in mean dragging force occurred with changes in both surface texture and slope. The mean dragging forces for different floor textures and slopes ranged from 359 N (36.6 kg) to 423N (43.2 kg), and were close to the maximum acceptable limits for pulling forces for the most capable of males. The best floor tested was a floor sloped at 1:10 constructed of timber battens oriented parallel to the path of the drag, which resulted in a mean dragging force 63.6N (15%) lower than the worst combination.     

Dynamic biomechanical modelling of symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks in restricted postures

This article describes investigations of dynamic biomechanical stresses associated with lifting in stooping and kneeling postures. Twelve subjects volunteered to participate in two lifting experiments each having two levels of posture (stooped or kneeling), two levels of lifting height (350 or 700 mm), and three levels of weight (15,20, or 25 kg). One study examined sagitally symmetric lifting, the other examined an asymmetric task. In each study, subjects lifted and lowered a box every 10 s for a period of 2 min in each treatment combination. Electromyography (EMG) of eight trunk muscles was collected during a specified lift. The EMG data, normalized to maximum extension and flexion exertions in each posture, was used to predict compression and shear forces at the L3 level of the lumbar spine. A comparison of symmetric and asymmetric lifting indicated that the average lumbar compression was greater in sagittal plane tasks; however, both anterior-posterior and lateral shear forces acting on the lumbar spine were increased with asymmetric lifts. Analysis of muscle recruitment indicated that the demands of lifting asymmetrically are shifted to ancillary muscles possessing smaller cross-sectional areas, which may be at greater risk of injury during manual materials handling (MMH) tasks. Model estimates indicated increased compression when kneeling, but increased shear forces when stooping. Increasing box weight and lifting height both significantly increased compressive and shear loading on the lumbar spine. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated complex muscle recruitment schemes—each treatment combination elicited a unique pattern of muscle recruitment. The results of this investigation will help to evaluate safe loads for lifting in these restricted postures.     

Ergonomic evaluation of standard and alternative pallet jack handless

AimTransportation of materials using a pallet jack pulled behind the operator is common due to the visual advantages while transporting fully loaded pallets. The objective of this laboratory study was to quantify muscle activity, posture, and low back compressive and shear forces while completing typical pallet jack activities using a standard handle that required one handed pulling of a pallet jack compared to an alternative handle that allowed for two handed pushing.MethodsParticipants (n = 14) performed six to ten trials of common pallet jack tasks (straight travel and turning) with each handle. Posture analysis of the trunk and right upper extremity was performed using Motion Analysis (Santa Rosa, CA, USA) and back compressive and shear forces were analyzed using 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). Activity of the upper trapezius (UT), pectoralis major (PM), flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and extensor digitorum (ED) muscles were recorded (Telemyo 2400 T, Noraxon, Scottsdale, Arizona) and normalized to percent reference voluntary contraction values. All outcomes were compared using the paired t-test.ResultsPeak and mean muscle activity of the PM (p < 0.001) and ED (p < 0.01) were significantly higher using the alternative push handle during all three tasks. There were larger compressive forces at L4/L5 (p < 0.08) and L5/S1 (p < 0.002) using the alternative handle, and greater shear forces using the standard handle at both L4/L5 (p < 0.0001) and L5/S1 (p < 0.000).DiscussionThe standard handle outperformed the alternative handle with regard to muscle activity. The alternative handle had significantly greater compressive forces at L5/S1 due to the pushing nature of the hand-handle interface, yet the standard handle increased shear forces at both L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels in the low back.ConclusionIn this analysis, there was not a clear benefit to using either handle in terms of trunk strength capacity and varied benefits and drawbacks to each handle when comparing compressive and shear forces in the low back. However, given favorable subjective reports described in a prior publication, and the increased reliance on dynamic versus passive force production, facilitating a workers' ability to push a pallet jack while travelling with large loads is worth further investigation.     

Biomechanical evaluation of nursing tasks in a hospital setting

A field study was conducted to investigate spinal kinematics and loading in the nursing profession using objective and subjective measurements of selected nursing tasks observed in a hospital setting. Spinal loading was estimated using trunk motion dynamics measured by the lumbar motion monitor (LMM) and lower back compressive and shear forces were estimated using the three-dimensional (3D) Static Strength Prediction Program. Subjective measures included the rate of perceived physical effort and the perceived risk of low back pain. A multiple logistic regression model, reported in the literature for predicting low back injury based on defined risk groups, was tested. The study results concluded that the major risk factors for low back injury in nurses were the weight of patients handled, trunk moment, and trunk axial rotation. The activities that required long time exposure to awkward postures were perceived by nurses as a high physical effort. This study also concluded that self-reported perceived exertion could be used as a tool to identify nursing activities with a high risk of low-back injury.     

Can postural modification reduce kinetic and kinematic loading during the bowing postures of Islamic prayer?

As stooped postures are known to increase kinematic and kinetic loading on the lumbar spine they can be problematic for people with low back pain and postural task modification is often recommended. For the Muslim with low back pain, the bowing postures during prayer can aggravate low back symptoms. The aims of this study were to describe lumbo-sacral and pelvic tilt kinematics and lumbo-sacral kinetics during the standard bowing postures of Islam and to compare these to kinematic and kinetic data gathered during a clinically recommended modified bowing posture. The study was a repeated measures within subject cross-over design with 33 healthy male Muslim participants. 3-D motion analysis data were gathered to calculate body joint angles during the two bowing postures. A 3-D biomechanical model was then used to calculate spinal loads. Paired t-test analyses showed that the use of the modified posture resulted in significantly less pelvic tilt range of motion and anterior shear force and compressive force L5/S1, at stages 1 and 5 of bowing. Although this study was conducted with healthy young Muslim males, the use of this modified bent knee posture is recommended for all Muslims with low back pain. Clinical trials are being considered to determine the clinical utility of this postural manoeuvre as an intervention.

Statement of Relevance:The presence of low back pain may hinder a Muslim's ability to use the traditional Islamic bowing posture. Muslims who have low back pain may benefit from adopting a modification to the traditional bowing posture,which has been found to reduce the loads and postural demands on the lower back.     

Can postural modification reduce kinetic and kinematic loading during the bowing postures of Islamic prayer?

As stooped postures are known to increase kinematic and kinetic loading on the lumbar spine they can be problematic for people with low back pain and postural task modification is often recommended. For the Muslim with low back pain, the bowing postures during prayer can aggravate low back symptoms. The aims of this study were to describe lumbo-sacral and pelvic tilt kinematics and lumbo-sacral kinetics during the standard bowing postures of Islam and to compare these to kinematic and kinetic data gathered during a clinically recommended modified bowing posture. The study was a repeated measures within subject cross-over design with 33 healthy male Muslim participants. 3-D motion analysis data were gathered to calculate body joint angles during the two bowing postures. A 3-D biomechanical model was then used to calculate spinal loads. Paired t-test analyses showed that the use of the modified posture resulted in significantly less pelvic tilt range of motion and anterior shear force and compressive force L5/S1, at stages 1 and 5 of bowing. Although this study was conducted with healthy young Muslim males, the use of this modified bent knee posture is recommended for all Muslims with low back pain. Clinical trials are being considered to determine the clinical utility of this postural manoeuvre as an intervention. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: The presence of low back pain may hinder a Muslim's ability to use the traditional Islamic bowing posture. Muslims who have low back pain may benefit from adopting a modification to the traditional bowing posture, which has been found to reduce the loads and postural demands on the lower back.     

The accuracy of self-report and trained observer methods for obtaining estimates of peak load information during industrial work

The purpose of this study was to determine how well self-report (questionnaire=QR) and trained observer (checklist=OBS) data recording methods compared with more expensive video analysis (VID) for estimating various peak physical loading exposure variables on the low backs of 99 employees during work in an automobile assembly plant. The variables studied were L4/L5 spine compression and shear forces, L4/L5 moment, trunk angle, and hand load. Peak low back loads associated with the working postures of, and the applied loads on, each worker were estimated using a 2D biomechanical model that could accommodate inertial forces acting in various directions on the hands independently. Correlations between the VID and OBS methods were greater for each variable than between VID and QR methods, with ranges in coefficients from 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.1 to 0.4, respectively, giving a discouraging impression of the QR, and the OBS method to a lesser degree, for peak low back exposure assessment. Despite the better performance of OBS method for individuals, it was still only able to account for between 36% and 64% of the variance relative to the VID method. When all workers were considered as a single group, compression and shear forces, moment and hand load estimates were the same regardless of method used to collect the data. Self-reported trunk flexion was significantly greater than that reported by trained observers or on video (p<0.0001).Relevance to industryConsiderable time and expense could be saved in large scale studies if it were possible to rely on worker's reports or observation of the physical demands of their jobs instead of traditional video and biomechanical analyses. Assessments of peak exposure of individuals using the self-report and observation methods were discouraging. Analysis of a single group proved more promising, but other groups need to be studied. Interview assisted self-reports may help to improve assessments of individuals and also need to be investigated in the future.     

Biomechanical model to predict loads on lumbar vertebra of a tractor operator

A biomechanical model is important for prediction of loads likely to arise in specific body parts under various conditions. The biomechanical model was developed to predict compressive and shear loads at L4/L5 (lumbar vertebra) of a tractor operator seating on seats with selected seat pan and backrest cushion materials. A computer program was written to solve the model for various inputs viz. stature and weight of the tractor operators, choice of operating conditions, and reaction forces from seat pan and backrest cushions. It was observed that maximum compressive and shear forces ranged 943–1367 N and 422–991 N, respectively at L4/L5 of tractor operators steering the tractor with leg and hand control actions and occasionally viewing the implement at back. The compressive forces were maximum (1202–1367 N) with coir based composite seat backrest cushion materials (thickness of 80 mm, density of 47.19 kg/m³) and were minimum (943–1108 N) with high density polyurethane foam (thickness of 44 mm, density of 19.09 kg/m³) for the seats.Relevance to industryThe biomechanical model of a tractor operator is important for theoretical understanding the problem of sitting and is also valuable in prediction of compressive and shear loads at L4/L5 of operator under various operating conditions. It will help in design of tractor seat for operator's comfort.     

Changes in lifting dynamics after localized arm fatigue

The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the lifting strategies during arm fatigue and non-fatigue conditions and (2) to evaluate the effects of localized arm fatigue on L5/S1 compressive forces during lifting. The hypothesis was that isometrically induced arm fatigue can alter the lifting strategy selection resulting in an increase in the initial acceleration and leading to an increase in lower back stress. Biomechanical analyses of lifting were done before and after the performance of holding activity to induce arm muscle fatigue. Differences in the lifting strategies used including the accelerated effect, pre-lifting technique, and stiffening of the arms were monitored to determine their influence on L5/S1 compressive forces under various load and range conditions. The results show that lifting strategy changed significantly after arm fatigue, especially when the load was less than 20 kg. These changes included the use of increasingly stooped and accelerated techniques adopted at the beginning of the lift and stiffening of the arms at the end of the lift. Arm fatigue resulted in increased compressive forces at the L5/S1 disc due to the use of accelerated techniques and the inherent disadvantage of these techniques in the pre-lifting posture. In this study, lifting strategies changed as a function of arm fatigue, resulting in increased lower back loading. These findings suggest that whole-body lifting should be avoided after localized arm fatigue in order to decrease the risk of injury to the lower back.

Relevance to industry

Some industrial activities rely on the lifting of objects after arm holding or carrying tasks. Such tasks may lead to localized arm fatigue and become a dominant factor in workers choice of a lifting strategy. This study investigated the strategies adopted in response to changes in arm fatigue and their effects on the L5/S1 compressive forces during lifting. The results may have implications for lifting job design and provide useful information for further study in the prevention of low-back injuries.     

Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting

The aim was to examine lumbar spine kinematics, spinal joint loads and trunk muscle activation patterns during a prolonged (2 h) period of sitting. This information is necessary to assist the ergonomist in designing work where posture variation is possible -- particularly between standing and various styles of sitting. Joint loads were predicted with a highly detailed anatomical biomechanical model (that incorporated 104 muscles, passive ligaments and intervertebral discs), which utilized biological signals of spine posture and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from each trial of each subject. Sitting resulted in significantly higher (p<0.001) low back compressive loads (mean +/- SD 1698 +/- 467 N) than those experienced by the lumbar spine during standing (1076 +/- 243 N). Subjects were equally divided into adopting one of two sitting strategies: a single 'static' or a 'dynamic' multiple posture approach. Within each individual, standing produced a distinctly different spine posture compared with sitting, and standing spine postures did not overlap with flexion postures adopted in sitting when spine postures were averaged across all eight subjects. A rest component (as noted in an amplitude probability distribution function from the EMG) was present for all muscles monitored in both sitting and standing tasks. The upper and lower erector spinae muscle groups exhibited a shifting to higher levels of activation during sitting. There were no clear muscle activation level differences in the individuals who adopted different sitting strategies. Standing appears to be a good rest from sitting given the reduction in passive tissue forces. However, the constant loading with little dynamic movement which characterizes both standing and sitting would provide little rest/change for muscular activation levels or low back loading.     

Lift performance and lumbar loading in standing and seated lifts

This study investigated the effect of posture on lifting performance. Twenty-three male soldiers lifted a loaded box onto a platform in standing and seated postures to determine their maximum lift capacity and maximum acceptable lift. Lift performance, trunk kinematics, lumbar loads, anthropometric and strength data were recorded. There was a significant main effect for lift effort but not for posture or the interaction. Effect sizes showed that lumbar compression forces did not differ between postures at lift initiation (Standing 5566.2?±?627.8 N; Seated 5584.0?±?16.0) but were higher in the standing posture (4045.7?±?408.3 N) when compared with the seated posture (3655.8?±?225.7 N) at lift completion. Anterior shear forces were higher in the standing posture at both lift initiation (Standing 519.4?±?104.4 N; Seated 224.2?±?9.4 N) and completion (Standing 183.3?±?62.5 N; Seated 71.0?±?24.2 N) and may have been a result of increased trunk flexion and a larger horizontal distance of the mass from the L5-S1 joint.

Practitioner Summary: Differences between lift performance and lumbar forces in standing and seated lifts are unclear. Using a with-in subjects repeated measures design, we found no difference in lifted mass or lumbar compression force at lift initiation between standing and seated lifts.     

Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting

The aim was to examine lumbar spine kinematics, spinal joint loads and trunk muscle activation patterns during a prolonged (2 h) period of sitting. This information is necessary to assist the ergonomist in designing work where posture variation is possible—particularly between standing and various styles of sitting. Joint loads were predicted with a highly detailed anatomical biomechanical model (that incorporated 104 muscles, passive ligaments and intervertebral discs), which utilized biological signals of spine posture and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from each trial of each subject. Sitting resulted in significantly higher (p< 0.001) low back compressive loads (mean±SD 1698±467 N) than those experienced by the lumbar spine during standing (1076±243 N). Subjects were equally divided into adopting one of two sitting strategies: a single ‘static’ or a ‘dynamic’ multiple posture approach. Within each individual, standing produced a distinctly diVerent spine posture compared with sitting, and standing spine postures did not overlap with flexion postures adopted in sitting when spine postures were averaged across all eight subjects. A rest component (as noted in an amplitude probability distribution function from the EMG) was present for all muscles monitored in both sitting and standing tasks. The upper and lower erector spinae muscle groups exhibited a shifting to higher levels of activation during sitting. There were no clear muscle activation level diVerences in the individuals who adopted diVerent sitting strategies. Standing appears to be a good rest from sitting given the reduction in passive tissue forces. However, the constant loading with little dynamic movement which characterizes both standing and sitting would provide little rest/change for muscular activation levels or low back loading.