Effects of asymmetric dynamic and isometric liftings on strength/force and rating of perceived exertion

Abstract

A laboratory study was undertaken to determine the postural and physical characteristics and subjective stress during dynamic lifting of a usual load (10 kg) compared with during isometric lifting. The authors also aimed to clarify the effects of asymmetric lifting on these parameters. The subjects were thirteen male college students. They were asked to lift a box weighing 10 kg. They performed sixteen different lifting tasks from the floor to a height of 71 cm, involving a combination of three independent factors: two lifting modes (isometric lifting and dynamic lifting), four lifting angles in relation to the sagittal plane (sagittal plane, right 45 degree, right 90 degree and left 90 degree planes) and two lifting postures (squat and stoop). For each lifting task, strengths or forces and ground reaction forces were measured. At the end of each task, the authors asked the subjects to rate their perceived exertion (RPE) during lifting at ten sites of the body. Angle factor had a significant effect on isometric strengths and dynamic peak forces. Isometric strengths during the maximum 3 s were highest in lifting in the right 45 degree plane, followed by that in the sagittal plane, while those in the right 90 degree and left 90 degree planes were the lowest. However, peak forces in dynamic lifting were the highest in the lifting in the sagittal plane, followed by that in the right 45 degree plane, while those in the right 90 degree and left 90 degree planes were the lowest. Postural factor had a significant effect on height at peak force, which is higher in squat lifting than in stoop lifting. RPEs for the left arm, the backs and the right whole body in isometric lifting were significantly higher than in dynamic lifting of 10 kg. There were remarkably high RPEs for the ipsilateral thigh to the box in right 90 degree and left 90 degree planes during both isometric and dynamic liftings. Locations of the resultant force consisting of three component forces on the force plate were closer to the foot on the same side as the box in asymmetric lifting. Thus, some similarities and differences were found between isometric lifting and dynamic liftings regarding the indexes of strength used in this experiment. The authors consider that the subjects used the foot nearer to the box as a fulcrum during asymmetric lifting. Dynamic measurement using the 10 kg weight is less stressful than the conventional isometric measurement. It was possible to obtain the height data at peak force and time-based changes in the force and the box location during lifting only through dynamic lifting measurement. The results provide new knowledge about the biomechanical features of dynamic lifting tasks.