Gender-based differences in postural responses to seated exposures

Abstract

Individuals may respond differently to various chair designs and the factors that influence these sitting behaviours are not well understood. There is very little information in the scientific literature regarding the observation and documentation of gender differences in seated postures. In particular, anecdotal observations of potential gender-specific sitting behaviours led us to test the influence of gender on the postural responses to different seated conditions. Sixteen healthy university students (8 males and 8 females) were tested on four different chair configurations. Upper body kinematics (spine angles and centre of mass) and seat pressure profiles (centre of pressure, peak pressure) were obtained during each testing session. Regardless of the chair used or the task performed, average lumbar and trunk angles were significantly more flexed for males than for females (P=0.047 and P=0.0026, respectively). Males exhibited average lumbar spine and trunk angles of 65.4 degrees (SD 16.2 degrees ) and 29.8 degrees (SD 28.3 degrees ), respectively, while female lumbar spine and trunk angles were 49.6 degrees (SD 23.1 degrees ) and -3.3 degrees (SD 20.4 degrees ), respectively. The pelvis was posteriorly rotated for males (7.6 degrees (SD 8.2 degrees )) and anteriorly rotated for females (-5.5 degrees (SD 9.3 degrees )) (P=0.0008). Significant gender *chair interactions of the location of the individual on the chair seat were most marked for the pivoting chair with a back rest. Females positioned their centre of mass and hip joints anterior to the chair pivot point while males' centre of mass (P=0.0003) and hip joints (P=0.0039) were located posterior to the pivot point. Females also sat with their centre of mass closer to the seat pan centre of pressure than males when a back rest was present (P=0.0012). Males and females may be exposed to different loading patterns during prolonged sitting and may experience different pain generating pathways. Therefore, gender-dependent treatment modalities and/or coaching should be implemented when considering methods of reducing the risk of injury or aggravation of an existing injury.