“A flexed-back posture is associated with increased strength and efficiency of the back muscles compared to a lordotic posture. These findings further question the manual handling advice to lift with a lordotic lumbar spine.”
Ok, lifting an object in a study may not be transfererable to deadlifts or strength training in general. Nevertheless, I thought this was interesting as a source of debate. What do you think?
I think we refer to it as braced (or part of being braced) and I’d say it’s super important for moving more weight and staying injury free. Gotta avoid arching though.
EDIT: I read flexed as not relaxed rather than the opposite of extended
Fantastic! I’d never thought this study would attract interest any outside occupational medicine. Do I dare asking if they came to an agreement upon this? (I will give it a listen later)
This is a hotly-debated topic in physiotherapy actually. Stuart McGill might be a highly prominent figure to lifters, but he’s not without his critics… for good reason. Entities such as Barbell Medicine immediately spring to mind.
They did come to an agreement on this:
The study provides valid data that people can produce more force from a flexed-spine position
The study’s methodology was not suitable to determine whether efficiency increased with a flexed posture due to the limitations in surface EMG
This study supports numerous other findings showing that people produce more force in a flexed spine position
This study does not mean we should encourage lifter to lift with a flexed spine posture
This study does support that we shouldn’t necessarily be afraid of lifting with a flexed spine
This study did not report injury risk
To support those conclusions, the group refer to other findings which have shown:
Lumbar spinal flexion is unavoidable when lifting from the ground, despite the outward appearance of a neutral spine
An actual “neutral spine” position or zone is unlikely to exist
“Correcting” spinal posture does not result in a reduced risk of injury