title: The effect of lifting speed on cumulative and peak biomechanical loading for symmetric lifting tasks.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To determine the influence of lifting speed and type on peak and cumulative back compressive force (BCF) and shoulder moment (SM) loads during symmetric lifting. Another aim of the study was to compare static and dynamic lifting models.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ten male participants performed a floor-to-shoulder, floor-to-waist, and waist-to-shoulder lift at three different speeds [slow (0.34 m/s), medium (0.44 m/s), and fast (0.64 m/s)], and with two different loads [light (2.25 kg) and heavy (9 kg)]. Two-dimensional kinematics and kinetics were determined. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to calculate peak and cumulative loading of BCF and SM for light and heavy loads.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Peak BCF was significantly different between slow and fast lifting speeds (p < 0.001), with a mean difference of 20% between fast and slow lifts. The cumulative loading of BCF and SM was significantly different between fast and slow lifting speeds (p < 0.001), with mean differences ≥80%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Based on peak values, BCF is highest for fast speeds, but the BCF cumulative loading is highest for slow speeds, with the largest difference between fast and slow lifts. This may imply that a slow lifting speed is at least as hazardous as a fast lifting speed. It is important to consider the duration of lift when determining risks for back and shoulder injuries due to lifting and that peak values alone are likely not sufficient.
authors: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ergonomics & Safety Program, University of Utah, UT, USA.
authors: Kasey O
authors: KO
authors: Greenland
authors: Andrew S
authors: AS
authors: Merryweather
authors: Donald S
authors: DS
authors: Bloswick
keywords: back; lifting; shoulder; speed
references: J Biomech. 1992 Aug;25(8):891-901
references: 1639833
references: Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2835-44
references: 16145666
references: Ergonomics. 1999 Aug;42(8):1051-9
references: 10504889
references: J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2001 Oct;11(5):337-45
references: 11595553
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Dec 1;27(23):2645-53
references: 12461390
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Apr;18(5):617-28
references: 8484154
references: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985 Aug;17(4):440-4
references: 4033399
references: Work. 2003;21(2):173-84
references: 14501095
references: Biomed Sci Instrum. 2005;41:305-10
references: 15850123
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Dec;15(12):1311-6
references: 2149209
references: J Safety Res. 2006;37(2):195-200
references: 16678854
references: Ergonomics. 1992 Mar;35(3):329-45
references: 1572341
references: Ergonomics. 1985 Oct;28(10):1409-17
references: 4076165
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Feb;65(2):213-8
references: 6218171
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1998 Apr;13(3):141-152
references: 11415782
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Jun;14(6):604-5
references: 2749375
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Feb;20(2):130-7
references: 15621316
references: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Aug;13(8):918-21
references: 3187716
references: J Biomech. 2001 Jul;34(7):907-15
references: 11410174
references: J Biomech. 1998 May;31(5):423-30
references: 9727339
references: Saf Health Work. 2011 Sep;2(3):236-42
references: 22953207
references: Ergonomics. 1988 Feb;31(2):211-6
references: 3371330
references: Br J Ind Med. 1986 Feb;43(2):120-33
references: 3947568