Forced Straightening of the Back Does Not Improve Body Shape

Abstract

Background: Sitting for a long time causes various postural problems, such as slump sitting. It has been reported that employing a corrected sitting position while lifting the sternum is effective in improving this form of posture. We investigated how a corrected sitting posture with the lifting of the sternum is different from a forced position that is applied through the command and passive positions. Materials and methods: The postural angle of 270 subjects aged 19–23 years was measured in the passive, forced, and corrected positions using a Saunders inclinometer and a Formetric 4D system. Results: As a result, the corrected position had a small range (min–max) at all angles, but the forced position and passive position had a large range (min–max). The lumbar lordosis angle in the corrected position showed positive values throughout its range (min–max), while the other groups showed negative values, which indicates the kyphotic position of the lumbar section. In addition, the percentage error in the corrected position was small, but it presented high values in the other groups. When comparing the average angles between the groups, there were substantial changes observed between the corrected position and the other groups. It was found that the corrected position with the sternum lifted, which is applied to improve slump sitting in the clinical environment, exhibited an angle that differed from that of the forced position and the passive position. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a forced position on the command “scapular retraction” does not meet the clinical assumptions of posture correction, in contrast to the corrected position with the lifting of the sternum for the improvement of slump sitting. The accurate correction of the position of the sternum and sacrum improves the position of the spine in the sagittal plane, enabling physiological values for the kyphosis and lordosis angle parameters to be obtained. This approach combines the ease of execution and precision of the effect. The fact that this method does not require complex tools to accurately correct the body encourages the implementation of this solution in clinical practice.