Maximum Symmetric and Asymmetric Isoinertial Lifting Capabilities from Floor to Knuckle Height

Lee, Tzu-Hsien

doi:10.2486/indhealth.47.635

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might be responsible for the approximately equivalent maximum lifting capability in the two lifting modes. However, this result was inconsistent with Lee's earlier study, which found a 6-9% decrement in maximum lifting capability between the two lifting modes across different containers [6]. The discrepancy might be attributed to the difference in the dimensions of the container and the position of feet in the two studies.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

“…The discrepancy might be attributed to the difference in the dimensions of the container and the position of feet in the two studies. The width and length dimensions of the container in this study (30 ´ 30 cm) were much smaller than Lee's (50 ´ 35 cm to 70 ´ 50 cm) [6]. Hence, the participants of this study did not need, and were not permitted, to take additional foot steps when putting the container at its destination, which eliminated the main shortcoming for asymmetric lifting with final trunk rotation of more body movement during lifting, and reduced the difference of maximum lifting capability between the two lifting modes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Lee showed that participants' maximum asymmetric lifting capability for FK increased by 25% when they rested the container on the leg compared to not doing so [5]. Lee demonstrated that maximum lifting capability decreased by 6.9% as the container length increased from 50 to 70 cm, and by 13.2% as the container width increased from 35 to 50 cm, and participants lifted 7.2 and 16.1% less weight when lifting asymmetrically compared to symmetric lifting [6]. Sharp, Rice, Nindl, et al revealed maximum teamwork lifting capability as the percentage of the sum of the individual lifting capabilities was significantly under 100% [7,8,9,10], and was dictated by the weaker of the members [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Range and Mode on Lifting Capability and Lifting Time

Lee

2012

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Range and Mode on Lifting Capability and Lifting Time

Lee

2012

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twisting the trunk in asymmetric lifting is hazardous in several investigations 5 . Large compression spinal force combined with axial shear torsional force impacted the intervertebral discs as well as trunk muscular activity during asymmetric lifting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Lifting Weight, Height and Asymmetry on Biomechanical Loading during Manual Lifting

Vijaywargiya¹,

Bhiwapurkar²,

Thirugnanam

2023

Int J Occup Saf Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In India, physical manual activities in asymmetrical postures overtax the human musculoskeletal system, which may exceed workers' physical limitations. Thus the purpose of this study was to examine the physical stresses experienced by the subject, based on subjective and biomechanical loading estimates while lifting weights to various heights, in an asymmetric direction and propose the safe limit for manual lifting. Methods: A laboratory experiment was conducted utilizing twelve male subjects in the age group of 20 to 25 years who lifted 5 different weights between 10 to 20 kg from below the knee to various lifting heights (below the knee to ear level). The lifting task was performed in three asymmetric angles (45, 90, and 135-degree) using free-style lifting techniques. An ANOVA technique was used to analyze the influence of three parameters (Lifting weight, lifting height and asymmetric angle) on two responses; subjective estimates and biomechanical loading. The subjective estimate was obtained using workload assessment by body discomfort chart. The biomechanical loading (loading rate) was estimated from ground reaction force data, obtained from the force plate. Results: Both the responses; subjective estimates and biomechanical loading followed a consistent pattern in predicting physical stress. The result revealed that lifting weights with higher destination heights and asymmetry angles increased the physiological workload and discomfort. Experiments have shown that the loading rate is reduced by 8 to 10% for each increase in the 45-degree angle of asymmetry. Conclusion: In general, safe lifting of 15 kg weight up to ear level and 15 kg weight up to shoulder level are recommended for 45- and 90-degree asymmetry respectively to prevent any chronic injuries. A maximum of 12.5 kg lifting weight up to shoulder level is also proposed.

show abstract