Research Report

Effects of Squat Lift Training and

Free Weight Muscle Training on
Maximum Lifting Load and Isokinetic
Peak Torque of Young Adults
Without Impairments

Background and Purpose. Manual lifting is a frequent cause of back

injury, and there is no evidence as to which training mode can provide
the best training effect for lifting performance and muscle force. The
purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a squat lift training
and a free weight muscle training program on the maximum lifting
load and isokinetic peak torque in subjects without known neuromuscular or musculoskeletal impairments. Subjects. Thirty-six adults
(20 male, 16 female) without known neuromuscular or musculoskeletal impairments participated. The subjects mean age was 21.25 years
(SD1.16, range20 24). Methods. Subjects were divided into
3 groups. Subjects in group 1 (n12) performed squat lift training.
Subjects in group 2 (n12) participated in free weight resistance
training of their shoulder abductors, elbow flexors, knee extensors and
trunk extensors. Subjects in group 3 (n12) served as controls. The
maximum lifting load and isokinetic peak torques of the trunk
extensors, knee extensors, elbow flexors, and shoulder abductors of
each subject were measured before and after the study. Training was
conducted on alternate days for 4 weeks, with an initial load of 80% of
each subjects maximum capacity and with the load increased by 5%
weekly. Results. All groups were comparable for all measured variables
before the study. After 4 weeks, subjects in groups 1 and 2 demonstrated more improvement in maximum lifting load and isokinetic
peak torque of the back extensors compared with the subjects in group 3,
but the 2 training groups were not different. Conclusion and Discussion.
The findings demonstrate that both squat lift and free weight resistance
training are equally effective in improving the lifting load and isokinetic back extension performance of individuals without impairments.
[Yeung SSM, Ng GYF. Effects of squat lift training and free weight
muscle training on maximum lifting load and isokinetic peak torque of
young adults without impairments. Phys Ther. 2000;80:570 577.]

Simon SM Yeung
Gabriel YF Ng
570

Key Words: Back; Functional training and activities; Muscle performance, general; Specificity of training.

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

anual lifting has been identified as a frequent cause of work-related low back
injury (LBI).1 4 Chaffin and coworkers57
were one of the earliest groups of investigators who showed that workers who could lift less than
others were at greater risk for workplace injury to their
back. This finding was supported by the results of Cady
and colleagues study of a group of firefighters8 and
Gundewall and colleagues study of a group of nurses.9
There are reports, however, that isometric back extensor
torque was not associated with LBI in the aircraft industry10 and in a 5-year follow-up study of 456 adults.11 Back
strengthening programs have been suggested for workers and, indeed, have sometimes been shown to reduce
the incidence of work-related LBI.9,12,13
Exercise training protocols have been reported to
improve either the trunk muscle force or the lifting
capacity of workers.1317 These protocols included general strength training,14,15 isometric lumbar extensor
exercises,13 and task-simulating exercises.16,17
Advocates of specificity in exercise training contend that
adaptation of the body is specific to the type of training
load used during exercise.18 20 Some studies18 20 have
shown that improvements in some muscles were specific
to the type of contraction and movement used for
training. However, the concept of specificity of exercise
training is still controversial due to equivocal research

findings. For example, it has been shown that different

modes of training (isometric versus isokinetic, concentric versus eccentric) resulted in similar improvement of
muscle performance (that is, variables measured in each
of the training modes were similar after training despite
differences in the type of contraction and movement
used for training),2124 that training with similar muscle
activities of stair climbing or combined running and
cycling resulted in similar improvement in running
performance,25,26 and that training in one activity (swimming) could lead to an improvement in a different
activity (running).27 Therefore, in order to improve
performance of functional tasks such as lifting, we do not
have evidence as to which training mode, task specific or
general strength training, can provide the best training
effect.
Recently, Ng et al28 reported 12.8% improvement in
maximum lifting load following a 4-week squat lift training program and Yeung et al29 reported 11.03%
improvement in maximum lifting load following a
4-week free weight muscle training program. Both studies were experimental in nature on young adults without
impairment, and they showed comparable improvement
in lifting capacity in both training modes. The mode,
however, that would lead to greater improvement in
maximum lifting load is not known. Therefore, we
compared the effects of a squat lift training program and
an individual muscle resistance training program on the

SSM Yeung, MPhil, PT, is Assistant Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong.
GYF Ng, PT, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
Hong Kong (rsgng@polyu.edu.hk). Address all correspondence to Dr Ng.
Both authors provided concept/research design, writing, data collection and analysis, project management, subjects, facilities/equipment,
institutional liaisons, clerical support, and consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).
This study was approved by the Ethics Standing Committee for Experimentation With Human Subjects of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
This article was submitted February 9, 1999, and was accepted February 21, 2000.

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

Yeung and Ng . 571

maximum lifting load and isokinetic peak torque of

trunk and limb muscles (trunk extensors, shoulder
abductors, elbow flexors, and knee extensors) in young
adults without known neuromuscular or musculoskeletal
impairments.
Method

Subjects
Twenty men and 16 women in their early twenties (mean
age21.25 years, SD1.16, range20 24) volunteered
for this study. All subjects were university students who
had no known neuromuscular or musculoskeletal
impairments and who had never participated in any
regular physical training. They were randomly divided
into 3 groups by drawing lots. Subjects assigned to group
1 (7 male, 5 female) performed squat lift exercises,
subjects assigned to group 2 (5 male, 7 female) performed free weight resistance exercises for back and
limb muscles (back extensors, shoulder abductors, elbow
flexors, and knee extensors), and subjects assigned to
group 3 (8 male, 4 female) did not receive any training
and served as a control group. Subjects in all 3 groups
were tested before and after the 4-week training
program.
Tests
The measurements obtained were maximum lifting load
and isokinetic peak torque for the back extensors,
shoulder abductors, elbow flexors, and knee extensors.
The testing procedures followed those used in the
studies of Ng et al28 and Yeung et al29 and will be
explained below.
Maximum lifting load. The lifting capacity, from floor to
shoulder level, was determined using a psychophysical
approach.30 The psychophysical method that we used is
a measure of perceived stress, which requires subjects to
adjust the loads they lift according to their perception of
physical strain, which we believe could simulate the
normal workplace where the subjects assess the loads
with their perception before performing the lift. A
plastic box (40 29 16 cm) with handles on both
sides was used for holding the weight and standardizing
the dimension of the weight being lifted. Our procedures required the subject to assume a half-squat position beside the box so that the box could be kept close
to the body throughout the movement. The subject then
lifted the box from the floor to the shoulder level by
extending the hips and knees, abducting the shoulders,
and flexing the elbows. Afterward, the subject would
lower the box by reversing the movement.
Throughout the lift, the subject was asked to attempt to
keep the speed at a smooth and continuous rhythm
without a halt in any part of the action from the

572 . Yeung and Ng

beginning of the lift to the final lowering of the box. A

metronome set at one beat per second was placed next
to the box to allow the subject to follow the pace of the
metronome in performing the lifts. One lifting and
lowering cycle took approximately 6 seconds to complete. Based on the range moved by each studied body
part at the prescribed pace, we estimated the speed of
movement for the respective body parts by dividing the
range moved over the time taken. In a pilot study that we
conducted on ourselves to estimate the speed of movement of these body parts, we estimated that the knee
moved at about 100/s, that the elbow moved at 80 to
90/s, that the shoulder moved at 60/s, and that the
trunk moved at 30/s.
The initial load inside the box was set at 5 kg. If a subject
felt that load was too light, 2.5 kg of weight was added for
the subsequent lift. If the subject perceived the load to
be too heavy, 1.25 kg of weight would be removed from
the box each time. Therefore, the weight was adjusted
according to the ability of each individual, until the
subject felt that it was the maximum load that he or she
could lift only once. During the testing procedure, the
box was covered and subjects were unaware of the weight
inside the box. We considered the load as acceptable
only when the difference between each 2 consecutive
tests was less than 15%. Otherwise, the test was repeated
until the percentage of difference for the 2 loads was
within 15%. All subjects required no more than 3 tests.
The average of the loads was taken as the subjects
maximum acceptable lifting load. During the test, each
subject was given at least 3 minutes of rest after each lift
in order to prevent muscle fatigue. The rest interval
varied among the subjects because some subjects were
more adherent than other subjects to the test procedure.
Subjects who were more adherent to the test procedure
assumed the starting position for the next test at close to
the 3-minute mark and then performed the lift. Subjects
who were less adherent to the test procedure took
somewhat longer to assume the starting position for the
next test; some subjects took 15 to 20 seconds longer to
assume the starting position.

Isokinetic peak torque. The muscles tested were the

back extensors, shoulder abductors, elbow flexors, and
knee extensors on both sides. However, we analyzed only
the data obtained for the shoulder abductors, elbow
flexors, and knee extensors of the left side, as we
expected that the changes on the other side would be
similar, given the bilateral nature of the type of contraction and movement used for training. These muscles
were tested because of their importance in performing
squat lifting. We believed that, if improvement was
specific to the type of contraction and movement used
for training, the subjects in group 1 could have more
improvement in the lifting load than in isokinetic peak

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000


Table 1.
Repeated Measurements of the Five Variables and Their Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC [3,1]) Based on a Group of Five Subjects With a
1-Week Interval Between Measurements
Measurement 1

Measurement 2

Variable

SD

Range

SD

Range

ICC

Lifting load (kg)

Back extensors (Nm)
Knee extensors (Nm)
Shoulder abductors (Nm)
Elbow flexors (Nm)

21.83
113.40
69.80
19.40
13.40

6.89
44.97
17.29
6.19
5.32

12.09 28.87
77180
56 96
1528
8 19

21.61
120.60
69.60
18.60
12.20

5.92
52.89
17.37
4.98
3.96

12.18 26.59
75195
5396
14 24
716

.97
.98
.98
.94
.87

torque of the muscles, whereas subjects in group 2 might

have more improvement in isokinetic testing than in
lifting. A MERAC isokinetic machine* was used for these
tests. The setup for these tests was according to the users
manual for the machine. Each subject performed 3
submaximal contractions as warm-up and then 4 maximal contractions. The highest peak torque value of the 4
contractions was used for analysis. The testing speeds
used were 60/s for the shoulder abductors, 85/s for
the elbow flexors, 100/s for the knee extensors, and
30/s for the trunk extensors. These speeds were chosen
based on the estimated movement speed of each body
part during the lift testing and training in order to
reflect the training effect at the respective speed.

Reliability
Reliability of the measurements was tested on 5 subjects.
Each subject attended 2 testing sessions conducted
1 week apart. The testing protocols were as described for
maximum acceptable lifting load and isokinetic peak
torque measurements of the trunk and limb muscles.
Subjects in the reliability testing were different from
those of the main study. Intraclass correlation coefficients (3,1) for the 5 measured variables ranged from .87
to .98 (Tab. 1).
The Training Protocol
Subjects in group 1 performed squat lifts with a load
equivalent to 80% of their maximum lifting load. The
actions of lifting were similar to the actions during the
lifting test. Subjects lifted the plastic box containing the
weights to their shoulder level and then lowered it to the
floor after attempting to follow the pace of the metronome. Each lifting and lowering cycle took approximately 6 seconds. Each subject had 3 training sessions
per day for 12 days, and every session contained 10
lifting and lowering cycles, with at least 3 minutes of rest
between the sessions. Training was conducted 3 times
weekly on alternate days for 4 weeks. Starting from the
beginning of the second week, the weight was progressively increased by 5% per week.

* Universal Gym Equipment Inc, 818 Dows Rd SE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406.

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

Subjects in group 2 engaged in resistive exercises for

their elbow flexors, shoulder abductors, knee extensors,
and back extensors at 80% of their maximal force levels.
The maximal force for each muscle group was determined by dividing the isokinetic peak torque by the lever
arm of the testing machine. The training weight was
applied at the same position as the isokinetic test pads to
the limbs so that the training stimulus would be equivalent to 80% of the peak torque. The measurement of
peak torque was obtained from the isokinetic testing.
After obtaining the peak torque measurement, we
divided it by the movement arm of the testing machine
to obtain the force measurement. We multiplied this
force value by a factor of 0.8, so that when the subject was
exercising with this weight as applied to the position of
the isokinetic test pad, the resultant resistance would be
equal to 80% of the peak torque value. In each of the
training sessions, the muscle group was trained with 3
sets of 10 repetitions, with 1 minute of rest between
sessions. During training, the subjects attempted to
follow the pace of the metronome, which was set at 45
beats per minute. Training was conducted 3 times weekly
on alternate days for 4 weeks. Similar to the procedure
for the subjects in group 1, the weights were progressively increased by 5% per week starting from the second
week.
Subjects in the control group did not receive any training throughout the study period. The 3 groups were
compared before and after the 4-week period for their
maximum lifting load and isokinetic peak torque of the
back and limb muscles.

Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) personal computer program
(version 7.5). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and chi-square tests were used to determine whether
there were differences in age, weight, height, and sex
ratio among the 3 groups. A multivariate ANOVA was
used to determine whether there were differences in

SPSS Inc, 444 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611.

Yeung and Ng . 573

Table 2.
Physical Profile of the Subjects
Training Group 1
(n12)

Age (y)
Weight (kg)
Height (cm)
Male (%)
a
b

Training Group 2
(n12)

Control Group
(n12)

SD

Range

SD

Range

SD

Range

21.7
55.9
166.5
58

1.3
6.2
8.6

20 24
47.7 65.9
150 185

21.3
53.8
165.1
42

0.9
6.0
9.5

20 23
42 61
150 182

20.9
58.4
167.4
67

0.8
6.5
8.5

20 23
45 66.4
152178

.211a
.791a
.213a
.455b

One-way analysis of variance.

Chi-square test.

Table 3.
Isokinetic Peak Torque of Different Muscle Groups and Maximum Lifting Load Before the 12 Sessions of the Training Program

Training Group 1
(n12)

Training Group 2
(n12)

Control Group
(n12)

Variable

SD

Range

SD

Range

SD

Range

Pa

Back extensors (Nm)

Knee extensors (Nm
Shoulder abductors (Nm)
Elbow flexors (Nm)
Maximum lifting load (kg)

38.92
56.17
15.67
13.75
19.97

22.13
19.70
5.65
6.66
6.64

1279
2273
8 26
528
1135

49.42
49.67
13.33
9.67
16.00

25.52
18.82
6.46
4.60
4.06

1596
16 76
4 23
4 19
10.522.5

71.92
57.08
17.92
12.50
20.98

48.55
17.62
4.76
4.19
6.05

5152
30 85
9 24
4 19
14.535

.068
.577
.156
.166
.091

Multivariate (Pillais trace) test for all 5 variables simultaneously; P.071.

peak torque and maximum lifting load among the 3

groups before training. The training effect was determined by subtracting the pretraining measurements
from the posttraining measurements of each subject.
These difference scores (ie, differences between the
pretraining and posttraining measurements) were normalized as percentages of the pretraining values and
analyzed by multivariate ANOVA. Significance for all
tests was set at P.05.
Results
There was no difference in age, weight, height, and sex
distribution among the 3 groups (Tab. 2). The multivariate ANOVA indicated no difference in peak torque and
maximum lifting load among the 3 groups before training (Tab. 3).
The results of the multivariate ANOVA for the difference scores indicated differences among the 3 groups.
Individual probability values indicated that the maximum lifting load and the isokinetic peak torque of the
back extensors and elbow flexors contributed to the
differences (Tab. 4). Post hoc contrasts indicated that
there were no differences in maximum lifting load and
peak torque of the back extensors between groups 1 and
2, but both groups were found to have more improvement than group 3 in both variables. For the peak torque
of the elbow flexors, improvement was greater in group
2 (29.7%) than in group 1 (0.25%), but the change in

574 . Yeung and Ng

group 3 (10.36%) was not different from that in either

group 1 or group 2.
Discussion and Conclusions
We aimed to compare the effects of a 4-week squat lift
training program and a free weight muscle resistance
training program on the maximum lifting load and
isokinetic peak torque of the back and limb muscles in
subjects without known neuromuscular or musculoskeletal impairments and untrained control subjects.
The results showed that both training groups had
greater improvement in their lifting capacity and back
extension force than the control group. This finding
indicates that both training programs improved the
weight that could be lifted with a squat lift. The
action-specific training regimen in group 1 was not
superior to the nonaction-specific training regimen
in group 2 in lifting performance. We believe that this
is an example of the nongeneralizable concept of
specificity for training.
The training program for group 1 involved multiple
squat lifts to the shoulder level at more than 80% of the
maximum lifting load of the subjects. This training
intensity has been reported to be high enough to elicit
a training response.31 The improvement in lifting capacity (22%) of our subjects is comparable to the findings of
Sharp and Legg,32 who showed a 26% increase in
maximal repetitive lifting capacity with 4 weeks of repet-

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

.001
5.01 11 to 7
0.24
5.62 15 to 34
20.82
8 to 41
b

Defined as: (posttraining measurement pretraining measurement)/(pretraining measurement) 100%.

Multivariate (Pillais trace) test for all 5 variables simultaneously; P.001.

21.97 11.03
5.37 12.5 to 28
19.55
7.32 15 to 41 21.91 12.80
24.06

10 to 55

.049
10.36 18.11 22 to 36
5 to 23
5.74
29.70 40.34 22 to 100 13.92
5 to 22
12.08
7.81
13.83

5 to 27 0.25 23.64 58 to 30

5.82

.056
7.61 21.15 22 to 44
6.13 11 to 30
0 to 200 19.17
43.24 58.97
8 to 26
5.09
16.50
8 to 38 11.05 22.00 25 to 58
8.72
17.83

.207
4 to 18
6.51 14.15
4 to 138 59.83 16.15 30 to 85
27.51 39.66
31 to 80
58.33 15.54
61.83 19.29 37 to 91 14.74 25.84 20 to 68

.005
4 to 145 10.58 17.79 36 to 13
11 to 165 61.15 78.42 58 to 226 62.58 39.23
10 to 114 74.00 40.32
50.03 21.10 22 to 28 46.86 41.03

Back extensors
(Nm)
Knee extensors
(Nm)
Shoulder abductors
(Nm)
Elbow flexors
(Nm)
Maximal lifting
load (kg)

SD
X
Range
SD
X
Range
SD
X
Range
SD
X
Range
SD
Range X
SD
X
Variable

Posttraining
Measurement
Posttraining
Measurement
Posttraining
Measurement

Percentage of
Difference

Training Group 2
(n12)

Percentage of
Difference

Control Group
(n12)

Percentage of
Difference

Range

Pb

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

Training Group 1
(n12)

We adopted similar intensities with a task-specific squat

lift training program (group 1) and an individual muscle
free weight training program (group 2) and found that
the magnitude of improvement in lifting was essentially
the same in group 1 (21.91%) and group 2 (21.97%).
Specificity of training response, therefore, may not apply
to all conditions and muscles. Indeed, other researchers2124,34,35 have also reported that subjects who
engaged in different modes of training had similar
improvements in muscle performance in the same conditions of testing. These studies included comparing the
effects of isometric and isokinetic training,21 concentric
versus eccentric training,2224 and concentric isokinetic
training on concentric and eccentric performance.34 All
of these studies showed that improvement was not
specific to the mode of training, as measured by isokinetic testing or isometric muscle testing. Similar
responses have also been found in a back extensor
strengthening program in which isometric and training
resulted in comparable improvements in isometric
force.35 Hortobagyi et al36 showed that individuals who
had a certain level of performance in one type of test,
such as a concentric isokinetic test, were able to achieve
the same relative level of performance in other tests,
such as eccentric isokinetic tests. Support for the concept of generality is further demonstrated by Foster
et al,27 who found that swimming training contributed to
improvement in running speed.

Isokinetic Peak Torque of Different Muscle Groups, Maximum Lifting Load After the 12 Sessions of the Training Program, and Percentage of Difference of Each Measured Variablea

In the free weight muscle training program, the training

tasks were not the same as those of the lifting test. The
finding that these subjects improved in their lifting
capacity suggests that individual muscle training can also
improve performance. The concomitant improvement
in isokinetic peak torque of the back extensors in both
training groups indicates a role for the back muscles in
lifting. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) normative figures, the
90th percentile of men performed torso lifts at 77 kg and
leg (squat) lifts at 134 kg, which requires good back
extensor force.33 This range is far greater than that for
the high-near and high-far arm lifts, defined as lifting
strength at shoulder level and close to and away from the
body, respectively. Therefore, an increase in the back
muscle force would likely improve squat lifting capacity,
as shown in our study.

Table 4.

itive lift training. Improvement of this type (eg, for

task-specific training [training tasks essentially identical
to what is tested]) has been shown by different researchers for different muscle groups and tasks.18 20 Genaidy
and colleagues16,17 further demonstrated that a jobsimulated exercise training program could improve lifting capacity. A possibility always exists, however, that
with very specific training similar to a test, subjects may
just get better on the test.

Yeung and Ng . 575

In all of the studies discussed, the findings were in

agreement with our observation that improvement in
muscle force resulting from individual muscle free
weight training is also reflected during the task of squat
lifting. More importantly, we found that the taskoriented and nontask-oriented training programs
had the same improvement in their ability to lift
weight during a squat lift. This finding, in our opinion, shows that the nontask-specific training program
is comparable to its task-oriented counterpart for
improving squat lifting. Because we examined only
squat lifting, it is not appropriate for us to generalize
our findings to other activities. However, based on our
findings, we believe clinicians and exercise scientists
should consider being more flexible in planning some
training programs, instead of rigidly applying the
principle of specificity.

2 Holmstrom EB, Lindell J, Moritz U. Low back and neck/shoulder

pain in construction workers: occupational workload and psychosocial
risk factors, part 1: relationship to low back pain. Spine.
1992;17:663 671.

Limitations
Our training program lasted only 4 weeks, and improvements may have been partly due to a learning effect as a
result of practice or a combination of learning and
physiological changes in muscle.19 Because of the
method we used, we cannot determine which factor was
more important. Furthermore, we tested subjects in a
very narrow age range, which poses concerns about the
generalizability of our findings to different age groups
for applied studies. However, the narrow age range
should be acceptable in studies in which theoretical
constructs are being tested, such as in our study.

8 Cady LD, Bischoff DP, OConnell ER, et al. Strength and fitness and
subsequent back injuries in firefighters. J Occup Med. 1979;21:269 272.

Differences in isokinetic peak torque of the elbow flexors were found after the training modes were used, but
no differences were found when either training group
was compared with the control group. Table 4 shows that
the percentage differences in the elbow flexors have very
large standard deviations. Although the improvement in
group 2 (29.7%) was substantially greater than that in
group 3 (10.36%), the large standard deviation would
have masked the effect. However, we cannot explain why
the subjects in group 3 had more than 10% improvement in isokinetic peak torque of the elbow flexors
during the 4-week period.
We measured the lifting force but not the lifting posture
or other neuromuscular variables. Whether the subjects
in both training groups used similar body kinematics
during lifting or similar neuromuscular patterns of muscle activity that would directly affect the loading to the
body parts is not known.
References
1 Punnett L, Fine LJ, Keyserling WM, et al. Back disorders and
nonneutral trunk postures of automobile assembly workers. Scand J
Work Environ Health. 1991;17:337346.

576 . Yeung and Ng

3 Knibbe JJ, Friele RD. Prevalence of back pain and characteristics of

the physical workload of community nurses. Ergonomics.
1996;39:186 198.
4 Magnusson ML, Pope MH, Wilder DG, Areskoug B. Are occupational
drivers at an increased risk for developing musculoskeletal disorders?
Spine. 1996;21:710 717.
5 Chaffin DB, Park KS. A longitudinal study of low-back pain as
associated with occupational weight lifting factors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J.
1973;34:513525.
6 Chaffin DB, Herrin GD, Keyserling WM. Preemployment strength
testing: an updated position. J Occup Med. 1978;20:403 408.
7 Keyserling WM, Herrin GD, Chaffin DB. Isometric strength testing as
a means of controlling medical incidents on strenuous jobs. J Occup
Med. 1980;22:332336.

9 Gundewall B, Liljeqvist M, Hansson T. Primary prevention of back

symptoms and absence from work: a prospective randomized study
among hospital employees. Spine. 1993;18:587594.
10 Battie MC, Bigos SJ, Fisher LD, et al. Isometric lifting strength as a
predictor of industrial back pain reports. Spine. 1989;14:851 856.
11 Kujala UM, Taimela S, Viljanen T, et al. Physical loading and
performance as predictors of back pain in healthy adults: a 5-year
prospective study. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1996;73:452 458.
12 Kellett KM, Kellett DA, Nordholm LA. Effects of an exercise
program on sick leave due to back pain. Phys Ther. 1991;71:283291.
13 Mooney V, Kron M, Rummerfield P, Holmes B. The effect of
workplace based strengthening on low back injury rates: a case study in
the strip mining industry. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.
1995;5:157167.
14 Asfour SS, Ayoub MM, Mital A. Effects of an endurance and
strength training programme on lifting capability of males. Ergonomics.
1984;27:435 442.
15 Knapik JJ. The influence of physical fitness training on the manual
material handling capability of women. Appl Ergon. 1997;28:339 345.
16 Genaidy AM. A training programme to improve human physical
capability for manual handling jobs. Ergonomics. 1991;34:111.
17 Genaidy AM, Davis N, Delgado E, et al. Effects of a job-simulated
exercise programme on employees performing manual handling operations. Ergonomics. 1994;37:95106.
18 Mackenzie ME, Ng GYF. Investigation of progressive high speed
non-weight bearing exercise to triceps surae. New Zealand Journal of
Physiotherapy. 1995;23:1719.
19 Ng GYF, Richardson CA. The effects of training triceps surae using
progressive speed loading. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 1990;6:77 84.
20 Rutherford OM, Greig CA, Sargeant AJ, Jones DA. Strength training
and power output: transference effects in the human quadriceps
muscle. J Sports Sci. 1986;4:101107.
21 Knapik JJ, Mawdsley R, Ramos M. Angular specificity and test mode
specificity of isometric and isokinetic strength training. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 1983;5:58 65.
22 Pavone E, Moffat M. Isometric torque of the quadriceps femoris
after concentric, eccentric and isometric training. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 1985;66:168 170.

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000


23 Jones DA, Rutherford OM. Human muscle strength training: the
effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant
changes. J Physiol (Lond). 1987;391:111.
24 Hortobagyi T, Katch FI. Role of concentric force in limiting
improvement in muscular strength. J Appl Physiol. 1990;68:650 658.
25 Loy SF, Holland GJ, Mutton DL, et al. Effects of stair-climbing vs
run training on treadmill and track running performance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1993;25:12751278.
26 Mutton DL, Loy SF, Rogers DM, et al. Effect of run vs combined
cycle/run training on VO2max and running performance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1993;25:13931397.
27 Foster C, Hector LL, Welsh R, et al. Effects of specific versus
cross-training on running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol.
1995;70:367372.
28 Ng GYF, Chan HKF, Chan SSH, et al. Effects of functional weight
lifting training on lifting strength and isokinetic peak torque of trunk
and limb muscles. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 1998;14:8792.
29 Yeung SS, Chan MC, Leung DC, et al. The effects of a four-week
muscle strengthening program on maximum acceptable lifting load.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 1998;8:265272.

Physical Therapy . Volume 80 . Number 6 . June 2000

30 Ayoub MM, Mital A. Manual Materials Handling. Bristol, Pa: Taylor &
Francis Publishers Inc; 1989:116.
31 Rissanen A, Kalimo H, Alaranta H. Effect of intensive training on
the isokinetic strength and structure of lumbar muscles in patients with
chronic low back pain. Spine. 1995;20:333340.
32 Sharp MA, Legg SJ. Effects of psychophysical lifting training on
maximal repetitive capacity. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1988;49:639 644.
33 NIOSH Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati, Ohio: US
Dept of Health and Human Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1981. NIOSH Technical Report No. 81-122.
34 Petersen SR, Bell GJ, Bagnall KM, Quinney HA. The effects of
concentric resistance training on eccentric peak torque and muscle
cross-sectional area. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991;13:132137.
35 Graves JE, Pollock ML, Foster D, et al. Effect of training frequency
and specificity on isometric lumbar extension strength. Spine.
1990;15:504 509.
36 Hortobagyi T, Katch FI, LaChance PF. Interrelationships among
various measures of upper body strength assessed by different contraction modes: evidence for a general strength component. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 1989;58:749 755.

Yeung and Ng . 577