Periodically one encounters different advice for lifting a load off the 
floor.  One approach  encourages lifting with lumbar "lordosis", while the 
other suggests that a "neutral" lumbar curvature is preferable and safer.

***Rather than aligning the methods of Olympic lifting, neutral lifting  and 
"lordotic" (increased lumbar concavity) lifting against one another, I would 
prefer to teach lifting with an "optimal spinal curvature" (OSC) posture, in 
which the relative supporting roles of the back muscles and back ligaments 
are optimised.   

This recommendation is based upon the fact that concerted attempts to recruit 
the spinal muscles may result in ligamentous laxity, whereas inadequate use 
of the spinal muscles (i.e. so-called 'lordotic' lifting) may result in a 
greater load being placed on the spinal ligaments.  Therefore, in a lifting 
situation, a compromise or optimisation state has to be achieved between 
active muscle support and passive ligamentous support.

Interestingly, this OSC lifting method produces a spinal curvature that 
visually appears to be close to that of the neutral position of the relaxed 
upright standing posture, though the bulging of the muscles in the lumbar 
region does not allow one to make any accurate measurements of the degree of 
lumbar concavity (not actually "lordosis", which by classical definition 
refers to a pathological state of the spine).

But let us examine the entire concept of "lordotic" lifting.  The term 
"lordosis" refers to a degree of lumbar concavity that is GREATER than that 
displayed in the relaxed upright "neutral" position.  Right?   

Really?  Even though I have been involved in Olympic lifting as a competitor, 
coach, official and scientist, I doubt if I have ever seen a single lifter 
who is able to raise a load with a degree of lumbar concavity that is greater 
than the neutral value.  While a SMALL increase of lumbar concavity may be 
possible in the standing 
unloaded position, it is not possible if one is lifting a heavy load.  

To claim that one can lift a heavy load without the spine tending to 
"flatten" to an extent that depends on the magnitude of the load is the same 
as proclaiming that a cantilever (something like a long pole sticking out of 
a wall) loaded near its extreme end does not flex.   

This does not happen with any engineering structures like this and, unlike 
the human spine, these do not involve much more deformable soft tissues that 
are viscoelastic or poroelastic in nature - so how can one logically conclude 
that "lordotic" lifting is possible?   

"Lordosis" means creating a curvature that is exactly the OPPOSITE to that 
which occurs when an engineering cantilever is under heavy loading - that is 
totally  illogical and inaccurate.  At best, one may be able to maintain a 
"neutral" lumbar curvature in lifting a load off the floor, but to increase 
the concavity of the lumbar spine under conditions of lifting sizeable loads 
would require superhuman strength.

To me, the entire concept of "lordotic" lifting needs to be carefully 
re-assessed.  While one certainly needs to be encouraged to visualise a 
"hollowing" of the lumbar spine while lifting to create a kinaesthetic 
awareness tool to produce adequate tensioning of the erector spinae, this 
visualisation drill does not necessarily result in increased lumbar concavity 
while a load is being lifted.

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%