
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38179583
90707
10.26603/001c.90707
Original Research
Physically Active Adults with Low Back Pain do not Demonstrate Altered Deadlift Mechanics: A Novel Application of Myotonometry to Estimate Inter-Muscular Load Sharing
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8489-7537
McGowen Jared M. 1
Albin Stephanie R. 2
Hoppes Carrie W. 3
Forsse Jeffrey S. 1
Abt John 4
Koppenhaver Shane L. 5
1 Health, Human Performance, and Recreation Baylor University https://ror.org/005781934
2 School of Physical Therapy Regis University https://ror.org/043ae9h44
3 Army-Baylor University Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy Baylor University https://ror.org/005781934
4 Children’s Health Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine
5 Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy Baylor University https://ror.org/005781934
Corresponding author: Jared McGowen 661-342-6783, mcgowenj@gmail.com
2 1 2024
2024
19 1 14621472
22 6 2023
6 11 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Rehabilitation clinicians that work with physically active populations are challenged with how to safely return patients back to performing deadlift movements following low back injury. Application of reliable and valid tests and measures to quantify impairments related to low back pain (LBP) enhances clinical decision making and may affect outcomes. Myotonometry is a non-invasive method to assess muscle stiffness which has demonstrated significant associations with physical performance and musculoskeletal injury.

Hypothesis/Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the stiffness of trunk (lumbar multifidus [LM] and longissimus thoracis [LT]) and lower extremity (vastus lateralis [VL] and biceps femoris [BF]) muscles between individuals with and without LBP during the lying, standing, and deadlifting body positions.

Study Design

Cross-sectional cohort comparison

Methods

Muscle stiffness measures were collected in the VL, BF, LM, and LT muscles with participants in lying (supine and prone), standing, and the trap bar deadlift position. Separate analyses of covariance were conducted to compare absolute and relative muscle stiffness between the groups for each muscle and condition.

Results

Sixty-eight participants (41 female, 21.3 years, 34 LBP) volunteered for the study. Within the deadlift condition there was a significantly greater increase in the percent-muscle stiffness change in the VL (p = .029, 21.9%) and BF (p = .024, 11.2%) muscles in the control group than in the LBP group. There were no differences in percent-muscle stiffness changes for the standing condition nor were there any absolute muscle stiffness differences between the two groups for the three conditions.

Conclusion

No differences in muscle stiffness were identified in the lying, standing, or deadlifting conditions between participants with and without LBP. Differences in percent stiffness changes were noted between groups for the deadlift position, however the differences were modest and within measurement error. Future studies should investigate the utility of myotonometry as a method to identify LBP-related impairments that contribute to chronic and/or recurrent low back injury.

Level of Evidence

Level 3

Muscle stiffness
neuromuscular function
rehabilitation
clinical decision making
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most commonly reported musculoskeletal conditions amongst adults in the United States.1 Although populations that consistently engage in physically demanding activities such as athletes, tactical professionals (law enforcement, first responders, military), and manual laborers may sometimes possess higher levels of fitness, they too have demonstrated high rates of low back injuries.2–7 The responsibility of musculoskeletal providers to effectively manage LBP and make appropriate return to activity decisions is arguably more challenging in physically active than in sedentary populations due to the physically demanding requirements of their sport or occupation.8–10 Deadlift variations are common movement patterns that are present within strength and conditioning programs and within physically demanding occupations.7,11 Deadlift training is intended to strengthen the musculature of the lumbopelvic region and lower extremities to help individuals prepare for and improve upon the specific physical demands of their sport, occupation, and active lifestyle.12–14 However, little evidence exists to inform rehabilitation clinicians about when neuromuscular impairments resulting from low back injury may preclude an individual from safely returning to deadlift training or when using deadlift variations as a rehabilitation exercise is indicated.15,16 The high incidence of low back injuries amongst individuals who are expected to return to perform deadlift or deadlift-like movements (e.g. hip-hinge) places an urgent requirement on researchers and clinicians to further identify neuromuscular impairments that may be prohibitive of a safe return to deadlift training following low back injury.15–17

Stiffness is a mechanical property of muscle that has been suggested as an important measure of muscle health and function.18–20 Myotonometry is a non-invasive, objective method of quantifying muscle stiffness through portable, handheld devices called myotonometers.21 During isometric contractions, muscle stiffness has demonstrated a stronger, positive linear relationship with force production (R2 = 0.977) than the linear relationship demonstrated between electromyography (EMG) and force (R2 = 0.936).22 The relationship between muscle stiffness and force indicates that stiffness may be a superior metric than EMG to determine the relative force that an individual muscle is contributing to a multi-muscle task.23,24 Furthermore, the ability of myotonometry to quantify muscle stiffness under relaxed and contracted states makes it a more versatile method for identifying neuromuscular impairments than EMG which can only measure neural drive from an actively contracting muscle.25 The ability to reliably identify impairments under passive conditions is not a trivial matter as numerous studies have demonstrated that abnormal passive muscle stiffness levels are present in individuals with a variety of neuromusculoskeletal disorders, including LBP.18,26,27 The MyotonPRO Digital Palpation Device (Myoton AS, Tallinn, Estonia) is a myotonometer that can quantify active and passive muscle stiffness in a quick and reliable manner that is necessary for obtaining tests and measures in clinical settings.28,29 Utilization of the MyotonPRO in individuals with LBP may help clinicians identify and monitor neuromuscular impairments to improve plan of care decisions that improve outcomes and help to reduce LBP re-injury rates.

Increased stiffness of lumbar spine muscles has been demonstrated in those with LBP, but this has only been demonstrated with the participants lying in prone.20,27,30 No study has investigated muscle stiffness in LBP populations in body positions relevant to sport and occupational function such as in the standing and deadlifting positions. Investigating muscle stiffness of both the lumbar spine and the lower extremities during these positions will help researchers and clinicians better understand how muscle stiffness behaves during loaded body positions and how this may be altered in those with LBP. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to compare the stiffness of trunk (lumbar multifidus [LM] and longissimus thoracis [LT]) and lower extremity (vastus lateralis [VL] and biceps femoris [BF]) muscles between individuals with and without LBP during the lying, standing, and deadlifting body positions. The secondary purpose was to compare percent-muscle stiffness changes that occur as participants transition from a relaxed condition to the standing (trunk musculature only) and deadlift positions (trunk and lower extremity musculature). Participants with LBP were hypothesized to demonstrate increased trunk muscle stiffness in the relaxed and standing conditions, but for the deadlift conditions individuals with LBP were hypothesized to exhibit decreased trunk and hamstring muscle stiffness with increased vastus lateralis muscle stiffness secondary due to pain-induced compensatory deadlift mechanics.

METHODS

Participants

Sixty-eight physically active adults were recruited for the study through word of mouth and flyers distributed across the university campus. Healthy volunteers were included if they had no complaint of lower extremity or spine pain that limited their participation in physical activity over the prior six months and were able to achieve the body position required to perform a trap bar deadlift (Figure 1). Healthy volunteers were excluded if they were pregnant or had a body mass index (BMI) categorized as obese (30 kg/m2). Individuals with BMI that qualified as obese were excluded because subcutaneous adipose exceeding 20 mm in thickness may interfere with the MyotonPRO’s ability to accurately measure muscle stiffness.31 Volunteers with LBP were included if they were currently experiencing pain between the 12th rib and the gluteal fold, had moderate LBP-related disability (defined as a score of > 20 on the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and were able to achieve the trap bar deadlift position. Volunteers with LBP were excluded if they were pregnant, had a BMI that qualified as obese, or any current medical conditions of a serious nature (fracture, cancer, systemic disease, lower quarter neurological deficits). Participants were first screened for study eligibility (ODI score and BMI) via email and again the day of study participation. Prior to data collection, all participants signed an informed consent form approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (Project ID: 1921195-3) and the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.

188326 Figure 1. Trap bar deadlift position.

Procedures

Prior to collection of muscle stiffness measures, participants had their height and weight recorded with a stadiometer (Seca 777, Hamburg, Germany), then completed self-report questionnaires for demographic, activity level, exercise frequency, LBP-related disability, pain, and anxiety. Physical activity level was assessed with a single question, “Over the last year, how would you assess your activity level?” with possible responses being “inactive”, “somewhat active”, “active”, and “very active.” This question has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity to assess activity level when compared to more comprehensive questionnaires.32 Furthermore, activity level assessed with this single question has been shown to have a positive relationship with lumbar muscle stiffness.32,33 Weekly participation in aerobic and resistance exercise was assessed with a training frequency question that asked participants, “Over the last year, how frequently (on average) did you participate in at least 30 minutes of aerobic or resistance training?” with possible answers being “less than 1 day per week”, “1-3 days per week”, and “greater than 3 days per week.” The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) is an 11-point (0-10) scale that is a reliable and responsive measure in people with LBP.34 Participants with LBP rated their pain in each body position that stiffness measures were collected. The ODI is a reliable and valid 0-100 scale measuring LBP-related disability where higher scores relate to higher disability.35 Anxiety was assessed with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) which is a 21-item questionnaire that scores somatic symptoms of anxiety on a 0-63 point scale (higher scores represent more anxiety).36 The BAI has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity when compared to other anxiety questionnaires and anxiety assessed with this measure has been shown to demonstrate a negative relationship with muscle stiffness.36,37 Upon completion of questionnaires, participants with LBP received a subjective and neuromusculoskeletal exam to determine their appropriateness for the study.

Stiffness measurements were collected on the VL, BF, LM (L5 spinal segment), and LT (L1 spinal segment) muscles during the lying (prone/supine) and contracted (standing and trap bar deadlift positions) conditions. These muscles were selected due to their demonstrated importance to deadlift performance as well as spinal health and function in individuals with LBP.27,30,38,39 Measurement locations were determined using documented electromyography (EMG) sites that were consistent with recommendations stated on the device manufacture’s website (myoton.com).40 Measurements were acquired with the participant’s shoes off, recorded from the more symptomatic side in individuals with LBP, and randomized to the left or right side in asymptomatic individuals. Measures were only collected on the more symptomatic side in participants with LBP to reduce the number of deadlift repetitions that participants had to perform. Furthermore, higher muscle stiffness measures have been found on the more symptomatic side in people with LBP.20 Participants with LBP were asked to withhold from receiving any therapeutic interventions for their back pain and from taking any back pain specific medications (pain relievers, anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxers) 12 hours prior to study participation. All participants were asked to maintain their usual level of physical activity 24 hours prior to study participation.

MyotonPRO Measurements

Stiffness measures were obtained using a single measure with the single tap mode of the MyotonPRO to reduce the time required to obtain the measurements in the deadlift position. A previous study found good to excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.81 to 0.97) using this method in the same muscles and body positions.29 Muscle stiffness measures were acquired by the examiner positioning the probe of the MyotonPRO perpendicularly on the belly of the targeted muscles at the recommended locations.40 The examiner lowered the device into measurement range which was identified by illumination of a green light on the device (Figure 2).41 A quick (15 ms) and light (0.4 N) device-initiated mechanical impulse force was transmitted through the probe, causing the targeted tissue to respond with a damped oscillation that was registered by the device accelerometer.41 The tissue’s stiffness measurement (Nm) was computed and displayed on the device screen.23

188327 Figure 2. Obtaining stiffness measure of the lumbar multifidus muscle with the MyotonPRO.

Standardization of Measures

Measures were first obtained in the lying (supine and prone) position then measured in the standing and trap bar deadlift positions. Lying measures were obtained in supine for the VL muscle and in prone for the BF, LM, and LT muscles. Prior to collecting stiffness measures, trunk angles were collected with an inclinometer at the T12 spinal segment in both the standing and deadlift positions to assess for spinal angle differences between groups. Lying and standing measures were collected in the same order (VL, BF, LM, LT) whereas the deadlift measurements were randomized to account for a possible order effect. Standing measures were obtained with the participants standing with a cone positioned between their feet to standardize stance width. Plastic cones were used to simulate the width and height of trap bar handles to prevent participants from lifting or resting on the trap bar while in the deadlift position (Figure 3). Participants were positioned between two cones that were 63.5 cm apart (width of the trap bar handles). Participants self-selected a stance width that was most comfortable for them to achieve the trap bar deadlift position. The stance width was recorded and maintained for all subsequent deadlift repetitions. Participants were required to squat to a depth that allowed them to contact the top of the cones with closed fists. The height of the cones (22.8 cm) was selected because it is the approximate height of the top of a trap bar handle when loaded with bumper plates. Furthermore, it was reasoned that abnormalities in muscle stiffness were most likely to occur when LBP participants were in the starting position of the deadlift where the highest spine loads have been shown to occur.42 Participants were required to squat and hold the trap bar deadlift position for approximately 2-5 seconds during four separate repetitions while the examiner obtained muscle stiffness measures on each muscle.

188328 Figure 3. Trap bar deadlift set-up position. Cone dimensions represent height and width of trap bar handles.

Statistical Analysis

Data analyses were performed using SPSS, version 28.0 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York) and included data from all 68 participants for the VL, BF, LM, and LT for the relaxed and deadlift positions and the LM and LT for the standing position. Sixty-eight participants ensured at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 (28 Nm) between groups when using a 2-tailed alpha of .05. Baseline characteristics were summarized by treatment group and compared with independent t-tests for parametric data and Mann-Whitney-U and Chi-squared tests for categorical and dichotomous data, respectively. Variables that were significantly different per group were used in linear regression analyses with each muscle stiffness outcome to assess for use as a covariate. Variables that were statistically different between groups and linearly related to the dependent variable were used as covariates. Additionally, variables such as physical activity that have demonstrated a linear relationship with muscle stiffness20 were assessed for use as a covariate with linear regression analyses. Separate analyses of covariance were conducted to compare absolute and relative (percent-muscle stiffness change from the relaxed to the standing and deadlifting positions) muscle stiffness measures between the groups for each muscle and condition. Percent-muscle stiffness change was calculated for each muscle of interest for the standing and deadlift conditions with the appropriate formula ([standing or deadlift stiffness – lying stiffness]/lying stiffness x 100). Finally, t-tests were used to compare trunk angles and stance widths between groups.

RESULTS

Table 1 displays demographic, physical activity, pain, and low back disability data for each group. Sex and physical activity were identified as significant covariates. Comparisons of adjusted means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are displayed for each muscle across the three conditions in Table 2. The only difference between the two groups was in the VL muscle with the LBP group demonstrating a higher adjusted mean stiffness of 22 Nm (95% CI, 0.21 to 43.8) in the relaxed position. Table 3 and Figure 4 displays percent-muscle stiffness changes that occurred as participants transitioned from the relaxed to the standing and deadlift positions. There were no significant differences in percent-muscle stiffness change between the lying and standing positions between the two groups. Within the trap bar deadlift position there was a significantly greater increase in the percent-muscle stiffness change that occurred in the VL (p = .029, 21.9%) and BF (p = .024, 11.2%) muscles in the control group than in the LBP group. No between group differences were identified for standing and deadlifting trunk angles or for deadlifting stance widths (p-value range = .205 to .573). Mean LBP intensity was 4/10 (SD = 2) for each body position and 11 (32%) of the participants with LBP reported at least a 1-point increase in pain when they were in the deadlift position.

188329 Table 1. Characteristics of participants per group

	Asymptomatic Controls	LBP	p-value	
Participants	34	34		
% Female	44%	76%	0.01*	
Age	20.7 (5.1)	21.9 (4.5)	0.97	
Body Mass Index	23.4 kg/m2 (2.7)	22.5 kg/m2 (2.6)	0.98	
Physical Activity Level			0.05	
Inactive	0 (0%)	3 (9%)		
Somewhat active	7 (21%)	4 (12%)		
Active	4 (12%)	14 (41%)		
Very active	23 (67%)	13 (38%)		
Aerobic Frequency			0.02*	
< 1 x per week	2 (6%)	8 (24%)		
1-3 x per week	17 (50%)	18 (52%)		
> 3 x per week	15 (44%)	8 (24%)		
Resistance Frequency			0.05	
< 1 x per week	7 (21%)	10 (29%)		
1-3 x per week	10 (29%)	16 (47%)		
> 3 x per week	17 (50%)	8 (24%)		
ODI	N/A	14.0 (3.9)	N/A	
NPRS	N/A	4 (2)	N/A	
BAI	4.5 (5.4)	11.4 (8.4)	< 0.001*	
ODI, Oswestry Disability Index for low back pain disability (scored 0-50 with higher scores indicating greater disability). NPRS, numeric pain rating scale (scored 0-10 with higher scores indicating greater pain). BAI, Beck’s Anxiety Inventory (scored 0-63 with higher scores indicating greater anxiety). LBP, low back pain. Values reported as mean (SD) except where noted. *Statistically significant difference at p < 0.05.

188330 Table 2. Muscle stiffness comparisons per condition, all values are reported in Newton-meters.

	Mean Stiffness (SD)	Adjusted Mean Differencesa (95% Confidence Interval)		
Control
(n = 34)	LBP
(n = 34)	p-⁠value	
VL					
Relaxed	303.9 (32.5)	314.8 (57.8)	22.0 (0.21 to 43.8)	0.05*	
Standing	427.3 (115.0)	375.2 (102.9)	19.0 (-66.6 to 28.7)	0.43	
Deadlift	640.1 (175.0)	553.5 (186.5)	26.1 (-⁠49.6 to 101.8)	0.49	
BF					
Relaxed	263.0 (50.4)	251.9 (51.6)	6.3 (-14.8 to 27.4)	0.56	
Standing	291.0 (86.6)	272.5 (68.2)	7.4 (-25.3 to 40.1)	0.65	
Deadlift	285.7 (106.6)	230.6 (55.2)	28.0 (-8.3 to 64.3)	0.13	
LM					
Relaxed	234.1 (71.5)	237.3 (66.4)	11.1 (-23.4 to 45.6)	0.52	
Standing	291.7 (153.7)	301.3 (156.5)	32.6 (-43.8 to 109.0)	0.40	
Deadlift	675.2 (279.1)	612.7 (244.6)	0.7 (-121.7 to 123.0)	0.99	
LT					
Relaxed	316.5 (50.5)	312.6 (55.7)	2.4 (-24.7 to 29.4)	0.86	
Standing	366.1 (105.4)	364.0 (124.0)	7.4 (-50.6 to 65.4)	0.80	
Deadlift	645.0 (173.1)	614.2 (216.6)	2.3 (-94.4 to 99.0)	0.96	
VL, vastus lateralis; BF, biceps femoris; LM, lumbar multifidus; LT, longissimus thoracis. aMean stiffness differences and confidence interval values are adjusted for sex and activity level. *Statistically significant difference at p < or = 0.05.

188331 Table 3. Percent muscle stiffness changes between relaxed and deadlift conditions, all values are reported in Newton-meters

	Percent Mean Stiffness Change (SD)	Adjusted Mean Differencesa (95% Confidence Interval)		
	Control
(n = 34)	LBP
(n = 34)	p-⁠value	
Standing					
LM	21.5 (42.1)	22.3 (38.2)	12.0 (-14.1 to 25.9)	0.56	
LT	15.2 (26.5)	14.9 (26.3)	2.7 (-11.1 to 15.5)	0.74	
Deadlift					
VL	107.9 (43.3)	73.6 (44.6)	21.9 (2.3 to 41.4)	0.03*	
BF	6.7 (24.6)	-8.0 (13.8)	11.2 (1.5 to 21.0)	0.02*	
LM	184.9 (78.0)	155.7 (74.2)	12.0 (-23.8 to 47.8)	0.50	
LT	101.9 (41.8)	95.2 (59.7)	2.7 (-22.2 to 27.7)	0.83	
LBP, low back pain; VL, vastus lateralis; BF, biceps femoris; LM, lumbar multifidus; LT, longissimus thoracis; aMean stiffness and confidence interval values are adjusted for sex and activity level. *Statistically significant difference at p < 0.05.

188332 Figure 4. Graph depicting percent-muscle stiffness change per muscle for the trap bar deadlift in healthy controls and participants with low back pain (LBP).

*Statistically significant difference at p < or equal to 0.05.

DISCUSSION

Little is known about how thigh and trunk muscle stiffness behave in individuals with LBP under loaded conditions. The results of this study demonstrate that in young, physically active adults with moderately disabling LBP, stiffness of the VL, BF, LM, and LT muscles are not statistically different than healthy controls during standing and deadlifting positions. Although significant percent-muscle stiffness increases were found in the control group for the VL and BF muscles for the deadlift position, these increases were modest and within measurement error.29 These findings contribute to the growing body of literature regarding how muscle stiffness relates to LBP and how myotonometry may be used to monitor for neuromuscular deficits that have been difficult to reliably quantify with other clinical methods.43 Furthermore, these findings have important implications for rehabilitation providers managing physically active individuals who have LBP and will be returning to deadlift training and/or performing similar deadlift-like movements upon completion of rehabilitation.

The lack of statistically significant differences in muscle stiffness between the two groups across all conditions was not an expected finding. Earlier studies have shown increased erector spinae stiffness in those with LBP and demonstrated that muscle stiffness was positively related to pain scores and negatively related to function.27,30 In contrast, this study found no between group differences for LM or LT stiffness in the relaxed condition despite the participants with LBP exhibiting higher levels of LBP-related disability than in previous studies (Table 1). However, it is worth highlighting that in younger individuals with LBP, Ilahi et al.30 found that only females demonstrated an increase in relaxed erector spinae stiffness compared to age- and activity-matched controls. Moreover, Wu et al.27 found statistically significant increases in a mixed-sex group of elderly with LBP, but the mean muscle stiffness differences (42.1 Nm) between the healthy and LBP groups did not exceed minimal detectable differences reported in their study (47.2-50.2 Nm). The inconsistency in findings clearly highlights that further research is necessary to better understand the relationship between lumbar musculature stiffness and LBP.

The hypotheses that participants with LBP would demonstrate differences in the standing and deadlift postures was also mostly unsupported by the results. Movement and motor control impairments are known to occur secondary to pain.44,45 Thus, it was expected that LBP symptoms would be exacerbated under these relatively loaded conditions, leading to compensatory motor control strategies that would manifest as altered stiffness in the muscles of interest. The absence of muscle stiffness differences in these positions suggests there may have been an insufficient level of pain intensity and/or LBP-related disability to result in muscle dysfunction. It is also possible that the MyotonPRO measures were not sensitive enough to detect mild differences that may have been present between the two groups. Specific to the deadlift position, pain data analysis demonstrated that only 32% (n = 11) of the LBP group reported an increase in pain while they were in the deadlift posture. Furthermore, only two participants reported a 2-point increase in pain that is necessary for clinical significance.34 Though speculative, it may be that a compensatory deadlift posture (e.g. adopting a more upright trap bar deadlift set-up) may only be found in individuals who experience a clinically meaningful increase in LBP symptoms that are specific to the deadlift set-up position. Another explanation could be that individuals with mild to moderate levels of spinal pain and disability only demonstrate compensatory trap bar deadlift mechanics with deadlift attempts of higher intensities. Future studies should seek to answer these questions as they could help to further clarify when individuals with LBP may be safe to return to deadlift training and at what capacity.

This is the first study to use muscle stiffness to determine inter-muscular load sharing percentages while performing a variation of the deadlift. Figure 4 and Table 3 demonstrate the relative change in muscle stiffness as participants transitioned from the lying (relaxed) position to the deadlift position. The substantial increases in stiffness for the VL, LM, and LT muscles suggests that these muscles are important force producing muscles during performance of the trap bar deadlift. These results are supported by previously recorded deadlift muscle activation patterns measured with EMG,38 and demonstrates the versatility of myotonometry as a method to estimate individual muscle contributions (through the surrogate of muscle stiffness) to a compound movement such as the deadlift.

Finally, this is the first study to compare performance of a deadlift variation between healthy and LBP cohorts using muscle stiffness as an outcome. The results are largely consistent with a similar study that used force production and EMG to compare isometric deadlift performance between individuals with and without LBP.16 Stock et al.16 demonstrated that individuals with acute, non-specific LBP had the same force output and muscle excitability patterns as healthy controls. Collectively, these findings suggest that within young, active individuals with mild to moderate pain levels and LBP-related disability, deadlift variation training may be able to be performed without any added concern for re-injury secondary to lumbar spine or lower extremity neuromuscular impairments. Additionally, this study adds to the growing body of literature evaluating if and how myotonometry may be a useful clinical method to assist clinicians with detecting neuromuscular deficits.

Limitations

The present study had several important limitations. First, the generalizability of this study is limited to young, active individuals with mild to moderate levels of LBP-related disability. Similarly, the deadlift variation used in this study was specific to the trap bar and the starting (“initial pull”) position of the lift and therefore does not apply to other deadlift variations, positions, or to dynamic movements. Additionally, the deadlift inter-muscular stiffness percentages identified in this study occurred under minimal load (body weight) and may not accurately represent individual muscle contributions as isometric deadlifts are performed at higher intensities. Finally, the MyotonPRO measurements are limited by subcutaneous fat thickness that exceeds 2 cm and can only target superficial tissues that can me palpated.31 Despite attempts to combat these limitations by requiring participants to have BMIs less than 30kg/m2 and using recommended muscle stiffness measurement locations it is possible that fat, non-target muscle, and fascia located over the target muscles may have interfered with some muscle stiffness measures.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that no significant differences in muscle stiffness exist between participants with LBP and healthy controls in the lying, standing, or deadlifting conditions. Although differences in percent-muscle stiffness changes were noted between groups for the deadlift position, the differences were within measurement error. Future studies should seek to expand on these findings by using myotonometry to further investigate the relationships between muscle stiffness and deadlift performance in LBP populations of varying degrees of pain and/or disability.

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
Epidemiology of low back pain in adults Neuromodulation Manchikanti Laxmaiah Singh Vijay Falco Frank J.E. Benyamin Ramsin M. Hirsch Joshua A. 10 2014
17 Suppl 2 3 10 1094-7159 10.1111/ner.12018 10.1111/ner.12018
The incidence of low back pain in active duty United States military service members Spine Knox Jeffrey Orchowski Joseph Scher Danielle L. Owens Brett D Burks Robert Belmont Philip J. 8 2011
36 18 1492 1500 0362-2436 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181f40ddd 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181f40ddd 21224777
Identification of potential biomechanical risk factors for low back disorders during repetitive rebar lifting Construction Innovation Antwi-Afari Maxwell Fordjour Li Heng Edwards David John Pärn Erika Anneli Owusu-Manu De-Graft Seo Joonoh Wong Arnold Yu Lok 23 2 2018
18 2 1471-4175 10.1108/ci-05-2017-0048 10.1108/ci-05-2017-0048
Prevalence and consequences of injuries in powerlifting: a cross-sectional study Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Strömbäck Edit Aasa Ulrika Gilenstam Kajsa Berglund Lars 1 5 2018
6 5 2325967118771016 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967118771016 10.1177/2325967118771016 29785405
Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives Journal of Athletic Training Hootman Jennifer M Dick Randall Agel Julie 2007
42 2 311 319 1062-6050 PMID: 17710181 PMCID: PMC1941297 17710181
Injuries among weightlifters and powerlifters: a systematic review British Journal of Sports Medicine Aasa Ulrika Svartholm Ivar Andersson Fredrik Berglund Lars 2017
51 4 211 219 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096037 27707741
Functional versus conventional strength and conditioning programs for back injury prevention in emergency responders Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology Kong Pui Wah Kan Tommy Yew Weng Mohamed Jamil Roslan Abdul Ghani Bin Teo Wei Peng Pan Jing Wen Hafiz Abd Halim Md Noor Abu Bakar Maricar Hasan Kuddoos Hostler David 9 9 2022
10 2296-4185 10.3389/fbioe.2022.918315 10.3389/fbioe.2022.918315 36159702
Recovery, rehabilitation, and return to full duty in a military population after a recent injury: differences between lower-extremity and spine injuries Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation Rhon Daniel I. Teyhen Deydre S. Kiesel Kyle Shaffer Scott W. Goffar Stephen L. Greenlee Tina A. Plisky Phillip J. 1 2022
4 1 e17 e27 2666-061X 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.028 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.028 35141533
2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern British Journal of Sports Medicine Ardern Clare L Glasgow Philip Schneiders Anthony Witvrouw Erik Clarsen Benjamin Cools Ann Gojanovic Boris Griffin Steffan Khan Karim M Moksnes Håvard Mutch Stephen A Phillips Nicola Reurink Gustaaf Sadler Robin Grävare Silbernagel Karin Thorborg Kristian Wangensteen Arnlaug Wilk Kevin E Bizzini Mario 25 5 2016
50 14 853 864 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278 27226389
Update on functional recovery process for the injured athlete: return to sport continuum redefined British Journal of Sports Medicine Buckthorpe Matthew Frizziero Antonio Roi Giulio Sergio 2019
53 5 265 267 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099341 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099341 30269097
Field Manual FM 7-22 Holistic Health and Fitness October 2020 Army United States Government US https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30964-FM_7-22-001-WEB-4.pdf
STP 21-1-SMCT; Soldiers mannual of common tasks, warrior skills, level 1 https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1027843
Science and Practice of Strength Training, Second Edition Zatsiorsky Vladimir M. Kraemer William J. Human Kinetics, Inc. Champaign, IL 2 5 2006
Champaign, IL
A comparison between the squat and the deadlift for lower body strength and power training Journal of Human Kinetics Nigro Federico Bartolomei Sandro 7 7 2020
73 1 145 152 1899-7562 10.2478/hukin-2019-0139 10.2478/hukin-2019-0139 32774546
Which patients with low back pain benefit from deadlift training? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Berglund Lars Aasa Björn Hellqvist Jonas Michaelson Peter Aasa Ulrika 7 2015
29 7 1803 1811 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000837 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000837 25559899
Acute, non-specific low back pain does not impair isometric deadlift force or electromyographic excitation: a cross-sectional study Sports Stock Matt S. Bodden Megan E. Bloch Jenna M. Starnes Karen L. Rodriguez Gabriela Girts Ryan M. 31 10 2022
10 11 168 2075-4663 10.3390/sports10110168 10.3390/sports10110168 36355819
Musculoskeletal injuries and United States Army readiness. Part II: management challenges and risk mitigation initiatives Military Medicine Molloy Joseph M Pendergrass Timothy L Lee Ian E Hauret Keith G Chervak Michelle C Rhon Daniel I 27 2 2020
185 9-10 e1472 e1480 0026-4075 10.1093/milmed/usaa028 10.1093/milmed/usaa028
Treatment of achilles tendinopathy in recreational runners with peritendinous hyaluronic acid injections: a viscoelastometric, functional, and biochemical pilot study Journal of Clinical Medicine Gervasi Marco Barbieri Elena Capparucci Italo Annibalini Giosuè Sisti Davide Amatori Stefano Carrabs Vittoria Valli Giacomo Donati Zeppa Sabrina Rocchi Marco Bruno Luigi Stocchi Vilberto Sestili Piero 31 3 2021
10 7 1397 2077-0383 10.3390/jcm10071397 10.3390/jcm10071397 33807327
The effect of dry needling on gastrocnemius muscle stiffness and strength in participants with latent trigger points Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Albin S.R. Koppenhaver S.L. MacDonald C.W. Capoccia S. Ngo D. Phippen S. Pineda R. Wendlandt A. Hoffman L.R. 12 2020
55 102479 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102479 10.1016/j.jelekin.2020.102479
Lumbar muscle stiffness is different in individuals with low back pain than asymptomatic controls and is associated with pain and disability, but not common physical examination findings Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Koppenhaver Shane Gaffney Emily Oates Amber Eberle Laura Young Brian Hebert Jeffrey Proulx Laurel Shinohara Minoru 2 2020
45 102078 2468-7812 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102078 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.102078
Myotonometry reliably measures muscle stiffness in the thenar and perineal muscles Physiotherapy Canada Davidson Melissa J. Bryant Adam L. Bower Wendy F. Frawley Helena C. 5 2017
69 2 104 112 0300-0508 10.3138/ptc.2015-85 10.3138/ptc.2015-85 28539690
Estimation of individual muscle force using elastography PloS One Bouillard Killian] Nordez Antoine Hug François 21 12 2011
6 12 e29261 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0029261 10.1371/journal.pone.0029261 22229057
Characterization of tissue stiffness of the infraspinatus, erector spinae, and gastrocnemius muscle using ultrasound shear wave elastography and superficial mechanical deformation Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Kelly Joseph P. Koppenhaver Shane L. Michener Lori A. Proulx Laurel Bisagni Francis Cleland Joshua A. 2 2018
38 73 80 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2017.11.001 10.1016/j.jelekin.2017.11.001
Elastography for muscle biomechanics: toward the estimation of individual muscle force Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews Hug François Tucker Kylie Gennisson Jean-Luc Tanter Mickaël Nordez Antoine 7 2015
43 3 125 133 0091-6331 10.1249/jes.0000000000000049 10.1249/jes.0000000000000049 25906424
Muscle force cannot be directly inferred from muscle activation: illustrated by the proposed imbalance of force between the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis in people with patellofemoral pain Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Hug François Hodges Paul W. Tucker Kylie 5 2015
45 5 360 365 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2015.5905 10.2519/jospt.2015.5905 25808529
Previous hamstring muscle strain injury alters passive tissue stiffness and vibration sense Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies Kawai Tomonori Takamoto Kouichi Bito Itsumu 7 2021
27 0 573 578 1360-8592 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.05.002 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.05.002 34391289
Analysis of biomechanical properties of the lumbar extensor myofascia in elderly patients with chronic low back pain and that in healthy people BioMed Research International Wu Zugui Zhu Yue Xu Wu Liang Junquan Guan Yingxin Xu Xuemeng 18 2 2020
2020 1 10 2314-6133 10.1155/2020/7649157 10.1155/2020/7649157 32149135
Quantitative mechanical properties of the relaxed biceps and triceps brachii muscles in patients with subacute stroke: a reliability study of the myoton-3 myometer Stroke Research and Treatment Chuang Li-Ling Wu Ching-Yi Lin Keh-Chung Lur Shih-Yu 2012
2012 617694 2090-8105 10.1155/2012/617694 10.1155/2012/617694 22619740
Myotonometry is capable of reliably obtaining trunk and thigh muscle stiffness measures in military cadets during standing and squatting postures Military Medicine McGowen Jared M Hoppes Carrie W Forsse Jeff S Albin Stephanie R Abt John Koppenhaver Shane L 19 5 2023
usad179 0026-4075 10.1093/milmed/usad179 10.1093/milmed/usad179
Quantified biomechanical properties of lower lumbar myofascia in younger adults with chronic idiopathic low back pain and matched healthy controls Clinical Biomechanics Ilahi Sadia T. Masi Alfonse White Allison Devos Amanda Henderson Jacqueline Nair Kalyani 3 2020
73 78 85 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.12.026 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.12.026 31954272
MyotonPRO User Manual Peipsi Aleko Kosemets Märt 2020
115
Using a single question to assess physical activity in older adults: a reliability and validity study BMC Medical Research Methodology Gill Dawn P Jones Gareth R Zou Guangyong Speechley Mark 28 2 2012
12 1 20 1471-2288 10.1186/1471-2288-12-20 10.1186/1471-2288-12-20 22373159
Normative parameters and anthropometric variability of lumbar muscle stiffness using ultrasound shear-wave elastography Clinical Biomechanics Koppenhaver Shane L. Scutella Dominique Sorrell Brooke A. Yahalom Joshua Fernández-de-Las-Peñas Cesar Childs John D. Shaffer Scott W. Shinohara Minoru 2 2019
62 113 120 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.01.010 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.01.010
Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain Spine Childs John D. Piva Sara R. Fritz Julie M. 6 2005
30 11 1331 1334 0362-2436 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 15928561
A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale Physical Therapy Fritz Julie M Irrgang James J 1 2 2001
81 2 776 788 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776
Measures of anxiety Arthritis Care & Research JULIAN LAURA J. 11 2011
63 S11 2151-464X 10.1002/acr.20561 10.1002/acr.20561 22588767
Normative parameters of gastrocnemius muscle stiffness and associations with patient characteristics and function International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Hoffman Larisa R Koppenhaver Shane L MacDonald Cameron W Herrera Johnny M Streuli Joshua Visco Zachary L Wildermuth Nicole Albin Stephanie R 1 2 2021
16 1 41 48 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.18803 10.26603/001c.18803 33604133
Electromyographic activity in deadlift exercise and its variants. A systematic review PloS One Martín-Fuentes Isabel Oliva-Lozano José M. Muyor José M. 27 2 2020
15 2 e0229507 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0229507 10.1371/journal.pone.0229507 32107499
Behavior of the lumbar multifidus during lower extremity movements in people with recurrent low back pain during symptom remission Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Macdonald David A. Dawson Anna P. Hodges Paul W. 3 2011
41 3 155 164 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2011.3410 10.2519/jospt.2011.3410 21212497
Atlas of nerve conduction studies and electromyography Leis A. Arturo Schenk Michael P. Oxford University Press 2013
9780199754632 10.1093/med/9780199754632.001.0001 10.1093/med/9780199754632.001.0001
The utility of myotonometry in musculoskeletal rehabilitation and human performance programming Journal of Athletic Training McGowen Jared M. Hoppes Carrie W. Forsse Jeff S. Albin Stephanie R. Abt John Koppenhaver Shane L. 14 7 2022
1938-162X 10.4085/1062-6050-0616.21 10.4085/1062-6050-0616.21
Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of extremely heavy weights Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Cholewicki J. McGill S. M. Norman R. W. 10 1991
23 10 1179 1186 0195-9131 10.1249/00005768-199110000-00012 10.1249/00005768-199110000-00012
Interrater agreement of manual palpation for identification of myofascial trigger points: a systematic review and meta-analysis The Clinical Journal of Pain Rathbone Alasdair T.L. Grosman-Rimon Liza Kumbhare Dinesh A. 8 2017
33 8 715 729 0749-8047 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000459 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000459 28098584
Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism Manual Therapy O’Sullivan Peter 11 2005
10 4 242 255 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2005.07.001 10.1016/j.math.2005.07.001
Moving differently in pain: A new theory to explain the adaptation to pain Pain Hodges Paul W. Tucker Kylie 3 2011
152 3 S90 S98 0304-3959 10.1016/j.pain.2010.10.020 10.1016/j.pain.2010.10.020 21087823
