{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03805668016194332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012955465587044534, 'mean_word_length': 5.088669950738916, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Concentric isokinetic trunk extension/flexion testing of rigid and semirigid lumbar/sacral supports.

Using a Cybex(R) trunk extension/flexion device, we measured the effects of rigid and semirigid lumbar/sacral supports on peak muscular torque, total work, and average power. Ten well-conditioned men, aged 21 to 35, performed three testing sessions each at 7-day intervals (one session with a rigid support, one session with a semirigid support, and one with no support). We selected four isokinetic testing speeds (30 degrees /s, 60 degrees /s, 90 degrees /s, and 120 degrees /s), complying with a standard Cybex trunk extension/flexion protocol. Differences between lumbar/sacral supports were analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffé post hoc tests. Peak torque, total work, and average power were significantly different (p<.05) during trunk flexion at various isokinetic velocities. Trunk extension movements did not appear to be affected by the use of supports, but trunk flexion was significantly greater with the semirigid device and with no device than with the rigid support. We concluded that a rigid lumbar/sacral support decreases strength during movement tasks involving trunk flexion with resistance.