Effects of combined hip exercise and passive stretching on muscle stiffness, pain perception and painrelated disability, and physical function in older adults with low back pain

Article information

Phys Act Nutr. 2022;26(3):016-024

Publication date (electronic) : 2022 September 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.20463/pan.2022.0014

¹Department of Sports Medicine and Science, Graduated School, Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

²Physical Activity and Performance Institute (PAPI), Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

^*Corresponding author : Hun-Young Park 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82-2-2049-6035 E-mail: parkhy1980@konkuk.ac.kr

Received 2022 August 3; Revised 2022 September 8; Accepted 2022 September 14.

Abstract

[Purpose]

This study aimed to examine the effects of combined hip exercise and passive stretching as a novel treatment method for low back pain (LBP) in older adults.

[Methods]

Altogether, 20 Koreans with LBP aged 60–79 years (67.3 ± 5.92 years) were randomly assigned to undertake combined exercise (CE; n = 10) or lumbar stabilization exercise (LSE; n = 10). All participants performed their respective exercise program for 25–30 min with an OMNI scale of 6–8 for 8 weeks, three times a week. Body composition, muscle stiffness, pain-visual analog scale (P-VAS), Oswestry disability index, and physical function were evaluated before and after the exercise intervention.

[Results]

The CE group demonstrated greater improvements in lean body mass (η² = 0.402, p = 0.003) and percent body fat (η² = 0.222, p = 0.036) than the LSE group. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in muscle stiffness, P-VAS scores, and Oswestry disability index scores, although no significant differences were observed between the interventions. All physical function parameters demonstrated a significant improvement in both groups, and the CE group demonstrated greater improvement in the YMCA sit-and-reach (η² = 0.338, p = 0.007) and straight leg raise tests (η² = 0.283, p = 0.016) than the LSE group.

[Conclusion]

CE is comparable to LSE as an effective and successful exercise intervention that reduces muscle stiffness and P-VAS scores. Moreover, CE is more effective than LSE in enhancing the physical function of older adults with LBP.

Keywords: hip exercise; passive stretching; muscle stiffness; physical function; elderly; low back pain

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common health problem that results in pain and disability in older adults [1]. Most causes of back pain in older people are related to functional aspects caused by mechanical loads or are reported to be idiopathic [2]. Lachmann et al. [3] have reported that back pain is a common symptom in older people. Moreover, a sedentary lifestyle is a leading factor for back pain caused by mechanical tension, and it aggravates back pain, which progresses chronically. Individuals with chronic LBP have lower balance ability than normal individuals [4]. Additionally, LBP can cause postural adjustment disorder and abnormal spinal movements [5], and muscle imbalance can increase the risk of chronic damage [6]. Surgical therapy has no significant benefit for chronic LBP, and in most cases, conservative treatment is provided [7]. Exercise therapy is a widely applied conservative treatment method [8], which is intended to strengthen the deep muscles of the body, such as the diaphragm, pelvic floor, transverse abdominis muscle, and multifidus muscle, which are classified as the core muscles [9]. Most exercise therapies for LBP focus on these core muscles, such as the Williams exercise, Mackenzie exercise (with focus on the lumbar region), and lumbar stabilization exercise (LSE) [10-12]. LSE is reportedly very effective in reducing pain and dysfunction in patients with chronic LBP [13-17] by improving neuromuscular efficiency and lumbar stability through activating the core muscles [18]. Hence, LSE has been widely applied as an exercise therapy for chronic LBP.

However, back pain is closely associated with the lumbopelvic region, as well as muscle strength and stabilization of the lumbar region, which have direct and indirect associations with the risk of LBP and lower limb damage that may cause LBP or deteriorating factors related to lower limb function [19]. Back pain or lower extremity instability reportedly causes delayed contraction of the hip abductor muscle, gluteus maximus, and gluteus medius [20], and weakening of the hip joint muscles can result in low back pain by causing dysfunction of the lower extremities and hip joint [21]. Kendall et al. [22] have reported that performing hip muscle strengthening exercises simultaneously with pelvic exercises in patients with back pain were effective in reducing back pain. Another study has reported an immediate decrease in back pain after 20 min of hip muscle activation exercise [23].

Previous studies have demonstrated that hip muscle strength and function are closely related to LBP. The functional anatomy of the hip joint muscles contributes to the stability of the lateral and posterior parts of the pelvis and reduces stress in the lumbar region by playing an important role in transmitting force to the pelvis and lower extremities during gait [24]. Therefore, to understand various clinical aspects and reduce chronic LBP more effectively, the hip joint muscle function and strength need to be considered in order to stabilize the pelvis, lumbar spine, and lower extremities during more dynamic movements, in addition to exercises such as LSE for stabilizing the lumbar region in a static state.

Muscle stretching is a widely used method in sports and rehabilitation to prevent muscle weakness, shorten muscle length, and maintain joint range of motion [25-27]. In particular, passive static stretching has been reported to decrease muscle strength generation ability through changes in muscle mechanical and neuromuscular properties [28,29]. However, passive stretching reportedly improves the ability to perceive joint position [30-32] and decreases muscle–tendon unit stiffness, which can reduce stretch reflex activity [33].

Accordingly, the combination of hip joint function and hip muscle strength, as well as lower extremity stretching of the lumbar spine and hip joints, can have a positive effect in older adults with chronic back pain. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the differences in the effectiveness of LSE, which is the most commonly applied method for improving chronic back pain, combined with hip joint muscle strengthening exercises and passive stretching of the hip and lower extremities for LBP, and to present effective and new exercise programs applicable to chronic LBP.

METHODS

Participants

The study included 20 older Koreans (6 men and 14 women) with chronic LBP (age, 67.5 ± 5.8 years), and their physical characteristics are presented in Table 1. Participants who had experienced LBP continuously for >3 months, visited the hospital for treatment and diagnosis, and performed exercise interventions were selected. Meanwhile, participants with metabolic disorders, cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, or diabetes were excluded. All study participants provided written informed consent prior to study initiation. Thereafter, they were randomly assigned equally by sex to perform either combined exercise (CE) comprising hip exercise and passive stretching (n = 10) or LSE (n = 10) using a computerized random number generator. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Konkuk University (7001355-202009-HR-400) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Table 1.

Participants’ characteristics.

Experimental design

The study design comprised a 1-day pre-testing session, followed by an 8-week exercise intervention, and a 1-day post-testing session (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Study design. CE, combined exercise; LSE, lumbar stabilization exercise; BMI, body mass index; LBM, lean body mass; BFM, body fat mass; QL, quadratus lumborum; GM, gluteus medius; HAM, hamstring; P-VAS, pain visual analog scale; ODI, Oswestry disability index; SLR, straight leg raise.

In the pre- and post-testing sessions, all participants fasted for >4 h, and after stabilization, their body composition, pain-visual analog scale (P-VAS), muscle stiffness, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and physical function were measured in that order.

During the exercise intervention period, the CE and LSE groups performed their assigned exercise intervention according to their strength level, using the OMNI-resistance exercise scale of perceived exertion (OMNI-scale: 0 as extremely easy to 10 as extremely hard) for 8 weeks at three times a week. The CE comprised hip muscle strength exercises and passive stretching of the lumbar, pelvic, hip, and lower extremity muscles, which have been reported to be highly related to LBP (Figure 2) [34]. In detail, hip muscle strength exercises comprising clamshells, hip-hinge, backward lunge, and passive stretching was performed on the gluteus, psoas, piriformis, hamstring, and tensor fascia muscles (Figures 3 and 4). The CE participants performed two sets of passive stretching for 15 s, and then performed hip muscle strength exercises with an OMNI scale of 6–8. Clamshells and hip-hinge were performed with 15–20 reps and backward lunge with 12–15 reps, and a total of two sets were conducted with a rest period of 1–1.5 min between movements, and the total exercise time was set to 25–30 min. By contrast, the LSE comprised four movements: abdominal curl-up, dead-bug, bird, dog, and plank. The LSE group performed 12–15 reps for each movement, and a total of two sets were executed for 15–30 s. The exercise intensity was set to an OMNI scale of 6–8; the rest between movements was set to 1–1.5 min, and the total LSE time was approximately 25–30 min such as in the CE group [35,36]. Previous studies have demonstrated that hip muscle strength exercise and LSE intensity can also lead to an increase in fat control, muscle strength, and muscle mass by high-intensity resistance training in the elderly [37-39]. As the OMNI scale of 6–8 indicates high intensity, the number of repetitions was adjusted to the extent that the participants did not feel pain or discomfort while performing the exercise. Thus, the intensity of the exercise was started at a scale 6 and gradually increased to 8.

Figure 2.

Lumbar stabilization exercise.

Figure 3.

Hip joint muscles strengthening exercise.

Figure 4.

Passive stretching.

In all participants, body composition (weight, body mass index [BMI], lean body mass [LBM], body fat mass [BFM], and percent body fat), muscle stiffness (quadratus lumborum [QL], gluteus medius [GM], and hamstring [HAM]), P-VAS, ODI, and physical function (30-second sit-to-stand, YMCA sit-and-reach, 4-meter gait speed, straight leg raise [SLR], and one-leg standing tests) before and after the 8-week exercise intervention were measured.

Measurements

Body composition

Weight, BMI, LBM, BFM, and percent body fat were measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis (Inbody 770, Inbody, Korea). All participants wore lightweight clothing and were asked to remove all metallic items from their bodies.

Muscle stiffness

Muscle stiffness was measured in the QL, GM, and HAM, which are regions closely related to LBP using a hand-held myometer (Myoton-Pro, Myoton, Tallinn, Estonia). For measuring muscle stiffness, a mechanical probe was positioned over each site, which delivered an impact (duration: 15 ms; force: 0.3–0.4 N), causing the tissue to briefly deform, and damped natural oscillations occurring due to the applied impact were measured by an in-built accelerometer sampling at 3,200 Hz [40]. We made three consecutive measurements in each of the left and right areas and provided the average value as the muscle stiffness score.

Pain perception and pain-related disability

Pain perception was evaluated using the P-VAS, which involves the use of a ruler marked from 0 to 10. Pain-related disability was measured using the ODI version 2.1, which is a self-administered questionnaire comprising ten items to assess the extent of the patient’s back pain and difficulty in performing nine different activities of daily living. The ten evaluation items were pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, social life, travelling, and change in pain degree. Participants selected one of the six statements (items) according to their ability in performing the activity, with a score between 0 and 5 points for each item. Subsequently, the total score of all items was divided by the total possible score and multiplied by 100 to provide the percentage of disability. Depending on the degree of disability, 0%–20% was considered minimal, 21%–40% was moderate, and 41%-80% was severe.

Physical function

In the physical function test, the 30-second sit-to-stand test was performed to measure lower extremity muscle strength, and the YMCA sit-and-reach test was performed to measure flexibility of the lumbopelvic region. Additionally, a 4-meter gait speed test was conducted for gait evaluation. The SLR was performed to measure the flexibility of the hip joints and HAM, and the one-leg standing test was conducted to evaluate the risk of falls in the elderly. All parameters were measured twice, and the average value was used as the measured value.

Statistical analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for all the dependent parameters. Normality of distribution of all outcome parameters was verified using the Shapiro– Wilk W-test for the parametric tests. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on the “time” factor was performed to analyze the effects of the 8-week intervention on each dependent parameter. Post-hoc Bonferroni correction was used to identify within-group changes over time. Additionally, the paired t-test was performed to compare the post-intervention versus pre-intervention values of the dependent parameters in each group separately. We used the Cohen’s d (effect size), which reflects the value of a statistic calculated from a sample of data and standardized mean differences. Statistical differences in the means (effect size, Cohen’s d) were determined with a significance level (p < 0.05) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cohen’s d effect size (small d = 0.2, medium d = 0.5, and large d = 0.8) was used to assess the significant effects. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25.0 (IBM, USA).

RESULTS

Body composition

As presented in Table 2, a significant interaction was identified between CE and LSE for LBM (η2 = 0.402, p = 0.003) and body fat percentage (η2 = 0.222, p = 0.036). The post-hoc analyses revealed a significant increase in LBM (Cohen’s d: 0.06, 95% CI: − 0.78, 0.90, p < 0.05) and decreased percent body fat (Cohen’s d: −0.17, 95% CI: −1.00, 0.68, p < 0.05).

Table 2.

Pre- and post-exercise intervention data for body composition measures with main analysis of variance results.

Muscle stiffness, pain perception, and pain-related disability

Table 3 depicts the pre- and post-intervention data of the CE and LSE groups. No significant differences in muscle stiffness, P-VAS, and ODI were observed between the two groups; however, a significant main effect within time was observed in MS_QL (η2 = 0.770, p < 0.001), MS_GM (η2 = 0.833, p < 0.001), MS_HAM (η2 = 0.625, p < 0.001), P-VAS (η2 = 0.917, p < 0.036), and ODI (η2 = 0.835, p < 0.001). The post-hoc analyses revealed significant improvement in MS_QL (CE = Cohen’s d: −1.45, 95% CI: −2.33, −0.44, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −0.83, 95% CI: −1.67, 0.08, p < 0.05), MS_GM (CE = Cohen’s d: −1.01, 95% CI: −1.86, −0.08, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −0.91, 95% CI: −1.75, 0.01, p < 0.05), MS_HAM (CE = Cohen’s d: −0.78, 95% CI: −1.62, 0.12, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −0.42, 95% CI: −1.25, 0.45, p < 0.05), P-VAS (CE = Cohen’s d: −2.67, 95% CI: −3.71, −1.40, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −2.70, 95% CI: −3.74, −1.42, p < 0.05), and ODI (CE = Cohen’s d: −1.78, 95% CI: −2.69, −0.71, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −1.04, 95% CI: −1.89, −0.10, p < 0.05).

Table 3.

Pre- and post-exercise intervention data for muscle stiffness, VAS, and ODI with main analysis of variance results.

Physical function

The physical functions of the CE and LSE groups are presented in Table 4, and significant differences in the YMCA sit-and-reach test (η2 = 0.338, p = 0.007) and SLR (η2 = 0.283, p = 0.016) were observed between both groups. The post-hoc analyses revealed significantly improved YMCA sit-and-reach test (CE = Cohen’s d: 0.45, 95% CI: −0.42, 1.28, p < 0.05; LSE = Cohen’s d: 0.21, 95% CI: −0.64, 1.04, p < 0.05) and SLR (CE = Cohen’s d: 0.77, 95% CI: −0.13, 1.61, p < 0.05; LSE = Cohen’s d: 0.72, 95% CI: −0.18, 1.55, p < 0.05) in the CE group than in the LSE group. Additionally, a significant main effect within time was observed in 30-second sit-to-stand (η2 = 0.861, p < 0.001), 4-meter gait speed (η2 = 0.741, p < 0.001), and one-leg standing (η2 = 0.779, p < 0.001) tests. Both groups demonstrated significant differences in the 30-second sit-to-stand (CE = Cohen’s d: 1.74, 95% CI: 0.68, 2.65, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.54, 2.47, p < 0.05), 4-meter gait speed (CE = Cohen’s d: −1.15, 95% CI: −2.01, −0.20, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: −1.08, 95% CI: −1.93, −0.13, p < 0.05), and one-leg standing tests (CE = Cohen’s d: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.02, 1.80, p < 0.05, LSE = Cohen’s d: 0.63, 95% CI: −0.26, 1.46, p < 0.05).

Table 4.

Pre- and post-exercise intervention data for physical function test with main analysis of variance results.

DISCUSSION

This study hypothesized that another exercise method is effective in older adults with chronic LBP other than LSE. The results revealed that the combined hip joint muscle strengthening exercise and passive stretching program (CE) had greater improvement than LSE in the measured factors.

In this study, CE was more effective in improving body composition than LSE by increasing LBM and decreasing percent body fat; body composition improved in a relatively short-term intervention of 8 weeks. These results may be similar to those of previous studies examining the improvement effect of exercise on body composition in older adults. Ellen et al. [37] have reported that the application of resistance to older adults increased LBM. Another study [38] has reported that an increase in muscle mass or muscle strength in older adults can also be achieved by high-intensity resistance exercises for 10 days at three times a week. Meanwhile, Kryger and Andersen [39] have reported an increase in type II muscle fiber and an increase in protein synthesis of myosin heavy chain due to high-intensity resistance exercise even in older adults.

Based on previous studies [41,42] that demonstrated that multi-joint exercise has greater muscle strength and more muscle recruitment effects than single-joint exercise, the decrease in percent body fat may be due to the CE program including multiple joint exercises that use large muscles of the lower extremities, such as backward lunge and hip-hinge, compared to LSEs, which involve a high proportion of core muscles. The characteristics of the CE program may have contributed to increasing muscle mass and LBM, and to decreasing percent body fat by increasing energy and calorie consumption. However, in the present study, accurate result interpretation was difficult because of the lack of direct measurement of energy consumption during exercise in both groups, which is a limitation of the study.

In previous studies, muscle stiffness affects pain and physical activity; P-VAS and ODI have also been used to assess LBP. Back muscle stiffness is known to contribute to back pain by reducing the mobility of the spine [43], When the stiffness of the muscles is higher, resistance to contraction may occur, thus causing functional problems [44]. Patrick et al. [45] have also reported that the stiffness of the lumbar muscles causes disability in activities of daily living. Our results revealed no significant differences in muscle stiffness, P-VAS score, and ODI score between the LSE and CE groups. However, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all factors, and the P-VAS scores tended to be higher in the CE group. These results indicated that exercise in both groups influenced the improvement in each factor. Based on the results of previous studies, the reduction in muscle stiffness and P-VAS score after 8 weeks of exercise intervention in both groups can be considered an effect of improving the structural stability of the lumbar spine by inducing strengthening of the lumbopelvic region and hip joint muscles, including the lumbar region, and reducing posture displacement. Furthermore, this improvement in muscle stiffness and P-VAS can be considered to positively affect activities of daily living and movements, resulting in a positive effect on the evaluation of ODI [45]. Moreover, the greater improvement tendency for muscle stiffness and ODI in CE may be a result of the addition of passive stretching, known to induce stiff muscle relaxation and enhance functional movements [46], and exercise such as backward lunge, hip-hinge, and clamshells are more closely related to movements and functions in activities of daily living than LSE, which can be considered to have a more positive effect on the improvement of ODI [47]. Hence, the CE program can effectively improve the muscle strength and function of the hip muscles, which are highly associated with back pain [19-23,34] and may be more effective than applying LSE by strengthening the stability of the pelvis and lumbar region, which is the most important purpose of exercise therapy.

In our study, to evaluate the flexibility of soft tissues from the lumbar region, pelvis, and HAM and the mobility of the hip joint and lumbar regions, we measured the SLR and conducted a YMCA sit-and-reach test. The data suggest that the YMCA sit-and-reach test and SLR had significant differences, while the other factors, including the 30-second sit-to-stand, 4-meter gait speed, and one-leg standing tests, had no significant differences in terms of effectiveness between the two interventions but demonstrated improvements in LBP in both the LSE and CE groups. The degree of improvement was greater in the CE group. Some researchers have sought to improve mobility by applying LSE. Standaert et al. [48] stated that the LSE is intended to improve muscle strength, endurance, and flexibility. In 2017, Sehrish et al. [49] reported that lumbar flexion, extension, and lateral flexibility were effective 2 weeks after performing LSE. Study designs that can provide better results to the CE group in improving flexibility may be advantageous, which is considered a limitation of this study. However, according to the results of previous studies, LSEs are considered effective in improving lumbar stability by strengthening the deep muscles, thereby improving flexibility. Therefore, our study was designed to identify the difference in muscle stiffness reduction effects of LSE and passive stretching and added it to the CE program, assuming that passive stretching with various advantages as an exercise therapy would have additional effects [30-33]. Our results reveal that SLR and the YMCA sit-and-reach test demonstrated greater improvement in the CE group. As we have discussed, these results can be considered an effect of the exercise program applied to CE and LSE, which improves the stability of the lumbar spine and pelvis, and it may be the result of adding a passive stretching effect.

Regarding physical functional factors, such as the 30-second sit-to-stand, 4-meter walking speed, and one-leg standing tests, the significant improvements in both groups are consistent with the results of previous studies. According to previous studies, exercise therapy helps in improving pain and functional restrictions in patients with LBP, and exercise focusing on joint function and alignment of the lower extremities demonstrated greater effects in the long and short term than exercise for strengthening trunk muscles [50,51].

In conclusion, CE is comparable to LSE as an effective and successful exercise intervention that reduces muscle stiffness and P-VAS scores, although CE is more effective in enhancing physical function than LSE in older adults with LBP. Therefore, CE is a potentially new exercise program that can be applied as an alternative to LSE for chronic LBP in clinical practice. However, the effectiveness of exercise programs with longer treatment periods in various age groups need to be verified in future studies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the contributors who performed the experimental design, progression, and data acquisition and analysis.

References

1. Thomas E, Peat G, Harris L, Wilkie R, Croft PR. The prevalence of pain and pain interference in a general population of older adults: cross-sectional findings from the north staffordshire osteoarthritis project. Pain 2004;110:361–8.

2. Jones LD, Pandit H, Lavy C. Back pain in the elderly: a review. Maturitas 2014;78:258–62.

3. Lachmann E, Tunkel RS, Nagler W, Babayer M. New-onset low back pain in an elderly woman. J Sci Commun 1999;6:46–55.

4. Hamaoui A, Do MC, Bouisset S. Postural sway increase in low-back pain subjects is not related to reduced spine range of motion. Neurosci Lett 2004;357:135–8.

5. Akhtar MW, Karimi H, Gilani SA. Effectiveness of core stabilization exercises and routine exercise therapy in management of pain in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Pak J Med Sci 2017;33:1002–6.

6. Laws A, Williams S, Wilson C. The effect of clinical pilates on functional movement in recreational runners. Int J Sports Med 2017;38:776–80.

7. Last AR, Hulbert K. Chronic low back pain: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician 2009;79:1067–74.

8. Coulombe BJ, Games KE, Neil ER, Eberman LE. Core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain. J Athl Train 2017;52:71–2.

9. Inani SB, Selkar SP. Effect of core stabilization exercises versus conventional exercises on pain and functional status in patients with non-specific low back pain, a randomized clinical trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2013;26:37–43.

10. Hong SK, Lee GC. Effects of a low back exercise program on low back pain patients’ lumbar lordotic angle, abdominal muscle power, and pain. J Human Sport Exer 2021;16:456–62.

11. Sipaviciene S, Kliziene I. Effect of different exercise programs on non-specific chronic low back pain and disability in people who perform sedentary work. Clin Biomech 2020;73:17–27.

12. Shahvarpour A, Gagnon D, Preuss R, Henry SM, Larivière C. Trunk postural balance and low back pain: reliability and relationship with clinical changes following a lumbar stabilization exercise program. Gait Posture 2018;61:375–81.

13. Cruz-Díaz D, Romeu M, Velasco-González C, Martínez-Amat A, Hita-Contreras F. The effectiveness of 12 weeks of pilates intervention on disability, pain and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2018;32:1249–57.

14. Cruz-Díaz D, Bergamin M, Gobbo S, Martínez-Amat A, Hita-Contreras F. Comparative effects of 12 weeks of equipment based and mat pilates in patients with chronic low back pain on pain, function and transversus abdominis activation. a randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med 2017;33:72–7.

15. Valenza MC, Rodríguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I, Díaz-Pelegrina A, Aguilar-Ferrándiz ME, Castellote-Caballero Y. Results of a pilates exercise program in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2017;31:753–60.

16. Kofotolis N, Kellis E, Vlachopoulos SP, Gouitas I, Theodorakis Y. Effects of pilates and trunk strengthening exercises on health-related quality of life in women with chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2016;29:649–59.

17. Yang CY, Tsai YA, Wu PK, Ho SY, Chou CY, Huang SF. Pilates-based core exercise improves health-related quality of life in people living with chronic low back pain: a pilot study. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2021;27:294–9.

18. Panhan AC, Gonçalves M, Eltz GD, Villalba MM, Cardozo AC, Berzin F. Neuromuscular efficiency of the multifidus muscle in pilates practitioners and non-practitioners. Complement Ther Med 2018;40:61–3.

19. Niemuth PE. The role of hip muscle weakness in lower extremity athletic injuries: review article. ISMJ 2007;8:179–92.

20. Leinonen V, Kankaanpaa M, Airaksinen O. Back and hip extensor activities during trunk flexion/extension: effects of low back pain and rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:32–7.

21. Santos FG, Carmo C. C, Fracini AC, Pereira RP, Takara KS, Tanaka C. Chronic low back pain in women: muscle activation during task performance. J Phys Ther Sci 2013;25:1569–73.

22. Kendall KD. Lumbopelvic stability in non-specific low back pain: exploring the relationships between hip strengthening, lumbopelvic mechanics, and pain. J Sports Med 2013;23:45–51.

23. Marich AV, Lanier VM, Salsich GB, Lang CE, Van Dillen LR. Immediate effects of a single session of motor skill training on the lumbar movement pattern during a functional activity in people with low back pain: a repeated-measures study. Phys Ther 2018;98:605–15.

24. Hoffman SL, Johnson MB, Zou D, Harris-Hayes M, Van Dillen LR. Effect of classification-specific treatment on lumbopelvic motion during hip rotation in people with low back pain. Man Ther 2011;16:344–50.

25. Gomes AR, Soares AG, Peviani S, Nascimento RB, Moriscot AS, Salvini TF. The effect of 30 minutes of passive stretch of the rat soleus muscle on the myogenic differentiation, myostatin, and atrogin-1 gene expressions. Arch Phys Med Rehabili 2006;87:241–6.

26. Williams PE. Effect of intermittent stretch on immobilised muscle. Ann Rheum Dis 1988;47:1014–6.

27. Williams PE. Use of intermittent stretch in the prevention of serial sarcomere loss in immobilised muscle. Ann Rheum Dis 1990;49:316–7.

28. Trajano GS, Nosaka K, Blazevich AJ. Neurophysiological mechanisms underpinning stretch-induced force loss. Sports Med 2017;47:1531–41.

29. Cè E, Coratella G, Bisconti AV, Venturelli M, Limonta E, Doria C, Rampichini S, Longo S, Esposito F. Neuromuscular versus mechanical stretch-induced changes in contralateral versus ipsilateral muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020;52:1294–306.

30. Costa PB, Graves BS, Whitehurst M, Jacobs PL. The acute effects of different durations of static stretching on dynamic balance performance. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:141–7.

31. Handrakis JP, Southard VN, Abreu JM, Aloisa M, Doyen MR, Echevarria LM, Hwang H, Samuels C, Venegas SA, Douris PC. Static stretching does not impair performance in active middle-aged adults. J Strength Cond Res 2010;24:825–30. .

32. Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Arnall DA, Li L. Acute stretching increases postural stability in nonbalance trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26:3095–100.

33. Palmer TB, Agu-Udemba CC, Palmer BM. Acute effects of static stretching on passive stiffness and postural balance in healthy, elderly men. Phys Sportsmed 2018;46:78–86.

34. Bagheri R, Takamjani IE, Dadgoo M, Sarrafzadeh J, Ahmadi A, Pourahmadi MR, Jafarpisheh A. A protocol for clinical trial study of the effect of core stabilization exercises on spine kinematics during gait with and without load in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Chiropr Man Therap 2017;25:31.

35. Kapetanovic A, Jerkovic S, Avdic D. Effect of core stabilization exercises on functional disability in patients with chronic low back pain. J Health Sci 2016;6:59–66.

36. Narouei S, Barati AH, Akuzawa H, Talebian S, Ghiasi F, Akbari S, Alizadeh MH. Effects of core stabilization exercises on thickness and activity of trunk and hip muscles in subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2020;24:138–46.

37. Binder EF, Yarasheski KE, Steger-May K, Sinacore DR, Brown M, Schechtman KB, Holloszy JO. Effects of progressive resistance training on body composition in frail older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005;60:1425–31.

38. Seynnes O, Fiatarone Singh MA, Hue O, Pras P, Legros P, Bernard PL. Physiological and functional responses to low-moderate versus high-intensity progressive resistance training in frail elders. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:503–9.

39. Kryger AI, Andersen JL. Resistance training in the oldest old: consequences for muscle strength, fiber types, fiber size, and MHC isoforms. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2007;17:422–30.

40. Pickering Rodriguez EC, Watsford ML, Bower RG, Murphy AJ. The relationship between lower body stiffness and injury incidence in female netballers. Sports Biomech 2017;16:361–73.

41. Allison SJ, Brooke-Wavell K, Folland JP. Multiple joint muscle function with ageing: the force-velocity and power-velocity relationships in young and older men. Aging Clin Exp Res 2013;25:159–66.

42. Thompson BJ, Whitson M, Sobolewski EJ, Stock MS. Effects of age, joint angle, and test modality on strength production and functional outcomes. Int J Sports Med 2018;39:124–32.

43. Edgecombe TL, Kawchuk GN, Long CR, Pickar JG. The effect of application site of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on spinal stiffness. Spine J 2015;15:1332–8.

44. Viir R, Laiho K, Kramarenko J, Mikkelsson M. Repeatability of trapezius muscle tone assessment by a myometric method. J Mech Med Biol 2006;6:215–28.

45. Patrick N, Emanski E, Knaub MA. Acute and chronic low back pain. Med Clin Notrh Am 2014;98:777–89.

46. Perrier ET, Pavol MJ, Hoffman MA. The acute effects of a warmup including static or dynamic stretching on countermovement jump height, reaction time, and flexivility. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25:1925–31.

47. Luepongsak N, Krebs DE, McGibbon CA, Amin S, Felson D. The contribution of type of daily activity to loading across the hip and knee joints in the elderly. Osteoarthritis Catrilage 2002;10:353–9.

48. Standaert CJ, Weinstein SM, Rumpeltes J. Evidence informed management of chronic low back pain with lumbar stabilization exercises. Spine J 2008;8:114–20.

49. Sehrish A, Abdul GS, Keramat UK, Haider D. Chronic low back pain; effects of the lumbar stabilization exercises on pain, range of motion and functional disability in the management. Professional Med J 2017;24:526–33.

50. Hayden JA, Wilson MN, Stewart S, Cartwright JL, Smith AO, Riley RD, van Tulder M, Bendix T, Cecchi F, Costa L, Dufour N, Ferreira ML, Foster NE, Gudavalli MR, Hartvigsen J, Helmhout P, Kool J, Koumantakis GA, Kovacs FM, Kuukkanen T, Long A, Macedo LG, Machado L, Maher CG, Mehling W, Morone G, Peterson T, Rasmussen-Barr E, Ryan CG, Sjögren T, Smeets R, Staal JB, Unsgaard-Tøndel M, Wajswelner H, Yeung EW. Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:1277–8.

51. van Dillen LR, Lanier VN, Steger-May K, Wallendorf M, Norton BJ, Civello JM, Czuppon SL, Francois SJ, Roles K, Lang CE. Effect of motor skill training in functional activities vs strength and flexibility exercise on function in people with chronic low back pain a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2021;78:385–95.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Variables	LSE (n = 10)	CE (n = 10)	p-value
Age (years)	67.30 ± 5.92	67.70 ± 5.37	.882
Height (cm)	160.70 ± 5.87	160.60 ± 8.08	.976
Weight (kg)	60.48 ± 11.15	58.17 ± 9.95	.648
BMI (kg/m²)	23.31 ± 3.21	22.37 ± 2.01	.466
LBM (kg)	41.86 ± 7.73	42.40 ± 8.92	.892
BFM (kg)	18.65 ± 4.96	15.77 ± 3.51	.174
Percent body fat (%)	30.56 ± 5.58	27.29 ± 5.16	.213
Duration of pain (month)	11.70 ± 9.20	15.90 ± 7.40	.275

Variables	LSE (n = 10)			CE (n = 10)			p (η²) value
Variables	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Time	Group	Inter
Weight (kg)	60.48 ± 11.15	60.32 ± 11.05	−0.01 (−0.85, 0.83)	58.17 ± 9.95	58.23 ± 10.58	−0.01 (−0.83, 0.84)	0.828 (0.003)	0.659 (0.011)	0.633 (0.013)
BMI (kg/m²)	23.31 ± 3.21	23.23 ± 3.18	−0.02 (−0.86, 0.82)	23.31 ± 3.21	22.35 ± 2.19	−0.01 (−0.85, 0.83)	0.615 (0.014)	0.472 (0.029)	0.762 (0.005)
LBM (kg)	41.86 ± 7.73	41.85 ± 7.98	0.00 (−0.84, 0.84)	42.4 ± 8.92	43.03 ± 9.57	0.06^* (−0.78, 0.90)	0.003^# (0.387)	0.829 (0.003)	0.003^# (0.402)
BFM (kg)	18.65 ± 4.96	18.47 ± 4.92	−0.03 (−0.87, 0.81)	15.77 ± 3.51	15.23 ± 3.45	−0.14 (−0.98, 0.70)	0.040^# (0.215)	0.136 (0.119)	0.283 (0.064)
Percent body fat (%)	30.56 ± 5.58	30.42 ± 5.92	−0.02 (−0.86, 0.82)	27.29 ± 5.16	26.34 ± 5.08	−0.17^* (−1.00, 0.68)	0.007^# (0.341)	0.158 (0.108)	0.036^# (0.222)

Variables	LSE (n = 10)			CE (n = 10)			p (η²) value
Variables	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Time	Group	Inter
Muscle stiffness in QL (N/m)	335.20 ± 49.87	291.60 ± 53.71	-0.83^* (-1.67, 0.08)	353.70 ± 49.18	288.70 ± 36.29	-1.45^* (-2.33, -0.44)	0.000^# (0.770)	0.703 (0.008)	0.144 (0.115)
Muscle stiffness in GM (N/m)	330.40 ± 55.32	280.60 ± 54.44	-0.91^* (-1.75, 0.01)	288.40 ± 50.79	237.13 ± 50.78	-1.01^* (-1.86, -0.08)	0.000^# (0.833)	0.080 (0.161)	0.869 (0.001)
Muscle stiffness in HAM (N/m)	276.70 ± 46.86	255.70 ± 39.26	-0.42^* (-1.25, 0.45)	274.90 ± 46.59	239.96 ± 32.93	-0.78^* (-1.62, 0.12)	0.000^# (0.625)	0.632 (0.013)	0.189 (0.094)
P-VAS (scale)	5.00 ± 0.66	3.10 ± 0.74	-2.70^* (-3.74, -1.42)	4.80 ± 0.78	2.80 ± 0.63	-2.67^* (-3.71, -1.40)	0.000^# (0.917)	0.392 (0.041)	0.722 (0.007)
ODI (score)	31.50 ± 6.99	23.70 ± 5.79	-1.04^* (-1.89, -0.10)	29.70 ± 7.49	17.73 ± 5.20	-1.78^* (-2.69, -0.71)	0.000^# (0.835)	0.165 (0.104)	0.060 (0.183)

Variables	LSE (n = 10)			CE (n = 10)			p (η²) value
Variables	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Pre	Post	Cohen’s d (95% CI)	Time	Group	Inter
30-second sit-to-stand test (reps)	9.20 ± 1.13	11.00 ± 1.15	1.57^* (0.54, 2.47)	10.2 ± 1.31	12.47 ± 1.29	1.74^* (0.68, 2.65)	0.000^# (0.861)	0.027^# (0.243)	0.238 (0.076)
YMCA sit-and-reach test (cm)	24.46 ± 10.95	26.72 ± 11.00	0.21^* (−0.64, 1.04)	26.84± 8.21	30.52 ± 8.16	0.45^* (−0.42, 1.28)	0.000^# (0.899)	0.484 (0.028)	0.007^# (0.338)
4-meter gait speed test (s)	5.78 ± 0.74	5.02 ± 0.64	−1.08^* (−1.93, -0.13)	5.42 ± 0.89	4.42 ± 0.64	−1.15^* (−2.01, -0.20)	0.000^# (0.741)	0.136 (0.119)	0.340 (0.051)
SLR test (degree)	59.00 ± 8.29	65.30 ± 8.95	0.72^* (−0.18, 1.55)	61.90 ± 11.83	71.82 ± 12.57	0.77^* (−0.13, 1.61)	0.000^# (0.888)	0.328 (0.053)	0.016^# (0.283)
One-leg standing test (s)	4.07 ± 1.13	4.99 ± 1.43	0.63^* (−0.26, 1.46)	3.70 ± 1.21	5.27 ± 1.62	0.95^* (0.02, 1.80)	0.000^# (0.779)	0.940 (0.000)	0.052 (0.194)