Scientific proof that the Bambach really works!
An investigation into the immediate effects on comfort, productivity and posture of the Bambach Saddle Seat and a standard office chair.
Karla Gadge and Ev Innes
This study was prompted the prevalence of back injury and pain in the working population, particularly amongst workers who are increasingly exposed to sedentary work in industrialised countries, and the corresponding limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of seating designs currently used in the workplace.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in comfort, productivity, and posture between the Bambach saddle seat and standard office chair (two chair designs used in the workplace today).
A single system, multiple-baseline research design across a sample of four subjects was used. A withdrawal A1, B1, A2, B2 design was utilised, with the ordering of the sequence varying with each subjects. ”A” represented the standard office chair, and “B” the Bambach saddle seat.
Discomfort ratings tended to increase over time regardless of the seat being used. However, while the saddle seat provided reduced levels of lower back discomfort, it demonstrated higher discomfort in the lower limbs, particularly the hips and buttocks. There were no significant differences identified in productivity between the two chairs. The saddle seat consistently promoted a greater trunk-to-thigh angle for all subjects, a position associated with optimum sitting posture.
This study has implications for the treatment of low back injury and pain at work, as well as other daily activities that involve prolonged static sitting, such as those incorporated in self maintenance, leisure and rest activities. This study provides health professionals with a systematic investigation of the immediate effects of using both the Bambach saddle seat and standard office chair sitting. The findings of this study should be considered in future research.
Effect of two seating positions on upper limb function in normal subjects
Gandavadi A, Ramsay J, James G (2005) Int J Ther Rehabil 12(11)
Many upper limb functions are performed in a sitting position. However, if seating is inadequate and poorly designed, back pain and reduced upper limb control may result. This study investigates pelvic posture and performance in an upper limb task. In total,15 normal healthy volunteers (aged 18–30 years) were seated in posterior and anterior pelvic tilt positions and performed a simple upper limb task. The parameters measured were electromyography of the lumbar paravertebral muscles, time taken to complete the task and the task error rate.The data were analysed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc t tests. The results indicate that, when seated in an anterior pelvic tilt position, the error rate decreased (P=0.013) and the electrical activity increased (P=0.008). The time taken to complete the task was not significantly different. Since the error rate decreased when seated in the anterior pelvic tilt position, it might be concluded that this posture facilitated task skill. It is suggested that the increase in electrical activity is related to the increased load on the lumbar muscles in maintaining the posture. This study’s generalizability is limited, with small subject numbers and the use of a non-functional task. It is, however, a beginning in addressing the interrelationship between the seated posture and skilled upper limb performance.
Dying for a seat
Chris Langham starts a new six-part series that looks at the history, evolution and physical dangers inherent in one of our most common items of furniture. The chair!
Assessment of dental student posture in two seating conditions.
Gandavadi A, JRE Ramsay, FJT Burke,
University of Birmingham, 1. School of Health Sciences, 2. School of Dentistry
The research was approved by the ethics committee of the School of Health Sciences. The study was outlined to all the year 2 dental students at the University of Birmingham who were attending their first classes in the phantom head laboratory. Their consent for participation in the study was requested. Sixty students were randomly selected for the study. 30 students were given Bambach Saddle Seats and 30 students were given conventional seats.
The results indicated that there was a significant difference between the RULA scores for the two seats used and indicated that the students using conventional seats recorded significantly higher risk scores compared to the students using the bambach Saddle Seat, suggesting an improvement in posture when using the bambach Saddle Seat.