Your Basic Trainer

Library / Exercises

Back extension

Also called Roman chair back extension, prone back extension, Superman, Sorensen hold

An exercise that lifts the upper body from a face-down position, on a Roman chair, a bench or a table. What studies measured it loading, how set-up shifts the work, and what training changed.

Region
Spine
Muscles
erector spinae, multifidus, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, latissimus dorsi, trapezius
Updated
October 23, 2026
Reviewed
October 23, 2026 · how entries are checked

Movement

What the movement is

A back extension lifts the trunk while the body lies prone, which means face-down9. The erector spinae is the group of long muscles beside the spine that straighten the back10. Most of the back’s muscle is erector spinae, and it is the main muscle group that extends the spine10. It also keeps the inward curve of the lower back10.

The versions studies have used

The studies on this page tested several forms of the movement5,11,12,13,14:

  • On a Roman chair set at 45 degrees11,15.
  • On a Roman chair whose angle can be changed4,12.
  • Face-down over the end of a table, starting level or at 30 or 60 degrees from level13.
  • The “Superman”, with the arms and legs lifted14.
  • The Sorensen test, a timed hold of the unsupported upper body level and face-down, with the lower body fixed to the table5.

The Sorensen test was first described by Hansen in 1964 and took its name from a 1984 study by Biering-Sorensen5.

Moving at the hip or at the spine

The same lift can come mainly from the hip or mainly from the spine16. In 16 people, the hip-led style produced larger peak joint moments, or turning effects, at the back and hip16. Some bending of the lower back happened in both styles16.

What it loads

The back muscles

In the lumbar region (the lower back), the erector spinae is made of two muscles, iliocostalis lumborum and longissimus thoracis17. The multifidus, a deep muscle running along the spine, lies nearer the midline and belongs to a different group18. A review found that all the lumbar extensor exercises it covered may significantly activate these muscles1. Those exercises included bench and Roman chair trunk extensions1.

Studies using electromyography (EMG), which reads a muscle’s electrical signals, report different levels of back muscle activity for different versions13,14:

  • In adults aged 21 to 35, prone lumbar extension to full range against resistance drove multifidus and longissimus activity past 92% of maximum14.
  • In that study, prone extension to neutral and the Superman produced 77% to 82%14.
  • In 15 men with no history of low back injury, bodyweight extensions over a table generally needed under 40% of maximum activation13. For healthy people, those authors suggested the exercise seems better suited to building back muscle endurance13.

Lifting the trunk or lifting the legs

Two studies compared lifting the upper body with lifting the legs while lying face-down9,19. In the first, 14 healthy people lifted 60% of their one-repetition maximum, the heaviest load they could lift once9. The back and buttock muscles measured were on average more active when lifting the trunk9. They included the gluteus maximus, the large muscle of the buttock9.

Average activity of the muscles measured, % of maximumLifting the trunk56.6 Lifting the legs47.4
Average activity of the muscles measured, % of maximum. Bars start at zero; the table below gives each value with its source.
Lift, face-downAverage activity of the muscles measured, % of maximum
Lifting the trunk56.69
Lifting the legs47.49

The second used MRI scans of muscle in 14 people19. The lumbar extensors were more active in trunk extension than leg extension19. The muscles were also more active when each lift moved and then held, rather than moving without a hold19. The latissimus dorsi, the broad muscle across the middle and lower back, was the least active muscle measured19.

How set-up shifts the work

In Roman chair studies, small changes to the set-up changed how hard some muscles worked12,20,21:

ChangeWhat was measured
Bench set more horizontalLower-back activity rose in 10 volunteers; bench angle mattered more than hand position12
Hips turned in rather than outLower-back activity was 18% greater in 12 healthy volunteers20
Lower-back curve made deeper than usualLower-back activity was 25% greater; buttock and hamstring activity did not differ20
Knees bent to 90 degreesBack, latissimus dorsi and gluteus maximus activity was greater in 18 male amateur athletes21
Hands behind the head, not arms crossedThe lower part of the trapezius, an upper-back muscle, was more active in the same 18 athletes21
One leg rather than twoBack and hip extensor activity was greater in 16 people16
Hips set at 40 degrees of flexionBiceps femoris, a hamstring muscle, was 4% to 18% less active on average in 22 men and women; back activity did not change22

The hip muscles

The gluteus maximus and hamstrings tired along with the back muscles in several studies2,3:

  • In 20 healthy young men, the gluteus maximus and biceps femoris tired in both the Sorensen test and a 45-degree Roman chair version2.
  • In 20 healthy women holding the Sorensen position to their limit, the authors concluded that back and hip extensors share the load3.
  • In 41 healthy students doing up to 100 prone extensions, hip extensor activation was associated with failing to finish for some of them23.
  • In 16 healthy people and 18 with chronic low back pain, the gluteus maximus showed clear fatigue over a Roman chair set to exhaustion24. The lower back muscles showed less clear fatigue24.

In 36 professional handball players, a single-leg Roman chair hold with 20 kg added was compared with the Nordic hamstring curl25. The hold drew more activity from the long head of the biceps femoris25. The Nordic drew more activity from the semitendinosus, a hamstring on the inner side of the thigh, than the bodyweight hold25.

The spine

In 13 young men, exercises with active trunk extension produced the highest back muscle activity of four back exercises tested26. They also put the highest load on the joint between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae, the bones stacked to form the spine26. Leg extensions with the spine held still loaded it less26.

One study’s authors compared their unloaded back extension data with published values for the deadlift done with an extra 25% of body weight16. They estimated the peak moment at the low back was two to three times smaller in the back extension16.

How the body adapts

Endurance and strength

In three training studies of the Roman chair version, lower-back strength did not rise, though endurance or training load did4,15,27:

  • A randomised controlled trial assigns people to groups by chance. In one such trial of 36 healthy volunteers, 8 weeks of training raised static back endurance by 42%4. Isometric lower-back strength, measured with the joint held still, did not rise4.
  • In 15 healthy volunteers, 12 weeks of weekly weighted training did not raise peak lower-back torque on a dynamometer, a machine measuring turning force27. The load lifted in training still went up27.
  • In 44 untrained young adults, 10 weeks of training raised repetitions by 61% with multiple sets and 26% with one set15. Strength did not change15.

Two studies of prone extensions found strength gains28,29. In healthy women aged 40 to 65, the 16 who finished three months of mainly prone upper-back extensions significantly increased back strength28. In a trial of 34 healthy men, 6 weeks of prone training did more for back strength than supine (face-up) training29. Supine training did more for spinal mobility29. The strength gain was still present 9 weeks after training stopped, while the mobility gain was gone29.

A review suggested bench and Roman chair extensions may produce less lasting change in the lumbar extensors than machines that hold the pelvis still1. Its authors suggest the hip extensors taking part may be the reason1.

In 12 Gaelic footballers with a past hamstring injury, 6 weeks of single-leg Roman chair holds improved a single-leg hamstring bridge test30. The gain was 23.7% on the injured leg and 16.9% on the other30. A Nordic curl group in the same trial showed trivial or unclear change30.

Holding times in the Sorensen test

In 561 healthy adults aged 19 to 67, the average hold on a modified test was 113 seconds31. Men held longer than women, and older age groups held for less time31. In another study of 75 young healthy adults, women held a torso extension test longer than men32. A critical appraisal of the Sorensen test research noted that the gap between men and women is unexplained5.

A meta-analysis pools the results of several studies into one answer. One meta-analysis of 28 studies compared four trunk extension endurance tests33. Only the Biering-Sorensen test had enough evidence of reliability to justify its use33. The critical appraisal found its safety, repeatability and ability to tell groups apart seem good5. It added that the hip extensors contribute by an unknown amount5.

Pain sensitivity after a set

In 35 healthy people averaging 21 years old, a set of Roman chair extensions to failure reduced pain sensitivity over the low back11. More pressure and heat were needed before they felt pain11. The effect repeated across two sessions11.

Back extensions and low back pain

What studies of the Sorensen test found

Studies of the Sorensen test in people with low back pain report these findings34,35:

  • In 63 people, those without low back pain held the position significantly longer than those with current or past low back pain34.
  • A cross-sectional study looks at a group once. In one, the test told 32 people with chronic low back pain apart from 19 healthy people35.
  • A systematic review searches for all the research on a question in a set, checkable way. One review of 20 studies in people with low back pain found the Biering-Sorensen test was the only one with good overall reliability between testers36.
  • A systematic review of 24 fatigue-testing studies in chronic low back pain found conflicting data on how valid the methods are37.

In 78 young adults with low back pain who did a 45-degree Roman chair set, pain responses varied38. A cluster of 40 became less sensitive to pain afterwards, 19 more sensitive, and 19 moderately less38.

Does endurance predict later back pain?

Whether the Sorensen test can predict low back pain is debated5. In a Danish study of 928 adults, the author concluded good back endurance might stop first-time low back trouble in men6. A meta-analysis of cohort studies, which follow people over time, found a non-significant result for back endurance7. A systematic review of 26 cohort studies found strong evidence of no link between trunk endurance and later low back pain8. Its authors cautioned that the results need careful reading because the studies varied8.

Progressive overload

A 2026 position stand describes progressive overload as the need to increase the stimulus placed on the muscle throughout a training programme39.

Load and bench angle

In the 12-week study on a 45-degree Roman chair, healthy volunteers did one set a week of 8 to 20 repetitions to exhaustion27. They held metal plates for added resistance, and the training load rose over the programme27. In the 8-week Roman chair trial, 36 healthy volunteers did one set of 15 to 25 repetitions three times a week4. The 42% rise in endurance was already there at 4 weeks and was the same at 84.

Two studies looked at a Roman chair whose angle can be changed12,40:

  • In 24 healthy volunteers, the load from the upper body rose from the most bent position to the most extended one40. Isometric back strength ran the other way, highest in the most bent position40.
  • In 10 volunteers, changing both bench angle and hand position had the greatest effect on lower-back muscle activity12. The authors suggest their data can be used to build progressive programmes on the chair12.

In 34 healthy adults, adding 10% of body weight raised deep multifidus activity only negligibly across the exercises tested, which included trunk extension41.

Cutting the dose

A randomised controlled trial in 58 healthy women, average age 20, compared a standard dose with reduced ones42. They lifted a weighted backpack from a face-down position at home for 12 weeks42.

Rise in back extensor strength, %Standard dose39 Reduced frequency25 Reduced weight22 Reduced repetitions20 Control5
Rise in back extensor strength, %. Bars start at zero; the table below gives each value with its source.
GroupRise in back extensor strength, %
Standard dose3942
Reduced frequency2542
Reduced weight2242
Reduced repetitions2042
Control542

The standard dose gained significantly more than reduced weight or reduced repetitions, but not significantly more than reduced frequency42. The authors concluded that reducing intensity or frequency had similar effects42.

Sets, repetitions and holds

A 10-week study trained female university students aged 18 to 24 with floor back extensions43. They did 2 sets of 25 repetitions, about 80% of each person’s measured maximum repetitions, with at least 2 minutes’ rest43. Of 73 young women, the 35 who trained raised back strength by 21% on average43. Their spinal extension range of motion also rose43. Their back muscle endurance did not change, and the 38 controls showed no significant changes43.

In 20 healthy young men, floor trunk extension holds were done three ways44. They did 10 holds of 5 seconds, 5 of 10 seconds, or 2 of 25 seconds44. The 25-second holds gave higher ratings of perceived exertion, a score for how hard effort feels, than the other two versions44. They also changed resting multifidus thickness more44.

Erector spinae, multifidus and gluteus maximus activity rose from hold to hold in the two longer-hold versions, but not with 5-second holds44. The 5-second holds reached the highest peak activity44.

Connections

The muscles it loads

The deadlift puts a larger peak moment on the low back, by one study’s estimate16. The Nordic hamstring curl has been compared with the single-leg Roman chair hold25,30. Whether the Sorensen test predicts low back pain is debated5.

Back extension loads

Back extension has been studied in people with

Back extension is progressed by

Sources

  1. Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D (2013). A review of the specificity of exercises designed for conditioning the lumbar extensors.. British journal of sports medicine. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092197 PMID 24092889
  2. Champagne A, Descarreaux M, Lafond D (2008). Back and hip extensor muscles fatigue in healthy subjects: task-dependency effect of two variants of the Sorensen test.. European spine journal. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0782-y PMID 18813961
  3. Kankaanpää M, Laaksonen D, Taimela S, Kokko SM, Airaksinen O, Hänninen O (1998). Age, sex, and body mass index as determinants of back and hip extensor fatigue in the isometric Sørensen back endurance test.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90173-3 PMID 9749686
  4. Verna JL, Mayer JM, Mooney V, Pierra EA, Robertson VL, Graves JE (2002). Back Extension Endurance and Strength. Spine. doi:10.1097/00007632-200208150-00016 PMID 12195070
  5. Demoulin C, Vanderthommen M, Duysens C, Crielaard JM (2006). Spinal muscle evaluation using the Sorensen test: a critical appraisal of the literature.. Joint bone spine. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2004.08.002 PMID 16461206
  6. Biering-Sørensen F (1984). Physical measurements as risk indicators for low-back trouble over a one-year period.. Spine. doi:10.1097/00007632-198403000-00002 PMID 6233709
  7. Sadler SG, Spink MJ, Ho A, De Jonge XJ, Chuter VH (2017). Restriction in lateral bending range of motion, lumbar lordosis, and hamstring flexibility predicts the development of low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies.. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1534-0 PMID 28476110
  8. Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Ariëns GA, Blatter BM, van Mechelen W, Bongers PM (2007). A systematic review of the relation between physical capacity and future low back and neck/shoulder pain.. Pain. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.11.004 PMID 17222512
  9. De Ridder EM, Van Oosterwijck JO, Vleeming A, Vanderstraeten GG, Danneels LA (2013). Posterior muscle chain activity during various extension exercises: an observational study.. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-204 PMID 23834759
  10. Betts JG, Young KA, Wise JA, Johnson E, Poe B, Kruse DH, Korol O, Johnson JE, Womble M, DeSaix P (2022). Anatomy and Physiology 2e. OpenStax. Link
  11. Lyons KM, Stock MS, Hanney WJ, Anderson AW (2025). Reliability of Pain Thresholds and Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia Following 45-Degree Roman Chair Exercise.. International journal of sports physical therapy. doi:10.26603/001c.132173 PMID 40182904
  12. Mayer JM, Graves JE, Robertson VL, Pierra EA, Verna JL, Ploutz-Snyder LL (1999). Electromyographic activity of the lumbar extensor muscles: effect of angle and hand position during Roman chair exercise.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90222-8 PMID 10414757
  13. Plamondon A, Marceau C, Stainton S, Desjardins P (1999). Toward a better prescription of the prone back extension exercise to strengthen the back muscles.. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.1999.tb00238.x PMID 10407931
  14. Ekstrom RA, Osborn RW, Hauer PL (2008). Surface electromyographic analysis of the low back muscles during rehabilitation exercises.. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.2865 PMID 19195137
  15. Shigaki L, Araújo CGA, Calderon MG, Costa TKC, Aguiar AF, Costa LOP, da Silva RA (2018). Effects of Volume Training on Strength and Endurance of Back Muscles: A Randomized Controlled Trial.. Journal of sport rehabilitation. doi:10.1123/jsr.2016-0253 PMID 28513268
  16. Schellenberg F, Schmid N, Häberle R, Hörterer N, Taylor WR, Lorenzetti S (2017). Loading conditions in the spine, hip and knee during different executions of back extension exercises.. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation. doi:10.1186/s13102-017-0074-0 PMID 28451436
  17. Macintosh JE, Bogduk N (1987). 1987 Volvo award in basic science. The morphology of the lumbar erector spinae.. Spine. doi:10.1097/00007632-198709000-00004 PMID 3686217
  18. Willard FH, Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Danneels L, Schleip R (2012). The thoracolumbar fascia: anatomy, function and clinical considerations.. Journal of Anatomy. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01511.x PMID 22630613
  19. De Ridder EM, Van Oosterwijck JO, Vleeming A, Vanderstraeten GG, Danneels LA (2015). Muscle functional MRI analysis of trunk muscle recruitment during extension exercises in asymptomatic individuals.. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. doi:10.1111/sms.12190 PMID 24605781
  20. Mayer JM, Verna JL, Manini TM, Mooney V, Graves JE (2002). Electromyographic activity of the trunk extensor muscles: effect of varying hip position and lumbar posture during Roman chair exercise.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35103 PMID 12422322
  21. Park SY, Yoo WG (2014). Effects of hand and knee positions on muscular activity during trunk extension exercise with the Roman chair.. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2014.08.012 PMID 25245250
  22. da Silva RA, Larivière C, Arsenault AB, Nadeau S, Plamondon A (2009). Effect of pelvic stabilization and hip position on trunk extensor activity during back extension exercises on a Roman chair.. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. doi:10.2340/16501977-0305 PMID 19229445
  23. Plamondon A, Trimble K, Larivière C, Desjardins P (2004). Back muscle fatigue during intermittent prone back extension exercise.. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00363.x PMID 15265144
  24. Larivière C, Da Silva RA, Arsenault AB, Nadeau S, Plamondon A, Vadeboncoeur R (2011). Specificity of a back muscle roman chair exercise in healthy and back pain subjects.. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e96388 PMID 20508534
  25. Yagiz G, Yuksel F, Monleón C, Kubis HP, Karatay GM, Eler S, Akaras E, Guzel NA, Liébana E (2026). Loaded Single-Leg Roman Chair Hold Preferentially Increases Biceps Femoris Activation, Whereas the Nordic Hamstring Exercise Emphasises Semitendinosus Activation in Professional Athletes.. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). doi:10.3390/medicina62010146 PMID 41597432
  26. Callaghan JP, Gunning JL, McGill SM (1998). The relationship between lumbar spine load and muscle activity during extensor exercises.. Physical Therapy. doi:10.1093/ptj/78.1.8 PMID 9442191
  27. Mayer JM, Udermann BE, Graves JE, Ploutz-Snyder LL (2003). Effect of Roman chair exercise training on the development of lumbar extension strength.. Journal of strength and conditioning research. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017<0356:eorcet>2.0.co;2 PMID 12741878
  28. Sinaki M, Grubbs NC (1989). Back strengthening exercises: quantitative evaluation of their efficacy for women aged 40 to 65 years.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. PMID 2916912
  29. Balogun JA, Olokungbemi AA, Kuforiji AR (1992). Spinal mobility and muscular strength: effects of supine- and prone-lying back extension exercise training.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. PMID 1642526
  30. Macdonald B, OʼNeill J, Pollock N, Van Hooren B (2019). Single-Leg Roman Chair Hold Is More Effective Than the Nordic Hamstring Curl in Improving Hamstring Strength-Endurance in Gaelic Footballers With Previous Hamstring Injury.. Journal of strength and conditioning research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002526 PMID 29489726
  31. Adedoyin RA, Mbada CE, Farotimi AO, Johnson OE, Emechete AA (2011). Endurance of low back musculature: normative data for adults.. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. doi:10.3233/BMR-2011-0282 PMID 21558615
  32. McGill SM, Childs A, Liebenson C (1999). Endurance times for low back stabilization exercises: clinical targets for testing and training from a normal database.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90087-4 PMID 10453772
  33. Martínez-Romero MT, Ayala F, De Ste Croix M, Vera-Garcia FJ, Sainz de Baranda P, Santonja-Medina F, Sánchez-Meca J (2020). A Meta-Analysis of the Reliability of Four Field-Based Trunk Extension Endurance Tests.. International journal of environmental research and public health. doi:10.3390/ijerph17093088 PMID 32365490
  34. Latimer J, Maher CG, Refshauge K, Colaco I (1999). The reliability and validity of the Biering-Sorensen test in asymptomatic subjects and subjects reporting current or previous nonspecific low back pain.. Spine. doi:10.1097/00007632-199910150-00004 PMID 10543003
  35. Gruther W, Wick F, Paul B, Leitner C, Posch M, Matzner M, Crevenna R, Ebenbichler G (2009). Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of muscle strength and endurance measurements in patients with chronic low back pain.. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. doi:10.2340/16501977-0391 PMID 19565154
  36. Denteneer L, Van Daele U, Truijen S, De Hertogh W, Meirte J, Stassijns G (2018). Reliability of physical functioning tests in patients with low back pain: a systematic review.. The spine journal. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.257 PMID 28882521
  37. Villafañe JH, Gobbo M, Peranzoni M, Naik G, Imperio G, Cleland JA, Negrini S (2016). Validity and everyday clinical applicability of lumbar muscle fatigue assessment methods in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.. Disability and rehabilitation. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1107777 PMID 26732899
  38. Lyons KM, Stout JR, Stock MS, Hanney WJ, Anderson AW (2025). The Identification of Pain Phenotypes in Individuals With Low Back Pain in Response to Dynamic Resistance Exercise.. European journal of pain (London, England). doi:10.1002/ejp.70136 PMID 41001699
  39. Currier BS, D'Souza AC, Singh MAF, Lowisz CV, Rawson ES, Schoenfeld BJ, Smith-Ryan AE, et al (2026). American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews.. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003897 PMID 41843416
  40. Mayer JM, Graves JE, Udermann BE, Ploutz-Snyder LL (2002). Quantification of the loading characteristics of the upper body and back extension strength on a variable angle Roman chair.. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. doi:10.3233/bmr-2002-162-308 PMID 22387406
  41. Lawrence MA, Swanson BT, Silfies SP, Winchester JB (2026). Activation of the deep lumbar multifidus during common rehabilitation and resistance exercises.. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2026.103179 PMID 42320454
  42. Hongo M, Itoi E, Sinaki M, Shimada Y, Miyakoshi N, Okada K (2005). Effects of reducing resistance, repetitions, and frequency of back-strengthening exercise in healthy young women: a pilot study.. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.12.030 PMID 16003654
  43. Yaprak Y (2013). The effects of back extension training on back muscle strength and spinal range of motion in young females.. Biology of sport. doi:10.5604/20831862.1047500 PMID 24744489
  44. Kellis E, Konstantopoulos A, Ellinoudis A (2025). The Effects of Floor Isometric Trunk Extension Exercise on Muscle Thickness and Activation Vary Between Different Combinations of Duration and Repetition Number.. Journal of sport rehabilitation. doi:10.1123/jsr.2024-0054 PMID 39832495

Every source the library cites

Changes

  • Added a Progressive overload section.
  • First published.