I missed a lot of time this summer for pain that was associated with my back (although the actual pain was mostly in my left leg).
However, I still think that the reason that "back pain" accounts for so much of the total sick time is NOT because so many people suffer from back pain, but rather that enough people do that it's an easy excuse to use when you want a day off.
Dear Mom,
Will you quit nagging now?
The issue in back trouble (probably including sciatic nerve trouble which is perceived by the brain as relating to the leg, but nonetheless originates in the back) is muscle tone of the trunk.Far too many of us - myself emphatically not excluded - allow our abdominal muscles to go on permanent vacation, and rely on the arching of the spine to stabilize the trunk. That is, we do not keep our abs and our back muscles in tension. The result is that the back muscles are short but ill toned, and the abs are long and ill toned.
Consequently when such a physical specimen reaches down and does gardening or other similar activity, the spine bends unusually forward and the back muscles are atypically stretched. So long as that posture is maintained, back pain will not result. When the unfortunate person "straightens up" and relaxes, the back muscles, irritated by unaccustomed stretching, are returned to their typical short configuration. And a tired/irritated muscle will go into painful cramps only when they are not stretched but short.
The result is that bending over to garden sets you up for back cramps which only are activated by returning to "normal", slovenly, posture. And that in such case the sufferer, ironically, gets immediate relief by returning to the very posture which, by stretching the back muscles, precipitated the symptoms. Not understanding the dynamic, the sufferer is baffled by this seemingly paradoxical phenomenon - and loses all sense of what constitutes sound posture.
What, then, is the practical remedy? Obviously the remedy must include exercises to strengthen the abs. But that is insufficient. The missing link is a subtlety which is a powerful psychological inhibitor of improved posture. Part of that is an unwillingness to project a body image different than the one to which you (and, you are sure, everyone you know) are accustomed to and identify with you. But the real kicker is that seriously upgrading your posture will change the sound of your voice.
That is, proper posture requires effort, effort which changes not only the appearance of your body but changes the way your voice resonates in your chest. The voice will sound better - a man's voice will seem deeper even though he is making no effort to change its pitch with his vocal cords. It will sound deeper because the resonance of his chest will emphasize the basic pitch of his voice and deemphasize the other components of his voice.
But although, objectively, his voice sounds better - would instantly be approved by a music teacher as a signal improvement over the quality of sound that results from his customary, slovenly, posture - it is not the sound that the person in question identifies with. And indeed, it is not the sound that the wife of such a man identifies with her husband. So even if the husband learns that he should improve his posture so much that it improves his voice, both he and those he cares about will resist the vocal change.
So there it is. Good posture - posture which will protect your spine and enhance your health and vitality - is hard. It is a tiring physical exertion, and its side effects create psychological resistance to boot.
But what's new? Wherever masses of people are doing something patently against their own interests, there will be strong psychological and probably strong physical/economic reasons why they do not change. How else explain masses of people accepting American Establishment Journalism, or the (indistinguishable) BBC, as "objective"? It is certainly not because there is any philosophical reason to do so, and certainly not because the evidence of history supports the idea. Human nature can be so frustrating . . .