Sports Rehab to Sports Performance 2010 Teleseminar CDs

Please check out Joe’s site. You can check the link to show there is no affiliate program behind this post.
http://www.sportsrehabexpert.com/public/353.cfm

I will take a speak when spoken approach for my opinions on the individual interviews.

My interview is available on the Interview section of this site.  It covers my interpretation of the Joint by Joint Approach, my extrapolation of this ideal to cover the entire body as my termed Core Pendulum Theory which explains how to argue against idiots that challenge core stability mantras when they see us also teaching the toe touch and backward bend.

  • April 25, 2010

Leave a Reply 2 comments

Ben Stockton Reply

Charlie,

In terms of spinal flexion and lateral flexion, if I am understanding things properly, is that it’s a case of needing full ROM of all the joints involved, but once you have that, you don’t go out of your way to train it in any sort of capacity. Instead, you, in effect, “save it” for times in life when it may inevitably happen while focusing training more so on preventing excessive movement of the spine, be it into hyperextension, rotation, etc.

Once you have a given ROM at the joints in things like the toe touch and backward bend, is consistently doing things that reinforce proper multi-planar thoracic spine and hip mobility mobility (and probably a bunch of other stuff I will lbe leaving out for the sake of brevity) enough to maintain proper ROM of all the spinal articulations without actually doing any exercises, stretches, or mobility work that actually takes you into those positions?

A lot of people used to think you had to “use it or lose it,” but it seems like this is an area where your keep it (or earn it and own it if you had previously lost it) and then once you have it, you “save it” for when it may happen in life, and focus on trying to avoid going into extremem ranges of motion in this area.

Another thing that the crowd that hangs onto flexion may be inclined to use is that they think you need to train the spine in certain positions or else it won’t be fully prepared for those. While there’s probably many nuanced layers that I don’t fully comprehend, one thing I have often wondered is this……since the ROM of the spine into flexion and extension isn’t all that large compared to something like the motion of the GH joint, would anti-flexion and anti-extension work that ends up being isometric actually have some carryover into those ranges of motion of the spine that aren’t being actively trained? For example, with the concept of “overcoming” isometrics, people often speak of a roughly +/- 15-degree carryover in strength around the point where you actually perform the overcoming isometric. Is this same concept applicable to flexion and extension of the spine or even lateral flexion, in that training that resists motion will have some measure of carryover effect beyond the position in which those holds take place.

Hopefully I haven’t butchered any of this too much!

Charlie Reply

Ben – Yes, I believe the spinal segments should all have full ROM, and maintaining it occurs through great hip ands t-spine mobility, spinal segmental stability, and maintaining fundamental movement patterns.

Yes again, I think you maintain the toe touch with the deadlift. You maintain backward bend with split squats with KBs overhead.

I am not sure “use it or lose it” by its literal means is exactly how it works with the spine. Also keep in mind that with the limited compared to traditional measures ranges of 40 degrees flexion, 12 degrees rotation, and whatever extension is is probably well enough to maintain synovial fluid flow through the ZG joints.

Personally, I have a hard time continuing credibile dialogue with any individual that espouses “if it happens during play, it has to happen during training.” I think Jon Chaimberg’s work is the best real-world example of this.

I think anti-movement work that is truly isometric should yield the +/- 15 degree carryover, which, in theory, should provide you outer core stability through non-neutral movements. Great thought, and not one you hear too often. Well done.

Great thoughts, Ben. Thank you.

Leave a Reply: