 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I have been doing Zercher deadlifts, Sandbag lifting, etc. Notice that my back is rounded. Is this safe for my back. Also been doing Barebell Hack squats and during the begining of the lift my back is rounded, then gets straightened out. Is this safe??
There's quite a bit of fuzzy science thrown around these days. Basically some experts claim that with proper intra-abdominal pressurization, spinal stability may withstand rounding for some individuals. It really depends upon your sport. Wrestling for instance requires it as a technique.
Hard-proven time-tested simple wisdom will remain the guiding rule until made consistently repeatable for longevity training for all individuals, so until proven otherwise remember this quote from PHASE IV in the current issue of CST Magazine, our approach is:Use proper form. Learn proper pressuration before using such a complex technique. Never sacrifice limit strength for mobility. Your spine should maintain the suppleness to move like a string of pearls.---> form before sophistication
---> sophistication before volume
---> volume before intensity
---> intensity before density
IIRCOriginally Posted by Jay76
There was a study that was quoted on either the Supertraining or PTHER list a few years ago. Rate of incidence of injury in neutral vs roundback lifting in Olympic weightlifters.
No difference
But
We couldn't agree if the study had generalizibilty to the entire population, or was just valid in high level athletes.
Pop over there and check out the archives
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/pther/messages
This is an interesting topic. If you ever look at old weightlifting/powerlifting books/photos you'll see alot of round back lifting. Bob Peoples comes to mind immediately (160# with 600+ pound deadlifts). Terry Todd's Powerlifting book also shows amazing weight with significant round back lifting. (John Kuc, Mike Bridges...) And of course the strongman competitions now, where it is very hard to lift stones/rocks in anything but a rounded position. Now this just may be the incredibly genetic gifts of these strongmen.
I think it is a testament to proper progressive training. They started with that form and they maintained it as the weights piled on.
Historically, round back lifting was espoused for a long time before the neutral or lordotic spine lifting style. More recently (relatively) Farfan and also Gracovetsky. Then came the concerns of the disc...
Mechanically, round back lifting takes advantage of our strong thoracolumbar fascia, and ligamentous support. A trade off, of course, is the enormous intradiscal pressure. I remember when an instructor, once detailed some reasoning behind teaching a select group of patients to round back lifting. The look on the faces of other therapists I told this too was priceless! Very taboo nowadays to even suggest the style.
A slightly flexed spine in lifting may be beneficial to those with facet joint irritation (lumbar facets are "closed" or "compressed" when you backward bend).
As always, it is up to the individual to find the best lifting style for their body type.
Jarlo
I believe my personal experience matches what I've researched: if one learns proper technique, is well conditioned with no preconditions, and develops effective and appropriate intra-abdominal pressurization, this method is safe and can take one beyond PRs. Without those factors present, I wouldn't consider the method.
Can you remember which groups in particular? And the reasoning?
The facet joint implications are interesting.
Good stuff.
/Cletus from the Simpsons/
You gone and done lurnt me sumthin.
/Cletus from the Simpsons/
Bob,
Sorry, my post was so meandering, I often go on the computer later at night. The consequence of working until 8 p.m.!
The reasoning was fairly general, the instructor included some of what I had mentioned, such as protecting facet joint dysfunction, but particularly adjusting for what your objective examination revealed in the individual. What I got out of it was much more than what do to with a particular group. It was the need to go beyond general stereotyping of "you must always do this, in this manner", as is usually the case when teaching lifting technique. Because really, you need to thoughtfully examine what variations, your particular patient might need to employ. It was a simple description, that in a few minutes, helped me along to understand that a good therapist goes beyond protocol.
For example, a patient I had some time ago was a UPS worker, who worked at a very quick pace with some very irritating motions for his spine. Ordinarily, protocol says "never let someone rotate and lift with weight"... Well, that doesn't work so well if you expect to be productive in his line of work. So, we varied his lift to have a slightly flexed spine, and I taught him to keep his hips and spine as one, rather than rotating at the waist. Thus, he was able to maintain his productivity, and keep from killing himself daily. That is a nice example of being creative with "proper lifting style". I was glad I didn't succumb to doing the same old thing with that patient.
Breaking free from single minded thought processes was key to my development in this profession. I remember when I began earnestly studying manual therapy (a very short 4 years ago), I was so joint focused, that I very nearly rejected anything beyond the manipulable joint lesion! Very poor thinking. I was very lucky to snap out of that closed mindset and am now fairly well versed in many different methods of thinking in manual therapy. In fact, I just started taking some sessions from a Rolfer, which is taking me into a nice new direction as well. And the insights from Coach Sonnon's work is helping me further along in terms of movement prescription. I confess that I still often get bored, if I have done all the manual handling I think a person needs, and often leave the exercises to my assistants to handle. I hope I will break free of that soon too.
Whoa, sorry for that tangent!
As for specific conditions that may benefit from proper round back lifting... off the top of my head, definitely there would be benefits for those with spondylolisthesis and any degree of stenosis. As you know, extension is not the best in those individuals. You would also need to test the ligamentous integrity in such people. It would not be wise to teach this style in those with poor translational stability. (The testing for that is anterior and posterior shearing at each segmental level). But again, it is the point of utilizing your specific objective findings to find the best variation for the patient (at that time). The whole "It depends.." answer.
If I may ask, are you a chiro in Australia? I've found that Australian manual medicine education is of very high quality.
Jarlo
>Sorry, my post was so meandering, I often go on the computer later at >night. The consequence of working until 8 p.m.!
Please.... no apologies required. Being part vampire myself, I know all about the late shift ;-)
>The reasoning was fairly general, the instructor included some of what I >had mentioned, such as protecting facet joint dysfunction, but
>particularly adjusting for what your objective examination revealed in >the individual.
I had a gut feeling you were going to say that ;-) Makes sense.
Good example with the UPS worker. I recall reading something similar with an actor who had to play a hunch back, night after night.
> I was so joint focused, that I very nearly rejected anything beyond the > manipulable joint lesion!
I few years ago, I sat down and had a good long hard look at what I was doing - all the seminars attended, all the conflicting skills. It occurs to me that there is a triumvirate of sorts in manual medicine - soft tissue approaches, joint manipulation and somatic education. Many, many options therein. (CST being one we have a common interest in ;-)
I figure each has a role to play at a particular time. Though I won't lie to you, the somatic re-education is by *far* the most exciting for me ;-)
>In fact, I just started taking some sessions from a Rolfer, which is
>taking me into a nice new direction as well.
The rolfing stuff is interesting. It's not particularly how I like to do my soft tissue stuff. Or at least it wasn't - I should really look into it again.
(and really, at the end of the day, it's more about the person using the tech rather than the tech itself)
Having said that, I can't buy the permanent fascial stretching angle of it. Thankfully there are some other, more "biologically plausible" theories as to why it works.
Have you checked out the nuro articles re: rolfing over at
http://www.somatics.de/somatics.html
very, very good reading ;-)
>If I may ask, are you a chiro in Australia?
Not as of yet. This is now my second year - three to go. Then all the bits and pieces on top of that. Thankfully, once the bulk of the 5yrs is out of the way, the rest is mostly a part time endevour.
Folks kid I'll never " grow up & get a real job" and by God I hope to prove em right ;-)
I've been a massage therapist for almost 5 years now. Frankly, I got sick and tired of being told how I can and can't work with people. (The licensing laws here are....interesting). For example, despite the fact that the professional training course standards here are secondly only to Canada (3000 vs 1600 hours), we are *still* not allowed to do even *basic* orthopedic tests. I meant *basic* stuff, like PROM, hip level checks etc. Hell, even SOAP notes are frowned upon.
Being that I was right into the MET / Onsen (muscle energy techs) stuff....you can imagine how practical that was. (ie: not at all)
>I've found that Australian manual medicine education is of very high
>quality.
That it is. I think the isolation has something to do with it. Plus, we're all kinda crazy to being with ;-)
Anyway, we could talk shop forever, but I think the others have nodded off....so....moral of the story...
Round back lifting = sometimes ok.
Bob,
Absolutely. Also, I believe we gravitate toward the techniques which suit us, and we become ever more proficient at those things. There are so many variants of techniques to achieve the same goals. That's what I love about manual therapy. Right now, I've gotten decent at the short lever high velocity thrust techniques, and also at identifying specific soft tissue restrictions. And have gotten good results from that. But, I have a friend who performs absolutely wonderful MET, who achieves comparable results. In fact I am headed for California this week for a MET course. (Lumbo pelvic integration www.ipaconed.com )"(and really, at the end of the day, it's more about the person using the tech rather than the tech itself) "
Yes, sorry to all reading this, perhaps another thread..Anyway, we could talk shop forever, but I think the others have nodded off....
Yes, again, Coach Sonnon's "sophisticated" approach definitely applies to more than physical training.Round back lifting = sometimes ok.
Thank you for the somatics link, and also for the discussion.
Jarlo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote