One of the exercises mentioned was the scorpion. Since this is an exercise Jeff and I both use in our warm-ups for classes, I decided to forward the article along to him. Jeff's a great coach, very enthusiastic, takes dodgeball way too seriously, and used to kick people in the face. Naturally, a nice dialogue emerged. We'll start with Jeff's reply to the email...Solid article, i think the gist of it is saying if you do not have the strength at your full capable domain in range of motion (in this case the lumbar) you will be susceptible to injuries(?)
Now, if you were to practice minor resistance training at extended(not extreme) range of motion around any joint (in this case rotational lumbar).. would this negate this theory(?)
In a sense, you must be realistic that your body may experience, through voluntary or involuntary measures, a more extreme range of motion than the 3-5 degrees prescribed. Having a trained and strong "core", that alone will not "protect" you from not experiencing the extended range of motion at all times, so wouldn't it seem logical to still practice a somewhat extended range of motion movement, but instead all some resistance, so instead of a strict mobilization exercise, it now becomes an extended ROM strengthening exercise?
Definitely not applicable for a class size of 20, but maybe as far as giving preventative strength and mobility measures to private clients... JUST my brain running loose on thought, would love feedback, i'm gonna shoot this to Issa also, i know he does many of these in his rehab PT.
- J WEEEEZY
____________________________________________
Firstly, since I found these videos, I figured I'd start with them:
Tiger Woods
Roger Federer
Albert Pujols
Three athletes, each arguably the greatest from his respective sport. Three sports that involve a lot of trunk rotation. Amazingly though, if you watch each video and simply stare at their lumbar spine, it's always in neutral. They rotate from the hips and shoulders and keep the low back stays neutral. This is the optimal way to exert force.
Now, regarding injuries, you said, "In a sense, you must be realistic that your body may experience, through voluntary or involuntary measures, a more extreme range of motion." This is true, but I think the best approach is to develop the necessary means to prevent these ranges, not to get the joint accustomed to them, even if in a passive manner.
Having a strong/stable core may not necessarily protect you from the potential occurrence of excessive rotation, but since the goal of the core is to stabilize the spine, it's likely the best preventative measure. Pushing your lumbar spine into a range-of-motion it's not designed or intended to achieve won't do you many favors. From an injury prevention standpoint, I think it'd be more beneficial to develop and improve stability in a joint's neutral position.
Look at it this way: to prevent a neck injury, you don't load up a neck harness and put your neck into an extended ROM. Instead, you strengthen the neck itself (and the traps and upper back muscles) at its appropriate range-of-motion. Same goes for any joint that requires stability. Hell, look at the knee. For instance: Willis McGahee. To prevent that injury, he wouldn't have put his knee into hyper-extension while training for the Fiesta Bowl. The best he could do would be to strengthen the muscles around the knee accordingly to ensure it was a stable joint. That's a tough example because there's really nothing that could've prevented that injury. Shit was gnarly. See what I mean, though?
If going by the joint-by-joint approach to training (which people should pay more attention to), I look at it like this:
1) Develop range of motion in the joints that require mobility, then ensure the muscles are strong at those ranges (this is why gymnasts are so goddamn awesome, they're as flexible as yogis but strong at every range).
2) Develop stability and strength at joints that require stability.
Now, don't get me wrong, some people need a LITTLE added range to stable joints i.e. if someone is missing knee extension by a few degrees, but generally speaking, this isn't the case. How often do you see a K-Starr video where he's trying to improve mobility at the elbow?
I'm liking this back and forth we're having, brother. Good speak.
____________________________________________
Beautiful email. Thank you kind educated sir ;)
____________________________________________
Thus concluded our email exchange. Good stuff. Since this electronic conversation, Jeff and I have removed scorpions from our warm-ups. This isn't to say that mobility work throughout the body is awful. To quote brilliant physical therapist Charlie Weingroff: "Every joints needs mobility AND stability. Some need more mobility, while some need more stability."
This is even further exhibited/explained by Ido Portal, a master of human movement, below:
Obviously, what Charlie and Ido are saying makes a lot of sense and I think this is what Jeff had in mind. I certainly see the benefit of this concept, but in the population I see in typical CrossFit gyms most clientele exhibit classic movement dysfunction. This includes things like poor posture, tight hamstrings, short hip flexors, gross extension at the lumbar spine, and so on. I think for the general fitness enthusiast (CrossFit, especially) it's more important to fix these problems and strengthen the individual accordingly before worrying about things like improper alignment training. Ido commented on his philosphy expressed in that video and I will post that below.
Before this devolves into even more rambling, I will cut myself off. The purpose of this post was to give you some insight into the balance between mobility/stability and to let you know that your coaches are always focused on learning, adapting, researching, and adjusting to ensure your performance improves.
Posts
