http://www.cyberpump.com/chuckpit/chuck010.html

“Find a high bench or something similar. Drape your legs across it like you
normally would. Now, as you crunch up, dig your heels into the bench. What
this does is contract your hip extensors which automatically relaxes your
hip flexors (autogenic inhibition if you wish to look it up) and targets your
abdominals. See, even when you are doing normal crunches, the hip flexors (in
most people) isometrically contract very strongly. Doing the Janda crunch is
a much more intense way of crunching if you are doing it right.”

Comments to the accuracy of this description? >>

*** This definition conveys the general idea. Way before Janda and various
latter day fitness popularists of this situp came on the scene, one of the
methods used to diminish involvement of the hip flexors in situps involved
putting the legs on a bench AND pressing firmly against a wall AND curling
the pelvis upwards in a posterior pelvic tilt. This causes even greater
activation of the hip extensors and by RECIPROCAL inhibition (not autogenic,
which is something very different!) diminishes hip flexor involvement to a
greater extent than the so-called Janda method.

You cannot do this on a smooth surface, because the strong pressing action
and pelvic rotation will make you slide away from the wall, but, when you
have established a suitable setup, you will find that this method is even
more demanding than the ‘Janda’ variation, especially if you pull against a
cable system or elastic bands. If you wish, you can lie over one of Fred
Koch’s AbMats and make this Reciprocal Inhibition (RI) Crunch even more
interesting and demanding. There is also a more ballistic variation, if you
wish. If you enjoy ‘ab isolation’ exercises, then variations of this RI
Crunch will delight and challenge you!

Of course, who says that you ever need to lie down to exercise the bas, or,
for that matter who says that one should not involve the hip flexors in any
situps or crunches? After all, today the trend is towards “functional
training” and in many situations the abdominal musculature work in an
integrated natural fashion with the hip flexors. Knowing this, why are all
those “functional” educators still teaching isolationist exercises like Janda
and other supine crunches?

One can use cable crunches in a standing or kneeling position, standing
Olympic Presses, standing cable PNF “chopping” patterns, Olympic bar rollouts
(using an upward piking action of the body, not a rolling action back and
forth), and overhead throws with a medicine ball. Of course, if you are
executing the Olympic and Power lifts and their many variations, the abs
experience a very demanding workout, anyway.

Dr Mel C Siff

< http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >

PART 2

<<Lahad et al concluded that sufficient evidence was unavailable to recommend
the use of mechanical back supports for the prevention of back pain. In
another study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, prophylactic use of back belts for healthy workers was not
recommended because of a lack of scientific evidence promoting their
benefit. There are also many other studies indicating belt use provides no
significant improvement in performance or reduction in the user’s chance of
injury. >>

***Virtually all of the studies that Chek quotes to condemn the use of a belt
are drawn from the world of manual labour or research studies with average
volunteers in which belts are worn for prolonged periods. It is
scientifically invalid to extrapolate such findings from the setting of
CHRONIC belt usage to the setting of occasional ACUTE belt usage for very
heavy or maximal competitive lifting.

<<Davis’ Law is demonstrated and well known by physical therapists who treat
neurological injuries; stimulating the surface of the body produces
stimulation of the muscles served by the same nerve root. Therefore,
repeatedly “pushing outward” against the belt, which is encouraged by the
belt through sensory-motor stimulus, is likely to develop and perpetuate
faulty recruitment patterns. >>

***This statement that superficial methods of kineasthetic manipulation
perpetuates faulty motor patterns (see Siff & Verkhoshansky “Supertraining”
1999, Ch is entirely one of personal opinion and not supported by any
quoted research. On the contrary, PNF and neurodevelopmental methods in
physiotherapy rely heavily on manual contacts and touch to teach correct
optimal motor patterns. It is not the stimulation of the surface of the skin
which may elicit faulty patterns, but the inappropriate use of such
stimulation. This sort of remark is grossly misleading and inaccurate, as
any experienced physical therapist and neurologist will tell us.

<<If belts really did improve trunk stability, then the lifter would be able
to use them for a given period of time, remove the belt and experience
improved performance when lifting; THIS IS NOT THE CASE! …..

If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
“position sense” while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>

***Once again, the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and the
new skintight swimming and cycling outfits which, besides reducing
aerodynamic drag, apparently enhance proprioceptive sensitivity and muscle
activation. Anyway, many lifters who wear belts for maximal lifts have shown
that they are quite capable of lifting the same loads without belts, but
choose to wear belts for attempting new maximal lifts because they consider
that belts may offer enhanced safety under those extreme conditions. It is
very common for athletes in the most demanding situations to use specific
protective or ‘ergogenic’ devices, so why would this be so reprehensible for
competitive lifters?

Remember that the lifting of maximal loads is not undertaken every day or
even every week, but only on occasional maximal training days or training
competitions that are weeks or months apart. As I have written many times
before, it is the manner and duration of belt wearing that may deem it
inappropriate, not simply because belts “weaken” everyone under all
circumstances.

<<The only way to restore function of the deep abdominal wall is to use
various forms of biofeedback (described below)…..

It is very valuable to use other extroceptive (sic) stimuli, such as athletic
tape to improve kinesthetic awareness. As the patient learns, the need for
tape is reduced, and eventually the tape is eliminated. String is also used
as a form of biofeedback during movement training and is particularly useful
in restoration of deep abdominal wall function during functional movement
training.>>

***Here we have a fascinating contradiction! Chek spent a great deal of
space in denouncing the value of a lightly worn belt as a mode of offering
mechanical feedback, but here he is extolling the virtues of using
inextensible tape (a la Jenny McConnell taping etc) to play the same role.

Let us repeat what he said earlier:

<<If indeed belts did improve proprioception, the user would be able to take
the belt off after a period of use and have improved proprioceptive sense or
“position sense” while lifting. This would constitute a learning effect; I
have never experienced this to be the case! Belt users become dependent upon
their belt, making the belt more of a crutch than a training device. >>

So, the use of belts ruins proprioception, but the use of taping does not!
Any jury presented with this blatantly contradictory information would
dismiss his evidence as being unreliable, because he is clearly admitting
that devices like tape (and, by implication, certain types of belt) CAN
improve kinaesthetic awareness. The device being used may be different, but
the underlying principle remains the same. CASE CLOSED!

***Finally, let us reinforce the case a little more strongly – Chek even
quotes the following reference which supports the use of belts. Is this not
another contradiction?

<< 35. Cholewicki J., Juluru K., Radebold A., Panjabi M.M., Magill S.M.
Lumbar spine stability can be augmented with an abdominal belt and/or
increased intra-abdominal pressure. Eur Spine J 1999;8(5): 388-95. >>

So, I reiterate, that, if you are going to use a belt or straps, then just do
so intelligently and selectively! Note that I am not stating that one cannot
lift successfully and safely without a belt or that one cannot develop a very
strong trunk without using a belt – I am simply stressing that sometimes it
may be appropriate or useful to astutely use a belt in a given situation.
What I oppose is any blanket or “allness” statement which creates another
item of dogma in the strength training world.

Dr Mel C Siff

< http://t-mag.com/html/body_121back.html >
< http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_122back.html >

He has not submitted Part 3 of this series, so, if he is still working on it,
it will be interesting to see if my review influences what he submits. These
two article already suggest that he has taken some of our earlier criticisms
to heart, because he is now admitting in this series that breath holding does
indeed stabilise the trunk.

HOW TO BE BACK STRONG & BELTLESS

PART 1

<<Regardless of your opinion about the origin of man, if you believe in God,
you have to wonder why he didn’t provide weight belts as standard-issue
equipment. On second thought, maybe he did, and we just don’t know how to use
them correctly.>>

*** Exactly the same remark may be applied to the wearing of shoes and it is
entirely spurious. We might even have said that we should have retained a
hairy cover all over our bodies to protect us from the sun and other extremes
of climate. Why we should have evolved to lose something that protects us
from our environment is anyone’s guess. A remark like that has been used by
Luddites, the Amish folk, the Taliban and others who reject many
technological advances on a similar basis.

<<Today, our understanding of the stabilizer system is at an all time high,
thanks to the works of people like Richardson, Jull, Hodges, Hydes, Vleeming,
Snidjers and Gracovetsky. >>

*** This is misleading, because no theory of spinal function has been
regarded as pre-eminent over any others. In fact, there is even more
disagreement over spinal function than there has ever been. The number of
theories about spinal action may be at an all-time high, but our
understanding is certainly not yet at an all-time high. It is still highly
theoretical and by no means definitive, though it is very exciting to try and
decode some of the complex biomathematical models (which Chek, unfortunately
is not trained to be able to do).

<<As you are likely aware, when lifting a heavy object or exerting yourself
to throw or move an object such as in work or sports, it is natural to hold
the breath. Holding the breath under load is associated with increased
tension in the diaphragm. …

Practical experimentation in the gym will show that the trunk is stiffer
when filling the lungs as opposed to not filling the lungs with
inhalation….>>

***These remarks are most revealing, because Chek has constantly disagreed
with me and several others (in several Internet exchanges that still exist in
the archives of several user groups) on breath holding as a perfectly natural
concomitant to spinal stabilisation. He has always been vigorously opposed to
breath holding to stabilise the spine. Instead he has placed an exaggerated
emphasis on “pulling the abs in” and trying to voluntarily activate
transversus abdominis (TVA) during all stages of squatting and lifting. It ap
pears as if our criticism of his views may have caused him to change his mind.

<<More recently, it has been shown that IAP does provide a stiffening effect
on the lumbar spine, but that IAP is most effective at stabilizing the spine
when applied in concert with co-activation of the erector spinae muscles…..

Although, as suggested by Gracovetsky, we can not rely on muscles alone
because mathematical modeling shows that Olympic athletes would not be strong
enough to lift the loads they currently are lifting during competition. We
must look to the fascial system of the body for a missing link, the hydraulic
amplifier effect…

It has also been suggested that IAP does not stabilize the spine. Standing
firmly against the notion that IAP provides any significant stabilizing
mechanism for the spine are Gracovetsky and Bogduk…..>>

***Note well that the models of Gracovetsky and others whom he mentions,
though compelling in some respects, are by no means unopposed by other
theorists and researchers, especially some of the world’s most erudite
biomechanists. What Chek has done is a commendable cut-and-paste collage job
of information from various sources, but he has failed to go beyond a
literature retrieval stage of the literature review. A true review retrieves
the necessary information, then compares and analyses it, then, if the author
has specific scientific or research skills, he offers his own views and
models. Anyone can cut and paste from books, articles and Medline, but not
anyone can intelligently analyse the material and go beyond the obvious.

<<The hydraulic amplifier effect, originally theorized by Gracovetsky to
increase the strength of the back muscles, was later proven mathematically to
increase the strength of the back muscles by 30%…. The hydraulic amplifier
mechanism is composed of the TLF (thoracolumbar fasciae) surrounding the back
muscles to create a relatively stable cylinder…. >>

***While Chek has given a reasonable summary of how some of the trunk
musculature can act like an hydraulic lift, he has not shown that he
understands the significance of the “amplifier” part of the spinal model.
This is a very significant omission, because a knowledge of the dynamic
process of mechanical amplification (including amplifier “gain” and feedback
control) is vital to an understanding of lifting, stabilising and injury.

<<What modern researchers have been able to do is more clearly define two
major stabilizer systems of the body, the inner unit and the outer unit. The
stabilizer system considered as our “God-given weight belt” is the inner
unit…..

The Inner Unit serves to stiffen the axial skeleton in preparation for work.
The Inner Unit muscles are A) Transversus Abdominis and the posterior
fibers of obliquus internus, B) Diaphragm, C) Deep Multifidus,
D) Pelvic floor musculature….

The outer unit consists of many muscles such as the obliquus externus,
obliquus internus, erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus,
adductors and hamstrings working in concert with the inner unit musculature
and fascial systems. …..

A simplified version of the inner/outer unit systems, seen in Figure 9,
depicts a pirate ship’s mast as a human spinal column. While the inner unit
muscles are responsible for developing and maintaining segmental
stiffness, the bigger muscles, shown here as guide wires, are responsible for
creating movement. >>

***The accompanying figure depicted the spine as a system of guy wires
supporting the mast of a ship. Significantly, this model excludes any
transverse members on the sails or the fact that the hull, like the rest of
the human body, does not provide a stable base. This incomplete spinal model
allows us to understand in part why it is nowadays so fashionable to talk
about “core stabilisation”. The latter misleading concept is based upon a
system which excludes the role of peripheral stabilisation (of which I have
written elsewhere) and the systems nature of motor control. One of the
problems with models and analogies is that, in attempts to simplify complex
processes, they can omit details which can lead to some very defective
conclusions.

Division of the muscles of the trunk into “inner” and “outer” systems, while
often being convenient for the sake of simplifying the complexity of the
spine, sometimes proves to be a rather limiting model of trunk functioning.
Interestingly, Chek, while sketching this model in a superficially
attractive way, has not explained if this mast and guy rope depiction of the
spine or Gracovetsky’s model constitutes a frame, truss or machine (recalling
that frames are designed to support loads, whereas machines are designed to
transmit or amplify forces or couples).

Chek, in previous discussions, has always evaded my attempts to make him
understand the difference between moments, couples, force couples and related
mechanical concepts with some entirely irrelevant personal retorts. This
latest article makes it very apparent that he really should have attended to
this deficit in his knowledge base. He might then have come across
biomechanical models of the spine which rely on a systems theoretical
approach which does not regard the spine a system of guy ropes and rigid
members and which do not implicate the fasciae in the role suggested by
Gracovetsky and others.

Other models regard the spine as a cantilever system, while yet others
examine the spine as a suspension system. In these models, there is no
necessity to divide the muscles into inner and outer units, but as an entire
system which stabilises the spine in terms of the least energy principle.

By selecting only one favourite model of the spine, he has been biased to
make some misleading and unjustified conclusions and applications in the rest
of his material, especially the practical applications.

Dr Mel Siff

The next post discusses Part II of Paul Chek’s Article!

This topic of “assistive” or “protective” devices has been discussed at our
ergonomics and some biomechanics conferences for many years, with papers
being presented both supporting and condemning the use of such ‘ergonomic’
devices. Interestingly, it is often these studies which are extrapolated to
the world of weightlifting and powerlfting to make a case for or against the
use of belts and so forth, but it is rarely pointed out that the ergonomic
studies generally have examined the CHRONIC or long term, repeated use of
these devices, whereas among many competitive lifters usage is often reserved
for ACUTE, occasional very heavy or maximal attempts.

Making out of context extrapolations like that is unscientific and
unwarranted. It is similar to comparing the use of shoes in sprints and
marathon running, or even the use of weightlifting and powerlifting shoes
(especially in the deadlift and clean).

So far, no study has been conducted which shows that the occasional and
selective use of belts and wrist straps significantly alters performance or
produces reductions in motor skill, strength, power or speed, so it is highly
misleading to take data from chronic, non-sporting, situations out of context
and apply it to the acute situations of weight training and competitive
lifting. Many lifters will agree that the unnecessary, constant reliance
on belts and straps for every lift, irrespective of weight, may be detrimental
to some aspects of performance, but that sort of usage tends to be confined
to the more aesthetic, bodybuilding-type, fashionable market than serious
weight training and competitive lifting.

Remarks that some of the world’s strongest weightlifters compete without
belts are largely of no consequence, because there are large numbers of top
lifters who lift with belts. In fact, the heaviest weight ever jerked above
the head (266kg) was achieved by the mighty Leonid Taranenko, who was wearing
a belt (I was present when he made that huge attempt). While this may
indicate that it is perfectly possible for many lifters to lift huge weights
without belts, it does not mean that it is detrimental to wear a belt.

Of course, the matter of not wearing belts and wraps is highly questionable
in powerlifting, because performances can be very significantly improved by
wearing these aids while competing. Note that wearing these aids during
competitive lifting does not mean that one wears them for prolonged periods
during training – most powerlifters do not approve of that or follow that
approach.

As usual it is not that a given exercise or given way of using a training
item is harmful in itself; it is the manner and context in which it is used
which may cause problems. To pass a blanket ruling against the use of belts
and wraps in all lifting and training applications is dogmatically excessive,
since there are acute situations or situations involving added security in
which the astute and selective use of belts and other lifting aids can play a
positive role. It is only when one excessively and unselectively relies on
such devices that problems may be introduced.

Remember that there is even more convincing evidence that barefooted running
is more efficient and safer than shod running, so, if we are to be
consistent, we should militate against the use of shoes in all sports. After
all, children and many adults in Africa, India and Indo China can run, play
and carry out the most demanding of physical activities without shoes
(including kicking a soccer ball) – and there is accumulating research which
shows that they have fewer lower extremity problems compared with their
shoe-wearing Western counterparts.

Research has shown that all shoes tend to increase the risks of pronation
injury and sprains to the ankle, plus they slow down the reactive capabilities
of the foot, unless the shoes are expensively modified in an attempt to
imitate the situation which takes place when one is barefooted (e.g. see
texts such as Nigg B ed, “The Biomechanics of Running Shoes”). That alone
should produce a strong case against the chronic use of shoes!

If, as the anti-belt brigade maintain, the body can easily adapt to lifting
without a belt, so can our feet and bodies easily adapt to the stresses of
movement and sport without shoes. The soles of our feet can harden to cope
with frictional and impact loading (and sharp objects), our overall stiffness
and damping ratios can modify to cope with all sorts of loading, we can
develop greater range of movement without shoes and we can develop greater
foot dexterity. This may even tend to make one believe that most shoe
wearing is for fashion and appearance!

The bottom line? If you are going to use a belt or straps, then just do so
intelligently and selectively!

Dr Mel C Siff

> I added that it is even doubtful if frequent back bending is a major cause
> of the problem, because spondylolysis was not at all common among Olympic
> weightlifters who performed the Olympic Press with a marked backbend under
> heavy loads (weights exceeding 300lbs or 140kg were commonplace).

Someone from another group commented thus:

<<….Kotani, 1970 found an incidence of 30.7 percent in weightlifters who
complained of back pain. They were doing the press back then. Rossi
1990 looked at “athletes suffering from low back problems” from 1962-
1988 (most of those years included the press) and found weightlifters
3rd on a list of 30 sports with an incidence of spondylolysis of 22.68
percent… >>

Mel Siff:

*** It is interesting how much these figures differ from a study whose
results were reported by the International Weightlifting Federation in its
publication, “World Weightlifting” during the late 60s or early 1970s. The
researchers involved stated that back injuries accounted for something like 8
percent of all injuries experienced by Weightlifters, but did not give the
breakdown for the different types of back disorder. Another study like this
of American weightlifters appeared in Bob Hise’s “International Olympic
Lifter” around the same period and the incidence back injuries were similar.
Knee and shoulder injuries were far more common.

The researchers remarked that the back trauma appeared to be experienced most
often during the catch and early rising phases of the clean, where rounding
of the lumbar spine is quite common. It did not appear to be at all common
during any stage of the snatch because the fixation posture with the bar
overhead and further to the back tended to counteract any tendency of the
pelvis to tilt posteriorly.

None of those studies, including the ones cited by Chad showed that the
Press, as opposed to the Snatch and Clean & Jerk, showed that it was the
Press which was the primary offender in causing skeletal back injuries.

However, as a lifter who competed in the Press for many years and met some of
the world’s most competent pressers such as Russ Knipp, Serge Reding, Alexei
Medvedev & Arkady Vorobyev, I became very aware of pressing techniques that
certainly could put the lumbar spine at risk.

Both my coach at the time, Roelf van der Berg, who held the S African record
of 142.5 kg press in the 82.5kg division at a time when the world record was
held by the great Tommy Kono (153kg in the same division) and the Belgian,
Serge Reding (my coach for a few weeks in S Africa), who held the world
superheavy Press record of 228kg when I met him, stressed that you should
never relax the glutes or allow the lumbar spine to straighten or flex at any
stage of the lift, because of the risk of injury. The ballistic part of the
upward drive was to rely on carefully timed pretensing of the abdomen, that
characteristic double dipping action and pretensing of the shoulder girdle.
While the American Russ Knipp (world record Press of 158.5 in the 75kg div)
was visiting S Africa, he spent time with me at my former university and also
gave me much the same advice on Pressing.

Unfortunately, attempts to push the Press to even greater weights by invoking
increasingly ballistic actions of many parts of the kinetic chain (knees,
back and shoulders) sometimes resulted in lifters doing precisely what my
various coaches warned against. Instead of arching the body like a pulled
bow and pretensing the abdominal and shoulder musculature, lifters executed a
type of bastardised jerk or ‘cheat Press’ which flexed the lumbar spine
during the first dipping movement and sometimes even during the second dip.
Others indulged in excessive back bending during the second dip or layback
and executed what almost looked like a standing bench press, a type of
lifting which may well traumatise the lumbar spine.

Now, it is well known that heavy loading, especially vibratory or ballistic
loading (see Chaffin & Andersson “Occupational Biomechanics”) is especially
harmful to the lumbar spine, a situation which is exacerbated by any spinal
twisting, something that also happened during attempts to press as rapidly as
possible with a flexed spine.

This is precisely why I stressed in my original letter to this group that
technical execution of the Press was of great importance, as it is with all
heavy Olympic and Power lifts. So, if the groups of lifters studied did
experience spondylolysis to the extent reported in those studies – and if the
Press played a contributory role – then I would not be at all surprised if
the less strict form of ‘cheat’ pressing constituted a significant part of
the aetiology.

As we have noted so often before, it is often inappropriate to universally
condemn any exercise as being dangerous – it is not the exercise which
necessarily causes the major problems, but the manner in which it is executed.

Dr Mel C Siff

Many have militated against all spinal hyperextension, but they seem to
forget that McKenzie techniques (as variants of the ancient yoga Cobra asana)
actually comprise controlled forced hyperextension of the spine in a posture
which does not allow the lower body to sway and dissipate stress as in the
standing Olympic Press. Sure, we have pointers such as the
peripheralisation or centralisation of pain symptoms to guide us to the
suitability of McKenzie, but why are many folk adamant about avoiding all
forms of hyperextension, irrespective of such guidelines?

Then, we also must distinguish between the strictly controlled hyperextension
of the spine in the sagittal plane during the Olympic Press, compared with
the complex lumbar hyperextension, trunk rotation, lateral pelvic tilting and
asymmetric foot impact actions involved in cricket bowling, tennis serving,
gymnastics and so forth. Are we justified in comparing simple hyperextension
in one plane with complex trunk actions in several planes?

All too often, it seems to be forgotten that even small torque about the
vertebrae can produce more strain in the peripheral annulus of the disk than
far more extensive flexion or extension. This tends to reflect itself in
training and rehabilitation programs drawn up for athletes and workers – the
(often machines-controlled) movements and stretches very rarely involve
significant use of rotatory actions, especially under progressively
increasing conditions of resistance and range. Yet, all physical therapists
have been exposed to the well-known patterns, pacing, procedures and
principles of PNF with all of its emphasis on the regular use of spiral and
diagonal patterns.

This may well explain why the incidence of injuries associated with forceful,
sudden, ballistic or large range rotation of joints may be so rife in sport -
witness for instance, the mainstays of sports therapy with its epidemic of
rotator cuff, ACL and similar injuries. Machine training and even free
weight training seems to concentrate largely on linear or uniplanar actions,
and if rotation is involved in training, it takes place only in the sport
itself or in the gym via the use of gentle yoga-like stretches and warmups.

It is not only exposure to a stressful action that can cause injury, but also
religious avoidance of so-called dangerous actions (which might occur during
actual sporting conditions). One cannot expect the body to cope with the
immense structural and functional demands placed on the body in sport unless
one methodically conditions the body to cope with progressively greater
structural and functional stresses.

Dr Mel C Siff

Another great article by Mel Siff, from his Supertraining List at YahooGroups.

Now that the Pilates system of training has undergone a huge rebirth in the
USA and started to attain the status of culthood, its latter day
practitioners are now reviving some of the myths of strength training. Here
are a few that are now doing the rounds, taken directly from the advertising
copy that is promoting Pilates in the media:

MYTH 1.

Weight training tends to shorten the muscles, but Pilates lengthens them. All
that lifting bunches up the muscles and makes one tight and stiff.

FACT:

All muscles contract and shorten when they are activated. All muscle lengthen
when they relax. If muscles appear to lengthen and flatten with training,
then this would imply that one is losing muscle bulk, which is not a highly
desirable state for anyone. This Pilates belief is total nonsense and betrays
a sorry knowledge of muscle physiology. It would also seem to suggest that
the more Pilates work you do, the longer your muscles become. That, of
course, would mean that your muscles would develop slack and you even tually
would not be able to move your joints!

MYTH 2.

Pilates offers much more variety than weight training. It now has over 2000
exercises.

FACT:

The field of weight training, which includes free barbell and dumbbell
weights and machines, offers at least ten times that number of exercises and
exercise variations. Pilates does not even come close.

Pilates practitioners, of course, should note that the well-known Pilates
machine, the Reformer (a type of lying sled device), the Cadillac, the Spine
Corrector and various other machines were developed by Joseph Pilates from a
host of earlier weird and wonderful machines that were on the fitness and
gymnastics market of Europe and Russia during the late 19th and early 20th
century. If one examines some early patents from Germany, for example, even
some weight training devices like some made by Nautilus were derived from
these earlier innovations.

One might even state that “Pilates training” constitutes just another man’s
own range of strength training routines and machines, someone like Arthur
Jones, Bob Hoffman, Eugene Sandow, Professor Attila or Joe Weider. Those who
are “doing Pilates” thus are simply doing another type of strength training
program and they don’t even recognise that fact. If any of their instructors
think that old Joe Pilates had a totally unique approach or philosophy, then
they would do well to learn that several of the strengthening trend setters
of the past 100 years all had some fascinating philosophies and methodologies
that are not dramatically different from that of Pilates. Reading through a
book such as Webster’s “The Iron Game” or talking to Dr Terry Todd and his
wife will fill in some of the gaps in their education if anyone is unaware of
that fact.

MYTH 3.

Pilates realigns the body, corrects muscle imbalances and helps to heal
injured backs. Weight training usually causes imbalances and overstresses the
back.

FACT:

Suitably individualised Pilates and progressive weight training programs both
can be used to “correct imbalances” and improve postural alignment, which
actually have a lot more to do with motor education than what means is used
to achieve those ends. Conversely, poorly taught Pilates and weight training
both can be injurious. There are very few other methods that can develop such
great spinal strength, power and stability under loading as a well-designed
heavy weight training program.

The bottom line? Why don’t modern Pilates teachers and enthusiasts simply
state that they really prefer Pilates training to any other methods at the
moment and that other forms of training may well be more enjoyable and
productive for others? There is no scientific or clinical evidence that
Pilates is any better or worse than any other form of training for the
average population, so let it be marketed as such.

Of course, anyone who is a student of international sport knows that Pilates
training done as the sole form of conditioning has produced very few or none
of the world champions in sport, nor has it been shown to offer superior
musculoskeletal healing to any other form of therapy. That does not make it
any the less enjoyable or effective for those who feel justified in spending
thousands of dollars a year to learn it. Those people simply enjoy it because
they have found that it suits them, nothing more, nothing less.

Fortunately, when I was being taught Pilates methods more than 15 years ago
by some Pilates teachers in return for my teaching them modified forms of PNF
training which Pilates did not specifically address, we discovered that we
all had something to teach and learn from one another’s training — though we
agreed that Pilates methods of pelvic stabilisation were not intended for
lifting heavy loads in weightlifting and powerlifting. Once again, a case of
live and let live! Pilates teachers and weight trainers were getting along
just fine until the commercial marketeers came along to distort the facts
with their comparative advertising.

Dr Mel Siff

*** This is a claim that far too many people take for granted. Courses on
“Core Stabilisation” are offered by numerous fitness gurus, physical
therapists and fitness organisations, but few people dare to make heretical
remarks that question the ‘Core is All Important’ philosophy. If one has
back problems, poor technique in sport, lack of flexibility and so on, “blame
it on deficiencies in core stability” is the cry.

An article that I wrote for several other Internet discussion groups is
relevant in this regard.

————————————–

CORE STABILITY?

Mel Siff

Today, in the fitness and therapeutic world, one of the latest buzz terms
is “core stability” and courses are cropping up everywhere to teach this
amazing new discovery in the world of motor control. The implications are
that an athlete or normal human is somehow seriously deficient if core
stability exercises are not being done in some or other discrete, isolated
fashion.

The belief here, of course, is that isolated core stabilising exercises
necessarily improve balance and postural control. They do not, since most
stabilisation and movement in sports where the hands and feet are in
contact with a surface also depends very strongly on PERIPHERAL contact
with the given surface (some exceptions are diving, airborne gymnastic and
skating manoeuvres, and trampolining.) If this contact is inefficient or
unstable, then no amount of core stabilisation is going to overcome any
deficiency in peripheral stability.

Some simple examples – imagine what would happen to a gymnast or trapeze
artist with poor ankle strength and stability or a huge weightlifter with
great core stability but deficiencies in grip or ankle strength and
stability? One could list a thousand similar examples.

This concept of a separate motor quality called “core stability” leads to
the very faulty belief that core stability is more important and more
central to overall stability than peripheral stability. The fact is that
the body is a linked system of many interacting components, and current
“core stabilisation” dogma happens to be yet another example of
isolationist training. To borrow a somewhat cliched term from the
vocabulary of the late South African Prime Minister, General Jan Smuts (who
coined the word “holism”), it would be far better to talk about “holistic”
stability training. An emphasis on “core stability” is a step towards
general instability, unless it is matched by peripheral stabilisation.

Once upon a time we had kinaesthetic or proprioceptive training or even
motor skill training – now we have “core stability” training, which is by
no means an suitable modern substitute for what used to be offered.
Possibly it is time for the whole “core stabilisation” industry needs to
carefully re-examine itself and take a step back to its more solid older
roots. “Core stabilisation” may be a new term, but it offers little or
nothing new to fitness, therapy or sports training that was not covered
perfectly well a long time ago.

———————————-

Dr Mel C Siff

Dr Mel Siff

An article in a popular bodybuilding magazine stated:

“Inhale and suck in your stomach to activate the transverse abdominis, which
is your body’s natural weightlifting belt. If you learn to use it properly,
you increase intra-abdominal pressure, which will have an unloading effect
on your disks. As with any other muscle, if you don’t use it, you lose it!”

***This ’sucking-in of the abs’ advice to stabilise the trunk via activating
transversus is one of the very popular urban myths based on old aerobics
practice and partial references which do not relate to strength training
situations. Belt wearing does not prevent you from using your abs -
plenty of EMG electrical recordings show that idea to be untrue. Moreover,
transversus may be activated in several other ways than just forceful
sucking in, such as forceful grunting and exhalation (see Basmajian
“Muscles Alive”).

There probably isn’t a Powerlifter or Weightlifter alive who would suck abs
in while doing serious training or competitive lifts. Similarly, even
without an added load and no belt, there are no athletes in other sports
who stabilise their trunks in that misguided way – for example, my Russian
colleagues have studied breathing and abdominal muscle recruitment patterns
in their top gymnasts, jumpers, pole vaulters, shotputters and so forth and
nobody sucks in the abs to stabilise the trunk during their events.

As a matter of interest, the body quite naturally responds to force
production with a breath holding reflex (the Valsalva Manoeuvre)
accompanied by an outward bulging of the abdominal muscles. Any deliberate
attempt to pull the abs in produces a tendency towards spinal flexion,
which is the last tendency that anyone wants when squatting, lifting a load
from the ground or pushing above the head.

Outward bulging of the abdomen is a perfectly natural reflex action
associated with large force production and trunk stabilisation – why go
against a natural reflex and pull in when your nervous system is doing a
perfectly competent job on its own by guiding you to push out?

As mentioned earlier, the acts of forceful grunting and short, sharp
attempts at expulsion of air from the lungs tends to strongly activate the
transversus muscle and we have all noticed how often that sort of action is
indulged in by powerlifters.

This ab sucking-in tale is all part of a whole belief system which
maintains that the abdominal muscles are the most important muscles in
stabilising and protecting the back. Some of us in the past have had very
heated arguments about this, but the proponents of this method resolutely
refuse to accept that it is strength of the back muscles which plays a far
greater role in protecting the backs of Weightlifters and Powerlifters.

They seem to refuse the research of folk such as Basmajian (“Muscles
Alive”) that it is passive bulging of the abdominal muscles, rather than
active contraction of these muscles, which offers added pneumatic
stabilisation to the already massive contribution by the erector spinae
muscles of the back. Maybe they actually believe that huge abs are better
for trunk strength than strong backs!

The article continued: “I’m not a proponent of lifting belts because
wearing one tends to cause dysfunction of your transverse abdominis, which
can eventually lead to serious injury. A weight belt inhibits your nervous
systemís ability to fire that muscle when itís neededónot only for
weightlifting activity but for normal everyday movements”

***This is not supported by research. There are several ways of wearing a
belt, anyway – the fairly loose wearing of a belt can enhance one’s
proprioceptive awareness and act as a useful teaching tool. On the other
hand, the chronic wearing of a very tight belt for entire workouts at a
time, day in, day out theoretically can lead to altered patterns of trunk
stabilisation, but there are very few lifters who ever leave tight belts or
wraps on for hours on end – invariably most lifters who use belts correctly
loosen them directly after their lifts. The chronic use of a fairly tight
belt would probably be more associated with some sort of psychological
dependence than any real weakening of any muscles – and that may be one
reason not to rely all the time on belt support for every exercise

I cannot see anyone using a lever buckle belt set at maximal tightness for
anything longer than one maximum lift, because of the severe discomfort
associated with that type of chronic use.

Very tight belts are used only for the few seconds of maximal attempts and
there is absolutely no research whatsoever which show that this causes any
spinal problems. Nor is there any research or clinical evidence that
“dysfunction of your transverse abdominis” eventually leads to serious injury.

To state that “A weight belt inhibits your nervous system’s ability to
fire” is total nonsense and is sheer opinion – again there is no research
showing this, so don’t take it seriously. It would be most interesting to
hear more about how a belt can inhibit a whole nervous system’s electrical
functioning.

There is far more risk in telling any lifter not to use a belt for the
occasional 1RM efforts than there is in that same lifter employing a method
which he/she is used to. By all means use a tight belt for those periodic
maximal lifts, but just don’t become too psychologically reliant on belt
security for entire workouts at a time.

—————————————–

ARCHIVED ARTICLES ON TA

Here are a few past articles that some of us wrote for other Internet groups
on this topic:

http://www.WeightsNet.com/cgi-bin/weightsissues.pl?2338
http://www.WeightsNet.com/cgi-bin/weightsissues.pl?1971
http://www.WeightsNet.com/cgi-bin/weightsissues.pl?2331
http://www.WeightsNet.com/cgi-bin/weightsissues.pl?1977
http://www.WeightsNet.com/cgi-bin/weightsissues.pl?1467
http://otpt.ups.edu/listservs/PTHER/ABS_PARADOX.html
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/physio/2000-07/0201.html
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/physio/2000-05/0054.html
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/physio/1999-07/0034.html

————————————–

Dr Mel Siff

Dr Mel C Siff

“By focusing on your the transverse abdominis when you move, you can
improve your core control during exercise”, says NY City physical therapist
and personal trainer Suzanne Countryman. “Plus you’ll suffer less wear and
tear on your back, neck and knees”.

***Comment. Activation of transversus abdominis (TA) appears to be the
latest “hot” advice for core stabilisation and training among PTs and
fitness instructors. While voluntary activation of TA sometimes may be
useful in contributing to trunk stability in fairly static postures before
a dynamic multi-dimensional movement occurs, it becomes impossible and
unwise to mentally involve yourself in any dynamic training or sporting
tasks which activate numerous different patterns of contraction and
relaxation of many stabilising and moving muscles.

Moreover, the more rapid, more forceful or more complex the activity, the
less able one is able to focus on controlling the moment-to-moment action
of any given muscle. The inadvisability of doing this to TA or any other
muscle for that matter has often been fondly referred to in exercise
physiology as “paralysis by analysis.”

So, while you may be able to activate TA at the start of a squat, press,
jump, clean or deadlift, the moment that complex dynamic action begins, the
neural programs that control the pattern of movement will set off a series
of involuntary reflexes and motor actions over which one has little or no
control. In fact, deliberate attempts to activate TA often tend to
activate abdominal contraction and lumbar spinal flexion, which is the last
thing that you want during a heavy lift or complex action.

It is unnecessary to try to intervene in controlling in any given single
muscle once you are an experienced exerciser, because the correct
repetition of any exercise will ensure that your neural programs activate
or relax the necessary muscle in the most effective and safest manner. The
very reason that we practise technique is to create automatic neural
programs that we don’t have to ever think about during an exercise or
sporting action.

I leave the comment about TA control helping to protect neck and knees to
others for their scrutiny.

————————————

ISOLATION PHILOSOPHY

Dr Mel C Siff

The therapeutic and fitness training worlds still seem to place a heavy
emphasis on an isolationist approach to physical testing and conditioning,
without carefully identifying the situational limitations and scope
whenever such as approach is used.

Attempts are made to test and train muscles individually. Few days pass
without comments being made on isolating the upper or lower abdominals for
training, selectively training the core of the body, activating
transversus abdominis to ’stabilise the trunk’, testing for weaknesses or
imbalances in certain muscle groups or explaining poor performance or
injury on the basis of imbalance in some isolated system of the body.

The body constitutes a linked system and, unless the scope and limitations
of any given isolationist approach is meticulously identified, it is
misleading and unwarranted to use and extrapolate findings based on
isolationist methods. If one unquestioningly applies isolationist methods,
then it is being assumed that the isolated area concerned constitutes a
closed system. This implies further that this isolated system is not
affected by or does not affect what happens in adjacent or other linked
systems, or at least that any such interaction with other systems is
insignificant.

The trunk, abdominals, lower extremity, knee and so forth are not closed
systems and any action involving these subsystems influences what is
happening in all parts of the body and the body as a whole. It is vital
that the body be regarded in terms of a systems theoretical approach,
rather than one which makes very tenuous assumptions about the closedness
of conveniently isolated subsystems whose apparent isolation from other
systems invariably is based entirely on convenience or convenience.

Even if one attempts to apply a systems theoretical approach, it may still
be inadequate to regard the entire body as the superordinate closed system,
as is implied, for instance, by the current somewhat simplistic emphasis on
so-called “core training”. The limitations of the latter concept may
readily be noticed if one observes that it is very rare in land-based sport
for core stability to be manifested in the absence of contact with the
ground or external objects. Peripheral stability, which usually is reliant
on solid contact between the extremities of the body with some surface, is
essential before core stability becomes implicated in a given sporting
action on land.

Without adequate peripheral stabilisation, the functional capabilities of
the “core” are meaningless. The entire body or the body-surface constitutes
the appropriate closed system for our attention. Thus, if terms such as
“core stabilisation” are to be used, then they need to be carefully applied
within the appropriate context.

This is not to negate the value of approaches that use isolationist
approaches for valid therapeutic or analytical reasons, such as those
involving EMG mediated biofeedback, “Kegel” exercises, and post surgical
respiratory exercises, but it is to stress that the unqualified application
of isolationist approaches to sports conditioning needs to be viewed with
careful circumspection.

If we do so, then we may also become far more careful to avoid referring
rigidly to certain muscles as stabilisers, movers, agonist, antagonists,
flexors, adductors and so on, instead choosing to refer to the stabilising,
moving, agonistic, antagonistic, flexor and adduction roles of a muscle
during any given phase of a specific motor action.

————————————

Someone from the original group which initiated the discussion on a
squatting article in that bodybuilding magazine reminded me that I also
sent in these comments about belt wearing and squats. Here it is, just in
case some folk feel that the critique may be incomplete without inclusion
of this aspect.
———————————-

Dr Mel Siff