Dr Mel Siff vs Paul Chek – Back Strong and Beltless Part 2

Dr Mel Siff Blog — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:33:54 +0000

Here’s the critique of Part II of Paul Chek’s Back Strong and Beltless

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

PART 2

< 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.

< 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.

< 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.

< 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:

< 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

Dr Mel Siff Blog » Neurodevelopmental

Dr Mel Siff vs Paul Chek – Back Strong and Beltless Part 2