What is this exercise, and what does it do?
- Thread starter mrthingyx
- Start date
oh dear ..... where did you learn or were told that ?
I occasionally train with the guy who founded Core Cambridge, as well as some of the S&C coaches who work there...
Anyway, I'm personally all for "what works" so if somebody REALLY wants to do the weeble workout, then great. As long as they're aware of the limitations of the exercise.
Anyway, I'm personally all for "what works" so if somebody REALLY wants to do the weeble workout, then great. As long as they're aware of the limitations of the exercise.
Whereabouts do you train? Somewhere in Cambridge?
I live only 1 minute's walk from Core, in fact I cycle past it every time I go to the gym.
It is pretty awesome, although they are all maniacs.
I actually train at my office in Cherry Hinton (Core spec'd the gym, which is double awesome).
However, I'm trying to find a decent iron gym to practice heavier (for me) snatches and jerks, as the guys in the office next to the gym complain when I drop the barbells.
I actually train at my office in Cherry Hinton (Core spec'd the gym, which is double awesome).
However, I'm trying to find a decent iron gym to practice heavier (for me) snatches and jerks, as the guys in the office next to the gym complain when I drop the barbells.
Bumper plates would be a big bonus for me, I think Cambridge has a lack of decent gyms.
Have you ever been to Pro-Am Fight Centre? I went there a couple of times last year and it's pretty well-equipped. Instead I go to the gym on the science park since it's on the way home from work...
Have you ever been to Pro-Am Fight Centre? I went there a couple of times last year and it's pretty well-equipped. Instead I go to the gym on the science park since it's on the way home from work...
Science.
The lumbar spine should not ever have any loaded flexion, extension or rotation towards end range. This basically means that you should never seek to bend your lower back in any plane.
Core stability work is done by using the muscles in that area to resist movement. One example of many being:
Or even simpler is the plank, if done correctly.
1. there is no problem with working at extremes of range if done correctly as long as there are no contraindications to doing so for other reasons.
2. you still can NOT say the body is not designed to move or be loaded in that way of course it is or it wouldnt do sonaturally.
3. to justify your argument you are now introducing extremes of range and loaded. not just movement in that range as is the original statement
4. to say you should never seek to bend your lower back in any plane is utter rubbish. how do you think we rehab patients with lower back lumber spine problems? answer by introducing mobility exercises with rotation and flexion and extension in the spine.
5. the plank and other isometric type of exercises are great for core stability yes, but only isometric exercise without flexion/ extension or rotation etc is limiting your development. and certainly not recomended for patients with hypertension, in fact isometric exercise is more contraindicated.
6. go tell a gymnastics coach or a physio never to bend or flex the spine or in fact any coach worth there salt will tell you that range of movement while under control is more beneficial than lack of range.
7."Core stability work is done by using the muscles in that area to resist movement" it can be used in a restrictive way stabilisation and isometrics but that isnt the only way or sometimes the bast way to improve core stability it depends on how you are trying to get muscle groups to fire and educate muscle groups to control movement
do not add in "end of range" to the argument when the original argument was against the sentance .. "You're not meant to do it at all"
no mention of end of range or loading at end of range in the original sentance. any movement increases loading obviously.
the original comment of "You're not meant to do it at all" as i said is incorrect
like i said oh dear.
added in answer to
"It surprises me that you say you work in strength and conditioning and yet don't know these things."
and yes i work in health care, cant say where for obvious reasons but part of my job is rehab, strength and conditioning etc and have a multi disciplinary team of physio, instructors, therapists, and other health professionals working for me in my department. and in the past i have coached and taught some of our people you probably have been watching over the last few days on tv. also proffesional footballers and rugby players of national standard.
but you go with what you think is correct and i will continue at my level ...
2. you still can NOT say the body is not designed to move or be loaded in that way of course it is or it wouldnt do sonaturally.
3. to justify your argument you are now introducing extremes of range and loaded. not just movement in that range as is the original statement
4. to say you should never seek to bend your lower back in any plane is utter rubbish. how do you think we rehab patients with lower back lumber spine problems? answer by introducing mobility exercises with rotation and flexion and extension in the spine.
5. the plank and other isometric type of exercises are great for core stability yes, but only isometric exercise without flexion/ extension or rotation etc is limiting your development. and certainly not recomended for patients with hypertension, in fact isometric exercise is more contraindicated.
6. go tell a gymnastics coach or a physio never to bend or flex the spine or in fact any coach worth there salt will tell you that range of movement while under control is more beneficial than lack of range.
7."Core stability work is done by using the muscles in that area to resist movement" it can be used in a restrictive way stabilisation and isometrics but that isnt the only way or sometimes the bast way to improve core stability it depends on how you are trying to get muscle groups to fire and educate muscle groups to control movement
do not add in "end of range" to the argument when the original argument was against the sentance .. "You're not meant to do it at all"
no mention of end of range or loading at end of range in the original sentance. any movement increases loading obviously.
the original comment of "You're not meant to do it at all" as i said is incorrect
like i said oh dear.
added in answer to
"It surprises me that you say you work in strength and conditioning and yet don't know these things."
and yes i work in health care, cant say where for obvious reasons but part of my job is rehab, strength and conditioning etc and have a multi disciplinary team of physio, instructors, therapists, and other health professionals working for me in my department. and in the past i have coached and taught some of our people you probably have been watching over the last few days on tv. also proffesional footballers and rugby players of national standard.
but you go with what you think is correct and i will continue at my level ...
Last edited:
perhaps this will help you btw
The easiest way to prevent back problems due to spinal flexion is to maintain a back exercise program. In particular, yoga and Pilates not only strengthen muscles but they also develop your spinal alignment. With these systems, you'll exercise your back in all the directions your spine can move. They emphasize balanced action and whole-body alignment to help bring your posture into neutral. Incorporating them into your regular routine may well help you reduce pain and increase back flexibility.
Working in balance and alignment means that some of the strength exercises are done with your back arched and/or twisted. Because arching, and to some degree twisting, are opposite actions to spinal flexion, such exercises may counter the tendency toward spinal flexion and thereby reduce associated risks to your back. (NOTE: There are some spinal conditions such as arthritis, facet joint problems and others that may be irritated by arching and/or twisting your back. And, twisting may irritate a herniated disc. If you are unsure, ask your doctor or physical therapist for the back exercises that are appropriate to your condition.)
Basic Back Exercises to Counter Spinal Flexion
Here are a few basic exercises that may help alleviate problems due to spinal flexion:
•Pelvic Tilt
•Bridge
•Twist
•Yoga Cobra
movement in all planes is of benefit if done correctly.
the point here is movement of all types helps generally.
to say it should not be done at all is just plain wrong....
The easiest way to prevent back problems due to spinal flexion is to maintain a back exercise program. In particular, yoga and Pilates not only strengthen muscles but they also develop your spinal alignment. With these systems, you'll exercise your back in all the directions your spine can move. They emphasize balanced action and whole-body alignment to help bring your posture into neutral. Incorporating them into your regular routine may well help you reduce pain and increase back flexibility.
Working in balance and alignment means that some of the strength exercises are done with your back arched and/or twisted. Because arching, and to some degree twisting, are opposite actions to spinal flexion, such exercises may counter the tendency toward spinal flexion and thereby reduce associated risks to your back. (NOTE: There are some spinal conditions such as arthritis, facet joint problems and others that may be irritated by arching and/or twisting your back. And, twisting may irritate a herniated disc. If you are unsure, ask your doctor or physical therapist for the back exercises that are appropriate to your condition.)
Basic Back Exercises to Counter Spinal Flexion
Here are a few basic exercises that may help alleviate problems due to spinal flexion:
•Pelvic Tilt
•Bridge
•Twist
•Yoga Cobra
movement in all planes is of benefit if done correctly.
the point here is movement of all types helps generally.
to say it should not be done at all is just plain wrong....
Last edited:
There is indisputable evidence that any movement of the lumbar spine under load greatly increases the risk of disk herniation and any number of other types of injuries especially at end range.
"You're not meant to do it at all" was in reference to the fact that is not a good exercise and that you aren't "meant" to do that kind of movement pattern loaded.
The fact is that all of the most up to date research points in the opposite direction of your argument.
Let me just clear something up: nobody was saying that you should never bend your spine. It would be ridiculous to say that. The statement was that any movement of the lumbar spine under load is not necessarily good and that the risk of damage increases as you tend towards end range and increase the load.
Look up Dr Stuart McGill. He has a clinic in Canada and is the world leading specialist in backs and back injuries. Also any number of strength and conditioning coaches will say the same that loaded movement of the spine increases the risk of damage.
"You're not meant to do it at all" was in reference to the fact that is not a good exercise and that you aren't "meant" to do that kind of movement pattern loaded.
The fact is that all of the most up to date research points in the opposite direction of your argument.
Let me just clear something up: nobody was saying that you should never bend your spine. It would be ridiculous to say that. The statement was that any movement of the lumbar spine under load is not necessarily good and that the risk of damage increases as you tend towards end range and increase the load.
Look up Dr Stuart McGill. He has a clinic in Canada and is the world leading specialist in backs and back injuries. Also any number of strength and conditioning coaches will say the same that loaded movement of the spine increases the risk of damage.
lol read 2 posts up ....especially points 1 and 2
the original statement was "You're not meant to do it at all." is wrong simple as.
some of the latest research says
Working in balance and alignment means that some of the strength exercises are done with your back arched and/or twisted. Because arching, and to some degree twisting, are opposite actions to spinal flexion, such exercises may counter the tendency toward spinal flexion and thereby reduce associated risks to your back.
again the basic premise to say "your not meant to do it at all" is incorrect..
1. there is no problem with working at extremes of range if done correctly as long as there are no contraindications to doing so for other reasons.
the original statement was "You're not meant to do it at all." is wrong simple as.
some of the latest research says
Working in balance and alignment means that some of the strength exercises are done with your back arched and/or twisted. Because arching, and to some degree twisting, are opposite actions to spinal flexion, such exercises may counter the tendency toward spinal flexion and thereby reduce associated risks to your back.
again the basic premise to say "your not meant to do it at all" is incorrect..
1. there is no problem with working at extremes of range if done correctly as long as there are no contraindications to doing so for other reasons.
Last edited:
Granted a little severe but that was directed towards the exercise which has high risk and the same stimulus can be achieved from doing exercises with much less chance of damage.
This only applies if there is little to no loading and even then most exercises that include such movement, for someone not trying to rehab dysfunction, can be exchanged for something a lot safer.
You bringing in the section from an article talking about rehabilitating dysfunction is redundant in this argument as the original premise was for non-injured people trying to build a stronger core. I don't necessarily think it is 100% factual as none of the many people I have known with back injuries developed from movement of the spine under load have ever been prescribed exercises that will also involve those movements. There are plenty of exercises that involve a degree of flexion/extension/rotation but the point is that when you are under load you do not transition between any of those states, therefore no movement of the spine under load instead the spine is held rigid in it's original position.
Wherever you are getting your information from is simply a bad or outdated source.
So you're countering my point by saying that doing certain twisting and bending movements may help correct a specific problem? Strong argument.
I'm saying that, in general, people should be training for core stiffness and stability. This correlates with reducing movement in the lumbar, which is particularly true as you increase loads.
This is in response to people assuming that they need high amplitude concentric/eccentric contractions in their core to get hypertrophy/a 6 pack/rid of love handles etc. Most people are doing those movements to look good, and they simply don't need to. I say that they shouldn't do them because, more often than not, they will be reinforcing a dysfunctional movement pattern and doing nothing to correct core stability deficits. At worst, people will be doing damage.
When you consider that there are vastly more functional exercises for the average individual that induce the same/better strength, hypertrophy and motor pattern improvement, core training that focuses on lumbar movement is obviously significantly outmoded.
There may well be therapeutic reasons to include exercises that have movement in the lumbar spine (I've had some done to me), but they are quite obviously not relevant to this discussion and I don't know why you'd bring them up. Again, we were clearly talking about the performance and aesthetics of the average individual with regards to core training, not any spinal movement ever.
For clarity, I only said "you're not meant to do them at all" as a tongue in cheek response to Wes saying "you're meant to do them such-and-such a way". I did not intend for it to be quite this inflammatory!
Please look into some of McGill's material, he will explain it far better than I can. I've seen lumbar tolerance to movement and load described as a sliding scale between low movement/low load to high movement/high load, with the latter being the most dangerous. McGill talks about it in terms of power, where the aim is to have low power through the spine with either low velocity (movement) or low force (load).
I can't post the material that I have, but here is some McGill action:
http://www.sportsrehabexpert.com/public/167print.cfm
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/an_interview_with_dr_stuart_mcgill_part_ii
...there is LOADS of literature to back up what I'm saying.
Also, are you saying that you're the actual the S&C coach or physio for professional or international athletes? If so, that's pretty interesting. I would also be genuinely interested in talking to these coaches and physios you reference in point 6.
I can't believe I wrote all that for this redundant argument!
I'm saying that, in general, people should be training for core stiffness and stability. This correlates with reducing movement in the lumbar, which is particularly true as you increase loads.
This is in response to people assuming that they need high amplitude concentric/eccentric contractions in their core to get hypertrophy/a 6 pack/rid of love handles etc. Most people are doing those movements to look good, and they simply don't need to. I say that they shouldn't do them because, more often than not, they will be reinforcing a dysfunctional movement pattern and doing nothing to correct core stability deficits. At worst, people will be doing damage.
When you consider that there are vastly more functional exercises for the average individual that induce the same/better strength, hypertrophy and motor pattern improvement, core training that focuses on lumbar movement is obviously significantly outmoded.
There may well be therapeutic reasons to include exercises that have movement in the lumbar spine (I've had some done to me), but they are quite obviously not relevant to this discussion and I don't know why you'd bring them up. Again, we were clearly talking about the performance and aesthetics of the average individual with regards to core training, not any spinal movement ever.
For clarity, I only said "you're not meant to do them at all" as a tongue in cheek response to Wes saying "you're meant to do them such-and-such a way". I did not intend for it to be quite this inflammatory!
Please look into some of McGill's material, he will explain it far better than I can. I've seen lumbar tolerance to movement and load described as a sliding scale between low movement/low load to high movement/high load, with the latter being the most dangerous. McGill talks about it in terms of power, where the aim is to have low power through the spine with either low velocity (movement) or low force (load).
I can't post the material that I have, but here is some McGill action:
http://www.sportsrehabexpert.com/public/167print.cfm
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/an_interview_with_dr_stuart_mcgill_part_ii
...there is LOADS of literature to back up what I'm saying.
Also, are you saying that you're the actual the S&C coach or physio for professional or international athletes? If so, that's pretty interesting. I would also be genuinely interested in talking to these coaches and physios you reference in point 6.
I can't believe I wrote all that for this redundant argument!
okie try to answer the last to posts
without a long drawn out exoplanation
yes the same stimulous can be acheved from other exercises ofc
you can work at extremes of range with loading and ofc it has generally to be less, hence as long as there are no other conraindications. and ofc normally the safest vs effective model should be chosen depending on the client
agree in general people should be training for core strength, however flexibilty is important to assist in normal daily fucntion this is where there is a lot of conflicting view point as the core can be strong but not only in stasis but also under movement and to have a core that is strong near the extemes of range is of benefit in sport.
to say or suggest a movement should not be done because sometimes it can cause injury or is not nessesarily the best for all circumstances isnt right if so people would start saying never do a squat never do a deadlift etc because it can sometimes cause injury. the point here is sometimes i guess.
i and a lot of others in healthcare would disagree that core training that focuses on lumber movement is outmoded it is as important as core exercise that focuses on the isometric type of core work including the bridging and other static methods
the original statement made by me did not bring up any argument only that you cant say never to do the exercise. tbh it was expanded afterwards.
okie it was tongue in cheek but its created differing points of view here.
yes i have read mcgill and he does have some interesting ideas but comes from a not tottaly accepted stand point. and raised a few eyebrows when his name was mentioned to 2 of our physios in the last 48 hours regarding this ( i am not a physio so i wanted to check a couple points) and the consensus was that a lot of his stuff is valid but he tends to work in a narrow or model area which is not always of that much relevence to daily tasking or movement. however that is only what was said to me.
yes i am saying i work in a multi disiplinary team that include the proffesions mentioned and i have coached in the past international athletes and others as mentioned in fact there are 2 in team GB at present
and NO i can not mention who due to regulations relating to client confidentiality etc.
i think its quite an interesting debate as there are always opposing views on best strategy performance techniques etc.
i can beleive it cause whenever i start to write 2 lines it ends up as 20 or so
without a long drawn out exoplanation
yes the same stimulous can be acheved from other exercises ofc
you can work at extremes of range with loading and ofc it has generally to be less, hence as long as there are no other conraindications. and ofc normally the safest vs effective model should be chosen depending on the client
agree in general people should be training for core strength, however flexibilty is important to assist in normal daily fucntion this is where there is a lot of conflicting view point as the core can be strong but not only in stasis but also under movement and to have a core that is strong near the extemes of range is of benefit in sport.
to say or suggest a movement should not be done because sometimes it can cause injury or is not nessesarily the best for all circumstances isnt right if so people would start saying never do a squat never do a deadlift etc because it can sometimes cause injury. the point here is sometimes i guess.
i and a lot of others in healthcare would disagree that core training that focuses on lumber movement is outmoded it is as important as core exercise that focuses on the isometric type of core work including the bridging and other static methods
the original statement made by me did not bring up any argument only that you cant say never to do the exercise. tbh it was expanded afterwards.
okie it was tongue in cheek but its created differing points of view here.
yes i have read mcgill and he does have some interesting ideas but comes from a not tottaly accepted stand point. and raised a few eyebrows when his name was mentioned to 2 of our physios in the last 48 hours regarding this ( i am not a physio so i wanted to check a couple points) and the consensus was that a lot of his stuff is valid but he tends to work in a narrow or model area which is not always of that much relevence to daily tasking or movement. however that is only what was said to me.
yes i am saying i work in a multi disiplinary team that include the proffesions mentioned and i have coached in the past international athletes and others as mentioned in fact there are 2 in team GB at present
and NO i can not mention who due to regulations relating to client confidentiality etc.
i think its quite an interesting debate as there are always opposing views on best strategy performance techniques etc.
i can beleive it cause whenever i start to write 2 lines it ends up as 20 or so