Stuff I Find on the Internet (exercise-related)

Collapse
X
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Some very useful and interesting articles here.
    Thanks for sharing

    Comment


      #17
      Related to meditation (long read):

      https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-ne...-in-handcuffs/

      Comment


        #18
        Really interesting one, Ann-Core ...
        One think that striked me in the personal story he related was that this was a silent retreat, quite long. I have done a silent retreat, twice _ but each time was five days long. (it was religious - catholic , using the exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, if you're familiar with that). In this retreat we had normal food (even a little feast the day after confession and first communion of the week), and daily chat with whichever of the priests we took as personal advisor for the week. Silence can make it very intense, and I can see why meditation + little food + silence could be a trigger for out-of-normal-limit experiences.

        Ah, our brain is still a quite unexplored continent!

        Comment


          #19
          PetiteSheWolf, I think the difference between your retreat and the eastern meditation styles might be the focus? From what I know of St Ignatius' exercises is that you are focused on God, the biblical scenes etc. - in other words, your mind is occupied, thinking, trying to discern between the right and wrong. With Vipassana (although there are different styles of it), the focus is on emptiness, first observing one's physical phenomena (breathing etc.) and then the mind itself (without actually thinking, or at least that's the idea). I have heard several accounts of people with certain pre-dispositions (mental illness - especially schizophrenia, anxiety etc., or history of drug abuse) who have not done well with Eastern-style meditations and some yoga practices as well (kundalini yoga comes to mind) and ended up with psychotic breaks. Before we enrolled in the yoga teacher training, we had to confirm that we had no history of mental illness and when we asked about it, she said that she had had a student who kept this from her and had to drop out because the meditations (although very short and "benign" compared to a 10 day silent retreat) took her to a very weird place.

          The mind is very complex indeed and I think this just goes to show that not everything is for everybody and some preparation and discretion might be needed before attempting such practices. I also sometimes wonder if the Eastern thought and concepts translate well into our Western mindset - I have a feeling that in some of these retreats, the participants don't really know what they're supposed to be doing and that's why the outcomes are not always favourable. I don't think the silence as such is necessarily the culprit (I think about the silent orders of nuns who don't speak at all or very little all their lives) but it can certainly be a shock for a person who retreats from a busy life and suddenly there's nothing but silence and their own thoughts. I think it's similar with food - if one is accustomed to the Western diet, eating one meal a day and only fruit can be another shock for the body as well as the mind, due to the physiological changes that occur when changing one's diet.

          Comment


            #20
            so many people these days seem to be ill prepared to hear their internal dialogue. with my 13 YO daughter and her peers as an unwilling sample group, without a conscious effort to tune in and change the self-talk, outward appearances, actions and conversation would suggest that there is nothing about their internal dialogue that is positive. a year ago, just asking my daughter to consider meditation or to try to hear her inner dialogue would cause her extreme anxiety. i use the Calm app and the narrator frequently directs that being distracted by your thoughts and then pulling back to the breath is part of the process and expected and not a reason for self-recrimination. perhaps a combination of negative self-talk, a sense of being unable to do something as "easy" as calm the mind (i dont personally believe there is any easy about trying to completely silence all my inner chatter), and absolute silence in a world that is normally cacophonous pushes people toward the edge of madness.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Ann-Core View Post
              [USER="23960"] I also sometimes wonder if the Eastern thought and concepts translate well into our Western mindset
              Very very true, IMO ... specially since, let's face it, lots of us who do yoga or some "lighter" meditation have only a barebone knowledge of those Eastern mindsets. That was one of the things I took from my trip to Japan - though I loved it, it was clear it was a ... different world, where, if I'd want to really enter, I'd have some serious internal unconstructing and reconstructing to do. It takes studies (inclluding some of what you have done for your yoga studies) and time, and humility, to get into a whole different culture and mindset.

              daejamurrachan , very interesting observations on your "unwilling sample group". From what I see in Darling Nephew's generation (he's 18 years old is similar). Always noise, always action.Time to slow down and "smell the roses" seem something very foreign to them, time to "smell their thoughts" even more.

              Gosh, now I I sound like an old fogger!

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Ann-Core View Post
                Article (long read):

                The Myth of Core Stability : http://www.cpdo.net/Lederman_The_myth_of_core_stability.pdf

                Also:


                The article is no longer available, have you got any idea where could it be found elsewhere?

                Comment


                  #23
                  inbetween it is still in their website: http://cpdo.net/Lederman_The_myth_of_core_stability.pdf
                  this is the list of articles: http://cpdo.net/jour/journal1.php

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Than you so much dynamomelano I don't know why I couldn't access this article previously, but it worked with your link.

                    I read it and I must say I have some mixed feelings.

                    My impression is that the author has never trained himself and that he just refers to some ways of using the word "core" and is picky about them...

                    Conclusion
                    Weak trunk muscles, weak abdominals and imbalances between trunk muscles groups are
                    not pathological, just a normal variation. The division of the trunk into core and global
                    muscle system is a reductionist fantasy, which serves only to promote CS.
                    Weak or dysfunctional abdominal muscles will not lead to back pain.
                    Tensing the trunk muscles is unlikely to provide any protection against back pain or
                    reduce the recurrence of back pain.
                    Core stability exercises are no more effective than, and will not prevent injury more than,
                    any other forms of exercise. Core stability exercises are no better than other forms of
                    exercise in reducing chronic lower back pain. Any therapeutic influence is related to the
                    exercise effects rather than CS issues.
                    There may be potential danger of damaging the spine with continuous tensing of the
                    trunk muscles during daily and sports activities. Patients who have been trained to use
                    complex abdominal hollowing and bracing maneuvers should be discouraged from using
                    them.
                    I absolutely disagree with the first sentence, weak trunk muscles in my opinion should not be viewed as a "normal variation". And of course that you can overdo core training just like anything else, but wisely programmed core stability training is what has brought my core to life after 4 pregnancies.

                    Tensing trunk muscles is unlikely to provide any protection against back pain? Well probably not when you're already in pain and lying on the sofa, I wouldn't advise you to brace your core THEN. But try to deadlift a reasonably heavy barbell without bracing your core... what is this guy even talking about?

                    Am I just misunderstanding something?

                    Of course you don't have to continuously contract your core like crazy. Any excess is dangerous, so I agree with him on several points. And you probably don't need to concentrate all that much on isolating TA (Transversus Abdominis). But wisely selected exercises that promote widely understood trunk stability – without you even thinking about it – is what definitely helps in keeping our backs healthy! Think renegade rows, regular kettlebell rows, one arm rows with you knee on the bench, Pallof press, overhead carries, bird dog... there are just so many fabulous exercises that can promote healthy back and core. I have been on both sides: I used to be a person with a very weak core (and a chronic and nagging neck pain) and I can see a huge difference!

                    Having talked to several postpartum women, they all stress the importance is rehabilitating their deep core muscles (and pelvic floor muscles) in eliminating their terrible back pain and banishing the baby belly.

                    Just throwing in my 2 cents, thanks Ann-Core for this interesting link!

                    If you think I am misinterpreting something or you think I am wrong, please tell me so, I love to learn and re-learn and re-adjust!

                    Comment


                      #25
                      OK, I re-read several fragments and my impression is that the author is against the conviction that the core strength and stability come predominantly from TA (also called TVA or TrA) –¸I can agree with that, real core strength and stability is a real mix of many many many muscles working together in harmony and coordination. But in many fragments he uses some general terms that lead to confusion as to what he really means...

                      Anyway, it was an interesting read indeed! Even when we don't agree with something, when we read it we can clarify our own attitude

                      Comment


                        #26
                        inbetween, hi. Here are my thoughts, but please note that I have not had the time to go through the references listed in the article, so for the purpose of this, I will take them at face value and trust that dr. Lederman interpreted them correctly.

                        Given Lederman's certifications (osteopath with a PhD in physical therapy, 30 years of experience), I believe he is mostly referring to either professional athletes (who have special needs) and more commonly, patients, i.e. people with pathologies (injury, disease). Exercise regimens are different for rehabilitation of pathology and for the general, healthy, amateur public. The issue he seems to have is that since the 90's, more and more focus is given to core stability training in treatment and prevention of injury and pain in relation to acute or chronic low back pain, without any research confirming that this is, in fact, the only or the most successful regime. If you google "low back pain" or even check the forum here, the first thing most people/articles say is "make your core stronger" and recommend various abdominal exercises. But the research he cites shows that there is only weak, if any, association between CS training and improvement/prevention of back pain and that general exercise, whatever this is, is just as efficient.

                        In other words, the general public and even trainers/medical professionals have mistaken correlation with causation. Not every person (or even majority of people) with weak abdominals experience low back pain (anecdotally I know a lot of "couch potatoes" with no issues whatsoever) and not all people with low back pain recover by adhering exclusively to CS training protocols, something we should see if there indeed was causation between the two (and that's why abdominal weakness is, in fact, a normal variation - because it does not necessarily lead to pathology). Further, he disagrees with some principles of CS training, such as internal focus and similarity/specificity principles. In yoga and Pilates especially, most styles give a lot of detailed instructions and cue specific muscle firing, intellectualizing motor patterns that should happen automatically and this has been shown to impede the performance of professional athletes (they are more successful if they "just do it" rather then think about how to perform an otherwise automated movement). When picking something up (i.e. a deadlift), we contract abdominals automatically and there is little evidence that additional voluntary bracing/tensing does anything other than increase intra-abdominal pressure and with it compression on the lumbar spine. I have also noticed personally that people have more and more trouble fully relaxing various muscles and are walking around permanently tensed, especially around the core, jaw/face, hands etc. I think I've also read a few articles begging women not to overdo pelvic floor exercises, specifically Kegel's, as this can, ironically, lead to muscle weakness and consequently, incontinence.

                        Similarity/specificity is another issue Lederman has with CS - training your core on your back/all fours does not necessarily transfer to other movements like walking, running, picking something up or put into terms of exercise, if you want to be good at push-ups/pull-ups/whatever, you have to train that specific movement to become more proficient. Sure, other movements can increase strength/flexibility etc. but just because you can do 1000 crunches does not mean you will do any better at or have smaller chances of injury in, let's say soccer, than another person who doesn't have this ability or hasn't trained for that.

                        The biggest take away for me is that low back pain is a very complex condition, compounded with several biopsychosocial factors. If the only course of treatment people are given are CS protocols and this is believed to be the best/only solution, then patients who do not improve either blame themselves for not working hard enough or are left with few other possibilities. If you think about the fitness industry, a lot of trainers/gyms use scare tactics or misrepresent data to make people believe that their specially designed and possibly expensive core workouts will treat their condition or prevent injury (Pilates on equipment comes to mind, a 45-min session in my country costs about 40-50 EUR). I know plenty of women whose only exercise is Pilates/core training because they have been told it is the most effective and "safe" way of exercising their bodies. The fitness industry tends to pick a trend and latch on to a (sometimes random) piece of research to then promote specific exercises - core+transversus abdominis is one, then a few years back psoas was all the rage and lately, pelvic floor muscles. It creates a feeling that you have been "neglecting" this one extremely important muscle/group and that it is the reason for injury or pain.

                        I think the intention of the article is to re-think the role of core stability as such in the rehabilitation and fitness industry and to focus instead on overall, accessible exercise while taking into account the myriad of other factors and addressing them. He is not saying that we shouldn't do abdominal exercises or that they don't help at all, it's just that they are not the end-all, be-all of fitness training or low back pain treatment.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Ann-Core I absolutely understood the article correctly and I will try to address the aspects you mention.

                          Just one thought though, I wouldn't advise to take things at face value. Just because someone is a well known osteopath doesn't mean he cannot commit a poorly written scientific text And just because I criticize 1 article written by this person it doesn't mean I disrespect him as a human being (he can be a great guy!) or will criticize his other texts (they may be 100%valid!).

                          You say, "I believe he refers to...", well to me that's a symptom of a badly written article. If only his close peers can really know for sure what and whom he meant, that's not good In many fragments he is not very clear and my impression is that he confuses different kinds of core training. I re-read the article and he may have loads of experience with his patients and he may be a great physiotherapist, but from what he writes I can guess he has no personal experience with REAL core stability training. He hasn't done it. He is just another theoretical writer.

                          Today science is the new religion. Things are taken at face value. Just because someone has a Dr. written before his name and has many certificates doesn't mean he or she cannot commit mistakes

                          Training on your back/on all fours - I never met a coach who would call this a full and complete Core Stability Training It is a good entry level for post-partum women for example, a safe way to rehabilitate their muscles, but by no means should it be viewed as real CS training. It is just a mild introductory phase.

                          I have no idea where his notion of CS comes from. Over the past year I have worked with several coaches and I have done a paid good quality core stability training. I really wanted to rebuild my core after pregnancies.

                          None of those professional coaches I have crossed my path with (in real life or online) offered anything similar to what he describes.

                          Maybe it's some kind of faulty/incomplete approach among physical therapists and he only writes his paper for them. If that's the case, it should be clearly stated in the abstract or in the introduction.

                          We shouldn't be guessing things from his text.

                          Also, some of the things he writes about pregnancy reveal his ignorance in this area. Since when the ability to do a sit-up is considered as a core stability factor? and that's what he suggests. Also, the example of women who decided to discontinue their participation after giving birth. Well of course they did, that's so obvious to me and why it happened.

                          Same goes with your examples of doing 1000 crunches - that's not what core stability is about. Of course this ability will not protect you against hurting your back, quite the opposite, it can cause lower back pain.

                          In fact, people with the most stable cores in the world (martial artists, boxers, dancers, gymnasts) do almost NO crunches or sit-ups at all. these exercises have little value in terms on core stability. they are good for polishing the artificial layers of abs, the ones responsible for other things. This is a good add-on exercise, but it should never be the core (lol) of your core training. It is mostly for aesthetic effects.

                          What I mean is that if he believes CS training is about tensing your TVA while lying on the floor or doing cat-cow stretches, then of course he is right - it is indeed not really related with real core stability.

                          Real core stability is always achieved through very versatile movement, through adding instability (sic!) to your training, through adding distracting elements to your movement while trying to keep your core stable and still. AND it is achieved through working with/against resistance.

                          I agree that you don't have to focus on finding THE right muscle to tense. You just need to focus on maintaining your core perfectly still while doing ie. shoulder lateral raises with a dumbbell in side plank position, so here is where I agree with him - “just doing it” works better than focusing on some difficult to describe details. REAL core training often looks more like doing arm or leg exercises from the outside

                          BUT again, most good coaches NEVER teach what he implies is being taught as core stability training.

                          That was my main point. he must be talking about a kind of badly designed CS training spread among a group of people (certain physiotherapists?).

                          And what you write about coach potatoes - yes they may have no lower back pain issues if they live up to this lifestyle with 100% loyalty. As long as they do what a coach potato should do - always sit or lay down - they will have no opportunity of hurting their backs. But invite them to some hardcore gardening activity like removing stones or rocks the size of their trunk - they WILL inevitably get hurt and it will be due to a weak core musculature.

                          Well, OK, not only core. Weak glutes would be to blame, too.

                          And of course LBP is a complex thing, and in some individuals it may be related to some neurological issues, etc. I would never argue that all people with lower back pain suffer because of their weak cores. Human body is complex and it is true for any health condition or illness, sometimes the causes are nt obvious at all.

                          But just as he (the author) says that Lower Back Pain issues are being simplified, he himself simplifies many other aspects.

                          That's my criticism (very generalized as I have no time to go through each point right now) to his paper.

                          Again, I do NOT attack him as a person and I do believe he can be a wonderful specialist in his area.

                          But I can still see there are some dangerous shortcuts in the way he deals with this topic. That's all

                          Thank you so much for trying to summarize the article and for defending him - I believe it's always better when there are two different points of view for any debate.

                          Who knows, maybe if we could talk in person we would agree? sometimes a written word leaves too much space for guessing...

                          anyway, very interesting topic








                          Comment


                            #28
                            inbetween, I'm always up for a good back-and-forth, just please don't take my reply personally.

                            I am not "defending" Lederman - I posted an article I found interesting and tried to convey the point after you asked. I have checked some of the references and as far as I can see he hasn't jumped to any wrong conclusions. I have no stake in this matter, but I do think your criticism is a bit harsh, hasty and perhaps coloured by your own rehabilitation of abdominal muscles (and possibly back pain?) after 4 births. Yes, science is very tricky and not all it's cracked up to be when you get in the details, but some things are still useful and drive progress (for better or worse). Protocols are re-examined and calls for improvement are frequently made in basically all areas of scientific research. Personally, I try not to be naive but neither am I cynical or dismissive of research findings as such.
                            I believe you may have misunderstood some things after all. Namely, some core (ha! ) concepts, the audience, the time of publication and the context.

                            "Core" muscles are usually interpreted as the deep muscles of the back (multifidi, erectores spinae, sometimes quadratus lumborum) and the abdomen (TvA, external, internal obliques and rectus abdominis). In popular culture, "core" is often reduced to "six-pack". "Core stability" refers to the stability these "core" muscles provide for the spine (so his "idea" of core stability comes from the field, see here and here). "Core stability exercises" usually isolate these muscles in order to strengthen them so that they can stabilise the spine better and by extension, improve/prevent low back pain - mostly these are exercises done on all fours or back or a swiss ball/balance board (planks, hundreds, crunches, practically all of Pilates etc.). You can say that this is "old" stuff, but it's still out there and being taught and used in rehabilitation of LBP, in gyms as prevention of LBP etc. So while your personal experience (and situation/goal!) may be different, I don't think you can say coaches/PTs "never teach this stuff" to treat low back pain - the internet would probably prove you wrong (or at least the archives of the years 2000-2010).

                            (The idea that special "core" muscles exist is disputed in the scientific sphere, where some scientists (Lederman among them) argue that anatomical division - just the way these muscles are taught in school - has no connection to the actual movement. "Core" is not an isolated anatomical structure, rather these are muscles that are involved to a varying degree in most movements. Our movements are function- (i.e. brain/CNS), not muscle-driven. For example, once a child learns to write their name, they can do that with a pencil or a thick crayon, or with a brush, they can use a finger to write it in the sand or make a graffiti with a spray. The muscles used for this action will be very different and different strength will be used, but the result will be the same. Similarly, "core" muscles adapt to different tasks and tensing them all, most of the time as proposed for people with low back pain, is energetically inefficient and unnatural.)

                            This article was indeed published for rehabilitation professionals in a scientific journal for manual therapists and PTs. Unless you have had training in those areas and know what that particular education process entails (or entailed 10, 20, 30 years ago, because some people don't move with the times but stick to what they know), some concepts can indeed be confusing, seem ridiculous or out of date. From my experience, scientific articles are not written for the general public - the words used often have specific meanings and basic, sometimes even specialist knowledge in the field is required to interpret them correctly (e.g. see the debate around statistical significance), so I don't agree that his article is poorly written or that you can dismiss Lederman as a "theoretical" writer (in this context, a theoretical writer would be an anatomy/biomechanics/etc. researcher/professor, not someone with 30 years of clinical experience of which demonstration/training is a huge part).

                            The article was published almost 10 years ago and many things have changed since in education of medical professions, however, some ideas still persist. In contrast to the private fitness sector, the field of medicine and associated professions can be quite conservative and immune to new ideas. I think it's great that you have access to excellent private coaches who are on top of new findings and approaches but not all people and not all professionals worldwide have that same opportunity.

                            The context is the perceived association of core stability and (improvement of) low back pain/spinal stability specifically. Not improvement of posture or functionality or strength or rehabilitation/strengthening of abdominals post-partum or anything else, just low back pain. To this, I believe you misunderstood what he writes about sit-ups and pregnant women, so I will quote it here:

                            During pregnancy the abdominal wall muscles undergo dramatic elongation, associated with force losses and inability to stabilise the pelvis against resistance [11, 12]. Indeed, in a study of pregnant women ( n=318) they were shown to have lost the ability to perform sit-ups due to this extensive elongation and subsequent force losses [12]. Whereas all non-pregnant women could perform a sit-up, 16.6% of pregnant women could not perform a single sit-up. However, there was no correlation between the sit-up performance and backache, i.e. the strength of abdominal muscle was not related to backache. Despite this, CS exercises are often prescribed as a method for retraining the abdominal muscles and ultimately as a treatment for LBP during pregnancy. There is little evidence that localized musculoskeletal mechanical issues, including spinal stability play a role in the development of LBP during pregnancy. Often cited predisposing factors are, for example, body mass index, a history of hypermobility and amenorrhea [13], low socioeconomic class, existence of previous LBP [14], posterior /fundal location of the placenta and a significant correlation between fetal weight and LBP with pain radiation [14]. It is surprising that such dramatic postural, mechanical and functional changes to the trunk and lumbar spine seem to have an insignificant role in the development of back pain during pregnancy.
                            For the other study with pregnant women, 3/4 of them didn't drop out because they "didn't feel like it" after they gave birth - they were recruited in the study because they had back pain when pregnant but only one week after delivery, their back/pelvic pain resolved spontaneously - and this is before the expected 4-6 weeks it takes for abdominal muscles to recover and shrink back. Their core was not "strong", with muscles elongated and lax, unable to "stabilise the spine", and yet their pain went away/became insignificant.

                            In a recent study, the effects of a cognitive-behavioural approach were compared with standard physiotherapy on pelvic and lower back pain immediately after delivery [15]. An interesting aspect of this research was that out 869 pregnant women who were recruited for the study, 635 were excluded because of their spontaneous unaided recovery within a week of delivery. This would have been during a period, well before the abdominal muscles had time to return to their pre-pregnancy length, strength or control [11]. Yet, this was a period when back pain was dramatically reduced. How can it be that back and pelvic pain is improving during a period of profound abdominal muscle inefficiency? Why does the spine not collapse? Has the relationship between abdominal muscles and spinal stability been over-emphasised ?
                            Lederman was coming from a field where for ages, people with low back pain of various etiologies were told to brace, to tense, to "protect" the spine, adopt rigid movement patterns and to work the "core" muscles and he is not alone in finding that this approach is not suitable for all, or even most people.

                            Here are some further articles on this topic, I would recommend the podcast (or transcription of) interview with Lederman on the topic of this article where there is a bit more background. The YT interview with Peter O'Sullivan makes roughly the same points.

                            https://www.liberatedbody.com/podcas...bility-lbp-033

                            https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adr...l?guccounter=1

                            https://www.melindaglenister.com/blo...core-stability

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezBG_NdLgs

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Of course I won't take your reply personally, how could I! And I hope it's the same the other way around. Please don't take my post too seriously. Indeed I may have sounded a bit harsh, I realized that later, I guess it's due to writing in a hurry. My apologies for that, it was never my intention.

                              I totally understand your explanations and you may be right about taking into account the broader situation at that point in time – I honestly forgot it was written more than 10 years ago.
                              And I know you are not "defending" him, but rather ironing after my chaotic post

                              I don't think either of us has time to keep debating on it, so sorry for forcing you to write more about it after my ramble. I admit you are right about several aspects (timing, circumstances, etc.), but it still surprises me that there could be such a big gap between how different people can understand the concept of core stability. It's like talking about something completely different with the same label on it.

                              I read some more articles written by him and I can say I agree with him on many different aspects, there is really nothing personal in what I wrote.

                              But please do not jump into conclusions as in "I think it's great that you have access to excellent private coaches who are on top of new findings and approaches but not all people and not all professionals worldwide have that same opportunity."

                              The thing is, this is not something new, many bodybuilders, boxers and lifters trained their core properly ie. in the 50' and 60', so it's not that it's a new discovery. You don't need to buy expensive programs or hire private coaches (I never said I had a private one by the way), and a lot of this knowledge is available online for free (but yes you need to dig for it).

                              As for the post-partum women, I didn't say they didn't feel like it. What I meant is that of course the pain became insignificant after delivery – try walking with a huge backpack in front of you for months and then put it down. Of course you will feel an enormous relief instantly. Plus, you will have other things to deal with: a newborn to be (breast)fed, and more significant health issues, sore breasts, stitches, wounds, many places in the process of healing. And you spend most of your time during this first week in bed, so your lower back pain may be not easy to be noticed. Many women experience lower back pain again weeks or months after delivery. But it's a topic for another debate. And I guess sometimes you need to experience certain things to be able to understand what's their real meaning or consequences.

                              Anyway, I am sorry once more if I sounded rude or harsh, I may have indeed been more careful about my word choice.

                              The good thing about this conversation is that others who perhaps wouldn't read the article or never wondered about the difference between an efficient and inefficient/flawed core training may now feel intrigued and forced to explore the subject regardless of whether they agree or disagree with either of us




                              Comment


                                #30
                                OK I just need to get back to this because I still think it is not me who is confused, but rather the author:

                                During pregnancy the abdominal wall muscles undergo dramatic elongation, associated with force losses and inability to stabilise the pelvis against resistance [11, 12]. Indeed, in a study of pregnant women ( n=318) they were shown to have lost the ability to perform sit-ups due to this extensive elongation and subsequent force losses [12]. Whereas all non-pregnant women could perform a sit-up, 16.6% of pregnant women could not perform a single sit-up. However, there was no correlation between the sit-up performance and backache, i.e. the strength of abdominal muscle was not related to backache. Despite this, CS exercises are often prescribed as a method for retraining the abdominal muscles and ultimately as a treatment for LBP during pregnancy. There is little evidence that localized musculoskeletal mechanical issues, including spinal stability play a role in the development of LBP during pregnancy. Often cited predisposing factors are, for example, body mass index, a history of hypermobility and amenorrhea [13], low socioeconomic class, existence of previous LBP [14], posterior /fundal location of the placenta and a significant correlation between fetal weight and LBP with pain radiation [14]. It is surprising that such dramatic postural, mechanical and functional changes to the trunk and lumbar spine seem to have an insignificant role in the development of back pain during pregnancy.
                                This is just a very curious mix: if by abdominal muscle strength he means rectus abdominis and strengthening this muscle is "core stability" training for him, then it is all upside down. You can be pregnant and be unable to do a sit-up not because your muscles are weak (though they are weaker of course than before pregnancy), there are other aspects as well (lower abdominal ligaments that support the growing uterus may cause the sit-up to be simply unpleasant and painful and thus avoided, and rightly so, plus the huge bulge in front of you makes the sit-up impossible, try doing a sit-up with a huge back pack tightly tied to you).

                                That's what I meant.

                                And yet, even being unable to do a sit-up (a move where rectus abdominis is involved), you can have an otherwise stable and strong core. And you can keep training your core strength and stability during pregnancy, you just can't do sit-up and crunches. You can do farmer's carries, overhead carries, pallof press, 180 landmine with the barbell, in some cases even TGU etc.


                                It's not the same thing. the ability to do a sit-up is not what core stability is about.

                                And even the CS as he understands it (ie. tensing the TA) is not prescribed to pregnant women to retrain the abdominal muscles responsible for the ability to do a sit-up (ie. rectus abdominis), but to tighten the TA which does help enormously (loose and inactive TA during pregnancy is like wearing a huge backpack in front of you, but not close to your body, but rather slightly separated, whereas once you learn to tighten your TA just a little, the backback is closer to your body and causes less discomfort...). There may be little evidence, I don't care, just please take a heavy backpack and try it for 2 weeks in a row. Or 2 months if you're brave enough

                                But I really don't want it to become a fight for arguments and I highly appreciate all your input and corrections. I believe those who feel intrigued will just dig further for themselves.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X