Article

Exercises for the torso performed in a standing posture: spine and hip motion and motor patterns and spine load.

Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Spine Biomechanics Laboratories, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 04/2009; 23(2):455-64. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a0227e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to document the muscle activity, spine motion, spine load, and stiffness during several movement-based or "functional" exercises and to assess the effect of technique change. Eight subjects, all healthy men from a university population, were instrumented to obtain surface electromyography of selected trunk and hip muscles, together with video analysis and electromagnetic lumbar spine position sensor to track spine posture. Exercises included a walkout in the sagittal plane that compared an upright form against a wall with those performed on the floor, overhead cable pushes, lateral cable walkouts, the good morning exercise, and the bowler's squat. Generally, muscle activation levels were quite modest even though the tasks were quite strenuous in many cases. Even though similar joint moments were required in different exercises, the pattern of activity between muscles was different. Abdominal bracing increased spine stiffness at the expense of more spine load. Thus, muscle activity seems to be constrained in "functional" exercises. There are several possible reasons for this. Single muscles cannot be activated to 100% of the maximum voluntary contraction in functional exercises because this would upset the balance of moments about the 3 orthopedic axes of the spine, or it would upset the balance of stiffening muscles around the spine required to ensure stability of the spinal column. The one exception was the floor walkout, which resulted in full activation of the rectus abdominis; however, this was a sagittal plane task without the joint moment constraints of multiplanar exercise. Therefore, maximal muscle activity is observed during single-plane tasks, but muscle activation levels were constrained during functional tasks. Thus, strength training muscles may not help in "functional multiplanar" tasks. These data can be used to assist decisions regarding the selection of exercises, specifically choices regarding the starting challenge, progression, exercise form, and possibly corrective technique for those who have spine concerns, or those simply looking for performance enhancement.

2 Followers
 · 
84 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many strength and conditioning coaches utilize the good morning (GM) to strengthen the hamstrings and spinal erectors. However, little research exists on its electromyography (EMG) activity and kinematics, and how these variables change as a function of load. The purpose of this investigation was to examine how estimated hamstring length, integrated EMG (IEMG) activity of the hamstrings and spinal erectors, and kinematics of the lumbar spine, hip, knee, and ankle are affected by changes in load. Fifteen trained male participants (age = 24.6 ± 5.3 years; body mass = 84.7 ± 11.3 kg; height = 180.9 ± 6.8 cm) were recruited for this study. Participants performed five sets of the GM, utilizing 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) in a randomized fashion. IEMG activity of hamstrings and spinal erectors tended to increase with load. Knee flexion increased with load on all trials. Estimated hamstring length decreased with load. However, lumbar flexion, hip flex-ion, and plantar flexion experienced no remarkable changes between trials. These data provide insight as to how changing the load of the GM affects EMG activity, kinematic variables, and estimated hamstring length. Implications for hamstring injury prevention are discussed. More research is needed for further insight as to how load affects EMG activity and kinematics of other exercises.
    01/2015; 2:e708. DOI:10.7717/peerj.708
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: THIS REVIEW ARTICLE RECOGNIZES THE UNIQUE FUNCTION OF THE CORE MUSCULATURE. IN MANY REAL LIFE ACTIVITIES, THESE MUSCLES ACT TO STIFFEN THE TORSO AND FUNCTION PRIMARILY TO PREVENT MOTION. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FUNCTION FROM THOSE MUSCLES OF THE LIMBS, WHICH CREATE MOTION. BY STIFFENING THE TORSO, POWER GENERATED AT THE HIPS IS TRANSMITTED MORE EFFECTIVELY BY THE CORE. RECOGNIZING THIS UNIQUENESS, IMPLICATIONS FOR EXERCISE PROGRAM DESIGN ARE DISCUSSED USING PROGRESSIONS BEGINNING WITH CORRECTIVE AND THERAPEUTIC EXERCISES THROUGH STABILITY/MOBILITY, ENDURANCE, STRENGTH AND POWER STAGES, TO ASSIST THE PERSONAL TRAINER WITH A BROAD SPECTRUM OF CLIENTS.
    Strength and conditioning journal 05/2010; 32(3):33-46. DOI:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181df4521 · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract This study examined anterior chain whole body linkage exercises, namely the body saw, hanging leg raise and walkout from a push-up. Investigation of these exercises focused on which particular muscles were challenged and the magnitude of the resulting spine load. Fourteen males performed the exercises while muscle activity, external force and 3D body segment motion were recorded. A sophisticated and anatomically detailed 3D model used muscle activity and body segment kinematics to estimate muscle force, and thus sensitivity to each individual's choice of motor control for each task. Gradations of muscle activity and spine load characteristics were observed across tasks. On average, the hanging straight leg raise created approximately 3000 N of spine compression while the body saw created less than 2500 N. The hanging straight leg raise created the highest challenge to the abdominal wall (>130% MVC in rectus abdominis, 88% MVC in external oblique). The body saw resulted in almost 140% MVC activation of the serratus anterior. All other exercises produced substantial abdominal challenge, although the body saw did so in the most spine conserving way. These findings, along with consideration of an individual's injury history, training goals and current fitness level, should assist in exercise choice and programme design.
    Journal of Sports Sciences 08/2014; 33(4):1-8. DOI:10.1080/02640414.2014.946437 · 2.10 Impact Factor