Content uploaded by Alison Rushton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alison Rushton on Nov 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Online First
Journal of Athletic Training 2016;51(10):000–000
doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03
Óby the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, Inc
www.natajournals.org original research
Spinal-Exercise Prescription in Sport: Classifying
Physical Training and Rehabilitation by Intention and
Outcome
Simon Spencer, MSc, BSc (Hons), MCSP*; Alex Wolf, MSc, BSc (Hons), ASCC*;
Alison Rushton, EdD, MSc, FMACP, MCSP†
*The English Institute of Sport, Manchester, United Kingdom; †University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Context: Identification of strategies to prevent spinal injury,
optimize rehabilitation, and enhance performance is a priority for
practitioners. Different exercises produce different effects on
neuromuscular performance. Clarity of the purpose of a
prescribed exercise is central to a successful outcome. Spinal
exercises need to be classified according to the objective of the
exercise and planned physical outcome.
Objective: To define the modifiable spinal abilities that
underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance,
clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, and
classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the
exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and
rehabilitation.
Design: Qualitative study.
Data Collection and Analysis: We conducted a qualitative
consensus method of 4 iterative phases. An exploratory panel
carried out an extended review of the English-language
literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to
identify key themes and subthemes to inform the definitions of
exercise categories,physical abilities, and physical outcomes.
An expert project group reviewed panel findings. A draft
classification was discussed with physiotherapists (n ¼49) and
international experts. Lead physiotherapy and strength and
conditioning teams (n ¼17) reviewed a revised classification.
Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement.
Results: After the literature review and subsequent analy-
sis, we defined spinal abilities in 4 categories: mobility,motor
control,work capacity, and strength. Exercises were subclassi-
fied by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal
displacement as either static (neutral spinal posture with no
segmental displacement) or dynamic (dynamic segmental
movement). The proposed terminology and classification sup-
port commonality of language for practitioners.
Conclusions: The spinal-exercise classification will support
clinical reasoning through a framework of spinal-exercise
objectives that clearly define the nature of the exercise
prescription required to deliver intended physical outcomes.
Key Words: spine, back, classification
Key Points
The spinal abilities underpinning optimal function during skilled athletic performance have been evaluated, and a
comprehensive framework of exercise and physical outcomes has been established.
The framework provides a basis for clinical reasoning in spinal-exercise prescription and establishes a platform for
shared understanding to enable interdisciplinary efforts within a diverse spectrum of musculoskeletal practice.
Injury epidemiologic data have suggested that the
prevalence of back pain in athletes ranges from 30%
to 50%.
1,2
Injury-surveillance data of Great Britain
Olympic athletes collated by the Injury/Illness Performance
Project under the auspices of the UK Sport/English Institute
of Sport (EIS) between 2009 and 2012 across 11 Olympic
sports have indicated that thoracic and lumbar spine injury
(LSI) accounts for 14.2% of all injuries and results in 737
days missed from training and competition.
3
Injury is
prevalent in sports that place substantial demands on the
spine through intensive or repetitive directional loading,
4,5
including gymnastics, diving, weight lifting, cricket, and
rowing. Identifying strategies to prevent spinal injury,
optimize spinal rehabilitation, and enhance spinal perfor-
mance is a priority for practitioners.
Spinal function has been defined as the ability to create,
absorb, and transfer force and motion to the terminal
appendicular segment during the performance of skilled
motor tasks.
6
Theoretical definitions of core stability (CS),
however, do not represent the relationship between
passive anatomical structures and the complex neuromus-
cular system coordination required to maintain spinal
integrity under varying loads and motion demands. The
nature of spinal integrity during sport activity is task
specific. Therefore, the theoretical basis of ‘‘ optimal’’
movement efficiency is an expression of the coordinated
interaction of numerous physical abilities underpinning
spinal function.
7
Specificity of training enables the development of
targeted outcome measures to enhance performance.
During rehabilitation, practitioners also must consider the
effect of pathologic conditions and pain on specific physical
abilities and identify effective strategies to address
dysfunction. The use of exercise is accepted unequivocally
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
as part of a multifaceted approach to training and
rehabilitation.
8
Identification of suboptimal physical per-
formance forms the basis of clinical reasoning to inform
exercise prescription.
Historically, the nature of spinal-exercise prescription has
been subject to widespread debate
9,10
centered on the
relative understanding and importance of CS and driven by
its role in the management of chronic low back pain
(LBP).
11
Whereas researchers
12–15
have made substantial
progress in detailing the components of spinal stability and
its relationship with spinal mobility, unidimensional
paradigms of exercise prescription persist. For example,
attempts have been made to isolate groups of core muscles
or their function despite the important synergistic contri-
butions of many different muscles to balance stability and
movement demands.
16
Furthermore, given that different
exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular
performance, use of the term CS is problematic, as it does
not adequately define the intent of an exercise, and it often
is used by practitioners attempting to deliver several
different training or rehabilitation outcomes. Therefore,
spinal exercises, and often exercises in general, are
frequently described by name, equipment used, or place
performed (eg, Pilates/core exercises, mat exercises,
gymnasium exercises) rather than by intent, loading, and
execution. If exercise intention is not delineated, miscom-
munication may occur among practitioners. Therefore, the
purpose of our study was 2-fold: (1) to define the
modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function
during skilled athletic performance and clarify the effect of
spinal pain and pathologic conditions and (2) to classify
spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise
and intended physical outcomes to inform training and
rehabilitation.
METHODS
We used a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative
phases (Figure 1). A conceptual framework was defined to
underpin the study methods (Figure 2). The framework
formed an analytical tool that was used in phase 1 to
organize the ideas emerging from the literature. It provided
a structure of starting principles and assumptions that
illustrate a broad concept.
Phase 1
An exploratory panel consisting of 2 senior physiother-
apists and 2 senior strength and conditioning coaches (S.S.,
A.W., and 2 nonauthors) with extensive experience in
spinal training and rehabilitation at the EIS was formed to
carry out an extended review of the literature to (1) identify
modifiable spinal abilities defining optimal function during
skilled athletic performance, (2) clarify the effect of spinal
pain and pathologic conditions on specific physical
abilities, and (3) define categories of exercise objectives
and physical outcomes (Table 1). The literature search used
sensitive topic-based strategies designed for each database.
Search dates were from database inception to July 31, 2013,
to inform phase 1. We updated the search to July 31, 2015,
to reflect contemporary literature.
We searched the databases of CINAHL, EMBASE,
MEDLINE, and PubMed. The search strategy consisted
of search terms informed by the conceptual framework. For
anatomical and neuromuscular interactions in functional
spinal control, we used the terms core,function (spinal),
neuromuscular (control), and stability (spinal). Search
terms for spinal abilities defining optimal function during
skilled athletic performance were mobility,motor control,
performance (athletic/sporting), power,rate of force
development (RFD),strength, and strength endurance.
For the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, we
used the terms low back injury,LBP,lumbar spine,
Figure 1. Flow diagram of consensus process. Figure 2. Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
pathology (spine), and sport. Search terms for exercise
specificity and physical adaptation were exercise,injury
prevention,outcome measures, physical/physiological ad-
aptation, rehabilitation, and training. We excluded studies
not written in English but did not place restrictions on study
design. A total of 1614 studies were retrieved from the
initial searches. Findings from studies were analyzed in the
context of any methodologic limitations. Key themes and
subthemes (eg, exercise objective grouping, subclassifica-
tion requirements) were identified to inform the definitions
of physical abilities,exercise categories, and physical
outcomes.
Phase 2
An expert project group was convened to review and
revise the exploratory panel findings. The group consisted
of 5 physiotherapists and 5 strength and conditioning
coaches holding national leadership positions within EIS
and regularly engaging in spinal training and rehabilitation
(S.S., A.W., and 8 nonauthors; Table 1). Independently,
they identified areas for discussion and review. Collective-
ly, they agreed on modifications to the definitions of
physical abilities,exercise categories, and physical out-
comes and formulated a draft classification informed by the
conceptual framework of the study. An example of an area
discussed and modified was the separation of work capacity
(WC) and strength into 2 distinct physical performance
variables.
Phase 3
A researcher (S.S.) presented the draft classification to all
EIS physiotherapists (n ¼49) at a consensus forum and sent
it to key experts in the field for international expert review.
Data were analyzed to inform emerging themes and
subthemes that subsequently were integrated into a revised
classification. Examples of themes included understanding
and managing practitioner bias,clarity of presentation, and
agreed terminology/use of language.
Phase 4
Two of the investigators (S.S., A.W.) presented the
classification to members of the EIS technical lead
physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n ¼
17) for discussion. The discussion focused on the strengths
of the framework and its potential application in elite sport.
Definition of Consensus
Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement and was
achieved at each phase. The classification was accepted by
unanimous agreement with minor amendments. We present
the definitive classification in the Results section.
RESULTS
Objective 1
Objective 1 was the identification of modifiable spinal
abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled
athletic performance. Spinal abilities were defined in 4
distinct categories: mobility,motor control,WC,and
strength.
12,1719
The extents to which each category
contributes to spinal neuromuscular control,
6
the effect of
pain and pathologic conditions, and how exercise interven-
tions are used to influence targeted physical outcomes were
important to consider. The modifiable spinal abilities that
underpin optimal function during skilled athletic perfor-
mance are summarized in Figure 3 and defined in the
Appendix.
Mobility. Mobility was defined as freedom of movement
at spinal segments. It provides the basis for the
development of motor control
20
and optimal spinal
function.
21
Furthermore, the relationship between axial
mobility and athletic performance has been established.
22,23
Deficits in spinal movement have been identified in
athletes with a history of LBP,
2426
for whom changes in
mobility are a product of the interaction between soft tissue
and articular dysfunction. It is plausible that abnormal
movement patterns or repetitive directional loading result in
the consistent absence of mechanical tension associated
with connective tissue remodeling and eventual loss of
muscle fiber length.
27,28
Loss of mobility could also
represent an adaptive or maladaptive mechanism by which
the body attempts to achieve active stability and maintain a
level of function in the presence of pain, physical stress, or
failed motor control.
29
A myriad of therapeutic interventions are used to
influence the neurophysical mechanisms associated with
loss of mobility (hypomobility), such as focal articular or
tissue restriction, pain, and altered muscular tone.
30
Table 1. Characteristics of Exploratory Panel and Expert Project Group Participant
Participant Profession Phase Inclusion Level
a
Experience Within
Elite Sport, y Geographic Region
1 Physiotherapist All Senior 11 National
2 Physiotherapist All Senior 15 South
3 Strength and conditioning coach All Senior 13 National
4 Strength and conditioning coach All Senior 10 London
5 Physiotherapist 24 Senior 8 Central
6 Physiotherapist 24 Senior 10 Central
7 Physiotherapist 24 Senior 7 North
8 Strength and conditioning coach 24 Senior 15 North
9 Strength and conditioning coach 24 Senior 13 South
10 Strength and conditioning coach 24 Senior 15 North
a
Typically, senior practitioners have at least 1 full Olympic cycle (4 years) of experience of working in elite sport, hold leadership positions
within the organization or within specific sports, and frequently hold higher degrees within their professional specialties.
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
Exercise is frequently used to influence spinal motion, and
mobility exercises can also be performed in combination
with limb movement to augment tissue elongation
throughout a continuous myofascial line.
31
Reliable
assessment of spinal motion has been established,
3235
and effective restoration of spinal range of motion after
flexibility training has been demonstrated in participants
with LBP.
36,37
Support for including this component
within the classification is primarily based on clinical
concepts.
Motor Control. Maintenance of spinal integrity during
skilled movement tasks depends not only on muscular
capacity but also on the ability to process sensory input,
interpret the status of stability and motion, and establish
strategies to overcome predictable and unexpected
movement challenges.
38
The spinal stability required
during athletic performance is task specific and governed
by the nature of the intended movement, the magnitude of
imposed load, and the perception of risk associated with the
activity.
39
The central nervous system, therefore, determines
the requirements for stability and coordinates contraction of
deep and superficial core muscles using both feed-forward
and feedback control mechanisms.
8,40
In the presence of
pain, the relationship between task demand for stability and
muscular recruitment becomes disrupted, resulting in
delayed trunk-muscle reflex responses and excessive outer-
core muscular activation.
4143
Classification systems have
been developed to establish the nature of adaptive motor
responses in the presence of pain and identify maladaptive
motor-control impairments contributing to spinal pain
disorders.
44,45
Motor adaptation to pain has been demonstrated in
athletes with LBP
46
and groin pain
47
after recovery from a
recent occurrence of LBP
48
and is observable in patients
with recurrent LBP during periods of remission.
49
Further-
more, reflex response latencies can preexist within a
healthy athletic population, substantially increasing the
risk of sustaining an LSI.
50
Evidence has suggested that
motor adaptation to pain can be influenced through
exercise-based intervention. Segmental-stabilization exer-
cises first described by Richardson and Jull
51
focus on
retraining coordinated cocontraction of the deep trunk
muscles through simultaneous isometric cocontraction of
the transversus abdominis and multifidus in a static-neutral
spine position. Exercise has been shown to effectively
restore delayed or reduced activation of the transversus
abdominis
52
and multifidus,
53
with positive effects persist-
ing after cessation of training.
54
Despite its scientific
foundation and widespread anecdotal support, impaired
feed-forward activation of local stabilization muscles in
patients with LBP has been challenged.
55
Furthermore,
evidence also led researchers to question the ability to
better influence anticipatory muscle patterning after the
performance of segmental-stabilization exercises
56
aligned
with the preferential effect on pain and dysfunction than
after any other form of active exercise.
57
The ability to dissociate spinal and appendicular
movements provides a static platform for force absorption
and transference and is a product of mobility and
neuromuscular control of the limbs and maintenance of a
static-neutral lumbar position. During sporting activities
imparting high loads through the spine, forces need to be
distributed evenly to minimize loading of vulnerable tissues
in the spine.
58,59
The inability to control a neutral position
increases the potential for tissue damage, especially during
repetitive-loading activities. Clinical tests reliably identify
the performance of dissociation tasks under both low- and
high-load conditions,
60
with movement-control deficits
identified in patients with LBP.
61
Hodges
62
hypothesized
that failed load transfer during low-load conditions is
primarily due to inadequate motor-skill competence or
altered mechanical behavior associated with pain or the
threat of pain or injury. Failure under higher loads may be
attributed to other factors (eg, insufficient muscular
capacity), requiring detailed assessment to establish the
nature of the movement-control loss.
Figure 3. Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF,
nonfunctional.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
During dynamic spinal movement, coordinated neuro-
muscular control of intersegmental articulation is provided
by precise coordination of the surrounding musculature.
63
Proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing is critical for
performing skills that demand maximum speed to be
produced at the end of the distal segment in the kinetic
chain, such as kicking or throwing.
22
Failed load transfer
during segmental motion results in aberrant motor patterns,
which hypothetically could result in tissue damage through
uneven load distribution and focal tissue stress.
45,64
Conversely, changes in motor control in some subgroups
with LBP have been associated with a compromised ability
to coordinate spinal motion due to excessive aberrant
muscular cocontraction, resulting in an inability to perform
controlled segmental movements.
65
Sequential segmental-
control exercises, such as dynamic pelvic tilting, are
intended to establish or retrain appropriate muscular
recruitment, coordinated dynamic motor control, and
proprioceptive awareness.
66
Facilitation of skilled motor learning during rehabilita-
tion requires autonomous engagement in the learning
process.
67
When the participant is motivated to learn a
Figure 4. Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome.
Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.
a
Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.
Figure 5. Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
new motor skill, the new task needs to be clearly detailed
(eg, through instruction, demonstration).
68
In addition, the
process must provide neuromuscular challenge through
progressive difficulty
69
and variability,
70
underpinned by
regular deliberate practice
71
with appropriate knowledge of
results and performance related to the task.
72
Work Capacity. Work capacity is synonymous with
local muscular endurance.
73
This can be defined as the
ability to produce or tolerate variable intensities and
durations of work and contributes to the ability of an
athlete to perform efficiently in a given sport.
73,74
Work
capacity is a training outcome and not a performance
outcome. The accumulation of training over many weeks
and months results in chronic local adaptation to muscle,
tendon, and metabolic biogenesis.
7582
This adaptation
increases the ability of the system to produce more work
during repeated efforts, allows the local musculature to
tolerate or demonstrate resilience to a larger training
volume of work,
74
and supports the performance of work
closer to the intensity and duration required for sporting
performance.
By comparison, strength endurance has been described as
a performance-outcome test completed in isolation whereby
the goal is to achieve a specific amount of work at a given
intensity, such as maximum number of repetitions at 50%
of 1 repetition maximum or at a specific submaximal
load,
8385
with less emphasis placed on the physiologic
adaptation required for WC development. The American
College of Sports Medicine
73
has also defined strength
endurance as high-intensity endurance. Therefore, strength
endurance can be used as a proxy measure of WC or as a
training variable within WC.
73
The inability to meet mechanical-loading demands due to
insufficient neuromuscular capacity may result in loss of
optimal motor control and in biomechanical inefficiency.
86
Trunk WC is underpinned by the ability to transfer, absorb,
or dissipate repeated or sustained submaximal forces
through appropriate strength endurance, providing a
platform for the development and performance of specific
strength qualities.
A reduction in trunk muscle endurance and changes in
endurance ratios have been identified in patients with a history
Table 2. Exercise Objective Definitions Positioned Within Context of Intended Physical Outcome
Physical Outcome Spinal Exercise Objective Definition
Mobility Mobility development (NF or F) Exercises intended to develop, maintain, or restore global spinal range of
movement through a specific range of motion (Figure 5).
Motor control Segmental stabilization (NF) Exercises intended to retrain coordinated recruitment of the deep abdominal and
back muscles through a submaximal voluntary isometric cocontraction
performed in a neutral spine position (Figure 6A).
Spinal dissociation (NF) Neuromuscular patterning exercises intended to develop the ability to maintain a
neutral spine through the appropriate recruitment of abdominal musculature
while resisting forces created by movements of the appendicular skeleton
during the performance of NF skilled movement tasks (Figure 6B).
Spinal dissociation (F) Neuromuscular patterning exercises intended to develop the ability to maintain a
neutral spine through the appropriate recruitment of abdominal musculature
during the performance of F skilled movement tasks (Figure 6C).
Segmental movement control (NF) Neuromuscular-patterning exercises intended to develop sequential segmental
control of spinal movement through the appropriate recruitment of abdominal
musculature during the performance of NF skilled movement tasks (Figure
6D).
Whole-body coordination (F) Neuromuscular-patterning exercises intended to develop coordinated movement
sequencing between the axial and appendicular skeleton during the
performance of F skilled movement tasks (Figure 6E).
Work capacity Pillar conditioning (NF) Conditioning exercises intended to develop the ability to maintain a neutral spine
while enduring forces from movement through a specific plane of motion
during the performance of NF movement tasks (Figure 7A).
Pillar conditioning (F) Conditioning exercises intended to develop the ability to maintain a neutral spine
while enduring forces from movement during the performance of F movement
tasks (Figure 7B).
Segmental conditioning (NF) Conditioning exercises intended to develop the ability of the spine to endure the
production or absorption of forces during the performance of NF sequential
segmental movement tasks through a specific plane of motion (Figure 8A).
Segmental conditioning (F) Conditioning exercises intended to develop the ability of the spine to endure the
production, transference, or absorption of forces through the performance of F
sequential segmental movement tasks (Figure 8B).
Strength Pillar strength development (NF) Strength exercises intended to develop the ability of the spine to maintain a
neutral position during the performance of NF movement tasks while
withstanding high-yielding forces through a specific plane of motion (Figure 9).
Stiffness development (F) Stiffness exercises intended to develop the ability of the spine to create an equal
rate, magnitude, and directional resistance to segmental deformation against
yielding forces to maintain a neutral spine or sport-specific F position (Figure
10).
Power development (F) Dynamic exercises intended to develop the ability of the spine to create a high-
velocity sequential coordination of segments to augment global power
production (Figure 11).
Abbreviations: NF, nonfunctional; F, functional.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
of LBP,
8789
and insufficient abdominal muscular endurance
has been identified as a risk factor for injury recurrence.
90
Furthermore, structural degeneration of the lumbar muscula-
ture in patients with LBP has been characterized by fatty
infiltration, muscular atrophy, and fiber-type modification.
91,92
Static stabilization (pillar) exercises are frequently prescribed
to produce sufficient muscular activation to develop spinal-
endurance qualities during rehabilitation.
16
Targeted exercise
has been shown to improve muscular strength,
93
endurance,
94
and cross-sectional area.
95
Strength. Muscular strength can be defined as the ability
to produce force, and maximal strength is the largest force
the musculature can produce.
96
The RFD has been defined
as the rate of rise of contractile force at the beginning of a
muscle action and is time dependent.
97
The RFD from the
trunk musculature can either augment global external
power production (dynamic RFD) or protect the spine by
‘‘stiffening’’ against yielding forces (static RFD). The
production of force or torque and stiffness depends on
morphologic and neurologic factors in the neuromuscular
Figure 6. Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C,
Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
system. Morphologic factors include cross-sectional area,
muscle-pennation angle, fascial length, and fiber type.
98
Neurologic factors include motor-unit recruitment, firing
frequency, motor-unit synchronization, and intermuscular
coordination.
99
For dynamic RFD and power, a growing body of
evidence
100,101
has shown that athletes who produce the
greatest external power are the most successful in their
events. Peak RFD has a strong relationship with peak power
and has been used as a proxy measure of peak power.
96
Watkins et al
102
suggested that the trunk musculature assists
in stabilizing and controlling the load response for
maximum power during movements, such as the golf
swing. During a single movement, maximum power is the
greatest instantaneous power for producing maximum
velocity of movements, such as striking, kicking, jumping,
or throwing.
103
All of these tasks require segmental
sequential coordination to augment external global power
output.
Static RFD or stiffness can be defined as the trunk’s
ability to resist deformation from yielding forces and
maintain spinal posture.
104,105
Muscular trunk stiffness
requires contractile forces equal to the rate, direction, and
magnitude exerted against the trunk to minimize the
transmission of force to the spine. The morphologic and
neurologic qualities required for appropriate stiffness are
similar to those needed for power production.
99,106,107
The
demand of the task can require the trunk to brace against a
rapid RFD under relatively low loads, biasing challenge
toward the neurologic system.
108
By contrast, a high
imparted force also challenges the neurologic system but
requires the morphologic qualities of the trunk musculature
Figure 7. Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
to produce enough stiffness to protect the stability of the
spine.
98,109
The association between trunk strength and the presence of
LBP remains unclear, with evidence to both support
110113
and
contest
114,115
the relationship. Despite the suggestion that trunk
endurance provides greater prophylactic value,
116
strength and
power are essential physical requirements for performance in
many sports and represent the final stages of exercise
progression for athletes during rehabilitation for LSI.
18
In
addition, failing to redevelop sufficient trunk strength during
the rehabilitation process may compromise the ability to
maintain spinal integrity on return to sporting activity and
increase the risk of injury recurrence.
Objective 2
Objective 2 is the classification of spinal exercises
according to the objective of the exercise and intended
physical outcomes. The classification of exercises was
informed by empirical literature (eg, motor control, WC,
and strength) and the application of research within clinical
practice (eg, mobility development). Exercises were
classified according to the objective of the exercise and
the intended physical outcome. In addition, exercises were
subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional
and by spinal displacement as static (maintenance of a
neutral spinal posture with no appreciable segmental
displacement) or dynamic (exercises involving appreciable
dynamic segmental movement).
Subclassification 1: Functionality. Functional exercises
have been described as a continuum of exercises that enable
athletes to effectively manipulate their body weight in all
planes of movement to achieve optimal athletic
performance.
20
They are performed in weight-bearing
(standing, single-legged standing, squatting, lunging) or
sport-specific (multiple planes of motion involving multiple
joints) positions. By contrast, nonfunctional exercises are
typically performed in partial weight-bearing positions
Figure 8. Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning
(functional).
Figure 9. Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
(sitting, kneeling, prone kneeling, lying) across a single
plane of motion with movement isolated to fewer joints.
117
An advantage of nonfunctional spinal exercises is the
ability to influence mechanical loading within specifically
targeted muscle groups through the use of gravitational
force, lever length (by manipulating body position), and
superimposed load.
118
Both functional and nonfunctional
spinal exercise prescriptions can be used to develop
effective interaction (dynamic correspondence
119
) among
physical abilities into sport-specific performance.
Subclassification 2: Spinal Displacement. During
athletic activity, spinal function provides a static platform
for force absorption and transference or a dynamic
contribution to whole-body motion. The need for these
abilities depends on the movement demands of the sport,
which frequently requires both components. During
activities that involve high-loading characteristics, the
central nervous system uses stiffening strategies by
cocontracting the antagonist trunk muscles with little or
no appreciable segmental displacement. In contrast, during
tasks requiring appreciable dynamic segmental movement,
the central nervous system controls this motion through the
precision of timing and pattern of muscle activity.
12
The
ability to dissociate spinal and appendicular motions and
perform sequential segmental spinal movement represents 2
discrete skill-based movement competencies.
Figure 10. Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B,
morphological adaptation and, C–H, neurological adaptation.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
Spinal-Exercise Classification. The definitive spinal
exercise classification (SEC) is summarized in Figure 4.
Definitions of each exercise objective and examples of
exercises related to each intended physical outcome are
displayed in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 11. Exercises
can be delineated further by plane of motion or globally
targeted muscular contraction (eg, sagittal-plane
movement, anterior-chain muscular activation).
118
DISCUSSION
Confusion has existed about CS, how it is trained, and its
application to functional performance.
10
In addition, the
most effective exercises for the treatment of LBP remain
largely unknown, and researchers have been unable to
direct a specific exercise prescription to patients in a given
pathologic subgroup. During recent years, investigators
have highlighted the complex interactions among anatom-
ical, neurophysiological, and psychosocial factors influenc-
ing spinal control. Not synthesizing contemporary evidence
can lead to reductionist opinion and unidimensional
paradigms of exercise prescription when, in reality, the
spine functions across a vast spectrum of movement
demands, demonstrating complex interactions among many
different modifiable physical abilities.
We used qualitative consensus methods for systemati-
cally defining the classification system to ensure accept-
ability to elite sport practitioners. The 4 phases worked well
to ensure challenges to identified themes and subthemes,
with conclusions drawn from individuals experienced in
sport at the elite level. The definitive SEC consolidates
approaches to spinal exercise to develop a practical,
conceptual representation of rehabilitation options applica-
ble within a diverse spectrum of musculoskeletal practice.
Furthermore, the classification supports multidisciplinary
team integration within the rehabilitation process, demon-
strating validity for use by strength and conditioning
professionals as the athlete transitions toward perfor-
mance-focused training after injury.
The intention of the SEC is to encourage detailed clinical
reasoning, with practitioners identifying specific physical
dysfunction or dysfunctions and considering exercise
prescription within the context of a clinical diagnosis or
the prevailing circumstances (eg, sport-specific perfor-
Figure 11. Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
mance targets). When determined, targeted exercise
objectives define the nature of the exercise prescription
required to deliver an intended physical outcome. For
practitioners to effectively use the SEC, spinal abilities
need to be identified using outcome measures with
established measurement properties. Moreover, athletes
frequently compensate for suboptimal abilities in various
aspects of physical performance. When the process of
athlete evaluation identifies multidimensional physical
dysfunction, restoration of mobility and fundamental motor
control must precede the development of WC and strength.
The SEC provides a platform for further research. Future
studies are required to establish patterns of physical dysfunc-
tion within specific pathologic subgroups, evaluate the efficacy
of exercise prescription in the development of specific physical
performance abilities, and assess the effect of targeted exercise
within sporting populations that have pathologic conditions.
The ability to exhibit a wide breadth of physical abilities
enhances performance and supports the capacity to adapt to the
variable nature of stress during sporting activity, contributing
to the foundation of injury prevention.
120
The strengths of our study were the attempts to define a
common language; integrate a breadth of literature; and
comprehensively evolve and incorporate, rather than
replace or discredit, existing theoretical frameworks
extrapolated from a rapidly expanding knowledge base.
The key limitation of our study was the predominantly
national focus of the consensus process, although interna-
tional experts were included at key stages.
CONCLUSIONS
Maintenance of spinal integrity during skilled athletic
performance requires precise neuromuscular control to
balance task demands for stability and motion. Economy
of motion is a function of discrete, interdependent physical
abilities. When investigating intrinsic contributions to spinal
injury, reductionist approaches may not accurately identify
the factors associated with causality and predisposition.
Furthermore, comprehensive restoration of physical abilities
during rehabilitation is fundamental in attaining optimal
athletic performance and mitigating injury risk on return to
sporting activity. Exercise specificity forms the basis of
targeted adaptation, in which the intended physical outcome
must dictate the nature of the exercise prescription. The SEC
contextualizes spinal function and provides a basis for
clinical reasoning and targeted exercise selection in the
prevention and management of spinal injuries in sport.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Ian Crump and Ashleigh Wallace (exploratory panel
members) and Andry Vleeming (international expert reviewer) for
their technical contributions and the members of EIS physiotherapy
and strength and conditioning teams for their invaluable support.
Appendix. Spinal Abilities Underpinning Optimal Function During Skilled Athletic Performance
Physical Ability Spinal Ability Definition
Mobility Mobility The ability to demonstrate freedom of spinal movement through appropriate
tissue extensibility and articular mobility.
Motor control Segmental stabilization (NF) The ability to appropriately recruit deep and superficial abdominal musculature
during the performance of a NF neuromuscular-patterning task/skilled
movement performed in a neutral spine position.
Spinal dissociation (NF) The ability to maintain a neutral spine during the performance of a NF
neuromuscular-patterning task/skilled movement through the appropriate
recruitment of abdominal musculature.
Spinal dissociation (F) The ability to maintain a neutral spine during the performance of a F
neuromuscular-patterning task/skilled movement through the appropriate
recruitment of abdominal musculature.
Segmental movement control (NF) The ability to demonstrate sequential segmental control of spinal movement
through the appropriate recruitment of abdominal musculature.
Whole-body coordination (F) The ability to demonstrate coordinated movement sequencing between the axial
and appendicular skeleton during the performance of F skilled movement
tasks.
Work capacity Pillar work capacity (NF) The ability to maintain a neutral spine while enduring movement forces through
a specific plane of motion during the performance of NF movement tasks.
Pillar work capacity (F) The ability to maintain a neutral spine while enduring movement forces during
the performance of F movement tasks.
Segmental work capacity (NF) The ability of the spine to endure the production or absorption of forces during
the performance of NF sequential segmental movement tasks through a
specific plane of motion.
Segmental work capacity (F) The ability of the spine to endure the production, transference, or absorption of
forces during the performance of F sequential segmental movement tasks.
Strength Pillar strength (NF) The ability to maintain a neutral spine while withstanding high movement forces
through a specific plane of motion during the performance of NF movement
tasks.
Static rate of force development
(stiffness; F)
The ability to create an equal rate, magnitude, and directional resistance to
segmental deformation against a yielding forces while maintaining a neutral
spine or sports-specific F position (stiffness).
Dynamic rate of force development
(power; F)
The ability to create a rapid sequential coordination of segments augmenting
global power production (power) with the aim of producing maximal velocity for
the given movement.
Abbreviations: NF, nonfunctional; F, functional.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
REFERENCES
1. Tall RL, DeVault W. Spinal injury in sport: epidemiologic
considerations. Clin Sports Med. 1993;12(3):441–448.
2. Bono CM. Low-back pain in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2004;86(2):382–396.
3. Palmer-Green D, Fuller C, Jaques R, Hunter G. The Injury/
Illness Performance Project (IIPP): A novel epidemiological
approach for recording the consequences of sports injuries and
illnesses. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp). 2013;2013:
523974.
4. Trainor TJ, Trainor MA. Etiology of low back pain in athletes.
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2004;3(1):41–46.
5. d’Hemecourt PA, Gerbino PG, Micheli LJ. Back injuries in the
young athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2000;19(4):663–679.
6. Kibler WB, Press J, Sciascia A. The role of core stability in
athletic function. Sports Med. 2006;36(3):189–198.
7. Cook G. Baseline sports-fitness testing. In: Foran B, ed. High-
Performance Sports Conditioning: Modern Training for
Ultimate Athletic Development. Champaign, IL: Human Kinet-
ics; 2001:19–47.
8. Akuthota V, Ferreiro A, Moore T, Fredericson M. Core stability
exercise principles. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2008;7(1):39–44.
9. Hodges P. Transversus abdominis: a different view of the
elephant. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(12):941–944.
10. Faries M, Greenwood M. Core training: stabilizing the
confusion. Strength Cond J. 2007;29(2):10–25.
11. Hodges PW. Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain.
Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(2):245–254.
12. Hodges P, Cholewicki J. Functional control of the spine. In:
Vleeming A, Mooney V, Stoeckart R, eds. Movement, Stability
and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy.
2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007:
489–512.
13. Lorimer Moseley G. Motor control in chronic pain: new ideas
for effective intervention. In: Vleeming A, Mooney V,
Stoeckart R, eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain:
Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007:513–528.
14. McGill SM. The painful and unstable lumbar spine: a
foundation and approach for restabilization. In: Vleeming A,
Mooney V, Stoeckart R, eds. Movement, Stability and
Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd
ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007:529–
546.
15. Stuge B, Vllestad NK. Important aspects for efficacy of
treatment with specific stabilizing exercises for postpartum
pelvic girdle pain. In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Stoeckart R,
eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of
Research and Therapy. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill
Livingstone Elsevier; 2007:547–562.
16. Kavcic N, Grenier S, McGill SM. Determining the stabilizing
role of individual torso muscles during rehabilitation exercises.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(11):1254–1265.
17. Cook G. Mobility and stability testing. In: Cook G, ed. Athletic
Body in Balance: Optimal Movement Skills and Conditioning
for Performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2003:26–
38.
18. McGill S. Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance. 3rd ed.
Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wabuno Publishers; 2006:277285.
19. Hodges PW, Gurfinkel VS, Brumagne S, Smith TC, Cordo PC.
Coexistence of stability and mobility in postural control:
evidence from postural compensation for respiration. Exp Brain
Res. 2002;144(3):293–302.
20. Boyle M. Advances in Functional Training: Training Tech-
niques for Coaches, Personal Trainers and Athletes. Aptos, CA:
On Target Publications; 2010:21–34.
21. Kondratek M, Pepin JK, Preston D. Effects of hold-relax and
active range of motion on thoracic spine mobility. J Int Acad
Phys Ther Res. 2012;3(2):413–478.
22. Marshall RN, Elliott BC. Long-axis rotation: the missing link in
proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing. J Sports Sci. 2000;
18(4):247–254.
23. Young JL, Herring SA, Press JM, Casazza BA. The influence of
the spine on the shoulder in the throwing athlete. J Back
Musculoskelet Rehabil. 1996;7(1):5–17.
24. Vad VB, Bhat AL, Basrai D, Gebeh A, Aspergren DD, Andrews
JR. Low back pain in professional golfers: the role of associated
hip and low back range-of-motion deficits. Am J Sports Med.
2004;32(2):494–497.
25. Campbell A, O’Sullivan P, Straker L, Elliott B, Reid M. Back
pain in tennis players: a link with lumbar serve kinematics and
range of motion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(2):351–357.
26. Lindsay D, Horton J. Comparison of spine motion in elite
golfers with and without low back pain. J Sports Sci. 2002;
20(8):599–605.
27. Langevin HM, Sherman KJ. Pathophysiological model for
chronic low back pain integrating connective tissue and nervous
system mechanisms. Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(1):74–80.
28. Sahrmann S. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impair-
ment Syndromes. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002:12–15.
29. Cook G, Bruton L, Kiesel K, Rose G, Bryant MF. Movement:
Functional Movement Systems. Screening, Assessment, Correc-
tive Strategies. Aptos, CA: On Target Publications; 2010:26–
28.
30. Simmonds N, Miller P, Gemmell H. A theoretical framework
for the role of fascia in manual therapy. J Bodyw Mov Ther.
2012;16(1):83–93.
31. Schleip R, M ¨uller DG. Training principles for fascial connec-
tive tissues: scientific foundation and suggested practical
applications. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17(1):103–115.
32. Anderson VB. The intra-rater reliability of measured thoracic
spine mobility in chronic rotator cuff pathology. J Muscu-
loskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(4):314–319.
33. Heneghan NR, Hall A, Hollands M, Balanos GM. Stability and
intra-tester reliability of an in vivo measurement of thoracic
axial rotation using an innovative methodology. Man Ther.
2009;14(4):452–455.
34. Johnson KD, Kim KM, Yu BK, Saliba SA, Grindstaff TL.
Reliability of thoracic spine rotation range-of-motion measure-
ments in healthy adults. J Athl Train. 2012;47(1):52–60.
35. Kellis E, Adamou G, Tzilios G, Emmanouilidou M. Reliability
of spinal range of motion in healthy boys using a skin-surface
device. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(8):570–576.
36. Battaglia G, Bellafiore M, Caramazza G, Paoli A, Bianco A,
Palma A. Changes in spinal range of motion after a flexibility
training program in elderly women. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:
653–660.
37. Kuukkanen T, M ¨
alki¨
a E. Effects of a three-month therapeutic
exercise programme on flexibility in subjects with low back
pain. Physiother Res Int. 2000;5(1):46–61.
38. Hodges PW, Moseley GL. Pain and motor control of the
lumbopelvic region: effect and possible mechanisms. J Electro-
myogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):361–370.
39. van Die¨
en JH, de Looze MP. Directionality of anticipatory
activation of trunk muscles in a lifting task depends on load
knowledge. Exp Brain Res. 1999;128(3):397–404.
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
40. Diedrichsen J, Shadmehr R, Ivry RB. The coordination of
movement: optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends Cogn
Sci. 2010;14(1):31–39.
41. Silfies SP, Squillante D, Maurer P, Westcott S, Karduna AR.
Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in specific chronic low back
pain populations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(5):
465–473.
42. van Die¨
en JH, Selen LP, Cholewicki J. Trunk muscle activation
in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):333–351.
43. van Die ¨
en JH, Cholewicki J, Radebold A. Trunk muscle
recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the
stability of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;
28(8):834–841.
44. O’Sullivan P. Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back
pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control
impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther. 2005;10(4):
242–255.
45. Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA, Norton BJ, et al. Reliability of
physical examination items used for classification of patients
with low back pain. Phys Ther. 1998;78(9):979–988.
46. Hides JA, Boughen CL, Stanton WR, Strudwick MW, Wilson
SJ. A magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the trans-
versus abdominis muscle during drawing-in of the abdominal
wall in elite Australian Football League players with and
without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(1):
4–10.
47. Cowan SM, Schache AG, Brukner P, et al. Delayed onset of
transversus abdominus in long-standing groin pain. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2004;36(12):2040–2045.
48. Cholewicki J, Greene HS, Polzhofer GK, Galloway MT, Shah
RA, Radebold A. Neuromuscular function in athletes following
recovery from a recent acute low back injury. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 2002;32(11):568–575.
49. D’hooge R, Hodges P, Tsao H, Hall L, Macdonald D, Danneels
L. Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion
in people in remission of recurrent low back pain. J Electro-
myogr Kinesiol. 2013;23(1):173–181.
50. Cholewicki J, Silfies SP, Shah RA, et al. Delayed trunk muscle
reflex responses increase the risk of low back injuries. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(23):2614–2620.
51. Richardson CA, Jull GA. Muscle control-pain control: what
exercises would you prescribe? Man Ther. 1995;1(1):2–10.
52. Tsao H, Hodges PW. Immediate changes in feedforward
postural adjustments following voluntary motor training. Exp
Brain Res. 2007;181(4):537–546.
53. Tsao H, Druitt TR, Schollum TM, Hodges PW. Motor training
of the lumbar paraspinal muscles induces immediate changes in
motor coordination in patients with recurrent low back pain. J
Pain. 2010;11(11):1120–1128.
54. Tsao H, Hodges PW. Persistence of improvements in postural
strategies following motor control training in people with
recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(4):
559–567.
55. Gubler D, Mannion AF, Schenk P, et al. Ultrasound tissue
Doppler imaging reveals no delay in abdominal muscle feed-
forward activity during rapid arm movements in patients with
chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(16):
1506–1513.
56. Vasseljen O, Unsgaard-Tndel M, Westad C, Mork PJ. Effect of
core stability exercises on feed-forward activation of deep
abdominal muscles in chronic low back pain: a randomized
controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(13):1101–
1108.
57. Smith BE, Littlewood C, May S. An update of stabilisation
exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-
analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:416.
58. Adams MA, Dolan P. How to use the spine, pelvis, and legs
effectively in lifting. In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Stoeckart R,
eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of
Research and Therapy. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill
Livingstone Elsevier; 2007:167–183.
59. Cholewicki J, McGill SM. Lumbar posterior ligament involve-
ment during extremely heavy lifts estimated from fluoroscopic
measurements. J Biomech. 1992;25(1):17–28.
60. Monnier A, Heuer J, Norman K, ¨
Ang BO. Inter- and intra-
observer reliability of clinical movement-control tests for
marines. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:263.
61. Luomajoki H, Kool J, de Bruin ED, Airaksinen O. Movement
control tests of the low back: evaluation of the difference
between patients with low back pain and healthy controls. BMC
Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:170.
62. Hodges PW. Pain and motor control: from the laboratory to
rehabilitation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011;21(2):220–228.
63. Panjabi MM. Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):371–379.
64. Harris-Hayes M, Van Dillen LR, Sahrmann SA. Classification,
treatment and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension
syndrome. Physiother Theory Pract. 2005;21(3):181–196.
65. Elqueta-Cancino E, Schabrun S, Danneels L, Hodges P. A
clinical test of lumbopelvic control: development and reliability
of a clinical test of dissociation of lumbopelvic and thoraco-
lumbar motion. Man Ther. 2014;19(5):418–424.
66. Brumagne S, Lysens R, Spaepen A. Lumbosacral position sense
during pelvic tilting in men and women without low back pain:
test development and reliability assessment. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 1999;29(6):345–351.
67. Higgins S. Motor skill acquisition. Phys Ther. 1991;71(2):123–
139.
68. Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA. Motor Learning and Performance:
A Situation-Based Learning Approach. 4th ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 2008:188–217.
69. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for
conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in
motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36(2):212–224.
70. Ranganathan R, Newell KM. Changing up the routine:
intervention-induced variability in motor learning. Exerc Sport
Sci Rev. 2013;41(1):64–70.
71. Ericsson K, Krampe R, Tesch-R ¨
omer C. The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev.
1993;100(3):363–406.
72. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results
and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol
Bull. 1984;95(3):355–386.
73. Ratamess NA, Alvar A, Evetoch TK, et al. American College of
Sports Medicine position stand: progression models in resis-
tance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;
41(3):687–708.
74. Siff MC. Strength and fitness. In: Siff MC, ed. Supertraining.
6th ed. Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute; 2003:32–33.
75. Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Changes in single
motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction
speed after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol. 1998;513(1):
295–305.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
Online First
76. Connor MK, Bezborodova O, Escobar CP, Hood DA. Effect of
contractile activity on protein turnover in skeletal muscle
mitochondrial subfractions. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(5):
1601–1606.
77. Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Fielding RA, Fiatarone MA, Evans
WJ, Roubenoff R. Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr
longitudinal study. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(4):1321–
1326.
78. Langberg H, Skovgaard D, Asp S, Kjaer M. Time pattern of
exercise-induced changes in type I collagen turnover after
prolonged endurance exercise in humans. Calcif Tissue Int.
2000;67(1):41–44.
79. Miller BF, Olesen JL, Hansen M, et al. Coordinated collagen
and muscle protein synthesis in human patella tendon and
quadriceps muscle after exercise. J Physiol. 2005;567(pt 3):
1021–1033.
80. Kongsgaard M, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, et al. Region
specific patellar tendon hypertrophy in humans following
resistance training. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2007;191(2):111–121.
81. Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, et al. Low-load high volume
resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more
than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men.
PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e12033.
82. Gonzalez Castro LN, Monsen CB, Smith MA. The binding of
learning to action in motor adaptation. PLoS Comput Biol.
2011;7(6):e1002052.
83. Liu Y, Lormes W, Wang L, Reissnecker S, Steinacker JM.
Different skeletal muscle HSP70 responses to high-intensity
strength training and low-intensity endurance training. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2004;91(23):330–335.
84. Naclerio FJ, Colado JC, Rhea MR, Bunker D, Triplett NT. The
influence of strength and power on muscle endurance test
performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1482–1488.
85. J¨urim ¨
ae T, Perez-Turpin JA, Cortell-Tormo JM, et al.
Relationship between rowing ergometer performance and
physiological responses to upper and lower body exercises in
rowers. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(4):434–437.
86. Borghuis J, Hof AL, Lemmink KA. The importance of sensory-
motor control in providing core stability: implications for
measurement and training. Sports Med. 2008;38(11):893–916.
87. Salminen JJ, Maki P, Oksanen A, Pentti J. Spinal mobility and
trunk muscle strength in 15-year-old schoolchildren with and
without low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(4):405–
411.
88. Bo Andersen L, Wedderkopp N, Leboeuf-Yde C. Association
between back pain and physical fitness in adolescents. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(15):1740–1744.
89. McGill S, Grenier S, Bluhm M, Preuss R, Brown S, Russell C.
Previous history of LBP with work loss is related to lingering
deficits in biomechanical, physiological, personal, psychosocial
and motor control characteristics. Ergonomics. 2003;46(7):731–
746.
90. Jones MA, Stratton G, Reilly T, Unnithan VB. Biological risk
indicators for recurrent non-specific low back pain in adoles-
cents. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(3):137–140.
91. Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE,
De Cuyper HJ. CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low
back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J.
2000;9(4):266–272.
92. D’hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Dolphens
M, Danneels L. Increased intramuscular fatty infiltration
without differences in lumbar muscle cross-sectional area
during remission of unilateral recurrent low back pain. Man
Ther. 2012;17(6):584–588.
93. Keller A, Brox JI, Gunderson R, Holm I, Friis A, Reiker˚
as O.
Trunk muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and density in
patients with chronic low back pain randomized to lumbar
fusion or cognitive intervention and exercises. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 2004;29(1):3–8.
94. Durall CJ, Udermann BE, Johansen DR, Gibson B, Reineke
DM, Reuteman P. The effects of preseason trunk muscle
training on low-back pain occurrence in women collegiate
gymnasts. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):86–92.
95. Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, et al. Effects of
three different training modalities on the cross sectional area of
the lumbar multifidus muscle in patients with chronic low back
pain. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(3):186–191.
96. Stone MH, Sands WA, Carlock J, et al. The importance of
isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of-force develop-
ment in sprint cycling. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(4):878–
884.
97. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-
Poulsen P. Increased rate of force development and neural drive
of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 2002;93(4):1318–1326.
98. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: part 1. Biological basis of maximal
power production. Sports Med. 2011;41(1):17–38.
99. Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-
time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement
jump: impact of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):177–
186.
100. Stone MH, Sanborn K, O’Bryant HS, et al. Maximum strength-
power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J
Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):739–745.
101. Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Relationship between
strength, power, speed, and change of direction performance of
female softball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):885–
895.
102. Watkins RG, Uppal GS, Perry J, Pink M, Dinsay JM. Dynamic
electromyographic analysis of trunk musculature in professional
golfers. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(4):535–538.
103. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Developing explosive muscular
power: implications for a mixed methods training strategy.
Strength Cond. 1994;16(5):20–31.
104. Graham RB, Brown SH. A direct comparison of spine rotational
stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting
tasks. J Biomech. 2012;45(9):1593–1600.
105. Brown SH, McGill SM. How the inherent stiffness of the in
vivo human trunk varies with changing magnitudes of muscular
activation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23(1):15–22.
106. Brughelli M, Cronin J. A review of research on the mechanical
stiffness in running and jumping: methodology and implica-
tions. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18(4):417–426.
107. Chelly SM, Denis C. Leg power and hopping stiffness:
relationship with sprint running performance. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2001;33(2):326–333.
108. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal
neuromuscular power: part 2. Training considerations for
improving maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011;
41(2):125–146.
109. Brown SH, McGill SM. Muscle force-stiffness characteristics
influence joint stability: a spine example. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
Avon). 2005;20(9):917–922.
Journal of Athletic Training 0
Online First
110. Bayramo˘
glu M, Akman MN, Kilin¸c S, Cetin N, Yavuz N, Ozker
R. Isokinetic measurement of trunk muscle strength in women
with chronic low-back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;
80(9):650–655.
111. McNeill T, Warwick D, Andersson G, Schultz A. Trunk
strengths in attempted flexion, extension, and lateral bending in
healthy subjects and patients with low-back disorders. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 1980;5(6):529–538.
112. Davarian S, Maroufi N, Ebrahimi I, Farahmand F, Parnianpour
M. Trunk muscles strength and endurance in chronic low back
pain patients with and without clinical instability. J Back
Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2012;25(2):123–129.
113. McGill SM, Grenier S, Kavcic N, Cholewicki J. Coordination
of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):353–359.
114. Paalanne N, Korpelainen R, Taimela S, Remes J, Mutanen P,
Karppinen J. Isometric trunk muscle strength and body sway in
relation to low back pain in young adults. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 2008;33(13):E435–E441.
115. Renkawitz T, Boluki D, Grifka J. The association of low back
pain, neuromuscular imbalance, and trunk extension strength in
athletes. Spine J. 2006;6(6):673–683.
116. McGill SM. Low back exercises: evidence for improving
exercise regimens. Phys Ther. 1998;78(7):754–765.
117. Gambetta V. Athletic Development: The Art and Science of
Functional Sports Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics; 2007:3–20.
118. Floyd RT. Basic biomechanical factors and concepts. In: Floyd
RT, ed. Manual of Structural Kinesiology. 19th ed. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015:69–89.
119. Siff MC. Dynamic correspondence as a means of strength
training. In: Siff MC, ed. Supertraining. Denver, CO: Super-
training Institute; 2003:240–252.
120. Glasgow P, Bleakley CM, Phillips N. Being able to adapt to
variable stimuli: the key driver in injury and illness prevention?
Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(2):64–65.
Address correspondence to Simon Spencer, MSc, BSc (Hons), MCSP, The English Institute of Sport, Lilleshall National Sports Centre,
Manchester, TF10-9AT, United Kingdom. Address e-mail to simon.spencer@eis2win.co.uk.
0Volume 51 Number 10 October 2016
