Many strength coaches are big on rotary strength and stability. While we love our Pallof press movements, which fall under the “core stability” umbrella since the core remains stable, we also love our cable chop and lift movements and our landmine movements, which may or may not fall under the “core movement” umbrella depending on how the movements are performed (with or without spinal rotation), in addition to med ball rotational movements.

Some coaches feel that spinal rotation strengthening should be avoided completely, some coaches believe that spinal rotation strengthening should be performed but the movement should occur at the thoracic spine and the hips while the lumbar spine is locked down, and some coaches think that spinal rotation strengthening is great and you don’t need to cue anything because the body is smart and knows how, where, and when to rotate.  

In Mike Boyle’s article entitled, Is ‘Rotation Training’ Hurting Your Performance?, he quotes Shirley Sahrmann, who states the following:

The thoracic spine, not the lumbar spine should be the site of greatest amount of rotation of the trunk… when an individual practices rotational exercises, he or she should be instructed to “think about the motion occurring in the area of the chest.”

Mark Buckley does an excellent job of discussing the biomechanics of spinal rotation exercises in this free PDF. He states that: 

Rotation is not the concern – where the rotation takes place is the concern

Mark goes on to state that thoracic rotation accounts for 60-70° (Segmental contribution as high as 7-10° in the mid thoracic area at T3-T9) of rotary movement in the spine, while lumbar rotation only accounts for 10-15° (Segmental contribution as small as 0-2° at L1-L5 and 0-5° at L5-S1) of rotatry movement in the spine.

Our Lumbar Spines are Jacked

In this article, Eric Cressey pointed out that in this study, it was shown that in the lumbar spine:

52 percent of the subjects had a bulge at at least one level, 27 percent had a protrusion, and 1 percent had an extrusion [82% of subjects]. Thirty-eight percent had an abnormality of more than one intervertebral disk

Our Thoracic Spines are Also Jacked

Last year I was pulling up research pertaining to the thoracic discs, and I stumbled upon some interesting and perplexing information. This study states that thoracic hernations occur with much less frequency than lumbar or cervical hernations. This study reports that thoracic hernations are responsible for only .15-1.8% of all spinal herniations.

However more recent research paints a different picture. In this study involving 90 individuals,  37% of asymptomatic individuals had at least one thoracic disc herniation, 54% had a disc bulge, 58% had an annular tear, 29% had deformation in the spinal cord, and 28% had Scheurmann end-plate irregularities or kyphosis. And this study, conducted in 2007, which claims to be the largest study in the world’s literature on the topic of thoracic disc herniation, states that thoracic disc hernations occur in 50% of patients and that 26% of patients had multiple herniations.  This study states that degenerative disc disease and disc herniations are the most prevelent thoracic spine abnormalites and that disc herniations predominate in the lower thoracic segments and are a dynamic phenomenon.  

Disc Herniations are in Flux

Interestingly, while disc degeneration does not improve, thoracic herniations are in a state of constant flux. This study shows that 27% of disc herniations improved over a 4-149 week range of follow-up. After a mean follow up period of 26 months, 48 previously looked at discs in this study were examined, and they found that 3 of 21 small disc herniations increased in size, one of twenty and three of twenty medium discs increased and decreased in size respectively, and four of seven large disc herniations decreased in size.

Method of Imaging Matters

It appears that the method of imaging matters, as this study showed that 21 of 48 thoracic discs appeared healthy when using MRI, but when using discography only 10 of 48 appeared normal. Studies involving discography likely underestimate spinal abnormalities.

Torsion Hammers the Lumbar Facets (But Extension and Lateral Bending are Worse)

This study shows that lumbar facet joints carry no load in flexion, and large loads during extension (205 N at a 10 Nm moment and a 190 N axial load), torsion (65 N at a 10 Nm moment and a 150 N axial load), and lateral bending (78 N at a 3 Nm moment and a 160 N axial load).

Thoracic Facet Joint Pain vs. Lumbar Facet Joint Pain

This study showed that the prevalence of facet joint pain was 39% in the cervical spine, 34% in the thoracic spine; and 27% in the lumbar spine.

This study showed that painful thoracic facets occurred in 42% of individuals with thoracic pain, while only 31% of individuals with low back pain suffer from painful lumbar facets, however of the 500 people with chronic spinal pain involved in the study, only 6% had painful thoracic facets and 25% had painful lumbar facets. During the background portion of the article, the authors stated that, “facet joints have been implicated as a cause of chronic spinal pain in 15% to 45% of patients with chronic low back pain, 48% of patients with thoracic pain, and 54% to 67% of patients with chronic neck pain.”

Poor Hip Mobility Most Likely Increases the Risk of Low Back Pain in Rotary Sport Athletes

This study stated that “Among people who participate in rotation-related sports, those with LBP had less overall passive hip rotation motion and more asymmetry of rotation between sides than people without LBP.”

This makes perfect sense, as individuals possessing insufficient hip internal and external rotation mobility will be forced to compensate and rotate more at the lumbar spine. Over time this will usually result in injury and/or pain if left unchecked.  

Rotational Exercises are Safer With Some Axial Pre-Loading

In this article, Nick Tumminello quotes the late, great Mel Siff:

A certain degree of compressive preloading locks the facet assembly of the spine and makes it more resistant to torsion. This is the reason why trunk rotation without vertical compression may cause disc injury, whereas the same movement performed with compression is significantly safer.

Some Things You Need to Think About

Let’s say that a certain movement requires 60 degrees of spinal rotation. Do you want all 60 degrees of rotation occuring in the 12 thoracic motion segments with absolutely zero motion occuring in the five lumbar motion segments?

Would this be the safest method of execution, and is this a natural movement pattern?

Or, would it be safer if the individual rotated (for example) 55 total degrees in the twelve thoracic motion segments and 5 total degrees in the five lumbar segments?  Is some lumbar rotation natural and beneficial, or do you want to completely  ”lock it up” by cueing all motion in the chest/t-spine area?

Aren’t end ranges of spinal motion the most dangerous for the discs? Wouldn’t we want to distribute load evenly rather than concentrate it in one region?

Does architecture (ie: what the lumbar spine and thoracic spine were built for) matter when thoracic discs and facets get beat up just like the lumbar discs and facets?

Are spinal rotation exercises even worthwhile considering they are high risk? Should we ever do any spinal rotation under load, or is it wiser to stick to just rotary stability exercises for the spine where the spine stays motionless while rotary forces are resisted/prevented?

Segmental vs. Fluid Rotation

Nick Tumminello talks about segmental rotation in this video:

My Take

It is very important to first qualify individuals for proper hip and thoracic spine rotational mobility. If they don’t have it, you need to prescribe mobility drills until they get it. Here are a bunch of different t-spine rotational mobility drills:

Here are some hip mobility drills:

While you are developing hip and spine mobility, you can simultaneously work on preventing torsion by prescribing rotary core stability exercises such as band or cable rotary holds or foam roller prone and supine rotary holds.

Next, you can introduce a dynamic component and have individuals prevent spinal rotation while the limbs are moving dynamically. These include cable chops, cable lifts, landmines, and tornado ball slams. Finally, you can incorporate some slight motion in the spine via various types of chops, lifts, landmines, and medball throws, but you want to make sure that individuals are moving at the proper segments. If you followed the correct steps, then individuals should be able to distribute loading efficiently and rotate with a combination of hip and t-spine rotation with slight motion at the lumbar spine.

To reiterate, there’s a 2-step process:

1. Increase hip and t-spine mobility and work on static rotational core stability

2. Move to dynamic rotational core stability and eventually rotational strength with some spinal movement involved

As far as cueing to ”move at the chest,” I believe that it’s best to err on the side of caution and try to get most of the mobility in the t-spine rather than involving the lumbar spine. Even though discs at all spinal regions appear to take a serious beating and develop herniations, and even though facet joint pain seems to occur at all spinal regions as well, it makes sense to look at the architecture of the spine and try to determine its optimal function.

Furthermore, many novices erroneously believe that spinal rotation should occur mostly in the lumbar spine and they therefore actively attempt to twist to end-range lumbar rotation. This is highly dangerous. If individuals think of movement occuring in the chest, they’ll stay tall and properly distribute stress over a broad range of joint structures which will minimize tissue damage and the likelihood of injury. I’m sure that even when individuals attempt to lock down the lumbar spine there is still some slight (but not dangerous) motion involved.

Evidence shows that there is a huge genetic component to disc degeneration and herniations. While trainers and coaches like to believe that we can prevent the onset of spinal degradation by teaching the body to move properly via mobility, stability/activation drills, and proper cueing for motor control feedback, it appears that there is only so much we can do.

I only perform (myself) and prescribe (to clients) spinal rotation work twice per week and stay away from end ranges. Two sets of 6-10 reps is the typical volume. One day per week usually involves anti-rotation (the spine stays neutral and resists rotation), while the other day involves actual rotation (the spine twists a bit).

What’s your take? Are spinal rotation movements worth the risk? If so, where should the rotation occur, how should the exercises be cued, and how frequent should they be prescribed?

I was working on a different topic of the week but it was taking me a long time so I’m going to go the easy route and switch to an easier (but very important) topic for this week. This week’s topic is on pushing and pulling ratios.

Most people love to push. Squats, bench press, push ups, leg press, etc. And they do a lot of it. However, these same folks don’t always like to pull. Deadlifts, chins, rows, etc. seem to be less popular in the gym.

In time this can create muscular imbalances and lead to postural disortions which can predispose the lifter to injury.

Some experts recommend a simple 1:1 pushing to pulling ratio in program design, some recommend a 1:2 ratio, and I’ve even seen a 1:3 ratio recommended for longevity purposes.

Here’s what I do.

Based on the Prioritization Principle, you’ll see the best results from the exercise you do first in the week and first in the workout session. I always perform pushing movements first. On lower body days, squat variations come first, and on upper body days, bench pressing variations come first. On full body days it’s a squat followed by a press.

Some coaches like to alternate between lower body pushes and upper body pulls, then lower body pulls and upper body pushes so there is no interference, but I don’t abide by this rule. That’s a whole different topic, however.

Back to the topic at hand. I prioritize pushing by putting it first in the workouts, but then I make up for this prioritization imbalance by programming more pulling than pushing. For upper body, I’ll usually do 2 pulls for every push, and for lower body, I’ll usually do 2 or even 3 posterior chain dominant lifts for every quad dominant lift. This really seems to work well as people rarely have posterior chains that are “too strong.”

I have some meathead friends who like to do bodypart split routines and I always make sure that they’re doing more pulling than pushing too. For example, split up leg day into quad day and ham/glute day, and split up back day into a back width and a back thickness day.

How about you? What ratio do you adhere to, and what’s your reasoning behind it?

This week’s topic is something that I’ve been thinking about for quite some time.

Nearly all strength coaches employ core training into their programming. The definition of “core” will vary from one coach to another. Some will say the muscles between the pelvis and ribs. Some will say the muscles between the knees and shoulders. Some will mention the inner and outer core. Some will include muscles such as the deep neck flexors.

Back to the topic at hand. Let’s say you have 60 minutes to train a group of athletes. Should you include a special component for core training? I realize that age, sport, number of days, training history, and individual weaknesses factor in here considerably. If you need more specifics, let’s say you’re the strength coach for a high school varsity football team.

Arguments in Favor

I’ve heard some coaches say that the core training component of a routine is the most important component for power production.

It increases core stability which prevents injuries on the field….everything from ACL injuries, hamstring strains, hernias, and low back pain could be due to core instability.

Core stability will help promote good exercise form and prevent weight room injuries.  

Strong abs and glutes help prevent hyperlordosis and anterior pelvic tilt.

Specific core exercises exceed general strength exercises in EMG activity in the various core muscles.

The spine is the power center and drives everything. All explosive motions transfer through the core so to get optimal transfer you can’t have energy leaks or a weak core.

The spine must be prepared for battle, and this is done by getting the spine accustomed to high forces seen in the sport.

Core exercises can be seamlessly integrated into programs such as during interset rest intervals as active recovery or as a pre-workout activation method so it doesn’t take time away from total allotment.

Proper core training teaches individuals how to brace and maximize IAP which spares the spine.

The core produces a double-peaked “superstiffness” during explosive movement so we should train it to pulse properly for this purpose.

A stronger muscle is a stiffer muscle. Stiff muscles deform less.

Arguments Against

It doesn’t increase power; players spine’s aren’t buckling when they jump and run.

The core gets hit hard enough through squats, deadlifts, chin ups, push ups, farmer’s walks, front squats, overhead squats, and military press, and even moreso with unilateral variations of lunges, Bulgarian split squats, one arm rows, single arm bench press, etc. Good training IS core training. But plenty of core training is wimpy training that won’t carry over to sport.

Sport specific skills are all about timing; extra strength doesn’t help much. Most activities don’t require a high percentage of MVC, thereby rendering extra strength as useless.

Rotation training just beats up the spine and adds extra stress.

Why put tons of spinal loading on players who are already loading their spines enough during practices and games?

In a perfect world we’d do all kinds of fancy core exercises but I have limited time with athletes and my time with players is better served by doing more general strength, explosive power, plyometric, agility, and speed work. Or better yet, skill work.

Why fatigue the core prior to a strength training session or before sets of more important “big rock” exercises which rely on the core to function optimally?

Instead of focusing on the spine, we’d be better served focusing on the hips. Replace anti-extension, anti-flexion, anti-lateral flexion, and anti-rotation exercises with hip flexion, hip extension, hip adduction, hip abduction, hip external rotation, and hip internal rotation work and your athletes would play better. Sport is all about the hips.

Some of the best jumpers and sprinters in the world never did core training. You need fluidity, such as that of Dominique Wilkins, Michael Jordan, and Carl Lewis. All this focus on creating robots to not move is ill-fated.

Some of the strongest Olympic weightlifters never do core training either. Obviously it’s not necessary as they’re the most powerful people on the planet. They spend their time exploding, not holding core isometric contractions.

Pulsing isn’t a wise strategy as we can’t mimic precise core timing/loading/vectors seen in sport.

My Take

I could go through almost every argument above and poke holes in them. However these arguments are what make our job so fun. Strength training is an art and a science. If I have 60 minutes to train athletes, I definitely include some specialized core work. But I only prescribe one or two sets of one or two exercises. Furthermore, I place the core exercises at the end of the program. Many coaches place them at the beginning.

As mentioned above, the core gets worked through proper upper and lower bilateral and unilateral exercises in the strength program. You don’t need much icing on the cake, but you have to admit, using the ab wheel or the Cook bar for some rotational work really taxes the core and just “feels right.” Adding in a couple of sets of these only takes up a few extra minutes of workout time.

What’s your take?