Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Epistemology of Exercise: Bracing
#1
Lightbulb 
Apologies if this is posted in the wrong location, it appears to be the only forum I can post in

Scott (and others), I'm interested in your thought my thoughts on bracing below. I'm not a PhD, NASM, or anything else - just a hobbyist. So, I've spent a lot of time exploring this topic, but want to make sure I haven't misread or misinterpreted anything.

• Prepare for a punch to the gut
• Bring your belly button to your spine
• Pull your diaphragm down
• Pull your pelvic floor up
• Push through your pelvic floor
• Inflate your obliques
• Breathe in to push your stomach out (pregnant belly)
• Pull your stomach in tight and breath into that

If you watch enough Youtube videos, read enough articles, and frequent enough forums, chances are you’ve heard all of these cues and many, many more. How did we end up with so many confusing cues, some of them downright contradictory? My exploration of the literature appears to reveal there is no commonly agreed model of spinal stabilization during lifting. Therefore, it follows that if we don’t know for sure how our spine stabilizes under loaded movement, we can’t possibly know the exact contribution of specific “core” muscles to that stabilization, and can’t then know exactly what to cue and how.

Models of spinal stabilization mechanisms include: the intra-abdominal balloon (Bartelink), the abdominal/thoracolumbar mechanism (Gracovetsky), the posterior ligamentous system (Farfan & Gracovetsky), the hydraulic amplifier effect (Gracovetsky), and the arch model (Aspden). Each model, however, has since either been outright disproved or is insufficient in its ability to fully and completely explain all the phenomena related to spinal stabilization. From this jumping off point of uncertainty, let’s move on to one of the sub-ideas of spinal stabilization, “bracing”.

An overly simplistic method would be to divide bracing approaches into two camps: Abdominal Hollowing vs. Abdominal Stiffening. The former embraces a contraction of the transverse abdominis as the primary focus to creating stability. The latter is focused on the importance of co-contraction of most/all the abdominal muscles to create stability. As I said, this is overly simplistic. Different proponents of the Hollowing approach may propose varying levels of TVA contraction and may combine this contraction with other muscles. Likewise, the Stiffening approach contains proponents of strategies so disparate, grouping them together feels wrong (one could “stiffen” by contracting all the abdominals inward, contracting them in a neutral position, or even pushing them all outward). There are plenty of approaches that combine elements of both, at varying levels.

Hopefully at this point it’s clearer why and how we could end up with the contradictory cues listed at the top of this article. Add to this the idea that EVEN IF we knew how the core – as individual parts and as a whole – should perform to create maximal stability, reliance on cues to create it would be imperfect. A cue is only as good as its interpretation (another reason so many exist).

So, the bottom line: don’t trust any expert who claims to know exactly how to brace the core for optimal stability/strength/performance/safety.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The Epistemology of Exercise: Bracing - by tylerkosnik - 03-20-2017, 12:42 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)