The Epistemology of Exercise: Bracing

[tylerkosnik]

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.

[Scott Stevenson]

My thoughts, completely uncensored.

This is one of the most bizarre first posts I've seen on a message board, ever. I say this because:
1.) I cannot tell if there is an honest question beneath all this. (My first thought was this might be a spam post... Sorry - just being honest here. )
2.) I cannot tell what the purpose of this inquiry would be, except to drive a mind focused on teasing out details, regardless of the utility of such. (Maybe I missed it, but I'm not sure why this is important, in particular... )

To me, it seems quite obvious as to why one would uncover so many cues concerning how to brace "the core for optimal stability/strength/performance/safety:" Each situation could very well require a different activation strategy, and thus, a coach might employ a different verbal cue. For instance, safety and performance are not synonymous, and sometimes expression of strength (moving a maximal load over a distance) might not equate to the greatest level of stability (as movement implies some amount of instability).

-S

[tylerkosnik]

I'll take bizarre as a compliment!

Admittedly, this post lacked a definite point or conclusion, but I think you just teased out exactly what I was aiming for. I'd edit your statement with a very important caveat: Each situation could very well require a different activation strategy, and thus, a skilled coach might employ a different verbal cue

That type of implementation would require:
(1) a coach with depth of experience and a "toolbox" of different cues to draw upon
(2) a coach who lacks dogmatic attachment to a particular cue or sole "focus" in bracing (e.g. TVA)
(3) ideally, a coach observing in person (this also requires depth of experience for the coach to be able to diagnose the movement fault and apply the proper cue from point 1)

IMO, these type of coaches are a rare breed. And there are many of us who are not under watch of any coach's eye. So, the post was just a reminder to myself (which I thought others might find useful too) to be wary of just taking cues from teh interwebz unless we understand the underlying thing the cue is trying to accomplish.

All that said, this was a lead in to me asking if, in your experience, there is a bracing cue or strategy that you've found generally works very well for most people in most circumstances. I should have just asked that in the original post!

[Scott Stevenson]

I'll take bizarre as a compliment!

Admittedly, this post lacked a definite point or conclusion, but I think you just teased out exactly what I was aiming for. I'd edit your statement with a very important caveat: Each situation could very well require a different activation strategy, and thus, a skilled coach might employ a different verbal cue

That type of implementation would require:
(1) a coach with depth of experience and a "toolbox" of different cues to draw upon
(2) a coach who lacks dogmatic attachment to a particular cue or sole "focus" in bracing (e.g. TVA)
(3) ideally, a coach observing in person (this also requires depth of experience for the coach to be able to diagnose the movement fault and apply the proper cue from point 1)

IMO, these type of coaches are a rare breed. And there are many of us who are not under watch of any coach's eye. So, the post was just a reminder to myself (which I thought others might find useful too) to be wary of just taking cues from teh interwebz unless we understand the underlying thing the cue is trying to accomplish.

All that said, this was a lead in to me asking if, in your experience, there is a bracing cue or strategy that you've found generally works very well for most people in most circumstances.

Well, in my mind, cues should be given to help with proper execution of the movement and where needed, on an individual basis.

Simply saying "most circumstances" opens your question up too everything from sitting at a desk (is a bracing cue needed?) to performing a 3 pointer in basketball (is a bracing cue needed?) to performing a cable lat pulldown (is a bracing cue needed?). I don't find that a bracing cue, per se is needed in many cases at all, i.e., that one need to specifically convey in a cue focused on "core" stabilization in many cases whatsoever.

I think the most important aspect of a cue would be that the information fits within the paradigm of the person receiving it.

For example, if someone's got poor "core" stabilization that's evident in a rounded (flexed) spine during deadlift, my first inclination is to convey what I'm seeing and, if necessary, provide a cue to help with that issue.

For some, NO cue might be needed. For others, you might say "Keep your butt out, like a cover model for a hot rod magazine" or "pretend your a bear shitting in the woods - don't poop on your feet" or something to that effect.

I really suspect (as I get the sense you do) that the notion of one's "core" is overused and, like trainers who use bizarre exercises as a marketing tool to make themselves stand out, giving the impression they know things that others don't, the use of an esoteric bracing cues the probably requires greater depth of human torso anatomy than that of most clients have probably misses the boat as far as improving performance, but may give an air of authority that keeps clients coming back. ("He must know his shit b/c he's saying all this stuff I don't understand.")

The growing number of cues that you listed there would make sense as trainers / coaches try to further distinguish themselves by coming up with novel cues that, that are different but don't necessarily effectively bring out changes in performance.

-S