Trunk Rotation

Tim's Discussion Board: Concepts : Trunk Rotation
   By Jason M. Struck on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 04:49 pm: Edit Post

I wanted to share this with the BaGua practitioners. This an article by a highly respected strength coach, who mostly works with teamsports at the college and pro level. (hockey/basketball)

I think that the info will be of value to those who twist.

begin article:

Is 'Rotation Training' Hurting Your Performance?
Mike Boyle

Many athletes and trainers are using 'rotational flexibility' exercises in their programs - but is it really helping performance or could it be the cause of more injuries?

Over the past decade training has clearly moved from a sagittal plane orientation to an emphasis on unilateral training and multi-planar training. Part of this process, particularly for athletes, has been a push toward developing flexibility in rotation. Any athlete competing in a sport that required rotation, like baseball, hockey or golf, was blindly urged to develop more flexibility in rotation. Like many performance coaches, I fell victim to this same flawed concept. I was one of the lemmings that I dislike so much, blindly following the recommendations of others and using exercises that I would now consider questionable or dangerous. Interestingly enough, as a back pain sufferer, I simply wrote off my discomfort as age-related and continued to perform rotary stretches and dynamic warm-up exercises.

Reading the work of physical therapist Shirley Sahrmann made me reconsider my position and eventually eliminate a whole group of stretches and dynamic warm-up exercises that were once staples of our programs. Sahrmann in her book Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes, states “during most daily activities, the primary role of the abdominal muscles is to provide isometric support and limit the degree of rotation of the trunk…A large percentage of low back problems occur because the abdominal muscles are not maintaining tight control over the rotation between the pelvis and the spine at the L5- S1 level. “ (2002 p.71) The lumbar range of motion that many personal trainers and coaches have attempted to create may not even be desirable and is probably potentially injurious.

The ability to resist or to prevent rotation may in fact be more important than the ability to create it. Clients or athletes must be able to prevent rotation before we should allow them to produce it. Porterfield and DeRosa in another excellent book, Mechanical Low Back Pain, come to the same conclusion as Sahrmann. Porterfield and DeRosa state “Rather than considering the abdominals as flexors and rotators of the trunk- for which they certainly have the capacity- their function might be better viewed as antirotators and antilateral flexors of the trunk.” (Porterfield and Derosa, WB Saunders 1998, p99)

Sahrmann goes on to note a key fact that I believe has been overlooked in the performance field. “The overall range of lumbar rotation is ...approx 13 degrees. The rotation between each segment from T10 to L5 is 2 degrees. The greatest rotational range is between L5 and S1, which is 5 degrees…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” “ (Sahrmann, p61-62)

Sahrmann places the final icing on the cake with these statements; “Rotation of the lumbar spine is more dangerous than beneficial and rotation of the pelvis and lower extremities to one side while the trunk remains stable or is rotated to the other side is particularly dangerous.” (see figures 1+2) (Sahrmann p. 72)

Interestingly enough Sahrmann agrees with the conclusions of Barry Ross. Ross recommended primarily isometric abdominal training for his sprinters. Sahrmann concurs; “During most activities, the primary role of the abdominal muscles is to provide isometric support and limit the degree of rotation of the trunk which, as discussed, is limited in the lumbar spine.” (Sahrmann p 70)

Most importantly, what does all this mean? For me it means that I have eliminated the following stretches that attempt to increase lumbar range of motion. This includes Seated Trunk Rotational Stretches (Fig 1) and Lying Trunk Rotational Stretches (Fig 2).







I have also eliminated dynamic exercises designed to increase trunk range of motion such as Dynamic Bent Leg Trunk Twists (Fig 3), Dynamic Straight Leg Truck Twist (Fig 4), and Scorpion (Fig 5).






My conclusion. Most people don’t need additional trunk range of motion. The evidence from the experts seems to be clear that what we really need is to be able to control the range that we have. Although this may seem extreme to some, I have seen a significant decrease in the complaints of low back pain since eliminating these exercises. In fact, a great deal of our emphasis is now placed on developing hip range of motion in both internal and external rotation. I think the future will see coaches working on core stability and hip mobility instead of working against themselves by simultaneously trying to develop core range of motion and core stability.


Porterfield and DeRosa- Mechanical Low Back Pain, WB Saunders 1998,

Sahrmann, Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes, Mosby 2002


   By robert on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 07:05 pm: Edit Post

thank you jason meatstriker,

i think i will discontue my practice of ba gua after i read that article. Your knowledge is of the human anatomy is
extensive.

Tim you should quit too.


   By Jason M. Struck on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 10:43 pm: Edit Post

sorry guy


   By Jason M. Struck on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 10:58 pm: Edit Post

I hope that no-one else misinterprets my relaying this piece to you as a knock against Ba Gua. The only good teacher i ever saw never encouraged anyone to rotate at the lumbar level anyway.

i see all kinds of martial artists who don't recognize the difference between lumbar rotation, and thoracic rotation. Or femur rotation (hip/ internal/external)as he mentions in the article.


   By marc daoust on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 01:51 am: Edit Post

once again robert you are a complete idiot
you should shut up and listen,he's got a good point.
any kind of rotation of the spine(including the neck)will reduce your strength dramaticaly!
robert this is not ancient china people don't fly anymore.


   By Jason M. Struck on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 02:20 am: Edit Post

whadya gonna do?


   By Shane on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:44 pm: Edit Post

Ba Gua Zhang doesn't twist the torso. (It twists the opponent's on occasion).

All the exercises, forms and techniques I've seen in Sun, Gao and Yin styles are keep the spine in its natural position.


   By Jason M. Struck on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 02:45 pm: Edit Post

word.


   By Tim on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:13 am: Edit Post

Right,

All of my teachers emphasized rotating the upper body in a unit from the hips (keeping the shoulders and hips in line, I have a whole section on this in my Combat Throws book), never twisting more that a slight amount in the spine.

At one time or another, almost every grappler will suffer a dislocated rib, most often caused when the hips and shoulders are suddenly and simultaneously twisted in opposite directions. The center needs to be strong enough to hold the torso in a "unit."


   By Backarcher on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 09:24 pm: Edit Post

Here is some info I got from a couple professionals:

"....He's taking those quotes out of context.
Shirley Sahrmann has a very detailed examination and treatment protocol. And though I may not agree with some parts of her style, she is very thorough and would never have a blanket statement such as "Avoid all rotation at the lumbar spine." I'm pretty sure that if her examination revealed losses there that affect your condition, then she would work on restoring that rotation.
The same with the quote from Porterfield and DeRosa. It is more of a statement advocating for proper core stabilization.
Proper assessment requires a skilled and reasoned thought process. In this case, we see someone taking little parts of a bigger picture and making incredible generalizations.
What's that quote? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."


_____________________



"...Rotation in itself is not the culpret of core destablization. It becomes the same story of flexabilty before stabilty. Why do people get injured in any movement? The nervous system has been overloaded by to much stimulas, a reactive pattern has destabilzed the structure in some way, or the tissues haven't been conditioned properly for the stimulas. Intellegence says not to illiminate a movement from a training protocol because it may cause injury. But to use incremental sophistication to insure the structure can handle the stress of the given activety. I Like the idea of the 10% safety valve.

Most people are so unconscious of their own reactive patterns that when they train or play the injury just happened. Well I would say that in some way there body has been telling them and they just didn't hear, couldn't listen or just ignored the signal. I know I'm certainly guilty of this in the hope of better performance. I have even injured myself and justified that the activity was worth it, the goal or accomplishment is just part of the game..."


   By Jason M. Struck on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:33 pm: Edit Post

i want to say that I respect Mike Boyle a lot, and that maybe this article is being taken a little oout of context as well, as it is directed towards collegiate or youth sports strength and Conditioning specialists. Unfortuneately the pics of common exercises were not copied in the cut and paste job that I did.

The exercises are all ones that call for a degree of rotation, that mostly stems from the S1 up to L5 vertebrae, and that is the kind of thing that Sahrmann was trying to point out. That there's really only supposed to be about 13 degrees of rotation in that area, and so many athletes try to make it into almost 90 by taking there legs out to one side or the other, and they often do it loaded. If anything, the extra laxity created by this kind of protocol may be the only factor needed to create risk at extreme range of motion. Again this is directed at team sports, so it might be more of a real threat for hockey or other contact sports, where the torso is rotated and there is the threat of a big hit. To me this seemed to fit with some martial arts too.

PS: Sahrmann is a PT Instructor at Washington U in St. Louis, and has forgot more than we'll ever learn about movement, and she's teaching it in a unique way (at least from the allied health perspective.) Anyone who wants to do a little heavier reading, her book Movement Impairment Syndromes is fascinating stuff.


   By Jason M. Struck on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:39 pm: Edit Post

thanks again for your input Backarcher, I always appreciate it and usually learn something.

By the way, Coach Boyle is also a scientific guy, and doesn't make blanket statements either. I think he may have been trying to say that MOST athletes don't need more ROM in rotation, they need more strength, stability and control.


   By Backarcher on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 01:23 am: Edit Post

"...
they need more strength, stability and control."

I agree.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: