Justin Hurley
03-14-2005, 03:33 PM
Dr. Mel Siff explore's a powerlifting paradox......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FLAT BACK PARADOX
INTRODUCTION
For newcomers, these P&Ps are Propositions, not facts or dogmatic
proclamations. They are intended to stimulate interaction among
users working in different fields, to re-examine traditional
concepts, foster distance education, question our beliefs
and suggest new lines of research or approaches to training.
We look forward to responses from anyone who has views or relevant
information on the topics. (Currently, most of the Puzzles &
Paradoxes are discussed on the various Physical Therapy and Sports
Science groups).
PUZZLE & PARADOX 109
Rigid adherence to the advice to lift with the lumbar spine 'flat' or in mild
extension may not always be accurate or necessary.
THE PROBLEM
Back pain and disability, particularly of the lumbar spine, has long been
associated with faulty lifting technique. Both epidemiologically and in terms of
biomechanical analysis, it would appear that lumbar flexion under loading
poses special risks to the intervertebral discs, so it is generally advised that we
avoid lifting with forward lumbar flexion, particularly if this is combined with
trunk rotation or lateral flexion.
This seems to be supported by studies which show that approximately 8% of
injuries to Olympic weightlifters involve the lumbar spine, whereas this figure
is over 25% for Powerlifters. The greater incidence of lumbar injury among
powerlifters may be due to the fact that the deadlift often produces a greater
degree of spinal flexion during the initial pulling stage from the platform.
Although biomechanical analysis shows that the greater accelerations of the
explosive stages of the Olympic lifts can produce greater forces than those
encountered in powerlifting, these forces do not occur in the early stages of the
lift when the lumbar spine is at its most vulnerable.
However, if one studies sagittal plane photographic or video sequences of some
of the world's top weightlifters, it will be noticed that a significant number of
these highly experienced lifters display varying degrees of mild spinal flexion
during the initial stage of the pull in both of the Olympic lifts.
In fact, Russian biomechanists paid great attention to the lifting technique of
the Bulgarian former World and Olympic 75kg champion, Mitkov, whose early
lifting phases were all executed with a rounded back. It was concluded that he
actually used the 'rolling backwards' or straightening of the lumbar spine to
impart greater upward momentum for the explosive second pull of the lifts.
Interestingly, his style of pulling produced a maximum pulling velocity of 2m
per second in the snatch (with 150kg), second only to that of the great
superheavy, Zhabotinsky (2.06m/sec), whose pull (with 175kg) was also
executed with mild lumbar flexion.
The Bulgarian, Christov, who also lifted with some lumbar flexion produced a
high maximum pulling velocity in the snatch with 180kg in the 110kg division
(1.89m/sec).In the clean, Alexeyev produced one of the highest maximum
pulling velocities (1.8m per sec with a load of 242.5kg), followed by
Zhabotinsky (1.76m per sec with 207.5kg). Once again, both of these lifters
began their pulls with a degree of spinal flexion. None of the lifters using mild
lumbar flexion during heavy lifts displayed any greater incidence of spinal
injury compared with their colleagues.
In other words, it seems that the advice always to lift with a flat or mildly
extended lumbar spine may not be accurate or suitable for everyone. Other
studies of the lifting technique of the 'rounded back' lifters mentioned above did
not reveal that their technique was faulty, but merely an individual
characteristic.Anatomically, we know that deliberate attempts to extend the
lumbar spine may result in a relative decrease in the tension of the posterior
ligaments of the spine, while inadequate muscular contraction of the erector
spinae muscle group may lead to relative increase of tension in these ligaments.
It seems as if a balance between the tensions in the muscular corset of the trunk
and the associated ligaments offers the optimal way of lifting heavy loads from
the ground, rather than a dogmatic insistence on a flat or mildly extended lower
back. Just as there are genetic differences in other aspects of musculoskeletal
structure and function, so there may be similar differences which relate to the
muscles responsible for stabilising the body while lifting.
This implies that the role of the coach, trainer or therapist should be to
determine exactly which individual patterns of muscle involvement and joint
movement should be used by a given person, a skill which is probably more
commonly understood among top weightlifting coaches than elsewhere else. (I
have found that use of a lifting belt, contrary to belief among some trainers, can
offer an excellent kinaesthetic way of imparting safe lifting technique which
establishes the optimal balance between muscular activation and ligamentous
tension). It also implies that rigid formulae for lifting need to be seriously
questioned - after all, mild spinal flexion may offer some individuals a safer,
more effective lifting technique than a 'flat' back. Again, the principle of
individualisation seems to remain inescapable.
What do other group members think about current lifting advice? Do we
persist with rigid 'flat back' rules or do we permit greater flexibility of approach
to account for individual idiosyncrasies? What about the evidence that some
highly successful lifters raise very heavy loads while using definite spinal
flexion? (I have not touched on this, but it is not unusual to observe some top
powerlifters also lifting safely with rounded backs - my powerlifting colleagues like Dr Fred Hatfield, might like to comment on this).
__________________________________________________ __________
Dr Mel C Siff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FLAT BACK PARADOX
INTRODUCTION
For newcomers, these P&Ps are Propositions, not facts or dogmatic
proclamations. They are intended to stimulate interaction among
users working in different fields, to re-examine traditional
concepts, foster distance education, question our beliefs
and suggest new lines of research or approaches to training.
We look forward to responses from anyone who has views or relevant
information on the topics. (Currently, most of the Puzzles &
Paradoxes are discussed on the various Physical Therapy and Sports
Science groups).
PUZZLE & PARADOX 109
Rigid adherence to the advice to lift with the lumbar spine 'flat' or in mild
extension may not always be accurate or necessary.
THE PROBLEM
Back pain and disability, particularly of the lumbar spine, has long been
associated with faulty lifting technique. Both epidemiologically and in terms of
biomechanical analysis, it would appear that lumbar flexion under loading
poses special risks to the intervertebral discs, so it is generally advised that we
avoid lifting with forward lumbar flexion, particularly if this is combined with
trunk rotation or lateral flexion.
This seems to be supported by studies which show that approximately 8% of
injuries to Olympic weightlifters involve the lumbar spine, whereas this figure
is over 25% for Powerlifters. The greater incidence of lumbar injury among
powerlifters may be due to the fact that the deadlift often produces a greater
degree of spinal flexion during the initial pulling stage from the platform.
Although biomechanical analysis shows that the greater accelerations of the
explosive stages of the Olympic lifts can produce greater forces than those
encountered in powerlifting, these forces do not occur in the early stages of the
lift when the lumbar spine is at its most vulnerable.
However, if one studies sagittal plane photographic or video sequences of some
of the world's top weightlifters, it will be noticed that a significant number of
these highly experienced lifters display varying degrees of mild spinal flexion
during the initial stage of the pull in both of the Olympic lifts.
In fact, Russian biomechanists paid great attention to the lifting technique of
the Bulgarian former World and Olympic 75kg champion, Mitkov, whose early
lifting phases were all executed with a rounded back. It was concluded that he
actually used the 'rolling backwards' or straightening of the lumbar spine to
impart greater upward momentum for the explosive second pull of the lifts.
Interestingly, his style of pulling produced a maximum pulling velocity of 2m
per second in the snatch (with 150kg), second only to that of the great
superheavy, Zhabotinsky (2.06m/sec), whose pull (with 175kg) was also
executed with mild lumbar flexion.
The Bulgarian, Christov, who also lifted with some lumbar flexion produced a
high maximum pulling velocity in the snatch with 180kg in the 110kg division
(1.89m/sec).In the clean, Alexeyev produced one of the highest maximum
pulling velocities (1.8m per sec with a load of 242.5kg), followed by
Zhabotinsky (1.76m per sec with 207.5kg). Once again, both of these lifters
began their pulls with a degree of spinal flexion. None of the lifters using mild
lumbar flexion during heavy lifts displayed any greater incidence of spinal
injury compared with their colleagues.
In other words, it seems that the advice always to lift with a flat or mildly
extended lumbar spine may not be accurate or suitable for everyone. Other
studies of the lifting technique of the 'rounded back' lifters mentioned above did
not reveal that their technique was faulty, but merely an individual
characteristic.Anatomically, we know that deliberate attempts to extend the
lumbar spine may result in a relative decrease in the tension of the posterior
ligaments of the spine, while inadequate muscular contraction of the erector
spinae muscle group may lead to relative increase of tension in these ligaments.
It seems as if a balance between the tensions in the muscular corset of the trunk
and the associated ligaments offers the optimal way of lifting heavy loads from
the ground, rather than a dogmatic insistence on a flat or mildly extended lower
back. Just as there are genetic differences in other aspects of musculoskeletal
structure and function, so there may be similar differences which relate to the
muscles responsible for stabilising the body while lifting.
This implies that the role of the coach, trainer or therapist should be to
determine exactly which individual patterns of muscle involvement and joint
movement should be used by a given person, a skill which is probably more
commonly understood among top weightlifting coaches than elsewhere else. (I
have found that use of a lifting belt, contrary to belief among some trainers, can
offer an excellent kinaesthetic way of imparting safe lifting technique which
establishes the optimal balance between muscular activation and ligamentous
tension). It also implies that rigid formulae for lifting need to be seriously
questioned - after all, mild spinal flexion may offer some individuals a safer,
more effective lifting technique than a 'flat' back. Again, the principle of
individualisation seems to remain inescapable.
What do other group members think about current lifting advice? Do we
persist with rigid 'flat back' rules or do we permit greater flexibility of approach
to account for individual idiosyncrasies? What about the evidence that some
highly successful lifters raise very heavy loads while using definite spinal
flexion? (I have not touched on this, but it is not unusual to observe some top
powerlifters also lifting safely with rounded backs - my powerlifting colleagues like Dr Fred Hatfield, might like to comment on this).
__________________________________________________ __________
Dr Mel C Siff