This forum is archived information and is no longer active.
Started by Bobby Bogdanovski, March 5, 2013 · 467 Replies · 32,074 Views
Bobby Bogdanovski said:Do I win anything for starting the longest running thread on this forum? Maybe my progression standard for ABH can be lowered to 5 * 24
You may not win anything, but by now, everyone on this forum will hear the name "Bobby Bogdanovski" and tremble at the thought of ABH.
Autosuggestion is a very powerful thing, if I haven't read here so many times how hard ABHs are I might have mastered them already, so thanks for that Bobby 
4x48s is nearly achievable (last set sucks...)
Anyone find that as you progress (slowly, very slowly) on this you start dreading your workouts more as it dawns that you might be having to test 4x60s or 5x60s one day soon ?
mlaen said:I had similar issues - only hanstrings and lower back were activating and very soon I was shaking like crazy. After I read Kit's cues in this topic I learnd to activate my glutes (that decreased my ROM a bit but made this exercise a bit easier). This removed stress from my hamstrings and low back
Hmm... I find myself with more questions than answers. First, let me reiterate Kit's Cues for those who don't want to browse through this George Martin novel of a thread:
kit laughlin said:kit laughlin, on 26 Oct 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:The KEY cue in the arch is to press the legs away from the body. If you self cue "lift the legs" AND your hip flexors are tight, then you will lift the leg using erector spinae, for sure (it is the pattern in your body, brought about by the tight HF). That is how the girl is doing it, too.
And, worse, tight HF mean that in the very ROM you want to use the glutes in, in this exercise (extension) they will be being switched off by the reciprocal inhibition reflex.
So: press the legs away from you (in the plane of the floor), then squeeze the glutes, and only then try to pull the legs a tiny amount away from the floor. You may need to just practise the first two cues for a while before trying any lifting at all.
and
kit laughlin said:I was a bit pressed for time this morning, so was brief. The self-cue of pressing the legs away from the body (in the plane of the floor) does activate the glutes. You can enhance the effects if you hollow first (as odd as that sounds); hollow so you are resting on the front of the shoulders and the front of the legs. Then press the legs away, and then squeeze the glutes harder—then you are set. With this activation and alignment, when you do try to lift the legs a little from the floor, there will be no adverse/excessive activation of the lower back (erector spinae).
What most people do not realise is that when challenged with a new movement requirement, your body will always fall back on its established patterns, regardless of what you might want! This fact is a good reason to do all new movements with a relatively low intensity, if you can, and feel/check/make sure that you are using the muscles that should be used.
This is also the reason behind the OP's lower back pain. The lower back is engaging trying to help you—but it cramps/spasms instead, because it is doing work in the contracted range of its range of movement, Recall the last time you did a max. foot point: the arch or the calf muscle cramped. No big deal—all muscles will do this, if asked to contract in the contracted end range of movement. In the foot, no problem, but if in the lower back, you will regard it as a problem (and it will leave a lingering pain, too).
These were actually the cues I was taking when I was doing "SL PE0" that I talked about before, focusing on straightening the legs and reaching them away from the body. But I feel like my ROM is too abbreviated using this. Should I keep the limited ROM, but focus on maximal glute contraction and try to develop more of an arch? What is the minimum acceptable ROM for this movement? If I recall, the cue I heard was that if you were looking into a mirror you'd just be able to see your feet peeking out over your head.
IcedDante said:What is the minimum acceptable ROM for this movement?
Apparently enough ROM with which to do ABRs :-(
IcedDante said:hat is the minimum acceptable ROM for this movement? If I recall, the cue I heard was that if you were looking into a mirror you'd just be able to see your feet peeking out over your head.
Yes...assuming you have enough thoracic extension/height...most people have poor extension int his area...and instead try and create the ROM in the low back....just look at someone at your local gym overhead pressing heavy with poor form.
After reading here a question popped into my mind.
The first PE's of SL are defined as 'lower back conditioning' and here I read that we should activate mainly the glutes and reduce the tension from the lower back.
So what is the main goal of this exercise?
What is the purpose of being so strict? I can understand the logic behind perfecting PL's and HBH's for the future.
But ABH's , in the light of this thread, suddenly became complex and weird to me.
Any guidance ? 
You know, VegVeg, I was just thinking the same thing. Coach stated in another thread about SL that lower back work comes before oblique work. Which makes me wonder why people are saying the glutes and hamstrings are the focus, and not the lower back.
Paralysis by Analysis, guys. Master the ABH and ABR and move on.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Lumbar spine is an area of stabalisation in the body...limited mobility compared to others.
Thoracic and hip is where the most of the movement comes from and lumbar spine braces against the leverage created by lifting the chest and legs, plus pelvic tilt. Slight curve in lumbar, but minimal in comparison to other points of movement.
The cues help to achieve good form and full ROM.
-cueing glutes inhibits hip flexors (reciprocal inhibition)...in particular poas as it connects spine to femor and illicacus , quads etc.
-cueing glutes helps reinforce glute dominance in movement, which promotes better hip joint centering...vs deactivated glutes and over use of hamstring as the prime hip extensor.
The lumbar/low back (entire back really) will load...but low back it is not the focus of where the range comes from.
VegVeg said:After reading here a question popped into my mind.
The first PE's of SL are defined as 'lower back conditioning' and here I read that we should activate mainly the glutes and reduce the tension from the lower back.
So what is the main goal of this exercise?
What is the purpose of being so strict? I can understand the logic behind perfecting PL's and HBH's for the future.
But ABH's , in the light of this thread, suddenly became complex and weird to me.
Any guidance ?
Mike Boyle and Gray Cook popularized the theory of joint stability and mobility continuum. Basically each joint alternates between mobility and stability. For example:
Ankle - Mobility, Knee - Stability, Hip - Mobility, Lumbar Spine (lower back spine) - Stability, Thoracic Spine (upper back spine) - Mobility. etc. etc.
So according to this theory, if one joint that should be more mobile doesnt have enough mobility, the joint above will compensate. For example, if either Hip or Thoracic Spine doesn't have enough mobility, the Lumbar Spine will compensate. The reason why Lumbar Spine should be stabilized is because all the vertebra added together has a total of 14 degrees range of motion compared to the Thoracic Spine where each vertebrae as range of motion of up to 8-10 degrees. So as you can see the thoracic spine should be very mobile.
So the purpose of the Arch Holds is to teach the body to move from the Hips and the Thoracic Spine, so in that sense it is about lower back conditioning (because you're trying to teach your body to stop relying on Lumbar Spine so much). The Arch Holds accomplish this through 2 goals. The first one is through hip extension (gluteus maximus is the hip extensor muscle), because many of the "normal" population has a condition called gluteal amnesia. This is why the body shuts down the glutes from sitting too much, and when glutes are deactivated, the lumbar spine compensates. Secondly, it is to teach thoracic extension so when we extend our spine (eg. a Bridge), we are learning to move into the bridge by thoracic extension rather than lumbar extension. The VAST majority of upper body dysfunction is caused by not enough thoracic extension. Eg. shoulder pain, elbow pain, wrist pain, neck pain etc.
Is it considered 'feet are together' if they're only touching at the heels or do they have to touch at the balls as well?
Nash said:Is it considered 'feet are together' if they're only touching at the heels or do they have to touch at the balls as well?
Both must touch.
Hmms said:The reason why Lumbar Spine should be stabilized is because all the vertebra added together has a total of 14 degrees range of motion compared to the Thoracic Spine where each vertebrae as range of motion of up to 8-10 degrees. So as you can see the thoracic spine should be very mobile.
If that is true then why can you see far more extension in the lumbar region in pretty much any picture of back bend you see in flexible people?
Amir Giles said:If that is true then why can you see far more extension in the lumbar region in pretty much any picture of back bend you see in flexible people?
Most extension comes from the thoracic spine in a properly performed bridge rather than through lumbar spine
Hmms, on 07 Jan 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:
Most extension comes from the thoracic spine in a properly performed bridge rather than through lumbar spine
I got that you say this, but do you have any pictures or videos that demonstrate this in a flexible person? In my own unscientific observation of flexible dancers/yogis/gymnasts it certainly always looks like the vast majority of backbend comes from the lumbar region. This makes sense to me when you consider that:
a) the natural curve of the lumbar region is already in that direction, and the thoracic area curves in the opposite direction.
b) the facet joints of the lumbar region allow for more forward/back movement and less rotation, as opposed to the thoracic area which allows for less extension/flexion and more rotation. This is obvious when you play with a model of a the spine and see how the bony bits that stick out from each vertebrae overlap differently in the top region versus the bottom region. (See last sentence of 1st paragraph here)
c) the thoracic area is attached to the ribcage, which further limits the amount of movement it can allow.
I had always understood that the reason to focus primarily on thoracic extension is because it is so easy and common to ONLY use the lumbar region, whereas its healthier to have the effort distributed across the whole spine. Nevertheless, the majority of the bend will come from the lumbar.
This is the case only in those who have been improperly trained.
If the primary arch in a bridge is coming from the lumbar rather than the thoracic region, your shoulder girdle/thoracic mobility is significantly lacking.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Coach Sommer said:This is the case only in those who have been improperly trained.
If the primary arch in a bridge is coming from the lumbar rather than the thoracic region, your shoulder girdle/thoracic mobility is significantly lacking.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Sorry not sure how this thread ended up being on the bridge, where its true one can see a lot of the arch in the shoulders. But in an Arch Body Hold and similar movements the arch is very visibly present in the lower back, as can be seen by the athlete in the video.
Amir Giles said:Sorry not sure how this thread ended up being on the bridge, where its true one can see a lot of the arch in the shoulders. But in an Arch Body Hold and similar movements the arch is very visibly present in the lower back, as can be seen by the athlete in the video.
Clearly the whole back arches, how the heck would it not? 
But with proper muscle activation, the tension comes from hip and thoracic extension.
But maybe Coach just doesn't know what he's talking about... *ducks for cover* 
thecolin said:Clearly the whole back arches, how the heck would it not?
But maybe Coach just doesn't know what he's talking about... *ducks for cover*
Ok but I'm I'm not talking about tension, or claiming that only the lumbar spine moves in a back bend. I'm just responding to comments that state that the thoracic spine can extend more than the lumbar spine, which is the opposite of what I observe in the videos for ABH, ABR etc, and also the opposite of how therapists have explained the vertebral facet joints to me in the past.
Maybe this is too geeky to be useful, but I personally find it interesting and motivating to visualise the skeletal structure as accurately as possible when I perform a movement.
Hmms said:The reason why Lumbar Spine should be stabilized is because all the vertebra added together has a total of 14 degrees range of motion compared to the Thoracic Spine where each vertebrae as range of motion of up to 8-10 degrees. So as you can see the thoracic spine should be very mobile.
Curious if you have a link to the source for this handy? Thanks if you do.
Here are the ranges of segmental movement in the lumbar found Medscape via wikepedia, couldn't find the thoracic ones to compare sorry.
L1-L2 L2-L3 L3-L4 L4-L5 L5-S1
Flexion/Extension 12 14 15 16 17
Lateralflexion 6 6 8 6 3
Axial rotation 2 2 2 2 1
Hansen et al. (2006). "Ranges of Segmental Motion for the Lumbar Spine". Medscape
This video explains what I've been trying to say, that the shape of the lumbar vertebrae allow far more extension/flexion than the thoracic vertebrae, but the thoracic spine allows more rotation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOO5fWhCyMo
Its easier to see if you can play with a model yourself, so next time you're at a doctor/physio or something and they have a skeleton model have a closer look at how the vertebrae overlap and restrict/allow movement, and how this changes the further up/down the spine you go.
Just to emphasis, I still think that the focus in a back bend should be on the thoracic spine, but not because it has more mobility, but because it has LESS. (and therefore requires more focus to get it to move at all.)
The movement of lumbar extension and thoracic extension is basic kinesiology. An arch and a bridge is the exact same movement. If you want to know more go research about anterior pelvic tilt and lower cross syndrome
Hmms said:The movement of lumbar extension and thoracic extension is basic kinesiology. An arch and a bridge is the exact same movement. If you want to know more go research about anterior pelvic tilt and lower cross syndrome
I don't see how Lower Cross Syndrome (which is a muscle imbalance syndrome) is relevant to the discussion of which part of the spine extends more in a normal healthy arch. Do you have any link that shows that the thoracic spine has more extension than the lumbar? I've posted several to show the opposite.
Amir Giles said:I don't see how Lower Cross Syndrome (which is a muscle imbalance syndrome) is relevant to the discussion of which part of the spine extends more in a normal healthy arch. Do you have any link that shows that the thoracic spine has more extension than the lumbar? I've posted several to show the opposite.
Lower Cross Syndrome has everything to do with how the spine moves. Go learn exactly what it is and if you want to learn more/need more understanding of what it is then let me know.
