Hollow vs Neutral Spine

As someone that only recently started GST (before I do weightlifting), I don't really understanding the rationale of why gymnasts want a hollow position rather than a neutral spine position

Increased leverage.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Does increased leverage means it makes exercises easier or harder

Easier.

how come you would want to make an exercise easier

Because in gymnastics the moves are already hard. Without proper shapes they become impossible to do safely or at all.

Daniel Burnham said:

Because in gymnastics the moves are already hard. Without proper shapes they become impossible to do safely or at all.

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

Hmms said:

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

im guessing doing a front lever with the force of gravity crushing your spinal disks if you dont take some of the load with your abs in a hollow body might do some damage, right?

Hmms said:

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

 

Unfortunately that is an Urban Fitness Legend

There some "strange" examples of why hollow is better then neutral

-as previously said the leverage is better

-second one the body works as a unique component. just to make an example. take a wood bar of one meter. then take a rope of one meter. gran them in one extremity , one with left hand one on the other. then try to lift them at the same height..of course lift all the wood bar and all the rope, at the end of the lift the 2 extremities of the objects must be at the same height . so if you grab the wood at one meter height then the other extremity must be at one meter and so on.

what's happen? that you can't lift the extremities of the rope at the same height. same things are valid for hollow and neutral. abs activation is necessary to link the upper body with the lower body. the result is the easiest way to move a solid object and all its components with less effort.

Hmms said:

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

Says who?

A neutral spine might be safer on barbell exercises like Front squats, but not for Gymnastics exercises like Front Levers.

Hmms said:

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

 

Incorrect; as anyone with even a moderate degree of experience in GST will instantly recognize.  For example a neutral spine during many horizontal GST exercises (e.g. levers, planches etc) would leave the spine only partially supported.  

 

Always properly vet your sources of information.  If the person whose advice you are considering is not a GST expert, move on.  

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Consider the difference in strength between a row of stone blocks, and an arch. When you're in a hollow, your spine is like the arch. 

 

A neutral spine is optimal if you are supporting a load along the axis of your spine. For example, if you're balancing a heavy weight on your head, you want to try to make your spine as straight as possible (also called "stacked"). However, as Coach mentioned, when your body is horizontal, placing a slight curve in the spine allows it to support itself better. 

 

Another advantage to hollow (and arch) positions is that in dynamic motions it allows you to utilize the large, powerful core muscles. For example, in a swing on high bar or rings, you can get much more power if you snap between an arch and a hollow than if you simply try to kick with your legs. When you do a series of handsprings, you're essentially snapping back and forth between hollowed and arched to generate power. 

Joshua Slocum said:

Another advantage to hollow (and arch) positions is that in dynamic motions it allows you to utilize the large, powerful core muscles. For example, in a swing on high bar or rings, you can get much more power if you snap between an arch and a hollow than if you simply try to kick with your legs. When you do a series of handsprings, you're essentially snapping back and forth between hollowed and arched to generate power. 

... almost like an arch-hollow snap.

It all fits! XD

Joshua Slocum said:

(...) When you're in a hollow, your spine is like the arch (...) 

 

 

 

You certainly don't want that to be quoted out of context...

okay thanks for answering my question

Hmms said:

that doesn't make sense because neutral spine is safer than hollow

I use to believe that....until the Foundation series came out. I taught that to patients for 12 years as that is what is taught by Physio's. but it is only a theory. When neutral exercises are put into studies that are usually compared to exercises like stomach crunches, which are useless. So the neutral exercises look like they are the best option.

The advice is from academic Physio's and biomechanists that could not get close to doing the first exercises in Foundation.

When I first saw Foundation I was worried about the hollow and arch positions and thought they might place too much stress on the spine. But after doing the exercises I was amazed how much better I felt with my back and how much stronger it became. Now I had done every neutral spine exercise in the book and still found planks hard and painful in my back. I can now do a one arm plank with no pain! I slowly introduced the concepts of arch and hollow with my patients, who have serious back injuries and they improve so much quicker. They are amazed at how strong they are getting. Some of these patients are 60-70 years old and could barely move.

Now I know the arch and hollow are safe and powerful positions. I feel angry at the Physio lectures/researches and general exercise community for not teaching the gymnastic approach of strengthening the core. It works, has always worked and will continue to work.

Mark Collins said:

I use to believe that....until the Foundation series came out. I taught that to patients for 12 years as that is what is taught by Physio's. but it is only a theory. When neutral exercises are put into studies that are usually compared to exercises like stomach crunches, which are useless. So the neutral exercises look like they are the best option.

The advice is from academic Physio's and biomechanists that could not get close to doing the first exercises in Foundation.

When I first saw Foundation I was worried about the hollow and arch positions and thought they might place too much stress on the spine. But after doing the exercises I was amazed how much better I felt with my back and how much stronger it became. Now I had done every neutral spine exercise in the book and still found planks hard and painful in my back. I can now do a one arm plank with no pain! I slowly introduced the concepts of arch and hollow with my patients, who have serious back injuries and they improve so much quicker. They are amazed at how strong they are getting. Some of these patients are 60-70 years old and could barely move.

Now I know the arch and hollow are safe and powerful positions. I feel angry at the Physio lectures/researches and general exercise community for not teaching the gymnastic approach of strengthening the core. It works, has always worked and will continue to work.

Now argue to that Go Mark Collins!

I feel the same way you do Mark, they teach the same thing in exercise science courses and Personal Training texts. Heck, you've even got people out there who are basically telling people that simply flexing the spine is going to lead to spinal injury.

Mark Collins said:

I use to believe that....until the Foundation series came out. I taught that to patients for 12 years as that is what is taught by Physio's. but it is only a theory. When neutral exercises are put into studies that are usually compared to exercises like stomach crunches, which are useless. So the neutral exercises look like they are the best option.

The advice is from academic Physio's and biomechanists that could not get close to doing the first exercises in Foundation.

When I first saw Foundation I was worried about the hollow and arch positions and thought they might place too much stress on the spine. But after doing the exercises I was amazed how much better I felt with my back and how much stronger it became. Now I had done every neutral spine exercise in the book and still found planks hard and painful in my back. I can now do a one arm plank with no pain! I slowly introduced the concepts of arch and hollow with my patients, who have serious back injuries and they improve so much quicker. They are amazed at how strong they are getting. Some of these patients are 60-70 years old and could barely move.

Now I know the arch and hollow are safe and powerful positions. I feel angry at the Physio lectures/researches and general exercise community for not teaching the gymnastic approach of strengthening the core. It works, has always worked and will continue to work.

 

Mark as a yoga teacher, having taught for years that neutral is correct, I was also amazed to find the same thing upon actually listening with an open mind.

Cole Dano said:

Mark as a yoga teacher, having taught for years that neutral is correct, I was also amazed to find the same thing upon actually listening with an open mind.

Now think of all the people you taught that neutral was ideal! Lets hope they forgot and are not getting around wondering why their core is not improving.

For sure, but we all learn by our mistakes.

 

Ironically, I had a couple years of intensely practicing on my own, and during that time I figured out hollow being stronger, how to use the scapula as we teach it here etc. But then next time I met my teachers, all of that was beaten out of me, a couple of years later I had serious rotator cuff problems. This made me realise I needed to look elsewhere for answers, thankfully that's about when Coach wrote BtGB and I was lucky enough to stumble upon it.

Cole Dano said:

(...) we all learn by our mistakes. (...)

 

HA! Not even close 

This week in our "anatomy of exercise" course, we're looking at once again, core stability  . The tute tomorrow is listing the muscles and their function (pelvic, lumbar, thoracic), evaluating a handful of (mostly horrible) exercises, and "prescribe/demonstrate 3 exercises of increasing difficulty to improve functionally specific core stability" in several different patient/population types.

 

Will be interesting to see how it plays out with 2 highly academic tutors (who I often dont agree with  ) and some students who have limited experience with "core" exercise. I'm hoping we don't have to go through the whole neutral spine thing.

You may have to bite your tongue as they could be marking your next assignment or exam Or you could really challenge them. You could always ask them to do a hollow rock in neutral (a neutral rock) and then one in a hollow and compare the two. Then they would most likely say one person is not a RCT.

If only I had the time and desire to research. My title would be " why neutral sucks and Gymnasts had it right all along"