Compromising the lumbar spine in gymnastics?

This question might be more relevant in a general talk forum. But as I was reminded, recently by some of the exercises in F1 I´m posting it here.

My question is about the role of the lumbar spine in gymnastics, if you will. I was always told, and still is from some "camps" that the lumbar spine is built for stability and thus, should not be stretched or bent in any way. However, in my beginner adventures into the world of gymnastics I frequently encounter exercises where the lumbar spine from my perspective is being bent in ways that little voices in my head keep telling me is madness...... =)

For example, some of the mobility drills for manna progressions, Jefferson curls and other pike stretches (and the pike position in general), trunk circles in the side lever progression, etc etc..

As I´m a huge beleiver in always understand why you do, as opposed to just doing what you´re told.

How would someone meet the argument of the lumbar spine being built for stability and not mobility in relation to some of the movements in gymnastics that seems to counter that argument?

 

Ps: Sorry if my english grammar is "bent in awkward ways", it´s not my native language.

If the topics already been discussed, I´d appreciate a link. I didn´t find anything when searching.

 

Thanks!

Lumbar spine is built for stability yes, however the joint above and below (thoracic spine and hips respectively) is built for mobility. Take ur example of hip circles for example. That's mobility through the hips rather than lumbar. Or another exercise like the arch body hold. Getting into good ROM is through thoracic spine and hips. You should mostly feel it through glutes rather than lumbar spine.

The concept of the mobility and stability continuum was conceptualized by physical therapist Gray Cook and strength and conditioning coach Mike Boyle:

http://graycookmovement.com/?p=118

However it doesn't mean you still shouldn't have movement there:

http://graycook.com/?p=1261

Toe touch is a spinal forward bend (spinal Flexion) and the pike and Jefferson curl etc is a spinal forward bend.

It's true that lumbar doesn't move much (each vertebrae there has only 2.5~ degrees of movement) but you should still be able to move through this few degrees of movement.

Hi, I'm going to give a totally unsatisfactory answer, but here's my layman's perspective.

Weak, dysfunctional backs are an epidemic in the western world; it ranks as one of the most proliferated syndromes in Denmark, costing huge amounts in sick leave, rehab and prehab. Apparently the major reason is sedentary jobs and lifestyles, and sitting. The majority of people do no back exercises, let alone moving the spine through it's natural ROM. I'd say that that is more likely to cause harm than exploring spinal ROM.

I think that the recommendation to not lift with a rounded back stems from the observations made on the factory floor, that lifting heavy crates all day in that manner tended to create problems. Hovewer, there's a big difference between that and then doing it recreationally a few times a week.

I've always been an active type of person. My previous job was as a tree climber (arborist), where I'd sometimes have to work in the most contorted positions, using a chainsaw while I was stemmed horizontally against a branch, upside down even. Other times it involved handling heavy logs manually, because there was no getting a machine into the back yard. Some of my costumers were horrified at the sight, suggesting that it couldn't possibly be healthy for my back; Yet I've never had issues with it, and I think it's because it's always been used.

While on the subject, we're reportedly not supposed to carry weight unilaterally either, i.e. carrying a heavy shopping bag in one hand, the other hand empty. I was told this by a chiropractor (Yes, I know) at arborist college in ergonomics class. I mean, seriously? People who train do one handed kb snatches and suitcase deadlifts all the time, and it strengthens their obliques, and the entire torso, in turn adding stability to the spine. There's a lot of 'truths' going around, that need closer inspection.

I think to say that the lumbar spine shouldn't be bent at all is ridiculous, it clearly bends in healthy adults without causing pain or discomfort, however to say that when lifting a heavy weight you shouldn't bend the lumbar spine is a good idea because it's very likely to get hurt. So you should be able to lift a light weight without difficulty and progressively load the area, thus strengthening the lumbar spine whilst under flexion and increase the weight. 

The warnings against flexing at the lumbar spine apply in two cases.

 

1. Heavy lifting.  If you squat or dealift a 500lb barbell with poor form, you're going to hurt yourself.

2. Repetitive strain.  If you lift something incorrectly, hundreds of times a day, you're going to wear out your spine in the long term. 

 

What we're doing here is neither loaded nor done for extreme reps.  There's very little chance you're going to hurt yourself.

 

"Aha!" You say.  What about Jefferson Curls?  These are a special case.  It's always possible that you're going to end up lifting something from a disadvantaged position.  In fact, disadvantaged leverage is a certainty.  This is one of the reasons I love GST and the mobility work in F1 so much.  It trains your body to still be powerful even in a disadvantaged position, so you're less likely to hurt yourself.

 

Doing a few sets of jefferson curls with a light weight isn't going to hurt you, provided you listen to your body.  What it does do is have a powerful prehab effect on your spinal erectors.  Because on the concentric you're basically moving your spine from a compromised position into a stable one, it's training your body to do this again when it's really necessary.  It's also great for building strength, and of-setting the arch work that we do.

 

The neutral vs hollow spine argument came up in another thread as well, if you want some more reading on spine mechanics and GST.  Use the search function.

Hmms: Thanks for the links! Good read, it does make some sense if you put in context of loaded or unloaded movement.

I'm also curious of the SL/PE6 (Circle Arch Up). I was doing them at my gym today, and a physical therapist who works there approached me after a set and asked my why I was doing them. He was telling me that move was risky because of the twisting and bending load you place on the disks in your spine. Is this true? 

Ask the therapist to show you one athletic element or movement or skill on the field of play that is performed with a neutral spine.  There aren't any, but his attempting to do so should be entertaining.

 

If the spine is never trained to articulate, how exactly is it supposed to generate power or remain stable during articulation?  

 

For a therapist perspective from someone with a GST background, I would recommend that you PM forum members Mark Collins and Wesley Tan.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Bryce, No this is not true. 

If you have progressed to the level of SL PE6, your connective tissues have adapted for adequate "mobility" in the spine as it was meant to be used. 

As a background... In grad school, we are taught in physical therapy the classic intradiscal pressure study, Nachemson, A. Disc Pressure Measurements. Spine. 1981; 6:93-7. Here we learn the various positions of the spine and the increased pressure of forward flexion on the disc.  It is obvious to avoid positions of high intradiscal pressures with an acute herniated disc or other severe back injuries, but in the "healthy" individual, if the spine is not exposed and trained through all the higher intradiscal pressures, then injury happens.  The untrained individual ends up herniating a disc picking up their own kid or bending down to grab their shoe off the ground. If you want to be a smart ass about it... and joggle the therapist's mind...  remind him that slouching forward in his chair, documenting on the computer places 50 kg more intradiscal pressure than a standing forward flexed movement, and then print out the Nachemson study chart for him  

Enjoy,

Ryan