Any thoughts on Inversion table?

[Archie Moses]

I am curious to hear some opinions on inversion tables. I have only used one a handful of times, but I love it. It is great not only for decompression but for stretching as well.

Anyone here use one?

[Blairbob]

My friend's dad has one. Interesting but a pain to get out of.

[Todd Sprenkle]

I've owned a Teeter inversion table for several years and use it every day. After showering (which warms the body) in the morning, I hang fully inverted (moderation strap not connected) from the ankles for typically a minute. I feel that doing this stretches the spine and temporarily changes some gravity-driven body fluid flows. I typically feel some pain in the hips while doing this, but only for the duration of fully hanging upside down.

[i then move to a Soloflex whole body vibration platform to do a handstand (feet against bookcase) for typically another minute. That completes my start of the day.]

[Archie Moses]

Todd, that is exactly how I want to be starting my day! Which is why I am in the market for one. They make you feel so loose! I have never experienced any hip pain, except once when I hung with only one leg strapped in. My hips felt super loose afterward though!

[Cole Dano]

I haven't used the table, but hanging by the hands from a pull up bar will give a similar effect.

My favorite is to use the pelvic swing and hang over it in a piked position. (you can do this on what ever you use for archups)

In this position if you pull on a strap attached to the upright and flatten your back it creates a very powerful traction effect.

I have been meaning to make a video of this as i consider it one of the best lower back prehabs in existence.

Any lengthening via traction is real, the length will stay for about 15 minutes and promote hydrostatic fluid exchange i.e. give nutrition to the inter-vertable disks.

[jl5555]

As a part of my regular and ongoing attempts to get a full front lever I have been using the power rack at my gym to do pullovers onto the center pullup bar. I rest there for 20-30 seconds allowing my back to traction out before pulling out into the front lever. Great stuff! I'm sure everyone at my gym thinks I'm a complete nut but I don't care because it feels so good.

[Neal Winkler]

I am curious to hear some opinions on inversion tables. I have only used one a handful of times, but I love it. It is great not only for decompression but for stretching as well.

Anyone here use one?

Inversion tables, I believe, are a form of traction therapy. There is no evidence for such a therapy specifically, or for traction therapys in general.

[Cole Dano]

Mc Gill has stated that there is an effect, the disks re-compress to their 'normal' height after about 15 minutes. This does mean more fluid transport. If its true traction or not is debatable, but the effect is not.

This evidence argument is sometimes a bit tiresome, there is no doubt that many people do find great relief from mild spinal traction. When we get into the world of low back therapy it is quite vague with regard to evidence. Its only recently that there has even been any agreement on whether the sacral joint has mobility. Most body workers, yoga teachers etc have know by experience that there is some movement there. If science has only recently agreed on this fairly basic bit of anatomy, how much should we count on it?

Evidence based therapy is a great idea in principle but in truth its still in its infancy, so to say something isn't proven in the field is somewhat meaningless. In fact even in the realm of the proven there is much debate.

IMHO true evidence based therapy is centered around what works for each individual. Even McGill will spend three hours with a patient to asses what treatments work and which don't. His measuring stick? Does it hurt, does it feel good. Sounds might touchy feely to me.

We can't always wait for science to prove everything. If we did we would be paralyzed with confusion and indecision, sometimes the best thing is to act and be your own scientist.

[Neal Winkler]

Mc Gill has stated that there is an effect, the disks re-compress to their 'normal' height after about 15 minutes. This does mean more fluid transport. If its true traction or not is debatable, but the effect is not.

This evidence argument is sometimes a bit tiresome, there is no doubt that many people do find great relief from mild spinal traction.

There is no doubt that many people find great relief after ingesting placebos.

When we get into the world of low back therapy it is quite vague with regard to evidence. Its only recently that there has even been any agreement on whether the sacral joint has mobility. Most body workers, yoga teachers etc have know by experience that there is some movement there. If science has only recently agreed on this fairly basic bit of anatomy, how much should we count on it?

What methodological implication are you trying to make here? That we should never listen to science? Or that sometimes practitioners know something before scientists do? If the latter, that is hardly controversial to me. Conversely, sometimes practitioners believe something that is utterly false.

Evidence based therapy is a great idea in principle but in truth its still in its infancy, so to say something isn't proven in the field is somewhat meaningless. In fact even in the realm of the proven there is much debate.

So when a subject has been studied, like traction therapy, and it hasn't been shown effective, that is meaningless? There is no information you can gleam from that, and it in no way should inform your practice?

IMHO true evidence based therapy is centered around what works for each individual.

EBM does try to discover assessments that will allow individual prescriptions.

We can't always wait for science to prove everything. If we did we would be paralyzed with confusion and indecision, sometimes the best thing is to act and be your own scientist.

Sometimes we should wait for science to discover something, sometimes we don't need to.

[Neal Winkler]

The thing is, we are talking about pain, a very subjective thing. So, even if something is just a placebo, your pain is gone simply because you think it is.

[Pedro Otero]

I always thought the whole placebo situation was funny... I'm a huge fan of the scientific method myself, but when it comes to my own immediate problems I frankly don't care even a little bit HOW something may or may not work, I just care that it does

(though I've personally never done any inversion therapy myself; my gravity boots are in the mail!)

[Cole Dano]

RANT WARNING!

The pattern i see with all of this 'it isn't scientifically proven' talk is it basically shuts out common sense experience.

So now everything is a placebo effect. Life is a placebo effect!

Experience changes our understanding of how 'facts' work.

Theories are black and white, yet the experiments that prove them don't give simple yes no data.

This is true even in physics where answers are the most clear cut. A formula says one thing, but go and take measurements and you will get data points all around what the formula says. This is for many reasons, noise, imprecision in measurement etc.

Does this mean the formula is wrong, is it a 'placebo' formula?

No the formula is a mathematical representation of the facts, an approximation which has been found to work to a given accuracy in a certain set of circumstances.

In fact science is very much about knowing when something is applicable. That point is often missed.

Most of the folks i see making these arguments have very little actual experience. I don't mean this as an insult because that's how i was too. I've learned i don't know much, but if if do, i'm going to stick to my guns.

You want the science to be ready before it is. There is currently no one study to rule them all. In this case, this is something i've worked with so i have to beg to differ.

I've done empirical studies on pain, and traction for many years, on myself and others, i can tell you that in certain circumstances it works. I don't in any way believe it to be a placebo effect. I have on many occasions felt my sacrum or lumbar shift, heard the sounds and found relief. In other cases using the same method the effect was in the lumbar, sometimes it was bones shifting, sometimes muscles releasing.

The, let's call it, psuedo-traction caused the effect. Of that i have no doubt, its happened many times and i know others who report the same results.

Some make more dramatic claims about the results turn it into a panacea. I also watch out for those practitioners, and take what they claim with a grain of salt.

I am also convinced by experience, my own, and others, that in the doses mentioned by posters in this thread, traction is an excellent option for low back maintenance. Is it the only tool, no. Does that mean it should be disregarded because a study done in a certain set of circumstances, measuring things that we don't really know matter says otherwise? I don't believe so.

Does this mean there will never be problems if some one does traction every day, no.

Can i prove any of this to your satisfaction? I doubt it.

Yes pain is difficult, its slippery, treatments are often as well. Informed trial and error is what we have to work with in many cases. The more tools the better, including traction.

Drugs are proven to work with pain, are they the best option? We know they have limits and after that become destructive.

Of course i'm not saying, stop researching, we need more and we need good, non-baised research, research where the profit margin, party line, or professional ego isn't the primary guiding force.

I'm certainly doing every thing i can to learn what i can about evidence based research, but i'm not leaving my mind at the door. On some level we are all researching, and i can't just forget what i've learned because some study says something to the contrary. i will, however, gladly let it inform me as to what circumstances the tools i use are effective and test them there. I will let them introduce me to new tools as well, with the understanding that any good tool, like a chisel, will take time to learn to use to its best effect.

I'm all for research, but frankly i'm tired of folks saying its not proven at the drop of a hat and offering nothing else to the conversation. This doesn't help or add to the discussion, its just plain old contrarianism given a scientific hat.

When the science gives clear answers then i'll listen to these arguments more closely, until then they merely tell me that nothing is 100% effective. That is something we also need to hear and understand. It keeps us from becoming dogmatic, yet taken to extremes becomes its own dogma.

What if you apply this reasoning to the program here?

Do you need Coach Sommer to give a scientific paper or do you want to train and progress?

What if you don't ever manage to do an iron cross? Is that evidence the program doesn't work? Of course not, because there are many variables that go into that and we know others have done one on this same program. Some other Coach may have a different program and has gotten similar results. Does that means you can do anything to get an iron cross? No it means within limits there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You can bet the Coach followed a very scientific approach to formulating it the WODs. Testing, observing, finding what worked, when and for who. Its constantly up for scrutiny as so should be everything we do. But this scrutiny, dare i say, doesn't constantly involve being able to cite the right study. Experience has already taught what to look for in many cases. And sometimes it goes against what the studies say.

That's why i say this scientific pseudo-argument is tiresome, it leaves no room for an experience based discussion on things that can be resolved with a little personal testing and inquisitiveness and common sense, the very things that drive true scientific discovery.

Here on an internet forum i for one cant' write with enough precision to satisfy this type of mind. Its paralyzing.

Knowing this is a forum, where i can't see the OP, its clearly impossible to ever really give a 100% perfect answer, there needs to be room for that amazing human facility to interpret, read between the lines.

Certainly there are entire books one the subject of back pain, its a fascinating field, a book that is far from closed however.

[Todd Sprenkle]

Personally -- and anecdotally, of course -- I'll continue my practice of using the inversion table each morning, because it makes me feel good. I find it energizing. I will reconsider this practice if I come across evidence that it might be harmful.

For those interested in searching for relevant studies yourself, you can use the following link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

I searched only a little bit myself. [My expectation is that there isn't much funding for relevant studies on this topic.]

Here is a very old (1985), small (n = 15) study that actually measured intervertebral distance -- and found that "Gravity-facilitated traction produced increased separation at all levels measured".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18802302

For most of the studies I found, the measured outcome was pain reduction rather than intervertebral distance.

Sometimes full text of a paper is available via PubMed, rather than just an abstract.

Here is a study that didn't find traction to significantly reduce lower back pain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

Here is a paper describing a not-yet-completed randomized clinical trial looking at a subgroup of patients:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

[Neal Winkler]

Mr. Brady, you are assuming far too much about my philosophies. I stated, "Sometimes we should wait for science to discover something, sometimes we don't need to."

That clearly rejects the position that you have described of me, that I only believe something if there is a study(ies) behind it.

My comment about the placebo was because it seemed to me that you were making the claim, "if pain is reduced following x treatment, then x caused some change in the body to reduce the pathology." My comment about placebos was to show that this conditional is not always true.

I threw out a data point that the literature on traction therapy isn't supportive of its efficacy. I'm not sure why this data wouldn't be of any interest to anyone.

[Cole Dano]

Apologies for over assuming, it was a rant not directed you, i've been running across allot of evidence based throwing out the baby with the bath water lately, it just boiled over here.

Yes i'm interested in knowing the data point, however your original statement reads as being more conclusive than a data point.

In this case i also know from experience that traction can have no effect or even cause more pain.

I do appreciate the need to keep things honest. In my field there are plenty of unsubstantiated claims, which is its own problem. I can't tell you how many times i've had to change my opinion on things i thought or was told were true because i don't just accept things as gospel. Its a trial and error field if what i see doesn't work then it doesn't work.

I don't believe constantly crying prove it by citing some research is enough. Our current standard of research is not up to the task, which can be regarded as a shame, until it is one has to be wary of both sides of the evidence based argument.

In a similar discussion currently at Dragon Door, Erik Moss sums it up colorfully-

there is definitely something to be said when it comes to scientific studies as opposed to work "in the trenches". with scientific studies it often doesn't look at the bigger picture (hence the fat burning zone) and is often flawed because it is tested on college students that would get stronger by drinking guiness instead of coors light. coaches often have a wisdom that can't be explained and is garnered intuitively. if something seems to work use it, even if you don't understand why. if it doesn't discard it and find something else.

[Graham Smith]

Inversion is great for me. I have stress fractures in my lumbar vertebrae from my early gymnastics career resulting in my muscles working overtime to assist support. I find inversion to be a great way to relax and relieve pressure. That said, I like my equipment to be multipurpose. Inversion tables are expensive and take up a lot of space. I find it equally relieving to hang upside down by my knees from a bar for a period of time. Hell even old fashioned gravity boots with ankle hooks do the job.

[rubadub]

I was looking up gravity boots before. I found these "yoga slings" which looked more comfortable and easier to use. You could easily make one to attach to a chin up bar, or an existing rings setup. They are not holding you from the feet like gravity boots, so there is probably less weight acting you your spine. I have seen them called various different things, not sure which is the most popular term.

Looking at it now I might be able to use my dip belt as a sling, I have the strong ironmind one, weak ones would break so be careful.

[rubadub]

I tried my dip belt and it worked very well. I put my rings up at shoulder level, and pushed the both together on my chinup bar so they were hanging straight down like a single strap. I then put my dip belt strap through both rings and adjusted it so it was nice and long. It forms a seat like a childs swing, I could sit in this and slowly turn upside down, like the picture above. My feet could clasp together and trap the ring straps to stop me falling about.

When turning over first I put the belt up high on my hips, when upside down I was able to shift it more up towards my legs so it was pulling from my legs more -when at the higher on the hips (i.e. towards the shoulders) you feel it less.

It could be useful for practising handstands, even just the feeling of being upside down. It could also be useful for doing partial reps, I have done partial HeSPUs but can only do them easily in the uppermost position, or the lowest. Using the belt you can simply adjust the straps, or the position of the belt on your hips while upside down to get into different ROMs, you could also do pikes to adjust resistance.

Another idea would be to have resistance bands between the rings and dip belt, or forget the rings and just use the bands and dip belt. When you are in the lowest position you will get the most assistance, since the bands will obviously slacken as you go higher. This could be useful for people progressing from HeSPUs to full ROM HSPUs.

You can see this girl is using cushions, so you could use regular webbing straps if you have no dip belt (or a weak one -test it out by sitting upright in it for a while like a regular swing).

She seems to have it quite high up her back, this is probably more comfortable and might be better if you just want practise at having blood in your head.

[Cole Dano]

I honestly think that type of inversion is much better than the G boots.

Ideally you want the belt around the sacrum. If you look at the first picture you posted, you'll she has a healthy lumbar curve that the strap forces. If you tend to have a jammed lower back or sacrum, this little bit of accentuation to the lumbar lordosis will often be very relieving.

For that reason, done this way its not so great for handstand, because its impossible to get the same body line, but that's not the purpose here.

A way to work the body line, or HeSPU is to just hang a strap from a bar, setting it to about mid chest height. Then when you are upside down you can hook your feet through and pull with your calfs.

I find doing HeSPU this way better than with the box because its easier to keep the body line during the entire movement.

I've tried it with bands, but at least for me didn't work as well as you might think. A solid strap seems best for this.

Glad you set it up and found it to work with a dip belt and let us know. Hopefully others will find out as well, its a very good recovery and prehab tool!