Do handstands require counter rotation?

I was reading an interview about rotational strength and I came across this:

Dr. Mel Siff told me about research showing that the snatch is the best way to work on rotation because to perform it you need a lot of counter rotation. Likewise, an overhead squat is another good exercise, as it involves a lot of counter rotation to maintain proper alignment.

Article is here, page 4: http://posturalsportsperformance.com/Se ... rength.pdf

First, I don't understand how the snatch or overhead squat trains counter-rotation because I don't see how the transverse plane could be involved. Second, if it does, do you think the handstand might train counter-rotation for the same reason?

A barbell in the overhead position will want to rotate around the vertical axis. When he talks about counter rotation in the article, its the same as clockwise, counter clockwise rotational balance, the idea being that one should be able to rotate either way with equal power. If the body i rotationally stronger in one direction, we will want to rotate that way when holding the barbell overhead. So to keep it balanced and in the frontal plane the weaker side will have to counterrotate.

Handstand will have some of this as well, and i imagine if you did it with ankle weights it would help even more. I doubt as much as a heavy overhead squat, you just can't handstand with that much weight on your feet.

But gravity is pulling the bar down, so wouldn't there need to be a force acting on the barbell in the transverse plane for it to have a tendency to rotate around the vertical axis?

If I understood Mr Brady correctly, that force would be strength imbalances in musculature stabilizing the bar..?

Archbishop o balance said:

If I understood Mr Brady correctly, that force would be strength imbalances in musculature stabilizing the bar..?

Oh, I get it. But, if both sides are balanced then wouldn't that mean the exercise no longer requires counter-rotation?

No, the whole counter-rotation thing is just a stability term. As long as you can hold the position perfectly without leaning or twisting to a side or forward/backward you have good counter-rotation. Basically it means that you do NOT have uneven tension across the body. Or, you are able to keep more or less perfectly equal levels of tension on each side of the body, front + back AND side to side. A PERFECT handstand would have less stress this way, but everything requires some degree of "counter-rotation." It all depends on what plane you have the most potential to rotate in. That is determined to a large extent by whether it is a single or double leg/arm movement and what the most stable vector of force is, and in some cases simply where your joints are weakest. However, certain movements are inherently more unstable in a certain plane than others, and this can be greatly enhanced by having to resist a unilateral force in any given plane or planes. In handstands this would be someone trying to gently twist you side to side and you resisting the rotation for transverse, left side to right side for coronal and front to back for saggital. You have to be careful to do this evenly or you develop imbalances.

I hate those stupid plane names.

In essence, balance is counter-rotation. OR visa versa, depending on how you want to think about it and define balance. Either way, you use counter-rotation to achieve balance.

RatioFitness said:

Archbishop o balance said:

If I understood Mr Brady correctly, that force would be strength imbalances in musculature stabilizing the bar..?

Oh, I get it. But, if both sides are balanced then wouldn't that mean the exercise no longer requires counter-rotation?

Yes, but even IF everything were in perfect muscular balance, there would still be a tendency for the bar to want to rotate in the vertical axis.

Try to balance a pencil on your finger, it won't just fall to the side, it will spin and fall.

In truth the body is constantly managing these twisting forces in all directions, adding weight just makes it more apparent.

Right. That's why it is eventually necessary to add extra instability as you get better at stabilization, at least if your goal is to continue to create incredibly strong stabilizers. At some point I think you would actually need to either be on a vibrating platform or introduce instability to the external load.

Mr Brady said:

RatioFitness said:

Archbishop o balance said:

If I understood Mr Brady correctly, that force would be strength imbalances in musculature stabilizing the bar..?

Oh, I get it. But, if both sides are balanced then wouldn't that mean the exercise no longer requires counter-rotation?

Yes, but even IF everything were in perfect muscular balance, there would still be a tendency for the bar to want to rotate in the vertical axis.

Try to balance a pencil on your finger, it won't just fall to the side, it will spin and fall.

In truth the body is constantly managing these twisting forces in all directions, adding weight just makes it more apparent.

Do you mean because the earth is rotating?

I knew there was a reason I keep falling over!