I’m 17, 175 lbs, and i started doing front squats about a two months ago. Everything was going great, I was moving up at a steady rate, i got enough rest, and worked with near perfect form. But 3 days ago, i went in to front squat and I just got this excruciating pain in the middle back.
It feels like i locked my back, contracted it, and held it for a time. That is what it feels like, but I didn’t actually do that. It starts below the shoulder blades and runs down to the top of my butt. Its more concentrated near the top.
My new workout actually substituted deadlifts for front squats, so I don’t know if it has something to do with that. I don’t know if its just soreness, tear, or something more serious.
I had a similar difficulty when I first started lifting, only mine was in the small of my back and a bit lower than what you’re reporting. The advice I got was (from Eric Cressey, ironically enough) was to buy Magnificent Mobility (here at the store) and do some of the exercises to develop hip mobility.
After a little more pain, I did just that. It didn’t make it go away, but it lessened it to where I could work. It very rarely flares up now.
The ‘never stretch lower back’ is also advice from cressey, by the way. Spinal erecters need stability, and stretching them decreases that.
I had a similar difficulty when I first started lifting, only mine was in the small of my back and a bit lower than what you’re reporting. The advice I got was (from Eric Cressey, ironically enough) was to buy Magnificent Mobility (here at the store) and do some of the exercises to develop hip mobility.
After a little more pain, I did just that. It didn’t make it go away, but it lessened it to where I could work. It very rarely flares up now.
The ‘never stretch lower back’ is also advice from cressey, by the way. Spinal erecters need stability, and stretching them decreases that.[/quote]
I don’t know, I’ve gotta say that doesn’t make all that much sense to me. I have heard Cressey mention that before, but in practice it just doesn’t seem to hold up in my experience.
Yes, there is a inverse relationship between mobility and stability, but to suggest that one should completely avoid mobility work (in natural ROM’s anyway) is a little extreme. Biomechanically the lumbar spine is capable of more mobility than the Thoracic spine, which also means that the thoracic spine is more stable than the lumbar spine.
But, what about a joint like the shoulder joint? I don’t see too many people suggesting that shoulder flexibility is bad or is potentially harmful (once again normal ROM that is, yes it’s possible to become hyper-mobile). The shoulder joint is among the most mobile (least stable) joints in the body. Yet you see Olympic weight lifters (who have great shoulder mobility) hoisting huge amounts of weight over their heads (in some cases 3x BW). They don’t seem to have any problems with shoulder stability in spite of their shoulder mobility.
Why should the lumbar spine be the exception?
If you only ever did mobility work, then yeah I could see how that could become a problem. But if you never ever stretch your spinal erectors, then you may wind up with postural problems (lordosis for example), or injury due to over-tight muscles. Recent studies suggest that the likelihood that a muscle will become injured has less to do with the strength of that muscle and more to do with that muscle’s length. Never lengthening a muscle is a pretty sure fire way to minimize it’s length.
By the way this post isn’t meant to be a jab at you personally. It just always puzzles me when people make absolute statements like “NEVER STRETCH YOUR LOWER BACK”. Especially when they back it up only with “because so and so says not to”.
I would second your suggestion to improve hip mobility though. Along with ankle flexibility (though that’s usually less of a problem with front squats than back squats).
well, actually i started having back spasms during the night and had to go the hospital and had tests done. Apparently i had pinched nerve and according to the doctors i have to lay off the lifting deal for quite a while. 6-8 weeks. Seems like i must have done something wrong in my form and it caused my back to spaz out. I’m still not sure on the details, but i do have to back off lifting.
If you only ever did mobility work, then yeah I could see how that could become a problem. But if you never ever stretch your spinal erectors, then you may wind up with postural problems (lordosis for example), or injury due to over-tight muscles.
[/quote]
This sounds reasonable but I think the lumbar spine IS different. It is a “hinge” between the torso and legs and bears great forces even during normal everyday movements because of leverage. For example, injure your lumbar spine, lock up the spinal erectors in spasm, and now you can’t even nod your head because of the force not being countered at the lumbar “hinge.”
It is naturally more mobile – and people injure it more. I would be surprised if research proved that lack of flexibility in the spinal erectors is responsible for spinal back injuries.
I do know this. I used to stretch my lower back, along with everything else. I had severe lordosis and APT the entire time. It never got any better from any amount of stretching. I also had a hypermobile spine and subsequently injured 4 discs, 2 quite severely. I now NEVER stretch it and try to keep it neutral as much as possible, and now the lordosis is gone 95% of the time.
[quote]Deadsion wrote:
well, actually i started having back spasms during the night and had to go the hospital and had tests done. Apparently i had pinched nerve and according to the doctors i have to lay off the lifting deal for quite a while. 6-8 weeks. Seems like i must have done something wrong in my form and it caused my back to spaz out. I’m still not sure on the details, but i do have to back off lifting.[/quote]
Ouch. Well at least it’s nothing permanent or too too serious. Just rest up and make sure to let your body heal.
Did the doctor say that you can’t do any lifting, or just not to do squats?
If you have to lay off lifting completely, then this would be a great time to work on your mobility as Otep mentioned.
If you only ever did mobility work, then yeah I could see how that could become a problem. But if you never ever stretch your spinal erectors, then you may wind up with postural problems (lordosis for example), or injury due to over-tight muscles.
This sounds reasonable but I think the lumbar spine IS different. It is a “hinge” between the torso and legs and bears great forces even during normal everyday movements because of leverage. For example, injure your lumbar spine, lock up the spinal erectors in spasm, and now you can’t even nod your head because of the force not being countered at the lumbar “hinge.”
It is naturally more mobile – and people injure it more. I would be surprised if research proved that lack of flexibility in the spinal erectors is responsible for spinal back injuries.
[/quote]
Well to be fair I don’t know for certain that researchers have specifically focused on the spine as far as the length/strength relationship to injury. And I’m not saying that strength doesn’t play a role in the incidence of injury. All I’m saying is that stretching the lower back wouldn’t seem to be a likely cause of injury IMO.
[quote]
I do know this. I used to stretch my lower back, along with everything else. I had severe lordosis and APT the entire time. It never got any better from any amount of stretching. I also had a hypermobile spine and subsequently injured 4 discs, 2 quite severely. I now NEVER stretch it and try to keep it neutral as much as possible, and now the lordosis is gone 95% of the time. [/quote]
Well I’m glad that you have found something that seems to work for you. But I seriously doubt that the fact that you stretched your lower back was the cause of your back injuries. Lordosis does result in shortened spinal erectors, but it can be caused by several factors (weak abdominals, tight hip flexors, etc…).
I’ve always stretched my lower back (and know numerous others who do so as well) and have never injured my lower back (knock on wood). All I’m saying is that I’m questioning the causation, not saying that one won’t ever hurt their lower back if they stretch it. Stretching can help improve recovery as well, which is one of the primary reasons why I do it.
It’s the black and whiteness of the statement that I’m objecting to, that’s all.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Deadsion wrote:
well, actually i started having back spasms during the night and had to go the hospital and had tests done. Apparently i had pinched nerve and according to the doctors i have to lay off the lifting deal for quite a while. 6-8 weeks. Seems like i must have done something wrong in my form and it caused my back to spaz out. I’m still not sure on the details, but i do have to back off lifting.
Ouch. Well at least it’s nothing permanent or too too serious. Just rest up and make sure to let your body heal.
Did the doctor say that you can’t do any lifting, or just not to do squats?
If you have to lay off lifting completely, then this would be a great time to work on your mobility as Otep mentioned.[/quote]
The doctor said to lay off of all lifting just to be on the safe side. The doctor was actually the kind that specializes in sports injuries so i decided to trust him on his advice. Maybe i’ll start a little cardio or something to get a bit more leaner. Anything is better than sitting on my ass all day
Well I’m glad that you have found something that seems to work for you. But I seriously doubt that the fact that you stretched your lower back was the cause of your back injuries. Lordosis does result in shortened spinal erectors, but it can be caused by several factors (weak abdominals, tight hip flexors, etc…).
I’ve always stretched my lower back (and know numerous others who do so as well) and have never injured my lower back (knock on wood). All I’m saying is that I’m questioning the causation, not saying that one won’t ever hurt their lower back if they stretch it. Stretching can help improve recovery as well, which is one of the primary reasons why I do it.
It’s the black and whiteness of the statement that I’m objecting to, that’s all.[/quote]
I don’t think that lordosis is caused by shortened erectors (or psoas) so much as they are locked into a certain position.
Stretching my lower back was one of a number of factors that contributed to injury. I was constantly bringing it into its end ROM for flexion. Then during lifts, like squats, I was hyperextending it, so putting it into its other end ROM. Furthermore, I was stretching it before squats and deadlifts. All bad. Plus, my build is at risk for spinal injury (short torso, long limbs).
My sister does yoga following a TV show called Namaste Yoga, and those gals are massively stretching their backs constantly. It makes me hurt just watching them. But clearly they can do it. So obviously it won’t always lead to injury.
But then again, how much BENEFIT can one get from stretching the low back? I don’t think there’s any. We stretch it in flexion a hundred times a day just to pick things up, put on socks, etc. Plus when we sit, it’s often in flexion. There’s no benefit to pushing the end range of motion with even greater spinal flexion. And if you want to lift heavy weights with your limbs, a more flexible lumbar spine is not going to help, it’s going to hinder. So the risk-benefit ratio is just not good.
At best, you won’t get injured and MAYBE you won’t limit your strength. But at worst, you’ll get injured, and let me tell you spinal injuries can be really bad. I just can’t see why a lifter should stretch the low back. If you like stretching, stretch other muscles that DON’T get put through much ROM throughout the day, like calves, pecs, etc. My .02.
If your new to front squats, then this is very common. I had this the first few times i went heavy on the front squats. Your middle and upper back are not used to stabilizing that much weight, and thats why they feel very sore. They will adapt quickly, so ease into it and you should do fine.
Big key is to keep your chest up and an arch in your lower back. Anytime you lose that arch and your asking for pain and injury.
I don’t think that lordosis is caused by shortened erectors (or psoas) so much as they are locked into a certain position.
[/quote]
Well, it’s one of several factors, like I mentioned before. People who sit for a living often wind up with lordosis (because their psoas are always in a shortened ROM). Also, it can have to do with muscle imbalances (weak glutes, weak abs, etc…).
What “locks” muscles into a certain position could be that they are short, it could be neurological (you just don’t know how to correctly align your spine), or once again it could be due to strength imbalances.
Well, if you were stretching your lower back (or any muscles) before you were doing squats/deads/any exercise where the postural muscles must support a lot of weight, then that’s one of the reason you got injured. But stretching after you had performed those exercises would not have had the same outcome.
Also, hyperextending your back during deads/squats, has nothing to do with stretching. It sounds like you had issues with your form.
The benefits of stretching the lower back would be the same as the benefits of stretching any muscle (increased recovery time, decreased soreness, increased ROM, etc…). I do see what you mean about the back getting stretched a lot (especially considering that most people pick things up with their backs, which is wrong). But, how often during everyday life does it get moved through a full ROM? Not many, at least not mine.
Also, once again, why are you so convinced that a more flexible lumbar spine is going to hinder you in lifting heavy weights? Where is the evidence that flexibility increases risk of injury? The spinal erectors aren’t some different kind of muscle, they’re skeletal muscle just like the hamstrings, or deltoids, or calves. So why would different rules apply to them than what apply to the other skeletal muscles?
Once again, take a look at examples of athletes who have good flexibility in joints and still are quite strong and stable. Gymnasts would be a great example. Most gymnasts have tremendous spinal erector/hamstring flexibility and yet they also have extremely strong lower backs (I know of one gymnast who performed a 3X bw deadlift the very first time he tried the exercise and didn’t injure his back, and though that’s an extreme example, gymnasts who get into weightlifting don’t tend to suffer from an unusually high incidence of lower back injuries).
[quote]
At best, you won’t get injured and MAYBE you won’t limit your strength. But at worst, you’ll get injured, and let me tell you spinal injuries can be really bad. I just can’t see why a lifter should stretch the low back. If you like stretching, stretch other muscles that DON’T get put through much ROM throughout the day, like calves, pecs, etc. My .02.[/quote]
Hey man, once again if you don’t like stretching and not doing so is helping you, more power to you. But I know lots of people who are brutally strong (including their lower backs) and are big advocates of stretching the spinal erectors. I’ve also found from quite a bit of experience that stretching my lower back is beneficial for me.
Sentoguy, I really appreciate both what you have to say and the way you said it. I actually never questioned Cressey’s advice (which, at the time being new to lifting, was probably the right move). I think though that we’re looking at two different things.
From what I’ve heard and seen, the end result of a muscle being too tight is a muscle tear. Most of the time this happens to sprinters who don’t warm up sufficiently (from what I understand). Specifically, it’s the rapid switch from maximum relaxation (extension) to maximum contraction (pulling the foot behind and springing off) that leads to the damage.
Squatting is a whole different animal. There’s no switch from relaxation to contraction- the entire torso is held in an isometric contraction the entire time (one would hope). The spine is neutral, and there’s a big pull of air in the belly to keep the spine that way. Everything is static, everything is balanced out. So the tightness of the spinal erectors, it would seem, would be of benefit.
That said, about the Olympic lifting example, yeah, OLers have insane OH squats. Many Chinese lifters can supposedly OH squat more than they front squat. My guess is that this has more to do with technique than any amount of shoulder strength, but that you’re right, we’re talking about an incredible amount of stability MATCHED with an incredible amount of mobility in the joint.
I guess the take home point would be that if you’ve got a high enough level of stability and strength at the joint, feel free to create as much mobility as you want.
[quote]Otep wrote:
Sentoguy, I really appreciate both what you have to say and the way you said it. I actually never questioned Cressey’s advice (which, at the time being new to lifting, was probably the right move). I think though that we’re looking at two different things.
[/quote]
Well, I personally think that Cressey’s advice to improve hip mobility was spot on, and that if following his advice has caused you to improve your performance and avoid injury then it’s very good advice indeed. So, that you didn’t question it was a good thing at the time.
Yeah, I can see what you mean. My only question would be, why would one think that mobility in the lower back would in some way hinder stability? Once again, back to the Oly lifters or gymnasts, or any other athletes who posses both great mobility and stability in their joints.
Now, if you are talking about doing static stretching before you squat (which does lead to decreased strength), then I completely agree that one should not stretch their lower back before doing any load bearing exercise (squats, deads, farmers, overhead presses, etc…). But I see no reason to believe that stretching the muscle afterwards (to relieve soreness, improve recovery and improve mobility) would lead to a higher incidence of injury. That was my point.
Yes, technique most definitely has a lot to do with it. But once again, all I’m saying is that there is not a direct correlation between stability and mobility. One can posses both, and having one doesn’t necessarily mean that it’ll hinder the other.
[quote]
I guess the take home point would be that if you’ve got a high enough level of stability and strength at the joint, feel free to create as much mobility as you want.
But… really. Who cares about back ROM? [/quote]
Cool, I’ll agree with that.
As far “as who cares about back ROM” lots of people should. Most back injuries don’t occur in the gym, when you’ve taken the time to sufficiently warm up the muscles and prepare them for the work that they’re about to do. They occur during everyday activities and generally are caused by a combination of poor body mechanics and short tight muscles. Increasing the length of the spinal erectors is a great way to help prevent these injuries. At least that’s my opinion.
Sentoguy, the more I thought about it, the more black and I white I see it. If I could convince you to stop stretching spinal muscles, I would.
Muscles that are meant to support the spine are not “any other muscle.” Different muscles have different functions. Since we actually use muscles in the gym and in everyday life, moving around, function matters.
I cannot see how stretching the SPINAL muscles would help recovery or decrease soreness in any significant way. These are small muscles that are mainly stabilizers. Keep stretching everything else you like to stretch, but leave the spinal muscles alone, and your recovery is not going to suffer.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I do see what you mean about the back getting stretched a lot (especially considering that most people pick things up with their backs, which is wrong). But, how often during everyday life does it get moved through a full ROM? Not many, at least not mine.[/quote]
During everyday life, you DO get more than enough spinal flexion ROM unless you are completely bedriddren.
I say “more than enough” because just the amount of flexion in everyday movements like picking things up off the floor and putting on socks and shoes is enough to cause injuries through cumulative microtrauma to discs.
The solution to this isn’t to limit spinal flexion in everyday life; it’s to increase motion in other joints like hips and ankle, to distribute the loads.
It is NOT automatically good to have a “full ROM” around every joint. This is a myth. It is certainly not good for the spine.
Physics. The spinal erectors, in coordination with lots of other muscles, need to stiffen the spine so that forces can be transmitted to the prime movers.
If the spine is not stiff, force generation will be lost. The CNS as a smart controlling system will also limit force production in the prime movers so as to protect the spine.
Take an analogy of, say, a Ferris wheel or some similar amusement park structure, where you want to have bigger units that hold 10 people instead of 4. Would you make the central support stiffer and stronger, or would you make it more flexible?
Stuart McGill’s book “Low Back Disorders” goes into a great deal of detail about the entire body of evidence. The evidence is compelling. I cannot quote from it in this forum post because I returned it to the medical school library. If you don’t want to believe me, please get ahold of a copy and read it for yourself.
Please don’t get caught up in the thinking “skeletal muscle is skeletal muscle.” That’s a gross overgeneralization that leads to faulty conclusions. No, the spinal support muscles are FUNCTIONALLY not just like the hamstrings.
“Skeletal muscle” just distinguishes the structure of a muscle from “smooth muscle” such as the muscles in your arteries and gut. This is an academic distinction interesting to physiologists but completely irrelevant to a weightlifter or athlete. Different skeletal muscles have different functions during movement and this is what matters.
The spinal muscles are meant to stiffen the spine while prime movers work. For example, in a squat, hamstrings and quads are prime movers that work through a significant ROM. Spinal muscles stiffen to support the spine and shouldn’t be working through any significant ROM.
In fact, if there is any motion in the spine when it is loaded like this, there is a significant risk of injury. McGill documented a case, actually observed it happen, where an experienced powerlifter hooked up to all his measuring equipment (EMG etc.) had motion occur around one vertebral joint during a deadlift, blowing out the disc.
The biggest problem here is that gymnasts’ spines DO suffer chronic inflammation from the ROM they put them through. They have arthritic spines. Gymnastics is just about my favorite sport (to admire) for the body development and sheer awesomeness of the moves, but gymnasts pay a price for what they put their bodies through.
And it’s NOT ROM in the spine that makes anyone strong! If a gymnast is strong in the squat, it’s because a) the nervous system has learned to recruit a high % of muscle fibers during explosive movements; b) he spends a ton of training time stiffening the spine (e.g., think of the pommel horse); and c) superior hip mobility allows him to fully recruit muscles that are powerful through a large ROM like the glutes and hams. Gymnasts can do full splits, after all.
Performing gymnasts (i.e., the ones that haven’t yet been forced to quit because of injury) also tend to have a body type suited to the sport and at lower risk for acute spinal injuries. You don’t see tall gymnasts with long limbs, for example. The sport self-selects. And there are tons of gymnastics dropouts because of the injuries and joint trauma of the sport.
Why? Why do they think it’s good to stretch those muscles?
I guarantee that stretching their spinal erectors is not what’s making them brutally strong. It MIGHT not limit strength, depending on the rest of their program, but then again, it might.
And it’s not good for injury prevention. End ROM in spinal joints causes irritation, inflammation, and microtrauma to the discs and possibly facet joints.
And I just cannot believe it has any impact on rate of recovery either. When you do multiple things to achieve a goal, you can’t really tell what’s working. If you and your brutally strong friends stop stretching spinal muscles, and keep everything else the same, I can hardly believe your recovery would suffer. I can’t believe it.
Do soft tissue work with tennis balls and foam rollers on the spinal muscles instead of stretching. You will get all the possible benefits of stretching without the dangers of end ROM.
Look, you can stretch your spinal muscles for YEARS before you notice any problems. For like 5-7 years I had no symptoms. Then for a couple years I had nagging pains. Then I blew several discs. But it wasn’t that one deadlift that injured me; that was the final straw added to years of cumulative microtrauma.
Of course, stretching alone doesn’t cause these injuries. But it contributes to the microtrauma.
Stretching spinal muscles is like smoking. In the short term, it may feel good and seem to do no harm. But in the long term, it’s likely to be harmful. A lucky few may suffer no ill effects. But it is wisest to avoid it.
[quote]andersons wrote:
Sentoguy, the more I thought about it, the more black and I white I see it. If I could convince you to stop stretching spinal muscles, I would.
Muscles that are meant to support the spine are not “any other muscle.” Different muscles have different functions. Since we actually use muscles in the gym and in everyday life, moving around, function matters.
I cannot see how stretching the SPINAL muscles would help recovery or decrease soreness in any significant way. These are small muscles that are mainly stabilizers. Keep stretching everything else you like to stretch, but leave the spinal muscles alone, and your recovery is not going to suffer.
[/quote]
Hey, man like I said, you do what works for you, I’ll do what works for me. I know guys who are in their 60’s and are in unbelievable shape (probably better than 98% of 20 year olds), who stretch their lower backs and have never had a back injury. So I have anecdotal evidence to support that stretching the lower back doesn’t necessarily lead to back injury. But, I respect your decision not to stretch them if you truly believe that it is detrimental. I simply don’t.
As far as recovery, once again, do what you want. But I know (don’t think, know) that stretching my lower back has helped me to relieve soreness, and improve recovery throughout the 10 years that I’ve been lifting. Why would you think that if stretching the hamstrings helps to improve recovery and decrease soreness that stretching out the lower back wouldn’t?
Well, “more than enough” ROM for what though? Lots of people get hurt bending over to pick something light up, or rolling over in bed to hit the snooze button. Why do they get hurt? Because they twisted or bent in some odd way and their short tight lower back muscle got pulled as a result. Having good ROM is going to at least help prevent this from occurring.
And why is it not good to have a “full ROM” around joints (assuming we’re talking about normal ROM)? What would be the detriment? Full natural mobility in that joint?
It seems like people (might be you, might be your sources) are making the mistake of taking the mobility/stability relationship out of context. Yes, a ball and socket joint has (by it’s very structure) more mobility and less stability than a hinge joint. But, that doesn’t mean that developing a full natural ROM in that joint is going to make the joint less stable.
Physics have nothing to do with natural joint mobility. Yes, the spinal erectors must stabilize the spine and if they are do not injury can occur. But what does that have to do with mobility? Are you suggesting that if I stretch my calves (after I workout) that it’ll hinder my ability to do heavy squats (since the calves must stabilize the ankle joint during heavy squats)?
Haven’t read the book. Maybe I’ll check it out next time I’m at Barnes & Noble. Honestly though, it’s going to take more than 1 book to over shadow the empirical evidence that I’ve encountered to support stretching the lower back.
Really? And how would that be? Skeletal muscle is made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny myofibrils (actin and myosin) that when stimulated pull on each other and cause the muscle to shorten/contract. All skeletal muscle (whether it be the hamstrings, the subscapularis, the sternocleidomastoid muscle, etc…) is structurally the same (once you get down the the sarcomeres, the functional parts of the muscle).
All skeletal muscles can only contract or relax, that’s it. They all also stabilize as well as cause movement. The erector spinae is one of the primary spinal stabilizers, but it also is capable of performing spinal extension. Just as the Hamstrings stabilize the knee and hip joints but also are capable performing knee flexion and hip extension.
Trust me, I’ve got a degree and am certified in this stuff, I know what I’m talking about. From a physiological standpoint there is no difference between the erector spinae and the biceps femoris, semimembranosis, and semitendinosis (hamstrings muscles).
Yes, that is one of their functions (and their primary one I’ll admit), but that isn’t their only function. They also perform spinal extension, lateral spinal flexion, and spinal rotation. To suggest that improving their ROM in these natural ROM’s (or at least to maintain a natural amount) is in some way unnatural or detrimental just doesn’t make sense from a biomechanical standpoint.
Yes, I am not nor have I throughout this discussion suggested that one should flex (or move in any way) their spine while it is supporting load.
The funny thing is that I hear all the time about how gymnasts have spinal problems later down the road. Yet, when asked about chronic injuries Coach Christopher Sommer (a very well respected gymnastics coach here in the states) stated that none of his athletes have experienced these problems after they finish training gymnastics. He blamed the injuries on poor coaching and training methods, not on gymnastics itself.
Now, what exactly those bad training methods are, and whether they involve excessive stretching of the lower back, I can’t say. But I’d have to suspect that it’s things like tumbling and giant swings on the still rings which would be much more likely culprits of gymnasts having problems with their spines than stretching their lower backs.
Nor was I suggesting that ROM in the spine makes anyone strong. Only arguing that I don’t believe it necessarily predisposes them to injury either.
True, and unfortunately there is a lot of poor training programs and poor coaching which leads to injury. That and the fact that gymnasts are often encouraged to train through injuries (thus never allowing them to heal completely). Combine that with the fact that many people begin gymnastics when they are very young and their joints have not fully developed adds to the problem.
I also understand what you mean about tall, long limbed people being at greater risk for injury, but that’s unfortunately not really something that is gonna change. If you were tall before you started training, you’ll still be tall and at a greater risk of injury even if you do everything right to help prevent one.
No, it’s not stretching their spinal erectors that is what is making them brutally strong, but it obviously also hasn’t negatively affected them either. That’s my point. You can’t call a causation if one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other. Now, a correlation? Maybe. But not a causation.
Normal Rom is not detrimental. Excessive ROM yes, but normal no.
Yes, I can tell that it improves recovery. You know how? Very simple. If I don’t do it, I am much much more sore the next day than if I do. And the soreness lasts considerably longer. That’s pretty plain and simple proof as far as I’m concerned.
[quote]
Do soft tissue work with tennis balls and foam rollers on the spinal muscles instead of stretching. You will get all the possible benefits of stretching without the dangers of end ROM.
Look, you can stretch your spinal muscles for YEARS before you notice any problems. For like 5-7 years I had no symptoms. Then for a couple years I had nagging pains. Then I blew several discs. But it wasn’t that one deadlift that injured me; that was the final straw added to years of cumulative microtrauma.
Of course, stretching alone doesn’t cause these injuries. But it contributes to the microtrauma.
Stretching spinal muscles is like smoking. In the short term, it may feel good and seem to do no harm. But in the long term, it’s likely to be harmful. A lucky few may suffer no ill effects. But it is wisest to avoid it. [/quote]
Once again, you do what you believe in, I’ll do what I believe in.
One final thing to consider is that I’ve talked to several Chiropractors (people who have got M.D.'s specifically focusing on the spine) and none of them have ever once mentioned that stretching the lower back (through a natural ROM) was in any way detrimental to back health. In fact, many of the adjustments that they do involve moving the spine through it’s ROM.
Well, “more than enough” ROM for what though? Lots of people get hurt bending over to pick something light up, or rolling over in bed to hit the snooze button. Why do they get hurt? Because they twisted or bent in some odd way and their short tight lower back muscle got pulled as a result. Having good ROM is going to at least help prevent this from occurring.
And why is it not good to have a “full ROM” around joints (assuming we’re talking about normal ROM)? What would be the detriment? Full natural mobility in that joint? [/quote]
So what IS the “normal” ROM for each spinal joint?
End ROM at ANY joint is a potential for injuring the joint or causing chronic irritation and inflammation.
The safe ROM for each individual facet joint of the spine is quite small, just a few degrees. The problem is that when stretching the back in overall flexion of the torso, you cannot control or limit the ROM at each individual joint. Many people have movement patterns which cause too much ROM at a joint, such as L5-S1. In such cases every flexion movement stresses the disc, eventually leading to tears, herniations, and ruptures. This happens in the majority of people and doesn’t always cause pain, but when it does, the dysfunction is serious.
Further, I would ask you, Where is the evidence that stretching the lower back protects against injury?
The laws of physics apply to all mechanical systems. The greater degree of spinal flexion during a stretching movement, the greater the compression force on the discs, given the weight and leverage of the head.
I would guess, though I haven’t read of any measurements to prove it, that stretching the calves could possibly help strength in the squat. This is because of how force is transmitted during a squat; the antagonists to the calves, the shins, must contract to stabilize the ankle and tend to be weaker than the calves. Stretching the calves could therefore activate the muscle that’s the weak limiting factor in the chain.
It is not your typical book and I’ve never seen it at B&N. It is a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence in every respect.
Generalizing how all muscles have fibers and contract and relax does not help to determine the risk of different types of movements to injure joints.
The musculoskeletal system is extremely versatile and sometimes allows more joint movement than is safe, especially when repeated chronically. So it is good to understand where the vulnerabilities are and avoid pushing those vulnerabilities as much as possible.
Sure it does, because arbitrarily increasing ROM at any joint will eventually cause injury.
I don’t believe that people lose ROM in spinal flexion because of lack of use. I believe that, in people who have lost spinal flexion mobility, it is because the CNS has limited it due to injury of one or more spinal joints. Attempting to stretch the muscles in this situation is counter-productive.
During spinal flexion movements, there is load on the lower back because of the leverage of the head and shoulders. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do this; you can’t really function as a human being if you don’t. But it illustrates why L4-L5 and L5-S1 tend to be “Achilles heel” joints in the body.
The problem is that, while performing some spinal flexion stretch, no one can really know that the ROM around EACH facet joint, and the forces compressing each disc and joint, is safe or whether it’s excessive.
Honestly, I don’t think many chiropractors understand the spine as well as McGill. He is a PhD who has devoted his career to understanding, measuring, and modeling how the spine works. The book I recommended is a scientific summary of the body of evidence amassed thus far.
Now, I’ve got to get to sleep because that’s what really makes a difference in MY recovery.
