Strength training for general fitness?
|
Chad Miller wrote:Well I'm glad to see that this thread has turned into a dick waving contest.If by dick waving you mean my successful attempt at elucidating an empty and misleading concept being bandied around in the thread, then yes, yes indeed, dick waving. |
|
5.samadhi wrote: If by dick waving you mean my successful attempt at elucidating an empty and misleading concept being bandied around in the thread, then yes, yes indeed, dick waving.Nope, that's not what I meant. |
|
5.samadhi wrote: I'm not trying to be a dick, but no that is not better honestly. You just rephrased the phrase "stabilizer muscle" to "muscle that acts as stabilizer for my joints" I still contend that you have no idea what "muscle that acts as stabilizer for my joints" is.* Training on a balance ball or any kind of ball (bosu, etc) is for hot chicks in those tight black shorts in the gym so they can look hot. Its not actually for getting stronger or "stabilizing your joints". If you want to actually get stronger then you have to progressively overload a barbell with weight. *HINT: its a meaningless phrasePlease enlighten me instead of just saying "I know more than you". Additionally I never said I use balance exercises to get stronger. I run, lift weights and mix stability exercises to get a well rounded work out. If anything I've spent years lifting weight and getting more bulk or lifting heavy is the last aspect of my routine. Gotta run and do some squats on the bosu ball... |
|
5.samadhi wrote: I honestly do not believe you know what a "stabilizer muscle" is.He might not know what they are, but I do. Good examples in the spine are the multifidus, and paraspinus muscles. Very small, fast, muscles that hold your vertebrae aligned and make the constant adjustments that help you keep your balance. This is in contrast to the "prime mover" muscles, like the erector spinae and rectus abdominis. The shoulder joint has a similar situation, with the smaller rotator cuff muscles holding your shouler joint together, while the lats, deltoids, pecs, etc. do the big work of lifting or pulling etc. Many people have underactivated, injured, or weak, stability muscles. These muscles are fast for an important reason. They are supposed to tighten up before the prime movers start doing the work. They also are more important to your balance than the prime movers are. Bosu and fit ball exercises really do activate these "stability" muscles more than lifting heavy does. Those exercises may not be needed for you personally, but they are crucial for many people, myself included. A good physical therapist started me on the right track, and I've continued to research and self-experimentation for years. At present, slacklining is my preferred method of "therapy." edit/add: tons of people get hurt doing these types of exercises, because they don't understand the principle, and use too much weight. When balance is involved, the slower muscles aren't there supporting you, and the stabilizers are essentially being "isolated." Some of the muscles I'm talking about are really weak (but important, nonetheless). |
|
Tom Nyce wrote: He might not know what they are, but I do. Good examples in the spine are the multifidus, and paraspinus muscles. Very small, fast, muscles that hold your vertebrae aligned and make the constant adjustments that help you keep your balance. This is in contrast to the "prime mover" muscles, like the erector spinae and rectus abdominis. The shoulder joint has a similar situation, with the smaller rotator cuff muscles holding your shouler joint together, while the lats, deltoids, pecs, etc. do the big work of lifting or pulling etc. Many people have underactivated, injured, or weak, stability muscles. These muscles are fast for an important reason. They are supposed to tighten up before the prime movers start doing the work. They also are more important to your balance than the prime movers are. Bosu and fit ball exercises really do activate these "stability" muscles more than lifting heavy does. Those exercises may not be needed for you personally, but they are crucial for many people, myself included. A good physical therapist started me on the right track, and I've continued to research and self-experimentation for years. At present, slacklining is my preferred method of "therapy." edit/add: tons of people get hurt doing these types of exercises, because they don't understand the principle, and use too much weight. When balance is involved, the slower muscles aren't there supporting you, and the stabilizers are essentially being "isolated." Some of the muscles I'm talking about are really weak (but important, nonetheless).I wasn't aware that exercise only worked when you knew what specific interior muscles on the body chart they affected, but I appreciate the particulars Tom. |
|
That's not what he said Scott. |
|
Tom Nyce wrote:Bosu and fit ball exercises really do activate these "stability" muscles more than lifting heavy does.Can you show any research on this? OP, if you want strength, then lift heavy. If you are in rehab, then do basu ball. |
|
So this argument continues....here is another study which found that using a swiss ball does not make you any stronger than using a stable surface... |
|
Chad Miller wrote:That's not what he said Scott.That comment wasn't directed at Tom. |
|
SMR wrote:So this argument continues....here is another study which found that using a swiss ball does not make you any stronger than using a stable surface... Swiss balls on core stability and balance exercises Ludmila Cosito-Lima et al 2003. 15 women performing Swiss ball core stability and balance exercises for five weeks, studying the electromyographical signals in their abdominal and back muscles during the exercises, and measuring the gains in absolute strength at the end of the study.The experimental group was compared to a control group who performed the same type of crunch and back extension exercises on the floor with no unstable surface. Though the experimental group demonstrated significantly more activation of their abdominal and back muscles during the exercises, they did not become any stronger than the control group. A counter-argument might be that the experimental group could have developed better balanceunfortunately, Cosito-Lima et al. did not measure this.So I guess it depends on what definition of "absolute strength" means. I certainly don't think that using stability/bosu balls are going to increase my strength or up my bench. Will they give me a stronger core, better balance etc? I certainly hope so, but that is why I mix in those exercises with static / stable surface movements. I personally feel they have been beneficial for climbing, boarding etc. I've reread the OP's query a few times to get a full sense of what he's looking for. I would personally recommend balance and stability exercises, but the more I read it I don't believe there is a single answer. I think power moments (deads,bench) are great for general strength, but I also feel you need to mix more in for general fitness including stability workouts. The workouts he listed will certainly combat some of the effects of climbing, and for for general fitness there is alot more to add. All in all I'm not a sports medicine doctor, but I do know what works well for me. To each their own I guess...increased flexibility and balance that I derived from working my "stabalizers" has done me well. |
|
All trolling aside, the theory behind the "lift heavy stuff, ignore bosu ball" mentality is that compound lifts such as Deadlifts, squats, etc., performed with free weights (not some machine nonsense) activate the "stabilizer" muscles as well as the primary movers. You have to keep you core tight (among other things) to keep the barbell balanced when doing heavy squats for example. |
|
As far as the definition of what a stabilizing muscle is, it can anything that isn't a prime mover. For example, glute max, the hamstring, adductor and quadriceps groups could be considered prime movers for hip extension, hip flexion, knee flexion, and knee extension. Stabilizers could include the glute min, glute med, obturators, piriformis, sartorius, iliacus, psoas major/minor, etc. |
|
If you can handle it, you can try "body weight training". This hits your stabilizers and improves flexibility, especially the shoulders. amazon.com/Overcoming-Gravi… |
|
phildenigris wrote:TL;DR: climbers can probably benefit from weight training, and the lower body stuff should have an emphasis on single leg strength. To answer OP's qustion: Think about movement, not muscles. If you're serious about it, I'd recommend The New Rules of Lifting: Supercharged by Cosgrove and Schuler, or Mark Verstaegens Core Performance (i think thats what it's called). Feel free to PM me if you'd like.I actually switched from standard squats to pistol squats for a while due to the reasons you mentioned. What I noticed was that increasing the load beyond a certain point was pretty impractical (I tried holding dumbells and a weight vest). At a certain point, you end up just doing high rep training which I don't really think is that beneficial for building strength (correct me if I'm wrong). The only other variation I tried was a jumping pistol (not sure what the actual name is) where you do a pistol squat and then hop up on to one of those plyo box things. After the first time I knocked over the box and ate it in front of the whole gym I decided to give that one up ;) If you have some recommendations on how to increase the load on pistol squats I'm all ears. |
|
phildenigris wrote:As far as the definition of what a stabilizing muscle is, it can anything that isn't a prime mover.To disagree on this one point: ALL muscles are stabilizers, actually. Each muscle can act on the skeletal system to initiate and assist in several motions, but the one "generic" motion that is common to all muscles is stabilization. Otherwise, phil, I think our posts/thoughts are very aligned (probably because we have similar backgrounds in S&C) and I also love the stuff by Cosgrove, Verstegen, etc. you cited. To more precisely expand on what phil said, what most people think of when they write the word stabilizers are those muscle groups composed of fatigue-resistant, low-power-output fibers which often fire in an anticipatory way, particularly in the core. i.e. they fire BEFORE movement actually starts. These muscle groups usually tend to be smaller and lie deeper in the body than mobilizers - or what we typically think of as "primary movers". So, yes, mobilizer muscles can also stabilize but they tend to be composed of faster fibers which give higher power outputs yet fatigue much more quickly. They are clearly less involved in ongoing postural control; you can think of them as doing more to limit range of motion (typically segmental ROTATION) in a joint vs reduce segmental TRANSLATION. But they still stabilize, although not in an anticipatory way (that Im aware of). |
|
SMR wrote:Though the experimental group demonstrated significantly more activation of their abdominal and back muscles during the exercises, they did not become any stronger than the control group. A counter-argument might be that the experimental group could have developed better balanceunfortunately, Cosito-Lima et al. did not measure this.I couldnt pull up this article; its not in the database I have access to. However, going off the mostly detail-devoid summary, my personal opinion is that strength seems like the wrong metric for this type of study to analyze. Also, measuring balance how to do it? Center of mass changes with every perturbation in biomechanical position. With six degrees of freedom and the fact that there are many physiologic factors which affect balance (not just muscle recruitment patterns and amplitude) and you have a complicated metric which has what meaningful output? Cross-sectional area of a relevant muscle group might be a more meaningful quantification of stability exercise effectiveness (I read one study in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine that said CSA in the multifidus actually was larger at the L4/L5 level in the Swiss ball group than those who did the same exercises without [as verified by MRI]) . My other gripe about these studies which measure muscle activity is that none of them Ive read so far actually measure anticipatory stabilizers, i.e. the ones that supposedly really count. They are only measuring surface trunk muscles, aka mobilizers, because its way easier to slap on surface electrodes and recruit study participants for that type of thing than insert wire electrodes into people. The other thing these studies do not take into account is that the actual postures are NOT IDENTICAL with and without stability devices which may alter the shear and compressive forces on the structures in question and therefore alter muscle activity, therefore blurring a true same-to-same comparison. So, one would also need to measure/control axial postures quantitatively to really know if postural changes account for the differences found. Has anyone on here, except myself, actually done EMG research? I'm telling you, it's not as cut and dried and pretty and perfect as you would think with a nice sign pointing to "the answer". Oh, I wish...my life would be easier. |
|
I agree all muscles stabilize. if what make some muscle a stabilizer muscle is that it stabilizes, then the concept is useless since it does not differentiate. |
|
Ryan Watts wrote: I actually switched from standard squats to pistol squats for a while due to the reasons you mentioned. What I noticed was that increasing the load beyond a certain point was pretty impractical (I tried holding dumbells and a weight vest). At a certain point, you end up just doing high rep training which I don't really think is that beneficial for building strength (correct me if I'm wrong). The only other variation I tried was a jumping pistol (not sure what the actual name is) where you do a pistol squat and then hop up on to one of those plyo box things. After the first time I knocked over the box and ate it in front of the whole gym I decided to give that one up ;) If you have some recommendations on how to increase the load on pistol squats I'm all ears.If you can perform multiple reps of pistols with a weight vest and the heaviest db's you can hold held out in front of you (like a front raise), you're a stronger man than I. If that's the case, I'd move on, it'd likely take a great effort to see any improvement (diminishing returns, dawg). A more efficient strategy would be to see if you have a weakness or asymmetry elsewhere, and attack that. You may be interested in something like an FMS (functional movement screen). Aerili - good point above. I was going for a somewhat watered down definition relevant to the back and forth about the greater muscle activation of stabilizers when training unilateral vs. bilaterally. I have some research tucked away somewhere comparing surface EMG (i believe) between bilateral squats and split squats. On that front, it seems that people often refer to the big ones as prime movers and the little ones as stabilizers. Apparently the stabilizers (my definition) have higher activity than the big guns. But you're correct as well. I'll try to post the research later, if anyone is interested. |
|
spray alert, ryan you need a small 5.12+ crusher gf to sit on your shoulders while you pistol squat (and hang your draws on/onsight your 5.12 projects). |
|
Aerili |