RE: back pain and drawing in

[Guest guest]

<< I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doing

a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

>>

NASM and Mike seem to be " one entity " on this matter, while Boyle and

Check are seemingly cut from the same cloth as .

Over a year and a half past, I wrote a letter to Supertraining describing my

personal experience with this mania here in the Chicago area where a popular

and highly respected trainer is training hockey players and others to

consciously " draw - in " prior to execution of almost any remotely athletic

maneuver;

thereby distracting the athlete from the task at hand and discouraging the

automatic and natural response of the abdominals in the kinetic chain to imposed

demand during training or competition. I would reference that letter if I only

knew how to find it myself in the (yahoo?) Supertraining files. Perhaps the

moderator could reference it for me? I include a reprint at the bottom of this

letter. The trainer referred me to a medical research journal article that

had referenced and it proved upon examination to be unrelated to the

question. This trainer still persists, even so, with his insistence on belly

button

sucking for core stabilization! Just recently another trainer (CSCS

certification) was published in the latest issue of the NSCA journal with yet

again the

same advice despite research published previously in this journal

demonstrating that the " draw-in " technique has a training effect intensity only

on the

external obliques and not on the TVA; and I have met USAW coaches (who should

certainly know better!) parroting Chek and Boyle and /NASM.

No wonder certifications and authority are subject to so much question and

even scorn by the layman and the professional alike! Regarding the espousal of

this modern myth extracted whole cloth from rehab and misapplied to athletic

training, we may always have its " teaching " amongst us and especially so as

long as it is lucrative for its promoters.

Boardman

Chicago

****copy of original letter concering Spine journal article purportedly

proving Mike 's contention regarding core stabilization***

Recently, a local trainer (ATC) published the statement; " I do suggest to

perform the draw in maneuver to activate the core. Research has shown that

the spine is not stable until this maneuver is performed. "

When I contacted him and asked for the research reference, he invoked the

authority and writings of Mike and Mike Boyle. I said that I was aware

of their " opinions " but was looking for the research that supported such

opinions. He then referred me to a Journal article that he claimed had been

referenced by Mr. . It is: " Stability Increase of the Lumbar Spine With

Different Muscle Groups. A Biomechanical In Vitro Study. " SPINE Volume 20,

Number 2, pp. 192-198, 1995, J. B. Lippincott Company.

A red flag began to rise in my mind when he said " In Vitro " and I asked the

trainer if he had read the journal research article? He admitted that he had

not actually read it himself. I thanked him for the reference and began to

look for it on line. It was not available online or through the interlibrary

loan system, but I was able to procure it through the good offices of the

local librarian and the medical school library at U of I. This journal is

evidently quite pricey and therefor not well circulated. Obtaining the

article took a couple weeks waiting time but when it finally arrived it

confirmed my suspicions.

The research had nothing whatever to do with " the draw in maneuver "

(activating the TVA)! It didn't begin to relate to athletic performance in

human beings! The article dealt with simulating muscular tension on isolated

sections of the test spines of cadavers for purposes of better evaluating new

surgical and therapeutic techniques regarding implanted devices for spinal

fixation. Even then, a reviewers' comment (Tom Bendix of Copenhagen,

Denmark) at the end of the journal piece remarked, " Is there any indication

from the literature that the forces investigated are within the limits of

relevant physiologic forces? "

So.........next time you wonder how this stuff gets its seeming credibility

and currency in the training universe, recall this little anecdote. It is

much easier to accept the claims of the popular and successful purveyors of

" opinions " and training systems than to investigate the claims and think for

ones' self. Besides.......nationally known trainers wouldn't knowingly

mislead us with references to difficult to obtain research literature, would

they?

I intend to contact the trainer in question and offer him the article for

educational purposes and to inform him that it in no way supports the

" maneuver " that has become the gold standard for core activation cultism.

Over to you,

Boardman

Chicago Il.

[Guest guest]

taylor tollison wrote:

> I have seen a couple of posts here regarding the negativity of

> drawing in as taught by CHEK. I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

> in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

> two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doind

> a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

Casler writes:

Hi ,

As has been discussed numerous times on this list (check the archives)

anyone who advocates " drawing the abs in " for torso and spinal stabilization

seriously misunderstands how the " Torso Stabilization Mechanism " (also

called the Spinal Stabilization Mechanism) functions.

The assumed functions of some of the " key " players is incorrect and focus on

that drawing in type of action for anything other than simply walking, will

put you " at risk " .

While I won't offer a complete lecture on torso stabilization, you will find

a much better grasp of how the " abdominal bracing " works in the works of

Stuart McGill. He and I agree on much in that area.

While " drawing in " actions are not harmful and will offer a slight (very

slight) conditioning effect, the activation pattern is not in moto-neural

synchronization with the other stabilizers to offer any significant

stabilization beyond normal postural requirements (you know the

drill...stomach in, chest out)

Regards,

Casler

BIO-FORCE Inc, and TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

taylor tollison wrote:

> I have seen a couple of posts here regarding the negativity of

> drawing in as taught by CHEK. I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

> in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

> two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doind

> a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

Casler writes:

Hi ,

As has been discussed numerous times on this list (check the archives)

anyone who advocates " drawing the abs in " for torso and spinal stabilization

seriously misunderstands how the " Torso Stabilization Mechanism " (also

called the Spinal Stabilization Mechanism) functions.

The assumed functions of some of the " key " players is incorrect and focus on

that drawing in type of action for anything other than simply walking, will

put you " at risk " .

While I won't offer a complete lecture on torso stabilization, you will find

a much better grasp of how the " abdominal bracing " works in the works of

Stuart McGill. He and I agree on much in that area.

While " drawing in " actions are not harmful and will offer a slight (very

slight) conditioning effect, the activation pattern is not in moto-neural

synchronization with the other stabilizers to offer any significant

stabilization beyond normal postural requirements (you know the

drill...stomach in, chest out)

Regards,

Casler

BIO-FORCE Inc, and TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Speculations on drawing in:

1. The TA attaches to the thoraco-lumbar fascia which attaches to

L-1--L-4 with a slight upward orientation. I have yet to see decisive

evidence that, when actively engaged, the TA indeed increases spinal

stability. The most movement in the lumbar spine occurs between

L-4--S-1---this is also where most disc herniations occur in the lumbar

spine. So, IF actively engaging the TA does in fact increase spinal

stability, it would be from L-1--L-4, leaving even more work to

stabilize the spine to be taken up by the most vulnerable/mobile

segments of the lumbo-sacral area, L-4--S-1.

2. Contraction of the TA during inhalation impedes the diaphram from

dropping down to allow the lungs to fully fill with air (about 30%

less)--so, with regards to vigorous activity, my question is, how

functional is that? If you can't breathe well, that negates the

" functionality " context which " core stability " is so often applied to.

3. EMG activity in healthy populations indicate that the TA is a phasic

muscle that works in frequency-opposition to the diaphragm with regard

to breathing. If there is indeed a problem with TA recruitment, then go

ahead and teach the person to actively engage it--however, I would not

recommend applying such a technique to healthy population without a

diagnosed TA deficiency whose TA functions normally.

Adam Cronin

NYC, NY, USA

back pain and drawing in

I have seen a couple of posts here regarding the negativity of

drawing in as taught by CHEK. I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doind

a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

Tollison

Salt Lake City UT

[Guest guest]

Speculations on drawing in:

1. The TA attaches to the thoraco-lumbar fascia which attaches to

L-1--L-4 with a slight upward orientation. I have yet to see decisive

evidence that, when actively engaged, the TA indeed increases spinal

stability. The most movement in the lumbar spine occurs between

L-4--S-1---this is also where most disc herniations occur in the lumbar

spine. So, IF actively engaging the TA does in fact increase spinal

stability, it would be from L-1--L-4, leaving even more work to

stabilize the spine to be taken up by the most vulnerable/mobile

segments of the lumbo-sacral area, L-4--S-1.

2. Contraction of the TA during inhalation impedes the diaphram from

dropping down to allow the lungs to fully fill with air (about 30%

less)--so, with regards to vigorous activity, my question is, how

functional is that? If you can't breathe well, that negates the

" functionality " context which " core stability " is so often applied to.

3. EMG activity in healthy populations indicate that the TA is a phasic

muscle that works in frequency-opposition to the diaphragm with regard

to breathing. If there is indeed a problem with TA recruitment, then go

ahead and teach the person to actively engage it--however, I would not

recommend applying such a technique to healthy population without a

diagnosed TA deficiency whose TA functions normally.

Adam Cronin

NYC, NY, USA

back pain and drawing in

I have seen a couple of posts here regarding the negativity of

drawing in as taught by CHEK. I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doind

a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

Tollison

Salt Lake City UT

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

The draw-in technique is well documented in the book by , Carolyn, G.

Jull, P. Hodges, J. Hides, Therapeutic Exercise For Spinal Segmental

Stabilization In Low Back Pain, Churchill Livingstone, 1999. ISBN #: 0443058024.

I strongly recommend the naysayers of the draw-in technique to at least take a

look at the information in this book and then you can blast it all you want. It

is also well documented in the scientific literature that if a joint presents

with pain the surrounding musculature of this painful joint tends to weaken or

becomes inactive entirely. Even once the pain is gone and the injured joint has

healed the surrounding musculature continues to be weak or inactive until you

strengthen it. That is where the draw-in technique comes into play for the

athlete with an injured back. But, once the athlete can demonstrate adequate

neuromuscular control of the lower abdominals then you integrate the technique

into exercises (squats, lunges, deadlifts, overhead presses, etc...). Is it

possible for an athlete to integrate the draw-in technique during subconscious

activities? That remains to be seen.

I saw Mike Boyle's presentation on the draw-in technique last year in

Boston and noticed that he referenced Chek within the associated literature

to the presentation. So I asked Mike what his thoughts were about the work that

Chek has done in reference to core conditioning. He stated that had

taken what the Australians had done with research and scientific studies of core

conditioning and called it his own. Mike then went on to tell me that at a

recent seminar that was speaking at went out of his way to question

all of the other presenters about their training techniques and disrespected the

strength and conditioning professionals at this seminar. I don't know exactly

what had taken place at this seminar....but Mike was pretty fired up when he

told me about it. The thing is everyone has a different spin on the same

techniques. Mike uses taped hockey pucks and places them on the athletes navel

as they draw-in the abdominals. uses the Janda technique with a blood

pressure cuff to objectively measure the draw-in technique. They both have the

athlete start out by laying down to perform the draw-in technique...then they

progress to a standing draw-in. takes it a few steps further than Mike

does. Who knows...... The only thing that I can suggest is do the

research.....try the techniques on yourself and then draw your own conclusions.

I hope this helps.

Yours In Good Health,

Blake,MA,ATC,CSCS

Dept of Sports Medicine: Sports Rehabilitation and Assessment Center

UCONN Health Center

Farmington, CT

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

I went to a seminar held by the rehab equipment company Perform Better back

in 1999 in Boston and Mike spoke about abdominal hollowing techniques.

During his talk he mentioned Chek's name is regards to the hollowing

technique and activating the TVA, as if he ( Chek) was the main

authority. Also at this seminar in the crowd was Mike Boyle. A couple of

weeks later a friend of mine who works for a popular gym in the Boston area

sat through a lecture by Mike Boyle, where Mike Boyle gave almost the same

lecture as Mike e, except for a few different exercises variations. So

from my limited experience in 1999, and from what I have read and heard the

techniques and teaching are the same, outside of some exercise variation and

of course coaching styles. It just seemed like during that year and

currently any thing that is marketable is taken advantage of and blown out

of proportion.

Just some thoughts

Doug Fairbanks

ton, SC

>

>Reply-To: Supertraining

>To: Supertraining

>Subject: back pain and drawing in

>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:32:37 -0000

>

>I have seen a couple of posts here regarding the negativity of

>drawing in as taught by CHEK. I have seen Mike boyle teach drawing

>in and the NASM teaches drawing in. Are the versions taught by these

>two different from what is taught by CHEK? Would you recommend doind

>a drawing in routine alond with the traditional abdominal workout?

>

>taylor tollison

>salt lake city ut

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

I have a few thoughts on the draw in technique & it's use for strength

athletes. I attended a conference in Boston 2 years age presented by Dr.

Hodges. He's one of the Aussie group based around Queensland Univ. who have

actually done the developmental research that's lead to the use of the drawing

in techniques being popularized by core training advocates. The thing about

the draw in methods for the transverse abdominus that a lot of folks tend to

forget, is that this method is activating a muscle whose action is primarily

tonic (ie; a nearly constant but low level of activity). The function of these

small muscles is to provide low amounts of force during usual daily activity

such as walking or reaching into the refrigerator. Their role is vital as the

maintenance of a small neutral zone around each intervertebral segment is a

necessity for spinal health. However, in the athlete's world, much higher

loads are produced with compressive & shearing forces that the average person

cannot comprehend, much less tolerate. These loads require a concerted ability

to generate stabilizing forces with integrated action of the core and more

superficial, larger muscles.

The research has shown that these muscles typically alter their patterns of

activation in the presence of back pain or injury, usually delaying firing by a

few hundred milliseconds. Altered patterns of activation are also seen in the

larger erector muscles, again often in the form of timing difficulties. One

must not forget the crucial role of the larger trunk muscles in the training of

the athlete. Many exercises fire the multifidus & transversus along with the

larger prime movers. These are also acceptable ways to train these muscles.

The problem with the way some core training programs is that the athlete is left

with the wrong emphasis. Total spinal stability requires all the players in

the orchestra be in sync.

Sincerely,

Ernest Roy PT, CSCS

Northfield, NH

[Guest guest]

Hi

I have a few thoughts on the draw in technique & it's use for strength

athletes. I attended a conference in Boston 2 years age presented by Dr.

Hodges. He's one of the Aussie group based around Queensland Univ. who have

actually done the developmental research that's lead to the use of the drawing

in techniques being popularized by core training advocates. The thing about

the draw in methods for the transverse abdominus that a lot of folks tend to

forget, is that this method is activating a muscle whose action is primarily

tonic (ie; a nearly constant but low level of activity). The function of these

small muscles is to provide low amounts of force during usual daily activity

such as walking or reaching into the refrigerator. Their role is vital as the

maintenance of a small neutral zone around each intervertebral segment is a

necessity for spinal health. However, in the athlete's world, much higher

loads are produced with compressive & shearing forces that the average person

cannot comprehend, much less tolerate. These loads require a concerted ability

to generate stabilizing forces with integrated action of the core and more

superficial, larger muscles.

The research has shown that these muscles typically alter their patterns of

activation in the presence of back pain or injury, usually delaying firing by a

few hundred milliseconds. Altered patterns of activation are also seen in the

larger erector muscles, again often in the form of timing difficulties. One

must not forget the crucial role of the larger trunk muscles in the training of

the athlete. Many exercises fire the multifidus & transversus along with the

larger prime movers. These are also acceptable ways to train these muscles.

The problem with the way some core training programs is that the athlete is left

with the wrong emphasis. Total spinal stability requires all the players in

the orchestra be in sync.

Sincerely,

Ernest Roy PT, CSCS

Northfield, NH