Category — Research Review

I have another review up at Fitness Research Review Website for those interested:

The Relationship Between Forward Scapular Posture and Posterior Shoulder Tightness Among Baseball Players

Laudner KG, Moline MT, Meister K, American Journal of Sports Medicine 2010 (in press)

Some of the pertinent findings:

 - The dominant shoulder of both pitchers and position players were significantly forward compared to the nondominant shoulder.

- There is a relationship between posterior shoulder tightness, as measured by glenohumeral adduction, and forward scapular positioning.

- There was a negative relationship between glenohumeral adduction and forward scapular position. Those with greater posterior shoulder tightness had greater forward scapular position than those with less posterior shoulder tightness. 

- No significant relationships were found between scapular posture and glenohumeral internal or external rotation.

- Differences in internal and external glenohumeral rotation were noted between dominant and nondominant shoulders, with a tendency towards greater external rotation and decreased internal rotation in the dominant shoulder. However, the total arc of motion between the two arms was similar. These findings are consistent with other findings on baseball athletes (6).

If you would like to read the rest of the review, including some practical applications of how we can use the information in this paper to help us better prepare athletes, please log onto Fitness Research Review Website.

Patrick
patrick@optimumsportsperformance.com

I just wanted to let everyone know that my latest research review is up at Fitness Research Review Service on the topic of precompetition massage sprint performance (Fletcher IM., The Effects of Precompetition Massage on the Kinematic Parameters of 20-M Sprint Performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2010; 24(5): 1179-1183.).  Here is a little information that I talk about in the review:

Intro

Proper warm up is important to training and competition and with so many differing opinions on appropriate warm up protocol, it makes this topic a highly debated one. Stretching and foam rolling have found their way into the warm up of many athletes despite the potential for these modalities to lower power output and performance (1,2,4). Decreased neurological output is one of the reasons cited as a factor of strength and power attenuation following a stretching or massage protocol during the warm up period (1-4). However, a few recent studies have indicated that this negative effect may be mitigated when stretching or massage are followed by a more neurologically active dynamic warm up (1,3). This study sought to test the result of three different warm up strategies – pre-event massage, traditional warm up, or pre-event massage combined with traditional warm up – on 20-m sprint times in college athletes.

Key Findings

• All subjects performed their slowest sprint times following the pre-event massage only condition.

 

• Traditional warm up alone led to a 2.74% decrease in sprint times compared to pre-event massage. This finding was significant.

 

• Compared to pre-event massage only group, there was a significant (2.44%) decrease in sprint time for the pre-event massage combined with warm up group.

 

• The difference between the warm up group and the pre-event massage combined with warm up group was not significant.

To read more of my review and the practical applications that I give, please log onto Fitness Research Review Service.

Patrick
patrick@optimumsportsperformance.com

The debate about whether or not to do lumbar flexion exercises (sit ups, knee ins, bicycles, v-ups, etc) is a heated one.  To tell you the truth, it probably wont ever end as professionals will always reside on one side of the fence (lumbar flexion isn’t that bad!) or the other (stabilize, stabilize, stabilize!).

Dr. Stuart McGill has done a great job conducting research on the topic and lecturing around the world regarding appropriate training strategies for strength coaches, fitness professionals, and rehabilitation specialists.  However, one of the common debates that often comes up is, “Competitive fighting athletes go through lumbar flexion (sometimes very aggressive lumbar flexion) in their sport and thus we must train that movement to ensure that they are adequately prepared for competition.”

Sounds good, right?  After all, the role of the strength coach is to prepare the athlete for their competitive endeavors! 

The only problem I see with this argument is that as the strength coach, we need to ensure that the athletes are healthy and injury free.  If we know that the mechanism of disc injury is repeated flexion, and we know that the athletes go through this movement in their sports training and competition, is this a movement that we really need to do more of in the gym?  To me, that sounds like the same as doing a high volume plyometric program for an inseason basketball or volleyball athlete.  They are already getting a lot of contacts in practice and games, why do we need to load that up more?  In fact, we should unload that and do something with less impact that sufficiently addresses the strength needs of those athletes.  Speaking of basketball, when taking a jump shot, athletes will typically go into knee valgus.  With this same mentality, shouldn’t we train that movement it so that they are prepared for it when it happens in a dynamic environment like competition?  Obviously I don’t expect anyone to answer “yes” to that question.

The next point that is always brought up is “Athletes who fight competitively all over the world train using lumbar flexion exercises and then go and practice and compete and do more lumbar flexion and don’t seem to have problems.  Maybe it isn’t such a big deal.”

One of the things science does is helps us to remove our assumptions of what we think is going on based on our observations.  Our assumptions are brought about by several factors including the sample size of people we are working with and our own personal bias towards what we are doing.  Basically, we put it in the hands of a neutral third party who tests these assumptions and then comes back to us an either says, “Yep, you were right!  It looks like that is happening”, or “Actually, we tested your assumption and we found the opposite to be true.”  This of course leads to more research and more questions and eventually theories are developed to help give us a larger explanation of what is taking place.

While the idea that, “Training these movements is essential because they happen in sport” may sound good on paper, are the programs being created really helping these athletes compete without incident?

A 2007 study conducted by Okada et al, looked at the prevalence of nonspecific low back pain and lumbar radicular abnormalities in 82 male judo athletes in three different weight classes – light, middle, and heavyweight. 

Back pain:

• 10 out of 29 lightweight athletes had nonspecfic low back pain (34.5%)
• 10 out of 31 middleweight athletes had nonspecific low back pain (32.3%)
• 9 out of 22 heavyweight athletes had nonspecific low back pain (40.9%)

Lumbar radicular abnormalities:

• 19 out of 29 lightweight athletes exhibited lumbar radicular abnormalities (65.5%)
• 28 out 31 middleweight athletes exhibited lumbar radicular abnormalities (90.3%)
• 20 out of 22 heavyweight athletes exhibited lumbar radicular abnormalities (90.9%)

With lumbar radicular abnormalities and WITH low back pain:

• 50% in the lightweight group
• 100% in the middle weight group
• 88.9% in the heavy weight group

With lumbar radicular abnormalities and WITHOUT low back pain:

• 73.7% in the lightweight group
• 85.7% in the middleweight group
• 92.3% in the heavyweight group

The researchers concluded that the prevalence of low back pain in this group ranged from 30-40% and that the prevalence of lumbar radicular abnormalities with nonspecific low back pain (79.3%) and without nonspecific low back pain (83%) suggest a lack of association between back pain and imaging (this should come as no surprise since it has been indicated in previous research). While medical imaging didn’t give us the full picture as some athletes had pain without positive imaging and others with positive imaging did not have pain, low back pain appears to be a problem in this group of athletes and Okada et al state, “Because nonspecific low back pain is a common complaint among athletes, it is important that the athletes and their coaches work towards prevention so that athletes can continue their sports activities.”

In the wrestling community, reports of low back pain have been shown to be as high as 69%.  Wrestlers are a group who spend a lot of time on the mat getting into and (hopefully) out of a variety of positions. Iwai and colleagues (2004) evaluated trunk muscle strength and functional disability of chronic low back pain in 53 college wrestlers.  The wrestlers were evaluated for radiological abnormalities and isokinetic trunk muscle strength.  They found that 14 of the subjects with radiological abnormalities had low back pain (40%) and 8 of the subjects without radiological abnormalities had low back pain (44%).  Similar to the study by Okada et al, we see that the percentage of those with low back pain and with or without radiological findings is relatively close.  Iwai et al, concluded that low trunk extensor strength may be a potential factor in chronic nonspecific low back pain in this population of athletes.  Which would be in contrast to those supporting more lumbar flexion training for these types of athletes. 

Just looking at these two studies, we see that maybe the assumptions being made regarding lumbar flexion training and competitive fighting athletes is not a good one.  Perhaps the anecdotal information that we get from other coaches is not valid?  In other parts of the world, how much pain/injury goes undocumented or maybe the athletes don’t even bring it to the coach’s attention?  How well is the record keeping of these coaches?  Everyone seems to remember the “hits”, “This is how we’ve have always done it and we have had 10 world champions.”  However, they failed to remember the 30 other athletes that were sidelined with injury.  Are we missing people?

Conclusions

Low back pain is common in sports and the training program should be comprehensive and well thought out in a manner that helps to prevent or reduce the incidence of injury.  While some potentially injurious movements happen in sport that doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to further train those movements in the gym.  Rather, it may be more advantageous to prepare athletes to handle the loads and forces placed upon them in competition with a strength and conditioning program that teaches healthy movement and does not seek to overtrain/overuse patterns that are commonly performed in both sports preparation and competition.

Patrick
patrick@optimumsportsperformance.com

References

Okada T., Nakazato K. Iwai K., Tanabe M., Irie K., Nakajima H. Body Mass, Nonspecific Low Back Pain, and Anatomical Changes in the Lumbar Spine in Judo Athletes. JSOPT 2007;37(11):688-693.

Iwai K., Nakazato K., Irie K., Fujimoto H., Nakajima H., Trunk muscle strength and disability level of low back pain in collegiate wrestlers. Med Sci Sport Exer 2004;36(8):1296-1300.

Buchheit M, Bishop D, Haydar B, et al. Physiological Responses To Shuttle Repeated-sprint Running. Int J Sports Med. Apr 2010. 402-409.

Repeated sprint ability, cutting and changing direction are crucial skills in many sports.  Traditional training normally involves straight-ahead running. This study sought to evaluate differences in running performance, cardiorespiratory variables, muscle deoxygenation, and post exercise blood lactate levels between straight ahead, maximum effort sprints or change of direction, maximum effort sprints (shuttle-runs) in team sport athletes.

Key Findings

• Running times during the shuttle runs were slower than running times during the repeated sprints without change of direction by approximately 30%.

 

• Fatigue development was lower in the shuttle runs.

 

• Oxygen uptake and blood lactate were higher in the repeat shuttle runs compared to the repeated sprints without change of direction.

 

• Neither protocol showed a difference in muscle deoxygenation measured at the vastus lateralis using near-infrared spectroscopy measurements.

To read the rest of my review as well as practical applications of this study please visit fitness.researchreview.com

Patrick
patrick@optimumsportsperformance.com

I recently did a research review on the topic of concurrent activation potentiation for Fitness Research Review Service:

The concept of concurrent activation potentiation (CAP) is centered on the idea of improving power and strength via contraction of muscles remote from the prime movers (ex. jaw or fist clenching during jumping exercises).  This study utilizes EMG to evaluated the effects of CAP on isokinetic knee flexion…the results are interesting and provide insight into techniques we could use to improve client/athlete performance.

If you would like to read the rest of my review on this topic, please check out Fitness Research Review Service where you can read this and other great research reviews by top professionals in our industry.

Patrick
patrick@optimumsportsperformance.com