Pages
Categories
- Commentary
- Interviews
- Motivation
- Nutrition
- Prehab / Rehab
- Product Review
- Research
- Research Review
- Training
- Uncategorized
Archives
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
My Newsletter
Sign up for my newsletter to be kept in the loop with the latest happenings at Mark Young Training Systems
Meta
Autor: markyoung
~ 10/06/10
A few weeks ago the following two videos showed up on an interesting guest blog by Perry Nickelston on my friend Carson Boddicker’s site HERE.
I don’t think you’ll get much argument that the “inner core” is made up primarily of the TVA, multifidi, pelvic floor, and diaphragm. I would also agree that if the inner core is not working reflexively that you’ll develop a high threshold strategy to stabilize the core resulting in inefficient movement and even pain. This is why strengthening the TVA and multifidi doesn’t work for eliminating back pain. It is because reflexive timing and not strength is the issue.
However, what I’m not sure I get is how this test measures the function of the inner core. Granted, it is certainly a lot harder than I expected (try it if you don’t believe me), and the rolling patterns left my intercostals in pain for a couple days. But I think that stating that this test can measure the function of the inner core and that it can be corrected by repeating the various rolling patterns might be a little heavy on the speculation. I’m not sure that there is any EMG to suggest that this might be the case. You’ll definitely learn a new movement pattern, but whether it is related to inner core function is something I’m not totally sure about.
Since the chop and lift patterns are often suggested in relation to these exercises, I’d be inclined to think they have something to do with rotation/anti-rotation patterns. I’m interested to hear what you all think.
Give the test and drills a try and let me know your thoughts.
I think of the rolling patterns as an appraisal of mobility and stability of the body. Poor mobility is going to prevent you from getting good stability and completing the roll (or you may complete it but it will look incorrect).
patrick
Comment by Patrick Ward — June 11, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
I think it can fit in nice with the rest of an assessment (based on the other findings and a need to look there), and I think that it can work for finding out a little about the “inner core”. I would suggest that there are other what I would term more local assessments such as breathing, but I also think that the rolling is in my mind a global look at how an individual moves.
One example that I would suggest is, that a person that needs to use their hip flexors to move from supine to prone in the upper body rolling is not efficient with their “inner core” they would rater reflexively use a high threshold strategy (which to my understanding means that reflexive strategy is not optimal) and “muscle” through it.
I do think that this is hard to use this as a measure, this is my thought process, someone lacking the mobility to roll or an individual using a high threshold strategy is more likely to lack the mobility (reflexive timing) to use their “inner core”.
However I do have questions, using the strong men that McGill talks about as having good strong core, how would they fair with this test. Do they lack mobility but yet have good “inner” and “outer” core functioning? I am not sure the big boys will roll too well but I could be very wrong, there are no atlas stones at my facility
Comment by Pete — June 11, 2010 @ 9:21 AM
Great points Patrick and Pete!
Comment by markyoung — June 11, 2010 @ 10:11 AM
[...] an introduction, make sure you read Core Competencies. Mark Young makes a good argument about testing the roll, but personally, I think quality is more important than quantity in this case…but [...]
Pingback by More on the Deep Front Line — June 11, 2010 @ 11:56 AM
As a side note, I believe that McGill considers the multifidi to be responsible for proprioception, not movement, due to their high degree of enervation and small size.
Comment by Steven Rice — June 12, 2010 @ 8:46 AM
Steven,
If I remember correctly, McGill also believes that the multifidi are used for segmental stability as well. Could be wrong though.
Comment by markyoung — June 12, 2010 @ 9:59 AM