Outcome measures: An observation and a reflection

Sports science and strength & conditioning practice is built on a foundation of identifying a problem, testing the problem, applying an intervention and then re-testing to ensure progression. Athletes will buy into fitness testing, injury prevention and subsequent high performance behaviours if they are given the impression that their coach and medical team know what they are doing and things are done with a purpose (Kristiansen and Larsson, 2017). This begs the question whether coaches can justify and clinically reason their battery of performance tests.

When applying a performance measure, understanding of the underlying kinematics is essential to understand the validity of the test to the desired outcome. The OptoJump^tm is a valid tool in assessing a reactive strength via  drop jump (Healy et al., 2016) however what components of the jump is the coach wishing to address? The validity of the tool is the not the same as the validity of the test. For example, reactive strength index (RSI) can be influenced by a reduced contact time (stretch shortening cycle via the musculotendinous unit) or via total jump height (power output throughout the lower limb and nervous system) or a combination of both (Healy et al., 2017). Understanding these mechanisms may influence the instructional bias of technique given by the coach in order to test what is desired.

With complexities over a test like an RSI to something seemingly obvious like a jump, testing for broader components of fitness and multiple movement patterns is much more difficult.

The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test (IRT) is reported to be a valid measure of fitness and correlates to match performance in football (Krustrup et al., 2003). However, this is an example of a fitness capacity test and in fact correlates to fitness capacity in a match scenario. In field based team sports, there are a large number of variables and complex interactions that all contribute towards “performance” as an outcome (Currell and Jeukendrup, 2008). Krustrup’s conclusion was based on correlated Yo-Yo IRT results to high speed running in a game (>15km.h^-1) with a strong correlation (r=0.58). Overlooking the methodological accuracy of this (pre-GPS, using VHS locomotive assessment retrospectively), the correlation is between two differing metrics. Where the high speed running was recorded over 90 minutes of varying intensities and periods of effort (12 players across 18 different games), the Yo-Yo IRT covered 1.7km in a mean time of 14.7mins with incremental increases in pace dictated externally. For a test to be considered a valid indicator of performance, it should meet the same metabolic demands as the sporting activity (Currell and Jeukendrup, 2008). The Krustrup paper does not make this comparison, instead analysing physiological markers from rest to exhaustion during the Yo-Yo IRT, not exhaustion markers in comparison to game data.

Perhaps semantics, but in fact there should be differential terminology to distinguish “fitness performance” from “athletic” or “sporting performance.” It should be considered that sporting performance is influenced by a large number of uncontrollable and non-modifiable factors that would make any comparison of validity and reliability to outcome measures unfair. Essentially, recreating a competitive environment is near impossible. This raises the question whether we are exercising just to improve test scores or, closing the loop and relating exercises to performance? Does raising the envelope of one, consequently improve the other? Something that we should not only be asking ourselves, but a question we could come to expect from coaches and athletes a like.

Does the research answer this?

It has been suggested that stronger athletes produce faster sprint time, quicker change of direction speeds and higher vertical jump scores when compared to weaker athletes of the same sport (Thomas et al., 2016). Squat jump (r = -0.70 to -0.71) and counter movement jump (r = -0.60 to -0.71) demonstrate strong correlations to change of direction speed (Thomas et al., 2016). Peak force during isometric mid thigh pull was significantly correlated to 5m sprint time (p <0.05) however this correlation was only moderate (r = -0.49). But again, does this correlation transfer into performance if the testing protocol doesn’t accurately mirror sporting performance?

Sprint times over 40m have been shown to decrease following an acute bout of heavy loaded squats, hypothesised to be due to post activation potentiation (Mcbride et al., 2005). Higher squat strength scores also correlate with sprint times over 0-30m (r= 0.94, p=0.001) and jump height (r = 0.78, p=0.02) (Wisløff et al., 2004). Importantly, we know sprint performance tests have demonstrated construct validity to the physiological requirements of a competitive field based game (soccer) (Rampinini et al., 2007), which is ultimately what we are aiming to do; relating performance testing to physiological and metabolic markers from a given sport.

The addition of a jump squat exercise into a training program may help improve 1RM squat and 1RM power cleans (Hoffman et al., 2005). So perhaps yes, there is a perpetuating loop between exercise, tests and performance but the link between them all may not be tangible or direct.

But how do we translate all of these statistics and data sets this to a non-scientific population, as a lot of our athletes are? I’ve developed the following analogy to try and help with this.

 

Solar system analogy:

If we consider that “athletic performance” is the main focus of any intervention, much like the sun at the centre of the solar system. This is the bright light that everything revolves around; media, finance, fan base and support and so on. It could be argued that any intervention we have as coaches will never truly replicate “athletic performance” but should be influenced by it. This influence works both ways, positively and negatively. For example, if we maximally test an athlete before a competition, this will likely have a negative impact on “athletic performance”. Conversely, if we were able to collect data that informed a training program to improve athletic performance, despite not actually replicating “athletic performance” it would (hopefully) have a positive impact. For example, a football game is determined by so many uncontrollable variables that can not be replicated in a gym, but we might identify that a player needs to improve their 5m sprint time which in turn, will benefit performance.

Figure 1: An analogy depicting the relationship between “athletic performance” and controlled interventions / measures. The skill of the coach is identifying which outcome measure or intervention is going to have the greatest influence on athletic performance.

Let’s consider our potential interventions to be orbiting the sun (Figure 1). There is an interaction between the planets and the sun via gravity but they do not have a direct overlap, where the planets do not collide with the sun just as an outcome measure does not truly match sporting performance. We know that larger planets have a greater influence, so as coaches, we are trying to affect the level of positive interaction with “athletic performance”, the gravitational interaction. By influencing links between exercise intervention and outcome measures, we can affect the size of these planets. In turn, this will have a greater interaction with the centre of our solar system, “athletic performance” (Figure 2). Much like the universe, there will be many different solar systems just as there are different sporting codes and contexts, so the skill lies in identifying the most influential planets in your solar system.

Figure 2: The impact of enhancing an intervention or measure on sporting performance, in this case there has been a greater focus and development of the blue “planet” which has changed the interaction with the “athletic performance”

 

A clinical reflection:

For long term injuries, I utilise a continuum to guide return to play (train / play / perform), often these stages are guided by outcome measures linked to goals and aims for stages of rehab. Typically these tests are scheduled in advanced and often follow a planned “de-loading” micro-cycle. This helps with continuity and, as much as you can in sport, standardisation of the test.

A recent case study found me questioning my judgement and to a degree, wondering if my intrigue and curiosity about my rehab plan drove me to test out of sync with the schedule, instead of doing the test for the athletes benefit.

Following a good period of return to train, the proposed testing date previously scheduled clashed with a squad training session. Observational assessment suggested the athlete was coping well with the demands of training and it seemed counter-intuitive to pull them out of training to undertake some tests. A few weeks later, a gap in the daily schedule presented an opportunity to re-test. The test scores were down compared to the previous month, most likely because the athlete had trained in the morning and trained the 4 out of the last 5 days in some capacity. In previous tests, the athlete had come off of a de-load week and tested the day after a day off.

The result:

The athlete began to question their ability and availability to train. They were visibly knocked in their confidence given a drop in scores, despite me being able to rationalise why this could be. Having had the opportunity to feed my own interest and try to prove to myself that a rehab program had worked, the outcome was much worse. I threatened the confidence of a long term injury returning to training, potentially adding doubt and hesitation to their game and I did not get the results I was expecting.

On reflection, given their time out through the season so far, I should have stuck to protocol and tested on the scheduled day (one training session was not going to increase their chances of availability).. or, not tested at all. Instead, i shoe-horned some testing into an already busy schedule. What did I expect given the current level of fatigue?!

Previous results had reached a satisfactory level to return to train and I was now chasing the final few percentages available. To give them confidence? Probably not, as they were training and enjoying the return to train. So perhaps it was just to give myself confidence. An interesting lesson learnt, mostly about myself.

 

Yours in sport,

Sam

Compex doesn’t have to be complex

I should probably start by acknowledging that there are other muscle stimulation devices available… but I’m not employed by Compex, I just have some very good experiences using their product. This blog was borne out of frustration of seeing Compex machines gathering dust in treatment rooms or being used ineffectively as passive, plinth based modalities. I think a lot of people are missing the trick, you need movement!

While I am an advocate of its use clinically, I  want to disclose that using a Compex will not make a bad exercise good. It is a bolt-on to a rehab program and is something that can make a good exercise great. That is key. The clinical reasoning, exercise selection and placement of the stimulation all underpins an effective application, so before rolling it out to all athletes or patients make sure you can reason why it has a place in your practice.

Its all about progress

Like with any intervention, the clinical reasoning behind the application of muscle stimulation can influence its use at different stages of injury and rehabilitation. In the acute stages, it is believed that muscle stimulation may modulate pain. For an interesting read on the use of electricity and pain throughout the centuries, click here. However, as we understand more about optimal loading and mechanotherapy, we probably need to limit the time an athlete sits on the plinth watching the latest Mannequin Challenge on their smart phone while their quad twitches. It is worth considering that a Compex placed on a dead body would still cause it to twitch. The key is to get them moving and use the Compex to either facilitate movement or provide an external load. Interesting that we can use the same machine and the same settings to either regress or progress an exercise… the key is in the exercise selection.

Consider the tissues

Muscle injury: It should be pretty obvious that placing a muscle stimulation device, designed to promote contraction of muscle, on a contractile tissue with a tear or micro-damage could have negative consequences. For a second, lets forget the Compex. Respect the pathology and consider if you really need to lengthen or contract that muscle to load it. Is there a way you can work that tissue as a synergist perhaps? If the hamstring was injured in the sagital plane, can we move through coronal (frontal) planes and still load the hamstring? This could possibly be a slight progression on an isometric exercise and shouldn’t change the length of the muscle that may cause pain or further damage. Certainly more beneficial than sitting on the treatment bed though. So now consider how muscle stim may benefit this stage of injury. It could possibly help with any inhibition due to swelling or pain, perhaps be used to add an increased load to unaffected tissues that you may not be able to load otherwise.

As the healing progresses and the level of activity increases, it is quite common that we see some deficits in muscle function, especially after a long acute phase (if that isn’t a paradox?! Think post surgery or fixation). A good example is post ankle reconstruction, where you have worked on regaining plantar / dorsi flexion but when you ask the athlete to do a heel raise, it’s quite an effort. It may be appropriate to use the Compex here as a little crutch to facilitate movement and contraction. But the key thing here is it is not our cadaver that we causing a contraction in, the athlete is consciously initiating the movement. (Previous blog on internal and external cues here).

Now promise me if the Compex hurts, you will turn it down. OK?

Progressions by all definition, progress. So after working through isometric and concentric exercises, the program may require some eccentric load. This is worth trying yourself before asking a patient to do it, because a very simple exercise like a TRX squat that may have been cleared earlier in the program can dramatically increase in work with the addition of Compex. Consider a quad injury. The Compex has two phases of a cycle, a fasciculation phase that causes visible twitch and a long contraction phase (depending on the setting, the length and intensity of the contraction change). After one or two cycles for familiarisation, instruct the athlete to work against the contraction – so when the Compex wants to promote knee extension via a quad contraction, sit back and encourage knee flexion. Try this yourself for 6-8 reps and feel the fatigue induced, it usually surprises people. Again, make sure you can reason WHY you are doing this. This is usually a good bridge for someone who needs to step up their program but maybe can’t tolerate external load (confounding injuries, instability of joints, lack of technique etc etc.)

Joint Injuries: In comparison to a muscle injury, your application of Compex may be more aggressive. Because you are unlikely to affect a non-contractile tissue with the stimulation, you may use the eccentric reasoning to help reduce atrophy rates following a intracapsular injury like an ACL. Ensure you know the available range first of course.

With these injuries, the external stimulation may help with inhibition, improve proprioception lost by the ligament or capsule or it may provide stability to the joint by increasing the available contraction. Again, there will be a time and a place and it requires the clinician to reason through the application, but this may be a great addition to a program that is becoming stale.

Tendon injuries: The use of the Compex to enhance an isometric contraction or to create an eccentric contraction may be a great addition for an in-season tendinopathy as a way of managing load. The timed contraction allows clinicians to monitor Time Under Tension (TUT) which is essential for tendon management. If considering a High-Medium-Low frequency through the week, a pain free exercise that is used on a Medium day can become a High load exercise with the addition of an externally generated contraction. But consider the two things that aggravate a tendon, compression and shear. Appropriate exercise selection and range is going to be crucial, that being said, it may be that the addition of stimulation to the quads actually reduces shear through the patella tendon by changing the fulcrum of the patella (no research to back this up, just my musings).

I really like Geckos. I found this Gecko a musing

Conclusion:

I think there are many options out there to enhance rehabilitation by considering the diversity of muscle stimulation. But I want to repeat for the hundredth time, it is the exercise selection that is key. The addition of a Compex will only amplify that choice.  For the patient, it adds a bit of variety to a rehabilitation program and for the clinician it is another tool to help with optimal loading of a healing tissue or structure. I am a big fan of weight training (don’t let my chicken legs fool you) but there are injuries or athletes that for one reason or another are unable to tolerate weights. This is one tool in a very large and overused metaphorical tool-box that may bridge that gap between body weight exercises and weighted exercises. I also believe there is great benefit when complimenting this with Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise or Occlusion training… but that’s another blog.

As always, thoughts and opinions are welcome.

 

Yours in sport,

Sam

Rehabbing teenagers can be awkward! – sensorimotor function during adolescence

There is a bit of a buzz phrase in rehab about “individualising programs” and while it is something we wholeheartedly agree with, it is a phrase that is very easy to say and yet very difficult to implement. Especially when you work with a population where said individual changes rapidly through time, like a teenager! It is a common sight on a training pitch to see a star player in their age group suddenly tripping over cones or developing a heavy touch where there was previously effortless control. Side effects of the adolescent growth spurt, where the brain is now controlling a much longer lever. It’s like giving a champion gardener a new set of garden sheers when for the past year they have used little hand-held scissors and asking to them maintain their award-winning standards. (My garden embarrassingly needs some attention and it’s affecting my analogies).

The control and precision between these two instruments is influenced by the lever length of the handles…

…Similar to a rapidly growing femur and tibia which is still being operated by muscles that have length and strength suitable for shorter levers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alongside the performance related issues, there is suggestion that this period of growth may coincide with increased risk of injury (Caine et al 2008). We believe that bone grows quicker than soft tissue, so we are asking a neuromuscular system to control a new, longer lever using prior proprioceptive wiring. Imagine our gardener again, for a long time he has been able to keep his pair of scissors close and controlled, now with his extra long shears the load is further away from his body, his back and shoulders are starting to ache. Not sure what I mean? With one hand hold a pencil to the tip of your nose. Now, with one hand hold a broom handle to your nose. The longer lever is harder to control. **I promise it gets a bit more sciencey than gardening and broom handles. **

Managing these growth spurts is something we have talked about before and recently contributed to a BJSM podcast on the topic (Part 1 & Part 2) and a complimentary BJSM blog about “biobanding” during periods of growth and development (here). This particular blog was inspired by a recent (2015) systematic review looking into exactly which sensorimotor mechanisms are mature or immature at the time of adolescence by Catherine Quatman-Yates and colleagues over in Cincinnati (here). The following is a combination of their summary and our examples of how these findings can influence our rehab programs.

Tailoring the program:

We have so many options for exercise programs, that’s what makes the task of designing them so fun. It challenges our creativity. When working with a teenager with sensorimotor function deficits, let’s call them “Motor Morons” for short, we don’t have to totally re-think our exercise list, just perhaps the way we deliver them. We previously spoke about motor control and motor learning (here) and how our instructions can progress just as our exercises do, but the following relates to children and adolescents in particular.

Consider the stimuli.

Children aged between 14-16 have well-developed visual perception of static objects however their perception of moving objects and visual cues for postural control continue to mature through adolescence. When very young children learn new skills such as standing and walking, they become heavily reliant on visual cues. Quatman-Yates et al suggest that puberty and growth spurts (think gardener with new shears) brings new postural challenges that causes adolescents to regress proprioceptive feedback and increase reliance on visual cues again. From a rehab perspective, we need to consider this as part of our balance and proprioception program. How many of us default to a single leg stand and throwing a tennis ball back & forth from therapist to athlete? For our Motor Moron, this may not be an optimal form of treatment in early stages, where it is commonly used, however it may incredibly beneficial to that athlete in the later stages or as part of ongoing rehab as we try to develop that dynamic perception.

Consider the amount of stimuli involved in an exercise versus what your goal of that exercise is

We should also consider the amount of stimuli we add to an exercise. Postural stability in children is believed to be affected by multiple sensory cues. If we consider that children are more dependent on visual cues than adults are, perhaps our delivery of external stimuli should be tailored also. With a multi directional running drill for example, there is sometimes an element where the athlete is given a decision making task (a red cone in one direction and a yellow cone in another) and they have to react quickly to instructions from the therapist or coach. Rather than shouting instructions like “red cone”, “yellow cone” etc, hold up the coloured cone for the corresponding drill. This way we are utilising this developed visual perception, minimising the number of stimuli and also encouraging the athlete to get their head up and look around rather than looking at their feet.

When to include unilateral exercises:

Within adult populations, it is often considered gold standard to make exercises unilateral as soon as tolerable. If they can deep squat pain free and fully weight bear through the affected side, progress them to pistol squats ASAP, or single leg knee drives. However, young children (pre-pubescent) may struggle with this for a couple of reasons.

Difficult enough even for an adult to perform, but uncoupling the actions of the each leg & fine muscle movements to maintain balance are extra challenging for children

Firstly, we need to consider postural adjustments. Where as adults and young adults can adjust their balance with smooth control and multiple, small oscillations, children rely on larger ballistic adjustments. There is also reduced anterior-posterior control in younger athletes which suggests reduced intrinsic ankle control. Put this alongside immature structures and (if working a physio, most probably) an injury then single leg exercise become a progression that may be further down the line than an adult counterpart with the same injury. Instead, consider semi-stable exercises. Support the contralateral leg with a football or a bosu ball – something that is difficult to fixate through but provides enough stability to support the standing leg.

Secondly, we understand that coupled movements are mastered earlier in adolescence, around 12-15 years old but uncoupled movement patterns take longer to develop, 15-18 years old (Largo et al). A good example is watching a young child reach for a full cup of water at the dinner table. It is much easier and more natural for them to reach with both hands than it is with one, as coupled movements are unintended. Rarely do you see a child taking a drink with one hand filling their fork with the other – yet this is something commonly seen with adults as they are able to uncouple and segmentalise. Another example is watching a child dynamically turn, watch how the head, trunk and limbs all turn as a “block”, it is not until further down the line where dynamic movements become more fluid. The argument here is that surely running is an uncoupled movement? Or kicking a football, swinging a tennis racket, pirouetting in ballet – they are all uncoupled, segmental movement patterns that we expect kids to do, and in all they cope with. Correct, but it is usually in rehab programs for kids that we begin to introduce unfamiliar tasks and exercises that they may not have encountered before. Also, we should respect the impact of the injury on proprioception and control. So these are all considerations for starting points in exercise & if a regression is ever required.

For this reason, it is important that exercises are monitored and reviewed regularly. There is no need to hold an athlete back because of their age and making assumptions on motor function because of their age. If they can cope, then progress them. But be mindful of “over-control” where speed and variability of movement are sacrificed in place of accuracy and control (Quatman-Yates et al 2015).

Become a Motor Moron hunter

It is worth spending some time watching training, watching warm ups, watching gym sessions and talking with coaches and S&C’s trying to identify a Motor Moron as soon as possible. It’s important to minimise the chances of an immature sensorimotor mechanism ever meeting a growth spurt. It is when these two things combine that we see kids doing immaculate Mr Bean impressions and therefore increase their risk of injury.

Regularly re-assess your exercise programs. If things arent quite progressing as quickly as they should, it may not be failed healing of an injury, but it may be that we are providing the sensorimotor mechanism with too much information!

 

Yours in sport,

Sam

 

“The Young Athlete” conference 9-10th Oct, Brighton. Here

Hamstring Injury – What are we missing? by Jonny King

We are delighted to introduce a guest blog from Jonny King (@Jonny_King_PT), a sports physiotherapist based at Aspetar, Qatar. Jonny has experience working in professional football in the UK with both Norwich City FC and AFC Bournemouth before he made the big move East to Doha. A prevalent voice on twitter and definetely worth a follow, he provkes some intriguing questions regarding our current understanding of hamstring injuries. We hope you enjoy… P&P

 

Hamstring strain injury (HSI) continues to present as a huge challenge for those of us working within the sport and exercise medicine field – whether that be in a research or clinical setting. Disappointing figures have recently shown that despite an increasing body of publications over recent years and a perceived improvement in understanding of underlying causes, the epidemiology for HSI in elite sport has not changed over the past 10 years (Ekstrand, Hagglund & Walden, 2009) A worrying reality.

Some will argue that WE HAVE improved our understanding and management of hamstring injuries but the evidence base is not being applied effectively into clinical practice. (Bahr, Thornborg, EKstrand, 2015). Others will state that our ability to influence epidemiological data at elite level, has been affected by the evolution of sporting competition including increased physical application. Take professional football for example, both sprint distance (35%) and high intensity running distance (30%) have significantly increased over the past 7 years, alongside a reduction in recovery times as a result of increased fixture congestion (Barnes et al, 2014) These can all be seen as restraints to our drive for better data around HSI.

These are all factors we should appreciate, however are we missing something else?

In brief, we know those at highest risk are those with history of previous strain, weak eccentric strength and those in a fatigued state (Opar, Williams and Shield, 2012). Flexibility, neuromuscular inhibition, biomechanics and H:Q ratios have all been flirted with, but with no real hard conclusion as to their influence on HSI. Identifying those at risk is relatively straight forward these days, given increased accessibility to advanced monitoring technology, helping to identify fatigue or strength reduction. We can thank systems such as GPS and The Nordboard for this. These are for sure all very important considerations as we take a multifactorial approach to injury management and prevention. But, Is there anything else we need to consider?

One area that I feel needs further investigation with regards to HSI is the psychological harmony of the athlete. It may be difficult to account for the primary injury, but are negative beliefs, anxiety and apprehension contributing factors to high rates of re-injury?

More brain training before RTP?

Cognitive functioning and therapy has been discussed at length in the treatment and management of many other musculoskeletal conditions, notably chronic LBP (O’Sullivan 2012) and ACL Reconstruction , with methods such as CBT proving an effective intervention in many cases. I wonder therefore if this needs more consideration when it comes to hamstring injury treatment? Poor psychological readiness has been associated with hamstring strain re-injury (Glazer, 2009) and this would also provide a feasible explanation as to why completion of Carl Askling’s H-Test appears a strong indicator for RTP. Maybe it’s something we are missing, or not considering enough? By more thorough monitoring of anxiety and apprehension can we mitigate ‘previous HSI’ as a risk factor? Food for thought..

What about fatigue and eccentric weakness?

• We know HSI is more likely to occur towards end of 1^st half & throughout the 2^nd half (Ekstrand 2011) and that optimal time for full physiological recovery is 72 hours (Dellal et al 2013).

We also know..

• The widely documented success of the Nordic Curl programme and other eccentric lengthening programmes in reducing HSI in some populations (Arnason, 2008 and Askling 2013).

Throughout the competitive season, the clinical challenge is to address both fatigue and eccentric strength, because for me, the 2 are counterintuitive to one another. You cannot perform regular, effective eccentric strength training without inducing fatigue, therefore it becomes very difficult to address both variables during a season of heavy fixture congestion.

I do wonder if we spend too much time in-season, prescribing injury prevention programmes and exercises. I feel there is a strong argument that we are only exposing our athletes to a greater risk of injury by adding to the overall accumulative training load and fatigue.

Are we doing too much?

Why are we not reducing hamstring strain injuries?

Are we trying too hard in search for that holy grail of HSI prevention? Do we just need to ease off these guys?

Ultimately, and realistically I think there has to be a fine balance between the 2 . Windows of opportunity, such as the international breaks and pre-season, should be fully utilized for specific strength training and the remainder of the season used to ensure players have adequate time to recover and prepare physiologically for upcoming competition.

 

No answers here, just some food for thought. Enjoy your sport =)

 

Jonny

Walking the “Plank” with core stability prescription

My colleagues are currently taking great pleasure in including “clams” in their exercise programs just to wind me up, so thought it was about time I gave them some new material. (See my thoughts on clams here).

Like “Clams” I have similar opinions on the rational behind including “planks” as part of an exercise prescription for athletes. I will start, and re-iterate later on, that there are times when they are appropriate, providing they have been clinically reasoned. But this is my point, do we throw them into rehab plans / injury prevention plans out of habit or have we individualised the exercise for an athlete?

 

 

What are the benefits?

Performed properly, the Plank is an isometric exercise that crudely speaking, activates the “core”. In doing so, it should encourage a sustained hold of a posterior pelvic tilt and neutral spine for a set duration of time, also working the shoulders and lower limbs to support the torso. Stability provided by the trunk muscles allows for whole body dynamic balance (Anderson & Behm 2005) and as such, these muscles require both strength and endurance.  The deep stabilisers of the lumbar spine display a small cross-sectional area, as such their ability to generate any torque is limited, so their function is to provide local stability and require this endurance component we talked about – perfectly targeted by a well performed plank. In patients with chronic low back pain, isometric exercises had positive effects on increasing the cross-sectional area of the multifidis muscles (Danneels et al 2001).

If we apply the principle of Optimal Loading, then there may be examples of injury where a static exercise is the only way of applying load to an individual. It may be that they are limited with any rotational components of exercise and are pain free in a neutral position. We also understand that isometric contractions can have an analgesic effect on patients (Bernent et al; Huber et al), hence the popularity of adductor squeezes for adductor tendinopathies.

 

..So what is wrong with Planks?

There are undoubtably examples and case studies where the use of a Plank is appropriate for an exercise program. However, un-supervised, there are many compensation patterns that patients can adopt when performing this exercise.

If prescribed as a home exercise, you should have great confidence in the athletes proprioception and ability to self correct. Otherwise you will likely re-enforce the exact reasons why you are treating the athlete in the first place. My biggest gripe with Planks, or Side Planks, or any isometric core exercise is that most people will fixate instead of stabilise. Locking the back into extension (plank) or into side flexion (side plank), or tilting the pelvis anteriorly, or flexing through the thoracic spine are examples of relying on passive structures like ligaments and joint capsules rather than stimulating active structures that should stabilise these joints.

“Don’t replace STABILITY with FIXATION”

Core stability is “the product of motor control and muscular capacity of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex” (Click here for an excellent core stability review by Paul Gamble). The clue in this quote are the the words “stability” and “motor control”. There are very few examples in sport or even in daily living where we need to hold a whole-body isometric contraction for 1 minute or more. Essentially movements in sports occur in multiple directions. Even in events like Skeleton or Luge, the athletes are reacting to perturbations from the track or adjusting their course via small shoulder or lower limb movements, so I’m struggling to think of the cross-over benefits of a plank into sport. The benefits of a strong lumbopelvic region help transfer ground reaction forces to produce movement and integrate the function of the kinetic chain. Weakness or dysfunction of any link in the chain can increase risk of damage to another structure and as such, any one muscle should not be views a more important to another in terms of lumbopelvic stability (Brown 2006).

 

Note the increased Lumbar lordosis. Also, the stripy athlete underneath is rotated slightly.

 

“Don’t give me problems, give me solutions”

As I said, in principle there are he benefits to core stability, especially in terms of proprioception and limbo-pelvic dissociation. But for me, the trick is to stimulate the core during movement.

Some simple modifications of the Plank can greatly enhance its suitability for athletes.

 

1) Plank with Wall Taps:

Assume the traditional Plank position, you can regress this with bent knees, similar to a press up regression. Position the athlete about 2ft from a wall, facing the wall. Ask them to reach forwards and tap the wall with alternating arms but maintain stability of the pelvis and trunk.

Although a sagital plane movement, the athlete will be working against a transverse plane to stop the pelvis and lower trunk from rotating to the side of the moving arm.

 

2) Plank with Stacking

Again, in a traditional Plank position, but this time set up a stack of 3 x 2.5kg weight discs on one side of the athlete. Ask them to reach over with their opposite hand, pick up a weight and start stacking on the opposite side. Repeat until all weights have transferred sides, then begin with the other arm. In doing so, instruct the athlete to stay as still and controlled in the hips and lumbar spine as possible, the movement should come from the shoulders only.

By reaching across with one hand, you are de-stabilising the torso. Moving the weight from one side to the other adds a transverse element to the exercises, as well as the challenge of moving with and without a weight.

 

 

 

3) The Side Plank with arm tucks:

Add an element of upper body rotation whilst stabilising the pelvis. Instruct the athlete to keep their hips up (relative hip abduction of the lower leg), tuck their extended top arm underneath themselves (like putting on a seatbelt) but in doing so, don’t let the pelvic twist. Encouraging dissociation of the pelvis and spine to stop them moving as one column.

 

 

There are so many variations that I haven’t included; you can add cables or theraband and ask the athlete to pull  in different directions maintaining the plank position, you can add movements of the lower limb or think of various ways to de-stabilise the more advanced athletes. For those athletes that just “get it”, there are brilliant variations of the Bear Crawl which may be appropriate – for me, a perfect example of “core stability” (averagely demonstrated below)

– Bear crawl core stability exercise

 

Conclusion

Activities during sport require both static and dynamic strength – however in rehabilitation, these should be dynamic exercise with a pause rather than prolonged holds. At times, we may have to regress back to its most simple form in order to educate the athlete on correct positioning or increase proprioception but there should always be a plan to progress into dynamic core stability, rather than progressing the time holding a plank.

When designing rehab programs, we should always consider the individual – what do they need to cope with for their sport / daily life? What physical capabilities do they have at this moment of their program? Am I challenging them appropriately?

I hope this provokes some thought and discussion, please let us know your experiences and opinions

 

Yours in sport,

 

Sam

 

S&C – Can you ever be too young?

Strength and Conditioning in youth sport is more popular than ever.  Many independent gyms operate “academy” sessions to help the future rugby, football and olympic hopefuls to reach the top of their disciplines.  Initiatives such as the Premier League’s Elite Player Performance Pathway (EPPP) has lead to increased investment in the football academy’s throughout England while Rugby’s academy system has been established for a number of years, with increased specialist support being made available i.e. S&C/Sports Science/Physio support.

Not all exercises are appropriate for young athletes

There are many stigma’s attached to Strength and Conditioning training in youth sports.  We have all heard remarks like… “Weights training stunts growth…damages the growth plates” or “Strength training will make you injury prone”.

Is this the truth?

The most commonly reported injuries sustained in youth Strength and Conditioning training are a result of incorrect technique, attempting to lift too much weight, incorrect use of equipment and the absence of a properly qualified supervision – ALL of which are easily avoided with properly programmed and coached sessions (Faigenhaum et al., 2009). The reality is that there are many peer reviewed papers available that prove the effectiveness of S&C programs and injury reduction across a wide variety of sports from Aussie rules football to rugby. While there have been numerous position statements from leading organisations such as the ASCM, NSCA and UKSCA regarding the benefits of a well designed S&C program in aiding the development of young athletes, yet the publics perception has yet to change.  The fact remains there are many benefits in youth athletes undertaking S&C training programs (when carried out properly!).

 

Benefits of  Strength and Conditioning for youth athletes

There are various benefits to Strength and Conditioning in youth athletes, so many in-fact it is beyond the scope of the current blog to cover them all.  Firstly consider that the World Health Organisation recognises physical inactivity as the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality for non-communicable diseases any additional physical activity that is undertaken will help combat the ill effects of modern living.  Appropriate strength training combined with aerobic and anaerobic training, along with a balanced diet, will lead to an increased amount of lean muscle mass which would be especially useful for young athletes in contact sports such as rugby and football.

“Significant gains can be seen as youth elites reach peak height velocity”

From a purely sporting and performance perspective pre-adolescent children show considerable potential for motor learning, therefore there is an opportunity to effectively develop skills such as squat and lunge patterns, running mechanics, deceleration and change of direction prior to the onset of puberty (Barber-Westin et al., 2006).  This should be achieved using exercises that are whole body in nature (no bicep curls…sorry) and aim to develop coordination and overall athleticism, which could also act as a protective mechanism against injury risks later in their sporting career.

Puberty triggers the release of masses of hormones which are of massive benefit when trying to gain muscle mass and strength (if only I knew that 15 years ago).  This also results in changes to the muscular system and cardiovascular systems, mostly in the responses and changes noted to aerobic and anaerobic training stimuli.  While these qualities can be improved pre-puberty, significant gains can be seen as youth elites reach peak height velocity (period of quickest rate of growth, roughly 14 years old in boys/12 years old in girls, Naughton et al., 2000), while the mechanical loading undertaken during youth Strength and Conditioning will also positively influence the development of bones and connective tissues in the body.  Exercises such as sprinting, jumping, plyometrics as well as gym based work all have positive effects on the osteogenic processes.

What should young athletes do in S&C sessions?

Pre-puberty – At this stage of physical development the emphasis should be placed on neuromuscular training and consist of coaching the young athlete through various patterns and movements i.e. coaching a player not to perform a lunge pattern with a knee valgus.  Other movements to master at this stage of development are jumping, landing and change of direction skills.  Skill or game based activities are best for conditioning the aerobic system by manipulating the tasks, number of players or even the size of the area being used for the sessions.  Strength training should consist of exercises, both unilateral and bilateral, and loads appropriate for the age of the athlete.  Body weight exercises would be more than appropriate for this stage of development with a rep range of between 6-15 and 2-3 sets.

Puberty – Neuromuscular training at this stage should show a level of progression in comparison to the previously undertaken tasks e.g. progression from a bilateral to a unilateral exercise  or from basic balance exercise progressing to dynamic stabilisation exercises.  Conditioning exercises should be mostly interval based and consist of more games/skills orientated.  Strength training should show an increased complexity with more unilateral exercises and the introduction of Olympic lifts for appropriate individuals.

Adolescents – Neuromuscular training should consist of increased speed work, unilateral and dynamic stabilisation work.  Conditioning work should feature anaerobic based intervals and progressively more strenuous game/skill based work.  Strength training should progressively load the athlete unilaterally, bilaterally and in the olympic lifts (Gamble, P., 2009).

Summary

What’s not to like?  Starting a S&C program from a young age, provided it is supervised, structured correctly with appropriate progressions will enhance performance on the field and track while concurrently producing many lifestyle and health benefits.  A appropriate program will develop neuromuscular control and athleticism and gradually develop more specialised components of performance.  Ensuring this will help the young athlete reach their maximum potential and encourage physical activity throughout their lifetime.

Yours in Sport,

Conor

Screening: A window or just smoke?

So this our first attempt at a blog and we have decided to make the task that little bit harder by co-writing it! We hope to develop the blog as we progress covering topics (old and new) in the world of Sports Science and Medicine as well as delivering insights into our roles and how we work as part of a Multi-disciplinary team. We considered a few topics to christen our new blog, trying to emphasise the importance of communication and teamwork in a multidisciplinary team. Working in professional football, we have just conducted our end of season screening with all of our squads, from 1^st team down to under-9s.

“So because I’m no good at planks, I’m bound to get injured..? Hmm”

 

The first thing we want to emphasise is that screening and testing is not the be all and end all of injury prevention and performance development. We ourselves are sceptics and regularly question what we are actually looking at and what the results mean. Are we testing what we think we are testing? However, if you can maintain this mind-set, the use of screening is very useful indeed.

 

As an athlete experiences new exercise’s they will, through experience and adequate coaching, improve their understanding of what is required and therefore become better at that exercise. The tests that are used in the physical screening are, by nature, subject to the same learning effect. If the players struggle with an exercise at the start of pre-season, their naturally competitive nature means they will try harder at that test in the next screening. This can make it difficult to distinguish between actual improvements and the athletes increased awareness of what is required for a “good score”. Do they just get better at just that test or are they showing actual improvement??

 

It is basically impossible to cancel out the learning effect but by carefully selecting the other tests used in a testing/screening process we can try to identify common issues e.g. hip hike or knee valgus hidden in an Overhead squat may present itself in a single leg variation of a squat or lunge. It is also important not to coach the athlete through the movements so we can get a true picture of what movements come naturally to them..

 

“Screening is a snapshot of that athlete at a given time on a given day”

 

From a Physiotherapists’ perspective, we can use the screening to gather some very important objective outcome measures. This can provide us with some valuable pre-injury data that can be referred back to later in the season following an injury to a player, while from a Strength and Conditioning view baseline testing acts as the foundation for which subsequent training programs should be built. We only screen and test our healthy players, so any current injuries are not recorded. This way, we know that when the player was fit and competing on the field, they were able to score “X” in “Y“ test, so we should aim for at least those scores again before we consider them able to return to training. There is a debate that the results obtained from screening are a snapshot of that athlete at a given time on a given day, conducted a week earlier or later and we may have completely different scores. We agree. For this reason, it is essential that screening is not relied upon all season. We conduct Pre-Season, end of pre-season, Mid-Season and End-Season assessments to give us a “snap-shot” of the players through a competitive season. It is important to consider two key aspects of screening and testing, those being the;

 

Validity does the test you are using actually measure the thing you are trying to test for?

And Reliability;are the scores/results consistent? Is it repeatable? Any test cannot be considered valid if there is no reliability in the test- if the test is not consistent and has no repeatability then the testing method is invalid.

 

The answer? Screen EVERYDAY…

 

But away from all the formal data and testing environments, we continuously monitor other outcome measures such as heart rate variability, mood questionnaires, GPS data etc. as well as actually just looking and watching the athlete’s train and play. Essentially, this is screening all season, just not in our lab coats with a goniometer, optojump and a piece of paper.

Screening should confirm or deny your clinical assessments. It should not guide your treatment, programming or management. We use a variety of single planar and multi-planar tests, looking at rotational control and anti-rotational control, speed, strength and jump tests but essentially these movements are building blocks to allow our athletes to play sport. Screening allows us to conduct controlled, repeatable tests to give us an indication (not a definition) of movement patterns, strength, speed and control, all invaluable measures that we cannot gain on the field of play.

 

Essentially, if you know your players well enough, you should be able to predict who will have limited hip mobility, or who will produce the strongest isometric hamstring recordings, who requires additional speed or gym work, but you now have objective numbers and scores to work from so for your next screening date, you would hope to have influenced those scores.

 

Yours in Sport,

 

Conor and Sam

 

Name(required)

Email(required)

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ