As someone who works with high level athletes and those aspiring to take their performance to new levels, I think it is important to understand power development and the real “why” behind the exercises we choose.  I also come at this from the side of a sports physical therapist who is working to get athletes back to their peak performance.

To that end, I am always looking for the most effective ways to train the neuromuscular system.  Finding the most “specific” exercises for our clients is important.  I thought I would provide a brief summery of a new article in the November 2013 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research that looked to compare the neuromuscular characteristics of two types of jumps: hurdle and drop jumps.  In addition, the authors wanted to examine three types of landing techniques:

1. Preferred – athlete instructed to jump with a technique that allows for jumping as quickly and high as possible
2. Flat foot
3. Forefoot (FORE)

The working hypothesis was that hurdle jumps would be more powerful than drop jumps (DJs) and that foot flat technique would decrease mechanical power.  The study included 25 subjects (male athletes) from Memorial University and during the jumps reaction forces, contact time, rate of force development (RFD) and lower limb EMG were measured.

All subjects did regular regular resistance training multiple plyometric drills with a typical volume of > 100 repetitions per session.  However, none of the subjects had done drop jumps before.  As such, this was the first test assessed to avoid fatigue.  Subjects stood on a force platform and were asked to perform a maximal CMJ.  Two trials were conducted with 1 minute of rest in between jumps.  The maximum CMJ height was used to establish the DJ and hurdle height.  The average flight time of the two trials was used to calculate jump height.

The order of DJ and hurdle jump tests was randomized with 5 minutes of rest between the jumps.  The athletes did a 10 minute warm-up of cycling at 75 W-60 RPM followed by 5 sets of 5 sub maximal hopping, 5 single submaximal CMJ and 2 maximal CMJ.  Only dynamic stretching was allowed during the warm-up to avoid any muscular power deficits created by static stretching.

Results

Contact time

• Hurdle jump had a 36.9% shorter contact time compared to DJ
• Preferred technique 29.1% shorter contact time than FLAT
• Preferred technique had 9.6% longer contact time than FORE
• FLAT 25.9% longer than FORE
• Jump and landing type interaction 23.8% shorter ground contact time for DJ FORE vs. FLAT

Vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF)

• Hurdle jump forces were 11% higher than DJ
• FLAT techniques revealed 30.8% less reaction force than preferred technique and 40.9% less than FORE
• DJ preferred technique had 14.9% more force than DJ FLAT
• DJ FLAT had lowest force level and was 25.9% less than DF FORE

Rate of force development

• Main effect of hurdle jump showed 46.3% higher RFD than DJ
• FORE technique 11.3% higher than preferred and 45% higher than FLAT
• Preferred technique 38% higher than FLAT
• DJ preferred 35% > DJ FLAT
• Hurdle jump preferred 40.9% higher than DJ preferred
• Hurdle jump FORE 43.6% higher than DJ preferred
• DJ FLAT was lowest for RFD

Leg stiffness

• Hurdle jumps were 64% stiffer than DJ
• Hurdle jump FORE had greatest stiffness
• DJ FLAT was the least stiff technique

EMG Activity

• Rectus femoris – HJ had 30% higher activity than DJ, eccentric phase highest, and FLAT higher than preferred and FORE
• Biceps femoris – HJ 68.8% more activity than DJ, concentric phase highest, and preferred higher than FLAT
• Tibialis anterior – FLAT had highest activity, eccentric phase highest
• Gastrocnemius – Preferred 26.3% > FLAT, FLAT 47% < FORE, and concentric phase highest

Key findings of the study

1. Preferred and FORE hurdle jumps were more powerful plyometric exercises than the DJ based on a shorter contact time, higher VGRF, RFD and leg stiffness
2. FORE and preferred landings produced the best results for all mechanical power variables

Continue reading…

Soft tissue tightness and restriction in the latissimus dorsi is a common problem in overhead athletes, throwers, weight lifters and Crossfit participants.  I often educate clientele on self myofascial release techniques using a trigger point ball or foam roller. But, I also like using a partner technique with the Stick.

Begin in standing grasping the frame of a squat rack.  You may also elect to hold both handles of a TRX.  Next, slowly squat down and lean back allowing the shoulders to move into flexion.  Once in position, the trainer or workout partner will use the Stick to apply pressure and roll up and down along the latissimus especially working on the soft tissue near the shoulder.

Perform this technique for 30-60 seconds and then switch sides.  Adjust pressure and location based on feedback from the client.

In the past, I wrote a post about Crossfit and shoulder pain based on a 38 y/o male client of mine.  Click here to read that post. In my prior entry, I discussed differential diagnosis of rotator cuff and labral pathology, as well as my treatment approach for that client.

If you follow my blog, twitter feed or webinars, you know I treat a lot of Crossfit athletes.  Recently, I worked with a 25 y/o female suffering from marked shoulder pain that was keeping her out of the gym.

Below are the key findings from her intake on 8/30/13:

• Onset of left shoulder pain on 8/8 related to snatches
• Right hand dominant
• Intermittent pain if sleeping on her left side
• Full AROM
• Mild weakness with supraspinatus and external rotation on left
• Positive impingement signs
• Positive O’Brien’s test (labral test)
• Positive sulcus sign bilaterally (indicates multi-directional instability or MDI)

Sulcus sign

Treatment intervention

1. Rhythmic stabilization and PNF exercises
2. Rotator cuff and scapular strengthening
3. Closed chain stabilization training
4. Game Ready (cryotherapy)
5. Home program issued at visit #1

I saw the patient once per week and she did her home program for 4 weeks.  At week 4, we gradually began allowing her to do some modified gym workouts but still no snatches or full overhead work.  She was pain free at this time and all impingement/labral signs had resolved.  At this point she returned to some wall ball drills (limited height) but still no snatches.

The client’s final visit was on 10/2/13.  Her Quick Dash percentage of perceived shoulder dysfunction was now 0%.  She was symptom free, but more importantly she had a great understanding of how to modify her lifts, loads and volume based on her multi-directional instability.  She was now aware of how her instability impacts her shoulder in “at risk” positions and in the face of fatigue.  This brings me to the primary reason for this second post related to Crossfit and shoulder pain.

In my initial post, I focused on overuse and shoulder inflammation as a result of poor mobility, muscle imbalances and a lack of physical preparedness to do high intensity exercise like Crossfit.  On the other end of the spectrum lies the unstable shoulder.

Hypermobility and/or shoulder instability is a major problem for those doing Crossfit in light of the following:

1. Many lifts and exercises put the shoulder in “at risk” positions
2. Poor glenohumeral joint stability places more stress on the rotator cuff and long head of the biceps
3. With the AMRAP approach and train to failure nature of the WOD, fatigue is a given and this means the stabilizing muscles that matter most will often fail leading to a much higher injury risk

Key Takeaways

• My client had secondary rotator cuff and bicipital irritation related to primary instability
• Rest and a combined stabilization and cuff/scapular strengthening exercise program was effective in resolving her symptoms within 30 days
• High load/high volume overhead lifts and those that place the shoulder at end range pose a higher injury risk for those with MDI or anterior instability
• Shoulder stability work trumps mobility work in those with shoulder instability – this often runs counter to traditional approaches that tend emphasize better mobility (one program does not fit all)

Closing thoughts

We must keep in mind that the shoulder is inherently unstable in order to allow us the freedom of movement necessary to perform the various tasks and exercise.  With that said, repetitive movements and lifts can create micro and/or frank shoulder instability over time.  Those with a history of shoulder subluxation/dislocation/instability are a high risk group to begin with. Adding high loads to failure places the shoulder in a fatigue and compromising state.  As a coach, competitor or health professional, we must remember that even the best intentions and coaching can fail us if the risk of a lift outweighs the reward.

As I have said before, anyone who decides to do Crossfit MUST get a proper assessment prior to starting to reduce injury risk. Ideally, this assessment would begin with a full FMS to help uncover any mobility or stability issues and asymmetry.  Keep in mind research reveals that females will almost always score a 3 on shoulder mobility and many may be hypermobile. Conversely, they tend to score lower (1 in many cases) on the trunk stability push-up.  Any pain with screening would necessitate a referral to a PT or MD for further evaluation.

Trainers cannot be asked or expected to catch multi-directional shoulder instability.  However, they can and should be aware of relative risk, anatomical tendencies and red flags that may predispose clients to injury.  For those wanting to be the best in the business, I would suggest developing a system for assessing clients and partnering with allied health professionals like me to incorporate best practices in their business.  Perhaps most importantly, trainers and coaches must be willing to adapt, limit, or eliminate exercise that does not fit the needs and abilities of the clientele.

The random nature of the WOD makes it difficult for unassuming clients to judge how best to fit in the Crossfit model if they have a dysfunction or injury concern.  My goal is always to empower people with knowledge about their body and sound advice for optimal training.  For those intent upon getting back to Crossfit after injury, I work hard to normalize their function and offer tweaks and modifications to prevent re-injury.  Prehab is a must for this population.  But in the end, some shoulders will simply not be able to handle the rigors and intensity of Crossfit.

I readily admit I have had an aversion to abdominal exercises that involve straight leg lowering since my days in pee wee football where we were forced to do lifts and holds a few inches above the ground.  Some will relate to a modern day version of this exercise known as “six inches.”

As someone with tight hip flexors and who has personally suffered from sciatica in the past, I am NOT a fan of abdominal training that exposes the lumbar spine to large loads and undue risk related to exercises that involve long levers (e.g. throw downs, scissors, etc) and place high shear force on the spine.

I was reminded of why I feel this way in a fitness class this past week.  I take a cycle/core class at my local gym and have done a traditional spinning class twice per week for 3 years.  After 45 minutes of cycle, we move to a fitness room for core.  I have done this new format for three weeks. This week we were asked to do a series of exercises which included “banana rolls.” If you are unfamiliar with this move, check out You Tube for some video demos.

While this exercise may be effective for core strengthening, I can honestly say as one who has never done the move before that trying to execute it as part of a continuous sequence of movements without rest between the moves was very hard to do with proper form.   The fatigued state encouraged using momentum and straining to simply get the movement done (not to mention the fact my greater trochanter was sore from the rolling on the hard aerobic floor).

The next day I woke up with low back pain.  My back has not hurt like that in years.  In light of the role the iliopsoas plays by virtue of its attachment on the lumbar spine, we must consider the impact of reverse muscle action and how it creates shear on the lumbar spine during movements that rely on stabilization with the legs extended against gravity.  Additionally, for those clients like me with muscle tightness, increased lumbar lordosis and a history of low back disorders, health and fitness professionals must consistently evaluate safety and efficacy as well as trying to challenge clientele in a workout session.

For all of these reasons, I increasingly rely on neutral spine anti-extension and anti-rotation training exercises in my programming for athletes and clients of all ages and abilities.  That is not to say I never do rotational or active movements.  They are appropriate given the right order, progression and demands of the respective individual. I just think we must consider form and risk versus reward in exercise programming.

The exercise video below illustrates how to use sliders in a tall plank position to accomplish great core activation and hip/shoulder stability without stressing the lumbar spine with long lever movements. Keep in mind that quality should override quantity in terms of deciding repetition schemes. Do not let the desire to fatigue clients cause form to suffer as this may increase injury risk.

For more specifics on the execution and progression/regression of this particular exercise, click the link below to read my most recent exercise column for PFP Magazine.

Tall plank shoulder circles

Suffice it to say I will not be doing banana rolls again. While I am not completely discarding the exercise, I do think it should be done in a non-fatigued state and taught incrementally if done at all. Most importantly, we as fitness professionals must always remember to program exercises based on fatigue and skill level, while carefully weighing risk versus reward in group or individual sessions.

Photo from Bleacher Report

Shoulder surgery is a big concern for any professional pitcher.  I am currently rehabbing two MLB pitchers (one from a labral repair and the other from a Tommy John procedure and obviously not JV pictured above). They are doing great so far in their early rehab, but time will tell if they make it back to their pre-injury pitching levels.

Overuse injuries in youth baseball players is always a huge concern I have.  In fact, I speculate that early wear and tear may contribute to injuries seen down the road in HS, college or the pro ranks.  I know from coaching and observing that more youth coaches need to familiarize themselves with pitch count guidelines and rest/recovery recommendations that Little League baseball now endorses.

As a sports physical therapist who sees 12 year-olds with RC problems and torn UCLs and as a father/coach of a 10 y/o left-handed pitcher, I have a strong passion and vested interest in the welfare of baseball pitchers. While research does not equate increased injury risk with throwing curveballs and sliders to date per se, both of my MLB clients advise against it until athletes turn 14 or 15.

For  information on injury prevention and pitching guidelines for youth, check out this website:

http://www.asmi.org/research.php?page=research&section=positionStatement

Today’s blog post focuses on outcomes following surgery for elite pitchers.  The following information was just published in the Jul/Aug 2013 edition of Sports Health by Harris et al. based on literature review based on these outcome measures:

Primary = pitcher’s rate of return to sport (RTS) at the same level prior to injury

Secondary = rates of RTS regardless of level, performance upon RTS and clinical outcome scores

“Elite” was defined as throwing in at least one game in MLB, minor league (A, AA, or AAA) or all collegiate divisions.   Six level I-IV studies were included with enrollment from 1976 – 2007, and there were 287 elite male pitchers who underwent shoulder surgery with 99% on the dominant throwing shoulder.  Most pitchers (276) were professional with a mean career length of 6.58 years.  Post-operative clinical follow-up within these studies was 3.62 years.

Primary diagnoses treated:

• RC tear = 120 (43%)
• Internal impingement = 82 (30%)
• Labral tear = 74 (27%)

Surgical procedures performed:

• Labral repair (157) or labral debridement (99)
• RC repair (29) or debridement (162)
• Thermal capsulorrhaphy (63)
• Subacromial decompression (42)

The statistics reveal more debridement of the labrum (61%) and rotator cuff (85%) versus repair.  This is not necessarily surprising given the desire to minimize surgical intervention and loss of motion.

Return to Sport Data

1. The overall rate of return to sport was low at 68%.
2. Mean time to return to competitive pitching in a game situation was 12 months (range = 9 -17)
3. 22% of MLB pitchers never pitched again in MLB
4. Only 14% returned to competitive pitching in the same season as labral surgery
5. No one returned to competitive pitching in the same season after rotator cuff surgery
6. Reynolds et al reported a median of 2 seasons of pitching after debridement of partial thickness cuff tears
7. Mazoue and Andrews reported a mean of 0.7 seasons pitching (range 3 innings to 3 seasons) after mini-open RC repair

Performance declined for the 3 seasons prior to surgery and then gradually increased for 3 seasons afterward, but generally did not reach pre-injury levels.

Continue reading…