Brian Schiff’s Blog

Below are two videos demonstrating some sliding exercises I like to use in training and rehab.  The first video reveals one of my tougher hamstring exercises I prescribe, while the second video displays some shoulder/core stability variations using sliding discs.  I have included links to the PFP columns that better explain the set-up, execution and application for each exercise.

Click here for the Functionally Fit Column on sliding hamstring curls.

Click here for the Functionally Fit column on sliding shoulder raises.

As a therapist and fitness enthusiast, I always want to know the “why” and implications for exercises.  I have posted on modified push-ups in the past, but I felt compelled to share some information that was published in the October 2012 Strength and Conditioning Journal.  Bret Contreras et al. discuss the biomechanics of the push-up and provide an excellent overview of the different types of push-ups and what research has to say about them.

I was most interested by the parts on unstable push-ups as I tend to use the BOSU Balance Trainer and BOSU Ballast Ball in many of my programs.  Here are some key points that the authors point out that are worth mentioning:

• BOSU push-ups have been shown to increase activity of some of the scapular stabilizers namely upper, middle and lower trapezius fibers compared to standard push-ups, while serratus anterior activity is diminished (Tucker et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010)
• Lehman et al. (Man Ther 2008) reported that elevating the feet above the hands had a greater stimulus on scapulothoracic stabilizing musculature than placing the hands on an unstable surface
• Lehman et al. (Dyn Med 2006) found that push-ups w/hands on a stability ball significantly increased the triceps brachii activation as well as invoking increased activation of pec major, rectus abdominus and external obliques compared with push-ups on a bench from the same angle.  However, note that feet on the stability ball did not affect muscle activity compared to push-ups with feet on a bench at the same angle
• According to Marshall and Murphy (Apply Physiol Nutr Metab 2006) triceps brachii and abdominal EMG activity was much greater when performing push-ups off a stability ball compared to stable surfaces from flat and elevated positions

Takeaways:

1. Using unstable surfaces for push-ups when the primary base of support is the stability ball, BOSU, or BOSU Ballast Ball is more effective in increasing muscle activation of aforementioned muscles
2. Placing the feet on an unstable surface does not add much benefit in terms of increasing muscle activation
3. Maintaining a stable torso and spine angle is key and should not be compromised with an unstable surface

Other thoughts of mine:

Mastering form, alignment and strength with stable push-ups is common sense, right?  So, do not advance to unstable push-ups without pre-requisite strength and satisfactory technique in a stable environment.  Wrist mobility, shoulder stability, and core strength are just a few other key factors that should weigh in your decision to implement unstable push-ups.

Considering some isometric work with slightly bent elbows or even some small pulses can be effective in progressing toward these more advanced unstable push-ups.  Clients need to understand the point of no return and I prefer to spot closely particularly when using a stability ball or BOSU Ballast Ball.  Working with the BOSU (dome side down) is generally safer and allows for easier modification with the knees on the ground for those with less upper body strength or diminished control.

I also like to add a plus (scapular protraction at the top) to help counter the loss of serratus activity seen with BOSU push-ups. In the end, I really like using the unstable surface as the point of balance and have for some time.  There are many ways to do push-ups, but considering some unstable work has a good return for those clients whoa ready for it.

Below is a picture of the BOSU Ballast Ball – I prefer it over the stability ball as it is less likely to slip out from underneath the client.  It provides excellent shoulder and core stability work – my primary goals when electing to use it.  Reps, sets, progression and recovery will be dictated by fatigue and form at all times.

I had the pleasure of listening to Darin Padua, PhD, of UNC present some of his latest research on ACL injury prevention last week. He has been doing research for some time. One of his studies (JUMP ACL) in collaboration with the military and several others has looked at prospective data and injury occurrence among college age subjects.

Much of the research to date on injury prevention has been done by Timothy Hewett and his colleagues. It has concluded that drop landing with a valgus collapse (hip abduction/IR with valgus knee moment) is a risk factor for injury. Interstingly enough, despite that knowledge and the proliferation of prevention programs, Darin mentioned that overall these prevention programs have not slowed the rate of ACL tears in the last decade. Why is that?  He also relayed that much of what we know now is based on 15 total cases.

The Jump ACL Study in a nutshell lasted for 5 years at 3 different military academies:

N = 5,700 cadets with no prior ACL surgery

• Soccer players = 1,690
• Tested from 2005 to 2008
• 39% female; 25% NCAA athletes
• 14,653 person-years of follow-up

N = 113 incident ACL injuries

• Soccer players = 29
• Mean time from testing to injury = 3.1 yrs
• N = 92 one ACL injury; N = 11 two ACL injuries

Some data (will be published) he discussed based on his findings revealed the following about high risk profiles for ACL injury:

• Hip flexion > 40 degrees at landing = 1.76x increased risk
• Hip adduction plus knee valgus = 3x increased risk
• Hip adduction plus knee varus = 27x increased risk

He also mentioned that the high risk profile does not correspond to the ACL injury event profile of:

• Hip abduction
• Lateral trunk flexion
• Knee valgus collapse
• Small knee flexion
• Tibial ER/IR

In the end, he suggests we need to better understand who to target (high risk profile clients) and what to modify (injury event profile) so we can better customize injury prevention programs that optimize proper movement and meet the needs of each individual athlete.  He reminded us that using the uninjured side for comparison is insufficient as faulty movement patterns already likely existed contributing to the first ACL injury.

So, assessing movement continuously and striving for excellent movement quality is a MUST if we are going to both prevent initial ACL injuries and reduce the re-tear rates for our athletes we send back to play.  He reports that those at increased risk simply have bad biomechanics.  His message provides more weight to having an advanced algorithm to identify asymmetry, poor motor control and flawed movement patterns in order to effectively prescribe interventions to address these things.

At UNC they use a PRIME assessment.  I am excited to learn more about it and have referred one of my female higher level soccer players to their lab for assessment as I look at this return to play decision with her now that she is just past 7 months post-op.   I think the hip/core obviously play an important role as I see so much deficiency in my female patients recovering from injury.

Clearly his findings with hip adduction and varus as a big risk factor seem to indicate it could be a top down kinetic chain breakdown as well upon impact based on the risk profile.  Pelvic stability or the lack thereof seems to be significant, only NOT in the same manner we thought about it before based on previous research available.  Stay tuned, as we have lots more to learn about ACL injuries and how best to tailor our prevention efforts.

Knowing just when to put an athlete back on the field after ACL reconstruction is a difficult proposition. Surgeons often look at swelling , graft stability and quad girth. In the past, we have relied on isokinetic testing and hop testing measures in the clinic as guidelines as well.

As a sports performance specialist and clinician, I am keenly interested in not only fully rehabbing this injury, but also preventing it form happening again in the future. Observing quality of movement in cutting, jumping, running and drills offers good insight in this process, but I think we need more.

The FMS and Y-Balance test are things I use in my equation as well. I often see clients ace the YBT, but struggle to obtain a passing score on the FMS based on issues in core stability and the deep squat.  Current literature reports that any score less than a 14 carries a 4-fold increase for non-contact injury risk in female collegiate athletes.  Click here to read that study.

In addition, I look at the following for return to play decision making:

• Single leg squat depth
• Single leg broad jump
• Single leg impact mechanics
• Deceleration and cutting form
• Cross-over hop test
• Single leg triple hop
• 6 M timed hop test

Below is a video of the single leg broad jumps, the triple hop, cross-over hop test and 6 M timed hop test.

What does research have to say?  I think we have a vacuum where athletes get “cleared” or released from PT and they wonder back to sport too soon.  
Continue reading…

I work with lots of patients and clients who consistently demonstrate inadequate hip and core stability.  I see this show up routinely as asymmetrical 1’s for the trunk stability push-up, in-line lunge, hurdle step and rotary stability movements on the FMS. Unfortunately, this has been a recurring them in many of my females recovering from ACL reconstruction as well as runners with persistent pain/dysfunction in one lower extremity.

I am always looking for better ways to train the body in whole movement patterns as well as functional positions.  One of my preferred positions is to test and challenge my clients in a split squat position.  I begin with an isometric split squat cueing proper alignment and muscle activation.  As clients master isometric postural control, I will allow them to add an isotonic movement by squatting in the position.

As they progress, I will add in perturbations to stimulate changes or challenges to their center of gravity.  Often, you will see them struggle much more on the involved side.  But to be honest, I find most people have an incredibly hard time maintaining proper alignment for long without cheating or falling forward or to the side.  Allowing clients to lose form is okay provided they are cued to fix their alignment or they naturally self correct.

An additional wrinkle I throw in for this training is using the BOSU Balance Trainer.  Below is a video that shows how I use this progressing from shin down to just the toes as a support on the trail leg.  The second version will burn up your clients’ thighs and quickly become one of their least favorite exercises.  The great thing is that you do not have to offer much resistance to create a significant perturbation.

For more detail on this exercise and application, click here to read my PFP column featuring it this week.