|
|
Static contraction training
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Static contraction training - October 11, 2005 5:55:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Yes, I had to ask.
I see many of it's shortcomings but it seems like an interesting option for those who want to maintain or even increase strength while not devoting a lot of time to it.
So what do you think of it?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 11, 2005 6:40:00 PM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Anectdotally (is that a word?), I have used the technique successfully to break through plateaus and beat "sticking points". I must confess, however that I am not a fan of using it regularly as dynamic movement in most cases is superior. Just curious, Randy - how do you feel employing such a method would take up less time? I suppose if you only held a single position for each muscle group you would?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 12, 2005 4:33:00 AM
|
|
|
Yogi
Posts: 403
Joined: April 5, 2004
From: San Antonio, Tx., USA
Status: offline
|
I use it alot on elderly folks who have arthritis. It allows me to use strenthening technique (as opposed to the unloaded moving exercises, usual, you know the mat heel slides, ab and add slides, SAQs, etc.) without moving the painful joint. Since it is fairly angle (muscle length specific) specific, I have them do the range at which the muscle needs the most power in function, on occasion I have them do more than one angle on the same joint. I use a slow ten count, 6 sec. hold. The save time factor is in the simplified exercises and fewer number, unless there is a tendelenberg I do only the antigravity extensors, for 12 reps each daily. It only takes a few minutes, usually they can remember them without a cheat sheet.
Dynamic motion is needed, but in these cases I hope the daily sit to stand and walking functions will "lock in" any strength gains. I tell them these are "for the rest of your life exercises".
It's the old BRIME protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 12, 2005 8:26:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
I agree with core, I think it's a good idea to vary a training program, but I don't think any serious trainer or strength coach is advocating it as a stand-alone system.
Kind of like HIT that way.
Yogi- cool idea.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 25, 2005 8:15:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Core,
Yes, the idea put forth by Little and Cisco is one rep per exercise, limited exercises per bodypart and 15-30 sec. holds. This means you go through the workout quickly.
I'm not suggesting it as primary workout, but for supplemental strength training. For example, during the competition phase of training when you want to maintain strength but don't have much time or energy to devote to it and to maintain or increase muscle mass.
I'm currently experimenting with the complete opposite approach, moving light or no weights as quickly as possible, through full and partial ranges and in both directions. For example bicep curl/tricep extension done as quickly as possible, first full range and then in limited ranges. It looks really silly and it took awhile to get a feel for it to make do it so that it feels effective, but it is interesting. I tried it for the trunk and ended up aching throughout my whole mid section and if anyone caught it on video tape my chance for being elected President are shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 25, 2005 8:41:00 PM
|
|
|
avalon
Posts: 181
Joined: March 18, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]I'm currently experimenting with the complete opposite approach, moving light or no weights as quickly as possible, through full and partial ranges and in both directions.[/QUOTE]That is the oriental conception embedded in martial arts.
It works for sport and PT cares!
_____________________________
http://www.somasimple.com
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - October 27, 2005 1:18:00 AM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Except for perhaps "Bodyblade" I haven't seen it used.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 3, 2005 7:02:00 AM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
I think that it is funny how isometrics were big, then out of favor, then somebody renames them "static contraction training" and that renews interest.
Come on people.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 3, 2005 7:03:00 AM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
I think that it is funny how isometrics were big, then out of favor, then somebody renames them "static contraction training" and that renews interest.
Come on people.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 3, 2005 1:01:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Yeah, but then I've always been interested and liked isometrics. The only real difference is that using weights makes the effort measurable and consistent and that, at least psychologically but probably physiologically, having to hold a weight creates stronger forces.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 3, 2005 4:01:00 PM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
But what does that do for the muscle? Sure it makes it contract. We all learned in exercise physiology class that training is angle and velocity specific. So, by doing isometrics you train your muscles to work at zero degrees per second at a static angle. Pretty functional.
I don't get it. We talk about EBM but forget basic science or simply misapply it. I get bent out of shape here because it seems to be common sense to make the training look at least a little like the target activity. Weight room coaches forever would tell us to slow down and isolate a muscle, no cheating!!! and then tell us to go jump or run fast or block someone. How is it that the coach wants us to block someone when our butts have never spoken with our pecs??? Both need to work to block someone. If you isolate a muscle, you are training it to contract in isolation. Everyone should go to a Gary Gray course. Gary, if you are peeking, all I want is a 5% commission.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 3, 2005 8:14:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Tom,
First I didn't see anyone advocating static contraction training as a functional or athletic training program, only as an adjunct. I believe that everyone that has answered is already a fan of functional training.
Second, we now know that the joint angle specificity is not really the issue that it was once believed to be. Maximum or absolute strength is a good predictor of power and is certainly a major component of power. There is no doubt isometric exercise can increase absolute strength. Other factors such as Rate of Force Development are also important, but it would be a mistake to believe because their is no discernible movement involved in an isometric exercise that this neurological function isn't also enhanced. It's not as simple and the people who advocate it aren't as stupid as your post would make it appear.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 4, 2005 3:39:00 AM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
I am not saying that they are stupid, its just that we as a profession get caught up in dogma as much as some other professions do. (how many times to you have to tell your patients to use ice rather than heat for pain management?
Worse, how many times to we see colleagues doing short arc quads for patello-femoral treatment. both types of treatment are done because of the "common sense" of the time but have been soundly disproven as a means to the desired end) As far as Absolute strength goes, I am not familiar with the precise definition of that term. The strength of a muscle is irrelevant if it does not contract at the right time. All I am saying is that in order for a muscle to fire WHEN its supposed to, it needs proprioceptive cues. If it is late in contracting (or early i suppose) it does not matter how absolutely strong it is. Isometrics do not offer the appropriate cues to translate into real life. In a lab, isometric strength has meaning, otherwise it does not.
When we read research, we need to look at what and how the researchers are setting up their testing. Are they trying to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to have a specific concrete finding? If so, is the result of their experiment valid? How does it matter what the Absolute strength of my quads, isometrically at 90 degrees matter when I am running, looking over my shoulder to catch a ball and step on a bump that tips my foot into pronation??? It Matters Not.
I am just asking people to rethink what it is we are doing. It is a new paradigm to put the foot on the ground, truly, and see what happens when you reverse the anatomy class version of what muscles do and recognize that very few if any muscles work in only one plane. AND that the plane that they work in (in function) is often NOT the plane that they are trained in by our colleagues. e.g. how many of you train the gluteals lying prone and doing SLRs into hip extension and how many have people standing and do transverse plane work?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 4, 2005 4:00:00 PM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
I think this reminds me of a quite-raging discussion we were having on an NSCA discussion forum a while back about "Functional Training".
Like many arguments, it tends to devolve into each side polarizing so far that they end up supporting each other's points.
Much of the underpinnings and scientific evidence for functional training and rehabilitation methods is intelligent conjecture of sound science and reasoning. That's good. But a dogmatic view of it isn't likely to advance the debate much. I take exception to Tom's example of short arc quads for PFPS (not that I use that very often). There is some evidence that both open and closed chain quadriceps strengthening exercise can be useful in the rehabilitation of someone with this condition:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15262632&query_hl=1
So, who is using science and who's using expert opinion now?
I agree that people like Gary Gray and Gray Cook have been advocating addressing PFPS and a host of other problems by looking at the functional kinetic chain for many years, but only recently with the work of Powers et al from USC am I aware of that approach having any scientific support. And yet it made sense biomechanically, as one portion of a total rehab plan, so certainly it ha it's place before Powers came along and did some work on it. As do more traditional methods of training that don't meet someone's predetermined definition of "Functional".
High Intensity Training (think "Superslow") is a perfect example of this. Even mention this to any serious strength coach or exercise physiologist, and you will get a groan and some rolled eyes. BUT...long eccentric contractions have been found to have value for tendonopathies and may be an excellent way to get a better workout with a lower load (comes in handy in rehab, eh?).
Perhaps "static contraction training" used as an adjunct (that Randy alludes to) could have it's place, too.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 4, 2005 6:14:00 PM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
There has been evidence of many things. I believe it was in 1986 that Edward Grood wrote a paper on the biomechanics of the patelo-femoral joint. I wish I had the article here at home or had the time or inclination to look it up and cite it for you but I have neither. EMG studies show that the VMO is most active where all of the other quads are most active at or around 90 degrees. Physics tells us that the amount of force needed to generate open kinetic chain extension force in the last 30 degrees of extension is massive, and this occurs when the contact surfaces are the smallest. This vastly increases the compression between the patella and the femur which is exactly the reason they are in your office in the first place.
Jason, I respect your opinion, you always seem to have very reasoned, and well documented responses to posts on all types of opinions but I truly do not think that the evidence for open chain exercise is valid. It is reliable, yes, but not valid. Remember, at one point everybody was into isokinetics because it was a new gizmo and George Davies said that he could diagnose what type of meniscus tear you had by the shape of your curve. At one point, our profession massaged everything. At one point there was evidence of (forgive me for drama) the world being flat.
It seems to me that the body of valid evidence supports higher speed activity specific rehab for most orthopedic problems. I have followed this paradigm of rehab/exercise prescription and have really had outstanding success. Thinking of movement in functional terms rather than anatomical terms has shifted my view of what I learned in school and read today.
Much of the basic science of what we learned in school is valid, but how we decide to apply it is what makes us different from professions or professionals that do not re-examine the dogma of what was done before.
Example: When people are told to lift an object with two hands from the floor and know their therapist is watching, they think to themselves "keep my back straight and use my legs". These words are very true, however, what the person does is they keep their backs vertical and squat straight down with their knees in front of their toes. What they find is that they can't reach the ground to pick up the object without bending their backs which defeats the whole purpose. Further, their squat posture eliminates or nearly eliminates the contractions of the hamstrings and gluteals. Further still, their balance is poor.
I do inservices for lifting technique all of the time as do many of us in these posts and what people don't do is stick their butt out, keep their knees behind their toes, and maintain neutral in their spines.
The point of all of this is that we are taught to do things that made sense to us at the time, or perhaps we learned to do it because we wanted the good grade on the practical exam in PT school but we didn't process and think about if it was right.
Think about it, the best examples of physical performers are athletes, they all strike roughly the same pose (think linebacker, basketball player on defense, shortstop, volleyball player etc . . .) The best lifters in the world and perhaps more importantly the worst lifters in the world use the same technique. Grandma in the walker uses a squat like this to pick up the letter from the kids in the only way she can, butt back knees behind toes. 1 year olds pick up tootsie rolls the same way because if they don't do it the most efficient way possible, they can't get it done.
I may become famous for the rants I go on but we not only have to look at the current literature for interesting conclusions, but we also have to determine if it is valid for our patients AND if there are more logical ways to spend a finite amount of our time and our patient's time doing exercise. If we give them specific exercises that isolate each muscle so that they will have 1 full hour of exercise that we expect them to do, their next question will be "which ones are the most important?" which translates to "I am not going to do these. Give me something that I can spend a little time with and get the most benefit." I suggest that perhaps exercises that look like the target activity with regard to speed and angle are much more likely to give more rapid and more meaningful results if for no other reason that the patient will do them because they are familiar.
End of rant.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 4, 2005 9:44:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
Tom,
It appears you are just supporting functional training and wishing to make the point that it is valuable. I, and Jason, both agree. However, in your first post you talk about EBM, and how basic science is misapplied or ignored. In your second you talk about not examining things because of dogma. I find that slightly strange because you begin with the idea that isometrics are basically worthless because they are joint angle and velocity specific, which seems a dogmatic statement from the field of exercise physiology. There are many instances when in fact stability, the application of strength with little or no motion, is desirable. You don't do planks, or one legged pulls in your functional training? Isn't there a very large isometric component of any exercise. I don't see any reason to suppose that isometric exercise requires isolation more than isotonic exercise, which seems to be the problem you are generally addressing. There seems to be a complete carryover of isometric gains 12-15 degrees of joint angle in either direction of the angle trained. This gives 24 to 30 degrees of increased strength, which is often all the ROM that is used. Absolute strength and RFD (rate of force development) are the main determinants of power, both can be increased through isometric exercise. My point is not to convince you that my view is correct, only that it appears that you are criticizing dogmatic views that you don't agree with and replacing them with dogmatic views that you do believe in.
I don't have time to do a literature search, but I have some abstracts handy in my box that you might find interesting.
[URL=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15320644&query_hl=13]strength 1[/URL]
[URL=http://www.elitetrack.com/stone_hartman.pdf]strength 2[/URL]
[URL=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15292751&query_hl=6]strength 3[/URL]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 5, 2005 7:09:00 AM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
Randy, I don't think that I am spouting dogma. Maybe I am but I feel that everything that I said is justifiable and rational. It is true, and I don't dispute that isometric strength is gained when you train someone isometrically. The same is true for isokinetic training. This is not disputed. What I do challenge is the ability of that training to translate to functional activities that matter in a person's life. If you are training someone's rhomboids and middle traps to sit better at their desk, by all means incorporate some isometrics because that is how those muscles work. But in the case of muscles that move, the training needs to look like what they will be doing.
Your three references actually prove my point. In the first abstract about the bench press through partial range of motion the pre test is full bench press, the training is partial bench press, and the post test is full bench press. The conclusion is that partial bench press training improves full bench press performance. That is exactly what I have been saying.
The second referenced the shot put. The training is functional, squats, power cleans etc . . . which look like things that the butt and trunk and shoulder do in real life and lo and behold the shot put increases. In the third, we again are talking about the bench press and proving that partial range of motion training improves full range of motion performance.
There have been papers that have compared isokinetic performance with the ability to do a one legged hop and they did not find a high correlation (I have these at work, I think they were in the JOSPT in the late 80s).
In your first reference, it would have been interesting to choose a functional activity where the pecs dominate the motion (maybe throwing a ball for distance or velocity), pretest, train the pecs with the bench press, then post test the functional activity. My guess is that there would be minimal improvement.
Training is specific.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 5, 2005 2:53:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
I'll get back to the rest later, I'm unclear about how you came to the conclusion that training is specific if partial range leads to improved performance in full range.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 5, 2005 2:58:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
I think you misunderstood the purpose of the throwers paper. It was not an evaluation of the training program.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Static contraction training - November 5, 2005 4:47:00 PM
|
|
|
truthseeker
Posts: 148
Joined: June 23, 2005
Status: offline
|
partial range of a bench press looks a lot like full bench press. the speed is probably the same, unclear from the abstract, but as you said, the angle is not precisely specific but the point is that a partial bench press is nearly the same as a full bench press. MY point is that it probably won't translate to a higher speed activity, like throwing a baseball.
This brings me back to my original point in responding to the "static contraction" thread. Isometrics make you better at isometrics. If you want to get better at that such as rhomboid strengthening or erector spinae training for stability, you can do isometrics and expect functional carryover. If you expect your muscles to get better at moving or controlling/responding to motion, you had better have the target limb moving when you have them exercise. AND you should have them moving at a similar speed and a similar angle (not same, similar) or else you won't get carryover. I think that is one of the only things that I use from all of the isokinetic research that was done in 1980s. High speed carries over to slow but slow does not carry over to high. How can you train an infraspinatus muscle to decelerate 1500 degrees per second by doing isometrics or even 450 deg/sec Biodex training, especially with the elbow at the patient's side AND without using the feet, butt, trunk, and scapular muscles??
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.172
|
Printable Version
