Lower trapezius weakness is a common finding with many of the clients we assess at IFAST.  Even in our strongest athletes, we’ll find relative weakness that may affect their abilities to perform the heavier, maximal strength upper body exercises.

The now common scapular exercises such as I’s, L’s, Y’s, T’s, and W’s are good selections to start to resolve scapular muscle weakness.  This post will focus on the Y exercise, AKA, lower trap raise.

A few keys to success:

1.  The arms should come up to angle of about 135 degrees of abduction (45 degrees above the “T” position).

2.  Turn the thumb side of your hand  upward to externally rotate the shoulder.  The “Y” also promotes high levels of activity of the shoulder external rotators.

3.  Lead the movement with the scapula.  The arrow shown on the photo above shows the direction to drive the scapula.  Too often, clients will abbreviate the exercise due to a lack of scapular movement.  If you’re a trainer or coach, a simple tactile cue of a light fingertip touch on the lower trap and a verbal cue to “pull the shoulder blade to my finger” will go a long way to getting a much more complete movement.

Bill

A new study just came out in the Journal of Sports Rehabilitation that compared EMG activity of select lower extremity muscles in the performance of a two-leg squat (TLS) and what they called a modified single-leg squat (MSLS).  For most of us, we’d call it a Bulgarian split squat or rear foot elevated split squat.

Recently, there’s been some uproar in the strength and conditioning community in regard to some coaches choosing to remove traditional TLS from their programming.  While I think there are few if any contraindicated exercises, there are contraindicated people when it comes to certain exercises such as heavy back squats for athletes with back issues or overhead pressing for people with shoulder issues. 

So when I saw this study I thought it would be of interest.  Keep in mind that this study doesn’t address the issues as to why some coaches have decided to remove heavy TLS from their programs.  I also want to note that I’m not interested in starting another debate on whether athletes or general population fitness-enthusiasts should back squat.  It is merely a comparison of the TLS and the MSLS in regard to muscle activity.  Make your own choices as to what exercises you deem appropriate based on the needs of the individual.

A few things I liked about this study:  They used real (female) athletes, they made an effort to keep the kinematics the same for tibial anterior translation and trunk inclincation for each subject, and they used legitimate loading.  One of my pet peeves is research that only uses body weight or very light loads for strength training research.  In this study they used 85% of a tested 3 rep max for both the TLS and MSLS assuring the same relative intensity.

Something I didn’t like:  The MSLS was a new exercise for the athletes.  To the researcher’s credit, they did give them practice sessions with supervised instruction to assure accurate exercise performance.  Anyone who’s trained for a while knows that you can shift the demands of a squat from a “quad dominant” strategy to a “hip dominant” strategy by shifting the hips posteriorly, increasing trunk inclination, and keeping the tibia more vertical.  Farrokhi, et. al. showed that an increased forward lean during a lunge increased the demand on the hip extensors.  By making an effort to keep the kinematics the same for each subject from TLS to the MSLS, the researchers minimized this influence of tibia and trunk angle on the muscle activity.  One average, the subjects were able to maintain just over 85% of the total system weight (body weight + barbell load) on the front leg.

The Outcome

The MSLS produced increase demands on the gluteus medius and hamstrings and reduced demands on quadriceps, whereas the TLS produce greater demands on the quadriceps with reduced hamstring and gluteus medius activity.  There was a significant difference in trunk inclination angle between the TLS and MSLS (TLS inclination was higher), but it didn’t seem to affect the muscle activity.

The researchers also noted an increased valgus angle of the knee during MSLS.  This is not an uncommon finding in research involving females and exercises demanding greater stability.

A few thougths…

I don’t think the findings are a big surprise.  The MSLS has greater demands on stability compared to the TLS, therefore muscles responsible for stabilizing the hip and knee should show increased activity.

I also don’t think this study is support for the elimination of TLS and/or double leg strength work as the “you play on one leg, so you should train on one leg because it’s more specific” crowd may feel.  The reduced quadriceps activity may be indicative of reduced overall force output.  High-speed ground-based activities like change of direction require high levels of quadriceps activity.  According to Chiu, Garhammer, and Schilling, the TLS was found to be more specific to such activities because of the high force demands.  Training solely on a single leg certainly won’t provide for the demands of high force activities.

However, improving stabilizer fatigue resistance may be an important factor in helping to maintain those high force abilities.

So which is better, MSLS or TLS?  Neither.  We benefit from both two-leg and single-leg exercises strength and power exercises in an effective sports training program.

One other small note to keep in mind.  Research only applies to the population examined, so these results may not apply to male subjects.

 References:

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 2010, 19, 57-70

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther., 2008, July 38(7), 403-9

We were showing the interns how to teach pulling exercises like the various forms of rows.  Thought it would be of interest.

My friend Alwyn Cosgrove is a stage IV cancer survivor….twice.

He is alive today because of donations made by people like you and me long before he was ever diagnosed.

Because of the research made possible by donations to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, treatments have been developed that save lives that not too long ago would have never had a fighting chance.

I’d like you to make a donation today.

I realize that there are many causes out there deserving of assistance.  I also realize that money is tight these days.  So I’ll make it worth your while.

In return for your donation today, You’ll receive the entire Lift Strong collection on CD.  That’s 800 pages from the top minds in the fitness, rehab, and strength and conditioning fields.

If you ask me, it’s a win-win.  You save lives AND you get information you can’t get anywhere else that will impact your life.

Go to www.liftstrong.com now and donate.

Thanks

Bill

Mike Robertson and I were discussing this study that showed how training the trunk muscles for improved stability resulted in a reduction in hamstring stiffness.  In other words, flexibility improved without stretching the muscles.

To bring you up to speed, here’s the study in a nutshell:

The hypothesis is that increased hamstring stiffness compensates for the insufficient performance of the deep stabilizing muscular subsystem (does anyone smell the TVA bias in the room?).

To test their hypothesis they measure the hamstring stiffness of 30 people using a PKES test (Supine, hip flexed 90 degrees, extend the knee and measure the knee angle).  The subjects spend 2 days learning to perform “isolated, conscious activation of the deep stabilizing muscle subsystem”.  They then perform a variation of a plank with feet elevated in slings (body is horizontal) and a variation of supine hip extension twice a week for 4 weeks.  At the end of four weeks, the hamstring stiffness had decreased (flexibility improved).

Their conclusion:  The results of this study support our hypothesis.

Huh?  How do you figure?

Now certainly the training performed resulted in a reduction in hamstring stiffness which is very interesting (we’ll get to that in a minute), but how did they determine it was the result of an improved deep stabilizing whatever, whatever?

There was no pre-test of the deep stabilizing whatever, whatever.  Sure they spent 2 days learning to consciously activate it, but that doesn’t mean that its function was improved nor dysfunctional in the first place.  They used an integrated exercise that involved all of the abdominal muscles, hip muscles, and other trunk and shoulder muscles.  And there was no post-test of deep stabilizing…well, you get the point.

I’m not saying that they are wrong or right, only that you can’t conclude much more than that the training performed for improved stability reduced hamstring stiffness.  To their credit, they do mention in the second to last sentence that “it is still possible that stability training influenced stiffness of the hamstrings in some other way than by improving action of the deep musculature.”  Well done.  It could have also been improved hip stability or even shoulder stability (yes, there’s a connection)

The interesting stuff…

The point to take away from this is that mobility restrictions aren’t always mechanical tissue related issues.  In other words, stretching isn’t always the answer.

In situations where an individual is faced with a task that exceeds his ability to adequately control posture, balance, or range of motion, it’s not uncommon to see what appears to be a lack of mobility or some form of movement compensation.

This compensation is often a “locking up” of joints, frequently by two joint muscles like the hamstrings, to create stability with a comprise to mobility.  The movement will frequently appear to be uncoordinated or the athlete may seem slow or weak in reacting.  This is not a dysfunction that you can fix with the correct stretching protocol.

The fix requires restoration of stability utilizing a lower level activity that the athlete can control effectively and progressing toward more complex tasks that lead to higher force, higher speed, and higher skill movements.

This also reinforces the importance of observing your athletes in action where they experience and participate in the specific conditions and demands of their chosen sport.

Everything is an assessment.

Bill