Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Aug 2016

Spinal-Exercise Prescription in Sport: Classifying Physical Training and Rehabilitation by Intention and Outcome

MSc, BSc (Hons), MCSP,
MSc, BSc (Hons), ASCC, and
EdD, MSc, FMACP, MCSP
Page Range: 613 – 628
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03
Save
Download PDF

Context:

Identification of strategies to prevent spinal injury, optimize rehabilitation, and enhance performance is a priority for practitioners. Different exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular performance. Clarity of the purpose of a prescribed exercise is central to a successful outcome. Spinal exercises need to be classified according to the objective of the exercise and planned physical outcome.

Objective:

To define the modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance, clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, and classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and rehabilitation.

Design:

Qualitative study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

We conducted a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative phases. An exploratory panel carried out an extended review of the English-language literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to identify key themes and subthemes to inform the definitions of exercise categories, physical abilities, and physical outcomes. An expert project group reviewed panel findings. A draft classification was discussed with physiotherapists (n = 49) and international experts. Lead physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n = 17) reviewed a revised classification. Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement.

Results:

After the literature review and subsequent analysis, we defined spinal abilities in 4 categories: mobility, motor control, work capacity, and strength. Exercises were subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal displacement as either static (neutral spinal posture with no segmental displacement) or dynamic (dynamic segmental movement). The proposed terminology and classification support commonality of language for practitioners.

Conclusions:

The spinal-exercise classification will support clinical reasoning through a framework of spinal-exercise objectives that clearly define the nature of the exercise prescription required to deliver intended physical outcomes.

Keywords: spine; back; classification

Injury epidemiologic data have suggested that the prevalence of back pain in athletes ranges from 30% to 50%.1,2 Injury-surveillance data of Great Britain Olympic athletes collated by the Injury/Illness Performance Project under the auspices of the UK Sport/English Institute of Sport (EIS) between 2009 and 2012 across 11 Olympic sports have indicated that thoracic and lumbar spine injury (LSI) accounted for 14.2% of all injuries and resulted in 737 days missed from training and competition.3 Injury is prevalent in sports that place substantial demands on the spine through intensive or repetitive directional loading,4,5 including gymnastics, diving, weight lifting, cricket, and rowing. Identifying strategies to prevent spinal injury, optimize spinal rehabilitation, and enhance spinal performance is a priority for practitioners.

Spinal function has been defined as the ability to create, absorb, and transfer force and motion to the terminal appendicular segment during the performance of skilled motor tasks.6 Theoretical definitions of core stability (CS), however, do not represent the relationship between passive anatomical structures and the complex neuromuscular system coordination required to maintain spinal integrity under varying loads and motion demands. The nature of spinal integrity during sport activity is task specific. Therefore, the theoretical basis of “optimal” movement efficiency is an expression of the coordinated interaction of numerous physical abilities underpinning spinal function.7

Specificity of training enables the development of targeted outcome measures to enhance performance. During rehabilitation, practitioners also must consider the effect of pathologic conditions and pain on specific physical abilities and identify effective strategies to address dysfunction. The use of exercise is accepted unequivocally as part of a multifaceted approach to training and rehabilitation.8 Identification of suboptimal physical performance forms the basis of clinical reasoning to inform exercise prescription.

Historically, the nature of spinal-exercise prescription has been subject to widespread debate9,10 centered on the relative understanding and importance of CS and driven by its role in the management of chronic low back pain (LBP).11 Whereas researchers12–15 have made substantial progress in detailing the components of spinal stability and its relationship with spinal mobility, unidimensional paradigms of exercise prescription persist. For example, attempts have been made to isolate groups of core muscles or their function despite the important synergistic contributions of many different muscles to balance stability and movement demands.16 Furthermore, given that different exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular performance, use of the term CS is problematic, as it does not adequately define the intent of an exercise, and it often is used by practitioners attempting to deliver several different training or rehabilitation outcomes. Therefore, spinal exercises, and often exercises in general, are frequently described by name, equipment used, or place performed (eg, Pilates/core exercises, mat exercises, gymnasium exercises) rather than by intent, loading, and execution. If exercise intention is not delineated, miscommunication may occur among practitioners. Therefore, the purpose of our study was 2-fold: (1) to define the modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance and clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions and (2) to classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and rehabilitation.

METHODS

We used a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative phases (Figure 1). A conceptual framework was defined to underpin the study methods (Figure 2). The framework formed an analytical tool that was used in phase 1 to organize the ideas emerging from the literature. It provided a structure of starting principles and assumptions that illustrate a broad concept.

Figure 1. . Flow diagram of consensus process.Figure 1. . Flow diagram of consensus process.Figure 1. . Flow diagram of consensus process.
Figure 1.  Flow diagram of consensus process.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 2. . Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.Figure 2. . Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.Figure 2. . Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.
Figure 2.  Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Phase 1

An exploratory panel consisting of 2 senior physiotherapists and 2 senior strength and conditioning coaches (S.S., A.W., and 2 nonauthors) with extensive experience in spinal training and rehabilitation at the EIS was formed to carry out an extended review of the literature to (1) identify modifiable spinal abilities defining optimal function during skilled athletic performance, (2) clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions on specific physical abilities, and (3) define categories of exercise objectives and physical outcomes (Table 1). The literature search used sensitive topic-based strategies designed for each database. Search dates were from database inception to July 31, 2013, to inform phase 1. We subsequently updated the search to July 31, 2015, to reflect contemporary literature.

Table 1.  Characteristics of Exploratory Panel and Expert Project Group Participants
Table 1. 
a Typically, senior practitioners have at least 1 full Olympic cycle (4 years) of experience of working in elite sport, hold leadership positions within the organization or within specific sports, and frequently hold higher degrees within their professional specialties.

We searched the databases of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed. The search strategy consisted of search terms informed by the conceptual framework. For anatomical and neuromuscular interactions in functional spinal control, we used the terms core, function (spinal), neuromuscular (control), and stability (spinal). Search terms for spinal abilities defining optimal function during skilled athletic performance were mobility, motor control, performance (athletic/sporting), power, rate of force development (RFD), strength, and strength endurance. For the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, we used the terms low back injury, LBP, lumbar spine, pathology (spine), and sport. Search terms for exercise specificity and physical adaptation were exercise, injury prevention, outcome measures, physical/physiological adaptation, rehabilitation, and training. We excluded studies not written in English but did not place restrictions on study design. A total of 1614 studies were retrieved from the initial searches. Findings from studies were analyzed in the context of any methodologic limitations. Key themes and subthemes (eg, exercise objective grouping, subclassification requirements) were identified to inform the definitions of physical abilities, exercise categories, and physical outcomes.

Phase 2

An expert project group was convened to review and revise the exploratory panel findings. The group consisted of 5 physiotherapists and 5 strength and conditioning coaches holding national leadership positions within EIS and regularly engaging in spinal training and rehabilitation (S.S., A.W., and 8 nonauthors; Table 1). Independently, they identified areas for discussion and review. Collectively, they agreed on modifications to the definitions of physical abilities, exercise categories, and physical outcomes and formulated a draft classification informed by the conceptual framework of the study. An example of an area discussed and modified was the separation of work capacity (WC) and strength into 2 distinct physical performance variables.

Phase 3

A researcher (S.S.) presented the draft classification to all EIS physiotherapists (n = 49) at a consensus forum and sent it to key experts in the field for international expert review. Data were analyzed to inform emerging themes and subthemes that subsequently were integrated into a revised classification. Examples of themes included understanding and managing practitioner bias, clarity of presentation, and agreed terminology/use of language.

Phase 4

Two of the investigators (S.S., A.W.) presented the classification to members of the EIS technical lead physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n = 17) for discussion. The discussion focused on the strengths of the framework and its potential application in elite sport.

Definition of Consensus

Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement and was achieved at each phase. The classification was accepted by unanimous agreement with minor amendments. We present the definitive classification in the Results section.

RESULTS

Objective 1

Objective 1 was the identification of modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance. Spinal abilities were defined in 4 distinct categories: mobility, motor control, WC, and strength.12,17−19 The extents to which each category contributes to spinal neuromuscular control,6 the effect of pain and pathologic conditions, and how exercise interventions are used to influence targeted physical outcomes were important to consider. The modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance are summarized in Figure 3 and defined in the Appendix.

Figure 3. . Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.Figure 3. . Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.Figure 3. . Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.
Figure 3.  Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Mobility

Mobility was defined as freedom of movement at spinal segments. It provides the basis for the development of motor control20 and optimal spinal function.21 Furthermore, the relationship between axial mobility and athletic performance has been established.22,23

Deficits in spinal movement have been identified in athletes with a history of LBP,24−26 for whom changes in mobility are a product of the interaction between soft tissue and articular dysfunction. It is plausible that abnormal movement patterns or repetitive directional loading result in the consistent absence of mechanical tension associated with connective tissue remodeling and eventual loss of muscle fiber length.27,28 Loss of mobility could also represent an adaptive or maladaptive mechanism by which the body attempts to achieve active stability and maintain a level of function in the presence of pain, physical stress, or failed motor control.29

A myriad of therapeutic interventions are used to influence the neurophysical mechanisms associated with loss of mobility (hypomobility), such as focal articular or tissue restriction, pain, and altered muscular tone.30 Exercise is frequently used to influence spinal motion, and mobility exercises can also be performed in combination with limb movement to augment tissue elongation throughout a continuous myofascial line.31 Reliable assessment of spinal motion has been established,32−35 and effective restoration of spinal range of motion after flexibility training has been demonstrated in participants with LBP.36,37 Support for including this component within the classification is primarily based on clinical concepts.

Motor Control

Maintenance of spinal integrity during skilled movement tasks depends not only on muscular capacity but also on the ability to process sensory input, interpret the status of stability and motion, and establish strategies to overcome predictable and unexpected movement challenges.38 The spinal stability required during athletic performance is task specific and governed by the nature of the intended movement, the magnitude of imposed load, and the perception of risk associated with the activity.39 The central nervous system, therefore, determines the requirements for stability and coordinates contraction of deep and superficial core muscles using both feed-forward and feedback control mechanisms.8,40 In the presence of pain, the relationship between task demand for stability and muscular recruitment becomes disrupted, resulting in delayed trunk-muscle reflex responses and excessive outer-core muscular activation.41−43 Classification systems have been developed to establish the nature of adaptive motor responses in the presence of pain and identify maladaptive motor-control impairments contributing to spinal pain disorders.44,45

Motor adaptation to pain has been demonstrated in athletes with LBP46 and groin pain47 after recovery from a recent occurrence of LBP48 and is observable in patients with recurrent LBP during periods of remission.49 Furthermore, reflex response latencies can preexist within a healthy athletic population, substantially increasing the risk of sustaining an LSI.50 Evidence has suggested that motor adaptation to pain can be influenced through exercise-based intervention. Segmental-stabilization exercises first described by Richardson and Jull51 focus on retraining coordinated cocontraction of the deep trunk muscles through simultaneous isometric cocontraction of the transversus abdominis and multifidus in a static-neutral spine position. Exercise has been shown to effectively restore delayed or reduced activation of the transversus abdominis52 and multifidus,53 with positive effects persisting after cessation of training.54 Despite its scientific foundation and widespread anecdotal support, impaired feed-forward activation of local stabilization muscles in patients with LBP has been challenged.55 Furthermore, evidence also led researchers to question the ability to better influence anticipatory muscle patterning after the performance of segmental-stabilization exercises56 aligned with the preferential effect on pain and dysfunction than after any other form of active exercise.57

The ability to dissociate spinal and appendicular movements provides a static platform for force absorption and transference and is a product of mobility and neuromuscular control of the limbs and maintenance of a static-neutral lumbar position. During sporting activities imparting high loads through the spine, forces need to be distributed evenly to minimize loading of vulnerable tissues in the spine.58,59 The inability to control a neutral position increases the potential for tissue damage, especially during repetitive-loading activities. Clinical tests reliably identify the performance of dissociation tasks under both low- and high-load conditions,60 with movement-control deficits identified in patients with LBP.61 Hodges62 hypothesized that failed load transfer during low-load conditions is primarily due to inadequate motor-skill competence or altered mechanical behavior associated with pain or the threat of pain or injury. Failure under higher loads may be attributed to other factors (eg, insufficient muscular capacity), requiring detailed assessment to establish the nature of the movement-control loss.

During dynamic spinal movement, coordinated neuromuscular control of intersegmental articulation is provided by precise coordination of the surrounding musculature.63 Proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing is critical for performing skills that demand maximum speed to be produced at the end of the distal segment in the kinetic chain, such as kicking or throwing.22 Failed load transfer during segmental motion results in aberrant motor patterns, which hypothetically could result in tissue damage through uneven load distribution and focal tissue stress.45,64 Conversely, changes in motor control in some subgroups with LBP have been associated with a compromised ability to coordinate spinal motion due to excessive aberrant muscular cocontraction, resulting in an inability to perform controlled segmental movements.65 Sequential segmental-control exercises, such as dynamic pelvic tilting, are intended to establish or retrain appropriate muscular recruitment, coordinated dynamic motor control, and proprioceptive awareness.66

Facilitation of skilled motor learning during rehabilitation requires autonomous engagement in the learning process.67 When the participant is motivated to learn a new motor skill, the new task needs to be clearly detailed (eg, through instruction, demonstration).68 In addition, the process must provide neuromuscular challenge through progressive difficulty69 and variability,70 underpinned by regular deliberate practice71 with appropriate knowledge of results and performance related to the task.72

Work Capacity

Work capacity is synonymous with local muscular endurance.73 This can be defined as the ability to produce or tolerate variable intensities and durations of work and contributes to the ability of an athlete to perform efficiently in a given sport.73,74 Work capacity is a training outcome and not a performance outcome. The accumulation of training over many weeks and months results in chronic local adaptation to muscle, tendon, and metabolic biogenesis.75−82 This adaptation increases the ability of the system to produce more work during repeated efforts, allows the local musculature to tolerate or demonstrate resilience to a larger training volume of work,74 and supports the performance of work closer to the intensity and duration required for sporting performance.

By comparison, strength endurance has been described as a performance-outcome test completed in isolation whereby the goal is to achieve a specific amount of work at a given intensity, such as maximum number of repetitions at 50% of 1-repetition maximum or at a specific submaximal load,83−85 with less emphasis placed on the physiologic adaptation required for WC development. The American College of Sports Medicine73 has also defined strength endurance as high-intensity endurance. Therefore, strength endurance can be used as a proxy measure of WC or as a training variable within WC.73

The inability to meet mechanical-loading demands due to insufficient neuromuscular capacity may result in loss of optimal motor control and in biomechanical inefficiency.86 Trunk WC is underpinned by the ability to transfer, absorb, or dissipate repeated or sustained submaximal forces through appropriate strength endurance, providing a platform for the development and performance of specific strength qualities.

A reduction in trunk muscle endurance and changes in endurance ratios have been identified in patients with a history of LBP,87−89 and insufficient abdominal muscular endurance has been identified as a risk factor for injury recurrence.90 Furthermore, structural degeneration of the lumbar musculature in patients with LBP has been characterized by fatty infiltration, muscular atrophy, and fiber-type modification.91,92 Static stabilization (pillar) exercises are frequently prescribed to produce sufficient muscular activation to develop spinal-endurance qualities during rehabilitation.16 Targeted exercise has been shown to improve muscular strength,93 endurance,94 and cross-sectional area.95

Strength

Muscular strength can be defined as the ability to produce force, and maximal strength is the largest force the musculature can produce.96 The RFD has been defined as the rate of rise of contractile force at the beginning of a muscle action and is time dependent.97 The RFD from the trunk musculature can either augment global external power production (dynamic RFD) or protect the spine by “stiffening” against yielding forces (static RFD). The production of force or torque and stiffness depends on morphologic and neurologic factors in the neuromuscular system. Morphologic factors include cross-sectional area, muscle-pennation angle, fascial length, and fiber type.98 Neurologic factors include motor-unit recruitment, firing frequency, motor-unit synchronization, and intermuscular coordination.99

For dynamic RFD and power, a growing body of evidence100,101 has shown that athletes who produce the greatest external power are the most successful in their events. Peak RFD has a strong relationship with peak power and has been used as a proxy measure of peak power.96 Watkins et al102 suggested that the trunk musculature assists in stabilizing and controlling the load response for maximum power during movements, such as the golf swing. During a single movement, maximum power is the greatest instantaneous power for producing maximum velocity of movements, such as striking, kicking, jumping, or throwing.103 All of these tasks require segmental sequential coordination to augment external global power output.

Static RFD or stiffness can be defined as the trunk's ability to resist deformation from yielding forces and maintain spinal posture.104,105 Muscular trunk stiffness requires contractile forces equal to the rate, direction, and magnitude exerted against the trunk to minimize the transmission of force to the spine. The morphologic and neurologic qualities required for appropriate stiffness are similar to those needed for power production.99,106,107 The demand of the task can require the trunk to brace against a rapid RFD under relatively low loads, biasing challenge toward the neurologic system.108 By contrast, a high imparted force also challenges the neurologic system but requires the morphologic qualities of the trunk musculature to produce enough stiffness to protect the stability of the spine.98,109

The association between trunk strength and the presence of LBP remains unclear, with evidence to both support110−113 and contest114,115 the relationship. Despite the suggestion that trunk endurance provides greater prophylactic value,116 strength and power are essential physical requirements for performance in many sports and represent the final stages of exercise progression for athletes during rehabilitation for LSI.18 In addition, failing to redevelop sufficient trunk strength during the rehabilitation process may compromise the ability to maintain spinal integrity on return to sporting activity and increase the risk of injury recurrence.

Objective 2

Objective 2 is the classification of spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes. The classification of exercises was informed by empirical literature (eg, motor control, WC, and strength) and the application of research within clinical practice (eg, mobility development). Exercises were classified according to the objective of the exercise and the intended physical outcome. In addition, exercises were subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal displacement as static (maintenance of a neutral spinal posture with no appreciable segmental displacement) or dynamic (exercises involving appreciable dynamic segmental movement).

Subclassification 1: Functionality

Functional exercises have been described as a continuum of exercises that enable athletes to effectively manipulate their body weight in all planes of movement to achieve optimal athletic performance.20 They are performed in weight-bearing (standing, single-legged standing, squatting, lunging) or sport-specific (multiple planes of motion involving multiple joints) positions. By contrast, nonfunctional exercises are typically performed in partial weight-bearing positions (sitting, kneeling, prone kneeling, lying) across a single plane of motion with movement isolated to fewer joints.117 An advantage of nonfunctional spinal exercises is the ability to influence mechanical loading within specifically targeted muscle groups through the use of gravitational force, lever length (by manipulating body position), and superimposed load.118 Both functional and nonfunctional spinal exercise prescriptions can be used to develop effective interaction (dynamic correspondence119) among physical abilities into sport-specific performance.

Subclassification 2: Spinal Displacement

During athletic activity, spinal function provides a static platform for force absorption and transference or a dynamic contribution to whole-body motion. The need for these abilities depends on the movement demands of the sport, which frequently require both components. During activities that involve high-loading characteristics, the central nervous system uses stiffening strategies by cocontracting the antagonist trunk muscles with little or no appreciable segmental displacement. In contrast, during tasks requiring appreciable dynamic segmental movement, the central nervous system controls this motion through the precision of timing and pattern of muscle activity.12 The ability to dissociate spinal and appendicular motions and perform sequential segmental spinal movement represent 2 discrete skill-based movement competencies.

Spinal-Exercise Classification

The definitive spinal exercise classification (SEC) is summarized in Figure 4. Definitions of each exercise objective and examples of exercises related to each intended physical outcome are displayed in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 11. Exercises can be delineated further by plane of motion or globally targeted muscular contraction (eg, sagittal-plane movement, anterior-chain muscular activation).118

Figure 4. . Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional. a Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.Figure 4. . Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional. a Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.Figure 4. . Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional. a Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.
Figure 4.  Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional. a Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Table 2.  Exercise Objective Definitions Positioned Within Context of Intended Physical Outcome
Table 2. 

Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.

Figure 5. . Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.Figure 5. . Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.Figure 5. . Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.
Figure 5.  Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 6. . Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C, Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).Figure 6. . Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C, Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).Figure 6. . Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C, Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).
Figure 6.  Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C, Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 7. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).Figure 7. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).Figure 7. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).
Figure 7.  Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 8. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning (functional).Figure 8. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning (functional).Figure 8. . Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning (functional).
Figure 8.  Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning (functional).

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 9. . Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).Figure 9. . Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).Figure 9. . Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).
Figure 9.  Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 10. . Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B, morphologic adaptation and, C–H, neurologic adaptation.Figure 10. . Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B, morphologic adaptation and, C–H, neurologic adaptation.Figure 10. . Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B, morphologic adaptation and, C–H, neurologic adaptation.
Figure 10.  Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B, morphologic adaptation and, C–H, neurologic adaptation.

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

Figure 11. . Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).Figure 11. . Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).Figure 11. . Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).
Figure 11.  Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).

Citation: Journal of Athletic Training 51, 8; 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.03

DISCUSSION

Confusion has existed about CS, how it is trained, and its application to functional performance.10 In addition, the most effective exercises for the treatment of LBP remain largely unknown, and researchers have been unable to direct a specific exercise prescription to patients in a given pathologic subgroup. During recent years, investigators have highlighted the complex interactions among anatomical, neurophysiological, and psychosocial factors influencing spinal control. Not synthesizing contemporary evidence can lead to reductionist opinion and unidimensional paradigms of exercise prescription when, in reality, the spine functions across a vast spectrum of movement demands, demonstrating complex interactions among many different modifiable physical abilities.

We used qualitative consensus methods for systematically defining the classification system to ensure acceptability to elite sport practitioners. The 4 phases worked well to ensure challenges to identified themes and subthemes, with conclusions drawn from individuals experienced in sport at the elite level. The definitive SEC consolidates approaches to spinal exercise to develop a practical, conceptual representation of rehabilitation options applicable within a diverse spectrum of musculoskeletal practice. Furthermore, the classification supports multidisciplinary team integration within the rehabilitation process, demonstrating validity for use by strength and conditioning professionals as the athlete transitions toward performance-focused training after injury.

The intention of the SEC is to encourage detailed clinical reasoning, with practitioners identifying specific physical dysfunction or dysfunctions and considering exercise prescription within the context of a clinical diagnosis or the prevailing circumstances (eg, sport-specific performance targets). When determined, targeted exercise objectives define the nature of the exercise prescription required to deliver an intended physical outcome. For practitioners to effectively use the SEC, spinal abilities need to be identified using outcome measures with established measurement properties. Moreover, athletes frequently compensate for suboptimal abilities in various aspects of physical performance. When the process of athlete evaluation identifies multidimensional physical dysfunction, restoration of mobility and fundamental motor control must precede the development of WC and strength.

The SEC provides a platform for further research. Future studies are required to establish patterns of physical dysfunction within specific pathologic subgroups, evaluate the efficacy of exercise prescription in the development of specific physical performance abilities, and assess the effect of targeted exercise within sporting populations that have pathologic conditions. The ability to exhibit a wide breadth of physical abilities enhances performance and supports the capacity to adapt to the variable nature of stress during sporting activity, contributing to the foundation of injury prevention.120

The strengths of our study were the attempts to define a common language; integrate a breadth of literature; and comprehensively evolve and incorporate, rather than replace or discredit, existing theoretical frameworks extrapolated from a rapidly expanding knowledge base. The key limitation of our study was the predominantly national focus of the consensus process, although international experts were included at key stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance of spinal integrity during skilled athletic performance requires precise neuromuscular control to balance task demands for stability and motion. Economy of motion is a function of discrete, interdependent physical abilities. When investigating intrinsic contributions to spinal injury, reductionist approaches may not accurately identify the factors associated with causality and predisposition. Furthermore, comprehensive restoration of physical abilities during rehabilitation is fundamental in attaining optimal athletic performance and mitigating injury risk on return to sporting activity. Exercise specificity forms the basis of targeted adaptation, in which the intended physical outcome must dictate the nature of the exercise prescription. The SEC contextualizes spinal function and provides a basis for clinical reasoning and targeted exercise selection in the prevention and management of spinal injuries in sport.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Ian Crump and Ashleigh Wallace (exploratory panel members) and Andry Vleeming (international expert reviewer) for their technical contributions and the members of EIS physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams for their invaluable support.

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Tall RL,
    DeVault W.
    Spinal injury in sport: epidemiologic considerations. Clin Sports Med. 1993;12(
    3
    ):441–448.
  • 2
    Bono CM.
    Low-back pain in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(
    2
    ):382–396.
  • 3
    Palmer-Green D,
    Fuller C,
    Jaques R,
    Hunter G.
    The Injury/Illness Performance Project (IIPP): a novel epidemiological approach for recording the consequences of sports injuries and illnesses. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp). 2013;2013:523974.
  • 4
    Trainor TJ,
    Trainor MA.
    Etiology of low back pain in athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2004;3(
    1
    ):41–46.
  • 5
    d'Hemecourt PA,
    Gerbino PG,
    Micheli LJ.
    Back injuries in the young athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2000;19(
    4
    ):663–679.
  • 6
    Kibler WB,
    Press J,
    Sciascia A.
    The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports Med. 2006;36(
    3
    ):189–198.
  • 7
    Cook G.
    Baseline sports-fitness testing. In:
    Foran B,
    ed. High-Performance Sports Conditioning: Modern Training for Ultimate Athletic Development.
    Champaign, IL
    :
    Human Kinetics;
    2001:19–47.
  • 8
    Akuthota V,
    Ferreiro A,
    Moore T,
    Fredericson M.
    Core stability exercise principles. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2008;7(
    1
    ):39–44.
  • 9
    Hodges P.
    Transversus abdominis: a different view of the elephant. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(
    12
    ):941–944.
  • 10
    Faries M,
    Greenwood M.
    Core training: stabilizing the confusion. Strength Cond J. 2007;29(
    2
    ):10–25.
  • 11
    Hodges PW.
    Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(
    2
    ):245–254.
  • 12
    Hodges P,
    Cholewicki J.
    Functional control of the spine. In:
    Vleeming A,
    Mooney V,
    Stoeckart R,
    eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;
    2007:489–512.
  • 13
    Lorimer Moseley G. Motor control in chronic pain: new ideas for effective intervention. In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Stoeckart R, eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;
    2007:513–528.
  • 14
    McGill SM.
    The painful and unstable lumbar spine: a foundation and approach for restabilization. In:
    Vleeming A,
    Mooney V,
    Stoeckart R,
    eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;
    2007:529–546.
  • 15
    Stuge B,
    Vøllestad NK.
    Important aspects for efficacy of treatment with specific stabilizing exercises for postpartum pelvic girdle pain. In:
    Vleeming A,
    Mooney V,
    Stoeckart R,
    eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;
    2007:547–562.
  • 16
    Kavcic N,
    Grenier S,
    McGill SM.
    Determining the stabilizing role of individual torso muscles during rehabilitation exercises. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(
    11
    ):1254–1265.
  • 17
    Cook G.
    Mobility and stability testing. In:
    Cook G,
    ed. Athletic Body in Balance: Optimal Movement Skills and Conditioning for Performance.
    Champaign, IL
    :
    Human Kinetics;
    2003:26–38.
  • 18
    McGill S.
    Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance. 3rd ed.
    Waterloo, ON,
    Canada: Wabuno Publishers;2006:277−285.
  • 19
    Hodges PW,
    Gurfinkel VS,
    Brumagne S,
    Smith TC,
    Cordo PC.
    Coexistence of stability and mobility in postural control: evidence from postural compensation for respiration. Exp Brain Res. 2002;144(
    3
    ):293–302.
  • 20
    Boyle M.
    Advances in Functional Training: Training Techniques for Coaches, Personal Trainers and Athletes.
    Aptos, CA
    :
    On Target Publications;
    2010:21–34.
  • 21
    Kondratek M,
    Pepin JK,
    Preston D.
    Effects of hold-relax and active range of motion on thoracic spine mobility. J Int Acad Phys Ther Res. 2012;3(
    2
    ):413–478.
  • 22
    Marshall RN,
    Elliott BC.
    Long-axis rotation: the missing link in proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(
    4
    ):247–254.
  • 23
    Young JL,
    Herring SA,
    Press JM,
    Casazza BA.
    The influence of the spine on the shoulder in the throwing athlete. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 1996;7(
    1
    ):5–17.
  • 24
    Vad VB,
    Bhat AL,
    Basrai D,
    Gebeh A,
    Aspergren DD,
    Andrews JR.
    Low back pain in professional golfers: the role of associated hip and low back range-of-motion deficits. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(
    2
    ):494–497.
  • 25
    Campbell A,
    O'Sullivan P,
    Straker L,
    Elliott B,
    Reid M.
    Back pain in tennis players: a link with lumbar serve kinematics and range of motion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(
    2
    ):351–357.
  • 26
    Lindsay D,
    Horton J.
    Comparison of spine motion in elite golfers with and without low back pain. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(
    8
    ):599–605.
  • 27
    Langevin HM,
    Sherman KJ.
    Pathophysiological model for chronic low back pain integrating connective tissue and nervous system mechanisms. Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(
    1
    ):74–80.
  • 28
    Sahrmann S.
    Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes.
    St Louis, MO
    :
    Mosby;
    2002:12–15.
  • 29
    Cook G,
    Bruton L,
    Kiesel K,
    Rose G,
    Bryant MF.
    Movement: Functional Movement Systems. Screening, Assessment, Corrective Strategies.
    Aptos, CA
    :
    On Target Publications;
    2010:26–28.
  • 30
    Simmonds N,
    Miller P,
    Gemmell H.
    A theoretical framework for the role of fascia in manual therapy. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16(
    1
    ):83–93.
  • 31
    Schleip R,
    Müller DG.
    Training principles for fascial connective tissues: scientific foundation and suggested practical applications. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17(
    1
    ):103–115.
  • 32
    Anderson VB.
    The intra-rater reliability of measured thoracic spine mobility in chronic rotator cuff pathology. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(
    4
    ):314–319.
  • 33
    Heneghan NR,
    Hall A,
    Hollands M,
    Balanos GM.
    Stability and intra-tester reliability of an in vivo measurement of thoracic axial rotation using an innovative methodology. Man Ther. 2009;14(
    4
    ):452–455.
  • 34
    Johnson KD,
    Kim KM,
    Yu BK,
    Saliba SA,
    Grindstaff TL.
    Reliability of thoracic spine rotation range-of-motion measurements in healthy adults. J Athl Train. 2012;47(
    1
    ):52–60.
  • 35
    Kellis E,
    Adamou G,
    Tzilios G,
    Emmanouilidou M.
    Reliability of spinal range of motion in healthy boys using a skin-surface device. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(
    8
    ):570–576.
  • 36
    Battaglia G,
    Bellafiore M,
    Caramazza G,
    Paoli A,
    Bianco A,
    Palma A.
    Changes in spinal range of motion after a flexibility training program in elderly women. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:653–660.
  • 37
    Kuukkanen T,
    Mälkiä E.
    Effects of a three-month therapeutic exercise programme on flexibility in subjects with low back pain. Physiother Res Int. 2000;5(
    1
    ):46–61.
  • 38
    Hodges PW,
    Moseley GL.
    Pain and motor control of the lumbopelvic region: effect and possible mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(
    4
    ):361–370.
  • 39
    van Dieën JH,
    de Looze MP.
    Directionality of anticipatory activation of trunk muscles in a lifting task depends on load knowledge. Exp Brain Res. 1999;128(
    3
    ):397–404.
  • 40
    Diedrichsen J,
    Shadmehr R,
    Ivry RB.
    The coordination of movement: optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14(
    1
    ):31–39.
  • 41
    Silfies SP,
    Squillante D,
    Maurer P,
    Westcott S,
    Karduna AR.
    Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in specific chronic low back pain populations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(
    5
    ):465–473.
  • 42
    van Dieën JH,
    Selen LP,
    Cholewicki J.
    Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(
    4
    ):333–351.
  • 43
    van Dieën JH,
    Cholewicki J,
    Radebold A.
    Trunk muscle recruitment patterns in patients with low back pain enhance the stability of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(
    8
    ):834–841.
  • 44
    O'Sullivan P.
    Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther. 2005;10(
    4
    ):242–255.
  • 45
    Van Dillen LR,
    Sahrmann SA,
    Norton BJ,
    et al.     Reliability of physical examination items used for classification of patients with low back pain. Phys Ther. 1998;78(
    9
    ):979–988.
  • 46
    Hides JA,
    Boughen CL,
    Stanton WR,
    Strudwick MW,
    Wilson SJ.
    A magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the transversus abdominis muscle during drawing-in of the abdominal wall in elite Australian Football League players with and without low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(
    1
    ):4–10.
  • 47
    Cowan SM,
    Schache AG,
    Brukner P,
    et al.     Delayed onset of transversus abdominus in long-standing groin pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(
    12
    ):2040–2045.
  • 48
    Cholewicki J,
    Greene HS,
    Polzhofer GK,
    Galloway MT,
    Shah RA,
    Radebold A.
    Neuromuscular function in athletes following recovery from a recent acute low back injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002;32(
    11
    ):568–575.
  • 49
    D'hooge R,
    Hodges P,
    Tsao H,
    Hall L,
    Macdonald D,
    Danneels L.
    Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23(
    1
    ):173–181.
  • 50
    Cholewicki J,
    Silfies SP,
    Shah RA,
    et al.     Delayed trunk muscle reflex responses increase the risk of low back injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(
    23
    ):2614–2620.
  • 51
    Richardson CA,
    Jull GA.
    Muscle control-pain control: what exercises would you prescribe? Man Ther. 1995;1(
    1
    ):2–10.
  • 52
    Tsao H,
    Hodges PW.
    Immediate changes in feedforward postural adjustments following voluntary motor training. Exp Brain Res. 2007;181(
    4
    ):537–546.
  • 53
    Tsao H,
    Druitt TR,
    Schollum TM,
    Hodges PW.
    Motor training of the lumbar paraspinal muscles induces immediate changes in motor coordination in patients with recurrent low back pain. J Pain. 2010;11(
    11
    ):1120–1128.
  • 54
    Tsao H,
    Hodges PW.
    Persistence of improvements in postural strategies following motor control training in people with recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(
    4
    ):559–567.
  • 55
    Gubler D,
    Mannion AF,
    Schenk P,
    et al.     Ultrasound tissue Doppler imaging reveals no delay in abdominal muscle feed-forward activity during rapid arm movements in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(
    16
    ):1506–1513.
  • 56
    Vasseljen O,
    Unsgaard-Tøndel M,
    Westad C,
    Mork PJ.
    Effect of core stability exercises on feed-forward activation of deep abdominal muscles in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(
    13
    ):1101–1108.
  • 57
    Smith BE,
    Littlewood C,
    May S.
    An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:416.
  • 58
    Adams MA,
    Dolan P.
    How to use the spine, pelvis, and legs effectively in lifting. In:
    Vleeming A,
    Mooney V,
    Stoeckart R,
    eds. Movement, Stability and Lumbopelvic Pain: Integration of Research and Therapy. 2nd ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    Churchill Livingstone Elsevier;
    2007:167–183.
  • 59
    Cholewicki J,
    McGill SM.
    Lumbar posterior ligament involvement during extremely heavy lifts estimated from fluoroscopic measurements. J Biomech. 1992;25(
    1
    ):17–28.
  • 60
    Monnier A,
    Heuer J,
    Norman K,
    Äng BO.
    Inter- and intra-observer reliability of clinical movement-control tests for marines. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:263.
  • 61
    Luomajoki H,
    Kool J,
    de Bruin ED,
    Airaksinen O.
    Movement control tests of the low back: evaluation of the difference between patients with low back pain and healthy controls. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:170.
  • 62
    Hodges PW.
    Pain and motor control: from the laboratory to rehabilitation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011;21(
    2
    ):220–228.
  • 63
    Panjabi MM.
    Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(
    4
    ):371–379.
  • 64
    Harris-Hayes M,
    Van Dillen LR,
    Sahrmann SA.
    Classification, treatment and outcomes of a patient with lumbar extension syndrome. Physiother Theory Pract. 2005;21(
    3
    ):181–196.
  • 65
    Elqueta-Cancino E,
    Schabrun S,
    Danneels L,
    Hodges P.
    A clinical test of lumbopelvic control: development and reliability of a clinical test of dissociation of lumbopelvic and thoracolumbar motion. Man Ther. 2014;19(
    5
    ):418–424.
  • 66
    Brumagne S,
    Lysens R,
    Spaepen A.
    Lumbosacral position sense during pelvic tilting in men and women without low back pain: test development and reliability assessment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29(
    6
    ):345–351.
  • 67
    Higgins S.
    Motor skill acquisition. Phys Ther. 1991;71(
    2
    ):123–139.
  • 68
    Schmidt RA,
    Wrisberg CA.
    Motor Learning and Performance: A Situation-Based Learning Approach. 4th ed.
    Champaign, IL
    :
    Human Kinetics;
    2008:188–217.
  • 69
    Guadagnoli MA,
    Lee TD.
    Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36(
    2
    ):212–224.
  • 70
    Ranganathan R,
    Newell KM.
    Changing up the routine: intervention-induced variability in motor learning. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2013;41(
    1
    ):64–70.
  • 71
    Ericsson K,
    Krampe R,
    Tesch-Römer C.
    The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(
    3
    ):363–406.
  • 72
    Salmoni AW,
    Schmidt RA,
    Walter CB.
    Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(
    3
    ):355–386.
  • 73
    Ratamess NA,
    Alvar A,
    Evetoch TK,
    et al.     American College of Sports Medicine position stand: progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(
    3
    ):687–708.
  • 74
    Siff MC.
    Strength and fitness. In:
    Siff MC,
    ed. Supertraining. 6th ed.
    Denver, CO
    :
    Supertraining Institute;
    2003:32–33.
  • 75
    Van Cutsem M,
    Duchateau J,
    Hainaut K.
    Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training in humans. J Physiol. 1998;513(
    1
    ):295–305.
  • 76
    Connor MK,
    Bezborodova O,
    Escobar CP,
    Hood DA.
    Effect of contractile activity on protein turnover in skeletal muscle mitochondrial subfractions. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(
    5
    ):1601–1606.
  • 77
    Frontera WR,
    Hughes VA,
    Fielding RA,
    Fiatarone MA,
    Evans WJ,
    Roubenoff R.
    Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(
    4
    ):1321–1326.
  • 78
    Langberg H,
    Skovgaard D,
    Asp S,
    Kjaer M.
    Time pattern of exercise-induced changes in type I collagen turnover after prolonged endurance exercise in humans. Calcif Tissue Int. 2000;67(
    1
    ):41–44.
  • 79
    Miller BF,
    Olesen JL,
    Hansen M,
    et al.     Coordinated collagen and muscle protein synthesis in human patella tendon and quadriceps muscle after exercise. J Physiol. 2005;567(
    pt 3
    ):1021–1033.
  • 80
    Kongsgaard M,
    Reitelseder S,
    Pedersen TG,
    et al.     Region specific patellar tendon hypertrophy in humans following resistance training. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2007;191(
    2
    ):111–121.
  • 81
    Burd NA,
    West DW,
    Staples AW,
    et al.     Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men. PLoS One. 2010;5(
    8
    ):e12033.
  • 82
    Gonzalez Castro LN,
    Monsen CB,
    Smith MA.
    The binding of learning to action in motor adaptation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7(
    6
    ):e1002052.
  • 83
    Liu Y,
    Lormes W,
    Wang L,
    Reissnecker S,
    Steinacker JM.
    Different skeletal muscle HSP70 responses to high-intensity strength training and low-intensity endurance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91(
    2−3
    ):330–335.
  • 84
    Naclerio FJ,
    Colado JC,
    Rhea MR,
    Bunker D,
    Triplett NT.
    The influence of strength and power on muscle endurance test performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(
    5
    ):1482–1488.
  • 85
    Jürimäe T,
    Perez-Turpin JA,
    Cortell-Tormo JM,
    et al.     Relationship between rowing ergometer performance and physiological responses to upper and lower body exercises in rowers. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(
    4
    ):434–437.
  • 86
    Borghuis J,
    Hof AL,
    Lemmink KA.
    The importance of sensory-motor control in providing core stability: implications for measurement and training. Sports Med. 2008;38(
    11
    ):893–916.
  • 87
    Salminen JJ,
    Maki P,
    Oksanen A,
    Pentti J.
    Spinal mobility and trunk muscle strength in 15-year-old schoolchildren with and without low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(
    4
    ):405–411.
  • 88
    Bo Andersen L, Wedderkopp N, Leboeuf-Yde C. Association between back pain and physical fitness in adolescents. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(
    15
    ):1740–1744.
  • 89
    McGill S,
    Grenier S,
    Bluhm M,
    Preuss R,
    Brown S,
    Russell C.
    Previous history of LBP with work loss is related to lingering deficits in biomechanical, physiological, personal, psychosocial and motor control characteristics. Ergonomics. 2003;46(
    7
    ):731–746.
  • 90
    Jones MA,
    Stratton G,
    Reilly T,
    Unnithan VB.
    Biological risk indicators for recurrent non-specific low back pain in adolescents. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(
    3
    ):137–140.
  • 91
    Danneels LA,
    Vanderstraeten GG,
    Cambier DC,
    Witvrouw EE,
    De Cuyper HJ.
    CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(
    4
    ):266–272.
  • 92
    D'hooge R,
    Cagnie B,
    Crombez G,
    Vanderstraeten G,
    Dolphens M,
    Danneels L.
    Increased intramuscular fatty infiltration without differences in lumbar muscle cross-sectional area during remission of unilateral recurrent low back pain. Man Ther. 2012;17(
    6
    ):584–588.
  • 93
    Keller A,
    Brox JI,
    Gunderson R,
    Holm I,
    Friis A,
    Reikerås O.
    Trunk muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and density in patients with chronic low back pain randomized to lumbar fusion or cognitive intervention and exercises. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(
    1
    ):3–8.
  • 94
    Durall CJ,
    Udermann BE,
    Johansen DR,
    Gibson B,
    Reineke DM,
    Reuteman P.
    The effects of preseason trunk muscle training on low-back pain occurrence in women collegiate gymnasts. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(
    1
    ):86–92.
  • 95
    Danneels LA,
    Vanderstraeten GG,
    Cambier DC,
    et al.     Effects of three different training modalities on the cross sectional area of the lumbar multifidus muscle in patients with chronic low back pain. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35(
    3
    ):186–191.
  • 96
    Stone MH,
    Sands WA,
    Carlock J,
    et al.     The importance of isometric maximum strength and peak rate-of-force development in sprint cycling. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(
    4
    ):878–884.
  • 97
    Aagaard P,
    Simonsen EB,
    Andersen JL,
    Magnusson P,
    Dyhre-Poulsen P.
    Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002;93(
    4
    ):1318–1326.
  • 98
    Cormie P,
    McGuigan MR,
    Newton RU.
    Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 1. Biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011;41(
    1
    ):17–38.
  • 99
    Cormie P,
    McBride JM,
    McCaulley GO.
    Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the countermovement jump: impact of training. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(
    1
    ):177–186.
  • 100
    Stone MH,
    Sanborn K,
    O'Bryant HS,
    et al.     Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(
    4
    ):739–745.
  • 101
    Nimphius S,
    McGuigan MR,
    Newton RU.
    Relationship between strength, power, speed, and change of direction performance of female softball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(
    4
    ):885–895.
  • 102
    Watkins RG,
    Uppal GS,
    Perry J,
    Pink M,
    Dinsay JM.
    Dynamic electromyographic analysis of trunk musculature in professional golfers. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(
    4
    ):535–538.
  • 103
    Newton RU,
    Kraemer WJ.
    Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength Cond. 1994;16(
    5
    ):20–31.
  • 104
    Graham RB,
    Brown SH.
    A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks. J Biomech. 2012;45(
    9
    ):1593–1600.
  • 105
    Brown SH,
    McGill SM.
    How the inherent stiffness of the in vivo human trunk varies with changing magnitudes of muscular activation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23(
    1
    ):15–22.
  • 106
    Brughelli M,
    Cronin J.
    A review of research on the mechanical stiffness in running and jumping: methodology and implications. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18(
    4
    ):417–426.
  • 107
    Chelly SM,
    Denis C.
    Leg power and hopping stiffness: relationship with sprint running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(
    2
    ):326–333.
  • 108
    Cormie P,
    McGuigan MR,
    Newton RU.
    Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2. Training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011;41(
    2
    ):125–146.
  • 109
    Brown SH,
    McGill SM.
    Muscle force-stiffness characteristics influence joint stability: a spine example. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20(
    9
    ):917–922.
  • 110
    Bayramoğlu M,
    Akman MN,
    Kilinç S,
    Cetin N,
    Yavuz N,
    Ozker R.
    Isokinetic measurement of trunk muscle strength in women with chronic low-back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(
    9
    ):650–655.
  • 111
    McNeill T,
    Warwick D,
    Andersson G,
    Schultz A.
    Trunk strengths in attempted flexion, extension, and lateral bending in healthy subjects and patients with low-back disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980;5(
    6
    ):529–538.
  • 112
    Davarian S,
    Maroufi N,
    Ebrahimi I,
    Farahmand F,
    Parnianpour M.
    Trunk muscles strength and endurance in chronic low back pain patients with and without clinical instability. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2012;25(
    2
    ):123–129.
  • 113
    McGill SM,
    Grenier S,
    Kavcic N,
    Cholewicki J.
    Coordination of muscle activity to assure stability of the lumbar spine. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(
    4
    ):353–359.
  • 114
    Paalanne N,
    Korpelainen R,
    Taimela S,
    Remes J,
    Mutanen P,
    Karppinen J.
    Isometric trunk muscle strength and body sway in relation to low back pain in young adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(
    13
    ):E435–E441.
  • 115
    Renkawitz T,
    Boluki D,
    Grifka J.
    The association of low back pain, neuromuscular imbalance, and trunk extension strength in athletes. Spine J. 2006;6(
    6
    ):673–683.
  • 116
    McGill SM.
    Low back exercises: evidence for improving exercise regimens. Phys Ther. 1998;78(
    7
    ):754–765.
  • 117
    Gambetta V.
    Athletic Development: The Art and Science of Functional Sports Conditioning.
    Champaign, IL
    :
    Human Kinetics;
    2007:3–20.
  • 118
    Floyd RT.
    Basic biomechanical factors and concepts. In:
    Floyd RT,
    ed. Manual of Structural Kinesiology. 19th ed.
    New York, NY
    :
    McGraw-Hill Education;
    2015:69–89.
  • 119
    Siff MC.
    Dynamic correspondence as a means of strength training. In:
    Siff MC,
    ed. Supertraining.
    Denver, CO
    :
    Supertraining Institute;
    2003:240–252.
  • 120
    Glasgow P,
    Bleakley CM,
    Phillips N.
    Being able to adapt to variable stimuli: the key driver in injury and illness prevention? Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(
    2
    ):64–65.
Appendix. Spinal Abilities Underpinning Optimal Function During Skilled Athletic Performance
Appendix.

Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.

<bold>Figure 1. </bold>
Figure 1. 

Flow diagram of consensus process.

<bold>Figure 2. </bold>
Figure 2. 

Conceptual framework underpinning the study methods.

<bold>Figure 3. </bold>
Figure 3. 

Classification of modifiable spinal abilities positioned within the context of physical ability. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional.

<bold>Figure 4. </bold>
Figure 4. 

Spinal-exercise classification with exercise objectives positioned within the context of intended physical outcome. Abbreviations: F, functional; NF, nonfunctional. a Exercise objectives are subclassified by spinal displacement and functionality.

<bold>Figure 5. </bold>
Figure 5. 

Examples of mobility development exercises. A, Flexion. B, Extension. C, Lateral flexion. D, Rotation.

<bold>Figure 6. </bold>
Figure 6. 

Examples of motor control exercises. A, Segmental stabilization (nonfunctional). B, Spinal dissociation (nonfunctional). C, Spinal dissociation (functional). D, Segmental movement control (nonfunctional). E, Whole-body coordination (functional).

<bold>Figure 7. </bold>
Figure 7. 

Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Pillar conditioning (nonfunctional). C–E, Pillar conditioning (functional).

<bold>Figure 8. </bold>
Figure 8. 

Examples of work capacity exercises. A and B, Segmental conditioning (nonfunctional). C and D, Segmental conditioning (functional).

<bold>Figure 9. </bold>
Figure 9. 

Example of strength exercises: A and B, pillar strength development (nonfunctional).

<bold>Figure 10. </bold>
Figure 10. 

Example of strength exercises: Stiffness development (functional). Note that the exercise selection is biased toward, A and B, morphologic adaptation and, C–H, neurologic adaptation.

<bold>Figure 11. </bold>
Figure 11. 

Example of strength exercises: A–F, power development (functional).

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Simon Spencer, MSc, BSc (Hons), MCSP, The English Institute of Sport, Lilleshall National Sports Centre, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 9AT, United Kingdom. Address e-mail to simon.spencer@eis2win.co.uk.
  • Download PDF