all posts post new thread

Old Forum Hip extension past 180 degrees in swings

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

BrianH

Level 1 Valued Member
Why do we fire the glutes and abs to stop the movement of swings with the hips extended to 180 degrees (in line with the body)?  It seems that going past 180 degrees gives a fuller range of motion and elongates the hip flexors in a way that makes sense to the body neurologically.  Assuming you can keep your legs straight and spine in a neutral position, you still get a maximal contraction of the glutes that gets balanced by increased ab activation to stabilize the spine as the torso leans back, so it seems to give similar muscle and coordination benefits with the advantage of an increased ROM.

Thoughts?
 
Brian, Simple and Sinister instructs the hips to fully extend.

-S-
 
Getting to zero - straight line from ear to ankle is the goal

almost impossible to go beyond that and not torque the back
 
Brett, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is possible to "turn under" the hips maximally as if on a skewer pushed through from the side while not allowing the body's center to move forward of a vertical line from head to toe.  This is my idea of full hip extension and full rectus ab activation while maintaining good form.

IOW, fully extending the hips and maintaining a straight line from ear to ankle aren't mutually exclusive.

Thank you in advance.

-S-
 
Steve,

I'm not talking about going into a posterior tilt with the pelvis (think of the pelvis as a bowl and pouring water out the back), which is what I understand you to be describing.  I'm talking about pushing the pelvis as far forward as I can in the swing while keeping the weight on the heels.  It ends up activating the same muscles as you would in a forceful posterior tilt, but with a greater range of motion.  The glutes fire to get the maximal range of motion, and the torso will incline backwards but without arching the back (so the incline comes from the hip joints and not the waist).  Supporting the neutral spine while leaning back combined with countering the stretch in the hip flexors is what causes the abs to fire.

Brett,

I don't agree that going beyond 180 without torquing the back is almost impossible, or even particularly difficult if you have a good base level of strength and body awareness, although I do agree it would fall somewhere between "challenging" and "insane" to try it with an untrained person off the street.

Other than a somewhat higher risk if you do it wrong and for ease of teaching, are there other reasons to do the movement as prescribed rather than with the extended range of motion?

Thanks,
B-
 
Brian, I agree w/ Brett.  What you are suggesting is not good and I would not do it.

=S=
 
Just to clarify, when I say taking the pelvis forward "as far forward as I can", for me that ends up being about 2 inches-- so I'm not talking about doing rythmic gymnastics with kettlebells, or anything...
 
Steve,

Are you referring to a posterior tilt?

Brian,

I need a video of your swing using this "technique".

I still stand by the idea that extending the hips beyond the "straight line from ear to ankle" is difficult to impossible to do without stressing the lower back.

I look forward to the video.
 
Brett, for me, the finish of the swing is body aligned straight up and down - hips in line, not forward - but maximum posterior pelvic tilt.  So, yes, "turn the hips under" means posterior pelvic tilt to me.

Brian, what you're describing just sounds like your abs aren't firing.  Glutes contracted without abs results in what you're describing but fire both and you get what Brett and I are suggesting.

Thank you.

-S-
 
Steve,

If you stand with your knees straight (knee caps pulled up) and fire your glutes then it should be nearly impossible to posterior tilt - you will get "level" but I have seen no one that can posterior tilt without some compensation (knees bending, "getting shorter" etc...)

Posterior tilting is not "desirable" during the swing IMO
 
Brett, the distinctions here are lost on me.   I suspect I am using the terms differently than you are, and I would like to understand how you're using them.  My simple understanding of hip anatomy goes like this:

When I stand, if I don't do anything special, I'm a little sway-backed.  If I fire my glutes and my abs, I fix those problems and feel like I'm standing straighter, and to achieve this, I am making an effort to tilt my pelvis posteriorly from where it otherwise would be.  My mental image is a skewer through sides my hips - I rotate on that skewer posteriorly to correct a sway-backed posture.

It sounds like you're talking about measuring whether or not my pelvis is past a certain point that you define as neutral.   I imagine four possible points of pull on my pelvis - up in the front, down in the front, up in the back, down in the back.  I use abs to pull up in the front, and glutes to pull down in the back.  If I only contracted the abs, my butt would stick out behind me; if I only contracted the glutes, I'd be sway-backed.

Please correct any misunderstandings I may have demonstrated here, both in anatomy and in the proper use of terms like posteriorly-tilted pelvis.

I thank you very much for your time.

-S-
 
Steve,

What feels like posterior to you is likely going from slightly anterior tilt to a level position - you moved a little posterior but just got to level (since you started anterior)

yes I said the same thing twice there - just stated slightly differently

it all depends on where you are starting - ie: your "neutral"

using your terms -

up in the front which is the same as down in the back = posterior tilt

Down in the front which is the same as up in the back = anterior tilt
 
I would like to thank Brett for taking the time to answer so many question as he does. You deserve your own thread really. But thanks, I always learn something from you.
 
Brett, saying "same thing twice there – just stated slightly differently" is a very good teaching technique.

Thanks - much appreciated.

-S-
 
A new term for me but, after reading about it just now, I think you're right about what I'm experiencing, Pavel.

My guess is that this counternutation of the sacrum is one of the things that happens when, e.g., we look at the back of an Olympic lifter deep in the hole of a squat.   And it's one of the things people are talking about when they say a flat back as opposed to trying to preserve normal standing lourdosis at rock bottom.  Counternutation of the sacrum seems like it must also move, since they're attached, at least the bottom of the lumbar spine.

Is any of this even vaguely correct?

-S-
 
Sacral movements are pretty small - 2 to 4 millimeters of slide and 1 to 3 degrees of rotation
it accompanies pelvic motion and can initiate from top to bottom or bottom to top making nutation and counter-nutation pretty confusing (to me at least)

so if its enough motion to change the level of the pelvis it would be beyond just nutation/counter-nutation of the sacrum - yes?

 

 
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom