Kettlebell Snatches and torso rotation

[rickyw]

Having studied many examples of other folks squat and swing and seeing how straightened out the lumbar becomes in most cases, I still find values in the 20°-30 ° range very much believable.

I find the values believable as well. Just not ideal for back health. And not within a neutral zone.

I read the latest research article you posted. It is of interest that the lumbar spine flattened out a bit with the bar loaded on the subjects backs, but I find at least two possible confounding variables for this. One is that when you place a barbell on your back, you jut your head forward somewhat more than you otherwise would. Forward head posture rounds the low back. Two, there is no mention in the article of the subjects pelvic posture. If they stand generally with anterior pelvic tilt, then they may actually be standing in slight lumbar extension. When you place a bar on their backs, the abs engage, tilting the pelvis and in turn the spine into a neutral stance. So what the researchers are measuring as flexion with a bar on their backs is really neutral. But then again it may be that the low back does flatten out in standing load. So, repeat the study, with front squats, and make sure the subjects are standing in neutral posture to begin with.

Most telling is the picture of the woman in a deep squat position with what is clearly a flexed lumbar spine.

In the study, it states they let subjects squat as deep as they would like and that the actual technique or depth of the squat was not limited or controlled. It also states that all subjects squatted deep enough that the thighs were below parallel. A lot of people don't have the hip mobility to get that deep in a back squat without flexing the lumbar spine. Repeat the study and tell the subjects to try and maintain a neutral spine through the entire move. I can squat that deep too and I know my low back rounds. I don't have the hips for deep squatting.

It's an interesting study. But if I were doing research I would do multiple studies similar to it and swap out different variables. I would use front squats to keep the chin from jutting. I would place sensors on the PSIS and ASIS of the pelvis on each side and coach subjects to find pelvic neutral first. Then I would base my initial lumbar measurement off what my sensors are telling me with the pelvis in a neutral position, with both back squats and front squats. Then I would tell the subjects to try and maintain a neutral spine while squatting, instead of going to a depth they were "comfortable" with. My guess is if these variables were tweaked, the flexion numbers would be less.

There is actually a lot of interesting research that could be done on this.

Again, my point isn't that this is a non-issue but that its a conceptual target and very few people maintain the neutral spine as effectively as they might think.

I agree.

Maybe we just need to agreeably disagree about the range of a neutral zone. But thanks for the discussion!

 

[Anna C]

In the study, it states they let subjects squat as deep as they would like and that the actual technique or depth of the squat was not limited or controlled. It also states that all subjects squatted deep enough that the thighs were below parallel. A lot of people don't have the hip mobility to get that deep in a back squat without flexing the lumbar spine. Repeat the study and tell the subjects to try and maintain a neutral spine through the entire move. I can squat that deep too and I know my low back rounds. I don't have the hips for deep squatting.

Based on my experience coaching people this year age 18-55, I would disagree with this. It's a matter of finding the right movement pattern and coaching the right movement in the lifter. The keys to a below parallel squat with minimal lumbar movement are: starting with the optimal stance, getting the hips way back, bending over (facing the chest to the floor), shoving the knees out, maintaining the spinal erectors active throughout the squat, and having a solid brace in the torso by taking a big breath and holding it before the squat and contracting the abdominal muscles really hard as if bracing for a punch. I think the vast majority of people can do it with proper coaching.

 

[rickyw]

@Anna C , that’s fair. And I probably could go below parallel in a back squat personally. But way low like you see some guys do without rounding the back-I don’t think I could. I should have been more specific.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I believe its a couple of factors.
Ankle mobility, hip mobility, understanding movement patterns to push the knees out and make room for deeper squat. There is some genetics involved.

But I also see that the "neutral" lumbar is a range, and this range is a moving target. At the bottom of a pistol most folks will not have anywhere near the lordosis they had when standing - it isn't even possible.
Can you perform this and still have a bit of extension or at worst a dead flat lumbar? Certainly, but that's a lot of degrees stacking up. Either way it seems to only be a huge issue when large loads are involved or high number of cycles in short period of time. If you're going to push the load you had better understand where your mechanics fit in the spectrum, and then evaluate the need.

Personally I DO believe most people can be taught (if motivated!!) to perform a below parallel squat and maintain at bare minimum a flat lumbar, if not a touch of extension. I'm not convinced it is important enough to push it, a parallel or even slightly above parallel squat will pay pay big dividends for GPP if it comes down to that, or not at all.

This has been a great discussion - the kind that challenges me to dig into the literature and square it with experience. One of the coolest things about this forum.