I'll be happy to explain it further to you, but first of all let me say that no, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing now.
One thing to read is a fairly recent article by Mike Robertson called, I think "the mobility/stability continuum", or something to that effect. He kind of addresses some of the confusion that has come about recently but of course Mike Boyle, Eric Cressey, Hartman, Gray Cook....are great sources of info on this short of a kineseology and kinematics textbook
Anyway there is always a tradeoff between mobility and stability. I guess I should try to make clear in your mind what those two things really are in simple terms.
For mobility lets ASSUME that flexibility goes into that, even though flexibilty and mobility are NOT the same exact thing. Flexibiltiy is the ability of a muscle to change lengths. Stretch, basically. MOBILITY is simply movement, or the abiltiy of a joint to move. There are more factors other than JUST flexibility that effects this, right? Like a joint can just be restricted and tight on it's on. And there is even more to it than that, from a kinematic standpoint.
Stabibility should be self explanatory (I know you know all this stuff but...) let's simply say that it is the abiltiy to maintain a fixed postion in space...a STABLE position.
So, think about this. Why is it someone can go low a back or front squat and be sable throughout the entire range of motion but make them hold something overhead and they can no longer do that? How much of that is flexibility, for instance, of the thoracic region and the shoulders, etc...and how much is stability...the core muscular, the hips, the lower back...everything required to hold that position with the weigths overhead?
Remember when Andrew told you the OH squat thing had nothing to do with weight and I got annoyed by that? Well, that is because of mobility versus stability. You may have the mobility and stability to take a five pound wooden rod and overhead squat it but a 45 pound bar requires more stability. It doesn't matter how flexible you are if it's too heavy to stabilize. Of COURSE the weight has something to do with it. It ALWAYS does.
OK, so to get into a new position requires both new mobility and new stability. Right? But why is it easier to gain the mobility FIRST and then add the stability? Becasue if an area you require flexiblity and mobility in is too tight, than another area that is supposed to be stabilizing has to give in order to achieve the range of motion.
That might be confusing even though it's in very simplified terms (we both know it's more complicated) so let me give an example of what I mean. I explained this in someones journal not to long ago.
Say you are trying to do hip extensions. You know, "hyperextensions" which I call hip extensions. Say your hamstrings are tight and you lack range of motion in you hips. But you are trying to keep the lower back set and the upper body fully extended, right? So what happens when you reach the end of that limited range of motion in the hips but you want to go lower? The lower back has to flex, right? The lumbar muscles have to stretch to allow any more range of motion. So if you KEEP on doing that trying to go lower WHILE maintaining a nicely set lower back it is going to be a battle between the mobility you want and the stability you want. Is this making sense?
If you go into is already with the hip mobility you need, then the lower back doesn't have to take over for the range of motion thus allowing it to stabilize and build static endurance. It's like this with anything. So simply speaking, if you can achieve a degree of mobility while allowing for external stability (something propping you up, etc...) it will be much easier to then allow the stabilizing muscles to do their job once a load is added. And even a little load changes everything when it comes to stability, right? Because your center of gravity changes.
Does any of this help explain it?
No comments:
Post a Comment