stupid fruity personal trainers
I was talking with a research postgrad in human movement (sports sciences) about studies they were doing. They quite regularly do these sort of squats on fitballs as part of an experiment. Apparently they are able to overload the CNS and have people build up the skill level to be able to do this in one session.
But then again these were the same people that pulled in engineers as biomechanics experts (they are meant to be the experts not the engineers) and ended up being advised by the engineers about proper scientific methods.
Eric Cressey published a paper recently from his masters on unstable surface training. Good read and pretty much points out how stupid and dangerous his stuff is for little reward.
Not the one I was searching for, but gives you the idea.Originally Posted by Hater
The one I was looking for had the guy with the barbell on its end before cleaning and pressing it to the back of the shoulder. TO get off the barbell he would get into the bottom position and then just roll off onto the ground.
Anderson KG, Behm DG. Maintenance of EMG activity and loss of force output with instability. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Aug;18(3):637-40.
Swiss Balls used as a platform for training provide an unstable environment for force production. The objective of this study was to measure differences in force output and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps, latissimus dorsi, and rectus abdominus for isometric and dynamic contractions under stable and unstable conditions. Ten healthy male subjects performed a chest press while supported on a bench or a ball. Unstable isometric maximum force output was 59.6% less than under stable conditions. However, there were no significant differences in overall EMG activity between the stable and unstable protocols. Greater EMG activity was detected with concentric vs. eccentric or isometric contractions. The decreased balance associated with resistance training on an unstable surface may force limb musculature to play a greater role in joint stability. The diminished force output suggests that the overload stresses required for strength training necessitate the inclusion of resistance training on stable surfaces.
You do tend to see more muscle activation in movements with submaximal forces. Ie, think of the person rehabbing from knee surgery doing weightless lunges as part of his rehab, using either stable or unstable surfaces. A moderate degree of instability may also have some benefit in certain exercises (ie, think of bicep curls on a swiss ball, verses seated on a bench). This exercise doesn't require too much of a balancing component, and thus offers some increased core activation. It also has benefit for exercises such as perhaps doing crunches on a ball, verses a floor. But exercises with extreme balance (this is certainly one of them, if not a perfect example) serve no purpose at all.
^^ A difficult feat none the less and a great display of control. I used that exact same study for a journal review this last semester. It is my favorite place to get info.
Here is my question...Do you think that a squat with 135 in an unstable environment recruits more muscle as a whole than 135 in a stable environment for the same amount of reps?
obviously not. but if you can squat 135lb on a ball, your far better served challenging yourself further with real weight on a stable surface as the muscle fiber recruitment and load on your legs will be far greater thus illiciting greater strength and size gains. it's hard no doubt, but it's like comparing an arnold press to a military press. one is "neat" and gimmicky but still works the muscle, but the other (the military press) allows you to train your delts to the maximum of their cabilities and serves the participant much better in the strength and size departments. and i don't know about you, but that's my motivation for training.
^^ Agreed. I dont ever do this type of training because it is not specific to my goals. Stability training is really the base of the NASM principles. When I got my NASM cert is when I was really opened up to stuff like this. While muscles recruitment in the quadriceps and glutes isnt going to be as high, there are many "go" muscles involved in the movement. One of the ideas behind it is that the more muscles you can get involved in a movement, the more calories you burn and the more efficient you become in the gym. This does not necessarily apply to the example above but to more basic stability training in general.
and it's this reasoing to try to "kill two birds with one stone" in your workout that i disagree with. if your goal is fat loss, hit the weights, and then put a lot of focus on your cardio, don't be essentially lazy and try to combine it all in one. your robbing yourself of what your body is cabale of and kind of being lazy in a way imo. i agree that what this guy is doing is in no way easy, but it's a waste of time compared to other excersises that are available. if you want to train your legs and your core, do some squats, and then hit the ab room. don't short change both bodyparts because your trying to kill two birds with one stone.