ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (2007) 11, 194–198
SELF-MANAGEMENT: CLINICIAN SECTION
A modern approach to abdominal training$
Craig Liebenson
L.A. Sports and Spine, 10474 Santa Monica Building, #202 Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA
Received 20 April 2007; accepted 23 April 2007
Introduction
Active care is a benchmark in the management of
low back conditions. Unfortunately, voluntary ex-
ercise often perpetuates faulty movement patterns
or abnormal motor control (AMC). This series of
articles will describe how to train the abdominals
and ensure that patients are performing their
exercises without AMC.
The sit-up is a classic example of an exercise
myth. The sit-up places high compressive load on
the disc (McGill, 2006, 2007). It usually involves a
posterior pelvic tilt which unnecessarily exacer-
bates disc load (Hickey and Hukins, 1980). Also, it is
frequently performed early in the morning which is
a time of high risk for annular injury (Adams and
Self-Management: Clinician Section
Hutton, 1985). Better and safer abdominal exer-
cises exist which will be described in this series of
papers.
Are specific patterns of muscle
co-activation necessary?
Whether the goal is preventive, injury recovery,
rehabilitation, or performance enhancement good
‘‘core’’ fitness is a must. Muscles stabilize joints by
stiffening like rigging on a ship (Fig. 1). According
$
This paper may be photocopied for educational use.
Tel.: +1 310 470 2909; fax: +1 310 470 3286.
E-mail address: cldc@flash.net
1360-8592/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2007.04.007
Journal of
Bodywork and
Movement Therapies
www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jbmt
to Cholewicki and McGill (1996) spine stability is
greatly enhanced by co-contraction (or co-activation)
of antagonistic trunk muscles. Co-contractions
increase spinal compressive load, as much as
12–18% or 440 N, but they increase spinal stability
even more by 36–64% or 2925 N (Granata and
Marras, 2000). They have been shown to occur
during most daily activities (Marras and Mirka,
1990). This mechanism is present to such an extent
that without co-contractions the spinal column is
unstable even in upright postures! (Gardner-Morse
and Stokes, 1998).
Co-contractions are most obvious during reac-
tions to unexpected or sudden loading (Lavender
et al., 1989). Involuntary coordination of ‘‘core’’
muscles has been found to be correlated to back
pain. Researchers at Yale University have shown
that a specific motor control signature of delayed
agonist-antagonistic muscle activation predicts
which asymptomatic people will later develop low
back pain (LBP) (Cholewicki et al., 2005). In
particular, what was found was longer muscle
response latencies to perturbation in the ‘‘at risk’’
group than those in healthy control subjects.
Marras et al. (2005) have reported that there is a
different pattern of antagonist muscle co-activation
(kinematic ability) in LBP individuals than in
asymptomatics. Patients were found to have great-
er spine load and greater kinematic compromise
during lifting tasks. Altered kinematics were
strongly related to spine load, being able to predict
87% of the variability in compression, 61% in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A modern approach to abdominal training
Figure 1 Mast-rigging stability model.
anteroposterior shear, and 65% in lateral shear. The
kinematic picture for the LBP individual showed
excessive levels of antagonistic muscle co-activation
which reduced trunk motion, but also increased
spine loading.
Ironically, when the spine is under load it is best
stabilized, but when ‘‘surprised’’ by trivial load at a
vulnerable time such as in the morning or after
prolonged sitting the spine stability system is most
dysfunctional (Adams and Dolan, 1995). Inappropri-
ate muscle activation patterns during seemingly
trivial tasks (only 60 N of force) such as bending
over to pick up a pencil can compromise spine
stability and potentiate buckling of the passive
ligamentous restraints (Andersson and Winters,
1990). This motor control skill has also been shown
to be more compromised under challenging aerobic
circumstances (McGill et al., 1995).
Australian researchers have demonstrated that a
delayed activation of the transverse abdominus
muscle during arm or leg movements has been
found to distinguish LBP patients from asympto-
matic individuals (Hodges and Richardson, 1998,
1999). However, according to Canadian scientists
focusing on a single muscle is like focusing on a
single guy wire (Kavcic et al., 2004). Research from
the University of Waterloo in Canada has found that
while certain muscles such as multifidus and
transverse abdominus may have special relevance
in distinguishing LBP subjects from asymptomatic
individuals that these muscles are part of a much
bigger orchestra responsible for spinal stability
195
(Kavcic et al., 2004). They demonstrated that
different muscles played greater or lesser roles
depending on the activity/exercise.
Sufficient stability, according to McGill, is defined
as the amount of muscle stiffness necessary for
stability along with a safety margin (McGill, 2006,
2007). Cholewicki et al. (1997) showed that modest
levels of co-activation are necessary, but if a joint
has lost its stiffness greater amounts of co-activation
are needed.
How effective is abdominal training?
Specific spinal stabilization exercises have been
shown to reduce future recurrences following an
acute LBP episode (Hides et al., 2001). Specific
spine stabilization exercises achieved superior
outcomes to isotonic exercises in chronic patients
with spondylolysthesis (O’Sullivan et al., 1997).
One study that compared McGill’s ‘‘general’’
stabilization exercise approach to the Australian
‘‘deep’’ local stabilization training demonstra-
ted that the ‘‘general’’ approach was superior
(Koumantakis et al., 2005).
Stuge et al. (2004) found that stabilizing exercises
were superior to traditional physical therapy for
pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy. The stabilization
group had lower pain intensity, disability, higher
quality of life, and less impairments. The results
persisted at 1-year check post-partum.
Yilmaz et al. (2003) administered an 8-week
stabilization program to post-operative lumbar
microdiscectomy patients. It was compared to
home exercise and to no exercise. At the 12th
week superior results were achieved in pain,
function, mobility, and lifting ability for the
stabilization group. Supervised stabilization train-
Self-Management: Clinician Section
ing was superior to home exercises which was
superior to no exercise.
Assessment of motor control during
abdominal training
There are a few fundamental components neces-
sary to optimize motor control during abdominal
stabilization training. They are the abdominal
brace (AB), neutral spine posture, normal respira-
tion, and the sternal crunch. Avoiding AMC during
abdominal stabilization training is crucial to main-
taining ‘‘sufficient stability’’.
The abdominal brace
In assessing AMC the first criteria is achieving
stiffness via pre-contraction or performing an AB.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
196
Figure 2 The abdominal brace.
Co-contractions have been shown to occur auto-
matically in response to unexpected or sudden
loading (Lavender et al., 1989; Marras et al., 1987).
Stokes et al. (2000) has described how there are
basically two mechanisms by which this co-activa-
tion occurs. One is a voluntary pre-contraction to
stiffen and thus dampen the spinal column when
faced with unexpected perturbations. The second
is an involuntary, reflex contraction of the muscles
quick enough to prevent excessive motion that
would lead to buckling following either expected or
Self-Management: Clinician Section
unexpected perturbations (Cresswell et al., 1994;
Lavender et al., 1989; Marras et al., 1987; Stokes
et al., 2000; Wilder et al., 1996).
This can be achieved by having a patient perform
a dead bug or bird dog and then ‘‘brace’’. While the
patient performs an AB the clinician offers slow and
then quick perturbations in different planes while
asking the patient to maintain their posture. The
patient can pretend they are about to be pushed or
hit and they will ‘‘automatically’ brace (see Fig. 2).
Neutral spine posture
The second criteria for spine stability is maintai-
nance of a ‘‘neutral spine’’ or normal lumbar
lordosis. Many patients perform posterior pelvic
tilts which actually places the lumbo-sacral spine in
flexion and thus can potentially harm the disc via
C. Liebenson
end-range loading in flexion. The ‘‘neutral zone is
the inner region of a joint’s range of motion (ROM)
where minimal resistance to motion is encountered
(Panjabi, 1992).
Disc herniation has been shown to be related to
repeated flexion motion, especially (Callaghan and
McGill, 2001) if coupled with lateral bending and
twisting (Adams and Hutton, 1985). This was
supported by the work of Hickey and Hukins
(1980) who demonstrated the protective function
of lumbar lordosis on the disc. According to McGill
(2006) ‘‘Because ligaments are not recruited
when lordosis is preserved, nor is the disc bent, it
appears that the annulus is at low risk for failure.’’
Normal respiration
When performing the AB with neutral spine posture
(e.g. slight lumbar lordosis) it is important that the
normal respiration is maintained. The tendency
when performing an AB and resisting perturbations
is to hold the breath or chest breathe. Simple
cueing to continue breathing normally is usually all
that is required. The best cue is to say ‘‘breathe
and brace’’.
Practice-based problem
Won’t abdominal bracing encourage chest
breathing?
Yes, it can. However, the patient is encour-
aged to breathe horizontally in 3601 around
the abdomen and rib cage rather than verti-
cally by lifting the chest to breathe in.
A valuable cue is to open the ribs laterally
like an accordion.
McGill et al. (1995) recommends that patients AB
during both phases of respiration rather than only
during exhalation. Typical gym training advice to
exhale with exertion does not make sense in sports
or work demands since stability must be ensured as
endurance challenges are faced.
Sternal crunch
A novel approach to achieving stronger co-activa-
tion of all abdominal wall muscles is to observe the
position of the anterior chest wall (Kolar, 2007).
A cephalad position which can be thought of as an
‘‘inhalation’’ position is inhibitory of the normal
diaghragmatic function. It is noted that the
thoraco–lumbar (T/L) junction is hyperlordotic
and the diaphragm is oblique in this position (see
Fig. 3). Ideally, a caudal anterior chest position is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A modern approach to abdominal training 197

Figure 5 Incorrect sternal crunch with a posterior pelvic

Figure 3 Inhalation position of the sternum and ante- tilt.
rior–inferior chest wall which inhibits diaphragmatic
function.

Figure 4 The ideal, neutral spine, sternal crunch.

facilitated which is the ‘‘exhalation’’ position. In

this case, the T/L junction is more neutral and the
diaphragm is ‘‘centrated’’ in a horizontal position
(see Fig. 4). The ‘‘exhalation’’ position is believed
to be facilitory of the abdominal wall since active
exhalation is produced by the abdominal muscles.

Practice-based problem
Won’t the sternal crunch remove the lumbar

Self-Management: Clinician Section

lordosis?
Yes it can. However, it should not since the
key is to mobilize the rib cage inferiorly and
posteriorly WITHOUT altering the lumbo-sacral
posture (e.g. lordosis). If the patient combines
the sternal crunch with a posterior pelvic tilt
this should be discouraged (see Fig. 5).
Figure 6 The overhead arm reach on a foam roll—(a)
incorrect inhalation position and (b) correct exhalation
position.
should be reminded to maintain normal respiration
throughout the duration of the exercise.

The overhead arm reach on a foam roll is an Conclusion

excellent training exercise for the abdominal wall.
The patient should be able to maintain a sternal
crunch while moving the arms overhead (see
Fig. 6). This should be performed without T/L
hyperlordosis and without a posterior pelvic tilt.
The clinician would initially cue the patient for
spinal stiffness, and thus an AB, by offering light
perturbations of the torso in a transverse plane
twisting direction. Last but not least, the patient
In a nutshell, abdominal exercises are commonly
prescribed to prevent and treat lower back pain as
well as to build overall fitness. Certain myths
should be dispelled about this subject regarding
sit-ups, morning exercise, the posterior pelvic tilt,
the transverse abdominis, exhaling with exertion,
etc. The role of maintaining a ‘‘neutral spine’’ and
performing an AB should be understood. The next
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
198
two articles in this series will review more detail
about the basics of assessment and training of the
abdominal wall.
References
Adams, M.A., Dolan, P., 1995. Recent advances in lumbar spine
mechanics and their clinical significance. Clinical Biomecha-
nics 10, 3–19.
Adams, M.A., Hutton, W.C., 1985. Gradual disc prolapse. Spine
10, 524–531.
Andersson, G.B.J., Winters, J.M., 1990. Role of muscle in
postural tasks: spinal loading and postural stability. In:
Winters, J.M., Woo, S.L.-Y. (Eds.), Multiple Muscle Systems.
Springer, New York, pp. 375–395 (Chapter 23).
Callaghan, J., McGill, S.M., 2001. Intervertebral disc herniation:
studies on a porcine spine exposed to highly repetitive
flexion/extension motion with compressive force. Clinical
Biomechanics 16, 28–37.
Cholewicki, J., McGill, S.M., 1996. Mechanical stability of the in
vivo lumbar spine: implications for injury and chronic low
back pain. Clinical Biomechanics 11 (1), 1–15.
Cholewicki, J., Panjabi, M.M., Khachatryan, A., 1997. Stabilizing
function of the trunk flexor–extensor muscles around a
neutral spine posture. Spine 22, 2207–2212.
Cholewicki, J., Silfies, S.P., Shah, R.A., et al., 2005. Delayed
trunk muscle reflex responses increase the risk of low back
injuries. Spine 30 (23), 2614–2620.
Cresswell, A.G., Oddsson, L., Thorstensson, A., 1994. The
influence of sudden perturbations on trunk muscle activity
and intraabdominal pressure while standing. Experimental
Brain Research 98, 336–341.
Gardner-Morse, M.G., Stokes, I.A.F., 1998. The effects of
abdominal muscle coactivation on lumbar spine stability.
Spine 23, 86–92.
Granata, K.P., Marras, W.S., 2000. Cost-benefit of muscle
cocontraction in protecting against spinal instability. Spine
25, 1398–1404.
Hickey, D.S., Hukins, D.W.L., 1980. Relation between the
structure of the annulus fibrosis and the function and failure
of the intervertebral disc. Spine 5, 106–116.
Hides, J.A., Jull, G.A., Richardson, C.A., 2001. Long-term
Self-Management: Clinician Section
effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low
back pain. Spine 26, e243–e248.
Hodges, P.W., Richardson, C.A., 1998. Delayed postural contrac-
tion of the transverse abdominus associated with movement
of the lower limb in people with low back pain. Journal of
Spinal Disorders 11, 46–56.
Hodges, P.W., Richardson, C.A., 1999. Altered trunk muscle
recruitment in people with low back pain with upper limb
movements at different speeds. Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation 80, 1005–1012.
C. Liebenson
Kavcic, N., Grenier, S., McGill, S.M., 2004. Determining the
stabilizing role of individual torso muscles during rehabilita-
tion exercises. Spine 29, 1254–1265.
Kolar, P., 2007. Facilitation of agonist–antagonist co-activation
by reflex stimulation methods. In: Liebenson, C. (Ed.), Re-
habilitation of the Spine: A Practitioner’s Manual. Lippincott/
Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia.
Koumantakis, G.A., Watson, P.J., Oldham, J.A., 2005. Trunk
muscle stabilization training versus general exercise only:
randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low
back pain. Physical Therapy 85, 209–225.
Lavender, S.A., Mirka, G.A., Schoenmarklin, R.W., Sommerich,
C.M., Sudhakar, L.R., Marras, W.S., 1989. The effects of
preview and task symmetry on trunk muscle response to
sudden loading. Human Factors 31, 101–115.
Marras, W.S., Mirka, G.A., 1990. Muscle activities during
asymmetric trunk angular accelerations. Journal of Ortho-
paedic Research 8, 824–832.
Marras, W.S., Ferguson, S.A., Burr, D., Davis, K.G., Gupta, P.,
2005. Functional Impairment as a Predictor of Spine Loading.
Spine 30, 729–737.
Marras, W.S., Rangarajulu, S.L., Lavender, S.A., 1987. Trunk
loading and expectation. Ergonomics 30, 551–562.
McGill, S.M., 2006. Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance,
second ed. Wabunu.
McGill, S.M., 2007. Lumbar spine stability: mechanism of injury
and restabilization. In: Liebenson, C. (Ed.), Rehabilitation of
the Spine: A Practitioner’s Manual. Lippincott/Williams and
Wilkins, Philadelphia.
McGill, S.M., Sharratt, M.T., Seguin, J.P., 1995. Loads on the
spinal tissues during simultaneous lifting and ventilatory
challenge. Ergonomics 38, 1772–1792.
O’Sullivan, P., Twomey, L., Allison, G., 1997. Evaluation of
specific stabilizing exercise in the treatment of chronic low
back pain with radiologic diagnosis of spondylolysis or
spondylolysthesis. Spine 24, 2959–2967.
Panjabi, M.M., 1992. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part 1.
Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. Jour-
nal of Spinal Disorders 5, 383–389.
Stokes, I.A.F., Gardner-Morse, M., Henry, S.M., Badger, G.J.,
2000. Decrease in trunk muscular response to perturbation
with preactivation of lumbar spinal musculature. Spine 25,
1957–1964.
Stuge, B., Laerum, E., Kirkesola, G., Vollestad, N., 2004. The
effect of a treatment program focusing on specific stablilizing
exercises for pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy. A rando-
mized controlled trial. Spine 29, 351–359.
Wilder, D.G., Aleksiev, A.R., Magnusson, M.L., Pope, M.H.,
Spratt, K.F., Goel, V.K., 1996. Muscular response to sudden
load. A tool to evaluate fatigue and rehabilitation. Spine 21,
2628–2639.
Yilmaz, F., Yilmaz, A., Merdol, F., Parlar, D., Sahin, F., Kuran, B.,
2003. Efficacy of dynamic lumbar stabilization exercise in
lumbar microdiscectomy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
35 (4), 163–167.