Effective Stability Training
Despite being quite simple, stability is a word that gets thrown around without much real understanding. In fact, I would suggest that its colloquial usage has detracted from its true meaning and subsequently its true development via exercise intervention. Put simply, joint stability is a joint’s ability to resist movement. Now, there is certainly a time and place to discuss the intricacies of joint centration and joint approximation, or passive stability vs. active stability; however, we are going to get straight down to the brass tacks—dynamic joint stability.
When exercise professionals are prescribing exercises to improve “stability,” they are usually aiming to improve dynamic joint stability. As such, that is entirely the focus of this discussion. Dynamic joint stability (stability, hereafter) is the ability of the surrounding muscles (via the nervous system) to produce adequate amounts of balanced force to resist undesirable movement (e.g., joint malalignment, dysfunctional positioning, and/or subluxation/dislocation). Because stability is a product of force production, stability is therefore a product of strength—the bodily ability to produce force. This means that stability training must abide to the same principles of all other strength training. All of this is to say that stability training is just highly specific strength training. This is where everyone gets it wrong.
In its most common and current form, stability training has been completely degraded. Because of this, we should quickly discuss the tactics commonly employed that do not meet the requirements of real, efficacious stability training. First and foremost, stability training is not instability training. Unstable surfaces (e.g., BOSU balls, balance boards, etc.) and unstable loads (e.g., flexible bars, slosh pipes, banded weights, etc.) do not meet the requirements of hypertrophy (muscle growth) and/or strength training. Environmental instability is not necessary to produce improved joint stability. There is no scientific evidence to support this illogical conclusion. Furthermore, and even worse, environmental instability is often not even sufficient to produce improved joint stability.
Secondly, comprehensive stability training is not uni-positional isometrics (static contractions). Despite stabilizing muscles often being required to isometrically contract to produce dynamic joint stability, isometrics are continuously demonstrated to be inferior for producing long-term improvements in hypertrophy and strength as compared to dynamic muscular contractions. The idea that stabilization muscles’ function is isometric, therefore they require only isometrics to be developed is incorrect and unsupported.
The reality of high-quality stability training is that intelligent and informed traditional exercise programming is required. This includes comprehensive exercise selection that is muscle-, position-, contraction mode-, and vector-specific. These exercises should also be quantifiable and lend well to progressive overload. Furthermore, attention should be paid to intensity, volume, velocity, and tempo parameters. These highly goal-oriented exercise programming variables usually require a considerably knowledgeable strength coach. A deep understanding of applied biomechanics, strength training theory, and regional interdependence is necessary to achieve goals that are specific to improvements in joint stability.
Takeaway Points:
>Dynamic joint stability is a product of highly specific muscular strength.
>Instability and isometric exercises are not necessary and are often ineffective.
>Stability exercises should not be all that dissimilar to traditional strength training exercises.
>Improved joint stability is at the junction of applied anatomy/physiology, strength training theory, and regional interdependence which often requires a knowledgeable strength coach.