The Truth About

Unstable Surface Training

Eric Cressey
Copyright 2008 © by Eric Cressey. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this manual may be used, reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including fax, photocopy, recording or any
information storage and retrieval system by anyone but the
purchaser for their own personal use. This manual may not be
reproduced in any form without the express written permission
of Eric Cressey, except in the case of a reviewer who wishes to
quote brief passages for the sake of a review written for
inclusions in a magazine, newspaper, or journal – and these
cases require written approval from Eric Cressey prior to
publication.

For more information, please contact:

Eric Cressey
c/o Cressey Performance
577 Main St.
Suite 150
Hudson, MA 01749

Phone: (978) 212-2688

Email: ec@ericccressey.com
Websites: www.EricCressey.com
www.CresseyPerformance.com

Cover Art by Jim Smith

3
www.EricCressey.com
 Disclaimer

The information in this book is offered for educational purposes

only; the reader should be cautioned that there is an inherent
risk assumed by the participant with any form of physical
activity. With that in mind, those participating in strength and
conditioning programs should check with their physician prior to
initiating such activities. Anyone participating in these activities
should understand that such training initiatives may be
dangerous if performed incorrectly. The author assumes no
liability for injury; this is purely an educational manual to guide
those already proficient with the demands of such programming.

4
www.EricCressey.com
 Acknowledgements

This project would have never come to fruition without the

assistance of others; I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to these
individuals.

Words cannot possibly express my thanks to my family for

supporting me unconditionally in all that I do. Your positive influence,
encouragement, and patience are the foundation for all my success –
present and future. I could never have done it without you; thank you for
everything.

I thank the University of Connecticut Department of Kinesiology

faculty and graduate students for their unwavering support, friendship,
and the knowledge they have shared with me during my time in Storrs. In
particular, I would like to thank Dr. Carl Maresh and Dr. William Kraemer
for their influential roles in helping me to prosper in such a prestigious
department. I also thank Dr. David Tiberio for sharing his tremendous
knowledge and experience with me. Additionally, I extend my thanks to
the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and its editors for
affording me the opportunity to include my research in such a professional
and respected publication.

I owe a great debt to the University of Connecticut Department of

Strength and Conditioning – especially Coach Chris West – for affording
me the opportunity to develop as a coach around high-level athletes.
Without my daily conversations with Chris and constant exposure to his
unyielding enthusiasm and open-mindedness, I would not be the coach
that I am today. The same can be said of the entire University of
Connecticut Department of Athletics, particularly the men’s and women’s
soccer and basketball programs. I enjoyed working closely with such great
athletes and experienced coaches in my time at UCONN.

5
www.EricCressey.com
 Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………...8

Chapter 1: Literature Review….………………………………………...10

Chapter 2: Methods…………………………………………………………46

Chapter 3: Results…………………………………………………………..50

Chapter 4: Discussion……………………………………………………..59

Chapter 5: Practical Applications…………………………………….....64

Chapter 6: Instability Training Progressions……………………...…69

Chapter 7: References……………………………………………………116

6
www.EricCressey.com
 Foreword

This book is the culmination of approximately three years of work. I

began planning for this study late in the summer of 2004 during the first
semester of my second year in graduate school. After months of research,
planning, and filling out paperwork for Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval, we finally got the go-ahead in December of 2004.

Pretesting took place on a Friday at the start of the spring semester

(2005), and our ten-week training intervention started the following
Monday. The study concluded with post-testing at the end of April 2005,
and I spent the next month analyzing data and writing up the remainder of
my master’s thesis. I defended the results in the spring of 2006, and the
work was accepted for publication in the Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research shortly thereafter. It was officially published in May
of 2007:

CRESSEY, E., WEST, C., TIBERIO, D., KRAEMER, W., AND MARESH, C. The
effects of ten weeks of lower-body unstable surface training on markers of
athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res. 21(2):561-7. 2007.

What you’ll find below is an updated version of this original master’s

thesis. At times, it reads much like an exercise physiology textbook, and
at others, it reads much like a piece aimed at the lay population. In short,
I’ve done my best to attempt to relate things in a manner that does our
research justice without becoming too complex for fitness enthusiasts,
personal trainers, strength coaches, and physical therapists (among
others) to not only comprehend, but put to use immediately. If you are
not interested in the science behind what we’re “uncovering,” I would urge
you to just read the Introduction and then go directly to the Methods
section.

7
www.EricCressey.com
 Introduction

Originally, unstable surface training (UST) was utilized almost

exclusively in rehabilitation programs; however, in recent years, unstable
surface training’s popularity has dramatically increased in both strength
and conditioning and general exercise scenarios. With this rapid growth in
popularity has arisen a great need for scientific evidence to validate or
refute its use. Although unstable surface training has proven valuable in
clinical settings, little research has been performed to determine if positive
effects can also be noted in healthy populations in athletic contexts.

In spite of this lack of concrete date to support or refute the use of

unstable surface training, several companies have capitalized on this trend
by marketing dozens of UST products. Additionally, numerous prominent
strength and conditioning professionals have promoted this training
initiative as a useful means of improving athletic performance.

Unstable training surfaces – which include regular and half-dome

stability balls, balance discs, wobble boards, and foam pads – reduce (or
altogether eliminate, depending on the exercise) an individual's points of
contact with solid ground.

8
www.EricCressey.com
 Proponents of one such implement assert that performing exercises
on unstable surfaces (interventions they term "functional balance
training") will enhance the neuromuscular training effect and contribute to
safe, effective movement and skilled performance via improvement of four
components of "body equilibrium:" balance, kinesthetic sense,
proprioception, and gradation of force (13,60).

Moreover, unstable surface training proponents claim that because

all complex movement schemes require a combination of stability and
mobility, it becomes increasingly valuable to simultaneously train these
two qualities (13,14,60). Because traditional strength and conditioning
initiatives are almost exclusively performed on stable training surfaces,
unstable interventions may serve as an ideal means of complementing the
neuromuscular qualities that stable training surfaces afford.

There is, however, substantial opposition to the utilization of

unstable surface training outside of rehabilitation settings. Many
individuals believe that such training undermines specificity in
programming, may lead to adverse biomechanical compensations, and
actually impair the development of certain athletic qualities. Until recently
(read: our study), these criticisms were largely theoretical, but not
completely unfounded. Prior to our intervention, no studies to date had
examined the effects of unstable surface training on improving sport
performance in healthy, trained individuals with no recent history of injury.

9
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 1: Literature Review

10
www.EricCressey.com
 The Origins of Unstable Surface Training

Drawing on the success of physical therapists with unstable

"physioballs," contemporary physical therapists and athletic trainers have
implemented the aforementioned situations of complete or near-complete
instability at one's base of support to improve rehabilitative outcomes.
These interventions have proven successful in clinical realms, particularly
with respect to rehabilitating functional ankle instability (FAI). Following
acute lateral (inversion) ankle sprains, chronic lateral instability develops in
20-30% of all patients. This chronic instability is predominantly related to
residual pain and an increased risk of sprain recurrences due to a delayed
proprioceptive response to angular displacement (43).

It is important to differentiate FAI from mechanical instability, which

is generally related to ligament laxity and chronic swelling (43). However,
the two types of instability may not be mutually exclusive, as
proprioceptive information from the mechanoreceptors of the lateral
ligaments is likely negatively affected by healing of these ligaments in an
elongated state following a sprain. In this scenario, the ligament tension
at a given angle of ankle inversion is reduced significantly, thereby making
it difficult for the mechanoreceptors to accurately interpret the degree of
inversion present (40).

11
www.EricCressey.com
 Proprioceptive Deficits with Functional Ankle Instability

This proprioceptive deficit is best characterized as impaired reaction

time of the peroneals, the muscle group responsible for eversion,
deceleration of inversion (and therefore excessive lateral movement), and
provision of support for the lateral ligaments of the ankle (39,88).

The Peroneals

As a result of this delayed response, lateral and anterior forces peak

significantly earlier in unstable ankles; average vertical, frontal, and
sagittal plane components of ground reaction force with single-legged
landing are also significantly altered in the presence of instability (17).
Compared with their healthy counterparts, individuals with FAI require
significantly longer to stabilize in both the anterior/posterior and
medial/lateral directions after single-leg jump landings (as measured by
postural sway) (57). Those with FAI also require more dorsiflexion from

12
www.EricCressey.com
10ms pre-landing to 20ms post-landing and more knee flexion from 20ms
pre-landing to 60ms post-landing than healthy age-matched control
subjects (16). Given that activation patterns are altered in FAI prior to
landing as well, it is apparent that there are feed-forward mechanisms at
work in addition to the reflex-mediated peripheral changes, signifying
adaptations are occurring as attempts at compensation in those with FAI
(16).

Maximal Strength with Functional Ankle Instability

Results from studies examining maximal strength of the muscles

acting at the ankle in stable and unstable ankles have been equivocal;
some investigators have noted no differences (10,36), whereas others
have found decrements in peroneal muscle strength (75,88). Using a
stretch-shortening (SSC) protocol to assess ankle function and stretch-
reflex proficiency, Porter et al. (2002) found no differences in strength (as
measured by concentric peak toque/body weight ratio) and concentric time
to peak torque between those with and without functional ankle instability
(56).

Rehabilitation of Functional Ankle Instability

In instances of sudden inversion, subjects with and without stable

ankles show identical reaction patterning: peripheral reflex action
(peroneal contraction to counteract the movement) followed by a central
pattern of hip, knee, and ankle flexion to reduce vertical pressure on the
ankle and allow for eversion to occur. As such, it is clear that functional
ankle instability is not associated with inappropriate central nervous
system processing of afferent input. Rather, the delayed peroneal reaction
indicates that a proprioceptive deficit to imposed stretch forces is in fact
the underlying problem with functional lateral ankle instability (39).

The consensus in the rehabilitation community is that one must

retrain altered afferent neuromuscular pathways in order to eliminate this
deficit, thereby restoring normal reflex joint stabilization and force
absorption patterns (17,56,59,88). Collectively, these factors interact to
13
www.EricCressey.com
decelerate the total supination movement upon balance disturbance (as in
landings and changes of direction) and expedite activation of the evertors
(77).

The research has clearly demonstrated the utility of unstable surface

training in rehabilitating functional ankle instability:

ƒ Wester et al. (1996) found that 12-weeks of wobble board training

following primary stage 2 ankle sprains significantly reduced injury
recurrence rate and overall functional instability when compared
with no training (86).

ƒ Another group of researchers found that eight weeks of ankle disk

training resulted in delayed contractions of the anterior and
posterior tibialis muscles, an adaptation that favors the correction of
excessive ankle inversion (65).

ƒ Osborne et al. (2001) found that following eight weeks of ankle disk
training, patients with ankle instability had significantly decreased
muscle onset latency in several crucial ankle muscles, most notably
the peroneus longus (52).

Interestingly, in the Osborne study, significant improvements were

noted in both the experimental and control ankles, indicating that a
proprioceptive cross-training effect may have occurred and that marked
neuromuscular benefits may be achievable in unstable and stable ankles
alike (52).

14
www.EricCressey.com
 The Science of Stability and Balance

Stability is an important prerequisite to performing all movements.

Hall (2003) defined stability as "resistance to both angular and linear
acceleration, or resistance to disruption of equilibrium” (31). Balance is
defined as "the ability to control equilibrium” (31) or “the process of
maintaining the center of gravity within the body’s base of support within
a given sensory environment”(19,45). Given these definitions, it is clear to
see that neural factors such as muscular strength, kinesthetic awareness,
coordination, and proprioception all contribute to one’s balancing
proficiency. These physiological factors (and the proficiency to which they
contribute) interact with a variety of non-neural (environmental) factors
that (for the most part) change under different circumstances; this
interaction determines one’s stability at any point in time.

Five structural and positional factors control the degree of stability

one possesses at a given time (31):

1. Amount of body mass: The more mass an object has, the more
resistant it will be to a force that attempts to accelerate it. As such,
objects will more mass are more stable.

More Mass = More Stable

15
www.EricCressey.com
2. Friction between the surface and the body in contact with it:
Increased friction corresponds to increased stability.

3. Size of the base of support (BOS): In the context of athletics,

this generally refers to the positioning of the feet. Normally, a wide
stance improves stability. However, it is important to note that the
size and direction of the BOS must be appropriate in light of the
direction of the external force acting on an object.

4. Horizontal positioning of the center of gravity (COG): For

maximum stability, the COG should be on the edge of the BOS at
which an external force is acting.

5. Vertical position of the COG: The lower the COG, the more
stable the object.

A low center of gravity was one reason

that Barry Sanders was always so stable.

16
www.EricCressey.com
 Summarily, neural and non-neural factors interact to determine
stability. Technical training, manipulation of body mass, and equipment
(e.g. proper footwear with respect to friction) can change these structural
and positional factors. Likewise, development of the aforementioned
neural qualities can have a profound positive influence on one’s balance
and, in turn, stability in a given situation. Given that balance is an
essential component of athletic movement, training initiatives to enhance
neuromuscular efficiency in this regard serve as one approach to
performance enhancement.

Neural Factors Affecting Balance

Numerous central and peripheral neural mechanisms interact to

maintain balance. The primary peripheral components of this interaction
include the somatosensory, visual (oculomotor), and vestibular systems;
these three systems provide input to the central nervous system, which in
turn modulates the muscular response to control balance (19).

Somatosensory input is related specifically to forces and motions

exerted with respect to the contact surface. Visual input is based on
sway-dependent head motions in the context of a given environment.
Vestibular input derives from head motions that may be associated with
gravity-related active or passive body sway (45).

According to Cote et al. (2005), “Because balance is maintained in

the closed kinetic chain (the foot being fixed beneath the base of support)
and relies on the integrated feedback and movement strategies among the
hip, knee, and ankle, balance can be disrupted by diminished afferent
feedback or deficiencies in the strength and mechanical stability of any
joint or structure along the lower extremity kinetic chain” (19).

While both efferent (motor) and afferent (sensory) processes

contribute to overall neuromuscular function, the overwhelming majority of
strength and power studies to date have looked exclusively at the efferent
component. As a result, afferent contributions to strength, power, and
athletic performance are frequently overlooked and largely undefined.
These afferent contributions to neuromuscular activity are very significant
17
www.EricCressey.com
to the application of UST, which is centered on the optimization of afferent
processes in hopes of reducing injury risk while improving strength and
power.

The Afferent Systems

Three sources of feedback comprise the afferent pool.

Exteroceptive contribution consists of information related to external
environmental factors such as vision and hearing (20,27). Interoceptive
contribution, on the other hand, refers to information processed within the
body, including “pain, temperature, itch, sensual touch, muscular and
visceral sensations, vasomotor activity, hunger, thirst, and ‘air hunger’”
(20).

The third source, proprioception, is often included in exteroception,

and “allows the perception of position and movement of limbs with
reference to both the entire body and single limbs” (27). Proprioception
includes both the sensory reception of stimuli and the delivery of this
information to the central nervous system (CNS).

While the three sources interact with each other extensively,

unstable surface training interventions predominantly focus on this third
component of afferent feedback.

The Proprioceptive System

Proprioception refers to the perception and transmission of afferent

information related to position sense, as well as the interpretation of this
information in order to respond consciously or subconsciously to a given
stimulus with alterations to posture and movement (35). Adequate
peripheral feedback is imperative for maintenance of both static and
dynamic postural stability (56).

Three senses comprise proprioception. First, the position sense, a

determination of static joint positions, provides information relative to
three-dimensional space. The movement sense, also known as
18
www.EricCressey.com
kinesthesia, increases awareness of dynamic changes in joint positions
relative to one another. Finally, the force sense offers feedback with
respect to “the current balanced state between internally generated forces
and the externally applied moments to the joint systems” (27).

Proprioceptors are afferent nerves that sense and relay impulses to

the CNS based on stimuli affecting muscles, tendons, joints, and skin.
Proprioceptors have been subdivided according to their location into three
categories: cutaneous receptors, muscle/tendon receptors, joint receptors,
and ligament receptors.

Cutaneous receptors include fast-adapting afferents and slow-

adapting I and II afferents. Muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs
(GTOs) are found in the muscles and tendons, respectively; they have
several responsibilities that not only affect the muscles and tendons in
which they are located, but also in the antagonistic and synergistic
muscles (35).

Muscle spindles respond to stretch and play a crucial role in

regulating subsequent contraction, and recent research has demonstrated

19
www.EricCressey.com
that these spindles also play a key role in sense of position and movement
(12). GTOs are sensitive to tension and respond to stretch and
contraction; they are implicated in causing relaxation when faced with
potentially dangerous tension. Together, muscle spindles and GTOs
impact not only antagonists and synergist, but also joint position and limb
stability via their sensitivity to muscle length (35).

Joint receptors can be divided into group II afferents and group III
and IV afferents. Group II afferents have large myelinated axons with the
potential for high-speed conduction; they include Pacinian corpuscles,
Ruffini endings, and Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles (35). Pacinian corpuscles
are rapidly adapting receptors that are highly sensitive to vibration
frequency, acceleration, and deceleration. Ruffini endings are sensitive to
capsular stretching with respect to speed and direction; this information
complements that gathered by the Pacinian corpuscles. Golgi-Mazzoni
corpuscles are sensitive to compression of the joint capsule, therefore
supplying crucial information to the CNS regarding how close one is to the
end of the range of motion (58).

Group III and IV afferents are smaller with either thinly myelinated
or nonmyelinated axons, leading to slower conduction. They include free
nerve endings in articular structures and soft tissue; these nerve endings
(nociceptive and nonnociceptive) may respond to a variety of mechanical
and biochemical stimuli (such as pain or inflammation) when the joint is
placed at any end position (35,58).

Ligament receptors are responsive to any ligamentous stress and

work to inhibit the agonist muscles causing the stress. One example, Golgi
ligament endings, are sensitive to tension and stretch on ligaments (35).
All classes of afferent receptors collaborate to provide the CNS with a
comprehensive sense of joint position and motion so that the subsequent
efferent activity will be appropriate for the challenge at hand (35,58).

Once information has been gathered by the proprioceptors, afferent

input is relayed to one or more of three CNS sites, collectively known as
the spinocerebellar systems (or neurons) (12). The spinal cord offers the
quickest potential response in the form of a spinal reflex or internuncial
connection. The cerebellum (in the brain stem) in recognized as a primary
20
www.EricCressey.com
proprioceptive coordinator that affects posture and balance. Finally, the
cerebral cortex, the slowest of the three to respond, affects volitional
control (35).

Proprioception and Athletic Performance

The fundamental importance of proprioception to athletic

performance – and even everyday human function - cannot be overstated.
Patients lacking proprioceptive feedback tend to make significant
directional and amplitude errors (related to velocity and acceleration in
various directions) in simple reaching tasks when deprived of visual
feedback. These errors are less significant when visual feedback is
reintroduced, reaffirming the interaction of the somatosensory, vestibular,
and visual systems (12).

The loss of visual feedback is exactly

what makes the blindfold match so intriguing.

Insufficient proprioceptive input also negatively impacts interjoint

coordination. Sainburg et al. (2001) asserted that "control of
intersegmental dynamics is normally dependent on proprioceptive
information to update and maintain neural representations of the
musculoskeletal system" (12).

21
www.EricCressey.com
 To recap, proprioception is both a constant source of feedback and
a key factor in CNS processing of voluntary movements (12). Unstable
surface training has proven useful in enhancing proprioception in injured
and untrained individuals; its proponents assert that such training can also
enhance proprioception in healthy, trained subjects in order to effect
favorable changes in performance.

Afferent Efficiency and Injury Prevention

Just as they proved useful in the rehabilitation of ankle injuries,

unstable surface training interventions may also offer benefits in terms of
injury prevention, especially with respect to ankle sprains.

The electromechanical delay is defined as “the interval between

initiation of sudden joint displacement and the generation of sufficient
muscle tension to effectively resist the displacement moment” (56). This
delay is affected by both afferent and efferent factors.

From an afferent standpoint, somatosensory input from the limbs is

necessary to trigger a muscular force to accommodate rapid changes in
external loading. With respect to grip adjustments and fine hand
movements, the latency time for this force in adults has been noted as 40-
50ms (25) and 60-80ms (37), respectively. In response to the unexpected
addition of a significant load during rapid bilateral shoulder flexion, short-
latency responses of the erector spinae and transversus abdominis
muscles occurred approximately 50 ms following the initial perturbation to
the limbs (33). Most specific to the scope of this work, during hopping,
jumping, and running, reflex contribution consistently occurs within 30-
40ms after landing (as assessed on force platforms) in the vastus medialis,
soleus, and gastrocnemius.

These electromechanical delays are slightly increased in distal

muscles over proximal muscles, apparently due to the lengthened reflex
loop (27). Reflex latencies in the peroneals are approximately 60-90ms,
likely due to their distal positioning and the fact that this response is
polysynaptic (27,39); these prolonged electromechanical delays likely

22
www.EricCressey.com
explain why sudden, rapid perturbations may outpace the peroneals’ ability
to respond in sufficient time to prevent lateral ankle sprains (56).

According to Gollhofer (2003), “proprioceptive training aims to

improve the efficiency of afferent feedback, in order to attain functional
limb control and to achieve appropriate neuromuscular access to the
muscles encompassing joint complexes” (27). Such efficiency is of utility
in rehabilitation programs designed to restore proper agonist-antagonist
co-contraction for joint stabilization, and may contribute to improvements
in rate of force development via enhanced ability of the afferent
component of neuromuscular function. Improved afferent function is also
of value in injury prevention because reduced latency periods before
muscle activity provide for faster stiffening of joint complexes (27).

The best way to prevent an injury like

this is to teach the peroneals to fire quickly.

In a two-year cohort study of over 300 high school basketball

players, McGuine et al. (2000) found that preseason balance score – as
measured by postural sway – served as a predictor of ankle sprain
susceptibility. Subjects with high sway scores (poor balance) were seven
times as likely as their low sway counterparts to sustain ankle sprains (48).
However, given the wide range of physical maturity and development in
high school athletes, one can surmise that the most developed athletes
would also demonstrated the best static balance, so other factors may
have mediated this reduction in injury risk.

23
www.EricCressey.com
 Ten weeks of training on the Biomechanical Ankle Platform System
(BAPS) – a type of unstable surface ankle disk - significantly reduced
medial-lateral and anterior-posterior components of postural sway in
healthy subjects (34). More specifically to athletes, Waddington et al.
(1999) found that only five weeks of wobble board training significantly
improved discrimination of discrete ankle inversion movements, indicating
improved afferent functioning in already stable ankles (82); even more
pronounced effects were apparent with similar interventions in elderly
populations (84).

Finally, in a comparison of eight-week wobble board and jump-

landing training programs in 44 soccer players, the wobble board training
group had significantly greater improvements in discrimination of ankle
movements into inversion than did the jump-landing group (although no
difference was noted in knee movement discrimination). These results
indicate that UST can favorably influence an athlete's ability to accurately
make inversion movements immediately prior to ground contact (83). It
should be noted, however, that neither of these studies took into account
previous history of ankle injury, so many of these players could very well
have been rehabilitating existing injuries rather than further protecting
already-healthy ankles.

Afferent Efficiency and Athletic Performance

Although the vast majority of strength and conditioning literature to

date has focused on the role of efferent neuromuscular processes in
enhancing performance, improved efficiency of afferent processes is likely
just as important to performance enhancement. Rapid rate of force
development (RFD) is of paramount importance to athletic success, as
most sport disciplines require rapid limb motions with minimal time for
muscle action to occur. Unlike maximum voluntary contraction, RFD is a
trait that is not largely dependent on muscle cross sectional area; it is
related primarily to “the discharge rate of the motor units recruited, to
alterations in the recruitment characteristics or to a combination of both”
(29).

24
www.EricCressey.com
 Optimized proprioception serves as an important component of
successful excitation of the neuromuscular system, especially with respect
to the SSC (29). This optimization may include increased efficiency in the
gathering of proprioceptive input, the transmission of this input to the
CNS, more rapid processing of the input at the CNS level, or a combination
of two or more of these factors (29).

Rate of force development may be improved via increased motor

neuron firing frequencies or by extra impulses once the firing frequency
that corresponds to maximum titanic tension has been attained (29). Such
gains in neural drive at the initiation of force development could also be
related to alteration to the recruitment threshold of certain motor neurons
in order to improve synchronization, especially during movements that
require simultaneous contribution of several muscles (64).

These gains are peripheral and most likely arise from enhanced
reflex contributions acting on a spinal level. Based on existing data,
Gruber and Gollhofer (2004) asserted that withdrawal of presynaptic Ia
terminal inhibition in the acting muscles may explain the beneficial effects
of improved proprioceptive ability on stiffening joint complexes to reduce
the risk of injury, enhance rate of force development, and minimize the
SSC amortization phase (which is largely dependent on the reflex
response) (29). Supraspinal effects – which are typically seen with
classical strength training interventions - cannot be ruled out with respect
to sensorimotor training benefits, however (29).

Gruber and Gollhofer (2004) examined functional adaptations of the

leg extensor muscles to a sensorimotor training program in 17 subjects.
The program consisted of eight sessions (over four weeks) of unilateral
balancing exercises performed on wobble boards, spinning tops, soft mats,
and two-dimensional free moving platforms. All subjects wore ski boots
for all exercise sessions to confine the training effect to the muscles acting
at the knee joint.

Maximum RFD during maximum voluntary isometric action increased

significantly, signifying an improvement in explosive strength of the leg
extensors. However, maximal static leg press strength did not change,
indicating that neuromuscular activation was only
25
www.EricCressey.com
enhanced markedly in the earliest phases (<50ms) of muscular action
(29). These results contrast with previous findings (1,78) in studies of
stable surface heavy resistance and explosive training in which neural
drive was increased throughout the entire duration of muscle action.

Five major problems existed with this study’s design, however:

1) There was no control group against which to compare to separate

out the influence of learning on testing proficiency.

2) There was not a group that performed these exercises on stable

surfaces to determine if the training effect was in fact due to the instability
conferred by the unstable implements or the unilateral stance itself.

3) The study was extremely short in duration; four weeks is hardly a

sufficient period to draw definitive conclusions about chronic physiological
adaptations.

4) No consideration was given to variations in performance related

to the menstrual cycle in spite of the fact that majority of the subjects
were female.

5) Most importantly, the subjects were untrained, indicating a large

potential window of adaptation regardless of the exercise modality.

Bruhn and colleagues (2004) compared neuromuscular adaptations

in individuals following a sensorimotor training program, conventional
strength-training program, or no structured exercise program over the
course of four weeks. The sensorimotor training program consisted of a
collection of balancing exercises on wobbling and unsteady surfaces,
whereas the strength training focused exclusively on single repetitions with
90% 1RM and above loads (15).

The investigators found that improvements in postural stabilization

(as measured during single-leg stance on a swinging platform) were only
significant in the strength-training group, while the control group actually
improved more than the sensorimotor training group. Only the strength-
training group demonstrated a significant improvement in maximum
26
www.EricCressey.com
voluntary isometric contraction during a unilateral leg press, although
there was a trend towards statistically significant improvement in the
sensorimotor training group. Rate of force development was enhanced
slightly in both training groups without reaching the level of statistical
significance. No pre- to post-test differences in muscle activity of the
gastrocnemius, peroneus longus, tibialis anterior, vastus medialis, rectus
femoris, or biceps femoris were observed. Only the strength-training
group improved significantly in countermovement jump height, and no
significant changes were noted in drop jump performance index (a
function of maximization of jump height and minimization of ground
contact time), although the sensorimotor training group showed a
tendency to improvement (15).

Given that the control group actually experienced greater

improvements in postural stabilization than the sensorimotor training
group, it becomes quite clear that it is impossible to extrapolate definitive
conclusions from this study. This problem is likely due to the short
duration of the intervention and potentially an inappropriate program
design (i.e. having novice lifters train at 90% 1RM and above exclusively).
Furthermore, the researchers did not account for history of ankle injuries
with residual proprioceptive deficits. Subjects were untrained, and the
investigators made no mention of accounting for the menstrual cycle in
pre- and post-testing timing, nor did they take into account subtle changes
in muscle cross sectional area that (although unlikely with such a brief
intervention) would improve strength independent of neural adaptations.

The researchers also noted that the progress demonstrated by the

control group could have been due to the fact that some of the subjects
had already participated in related sensorimotor training studies, as the
mean pre-test level of postural stabilization on an identical task was
markedly better than in previous studies. In the investigators’ own words,
“It may be assumed, that a kind of saturation-effect to the sensorimotor
training had happened” (15).

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of stable surface

resistance training in improving explosive strength without altering firing
patterns (30,42,78). Conversely, research to-date on the effects of

27
www.EricCressey.com
unstable surface training on RFD has been performed on untrained
subjects exclusively and included noteworthy methodological flaws. As
such, it is impossible to infer from these findings how UST would affect
rate of force development in healthy, trained athletes and whether or not
it could serve as effective adjunct to or replacement for traditional
resistance training exercises geared toward improving explosive strength.

Core Strength Training and Balance

The term “core” has become increasingly popular in recent years.

Core strength training, which refers to programming designed to enhance
the “muscular control required around the lumbar spine to maintain
functional stability,” has been endorsed as providing injury prevention and
rehabilitation as well as performance enhancement (2).

Broadly defined, the core is the torso, or center of the body, which
serves as a link to allow force transference between the upper and lower
limbs (11). More specifically, the core may be defined as a box, consisting
of the diaphragm as the roof, pelvic floor and hip musculature as the base,
abdominals as the front, and paraspinals and gluteals as the back (2).

“Core” encompasses so many muscles that

it has practically become a “catch-all” garbage term.

28
www.EricCressey.com
 As would be expected, Pfeifer et al. (2001) found a positive
correlation between isokinetically-assessed trunk strength and dynamic
postural stability in the elderly (55); it would seem that this correlation
would also be present in athletic populations. There is considerable
evidence to suggest that performing certain exercise on unstable surfaces
increases activation of core musculature when compared to the same
exercises on stable surfaces (4,8,18,46,49,80).

Specific to the present investigation, Anderson and Behm (2005)

compared electromyographic (EMG) activity of the soleus, vastus lateralis,
biceps femoris, abdominal stabilizers, upper lumbar erector spinae, and
lumbo-sacral erector spinae muscles under three separate back squat
conditions: relatively unstable, relatively stable, and very stable. The
relatively unstable group performed the squats while standing on balance
discs, the relatively stable group performed traditional barbell squats, and
the very stable group utilized a Smith machine (fixed bar path).

The abdominal stabilizers, upper lumbar erector spinae, and lumbo-

sacral erector spinae were all most active under unstable conditions
(followed by the free squat and Smith squat, respectively), most likely to
enhance stability of the spinal column. EMG activity of the soleus was also
greatest under the relatively unstable condition; the researchers theorized
that this increased activation was related to these muscles’ roles in
maintaining posture. No differences were noted in EMG activity of the
limb musculature. The investigators noted that this study only examined
the acute responses to unstable training, and that “one should be cautious
about making inferences as to possible training effects” (4).

Consistent with these findings, Behm et al. (2005) found that

instability with a variety of trunk-strengthening exercises increased
activation of the lower-abdominal muscles, although results with the upper
lumbar and lumbo-sacral erector spinae were less conclusive. When
compared with chest presses performed on a stable bench, chest presses
performed on a Swiss ball elicited either greater activation or a tendency
toward greater activation of the upper lumbar erector spinae (+37.7%),
lumbo-sacral erector spinae (+54.3%), and lower abdominal (+37.8%)
muscles. No significant differences were noted between stable and
unstable shoulder presses; the investigators surmised that this non-
29
www.EricCressey.com
difference might have been due to positioning of the subjects’ center of
gravity directly over the center of gravity of the ball (8).

The vast majority of unstable surface training research has

examined the effects of using labile surfaces in traditional core exercises
(especially in rehabilitation settings); considerable research has verified
that UST with such exercises increases EMG activity compared to similar
exercises performed on stable surfaces (18,46,49,80). Cosio-Lima et al.
(2003) compared the effects of a conventional floor training program to a
five-week physioball core training program in 30 untrained female
subjects. The physioball group experienced greater improvements in static
balance score and increased EMG activity of the abdominal and erector
spinae muscles, although no differences were noted on any isokinetic
strength assessments (18).

There may, however, be little to no functional carryover to dynamic

movements from increasing core stabilizer activation with exercises
performed while standing on unstable training surfaces. The
aforementioned Pfeifer (2001) study observed that isokinetic strength was
positively correlated with dynamic postural stability (55); unstable surface
training exercises performed in the standing position do not stress the core
similarly to trunk-specific exercises (e.g., curl-ups, back extensions). With
this latter class of exercises, the overall stability challenge is less
significant due to more points of contact with a stable surface.

In support of this notion, Stanton et al. (2004) found that Swiss ball
training improved core stability in young athletes, but did not effect
favorable changes in EMG activity of the abdominal and erector spinae
muscles, running economy, running posture, or VO2max. The researchers
noted “Swiss ball training may positively affect core stability without
concomitant improvements in physical performance in young athletes.
Specificity of exercise selection should be considered” (70).

30
www.EricCressey.com
 UST and Athletic Performance

Presumably, enhancing balance, kinesthetic sense, proprioception,

and gradation of force would lead to marked improvements in sport
performance. While there appear to be considerable injury rehabilitation
and prevention benefits to unstable surface training given existing
neuromuscular shortcomings, little data is available to support the
assertion that UST can actually favorably impact a healthy, trained
athlete's performance.

Malliou et al. (2004) noted that beginning downhill skiers who

participated in a two-week balance board training intervention (in addition
to ski lessons) performed better on a downhill-slalom agility test than
those who only took lessons (44).

Unfortunately, one cannot draw conclusions about the utility of

unstable surface training in such a population because the control group
did not perform an equal volume and intensity of exercise on a stable
surface. Some of these results could be related to the fact that this
intervention simply made untrained people start training.

31
www.EricCressey.com
 Summarily, prior to the study at-hand, no studies to date had
examined the impact of an extended unstable surface training intervention
on various markers of athletic performance in experienced athletes without
recent history of injury. Balogun et al. (1997) found that physically active
subjects performed better on tests of single-leg balance than did sedentary
subjects matched for age, weight, and height (6). Therefore, it stands to
reason that healthy, high-level athletes are more proficient in terms of
balance, kinesthetic sense, proprioception, and gradation of force than are
non-athletes.

Likewise, Behm et al. (2005) found that although a correlation

existed between performance on a 30-second wobble board test and
hockey skating speed in players under the age of 19, no such correlation
existed with players age 19 and older (9). This difference could easily be
attributed to different levels of motor development in young skaters; the
researchers noted, “The complex skills associated with skating would
necessitate a more refined balance that would improve with maturity and
perhaps training. Since skating is performed on a very small surface area
(blade) in contact with a low friction surface, younger individuals with
greater stability may have an advantage in executing the specific skating
skills” (9).

With these results in mind, it is impossible to infer from existing

literature whether unstable surface training would provide a different
training effect than stable surface training in experienced, mature athletes.
And, perhaps just as importantly, it becomes clear that in the context of
the UST discussion, novice and potentially immature athletes may need to
be viewed as untrained subjects. All things considered, it is inappropriate
to apply data from improved functional status in injured, non-athletic, and
even elderly subjects to justify the utilization of unstable surface training in
healthy athletes.

Functional Carryover Arguments against UST

There are also several arguments against bringing unstable surface

training outside of the rehabilitation realm to attempt to improve athletic
performance. One logical dissention comes from those who question the
32
www.EricCressey.com
assertion that UST is in fact "functional" training for athletes. The term
"functional" as it relates to exercise was first applied in a rehabilitation
context, as therapists worked to help restore function in patients through
modalities that best simulated and carried-over to their daily lives. As
Gary Gray, a highly respected physical therapist and one of the initial
proponents of "true" functional training writes, "Human function is
referenced relative to the required or desired functional activities within
the given environment” (28).

It goes without saying that different individuals have different

"required" and "desired" functions to accomplish in their daily lives. In its
truest sense, functional training refers to preparing individuals for the
demands that lie ahead in everyday activities, work, recreational activities,
and competitive athletics. Because these demands are different for
everyone, it's important to realize that true functional training programs
must be specific to the individual.

With that said, those opposed to classifying unstable surface training

as "functional balance training" point out that most athletics involve an
athlete moving on a fixed (stable) surface, rather than a surface moving
on a stationary or less mobile (due to impaired stability) athlete. Grass
and turf fields do not move - nor do tracks or basketball and tennis courts.
While there may be some exceptions to this rule (i.e. sports such as
skateboarding, skiing, and snowboarding, where athletes may land on
unstable surfaces), true functional balance training for athletes would rely
on interventions on stable surfaces to best simulate the demands of the
athletic endeavor.

Muscle Recruitment Patterns and UST

The question of functional carryover also extends to the concern for

altered muscular recruitment patterns and reduced force output under
unstable conditions. Behm and colleagues (2002) compared knee
extensor and plantarflexor activity under stable (seated in a chair) and
unstable (seated on a stability ball) conditions.

33
www.EricCressey.com
 The investigators found that force production under stable
conditions was significantly greater than under unstable conditions for
both the knee extensor and plantarflexor tests. Stable knee extensor and
plantarflexor forces were 70.5% and 20.2% greater than under unstable
conditions. Mean quadriceps activation under unstable conditions was
44.3% less than with stable conditions, whereas the plantarflexor deficit
was only 2.9% (not statistically significant). EMG analyses of the
antagonist muscles revealed that hamstring and tibialis anterior activity
increased by 29.1% and 30.3% under unstable conditions as compared to
stable conditions (7).

More concisely, there was less force and activation of the prime
movers and increased activation of the antagonists. The researchers
noted that the change in muscular recruitment patterns was likely due to
"excess stress associated with the increased postural demands" and "the
dispersion of concentration (neural drive) in attempting to control 2 limbs
with differing responsibilities (balance and force)" (7).

While increased antagonist co-contraction may assist in maintaining

joint stability and coordinating movement, it is generally perceived as
counterproductive, especially in strength tasks.

You shouldn’t be doing leg extensions, but if for some

reason you must, your hamstrings shouldn’t be going crazy.
34
www.EricCressey.com
 Torque developed by the antagonists decreases net torque in the
desired direction of movement, and – through the process of reciprocal
inhibition - may also impair an individual’s ability to completely activate the
agonists (62). Therefore, it can be argued that unstable surface training
creates a hesitant athlete for whom stability is gained at the expense of
mobility and force production.

Sale (2003) noted that two muscular activation alteration patterns

have emerged in longitudinal resistance training studies. In some studies,
there has been “a decrease in absolute antagonist activation in conjunction
with either an increase or no change in agonist activation” (62). In other
studies, there was no change in “absolute antagonist activation but
increased agonist activation, decreasing the antagonist/agonist ratio” (62).
The acute muscular activation patterns observed with unstable surface
training work contrary to both of these outcomes, which were observed in
stable surface resistance training (which, as noted later, has proven
effective in enhancing a variety of markers of athletic performance).

Anderson and Behm (2004) verified these findings with a follow-up

study; maximum voluntary contraction was 59.6% lower on supine chest
presses performed on a stability ball than on a stable surface (3).
Interestingly, there was no different in overall EMG activity (3), supporting
previous assertions from Kornecki and Zschorlich (1994) that limb
musculature is called upon to aid in maintaining joint stability under
unstable conditions (41). Although EMG has traditionally been used to
measure changes in externally measurable force, muscles used to aid in
joint stability can contribute significantly to EMG signal without altering
measurable force (8).

The marked reduction in maximum voluntary contraction under

unstable conditions served as proof that training on stable surfaces must
be included in all resistance-training programs to impose the requisite
overload for appreciable structural and functional adaptations, as the
intensities utilized in unstable surface training are insufficient for
development of maximal strength and hypertrophy (3,15). Conversely, the
investigators proposed that because overall EMG activity was not inhibited
by unstable conditions, muscles could be activated to the same extent as
under stable conditions with less resistance, therefore allowing for "lower
35
www.EricCressey.com
resultant joint torques from the reduced loads, resulting in less stress on
the articular system" (3).

Most applicable to the present study, Anderson and Behm (2005)

examined EMG activity of several muscles during barbell squats on stable
and unstable (feet on balance disks) conditions. The investigators found
that EMG activity of the soleus, abdominal stabilizers, upper lumbar erector
spinae, and lumbo-sacral erector spinae was significantly increased with
unstable conditions; they attributed this increase to the importance of
these muscles in postural control, which is obviously challenged under
unstable conditions (4). While trunk stabilizer and postural control muscle
activity was heightened under unstable conditions, “only negligible
increases were observed in activity of the prime movers” (4). Given the
aforementioned decreases in force output and activation of the prime
movers under unstable surfaces, the researchers postulated that UST
offers more benefit to the trunk stabilizers than to the prime movers (4).

UST and Mobile-Stability

Collectively, these studies bring to light the fact that unstable

surface training may work contrary to the concept of mobile-stability,
which is a fundamental principle of all human movement. Mobile-stability
is defined as "the ability of a bone segment or joint to provide the desired
motion with the requisite muscular control for a specific function” (73).
Mobile-stability is gained when one has the appropriate balance between
unrestrained movement and unyielding rigidity.

When one attempts to balance atop or step onto an unstable

surface, there is a tendency for the more proximal muscles to "lock up."
Proximal rigidity with distal instability is essentially the opposite of what
happens in real-life activities; in human movement, there is really no such
thing as a totally "stable" spine (this would push the balance too far
toward unyielding rigidity); it is constantly moving synergistically in all
three planes with the mass and momentum generated by the head, arms,
trunk, pelvis, and legs (72).

36
www.EricCressey.com
 Unstable surfaces don't eliminate this mobility altogether, but the
added distal instability does tend to force individuals to lock up proximally
in a manner that can be perceived as "less functional." In other words,
rather than utilizing the proximal musculature to transfer force, the body
uses it to stabilize the joints – and that may partially explain the force
production drop-off when utilizing unstable surfaces.

Biomechanical Concerns with UST

When dealing with closed kinetic chain lower body movements

specifically, there also arises a functional anatomy perspective in
opposition to unstable surface training. During the gait cycle, at heel
strike, the subtalar joint (STJ) is slightly supinated, as this allows for
calcaneal inversion and initial ground contact with the lateral aspect of the
heels. Just as this lateral aspect hits the ground, calcaneal eversion begins
to take place in order to bring the medial aspect of the heel to the
ground. This eversion initiates the process of STJ pronation, a complex
movement that encompasses abduction, dorsiflexion, and eversion (23).

The different ends of the subtalar joint spectrum.

Left to Right: neutral, supination, pronation

37
www.EricCressey.com
During pronation, the mid-tarsal joint “unlocks,” causing the foot to flatten
during the mid-stance phase of gait. Pronation is crucial in that this
repositioning of the foot and ankle facilitates shock absorption, adjustment
to terrain, and torque conversion (19,23). Just as importantly, the lowered
arch loads certain muscles (known as tri-planar loading) that are involved
with the propulsion phase that begins as soon as deceleration is complete
(71).

It is imperative that one's subtalar joint has returned to a supinated

position prior to the initiation of propulsion, as supination provides the
rigid stability that is so crucial for optimal propulsion and puts the muscles
pre-stretched in tri-planar loading at a mechanical advantage (71). Tri-
planar loading is just one example of the importance of utilizing eccentric
loading to optimize subsequent force production; this scenario is highly
evident in countless sporting activities.

While it appears that adjustment to unstable surfaces is an

individual phenomenon, it stands to reason that many individuals will use
excessive pronation as a means of adjusting to such surfaces. Consistent
with biomechanical theory, research has demonstrated that individuals
with excessive pronation have lower concentric plantarflexor strength than
those with normal ankles (68); this finding has noteworthy implications for
virtually all athletes.

Pronation and deceleration are also closely related to ankle

plantarflexion, tibial internal rotation; knee flexion and abduction/valgus;
and hip internal rotation, adduction, and flexion (23,71). Therefore, the
musculature that opposes all these movements at the ankles, knees, and
hips are acting as decelerators. When they are decelerating movement
(eccentric muscle action), they are also being loaded, which increases their
force production capabilities when the time comes for propulsion (90).

As mentioned above, unstable conditions demand increased

stabilizer activity at the expense of mobility. In the context of closed
kinetic chain movements on unstable surfaces, stabilizer activity is related
to deceleration and pronation, whereas mobility is associated with
propulsion and supination. Tiberio (1988) noted that pronation can have
unfavorable biomechanical consequences when the amount of motion,
38
www.EricCressey.com
speed, or duration is excessive, as is the case in structural abnormalities
such as forefoot and rearfoot varus (71).

Muscles acting from firmly anchored bones can function most

optimally; when deprived of supination at mid-stance, the foot doesn't
become rigid until the heel has already left the ground. This is especially
problematic at the mid-tarsal joint (MTJ); usually, the MTJ is firmly locked
up during propulsion.

When it isn't locked up tightly, the plantar fascia is stressed

excessively in an attempt to maintain the normal arch of the foot and
some sense of rigidity among the calcaneus, tarsals, and metatarsals (71).
Known as the "windlass effect," tension of the plantar fascia is an
important component of a rigid lever from which to propel (23). Potential
foot ramifications of propelling during pronation include plantar fasciitis,
bunion formation on the inside of the great toe, and stress fractures or
metatarsalagia of the second toe secondary to decreased mechanical
advantage of the peroneus longus (71).

The Plantar Fascia

The plantar fascia serves as either a covering for or attachment

point of several intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the foot; when these
muscles contract, the fascia tightens, and if it is under excessive stress,

39
www.EricCressey.com
they cannot exert their effects optimally (67). Numerous other
decelerators of pronation (and its related movements) may become
symptomatic due to overuse that results from pronation occurring
inappropriately; research has demonstrated that excessive pronation alters
muscle activity at the ankle, knee, and hip (19). The tibialis posterior may
become irritated, or the stress may be borne at the knee (possible
ACL/MCL sprains/tears, patellofemoral pain syndrome, excessive lateral
pressure syndrome) or hip and spine (piriformis irritation, psoas tightness,
sacroiliac joint sprain) (71).

Given that the foot is a small base of support and the distal-most
segment of closed kinetic chain movement, even subtle biomechanical
abnormalities may have significant ramifications in terms of the control of
balance. According to Cote et al. (2005), excessive pronation “may
influence peripheral (somatosensory) input via changes in joint mobility or
surface contact area or, secondarily, through changes in muscular
strategies to maintain a stable base of support” (19).

Logically, when patients present with lower back pain, many well-
known physical therapists consider the structure and function of the
subtalar joint first. Coincidentally, an 8-week isokinetic strength training
program for the invertors and evertors significantly decreased pronation
during running, whereas a group performing “traditional” ankle
rehabilitation exercises had no observed changes to pronation (26).

UST and the Stretch-Shortening Cycle

Beyond the potential injury ramifications of UST as a result of

promoting more pronation, one must also recognize that unstable training
surfaces delay the amortization phase of any activity. This phase occurs
between the eccentric (preloading and deceleration) and the concentric
(propulsion) portions of any movement involving the stretch-shortening
cycle (SSC) (90). From a purely athletic standpoint, one seeks to minimize
the amortization phase as much as possible to prevent loss (as heat) of a
significant amount of the energy accumulated and stored in the as a result
of the preloading (5, 90).

40
www.EricCressey.com
 Komi (2003) outlined three fundamental conditions required for an
effective SSC action (38):

1) a well-timed muscle preactivation before the eccentric phase

2) a short, fast eccentric component

3) immediate transition (minimal delay) between stretch (eccentric)

and shortening (concentric) phases.

While UST may satisfy the first condition, muscle activation

patterns may not be reflect those seen on stable surfaces. In terms of the
second condition, hesitation in anticipation of the unstable surface may
slow the eccentric phase of the movement. And, as noted above, the
delay of the amortization phase due to instability may compromise the
effectiveness of the SSC action.

UST and Rate of Force Development

As noted earlier, RFD is of the utmost important for athletes.

Research to date examining the effects of unstable surface training on RFD
have been conducted on untrained subjects; therefore, it is difficult to
apply these results to training healthy individuals and experienced
athletes.

In addition to mechanically reducing one's potential to optimally

generate concentric activity in the lower extremities, unstable surface
training may also have psychological ramifications in terms of an athlete's
mindset in performing the exercises. An athlete will act hesitantly when
stepping onto an unstable surface; one cannot help but question if training
in this manner in a chronic sense would have potentially deleterious effects
on physiological and/or psychological parameters in sporting contexts.
Theoretically, this psychological consequence could slow one's capacity for
rapid eccentric preloading and, in turn, impair the amount of force
generated via the SSC more than the aforementioned mechanical factors
alone.

41
www.EricCressey.com
 Moreover, given that research has shown that unstable surface
training (in untrained subjects) improves muscular strength only in the
earliest phases of muscle action (29), it would seem more advantageous to
utilize stable surface resistance and explosive training to improve RFD, as
this modality has been demonstrated to improve neural drive for the entire
duration muscle action (1,78).

UST and Specificity

All these criticisms demonstrate that unstable surface training may

undermine the crucial concept of specificity. This concept holds that
prescribed exercises should depend on the biomechanical and metabolic
demands of a particular sport (5,54).

Sale and MacDougall (1981) asserted that specificity is greater when

movement patterns, muscle actions, force output, and movement velocity
are taken into account in programming for a given sport (61). Siff (2000)
noted that the principle of dynamic correspondence holds that "the means
and methods of strength training for specific sports should be chosen to
enhance the required motor qualities in terms of the amplitude and
direction of movement, the accentuated region of force production, the
dynamics of the effort, the rate and time of maximum force production,
and the regime of muscular work" (66).

Proponents of unstable surface training assert that such training is

specific to sport demands because of the increased challenge to balance,
proprioception, and core stability (13,14,60). There has, however, been
no research to date that demonstrates a carryover from UST to sport
proficiency in healthy, trained populations.

Conversely, resistance training exercises performed on stable

surfaces have been demonstrated effective in numerous research studies
with respect to improving a variety of athletic qualities, including:

ƒ muscular strength (5)

ƒ power (5)
ƒ aerobic endurance (53)
42
www.EricCressey.com
 ƒ running efficiency (54)
ƒ anaerobic endurance (5)
ƒ rate of force development (66,90)
ƒ hypertrophy (5)
ƒ reactive strength (66,90)
ƒ agility (47)

These qualities transfer to improved performance in a variety of

sporting tasks, including vertical jump (74), throwing velocity (79),
sprinting speed (22), and running economy (53). Interestingly, the
aforementioned short duration training intervention by Bruhn et al. (2004),
the high-intensity strength training group actually outperformed the
unstable surface training group on measures of static balance, possibly
due to increased stabilization via enhanced intra- and intermuscular
coordination that would allow for more rapid and effective force production
(15).

From a specificity standpoint, balance, proprioception, and stability

are all skill specific, and would therefore seemingly be better trained on
the same surface that is present in competition. Drowatzky and Zuccato
(1966) found little carryover from static to dynamic balance skills (24);
Tsigilis et al. (2001) confirmed this finding (76). With this in mind, one
must question whether unstable surface training, which necessitates a
significant amount of static balance, transfers to sporting movements,
which typically are more dependent on proficiency with dynamic balance
(19).

Instability may also be induced in a more sport-specific context

through the use of destabilizing torques – such as those seen with
unilateral training and lifts performed with non-symmetrical objects as
demonstrated in “Strongman” training (85). Behm et al. (2005) found that
unilateral shoulder and chest dumbbell presses increased activation of the
lumbo-sacral and upper lumbar erector spinae. Such destabilizing torques
must be offset by action of the contralateral limb musculature (8).

Beyond general strength training exercises, unstable surface training

has been used to replicate sports skills (e.g. throwing or catching while
standing on an unstable surface). Willardson (2004) observed that two
43
www.EricCressey.com
problems arise when one attempts to mimic sports skills while on an
unstable surface.

First, it’s quite possible that the individual is actually mastering two
separate motor patterns, as “the underlying neuromuscular recruitment
patterns and proprioceptive feedback may be completely different” for the
two exercises (87). In terms of specificity, it would be ideal to perform
such exercises on surfaces that closely resemble those present in
competition, especially given that athletes likely have limited time and
energy to devote to training.

Second, the incorporation of unfamiliar entities to a pre-existing

neuromuscular recruitment pattern for a given activity may negatively
impact performance of that skill (87). One example of this “neuromuscular
confusion” is the addition of significant external loads to a given sporting
movement; Siff (2003) wrote “the added loading invariably alters the
centres of gravity and rotations of the limbs and body, thereby altering the
underlying motor patterns and dispositions of joints relative to one
another” (66).

Safety of UST

Critics of unstable surface training have also brought issues of safety

to the forefront. While free-weight exercises such as the squat, deadlift,
Olympic lifts, and push press have been proven safe when performed on
stable surfaces (91), no studies have yet examined injury rates in groups
of athletes regularly performing resistance exercises on unstable surfaces.
Given that athletes devote more attention to the preservation of balance
while on unstable surfaces, less attention may be devoted to performance
of the dynamic component of the movement, allowing for a potentially
incorrect and unsafe exercise technique.

In fact, it’s possible to even question the injury prevention benefits

of unstable surface training interventions in healthy athletes in light of two
recent studies. Verhagen et al. (2004) found that a balance board training
program reduced the rate of ankle sprains in volleyball players, but this
beneficial reduction was limited to those players with a previous history of
44
www.EricCressey.com
ankle sprains. The researchers noted no preventative effect of unstable
surface training in healthy athletes, but did find that the incidence of
overuse knee injuries actually increased in the experimental (UST) group
players (81).

Likewise, in elite female soccer players, balance board training did

not decrease the rate of traumatic lower extremity injuries. The frequency
of major injuries – including four of five anterior cruciate ligament tears -
was actually higher in the intervention than the control group (69).

Previous research has demonstrated that scores on static balance

tests are not useful information when attempting to predict inversion ankle
injuries in soccer players (40). This lack of correlation implies that
methods to improve static balance may not be effective training
approaches to prevent injuries in dynamic sporting contexts – especially
when dealing with athletes with no recent history of lower extremity injury.

The Need for Further Research

While there is considerable support both for and against the use of
unstable surface training for improving athletic performance and reducing
the risk of injury in healthy, mature, trained athletes, research to-date has
focused predominantly on the effects of UST in injured and/or untrained
populations. None of these studies included control groups that performed
the same exercises, volume, and intensity on stable surfaces.

As a result, it is impossible to infer from the existing literature

whether UST is justified in the training of experienced, healthy athletes as
a means of improving performance and reducing the risk of injury. While
no evidence exists to support positive transferability to sports
performance, dozens of UST implements are commercially available,
heavily marketed, and widely utilized in both general fitness and athletic
performance settings. Therefore, further research examining the short-
and long-term physiological adaptations to UST is warranted to determine
in such training initiatives are of value outside of the rehabilitation world.
And this is where we came in back in the spring of 2005!

45
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 2: Methods

46
www.EricCressey.com
 Below, you’ll find a layman’s version of our research methods – and
our results. For the sake of brevity, I’ve left out the non-essential
elements that tend to “clutter” up scientific texts.

The purpose of our study was to determine the effects of 10 weeks

of lower-body unstable surface training on performance indices of the
short and long stretch-shortening cycle, sprinting speed, and agility in elite
collegiate soccer players. To our knowledge, this was the first study to
examine such an intervention in healthy, trained athletes with no recent
history of lower extremity injury.

Nineteen members of a Division 1 NCAA men’s soccer team were

our subjects. All were between the ages of 18 and 23 and had a minimum
of six months of resistance training – but none of it with unstable surface
training. Athletes were excluded from the study if they had a history of
ankle sprain in the previous six months.

Subjects

Players were matched for both age and position to account for
different activity levels during training and game play – and then randomly
assigned to either a control (stable surface) or experimental (unstable
surface) group.

Pre-Testing

Following a standardized dynamic warm-up and weigh-in, we tested

all the subjects during the month of January on the following performance
measures (in order):

ƒ Bounce Drop Jump (BDJ)

ƒ Counter Movement Jump (CMJ)
ƒ 40-Yard Sprint Test (Including a 10-Yard Split Time)
ƒ T-Test (agility measure)

47
www.EricCressey.com
 The BDJ test was used to assess the subjects' proficiency with the
short (<250ms contact time) stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), also known
as fast reactive strength (32.38,89). Subjects stepped from a 12-inch box
onto the floor (bilateral landing) and rapidly performed a rebound jump for
maximum height with minimum ground contact time. We then plugged
the jump height and body weight into the Sayers equation (63) to acquire
the predicted peak power for that attempt.

The CMJ – which is just a traditional vertical jump test – assesses

athletes’ proficiency with the long (>250ms contact time) SSC, also known
as slow reactive strength (32.38,89). The same calculation procedures
were used with this test as with the BDJ test.

All 40-yard sprint and 10-yard split times were assessed by digital
timers, and starting position was standardized.

In the T-Test, subjects sprint from the starting point to a cone ten
yards away, then turn to sprint five yards to the left to touch a line, then
ten yards to the right for another line, then turn again to sprint five yards
to the left, turning at the center cone to accelerate back through the
starting line. Again, digital timers were used.

Training Intervention

Following pre-testing, subjects embarked on a spring strength and

conditioning programming. The training program for the groups (again,
they were matched by position) was approximately 98% identical.
However, the experimental group performed the unstable surface training
intervention on one of the lower-body exercises in each of the 27
resistance-training sessions that took place over ten weeks (including a
week off at spring break after week 4). The unstable surface training was
performed on 1-2 Dyna-Discs, which are inflatable rubber discs that
measure 14 inches in diameter.

The unstable exercises were performed for 2-5 sets of 5-15 reps (or
for a certain duration, in the case of balance exercises) and consisted of

48
www.EricCressey.com
variations of exercises such as squats, deadlifts, lunges, single-leg squats,
and single-leg balances.

The experimental group performed the unstable surface exercises

with body weight or body weight with an additional a load prescribed as a
percentage of estimated one repetition-maximum (1RM) for that unstable
surface exercise. The control group, on the other hand, simply performed
the same exercises on stable surfaces; the same percentage of 1RM was
prescribed for loading, but it was based on the estimated 1RM for stable
conditions.

The reduction in load utilized parallels what happens in the “real

world” with unstable surface training. Additionally, we integrated these
exercises toward the end of the sessions, as they are normally treated as
“assistance” exercises in most programs. So, effectively, we replicated
exactly what happens in everyday strength and conditioning and personal
training scenarios.

One important last note I should highlight is that all of these

athletes – in both groups – still lifted challenging loads on stable surfaces;
they squatted, deadlifted, and did challenging single-leg exercises just as
they would have done if no intervention was taking place. We simply
plugged UST in for roughly 1/50 of the overall training volume.

Post-Testing

We post-tested all the athletes 11 weeks after pre-testing, repeating

all the pre-testing measures and paying attention to changes in injury
status and body weight. After doing all the data analyses (I won’t bore
you with the details; suffice it to say that they were all legit and supervised
by some really smart folks), we had some very exciting information to add
to the body of knowledge in the world of strength and conditioning. The
results – and more importantly, the discussion and practical applications –
can be found in the pages that follow.

49
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 3: Results

50
www.EricCressey.com
 Now, on to the good stuff. In the text, you’ll find a brief explanation
of our results – complete with the actual data (tables) and graphs for easy
comparison. I’ve kept this to the “meat and potatoes” – although the
statistics aficionados in the crowd will be delighted to see a few p-values
referenced.

Jumping Assessments

While there were no pre-intervention differences between groups for

predicted power on the BDJ or CMJ, the post-intervention differences were
readily apparent (Table 3.1). The stable training group demonstrated
significant improvements in both BDJ and CMJ, but the unstable training
group did not demonstrate significant improvements in either measure.

Table 3.1: Mean Bounce Drop Jump and Countermovement Jump

Predicted Peak Power for Pre- and Post-Test and % Change.

%
Assessment Pre-Test Post-Test Change
BDJ - Predicted Power (W)
Unstable 5067.8 5109.5 0.8%
Stable 5156.3 5324.1 3.2%*†
CMJ - Predicted Power (W)
Unstable 5088.6 5088.6 0.0%
Stable 5174.5 5302.7 2.4%*†

*Significant difference within groups over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significant difference between groups at p<0.05.

51
www.EricCressey.com
Figure 3.1: Bounce Drop Jump Predicted Peak Power. Only the stable
training group demonstrated significant improvements over baseline.

*Significant improvement over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significantly greater improvement over experimental (unstable) group at
p<0.05.

52
www.EricCressey.com
Figure 3.2: Countermovement Jump Predicted Peak Power. Only the
stable training group demonstrated significant improvements over
baseline.

*Significant improvement over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significantly greater improvement over experimental (unstable) group at
p<0.05.

53
www.EricCressey.com
 Sprinting Assessments

No pre-intervention differences between groups for 40-yad sprint

time or 10-yard split time, and both groups saw significant improvements
on both sprinting measures. However, as Table 3.2 shows, the stable
training group improved significantly more than the unstable group on the
40-yard sprint time, and there was a trend (p=0.06) toward greater
improvement in the 10-yard split time as well.

Table 3.2: Mean 40- and 10-yard Sprint Times for Pre- and Post-Test and
% Change.

Post- %
Assessment Pre-Test Test Change
40-yard sprint (s)
Unstable 5.02 4.93 -1.8%*
Stable 5.06 4.87 -3.9%*†
10-yard split (s)
Unstable 1.73 1.67 -4.0%*
Stable 1.75 1.63 -7.6%*

*Significant difference within groups over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significant difference between groups at p<0.05.

54
www.EricCressey.com
Figure 3.3: 40-Yard Sprint Times. Both groups improved significantly
over baseline, with the stable training group improving significantly more
than the unstable group.

*Significant improvement over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significantly greater improvement over unstable group at p<0.05.

55
www.EricCressey.com
Figure 3.4: 10-Yard Split Times. Both groups improved significantly over
baseline, although a trend was apparent that demonstrated significantly
greater improvements in the stable group than the unstable (experimental)
group, this difference was not statistically significant.

*Significant improvement over pre-testing at p<0.05.

56
www.EricCressey.com
 Agility Assessment

No pre-intervention differences were present between the two

groups for T-test time, and while both groups improved significantly from
baseline to post-testing, there was not a significant difference between the
two groups. It should be noted, however, that while the stable group had
a slower average time by 0.09 seconds at pre-testing, it was actually 0.03s
faster than the unstable group at post-testing.

Table 3.3. Mean T-Test Times for Pre- and Post-Test and % Change.

Post- %
Assessment Pre-Test Test Change
T-Test (s)
Unstable 8.33 8.09 -2.9%*
Stable 8.42 8.06 -4.4%*

*Significant difference within groups over pre-testing at p<0.05.

†Significant difference between groups at p<0.05.

57
www.EricCressey.com
Figure 3.5: T-Test (Agility) Times. Both groups improved significantly
over baseline, although no significant difference was observed between
groups.

*Significant improvement over pre-testing at p<0.05.

58
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 4: Discussion

59
www.EricCressey.com
 Originating in the rehabilitation world, unstable surface training
(UST) has become a popular strength and conditioning initiative for
individuals of all ages and training levels. To profit from this trend, several
companies have introduced a wide variety of such products, including
wobble boards, half-dome stability balls, foam pads, and balance discs.
The underlying premise of these products is that unstable surface training
is an excellent means of improving fitness, resistance to injury, and
athletic performance.

In spite of the widespread use and promotion of these products,

there really isn’t any scientific evidence to support the idea that they can
actually improve performance in healthy, trained athletes. Previous
research – both intentionally and unintentionally (poor study designs) –
has focused exclusively on unstable surface training’s effects on untrained
(and sometimes completely deconditioned) subjects without consideration
of previous lower extremity injuries prior to the interventions.

Conversely, stable surface resistance training has been very well

researched. The efficacy of stable surface training has been validated in
numerous studies that measured improvements in various markers of
athletic performance in healthy, trained subjects. Meanwhile, it should
come as no surprise that in spite of the lack of scientific data on the
effects of unstable surface training on healthy, athletic populations, there
are still a lot of heated theoretical-knowledge-based debates taking place
over its utility. Our hope in performing this study was that we’d be able to
shed some more light on the subject so that actual scientific evidence
could serve as the foundation for this debate – and possibly frame the
acceptance or rejection of UST in various training contexts.

As the results above showed, we found that (in comparison to a

stable surface program identical in all other variables), ten weeks of lower
body unstable surface training attenuated improvements in both long and
short stretch shortening cycle jumping performance (CMJ and BDJ,
respectively) and 40-yard sprint time. In other words, both groups
improved, but only the stable group improved significantly more than the
unstable group on all three variables. We also observed a trend toward
similar attenuation in 10-yard split times, although we didn’t see a
significant difference on an agility measure.
60
www.EricCressey.com
 There are several possible explanations for the differential training
effects between groups. At the end of the day, all these explanations
come back in theory to the fact that unstable surface training undermines
the principle of specificity of training.

The vast majority of athletic endeavors involve stable surfaces

where instability is applied further up the kinetic chain. While the feet
encounter instability in contexts of stable surfaces with closed-chain
motion, the torso and arms often encounter instability in open-chain
motion while the base is stable. Generally, in athletics, this “base” is the
feet – and in a standing position.

This would constitute “instability applied further up the kinetic

chain” while the athlete’s base is stable (at least temporarily).

Therefore, it’s reasonable to infer that unstable surface training may

hold more water with respect to training the “core” and upper body
musculature than they would with lower body training initiatives. This

61
www.EricCressey.com
more appropriate application would consist of movements where an
individual is seated or lying across a stability ball – and in some cases with
added resistance. As I’ll explain later, lower body instability training can
be imposed in much more sport-specific ways via several training
modalities on stable surfaces.

Most actions athletes encounter in sports take place at high

velocities and involve the stretch-shortening cycle to a great degree.
Unstable surfaces lengthen the amortization phase of SSC movements, so
the desired force production that follows eccentric preloading is
considerably less; it’s analogous to trying to jump out of sand, as the
stored elastic energy is lost as heat instead of going to concentric force
production. Granted, unstable surface training can positively impact
function in those with previous injuries and related proprioceptive deficits;
however, whether mechanically (lost elastic energy), psychologically
(tentative movements), or both, it seems to chronically impair SSC
function in healthy athletes. Simply stated, if you train slowly, you’ll be
slow.

To take it a step further, activation of antagonist musculature

increased with unstable surface training as a mechanism to increase joint
stability. This acute modification works contrary to one long-term benefit
of resistance training that is conducive to strength gains: reduced
antagonist activity. Thus, it’s logical to recognize that such an adaptation
could (and has, according to our research) interfere with athletic
performance when applied for an extended period of time, especially when
activation of the agonists is also compromised with UST.

It goes without saying that training for athletic performance often

involves a variety of competing physiological demands, so selecting the
most effective and efficient acute program variables is essential. When
training athletes, there is always an opportunity cost – or something that
the athletes could be doing instead of the selected program. Examining
the results from our study, it becomes clear that the experimental
(unstable) group would have responded better to stable surface training
focusing on dynamic muscle actions.

62
www.EricCressey.com
 To take this a step further, Gruber (in untrained subjects, no less)
discovered that UST only improved neuromuscular activation in the earliest
phases (<50ms) of muscle action (29). So, it’s possible that some of the
differential training effect between groups was related to the fact that the
stable surface exercises actually enhanced neuromuscular function for the
entire duration of muscle action while the unstable surface exercise didn’t.
Such a result supports previous research (1,78) that has shown stable
surface resistance training to be effective in this regard.

There is a correlation between the bounce drop jump, a short SSC

movement, and sprint performances of 30-100m, with the correlation
between the countermovement jump and sprinting performance lasting up
to 300m (32). Essentially, what this tells us is that the SSC’s role
diminishes as exercise duration increases. So, the longer we sprint, the
more we “muscle it.” There is more preactivation, which diminishes the
tolerance to stretch and the amount of elastic energy stored (51). This
explains why we’d see more pronounced differences between groups on
the BDJ and 40-yard time than on the CMJ; the latter two tests are
somewhat of a “truer” measure of the SSC because more elastic energy is
stored and the amortization phase is shorter.

Maximal strength and power are certainly of paramount importance

to the first 10 yards of sprinting (21,50), and this likely explains the trend
toward statistical significance in 10-yard split times we observed. Unstable
surface training decreases exercise intensity (load) in comparison to stable
surface training, so the stable surface group likely saw greater
improvements in maximal strength (and power, as noted earlier) over the
course of the training intervention. Single-jump performance is
significantly correlated with the initial acceleration of sprinting
performance, too, so it’s clear that the negative alterations to SSC function
directly influenced these results as well (21).

This is an issue that should definitely be taken into account when a

coach or trainer opts to use unstable surface training as “assistance
exercises,” as it’s normally applied (after the main, stable surface
movement(s) of the day. Both groups performed traditional stable surface
heavy resistance training exercises (generally, squat or deadlift variations)
before they ever got to the UST exercise in a day’s session. Basically,

63
www.EricCressey.com
what this shows us is that even if one does the stable surface work
intensely, the unstable surface work can “obstruct” the strength and power
gains one would otherwise make. And, this is even the case if the
unstable surface training only comprises 2% of one’s overall training
program! Summarily, it’s best to maintain specificity with respect to
surface when doing lower-body training in healthy athletes, although
rehabilitation scenarios are a different story.

While we observed more improvements in the stable group than the

unstable surface group on an agility measure (T-Test), the difference
wasn’t statistically significant. Interestingly, the T-Test was the
assessment we used with the longest duration (almost twice as long as the
40-yard sprint), meaning that it was likely the one that would be least
impacted by alterations to SSC function. Had this been an agility measure
with a shorter duration, I suspect the results might have been a bit
different, in light of everything else we observed.

64
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 5: Practical Applications

65
www.EricCressey.com
 One of the most commonly cited arguments against unstable surface
training is that it doesn’t allow for adequate resistance to provide for
strength gains – and our study certainly verifies that point of contention.
Further, we demonstrated that unstable surface training actually interferes
with power increases athletes should experience with concurrent stable
surface training. In other words, as coaches and trainers implement UST
with clients in an attempt to improve proprioception, they’re actually
negatively affecting other athletic qualities – and they’re ignoring the fact
that proprioception is very skill-specific.

However, in addition to rehabilitation contexts for the lower body,

there may be some merit to utilizing unstable surface training in scenarios
where one’s goal is to maintain muscle activation, but reduce stress on the
joints. Anderson and Behm noted that muscle activation (as measured by
EMG) is maintained with UST, but there were lower joint torques (3).
Such use could be perfect for deloading periods when athletes need a
chance to recuperate without lower forces and velocities.

Utilizing unstable surface training in deloading periods makes the

most sense with respect to the upper body, which encounters
predominantly open-chain tasks in most sports contexts. One such
example would be the stability ball dumbbell bench press as a “deload”
exercise in place of barbell bench press variations:

66
www.EricCressey.com
 Coincidentally, many lifters from Louie Simmons’ Westside Barbell
school of thought have employed the dumbbell stability ball bench press
strategy for quite some time. This is just another example of how
research is sometimes many years behind what is going on in the
trenches.

Conversely, I’ve never heard of any of their outstanding squatters

doing so on top of an unstable surface! It’s a good thing, too, as such a
training measure would likely negative affect lower extremity strength and
power production. Unlike the upper extremity, the lower extremity
operates in an almost exclusively closed-chain fashion.

The value of unstable surface training in rehabilitation is well known,

particularly with respect to retraining proprioception of the peroneals
following lateral ankle sprains. After rehabilitation, there may also be a
role for preventing re-sprains in those athletes with a history of ankle
sprain, but more research is warranted to determine if this is indeed the
case.

As an extension of the utilization of unstable surface training in

deloading the upper body, there may be some merit to incorporating UST
in upper body rehabilitation programs where muscle activation is desired,
but injured athletes are not yet prepared for full-on stable surface loading.
Such loading would entail marked joint torques, and UST could be a
means of working around this limitation.

All things considered, though, in light of our results, there are clearly
some negative consequences to the utilization of lower body unstable
surface training outside of rehabilitation scenarios. As is the case with
almost every other facet of training for health and performance, specificity
is a very important consideration when considering training surface.
Instability should be applied with more sport-specific techniques.

For example, a destabilizing torque might be applied further up the

kinetic chain with the athlete’s feet fixed on the ground, essentially
simulating what happens when a football players is tackled. These
“destabilizing torques” may include unilateral exercises (8), lifts performed

67
www.EricCressey.com
with non-symmetrical objects, and uneven loading (85). Additionally,
classic agility, or change-of-direction, drills constitute sport-specific
instability training, as they shift an athlete’s center of gravity within his
base of support. To increase the challenge of the drill, movement speed
can increase or the base of support can become smaller (e.g., single-leg
rather than double-leg deceleration). Eventually, these training initiatives
transfer to sporting contexts to help an athlete regain stability rapidly to
improve performance and reduce injury risk.

There are seemingly countless texts available outlining the effective

implementation of agility drills to dynamically challenge one’s stability.
However, little attention has been paid to optimal progressions aside from
movement training that can be incorporated into a training program to
expedite an athlete’s progress toward functional stability.

To that end, Chapter 6 includes instability training progressions for

beginner, intermediate, and advanced trainees.

68
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 6: Instability Training Progressions

69
www.EricCressey.com
 Since we’re going to be implementing progressions on the instability
training front (and this is where a lot of you non-science-geeks will really
derive the most benefit from this e-book), it’s a good idea to refresh what
we learned in Chapter 1:

Five structural and positional factors control the degree of stability

one possesses at a given time (31):

1. Amount of body mass: The more mass an object has, the more
resistant it will be to a force that attempts to accelerate it. As such,
objects with more mass are more stable.

2. Friction between the surface and the body in contact with it:
Increased friction corresponds to increased stability.

3. Size of the base of support (BOS): In the context of athletics,

this generally refers to the positioning of the feet. Normally, a wide
stance improves stability. However, it is important to note that the
size and direction of the BOS must be appropriate in light of the
direction of the external force acting on an object.

4. Horizontal positioning of the center of gravity (COG): For

maximum stability, the COG should be on the edge of the BOS at
which an external force is acting.

5. Vertical position of the COG: The lower the COG, the more
stable the object.

In terms of short-term modifications, it’s best to ignore #1 and #2,

as we can’t all become sumo wrestlers, and training on ice probably isn’t a
good idea! We can, however, fluctuate our base of support (#3) and the
horizontal (#4) and vertical (#5) positions of our center of gravity (#5).
Horizontal positioning adjustments are more commonly trained
“accidentally” with on-field, on-court, and on-ice movements, as we’ll
explain later.

70
www.EricCressey.com
 With all this in mind, we can utilize this basic, but effective chart for
planning our stability training progressions:

Programming Variable Easy Hard

Base of Support Wider Narrower
COG Vertical Position Lower Higher
COG Horizontal Position Close to Axis of Rotation Away from Axis of Rotation
Surface (where applicable) Stable Unstable
Surface Contact Static (unchanging) Dynamic (changing)
Points of Stability More Fewer
Muscle Action Isometric & Accelerative Decelerative
Loading Symmetrical Asymmetrical
Positioning Ground-Based Standing

In the pages that follow, I’ll outline a variety of movements that

apply instability to training in sport-specific context. It is, however, very
important that I make it clear that I’m merely outlining the tip of the
iceberg. The true “meat and potatoes” is the knowledge you’ll attain of
how to progress an exercise from simple to complex; your imagination
really is your only limit. Here are some details with respect to
aforementioned nine factors:

Base of Support: Exercises with a wider base of support will be much

easier to accomplish than those with a narrow base of support. A simple
example of this is a bilateral squat (wide base: the distance between the
two feet) as compared to a single-leg squat (narrow base: the surface
area of just one foot).

Center of Gravity Vertical Position: The lower the center of gravity

during the performance of an exercise, the easier it will be to execute.
Perhaps the best example of this in the athletic world would be Barry
Sanders, widely regarded as the most agile player in football history.
Sanders carried the majority of his body weight in his (very strong) legs on
top of being only 5-8 – two factors that brought his center of gravity closer

71
www.EricCressey.com
(lower) to his base of support. Combine these factors with a ton of
muscular strength (Sanders was known for having a squat of 600+
pounds), and you had an athlete with great balance proficiency competing
in a stability-friendly environment. Factor in that he played on artificial
turf that allowed for stop-on-a-dime maneuvering, and it’s no wonder that
he made so many defenders look foolish during his career.

A great example is the comparison of a dumbbell lunge to a barbell

lunge. Holding the dumbbells at our sides keeps our center of gravity low,
while putting a barbell across the upper back will shift the center of gravity
upward, creating a more unstable scenario. We can even hold the bar
overhead to take the instability one step further.

Center of Gravity Horizontal Position: This factor is a bit tougher to

appreciate. In the world of athletics, imagine a lineman in football setting
his center of gravity forward in anticipation of contact with an opponent
coming off the line, or a sprinter getting a good forward lean during the
acceleration phase. In both cases, these athletes have sacrificed stability
in order to gain momentum to either move faster in the intended direction
of movement or reposition the center of gravity body to better absorb an
impact (by being closer to the edge of the base of support on which a
force is acting).

In resistance training, think of what happens when the bar is

incorrectly positioned during a front squat; it sits lower down on the arms
instead of being “racked” across the shoulder girdle. The movement is
easier when the center of gravity is kept close to the base of support, and
more challenging (unstable) when the bar slides forward, moving the
center of gravity further away from the axes of rotation (the hips and
knees) and base of support (feet). This is also why some individual with
poor mobility (e.g., tight hip flexors, locked up ankles, kyphotic postures)
seem less stable under the bar; they can’t keep it close enough to the
base of support.

72
www.EricCressey.com
 In the front squat, poor mobility can force the center
of gravity away from the base of support, making the exercise
more unstable, challenging, and potentially dangerous.

Fortunately, there are instances when we can safely use

repositioning the horizontal position of the center of gravity to our
advantage.

Surface: We’ve spent much of the past 70-something pages outlining

why unstable surface training is rarely appropriate for the lower body.
Outside of the rehabilitation of functional ankle instability, it doesn’t have
much merit. That’s not to say, however, that utilizing unstable surfaces in
other scenarios can’t be advantageous; the important thing is to recognize
that the instability must be applied at the midsection/torso or upper
extremities. Examples include push-ups with the hands on stability balls or
inflatable rubber discs and pressing exercises while positioned atop a
stability ball. These movements have considerable benefit with respect to
enhancing shoulder proprioception and deloading joints without losing out
on muscle activation.

Surface Contact: When the base of support is static (doesn’t change)

during the movement, the challenges to stability are lower than with

73
www.EricCressey.com
dynamic tasks. Here are a few examples of static (stable) vs. dynamic
(unstable) challenges:

ƒ Split-Squats vs. Forward or Reverse Lunges, Split Squat Jumps

ƒ Squats vs. Jump Squats
ƒ Push-ups vs. Clap/Plyo Push-ups, T-Push-ups, or Hand Switches

Mike Boyle was the first to introduce the concept of subdividing our
single-leg movements into static and dynamic, and he also took it a step
further by subdividing static movements into supported and unsupported
variations, and dynamic movements into accelerative and decelerative
variations. This feeds right into the discussion of our next two factors.

Points of Stability: The more points of stability we have, the more stable
we are. This is one more reason why a squat is more stable than a single-
leg squat, and a dumbbell bench press is more stable than the same
movement performed on a stability ball. When you move from a standing
position to a kneeling position, the exercise becomes less challenging. In
the kneeling position, you have points of stability at both knees and both
feet – rather than just the feet in a standing position (this also makes your
base of support larger).

This also is applicable to our discussion of single-leg movements. As

I mentioned, static movements can be both supported and unsupported.
Examples of static supported movements are single-leg squat to
bench/box (pistols), single-leg Romanian deadlifts, and bowler squats.
Conversely, static supported movements include Bulgarian split squats,
split squats, and lateral squats. Supported movements afford more
stability than unsupported movements.

Muscle Action: Decelerative movements are far more challenging and

inherently unstable than isometric and accelerative exercises. Isometric
single-leg movements can fall under both the static supported and
unsupported categories and are the easiest of the bunch stability-wise.
Accelerative single-leg exercise consists of reverse lunge variations on the
ground or slideboard, step-ups, and sled pushing/pulling. Decelerative
movements include forward lunging and lateral lunges.

74
www.EricCressey.com
 Categorization of single-leg movements is a perfect example of how
important it is to match stability challenges to different corrective exercise
scenarios. With someone with an unstable or dysfunctional knee (with
anterior and lateral knee pain being the most common), static and
accelerative movements will be better tolerated than decelerative
movements.

One point of debate with respect to this classification scheme is

where to position walking lunge variations. While others categorize these
movements as accelerative because of the forward excursion and
carryover to running, I categorize them as decelerative because a
considerable amount of deceleration is involved and they are not nearly as
well tolerated as other accelerative variations in early knee post-
rehabilitation training. One-half of the movement is a higher-stress
forward lunge.

Loading: An athlete can be loaded symmetrically or asymmetrically.

Symmetrical loading is typical of more bodybuilding-oriented training
where muscular tension and the “mind-muscle” connection are more
important. Conversely, in training for athletics and optimal function,
asymmetrical loading is tremendously useful. Examples include 1-arm
dumbbell variations of the bench press, push press, Romanian deadlift,
suitcase deadlift, and row, to name a few.

Positioning: Positioning is really a category that could fall under the

center of gravity’s vertical position, but given the industry-wide debate
over the utility of upright versus ground-based training, it seems best to
give it the individual attention it deserves. Ground based training (for
obvious reasons) affords a more stable environment compared to training
in the standing position. Many entry-level exercise regimens begin
ground-based and progress the athlete, client, or patient to the upright
position as soon as possible for maximal functional carryover.

Now, let’s get to the movements. We’ll start with the most basic
and then delve into how to make these exercises more challenging as
adaptation takes place.

75
www.EricCressey.com
 Prone Bridge & Progressions

Category: Easy

This prone bridge is a very basic sagittal plane challenge for beginners, but
fortunately, there are multiple ways to progress it.

Set up as if you are about to do a push-up, but instead of putting your

hands on the floor, support your weight on your forearms. Your elbows
should make a 90-degree angle and be positioned directly under the
shoulders. In an ideal set-up, you’ll be staring directly at your fists, as the
chin should be tucked in order to maintain a neutral cervical spine posture.

Get some air into your belly, and brace your entire core area, keeping the
torso, hips, and legs in as much of a straight line as possible. I often will
very lightly “punch” an athlete’s stomach in the bottom position to help
cue this firmness. Hold this position for the designated period of time –
15-60s, depending on fitness levels.

Our first progression for this exercise is to elevate one foot slightly,
thereby reducing our points of stability. In this instance, we’ll do holds
with one leg slightly elevated, rest a bit, and then do a set with the other
leg elevated.
76
www.EricCressey.com
We can also progress this exercise by taking one forearm off the floor.

The movement can also be taken to a stability ball, as applying instability

at the upper extremity does have a solid functional carryover.

To take the instability a step further, have a partner shake the ball (lightly
at first and vigorously later on) to provide more stimuli in the frontal and
transverse planes. As always, it’s important to master the sagittal plane
before you venture into the two in considerable depth.

Lastly, you can make finalize the progression by elevating one foot while
on the stability ball.

77
www.EricCressey.com
 Side Bridge & Progressions

Category: Easy

Like the prone bridge, the side bridge is simply an isometric hold for time –
this time in the frontal plane. Poor endurance on this movement – both
absolutely and side-to-side discrepancies – is a good predictor of lower
back injury and dysfunction.

The performance is simple: we put the athlete on his/her side, and then
come up on the forearm of the “down” side with the elbow at 90 degrees.
The feet can be staggered or stacked (I prefer stacked) with the goal
being making a straight line with the body and bracing the core
musculature so that the hips and lumbar spine aren’t able to “sag.”
Important coaching points include getting the hips forward (tighten up the
glutes to prevent lumbar hyperextension) and shoulders back (get the
chest out to avoid a kyphotic position).

In beginners (especially overweight/deconditioned clients), you may need

to start with the knees and forearm on the floor (also pictured below) until
they have the muscular endurance to go to forearms and feet.

78
www.EricCressey.com
We’ll generally hold for 15-45s per set, depending on fitness levels.
Always stop the set if form starts to break down with fatigue.

You can take the center of gravity slightly higher and “weaken” one base
of support by lifting the top leg up.

79
www.EricCressey.com
 Birddog

Category: Easy

While I typically use it as an instructional exercise to help differentiate

pelvic movement from lumbar spine movement, the birddog can also serve
as an entry-level stability exercise.

The athlete begins in the quadruped position with the hands under the
shoulders and knees under the hips. The chin should be tucked so that
the athlete is looking right at the floor. Cue the athlete to brace the core
hard (you use the light “punching” technique from the prone bridges), and
extend one leg back.

At full extension (of both the hip and knee), the glute should be firing and
the lumbar spine in neutral (not hyperextended). It’s important to also
make sure that there is no lateral deviation of the leg. Hold at the top
position for a count of anywhere from 2-10 seconds, and then return to
the starting position to repeat for the desired number of repetitions.

Once this movement performed flawlessly, you can add in an opposite arm
reach in front of the body while maintaining the same torso and hip
positions. In other words, as you extend the right hip, you’ll reach with

80
www.EricCressey.com
the left arm (and vice versa). By taking the points of stability from three
to two, you’ll make the exercise slightly more challenging.

81
www.EricCressey.com
 Pallof Press

Categories: Easy/Intermediate

This movement, named after my friend John Pallof, a fantastic physical

therapist in Massachusetts, is fantastic for training the “core”
musculature’s true role: RESISTING rotation. It has merit for healthy
athletes and those rehabilitating injuries alike and is a subtle progression
from the side-bridge in the way that it not only goes from the ground to
the upright position, but also because it has a considerable transverse plan
challenge.

Stand with your left (or right) side facing a cable column while holding a
D-handle with both hands at chest height and your elbows flexed and
hands close to your chest. Your feet should be just outside shoulder-width
apart, with the knees and hips slightly bent, and chest out and shoulders
pulled back. You’ll feel the cable pulling you back toward the cable stack;
your job is to resist the rotation it applies.

To perform the movement, brace the core hard, and simply resist the
destabilizing torque the weight stack imposes as you press it away from
you. Don’t let the shoulders or hips “hike;” you should be rock solid.
Perform the movement facing in both directions.

You can make the movement more challenging by increasing the weight,
keeping your feet closer together, or standing on one leg.

82
www.EricCressey.com
We use several variations of this movement, constantly modifying the
tempo at which the athlete performed it. Sometimes, we’ll do sets of
three reps – each with a 10-second hold. Other times, we’ll do one 20-30s
hold. The sets will never last more than 30 seconds, though.

83
www.EricCressey.com
 One-Arm Dumbbell Push Press

Category: Easy

Set up as if you are about to do a standing one-arm dumbbell military

press, but go into a quarter squat prior to each rep. This “dip” will give
your upper body more help in pressing the weight overhead, but the
stricter lowering will overload the eccentric component of the movement.

Because the loading is asymmetrical, there is considerably higher

recruitment of the contralateral (opposite side) core musculature to keep
the torso erect.

Most individuals will be able to start with this exercise, but if they aren’t
able to grasp the “dip and drive,” you can always start them with seated
one-arm dumbbell military presses or standing (strict) military presses,
neither of which involve a “dip.” You’ll occasionally see individuals who
are stronger on strict military presses than push presses, and it generally
has to do with their inability to effectively transfer force from the lower
body to the upper body, a problem that is secondary to poor core stability.

84
www.EricCressey.com
 Alternating DB Bench Press & Progressions

Categories: Easy

The alternating dumbbell bench press is a good introduction to unilateral

training for the upper body in beginners. Simply press both dumbbells to
lockout, then do one rep on the right side, one on the left, and so on.

This movement can be performed on flat, incline, or decline benches, or as

a floor press. And, eventually, to make it more challenging, just use one
dumbbell at a time to make loading more asymmetrical.

You can also perform this exercise on a stability ball.

85
www.EricCressey.com
 Dumbbell Step-ups & Progressions

Categories: Easy/Intermediate/Advanced

Regular ol’ dumbbell (or body weight only) step-ups are quite possibly the
simplest dynamic accelerative movement you’ll encounter, as the eccentric
portion of the movement is relatively non-significant.

While they can be progressed into more challenging movements by a

barbell or specialty bar like the safety squat bar or giant cambered bar, it’s
best to “exhaust” other single-leg movements before you come back to the
step-up.

My experience has been that step-ups are a great movement for deload
weeks, but not something I’ll use very often beyond the first few months
of my work with an athlete.

86
www.EricCressey.com
I do, however, like to toss in unilateral cable step-ups with some of my
more advanced athletes as a little change of pace to avoid monotony in
training.

87
www.EricCressey.com
 Bulgarian Split Squat Isometric Holds & Progressions

Categories: Easy/Intermediate

I like the Bulgarian split squat isometric hold not only because it improves
frontal plane stability like all single-leg movements, but also because it
provides a great stretch for the hip flexors of the trailing leg.

Set up with your back leg elevated on a bench, and the front foot
approximately three feet forward. Your arms will be hanging at your
sides, with your chest out and shoulders back. Break at the knee of the
forward leg and descend into the bottom of a split squat. In the “down”
position, the back knee should be just short of touching the floor,
providing for a big stretch along the front of the hip and thigh on the
trailing leg. Your weight should be kept as much as possible on the mid-
foot of the forward leg with the toe of the back foot just helping you to
maintain balance. Maximally activate all the involved muscles for the
entire duration for the hold; I cue my athletes to think “glutes and
hamstrings firing, hip flexors relaxed.”

88
www.EricCressey.com
Hold this position for a prescribed amount of time, generally 15-120s,
depending on fitness levels. I’ve seen athletes fall over upon completion
of the set, and others who simply are so tight in their hips that they can’t
last long with this stretch.

To progress this exercise, simply hold dumbbells and maintain the

isometric action, or load the movement considerably with either dumbbells
(intermediate) or a barbell (advanced) and do actual reps.

Another progression – a creation of mine that is appropriately named

“Cressey Split Squats” after the sadistic coach who thought of it – takes
the Bulgarian Split Squat Isometric hold a step further by involving anti-
rotation core activation and increased recruitment of the hip abductors and
adductors.

In this version, the athlete’s arms are out in front of him to hold a band
while a partner pulls it to the side; he has to resist this rotation by bracing
the core musculature and stabilizing the pelvis with increase abductor or
adductor recruitment (depending on the leg in question and side to which
the band pulls the athlete).

89
www.EricCressey.com
There are four separate positions to be trained (right and left leg, rotation
applied to the right and left). The idea is to have the version with the
band look EXACTLY like the version without the band; don’t let the ankles,
knees, hips, and shoulders get pulled out of whack. That’s a sign that the
partner is pulling too strongly on the band for the participating athlete’s
fitness levels, so take it down a notch. Pictured below are the two
positions for the left-forward set-up.

90
www.EricCressey.com
 Dumbbell Reverse Lunges & Progressions

Categories: Easy/Intermediate/Advanced

Reverse lunge variations are the broadest class of dynamic accelerative

movements. They put much less stress on the knees than decelerative
single-leg movements and offer numerous benefits in terms of frontal
plane stability and activation of the glutes, hamstrings, quads, abductors,
and adductors. For that reason, with very few exceptions, programs I
write always include a reverse lunge variation.

Every other month, I’ll also include a dynamic decelerative variation

(forward lunging being the most common). In most cases, if you can use
a progression for a reverse lunge, you can do so for a forward lunge as
well.

The dumbbell reverse lunge is your most basic variation. Stand with a
dumbbell in each hand and your arms at your sides. Take a long stride
back with one leg while keeping most of your weight on your front heel
and maintaining an upright torso posture.

91
www.EricCressey.com
Use the front leg control the eccentric component of the movement, and
then propel you back up to the starting position to complete the rep. I
prefer to do all reps on one leg, rest a bit, and then perform the reps for
the other side.

For progressions, you have seemingly countless options. First, you can
increase range of motion by performing the exercise from a deficit:

This is an excellent option for individuals who need to work on not only
frontal plane stability, but also sagittal plane range of motion at the hip.

I also like barbell reverse lunges with a front squat grip, as the movement
enhances single-leg strength and frontal plane stability while keeping the
athlete in good posture.

92
www.EricCressey.com
Once an athlete has mastered the front squat set-up, you can try the back
squat set-up, too.

93
www.EricCressey.com
Finally, a more dynamic movement I like to incorporate into some of our
warm-ups involves a reverse lunge with some medicine ball work; the
medicine ball reverse lunge into shotput is a great way to teach power
transfer from the lower to upper body.

94
www.EricCressey.com
 Single-leg squats to bench/box

Categories: Easy/Intermediate

If you have healthy knees, this is an exercise that will help to keep them
that way. And, if you don’t have healthy knees, gradually working toward
improving your performance (and pain-free range of motion) on this
exercise is likely a very fruitful addition to your rehabilitation.

To perform the exercise, stand on one foot about six inches away from a
bench or box (height of the implement will depend on your fitness,
flexibility, and experience with the exercise). Hold your non-working leg
out in front of you, and imagine trying to “grab” the floor with your
support leg (I use the cue of trying to pick up a basketball). Take a breath
of air into your belly, stay tight, and push your hips back to begin the
lowering phase. Don’t let the knee fall inward and try to keep the chest up
and shoulders back.

Just as you feel your glutes make contact with the box or bench, reverse
directions; think “tap and go” and not “thud.” You can expect it to be
pretty awkward and challenging at first, but it’ll come around quickly and
you’ll find yourself going to a much lower implement.

For progressions, you can hold weights or dumbbells at arm’s length or

wear a weight-vest. I typically have athletes do this exercise barefooted.

95
www.EricCressey.com
 Overhead Lunge Walk & Progressions

Categories: Easy/Intermediate/Advanced

Doing anything overhead comprises a considerable stability challenge at

multiple joints. One of our simplest, yet most effective dynamic flexibility
drills is an overhead lunge walk. This movement challenges frontal plane
stability while optimizing range of motion at the hips. Perform it in a
walking fashion, focusing on long strides, weight on the heels, spine in
neutral (not hyperextended), and front knee directly over the foot:

Eventually, this movement can become more than just a dynamic flexibility
drill; you can also load it with dumbbells or barbells on everything from
walking lunges, to reverse lunges, to forward lunges.

96
www.EricCressey.com
And, if you really think about it, a split jerk is really the “final” progression
– although the same degree of hip and knee flexion on the front leg is
never reached with such significant loading.

97
www.EricCressey.com
 Landmines

Category: Intermediate

Once movements like side bridge and Pallof presses have been mastered,
athletes are much more likely to rotate in the right places (hips, thoracic
spine, scapula) than at the wrong places (lumbar spine). Once we’ve
established that motor control to “spare” the lumbar spine, we can start to
train rotational movements. I prefer to do so in a more controlled manner
with landmines before we get to rotational medicine ball throws and cable
woodchops.

To perform a landmine, position one end of a barbell in either a landmine

unit (e.g., the Extreme Core Trainer), or in the corner of a wall. Hold it
out in front of you at arm’s length with your hands right about forehead
level. Your goal is to allow the bar to descend as far as possible (big arc)
without any movement of the core; it should take place exclusively at the
scapulae and shoulders (arms are straight) – so you’ll need some upper
body strength to help the cause. Alternate sides and keep the reps below
eight; otherwise, technique tends to break down quickly.

98
www.EricCressey.com
 Rotational Medicine Ball Scoop Toss

Categories: Intermediate/Advanced

Adding a specific cement wall in my facility for medicine ball throws was
one of the smartest things I’ve done in my career. We use a ton of
medicine ball throws to help with upper and lower body power in our
athletes, and also in some cases to develop rotational power that
integrates the two and teaches an athlete to effectively transfer force from
the lower to upper body.

I introduce a complex version (reverse lunge into medicine ball shotput)

earlier, but rotational throws are a better option for most people. These
can be done in either scoop (underhand, lower set-up) or shotput
(overhand, higher set-up) format:

In both cases, the main cue is to start in neutral stance and initiate the
propulsion from the trailing leg; I actually want athletes to feel the push
off in the back leg glutes and hamstrings. The core should be braced
tightly to allow for an effective transfer of force from the lower body to
upper body and, in turn, the ball.

99
www.EricCressey.com
We may do sets of 4-8 for power output, or integrate the throws into
medleys for metabolic conditioning with more reps (10-80).

100
www.EricCressey.com
 Cable Woodchops

Category: Intermediate

Virtually all of the cues – glutes and hamstrings fire on back leg, rotation
at the right places, brace the core hard – from the rotational medicine ball
throws apply to cable woodchops as well. The difference with a woodchop
is that you have more versatility in terms of plane of motion; you can go
low-to-high, chest-height, or high-to-low. Personally, I use a lot of chest-
height work and a little low-to-high work, but not much high-to-low (I find
that this movement is better trained with overhead medicine ball throws).

101
www.EricCressey.com
 Two-Point Dumbbell Row

Category: Intermediate

Traditionally, the one-arm dumbbell row has been performed with three
points of stability via one of two options:

a. standing with the non-working hand holding onto something (two feet
and one hand as points of stability)

b. kneeling on a bench with the torso perpendicular to the bench and

ground (one foot, one knee, and one hand as points of stability)

With the two-point dumbbell row, we eliminate the off-hand support to get
the following:

As with most unilateral upper-body exercises, we get increased activation

of the contralateral core musculature to stabilize the torso. It’s important,
however, that athletes have excellent motor control at the lumbar spine
and pelvis before you prescribe this exercise; otherwise, it can turn into a
rounded back mess, especially if they select a weight that’s too heavy.

102
www.EricCressey.com
 Kneeling 1-Arm Press & Progressions

Category: Intermediate/Advanced

The kneeling 1-arm press is yet another great option for unilateral upper
body exercises, but the contribution of a cable instead of a dumbbell
makes it more challenging from a stability standpoint.

Important coaching points include bracing the core and keeping the
scapula on the pressing side tucked down and back; many individuals will
“cave over” as they try to lean forward to use momentum to get the job
done.

You can progress the exercise with a dual column functional trainer set-up
with the kneeling cable press-row.

103
www.EricCressey.com
Eventually, you can progress to the standing position and use 1-arm cable
twist presses to integrate the lower extremity:

The most important thing to remember with this progression is that hip –
and not lumbar – extension and external rotation is where the force should
be generated.

104
www.EricCressey.com
 Push-up & Variations

Category: Easy/Intermediate

In the lay population, the push-up might be the most overused yet most
commonly incorrectly performed exercise. In a weight-training population,
though, it is tremendously underappreciated; for optimal shoulder health,
you need to include push-ups in your programming to strengthen key
scapular stabilizers (most notably serratus anterior) in ways that a bench
press can’t. Regular push-ups are slightly harder than prone bridges
because of the requisite upper body strength and scapular control – and
because the center of gravity is elevated

It seems silly to have to outline proper execution of a push-up, but I’ve

seen so many butchered badly over the years that I can’t omit a
description. For the set-up, you’ll want to be on your toes with the hands
on the floor directly underneath the shoulders at just wider than shoulder-
width.

Keeping your core tight and looking straight at the floor (not up), lower
your torso to the floor (chest first, not neck first) with the upper arms
“tucked” to form a 45-degree angle with the body. You can almost
imagine pulling yourself down into the push-up with the muscles of your
upper back.

As you press up, make sure that you imagine trying to push yourself away
from the floor; this little “plus” at the top will further recruit serratus
anterior, an underactive scapular protractor.

105
www.EricCressey.com
Master the initial push-up, and then you have a ton of options at your
fingertips as progressions. The simplest way to increase the difficulty of
the push-up is with the addition of a weight-vest. Two other means of
resistance increases are the addition of a band or chain(s). The chains can
be draped over your back, whereas the band is wrapped around your back
and hands; in both cases, you get accommodating resistance – meaning
that the resistance is maximized at the point in the strength curve (top of
the push-up) where you are strongest.

Likewise, you can elevate the feet, as doing so increases serratus anterior
activation further.

We also use a ton of blast-strap push-ups, medicine ball pushups, and

stability ball push-ups. Applying instability in this fashion will actually
increase recruitment of the triceps and rectus abdominus; in the case of
the former, it’s likely due to increased stability demands at the shoulder.

106
www.EricCressey.com
Eventually, you can move to a T-Push-up. This isn’t a movement we use
as a true strength exercise because you can’t load it, but we do
incorporate it into dynamic flexibility warm-ups. In the T-Push-up, as you
reach the top of the regular push-up, you’re opening up your ankles, hips,
and thoracic spine to reach your hand up toward the ceiling.

The core should remain braces to ensure that lumbar rotation doesn’t take
place; the easiest way to avoid this technique flaw is to make sure that the

107
www.EricCressey.com
hips don’t drop during the rotation. We generally performed 5-8 reps on
each side.

Lastly, an additional progression that works great in warm-ups is the

wheelbarrow walk. The athlete just needs a partner to hold his feet as he
marches along on his hands; the goal is to brace the core tightly and avoid
side-to-side movement of the hips.

108
www.EricCressey.com
 Dumbbell Suitcase Deadlift & Progressions

Category: Intermediate/Advanced

The dumbbell suitcase deadlift is an excellent progression from side

bridges and Pallof presses, as it is a more dynamic task that better
integrates force transfer from the lower body to upper body.

Your goal with the suitcase deadlift is to resist “tipping” to one side. You
should remain stable and symmetrical side-to-side in spite of a
considerable destabilizing torque trying to pull you to one side.

To begin, stand upright with your arms at your sides and a dumbbell in
one hand. Push your hips back as if you were beginning a regular deadlift,
bracing your core musculature tightly and resist the urge to lean to the
side on you’re holding the dumbbell. Drop as deep as your flexibility will
allow without the lower back round, and then reverse directions to stand
upright again.

To make the exercise more challenging, use a barbell; it’ll be much bigger
forearm and grip challenge. You’ll also find that you’re doing a lot more

109
www.EricCressey.com
stabilization work in the sagittal plane than on the dumbbell version of the
suitcase deadlift.

110
www.EricCressey.com
 Asymmetrical Loading

Categories: Intermediate/Advanced

The sky really is the limit with asymmetrical loading; you don’t have to
pick one specific exercise on which to do it. This can be as simple as
loading an extra five pounds on one side of a barbell, or selecting two
different weight dumbbells. Essentially, it’s an extension of unilateral
training.

As a general rule of thumb, don’t use it with beginners. Incorporate these

methods here and there with more experienced lifters to keep things
interesting.

In terms of exercise selection, I’ve done everything from barbell walking

lunges with an extra ten pounds on one side to manual resistance push-
ups where I press down on one side of an athlete’s torso.

111
www.EricCressey.com
 Stability Ball Mountain Climbers

Categories: Intermediate/Advanced

This is a great exercise I picked up from Craig Ballantyne. It’s hard to

classify it as a typical dynamic decelerative single-leg movement because
the upper body and core are assisting in the deceleration. So, I figured I’d
give it a section of its own!

Set up as if you are about to do a push-up with the hands on a stability

ball. However, instead of doing a push-up, do a anterolateral lunge (right
leg to 2 o’clock or left leg to 10 o’clock) on one side while keeping your
arms locked out on the ball.

This movement is tougher than it looks. Be sure to keep your chin tucked.
You can either alternate sides or do all your reps on one side before
switching to the other side.

Stability ball mountain climbers have several goals:

1. Apply stability at the foot and instability further up.

2. Improve length of the trailing leg hip flexors
3. Improve length of the lead leg hip adductors and extensors

Once you’ve mastered this movement with body weight only, you can put
on a weight vest.

112
www.EricCressey.com
 Squatting/Benching/Deadlifting against Bands

Categories: Intermediate/Advanced

Training with bands has multiple benefits, but most people tend to focus
on the favorable effect seen on strength from learning to not “get lazy”
during the portion of the strength curve at which the athlete is the
strongest. A fantastic, but frequently overlooked benefit is the fact that
bands impose a considerable, and relatively unpredictable destabilizing
torque to the barbell on squats, bench presses, and deadlifts.

As a general rule of thumb, the higher the percentage of total resistance

that comes from bands, the more unstable an exercise is. Anyone who
has ever done a warm-up set on squats with just the bar and some bands
can tell you that it’s really wobbly – and borderline awkward. However,
the second you put a 45-pound plate on each side, the movement feels
more natural – but not completely stable.

113
www.EricCressey.com
A full tutorial on the topic is far beyond the scope of this article, but a few
bulletpoints to keep in mind:

1. Don’t squat or bench against bands for more than three consecutive
weeks, as doing so is very tough on the joints (especially when it
accompanies heavier loading).

2. When in doubt, err on the side of using too little band tension.

3. Check your bands frequently to ensure that there is no fraying.

4. If you’re using dumbbells to secure the bands, make sure that they are
heavier. If the dumbbells are rolling or lifting, they aren’t heavy enough;
this is one reason why I love having racks with built-in band pegs!

5. For more information on using bands, check out the article “The Science
Behind Bands and Chains” by Rob Haan at EliteFTS.com.

114
www.EricCressey.com
 Recommended Further Reading

The exercises I outlined above are really just the tip of the iceberg; using
my progression model, your imagination is your only limit with respect to
the exercise variations you can create to apply functional instability
training. Combat Core by Jim Smith is one product I would highly
recommend to you in this regard. It’s a fantastic resource that includes
133 pages of photos and descriptions of many exercises I’m sure you’ve
never seen. The first time I read it, I found 16 brand-new ones myself –
and we’re now applying them with our athletes with great success.

Also, you likely noticed that I referred to instability in a general sense

rather than breaking it down joint-by-joint. These instability training
exercises benefit the knee, lumbar spine and scapulae – joints requiring
stability more than mobility – whereas the ankle, hip, and thoracic spine
demand more mobility training. The Joint-by-Joint Warm-up and Training
DVD by Michael Boyle is a resource that covers the entire joint-by-joint
theory comprehensively and provides dozens of great drills. Additionally,
here are a few more specific resources that will help you take this to the
next level:

1. Bulletproof Knees Manual, by Mike Robertson: Mike does an outstanding

job addressing everything you must know about preventing and correcting
knee pain. This should be required “patient reading” in doctors’ offices for
anyone who has knee issues.

2. Magnificent Mobility DVD, by Mike Robertson and Eric Cressey: We

address hip mobility in great detail in this DVD; it works hand-in-hand with
many of the instability training exercises I outlined above.

3. Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance Book, by Dr. Stuart McGill – Dr.
McGill is a foremost authority on lower back pain; this resource is excellent
for clinicians and back pain sufferers alike.

4. Inside-Out DVD, by Mike Robertson and Bill Hartman – This is by far the
best upper-extremity resource I’ve seen; it’s a must-read for anyone
dealing with shoulder, neck, or upper back problems.

115
www.EricCressey.com
Chapter 7: References

116
www.EricCressey.com
 References

1. AAGAARD, P., E.B. SIMONSEN, J.L. ANDERSON, P. MAGNUSSON, AND

P. DYHRE-POULSEN. Increased rate of force development and neural drive
of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol.
93(4):1318-26. 2002.

2. AKUTHOTA, V., AND S.F. NADLER. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 85(3 Suppl 1):S86-92. 2004.

3. ANDERSON, K.G., AND D.G. BEHM. Maintenance of EMG activity and

loss of force output with instability. J Strength Cond Res. 18(3):637-40.
2004.

4. ANDERSON, K., AND D.G. BEHM. Trunk muscle activity increases with
unstable squat movements. Can J Appl Physiol. 30(1):33-45. 2005.

5. BAECHLE, T.R., AND R.W. EARLE. Essentials of Strength Training and

Conditioning (2nd Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.

6. BALOGUN, J.A., L.O. AJAYI, AND F. ALAWALE. Determinants of single

limb stance balance performance. Afr J Med Med Sci. 26(3-4):153-7. 1997.

7. BEHM, D.G., K. ANDERSON, AND R.S. CURNEW. Muscle force and

activation under stable and unstable conditions. J Strength Cond Res.
16(3):416-22. 2002.

8. BEHM, D.G., A.M LEONARD, W.B. YOUNG, W.A. BONSEY, AND S.N.
MACKINNON. Trunk muscle electromyographic activity with unstable and
unilateral exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 19(1):193-201. 2005.

9. BEHM, D.G., M.J. WAHL, D.C. BUTTON, K.E. POWER, AND K.G.
ANDERSON. Relationship between hockey skating speed and selected
performance measures. J Strength Cond Res. 19(2):326-31. 2005.

10. BERNIER, J.N., D.H. PERRIN, AND A.M RIJKE. Effect of unilateral
functional instability of the ankle on postural sway and inversion and
eversion strength. J Athl Train. 32, 226 232. 1997.
117
www.EricCressey.com
11. BLISS, L.S., AND P. TEEPLE. Core stability: the centerpiece of any
training program. Curr Sports Med Rep. 4(3):179-83. 2005.

12. BOSCO, G., AND R.E. POPPELE. Proprioception from a spinocerebellar

perspective. Physiol Rev. 81(2):539-68. 2001.

13. BROOKS, D. The science behind functional balance training. 2003.

http://www.bosupro.com/images/sciencebehind.htm.
14. BROOKS, D, BROOKS, CC. BOSU Balance Trainer: Integrated Balance
Training. DW Fitness, LLC. 2002.

15. BRUHN, S., N. KULLMANN, AND A. GOLLHOFER. The effects of a

sensorimotor training and a strength training on postural stabilisation,
maximum isometric contraction and jump performance. Int J Sports Med.
25(1):56-60. 2004.

16. CAULFIELD, B.M., AND M. GARRETT. Functional instability of the

ankle: differences in patterns of ankle and knee movement prior to and
post landing in a single leg jump. Int J Sports Med. 23(1):64-8. 2002.

17. CAULFIELD, B., AND M. GARRETT. Changes in ground reaction force

during jump landing in subjects with functional instability of the ankle
joint. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 19(6):617-21. 2004.

18. COSIO-LIMA, L.M., K.L. REYNOLDS, C. WINTER, V. PAOLONE, AND

M.T. JONES. Effects of physioball and conventional floor exercises on early
phase adaptations in back and abdominal core stability and balance in
women. J Strength Cond Res. 17(4):721-5. 2003.

19. COTE, K.P., M.E. BRUNET, B.M. GANSNEDER, AND S.J. SHULTZ.
Effects of Pronated and Supinated Foot Postures on Static and Dynamic
Postural Stability. J Athl Train. 40(1):41-46. 2005.

20. CRAIG, A.D. Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of

the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 13(4):500-5. 2003.

118
www.EricCressey.com
21. CRONIN, J.B., AND K.T. HANSEN. Strength and power predictors of
sports speed. J Strength Cond Res. 19(2):349-57. 2005.

21. DELECLUSE, C., H. VAN COPPENOLLE, E. WILLEMS, M. VAN

LEEMPUTTE, R. DIELS, AND M. GORIS. Influence of high-resistance and
high-velocity training on sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
27(8):1203-9. 1995.

22. DELECLUSE, C. Influence of strength training on sprint running

performance. Current findings and implications for training. Sports Med.
24(3):147-56. 1997.

23. DONATELLI, R. The Biomechanics of the Foot and Ankle. Philadelphia:

F.A. Davis Company, 1990.

24. DROWATZKY, J.N., AND F.C. ZUCCATO. Interrelationships between

selected measures of static and dynamic balance. Res. Q. 38:(3) 509–510.
1966.

25. ELIASSON, A.C., H. FORSSBERG, K. IKUTA, I. APEL, G. WESTLING,

AND R. JOHANSSON. Development of human precision grip. V. anticipatory
and triggered grip actions during sudden loading. Exp Brain Res.
106(3):425-33. 1995.

26. FELTNER, M.E., H.S. MACRAE, P.G MACRAE, N.S. TURNER, C.A.
HARTMAN, M.L. SUMMERS, AND M.D. WELCH. Strength training effects on
rearfoot motion in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 26(8):1021-7. 1994.

27. GOLLHOFER, A. Proprioceptive training: considerations for strength

and power production. In: Strength and Power in Sport (2nd Ed.) P.V.
Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 331-343.

28. GRAY, GW. Functional Biomechanics. 2000.

http://www.functionaldesign.com/wynn_marketing/newsarticles_5.htm.

119
www.EricCressey.com
29. GRUBER M., AND A. GOLLHOFER. Impact of sensorimotor training on
the rate of force development and neural activation. Eur J Appl Physiol.
92(1-2):98-105. 2004.

30. HAKKINEN K., M. ALEN, W.J. KRAEMER, E. GOROSTIAGA, M.

IZQUIERDO, H. RUSKO, J. MIKKOLA, A. HAKKINEN, H. VALKEINEN, E.
KAARAKAINEN, S. ROMU, V. EROLA, J. AHTIAINEN, AND L.
PAAVOLAINEN. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and
endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 89(1):42-
52. 2003.

31. HALL, S.J. Basic Biomechanics (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill,
2003.

32. HENNESSY, L., AND J. KILTY. Relationship of the stretch-shortening

cycle to sprint performance in trained female athletes. J Strength Cond
Res. 15(3):326-31. 2001.

33. HODGES, P.W., A.G. CRESSWELL, AND A. THORSTENSSON. Perturbed

upper limb movements cause short-latency postural responses in trunk
muscles. Exp Brain Res. 138(2):243-50. 2001.

34. HOFFMAN, M., AND V.G. PAYNE. The effects of proprioceptive ankle
disk training on healthy subjects. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 21(2):90-3.
1995.

35. HOUGLUM, P.A. Therapeutic Exercise for Musculoskeletal Injuries (2nd

Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.

36. KAMINSKI, T.W., D.H. PERRIN, AND B.M GANSNEDER. Eversion

strength analysis of uninjured and functionally unstable ankles J Athl Train.
34:239 245. 1999.

37. JOHANSSON, R.S., AND G. WESTLING. Significance of cutaneous input

for precise hand movements. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl.
39:53-7. 1987.

120
www.EricCressey.com
38. KOMI, P.V. Stretch-shortening cycle. In: Strength and Power in Sport
(2nd Ed.) P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 184-202.

39. KONRADSEN, L., AND J.B. RAVN. Ankle instability caused by prolonged
peroneal reaction time. Acta Orthop Scand. 61(5):388-90. 1990.

40. KONRADSEN, L. Factors Contributing to Chronic Ankle Instability:

Kinesthesia and Joint Position Sense. J Athl Train. 37(4):381-385. 2002.

41. KORNECKI, S., AND V. ZSCHORLICH. The nature of the stabilizing

functions of skeletal muscles. J Biomech. 27(2):215-25. 1994.

42. KYROLAINEN, H., J. AVELA, J.M. MCBRIDE, S. KOSKINEN, J.L.

ANDERSEN, S. SIPILA, T.E. TAKALA, AND P.V. KOMI. Effects of power
training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance. Scand J Med
Sci Sports. 15(1):58-64. 2005.

43. LOFVENBERG, R., J. KARRHOLM, AND G. SUNDELIN. [Proprioceptive

reaction in the healthy and chronically unstable ankle joint]. Sportverletz
Sportschaden. 10(4):79-83. 1996.

44. MALLIOU, P., K. AMOUTZAS, A. THEODOSIOU, A. GIOFTSIDOU, K.

MANTIS, T PYLIANIDIS, AND E. KIOUMOURTZOGLOU. Proprioceptive
training for learning downhill skiing. Percept Mot Skills. 99(1):149-54.
2004.

45. MARSH, D.W., L.A. RICHARD, L.A. WILLIAMS, AND K.J. LYNCH. The
relationship between balance and pitching error in college baseball. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):441–446. 2004.

46. MARSHALL, P.W., AND B.A. MURPHY. Core stability exercises on and
off a Swiss ball. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 86(2):242-9. 2005.

47. MCBRIDE, J.M., T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A. DAVIE, R.U. NEWTON. The

effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of
strength, power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res. 16(1):75-82. 2002.

121
www.EricCressey.com
48. MCGUINE, T.A., J.J. GREENE, T. BEST, G. LEVERSON. Balance as a
predictor of ankle injuries in high school basketball players. Clin J Sport
Med. 10(4):239-44. 2000.

49. MORI, A. Electromyographic activity of selected trunk muscles during

stabilization exercises using a gym ball. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol.
44(1):57-64. 2004.

50. NEWMAN, M.A., K.M. TARPENNING, AND F.F. MARINA. Relationships

between isokinetic knee strength, single-sprint performance, and
repeated-sprint ability in football players. J Strength Cond Res. 18(4):867-
72. 2004.

51. NICOL, C., AND P.V. KOMI. Stretch-shortening cycle fatigue and its
influence on force and power production. In: Strength and Power in Sport
(2nd Ed.) P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 203-228.

52. OSBORNE, M.D., L.S. CHOU, E.R. LASKOWSKI, J. SMITH, AND K.R.
KAUFMAN. The effect of ankle disk training on muscle reaction time in
subjects with a history of ankle sprain. Am J Sports Med. 29(5):627-32.
2001.

53. PAAVOLAINEN, L., K. HAKKINEN, I. HAMALAINEN, A. NUMMELA, AND

H. RUSKO. Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by
improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol.
86(5):1527-33. 1999.

54. PEARSON, D., A. FAIGENBAUM, M. CONLEY, AND W.J. KRAEMER. The

National Strength and Conditioning Association's Basic Guidelines for the
Resistance Training of Athletes. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 22:(4)14-
27. 2000.

55. PFEIFER, M., B. BEGEROW, H.W. MINNE, T. SCHLOTTHAUER, M.

POSPESCHILL, M. SCHOLZ, A.D. LAZARESCU, AND W. POLLAHNE. Vitamin
D status, trunk muscle strength, body sway, falls, and fractures among
237 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Exp Clin Endocrinol
Diabetes. 109(2):87-92. 2001.

122
www.EricCressey.com
56. PORTER, GK JR., T.W. KAMINSKI, B. HATZEL, M.E. POWERS, AND M.
HORODYSKI. An examination of the stretch-shortening cycle of the
dorsiflexors and evertors in uninjured and functionally unstable ankles. J
Athl Train. 37(4):494-500. 2002.

57. ROSS. S.E., AND K.M. GUSKIEWICZ. Examination of static and dynamic
postural stability in individuals with functionally stable and unstable ankles.
Clin J Sport Med. 14(6):332-338. 2004.

58. ROWINSKI, M.J. Neurobiology for orthopedic and sports physical

therapy. In: Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy (3rd Ed.) T.R.
Malone, T. McPoil, A.J. Nitz, eds. St. Louis: Mosby, 1997.

59. ROZZI, S.L., S.M. LEPHART, R. STERNER, L. KULIGOWSKI. Balance

training for persons with functionally unstable ankles. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther. 29(8):478-86. 1999.

60. RUIZ, R., AND M.T. RICHARDSON. Functional balance training using a
domed device. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 27:(1)50-55. 2005.

61. SALE, D., AND D. MACDOUGALL. Specificity in strength training: a

review for the coach and athlete. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci. 6(2) 87–92.
1981.

62. SALE, DG. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength and
Power in Sport (2nd Ed.). P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. pp. 281-
314.

63. SAYERS, S.P., D.V. HARACKIEWICZ, E.A. HARMAN, P.N. FRYKMAN,

AND M.T. ROSENSTEIN. Cross-validation of three jump power equations.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 31(4):572-7. 1999.

64. SEMMLER, J.G. Motor unit synchronization and neuromuscular

performance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 30(1):8-14. 2002.

123
www.EricCressey.com
65. SHETH, P., B. YU, E.R. LASKOWSKI, AND K.N. AN. Ankle disk training
influences reaction times of selected muscles in a simulated ankle sprain.
Am J Sports Med. 25(4):538-43. 1997.

66. SIFF, M.C. Supertraining (6th ed.). Denver: Supertraining Institute,

2003.

67. SMITH, L.K., E.L. Weiss, AND L.D. LEHMKUHL. Brunnstrom's Clinical
Kinesiology (5th Ed.). F.A. Davis Company, 1996.

68. SNOOK, A.G. The relationship between excessive pronation as

measured by navicular drop and isokinetic strength of the ankle
musculature. Foot Ankle Int. 22(3):234-40. 2001.

69. SODERMAN, K., S. WERNER, T. PIETILA, B.ENGSTROM, AND H.

ANDREDSON. Balance board training: prevention of traumatic injuries of
the lower extremities in female soccer players? A prospective randomized
intervention study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 8(6):356-63.
2000.

70. STANTON, R., P.R. REABURN, AND B. HUMPHRIES. The effect of

short-term Swiss ball training on core stability and running economy. J
Strength Cond Res. 18(3):522-8. 2004.

71. TIBERIO, D. Pathomechanics of structural foot deformities. J Am Phys

Ther Assoc. 68(12):1840-49. 1988.

72. TIBERIO, D. Seeing the link/making the connection: H.A.T. mass

momentum. 2000.
http://www.functionaldesign.com/wynn_marketing/newsarticles_11.htm.

73. TIBERIO, D. Personal communication. 2004.

74. TRICOLI, V., L. LAMAS, R. CARNEVALE, AND C. UGRINOWITSCH.

Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body Functional Power Development:
Weightlifting vs. Vertical Jump Training Programs. J Strength Cond Res.
19(2):433-7. 2005.

124
www.EricCressey.com
75. TROPP, H. Pronator muscle weakness in functional instability of the
ankle joint. Int J Sports Med. 7(5):291-4. 1986.

76. TSIGILIS, N., E. ZACHOPOULOU, T. MAVRIDIS. Evaluation of the

specificity of selected dynamic balance tests. Percept Mot Skills. 92(3 Pt
1):827-33. 2001.

77. VAES, P., B. VAN GHELUWE, AND W. DUQUET. Control of acceleration

during sudden ankle supination in people with unstable ankles. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther. 31(12):741-52. 2001.

78. VAN CUTSEM, M., J. DUCHATEAU, AND K. HAINAUT. Changes in single

motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after
dynamic training in humans. J Physiol. 15;513 ( Pt 1):295-305. 1998.

79. VAN DEN TILLAAR, R. Effect of different training programs on the

velocity of overarm throwing: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res.
18(2):388-96. 2004

80. VERA-GARCIA, F.J., S.G. GRENIER, AND S.M. MCGILL. Abdominal

muscle response during curl-ups on both stable and labile surfaces. Phys
Ther. 80(6):564-9. 2000.

81. VERHAGEN, E., A. VAN DER BEEK, J. TWISK, L. BOUTER, R. BAHR,

AND W. VAN MECHELEN. The effect of a proprioceptive balance board
training program for the prevention of ankle sprains: a prospective
controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 32(6):1385-93. 2004.

82. WADDINGTON, G., R. ADAMS, AND A. JONES. Wobble board (ankle

disc) training effects on the discrimination of inversion movements. Aust J
Physiother. 45(2):95-101. 1999.

83. WADDINGTON, G., H. SEWARD, T. WRIGLEY, N. LACEY, AND R.

ADAMS. Comparing wobble board and jump-landing training effects on
knee and ankle movement discrimination. J Sci Med Sport. 3(4):449-59.
2000.

125
www.EricCressey.com
84. WADDINGTON, G.S., AND R.D. ADAMS. The effect of a 5-week
wobble-board exercise intervention on ability to discriminate different
degrees of ankle inversion, barefoot and wearing shoes: a study in healthy
elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 52(4):573-6. 2004.

85. WALLER, M., T. PIPER, AND R. TOWNSEND. Strongman events and

strength and conditioning programs. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.
25:(5)44-52. 2003.

86. WESTER, J.U., S.M. JESPERSEN, K.D. NIELSEN, AND L. NEUMANN.

Wobble board training after partial sprains of the lateral ligaments of the
ankle: a prospective randomized study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
23(5):332-6. 1996.

87. WILLARDSON, J.M. The effectiveness of resistance exercises

performed on unstable equipment. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J.
26:(5)70-74. 2004.

88. WILLEMS, T., E. WITVROUW, J. VERSTUYFT, P. VAES, AND D. DE

CLERCQ. Proprioception and Muscle Strength in Subjects With a History of
Ankle Sprains and Chronic Instability. J Athl Train. 37(4):487-493. 2002.

89. YOUNG, W.B., J.F. PRYOR, AND G.J. WILSON. Effects of instructions
on characteristics of counter movement and drop jump performance. J
Strength Cond Res. 9(4):232-236. 1995.

90. ZATSIORSKY, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

91. ZEMPER, E.D. Four-year study of weight room injuries in a national

sample of college football teams. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 12:(3) 32–
34. 1990.

126
www.EricCressey.com
 About the Author

Eric Cressey, MA, CSCS is the owner of Cressey

Performance, based 30 minutes west of Boston
in Hudson, MA. Cressey is a highly sought-
after coach for healthy and injured athletes
alike from youth sports to the professional and
Olympic ranks. Behind Eric’s expertise, Cressey
Performance has rapidly established itself as a
go-to high-performance facility among Boston
athletes – and those that come from across the
country and abroad to experience CP’s cutting-
edge methods.

Cressey received his Master’s Degree in Kinesiology with a concentration in Exercise

Science through the University of Connecticut Department of Kinesiology, the #1 ranked
kinesiology graduate program in the nation. At UCONN, Eric was involved in varsity
strength and conditioning and research in the human performance laboratory.

An accomplished author, Cressey has authored over 250 published articles and three
books while co-producing a DVD and 8-DVD set; these products have sold in more than
two dozen countries. As an invited guest speaker, Eric has presented all over the U.S
and abroad.

As a competitive powerlifter, Eric holds several state, national, and world records.
Cressey has competition bests of 540 squat, 402 bench, 650 deadlift, and 1532 total in
the 165-pound weight class. He is recognized as a coach who can jump, sprint, and lift
alongside his best athletes to push them to higher levels.

Although prepared in a variety of bodies of knowledge, Cressey specializes in applied

kinesiology and biomechanics as they relate to program design and corrective exercise;
maximal relative strength development; and athletic performance enhancement.

Eric has gained notoriety among baseball players of all levels for his success in
improving throwing velocity, bat speed, and sprinting speed - while markedly reducing
injury rates. Cressey Performance athletes have won state championships, countless
individual honors, and college scholarships thanks in large part to their hard work and
effective training programs at CP. On multiple occasions, Eric has worked hand-in-hand
with multiple pitching coaches to help pitchers to 8-10 mph increases in throwing
velocity in a single off-season.

You can sign up for his free newsletter and read his frequently-updated blog at
EricCressey.com,

127
www.EricCressey.com
 Other Products from Eric Cressey

Available at www.MagnificentMobility.com

Available at www.UltimateOffSeason.com.

128
www.EricCressey.com
Available at www.BuildingTheEfficientAthlete.com.

The Art of the Deload E-Book is

available through www.EricCressey.com.

129
www.EricCressey.com
Available through www.EricCressey.com.

130
www.EricCressey.com