Should You be Dedicating Time to Traditional Balance Training?

It worked for Daniel Son, so why not? Right?

While revisiting an article by the late Mel Siff, I came across an interesting concept concerning balance training.  When we examine most balance based training devices, we find that the vast majority require balance in a stationary position, meaning the feet are not allowed to move.  With the feet fixed, the only available method for achieving and / or maintaining balance is through the careful manipulation of the various joints from the ankle on up, particularly that of the hip.  Siff refers to this stationary balance strategy as the “hip strategy”.  In essence, when balance is lost and the feet are made to stay unmoved, we naturally attempt to regain balance by manipulating our center of gravity through flexion and extension of the hip joint.

Hip Strategy

Siff (2002) argues that most sporting endeavors actually favor a stepping or grasping compensatory response when balance is challenged.  A technique not allowed in “traditional” balance training.  Watch a running back that is knocked off balance during a run. His gait pattern changes in an attempt to re-gather himself and if this is not successful, or the center of gravity has been significantly disturbed, a hand may drop to the turf for an extra point of ground contact (wider base of support).  This is only one of many examples of the stepping and grasping balance strategies seen in sports.  Interestingly enough, some evidence may exist showing a preferential selection of the stepping and grasping strategy over the “hip strategy” when subjects are provided with the option between the two (Siff, 2002). 

Combination of Step and Grasp

While I still see value in training the “hip strategy”, through controlled single leg movements aimed more at strengthening important joint stabilizing musculature than specifically improving steadiness, Siff’s argument certainly raises a few questions in regards to its usefulness for improving on field athletic performance where balance is concerned.  As if this were not enough, research comparing the effects of traditional and unstable (wobble board, dyna disk and Bosu ball) resistance training on strength, balance and functional performance found no statistical difference between the two training modes in regards to balance enhancement (Kibele and Behm, 2009).  In short, training on devices designed to improve balance failed to outperform traditional ground based training methods.

With the above thoughts and evidence presented, I think we have sufficiently provided the means to answer the initial question posed.  I now leave you to make your own decisions on what you will and will not be spending your time doing in the gym.

References:

Kibele, A. and Behm, D. G. (2009). Seven weeks of instability and traditional resistance training effects on strength, balance and functional performance.  Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2443-2450.

Siff, M. C. (2002).  Functional training revisited.  Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24(5), 42-46.