You might want to check out the article I wrote on myofascial stretching. The article is linked in a thread under the Recovery forum. The article provides a brief overview of the stretching methods developed by Guy Voyer, a French osteopath. The last three stretches in the article address the spine, including the S1-L5 juntion. What makes these stretches unique is that they emphasize longitudinal decompression of the spinal segments, rather than rotational stretching.
Thanks for the information duxx. 
Flash, thanks for pointing me to your article, I will be sure to read into it when I have time. Sounds like something that could be helpful.
One thing that I found interesting about the article by Mike Boyle is that Paul Chek frequently refers to both Shirley Sahrmann and Porterfield and DeRosa as supporting authorities for his abdominal training methods, which in fact go against the recommendations of these researchers.
Interesting… but I am not familiar with Check methods of ab development! My major reference is Stuart McGill!
What does Check uses?
Duxx, where did you find that Boyle article?
Chek is the main person responsible for popularizing Swiss balls and he’s also into tornado ball methods for developing rotational strength. Do a search at T-mag and Chek’s web site to get an idea of his ab training approach.
Personally, I think you’re better off sticking with McGill’s work. I think he’s the best one in the business on this subject.
I recieve every week his articles by sportspecific.com newsletter… Informative!
Tnx Flash! I also believe that McGill is no1 in da’ bussiness…
I have a lot of troubles with my colegues and other coaches “breaking” fallacies and myths regarding ab work. Also, I am not a proponent of Charlie’s 30on30off ab work…
Can I ask what ab training you find to be good? I thought Charlie was 20 on 20 off, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, I would love to hear what type of ab training you find to be the most effective.
Squats!
The abs/core should be trained is such a manner that resist movements (isometrics) and in neutral spine. After all, heavy squuats, lungest, cleans, DL, even bench press very well stimulates abs!
You can find a lot of exercises and principles in McGill book.
Take a look at this discussion
http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=6637&page=6&pp=15&highlight=core
I have actually heard this one, and feel it is true, but really its about not wearing a belt while your lifting. You must keep pressure in your system to stabelize the back, making a “virtual belt”. The only problem I have with it, is that it can be dangerous if you dont focus on form and if your tired. Its fine if all you do is lift weights, but can be a challenge if you are doing other training.
Very true, except I would train the “abs/core” in a yeilding isometric fashion, not an overcoming/ resisting fasion.
After you’ve tried the stretches in the article, would you please post some feedback or comments under the myofascial stretching thread? I was hoping to generate more discussion on the topic than there has been thus far.
Can you expand more on this? Yielding isometrics? What the hell is that How come the muslce in the same time be statical and elongate? 
Sure, when we think of isometrics we often think of what we were taught as kids, that is pushing against an immovable object. In this case we are fully contracted and pushing but not going anywere. This is often called an overcoming isometric.
A yeilding isometric is when we lower down into a squat and hold at 90 degrees. Here gravity and the weight is trying to move up down but we are resisting it by holding in the same position. Think bench press, you lower down until you are at 90 degrees with your upper and lower are, now you resist the forces pushing you down. See how it is in a stretched position, yet isometrically held.
This is very useful for strengthening what you talked about SCC.
I belive this is the same thing but with slight difference.
- In method first described (overcoming isometrics) when pushing inmovable object, it will “return” the same force in same amount (but different direction).
- With gravity (+ movable weight) - second example; yielding isom, you must equally push the weight (with same force as it pushes you) or it will start to accelerate (move).
Thus the difference, between those two isometrical methods is in the ability to apply exacly right amount of force to keep the position isometrical! I never thinked about this… I belive that the training effect would be different between these two, because of different neural programming/motor control! Very interesting… I believe that the second option is more specific to sport - functional isometrics?
And, how would you apply this to core work? Side bridges, curls, bridges, bird-dogs, everithying is example of “yielding isometrics”? No offense Kacz, but I dont see anything “new” here, just you playing with me with some fansy names
I never said any of this was new, the name simply allows you to distinguish between the two. It’s good that you picked that up.
If I have the time to read it. I am reading a lot of things right now, and don’t always have time to add extra reading in. But if I get a chance, I will try to add on to your thread. Can’t promise anything though.