7/10
7/10
Hate to agree with XFIT but when I go to the gym there are two groups of people who do an endless amount of situps and crunches:
1. women of all ages
2. thin runners
You don't see Rony Coleman or any of these jacked guys doing crunches. The abdominal muscle are overrated, it's just as pointless to train them as it is to do biceps curls 5x a week.
after teaching phys ed and coaching for 30 years it's my opinion that most people have weak cores and need do do some type of strength work for their "core". Most of our population sit all day, we don't work on farms or construction and have become weak. Olympic lifting, planks, pallof presses, glute bridges,Pilates, etc all address this. I would agree that we spend too much time on ancillary forms of training and not enough on running.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
A strong core is important. Here, I said it.
That said, you will train your core sufficiently by focusing on the big lifts: squats, deadlifts, pullups, bench press, overhead press, rows. You don't need anything else and will still look plenty RIPPED/SHREDDED (e.g. look at Fronings 8-pack).
hey I actually (sort of) agree with X-fit guy!! Core is important but for runners, doing hills and hill work (short hill sprints, rolling hill runs)build the specific core strength you need for running. Also, planks, and other ab exercises are useful.
Here's a random question. Is having a strong core similar to having a stiff frame on a bicycle? I was always told that a frame that wasn't stiff on a bike would absorb the energy as you pedaled: essentially some of your energy would be spent bending the frame on each pedal stroke instead of pushing you forward. Stiff frame means less give so the energy pushes you forward.
Simple, logical science or bohunk pseudo-science?
Huh?! wrote:
Here's a random question. Is having a strong core similar to having a stiff frame on a bicycle? I was always told that a frame that wasn't stiff on a bike would absorb the energy as you pedaled: essentially some of your energy would be spent bending the frame on each pedal stroke instead of pushing you forward. Stiff frame means less give so the energy pushes you forward.
Simple, logical science or bohunk pseudo-science?
That's logical science. But there is no evidence that runners who do "core" have less redundant movement than runners who train their "core" by following a good varied running program. That includes running on technical trails, running short fast running with focus on foram, and doing drills or other exercises that improve balance.
That you need tons of muscles in your "core" to run straight is pure BS.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
look at Fronings 8-pack
Who TF is Froning?
Edward Teach wrote:
Well said tired of idiots. I don't necessarily agree and will prob still continue doing my exercises in the evening - for about 15 minutes. Too many runners spend too much time on core, yoga (gotta be flexible right), zumba, xtraining, drills, etc. at the expense of actually running. Take all that time you're doing supplemental work and ask yourself if you spent that time running, how many more miles a week could you get? For a lot of runners, that could be 30-50 more miles a week.
Do both. Get away from the TV 3 times/week and do 15 minutes of "core" exercises.
[quote]Tired of idiots on here wrote:
I'm not saying that strengthening /quote]
You already told me I shouldn't listen to you. I took your advice.
Tired of idiots on here wrote:
well,. wrote:So elites using it doesn´t prove that it works, but when some anonymous idiot says that it´s useless without a shred of evidence, we should listen?
You shouldn't listen to anybody; instead, you should use your brain to ask yourself whether there is any rational basis for the things you believe
Perhaps that´s exactly what guys like Meb are doing. Perhaps one of the reasons he´s faster than you is that he is more intelligent than you when it comes to training.
genuine random a hole wrote:
You already told me I shouldn't listen to you. I took your advice.
Good, go listen to the functional training charlatans and get the kind of results you deserve.
A strong core is functional for athletics, but most people seeking to strengthen their core do so because they want to have washboard abs.
Believe it or not he's a professional Cross Fitter. I still can't believe that phrase can be used in a sentence. Professional Cross Fit guy.
The other guy! wrote:
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:look at Fronings 8-pack
Who TF is Froning?
Huh?! wrote:
Believe it or not he's a professional Cross Fitter. I still can't believe that phrase can be used in a sentence. Professional Cross Fit guy.
Ok, just looked him up. Granted he is muscular and has defined abs. But is he a good runner?
Here's a great article by Steve Magness on the matter:
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/rethinking-core-training-is-it-fad.html
He points out that the following exercises activate certain core muscles (longissimus and the multifidus), but points out the DEGREE OF ACTIVATION in "core exercises" is low. Here are the exercises in order of degree of muscle activation:
1. Squat and deadlift
2. Running
3. Core exercises (bird dog, pelvic thrusts, planks, dead lift, pushups, bosu ball work)
So running activates your core more than core work.
An excellent analysis by him:
"do we really need to spend an hour on doing a bunch of core work when running is core training? Will doing 15 back extension exercises do much when we just spent an hour doing an exercise which activates the back muscles to a greater degree? Instead, maybe we should do exercises which better strengthen those muscles if that’s the goal. Lastly, one has to look at how important the core is to your sport. Does a strong core really do all that people claim it too? Does our form really fall apart because our core does? That’s a common belief, but I’m betting that it isn’t true. Generally the core doesn’t fatigue first when racing. Form falling apart is a result of fatigue elsewhere and the runner trying to compensate or fight this fatigue by changing something. For instance, if stride length starts to decrease, you often see overswinging of the arm stroke. Are the arms fatigued? Not really, the runner’s just compensating. This can also be seen with the forward or backward lean during heavy fatigue. Is the runners back fatiguing so much that he can’t keep upright? Probably not, he’s just trying to compensate for reduced stride length/frequency."
jamin wrote:
A strong core is functional for athletics, but most people seeking to strengthen their core do so because they want to have washboard abs.
Using the phrase "functional" is a loud confession of ones utter ignorance
You just used it so I can't argue with that.
Tired of idiots on here wrote:
I didn't say the transverse abdominis and multifidus don't exist, you context-dropping, straw man making, armchair kinesiologist. I said they don't cumulatively comprise a special/magical/supra-anatomical entity called the "core." The multifidus is just that—the multifidus, and nothing more.
Easy there, Francis.
coach wrote:
after teaching phys ed and coaching for 30 years it's my opinion that most people have weak cores and need do do some type of strength work for their "core". Most of our population sit all day, we don't work on farms or construction and have become weak. Olympic lifting, planks, pallof presses, glute bridges,Pilates, etc all address this. I would agree that we spend too much time on ancillary forms of training and not enough on running.
Core is the new static stretching. There are a number of studies like this one showing that core does nothing for sports performance:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22228111Core seems to work for core measurements only. By comparison, water immersion for recovery has been shown to improve performance.
Core training may make your core "look cool" but it is wasted effort for athletes. That is why we have deleted it from our training in favor of things like strength training and plyos on different days which shows positive results for athletic performance.