"Core" training is one of the stupidest gimmicks ever to become popular among runners

Wilson Kipsang does core. A lot!

You got lectured about core by somebody who was from a larger town with actual late night TV.

Keith Stone wrote:

Even a minimal amount of research turns up tons of evidence that a stable core enables a more energy efficient stride.

This is totally untrue. I don't understand why you would make such a bold assertion that's so easily falsifiable.

There's basically no research that shows that core work is beneficial for runners. There's just one 2009 study that was extremely flawed, and even the biggest core proponents won't really defend its conclusions.

The best "core" exercise I have found for running is pullups (with leg lifts/swings interspersed). This integrates the upper body, especially the back/lats, in a way that counteracts the "collapsing" of form, especially around the pelvis in the finishing stages of races. I have little footspeed per se, but can routinely outkick my speedier opponents by recruiting my upper body effectively.

For most endurance running, though, yes it seems to be overrated, unless you have an unusual weakness or imbalance. Better to work on running drills, plyos, hills, etc..

How do you know that your speedier opponents aren't doing even more core and less proper running work?

Also, how are they speedier if you are beating them?

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.

You're funny. I like you.

800 dude wrote:

This is totally untrue. I don't understand why you would make such a bold assertion that's so easily falsifiable.

The person you're quoting is indifferent to fact. I do not read his posts.

How is doing some sit-ups while watching Deadliest Catch on TV a "marketing gimmick"?

SMJO wrote:

Why do people with the most developed cores(gymnasts) run with the most floppy erratic form with stuff wobbling and flying all over the place?

Crossfit

From experience, I feel like core (planks, twists, hip strengthening exercises) have really helped with my form.

I'm so glad I stopped doing core. Only lift weights now for abs. My running has improved as well. Core is a joke and I'm glad I will never waste my time again doing it.

1) Because I train with several of them and2) Because they blow my doors off in strides, jumps, pure speed stuff but I can drill them at the end of an 800/mile/5K.

SMJO wrote:

How do you know that your speedier opponents aren't doing even more core and less proper running work?

Also, how are they speedier if you are beating them?

Randy Oldman wrote:

How is doing some sit-ups while watching Deadliest Catch on TV a "marketing gimmick"?

Doing generic sit-ups doesn't really fall in-line with modern thinking on "core" training and isn't part of the marketing gimmick. It is, however, lousy training.

800 dude wrote:

Keith Stone wrote:

Even a minimal amount of research turns up tons of evidence that a stable core enables a more energy efficient stride.

This is totally untrue. I don't understand why you would make such a bold assertion that's so easily falsifiable.

Gee, I guess since my Jr High coach said it, my high school coach said it, I watched stuttered 16MM films in high school about it, that the college coach said it, that I read it in training books, articles, heard it from Olympians, etc, I guess because some anonymous dufus on the internet pissed off that someone asked him to do some situps says it's untrue I should blow off something I've heard for 40 years.

Yea right.

800 dude wrote:

Keith Stone wrote:

Even a minimal amount of research turns up tons of evidence that a stable core enables a more energy efficient stride.

This is totally untrue. I don't understand why you would make such a bold assertion that's so easily falsifiable.

Another example from the first page of a search that took 5 seconds:http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/core-matter?page=single

Now I'm sure you'll disregard this because it's from Runner's World, but it's not like Jack Daniels is a nut case like the OP. You're not worth the trouble of me digging through Noakes, the Competitive Runner's Handbook or a decade of Peak Running Performance to prove my point that not only is my point not untrue but I'm far from the first or only person to say exactly the same thing.

Keith Stone wrote:

Gee, I guess since my Jr High coach said it, my high school coach said it, I watched stuttered 16MM films in high school about it, that the college coach said it, that I read it in training books, articles, heard it from Olympians, etc, I guess because some anonymous dufus on the internet pissed off that someone asked him to do some situps says it's untrue I should blow off something I've heard for 40 years.

Yea right.

Nobody cares about you or what you believe, on this topic or any other. Your argument is invalid. The fact that an idea may be popular does not prove that it is correct. Your reliance on such a freshman logical fallacy betrays the indefensibility of your position.

Incite wrote:

1) Because I train with several of them and

2) Because they blow my doors off in strides, jumps, pure speed stuff but I can drill them at the end of an 800/mile/5K.

SMJO wrote:

How do you know that your speedier opponents aren't doing even more core and less proper running work?

Also, how are they speedier if you are beating them?

Oh, those guys are called "Sprinters" who are running the wrong event. Can you beat them over 400 and under with your mighty core?

Tired of idiots on here wrote:

Nobody cares about you or what you believe, on this topic or any other. Your argument is invalid. The fact that an idea may be popular does not prove that it is correct. Your reliance on such a freshman logical fallacy betrays the indefensibility of your position.

Popular with untold numbers of people with vast amounts of practical experience, compared to unpopular with 1/2 dozen whining pussies who are too lazy to do what their coach says. I'll go with the former. You have absolutely nothing to stand on other than anonymous blovation, I'll stick with people that actually know what they're talking about.

Tired of idiots on here wrote:

Nobody cares about you or what you believe, on this topic or any other. Your argument is invalid. The fact that an idea may be popular does not prove that it is correct. Your reliance on such a freshman logical fallacy betrays the indefensibility of your position.

Oh wait, a level 4 coach says I'm right too...http://www.brianmac.co.uk/corestab.htm

"It is not just the recruitment of these deep-trunk muscles, but how they are recruited that is important. Research (Hodges and Richardson, 1997)[2] showed that the co-contraction of the TA and MF muscles occurred prior to any movement of the limbs. This suggests that these muscles anticipate dynamic forces that may act on the lumbar spine and stabilise the area prior to any movement. Hodges and Richardson (1997)[2] showed that the timing of co-ordination of these muscles was very significant."

You're getting bitch slapped like a sissy. Want to go for round 3 so I can butt fuck you too?