World record holder Jim Walmsley says doing "core" is useless

world what?!

Professional jogger ?

what a load of nonsense.

there's no reason why you couldn't estimate the causal effect of core work by doing an RCT where half of the runners in your sample do core work and half don't. obviously you need to think carefully about choosing your sample group, but it's still basic stats.

13 sec abs. wrote:

Didn't he miss the 100k World Record by 13 seconds? Maybe he should start doing 13 second abs.

Abs play no role in running.

stats bro wrote:

what a load of nonsense.

there's no reason why you couldn't estimate the causal effect of core work by doing an RCT where half of the runners in your sample do core work and half don't. obviously you need to think carefully about choosing your sample group, but it's still basic stats.

I've got an anecdotal example. Our track group (about 50 people) had a plank contest. pretty much all the slow runners dropped out before the faster runners, although the fastest runners were not in the top 3. Take that for what you will.

quality poster here wrote:

Obviously core workouts have an effect on performance to some extent. You use your core when running. A stronger core should help with fatigue and power transfer. Does it have much performance benefit on someone that already runs 120 miles a week? Maybe not. That person has already proved resilient to the stresses of running. I would wager most people that run 0-50 miles a week or your average hobby jogger would definitely benefit from core work and gym work in general.

Right, so while you are running you are strengthening the core muscles you are using in the manner you are using them.

yeppppp wrote:

stats bro wrote:

what a load of nonsense.

there's no reason why you couldn't estimate the causal effect of core work by doing an RCT where half of the runners in your sample do core work and half don't. obviously you need to think carefully about choosing your sample group, but it's still basic stats.

I've got an anecdotal example. Our track group (about 50 people) had a plank contest. pretty much all the slow runners dropped out before the faster runners, although the fastest runners were not in the top 3. Take that for what you will.

Well, maybe it's because the slower runners are the worst athletes, they are bad at everything.

The best runners are the best runners because they have the most talent, the best genes. Not because of the training they do, because they all train hard and most train pretty much the same. Not because of the lifting they do, or core work, or any other ancillary work. If there was a secret or magic workout everybody would do it. There isn't, talent wins.

Sania Sorokin does ab work.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CW0MR-qF-E4/?utm_medium=copy_link

Old Swede wrote:

bldr wrote:

Yup yup yup. Especially because most people are limited by their free time. To improve, I'd just slowly and cautiously add mileage, rather than adding 30 minutes of weird hip band exercises per day at the expense of mileage.

You don´t have to do anything at the expense of another thing. Please don´t tell me that you don´t have time for 20 minutes of core exercises 3 times per week. How many hours do you spend in front of the Tv every week?

I have a certain budget of time that I allow to get taken up by any hobby. I simply would rather relax at certain times than add more running-related exercises. Everyone is limited by time, but that doesn't mean I have maxed out the time I could possibly spend exercising. I have other priorities.

eight pack wrote:

yeppppp wrote:

I've got an anecdotal example. Our track group (about 50 people) had a plank contest. pretty much all the slow runners dropped out before the faster runners, although the fastest runners were not in the top 3. Take that for what you will.

Well, maybe it's because the slower runners are the worst athletes, they are bad at everything.

The best runners are the best runners because they have the most talent, the best genes. Not because of the training they do, because they all train hard and most train pretty much the same. Not because of the lifting they do, or core work, or any other ancillary work. If there was a secret or magic workout everybody would do it. There isn't, talent wins.

I don't know what you're trying to get at... Yes most pros train the same and most pros do core. So should you do core to maximize performance or not was the debate here not whether any random cross training beats talent or running a ton of miles because everyone already knows the answer to that.

Also, I think it goes without saying that running performance is a small measurement of your overall athletic ability. Source: nearly every athlete in the world, military fitness tests, etc.

What I'm saying is that core is not that important. If you are running and exercising everyday you are working the necessary core muscles, no harm in doing some hurdle mobility, hip stuff, but running is going to help your running performance the most. the pro's do core etc., because they have all day to do whatever, filling a little time with core makes them feel like they are doing something beneficial, otherwise they are bored.