Renato Canova wrote:
For a runner, it's very much more important to find the way for having a correct "balance" while running.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I've definitely had the experience of being injured and needing specific exercises (which some might call "core work") in order to address some kind of an imbalance.
It's the notion that doing lots of planks and leg lifts will give you a fast finishing kick that I find ridiculous.
Keith Stone wrote:
Oh wait, a level 4 coach says I'm right too...
You claimed there was EVIDENCE that core work is helpful to running performance. A bunch of coaches saying that it's helpful is not evidence. Coaches used to say that if a woman ran races longer than 800 meters, her uterus might fall out. But there was never any evidence that was true.
As I said, there is exactly ONE study suggesting that core work is helpful for running, but it used an extremely heterogeneous population, and it found that core work is good for something like 47 seconds off of your 5k in 6 weeks, which is patently ridiculous.
Now, it makes perfect sense to put some stock in the collective wisdom of coaches. If we based our training only on iron-clad science, we'd be pretty limited. But the discussion was on the question of whether there was EVIDENCE that core work is beneficial to running performance, and there really isn't.
It's also healthy to ask, from time to time, if the things that "everybody is doing" actually make sense. The fact of the matter is that no matter how many coaches talk about the importance of core work, there are lots and lots of world class athletes who don't do it. If it really were so beneficial, one might expect that after all this time, there'd be some more uniformity in practice.
Do some resistance work, like this guy:
We understand not everyone is intelligent enough to understand the concept of a core and how it works. We won't hold it against your stupid a$s.
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.
People shouldn't try to sound intelligent by stating the lack of "evidence" in the form or double blind placebo controlled research studies is proof of anything, or that an abundance of valid studies PROVES anything. There are many things in life that cannot be researched, nor do they have to be. Certain things are known about physiology to provide enough evidence about a variety of topics that research isn't necessary. With regard to the above study which you are trying to discredit (and did a poor job at), this study did provide evidence. You can get experts to discredit ANY research study out there, which is why it the absence of evidence or presence of evidence is proof of nothing.
Maybe people don't do core work because they don't believe in it. Maybe they would be world champions if they did do it but are stuck as mid level pros because they don't. The fact that everyone doesn't do it doesn't help your case at all.
I agree 100% we can't rely on research for guidance. But we also can't make arbitrary claims, i.e. ascribe all kinds of benefits to "core" training that we conjured up in our imaginations despite bring unable to tie our claims to any measurable facts. You can believe what you want, but I am certain that no one gets stuck at a lower tier of achievement because he excludes "core" work.
I am certain that your certainty is hogwash.
Tired if idiots on here wrote:
I agree 100% we can't rely on research for guidance. But we also can't make arbitrary claims, i.e. ascribe all kinds of benefits to "core" training that we conjured up in our imaginations despite bring unable to tie our claims to any measurable facts. You can believe what you want, but I am certain that no one gets stuck at a lower tier of achievement because he excludes "core" work.
To the original poster, what's the big deal here? As soon as you democratize or homogenize most everything to the masses, or once whatever that thing is that eventually disseminates to the masses, it is always too diffuse to be particularly meaningful or powerfully good.
That's why people very generally prefer microbrews over Bud or Miller, specialty coffee over Coffee House, or your family's traditional marinara sauce over the store's version.
Sure, it's a fad, but everything is a fad in time and in its time. It's an important fad, though, and needs some attention, like every other part of the body needs some attention.
The masses will never care to get the full appreciation of the exact relationship of strength and power to stability and flexibility, but if they become even vaguely aware of some relationship than this beats complete ignorance, maybe like a single-issue voter is just a bit better than the clueless voter.
You got to let it go. Much in life will repeat this insight you have about today's emphasis on core exercises, from bran muffins to max cushioning to hi-tech wear to performance liquids and energy gels to protein replacement and carbo-loading.
It's a game, play it with a smile.
contrarian wrote:
The masses will never care to get the full appreciation of the exact relationship of strength and power to stability and flexibility, but if they become even vaguely aware of some relationship than this beats complete ignorance, maybe like a single-issue voter is just a bit better than the clueless voter.
If by "masses" you mean the ignorant I guess you are included in that category because the concept of "power" is meaningless in the context of muscle action, "stability" is not measurable, and flexibility is simply a non-factor altogether.
Asdfghjkll wrote:
If by "masses" you mean the ignorant I guess you are included in that category
As are you man. As are you.
I love this thread on many levels. I am probably very much like the OP, I got sucked into doing all kinds of core work in the early 2000s after reading about it in the running magazines, seeing the popularity of books on core training and general word of mouth from other runners. After a couple of years, I gradually scaled back and realized that I was the exact same person without doing any core work. I think the truth to the core debate is somewhere between the OP and Renato. Maybe a little is ok, but many take it way further than they need to.
What is also great about this thread is seeing how irate people get. It is as if something they have devoted their lives to is now being questioned and they have a hard time dealing with the possibility that they were wrong.
Multiple meds wrote:
I think the truth to the core debate is somewhere between the OP and Renato. Maybe a little is ok, but many take it way further than they need to.
What is also great about this thread is seeing how irate people get. It is as if something they have devoted their lives to is now being questioned and they have a hard time dealing with the possibility that they were wrong.
Both of these are spot on.
I am unconvinced by either point of view. By the way, a thing that is intuitively obvious is not necessarily true or false on that basis alone.
If I had a leaning I would say that core fitness doesn't hurt. But in the final analysis, who knows?
Theories change all the time.
Incidentally, this is not a new fad at all. There was much talk about upper body training in the 80s when I was at my best. (5k pr: 16.26, 1984 San Diego State.)
Nobody is saying that the muscles of the midsection don't have an important function, but their function isn't any more important than that any other muscle, and the kinds of silly activities that runners do in the name of core strength/stability neither actually improve the function of those muscles nor have any impact on running performance.
"Core" training is a pretty broad term, but the single thing that seems to characterize the kind of activities that most runners seem to do in the name of improving their "cores" is a total departure from the principles of strength training that apply to every other muscle in the body.
When most people want to strengthen their legs, they load the squat/deadlift bar or leg press machine heavy and contract their leg muscles against heavy direct resistance. But for some reason, when it comes time to address their "cores," to which they may devote entirely separate rituals, everything we know about proper strength training goes straight out the window:
http://fit2finish.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2012-02-03_08-38-09_116.jpg
That guy is merely airing out his choad, he's not doing "core".
The most running-specific, effective "core" work is to maintain perfect, relaxed form and posture under heavy training stress. What else should you be doing during as hard tempo or interval session than monitoring breathing, cadence and form/posture? In this way, only the proper muscle motor neurons are firing, in the proper sequence, something that all the planks and crunches in the world won't accomplish vis-a-vis relevance to running. Plyos and drills can help as well, again maintaining proper balance, coordination and form.
I have a lot of respect for how consistent you are, with capitalizing RIPPED/SHREDDED in all your posts.
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).
