Physicological benefits of core strengthening

Physiological**

My mistake

There is no scientific basis for "core strengthening." It is a fad born out of the functional training philosophy popularized by Paul Chek in the 90s. There is nothing scientific about it. Others will say otherwise, but they are mistaken.

Maybe it was not a typo.

Maybe it is only an unscientific "psychological" advantage and nothing at all physioligical: as apparently weak-framed runners become stronger, increase muscle mass, power, they gain confidence and that psychologically induces greater reliance on stregth, and hence a greater use of strength.

I'm thinking of an absurd experiment where you try to make "a" Kiprop develop into "a" Rudisha and see if that gives him the psychological confidence (to Kiprop) to run faster. And then try to verify the results physiologically.

What do you call the "core", just curious, its such a junk term thrown around by everybody and their dog. Kind of like "carbs" used to be considered bad.

"Core strength" is a term that is loosely used, so everybody has different interpretations of it.

In my opinion, the main thing is it improves biomechanical stability and allow more momentum to be transferred between the arms and legs, which improves running economy (the physiological benefit you are looking for).

As we run, our arms move for a reason - to provide us balance and give us a "smooth" gait. In the scientific literature, this was first described by Fenn in the 1930's, and later revisited by Hinrichs in the 1980's. The arms contribute to vertical lift (helping propel your body up), and also to the angular momentum which helps you rotate your pelvis forward.

The core is simply the place where the "transmission" of momentum takes place. If your core is strong, more of the momentum generate by your arms gets transmitted to your legs, which will affect your stride. If your core is weak, more momentum is lost as it is transferred between the upper and lower body, and therefore more of the work your arms are doing is wasted energy, combined with the fact that your legs need to metabolically work ("use energy") harder to do the same amount of mechanical work ("run faster"). So, theoretically, core strengthening improves your mechanical efficiency and running economy, using this simplistic model.

The results on "core strengthening" for improving running performance have been mixed in the scientific literature. Again, this is the result of different definitions of core strength/core stability, which come with different ideas of how to train it.

the unpopular truth wrote:

There is no scientific basis for "core strengthening." It is a fad born out of the functional training philosophy popularized by Paul Chek in the 90s. There is nothing scientific about it. Others will say otherwise, but they are mistaken.

this is a position popular with about 50 people on letsrun who have decided they know better than pretty much every successful coach, trainer, or professional athlete

do your core work

This reminds me of a conversation I overheard up in Mammoth this summer after I finished a run.

Sitting at Shady Rest Park, Ryan Hall and a couple of younger yahoo runners come trotting in and begin stretching. The younger yahoos then proceed to tear Meb apart for being an idiot for doing as much strength (weight) work.

Ryan did not defend Meb at all and just let these kids blast away at him.

Seems to me like that work may have been helpful.

I did do my core work. Nothing happened. Then I ran a lot and I got a lot better.

Hil wrote:

I did do my core work. Nothing happened. Then I ran a lot and I got a lot better.

were you dumb enough to think that you should do core work instead of some of your running?

core work in addition next time ;-)

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

this is a position popular with about 50 people on letsrun who have decided they know better than pretty much every successful coach, trainer, or professional athlete

do your core work

this is an appeal to authority

study logic

the unpopular truth wrote:

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

this is a position popular with about 50 people on letsrun who have decided they know better than pretty much every successful coach, trainer, or professional athlete

do your core work

this is an appeal to authority

study logic

logical argument for core work:

while it is true that the there is no scientific evidence proving the benefits of core work to an absolute certainty, there is also no evidence disproving them

in the absence of a certain verdict in either direction and assuming you are able to accept that the notion that exercises strengthening and balancing muscles prone to exhaustion and breaking down during the course of a race is not completely absurd (if this is unreasonable to you this discussion is not worth having), one if left to infer the best decision, the best methods for a proper inference: personal experience, the experiences of others

personal experience is the best inference so if you have experimented extensively with core work and found that it serves no purpose for you, that that is the best decision for you, however unless youve tried extensive core routines consistently for months at a time for at least 3-5 seasons, you havent given it enough time to constitute a fair shot

in the absence of adequate personal experience, the experiences of others is the best method of inference, hence my "appeal to authority"

the experiences of meb, hall, webb, cook, salazar, el g, geb, bekele, jerrys group, and virtually every other national national or world class athlete, trainer, or coach have led them to believe that core work does something for them

correlation does not equal causation meaning that their success does not prove the success of core work, however those at the top of our sport are most likely to have the most extensive experience and resources, meaning that their beliefs about core workout are pretty damn persuasive in the absence of sufficient personal experience

so in summary, can I prove core work? no...do i think people are idiots for refusing to do it? yes

your turn

if anything it'll help with the ladies

The "core muscles" are not any more prone to fatigue than any other muscle group used in running, and certainly do not "break down" more during the course of a race than the propulsive muscles of the legs. Furthermore, the activation of the "core" muscles during running is submaximal, meaning, the musculature is more than strong enough in its default condition to do the job of stabilizing the pelvis and torso during submaximal running. The strength of the muscles is not a limiting factor. The idea of the imporance of the "core" is totally arbitrary and represents an irrational attachment to the trends of the fitness world.

Personal experience can be a valid means of knowledge, but only to an individual who is ruthlessly devoted to logic and reason. In the context of training, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure the impact of any one training element on overall progress. You have no way of knowing whether your "core work" was the cause of your improvement or not. The more irrational the individual, the more arbitrarily he will tend to appraise the value of core work. Many people will allow their opinions to be informed primarily by the fact that they simply like the idea of core work, and think it makes sense, so they will "percieve" it as being valuable even when has no measurable value.

The opinions of elite athletes are of absolutely no use in determining truth. Elite athletes are elite because of superior genetics, not superior knoweldge, insight, or intelligence. They are just as prone to misinformation as everyone else.

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

were you dumb enough to think that you should do core work instead of some of your running?

core work in addition next time ;-)

No, I kept my mileage the same and added core and got worse if anything. I know personal anecdotes don't really mean anything, but core is boring and if my form isn't breaking down during races then I don't see any point in doing core.

I can see how it could become important during a marathon or something, though. Has anyone ever felt at all tired in their "core" during a race?

It depends how you define "core muscles." Is the small glute medius one of the "core muscles" (in my opinion yes, but since it is not an abdominal or trunk muscle, some will say no).

Of course, there is more to running than scientific studies, but lab work actually does show certain muscles are indeed more susceptible to fatigue during running.

I have data comparing electrical muscle fatigue of the legs, torso, and arm muscles during an exhaustive run at 5K intensity, and the rectus abdominus and external oblique had greater changes throughout the run than any of the leg muscles. However, they have a major confounder in the fact that these muscles are also used during respiration during high-intensity running. And despite showing greater changers in amplitude (using iEMG), they did not show any signs of actual fatigue (using median power frequency). So, while very active, these two specific "core muscles" did not fatigue.

The erector spinae group is different, and in some cases do indeed "break down" during a run, and there is already one published study demonstrating this. My study actually found it experiences the same amount of electrical fatigue as the propulsive leg muscles do (in 15 subjects with an average 5K PR of 15:30). So, these "core muscles" definitely can fatigue.

Also many injuries can indeed be associated with specific weak/inactive "core muscles" like the gluteus medius (causing imbalances starting at the level of the pelvis).

It is indisputable that as runners tire, their form breaks down, including a collapse of the core muscles resulting in a hunched over posture, as opposed to the streamlined, upright posture proven to be the most efficient (try this, breath deep while hunched over then while straight up with your chest out and see which is easier)

core exercises are designed to strengthen this muscle group enabling it withstand the fatigue so that the ideal form can be held longer

I never said they tire more than the propulsion muscles, merely that they do tire and it is a muscle group is better reached through core exercises than through actual running

this is a reasonable, though not inarguable premise that current science can neither prove or disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't really see how you can argue with this

and elite athletes are elite due to superior genetics, superior coaching, superior trainers, access to superior knowledge and studies, etc...

but like i said i never said core training definitly works, merely that the aformentioned elite athletes and coaches feel that it does based on a premise every bit as reasonable as yours...really want to compare which approach has had more success?

and until science can deliver an indisputable answer this is all we have to go on

Hil wrote:

No, I kept my mileage the same and added core and got worse if anything. I know personal anecdotes don't really mean anything, but core is boring and if my form isn't breaking down during races then I don't see any point in doing core.

I can see how it could become important during a marathon or something, though. Has anyone ever felt at all tired in their "core" during a race?

if this is the case, then your experiences have told you core doesnt work for you...fair enough

no training works the same for everyone and I dont think that core works for absolutely everyone, however for the majority of runners I believe it provides a real benefit (based on my experiences and the experience of most of the runners Ive spent time around)

I just dont feel like this means that "core is worthless" as espoused by some people on this board whove decided they can outcoach the nike staff

I would ask though how long you tried it for...like anything else in training core is done for long term benefit, if you went from never having done core before to jumping into it your going to feel soreness and fatigue in areas you never have before, and temporarily that may hunder running, however push through it and your body will adapt and recieve the benefits described above

again though, it may not happen this way for everyone...personal experience is still the best method, but you have to actually have personal experience to use it (not saying you havent done this just in general)

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

It is indisputable that as runners tire, their form breaks down, including a collapse of the core muscles resulting in a hunched over posture, as opposed to the streamlined, upright posture proven to be the most efficient (try this, breath deep while hunched over then while straight up with your chest out and see which is easier)

Uh, I dispute this. I've never once hunched over during a race.

Not sure about the science, but I find that doing a few crunches each day prevents back tightness and stitches, which I'm prone to during downhill running.