Eloquent statement on the absurdity of training "core"

A dietician? Seriously?

Ever puke in a workout, or piss blood?

Golf isn't even a sport.

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

U. R. Stupid wrote:

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

Nope, just trolling--and it looks like he gotcha.

w5y wrote:

U. R. Stupid wrote:

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

Nope, just trolling--and it looks like he gotcha.

You, too, it seems.

No expert wrote:

A dietician? Seriously?

LOL...I knew I was going to regret not including a prediction that most of the replies would consist of ad hominems. The liberals of Letsrun are so predictable.

U. R. Stupid wrote:

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

If one trains his whole body, there is no need for direct abdominal work.

If one includes direct abdominal work anyway, it should follow the same principle as training every other muscle: a small amount of hard work with direct resistance. The balancing and various "dynamic" activities commonly associated with "core" training are gimmicks, totally worthless.

So we shouldn't do sit ups?

U. R. Stupid wrote:

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

Yup.

I've been strength training for many years and combining my own experience and tough wrought lessons with others' as well as the advice of physical therapists, I have a lot of tools (and a big agenda) when it comes to exercise. It's easiest of all to get lazy and work the legs (inc the hip flexors and glutes) and shoulders (including the rotator cuffs) but ignore the back and abdominal muscles.

2 4 1 wrote:

w5y wrote:

Nope, just trolling--and it looks like he gotcha.

You, too, it seems.

You, too, it seems.

And, to be preemptive, me too.

Brian Gates wrote:

U. R. Stupid wrote:

He didn't say it is absurd. He said not to ignore the other areas. Are you retarded?

If one trains his whole body, there is no need for direct abdominal work.

If one includes direct abdominal work anyway, it should follow the same principle as training every other muscle: a small amount of hard work with direct resistance. The balancing and various "dynamic" activities commonly associated with "core" training are gimmicks, totally worthless.

What evidence is there that 'balancing and various "dynamic" activities are gimmicks, totally worthless"?

Unbalanced wrote:

What evidence is there that 'balancing and various "dynamic" activities are gimmicks, totally worthless"?

The first step in correcting your current state of total ignorance and irrationality is to reflect on what constitutes valid evidence get familiar with some basic laws of logic. The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, so you should really ask modern fitness marketers what proof they have that "core" training is of any value. Since most people in your position of not knowing how to think rationally would cite the use of "core" training by elite athletes as proof that it "works," I will clarify in advance that this argument is a combination of two logical fallacies, "false cause" (arbitrarily inferring that the training is the factor responsible for their success) and "appeal to authority" (the assumption that if an athlete is elite, he and his coaches could not be wrong). Having basic thinking skulls can go a long way toward saving you from buying into a lot of stupid shit.

Unbalanced wrote:

Brian Gates wrote:

If one trains his whole body, there is no need for direct abdominal work.

If one includes direct abdominal work anyway, it should follow the same principle as training every other muscle: a small amount of hard work with direct resistance. The balancing and various "dynamic" activities commonly associated with "core" training are gimmicks, totally worthless.

What evidence is there that 'balancing and various "dynamic" activities are gimmicks, totally worthless"?

Well, some unknown dietician said so. Isn't that enough?

Ummm, I think I politely asked specifically about balancing and dynamic activities. And I think that the notion of "core" training excludes the idea of training arms and legs. But I also think that balance exercises can be very valuable for getting at accessory muscles, based on my own training, and address a few parts and movements that my free weight, plyometric/ballistic, and medicine ball training do not.

Oh. Okay then.

Brian Gates wrote:

Oh. Okay then.

Not okay, Brian. Where is your substantiation of your mere assertions? You've failed to lift your assertions to the level of argumentation due to lack of supporting evidence. Goodness, I've long thought that an emphasis on "core" is misplaced, so we agree there. But please give some evidence that balance and dynamic activities are ~"gimmicks, totally worthless."

Unbalanced wrote:

Brian Gates wrote:

Oh. Okay then.

Not okay, Brian. Where is your substantiation of your mere assertions? You've failed to lift your assertions to the level of argumentation due to lack of supporting evidence. Goodness, I've long thought that an emphasis on "core" is misplaced, so we agree there. But please give some evidence that balance and dynamic activities are ~"gimmicks, totally worthless."

The evidence is eloquently stated by a Registered Dietician in this short video:

Brian Gates wrote:

No expert wrote:

A dietician? Seriously?

LOL...I knew I was going to regret not including a prediction that most of the replies would consist of ad hominems. The liberals of Letsrun are so predictable.

First, most of the replies have not consisted of ad hominems.

Second, ad hominems are valid when they address the credibility of someone.

Two strikes. One more and you're out.

Core is the intrusion of gym culture into running. Then physical therapy recognized an opening and ran to daylight. Lifting makes one inflexible and heavy. If one can hoist the Sunday paper and take out the garbage, one is fine.