Science of Core

[FooFighter]

The stomach region has been one of the secret of power in many styles of gung fu. I believe the anicent masters were correct and many modern sports gurus have confirmed their truths. Men like Pavel, Paul Chek, Alan Lee (my sifu), and etc have caught me the importance of mastering the core in order to gain optimal performance. I would like to have a discourse about the core in relation to your style of gung fu and your training methodology. Lets start out from the ground up.

[Ford Prefect]

Dunno what you mean, but here it goes.

The core connects your lower body and upperbody. Without it developed to its fullest anything involving bringing power from one area to another will be hampered. For instance, punching and even swinging a baseball bat get the power from the ground up. A weak core will weaken the power of movement.

Also knowing how and when to contract you core will give you more power in your movements. Whether it is punching or squatting big weight, the same principles apply. Unifying your core and your breathing will increase your power dramatically as opposed to not.

Now I have to pee, so good bye.

[IronFist]

Actually I know a guy who is pretty convinced that this "core training" stuff is BS.

I'll have to dig up some of his stuff.

[IronFist]

I'm not saying I agree with him, but here's what he said:

(note that he's talking mainly about the "core strength" exercises where you do some weird stuff balanced on a Swiss ball or something. I don't think he means "core strength" like doing Janda situps to get stronger abs.)

First off you have to understand "why" this so called "core strengthening" exists. The idea is that if you increase the strength of the trunk muscles through various unstable exercises will result in an increase in athletic performance. Now, there are various offshoots of this "core" conditioning ideal but if you trace them all back this is the fundamental principle in which they all function to a more or lesser extent so instead of painstakingly debunking each and everyone of them I will simply debunk the main fundamental idea.

The idea that special "core" exercises, other than the conventional, will increase atheletic performance is rather hilarious. When you have a transference of motor function from one activity to the other then that activity MUST transfer back to the other as well....in other words, if A=C then C=A is also true. For instance, if balancing on a swiss ball while doing some activity will increase your atheltic performance in, lets say, performing as a defensive end, then the activities of a defensive end would transfer into increased performance doing the various "special core" activities....the problem is that they do not. The "special core" activities only increase performance in the "special core" activities...remember SAID?

Many "core" proponents state that the "core" exercises increase ones balance and that translates into increase performance. This is even more hilarious. Balance is learned in the first few years of development and does not increase any from that point. Also, if one wanted to increase the possibility of increasing balance, which one would not anyway, then one would need to work the peripheral muscles and not the core because balance is a function of the peripheral muscles first and then later by the muscles of the trunk.

All in all, the promotion of "special core" exercises is just another marketing ploy to lure in those of us with less than a working knowledge of the human body, and even many of those that have a great knowledge of the human body. There is no substance to it and it is explained away. Save your time and money and energy.

Then he also said:

One thing I think we need to get on the same wavelength with here is the origin of "core" training. "core" training, as best as I can figure, comes from the "functional" training realm, which was popularized by Paul Chek. Problem is that doing all these "core" exercises promoted by the functional enthusiasts will not increase anyone functional ability, they have never been proven to do so and actually to do so would rewrite most of what we know about motor function. You will strengthen the trunk just as well by doing something, anything that causes contraction of the musculature. The various other benefits promoted by the functional trainers are an illusion.

You have to understand the fitness industry in order to understand why all this crap exists. In order to make it in the fitness industry now you must find a niche and go with it. You can make that niche whatever you want and you can even say whatever you want just as long as you can make it believable. People like Chek found something no one else had effectively marketed and went with it, doing whatever he needed to in the process to make it sell. Individuals like Hatfield, found his niche in the training certification business, Siff connected himself with WSB and so on and so on. They do not have to be able to truly substantiate what they are doing, hey, this is fitness and 99% of the folks out there have no clue what these guys are talking about anyway and it is a low liability arena so do what you can, sell what you can however you can and enjoy the stupidity of the average folk. Guys like myself will never be huge names in the fitness arena....we simplify things, we have nothing marketable and we do not push BS, so that leaves us with simple facts to sell and facts are so simple in their very existence no one will buy them.

[mickey]

Greetings,

Paul Chek was the first person that I have read that wrote about core conditioning. It was not just abdominal training, but included back development. His approach is alot more integrated than others. And I think a few make the mistake of not seeing the greater picture of core training as it relates to functional strength and core training as a foundation to overall body strength. There is also the benefit of reduced injury, to the back especially, with core training.

mickey

[Ford Prefect]

I definately agree that the "core training" fad is way overdone. You don't need to do unstable exercises on a stability ball to have "functional" strength. You just have to train your midsection both heavy and light. The heavy aspect is most often neglected in the average person's fitness workout. You see plenty of people doing 1,000 crunches and back hyperextensions, but you'll rarely see people doing heavy goodmornings, dragon flags, weighted sit-ups for sets of 5, etc. I wasn't trying to be a proponent of the "core training" bs.

[CFT]

Originally posted by IronFist
Many "core" proponents state that the "core" exercises increase ones balance and that translates into increase performance. This is even more hilarious. Balance is learned in the first few years of development and does not increase any from that point. Also, if one wanted to increase the possibility of increasing balance, which one would not anyway, then one would need to work the peripheral muscles and not the core because balance is a function of the peripheral muscles first and then later by the muscles of the trunk. Then why can gymnasts, acrobats and dancers perform acts of balance that most people cannot? Post-childhood development training!!

I think his basic argument is flawed. Most modern athletes and sportsmen/women do some form of supplemental training alongside their main training.

Rowers also train with weights and run. Boxers don't just box/spar - they do roadwork, skipping, situps, etc.

The muscles that are trained/developed in "core" training may not get the "workout" that is required when performing your usual range of motions in your main activity. Therefore "core" training may help in your main activity and not the other way around.

[stubbs]

but you'll rarely see people doing heavy goodmornings, dragon flags, weighted sit-ups for sets of 5, etc

does anyone know of any links that demonstrate dragon flags, preferably with pics? i think i kinda know how to do them but im not totally sure.

are heavy good mornings safe to do? didn't bruce lee screw up his back with these? although i think i remember reading it was because he didn't warm up
________
PORNSTARS GERMAN (http://www.****tube.com/categories/865/german/videos/1)

[Ford Prefect]

He rounded his back and went way past parallel which is just begging for a lower back injury. If you keep your back arched or neutral and don't go past parellel then they are perfectly safe.

[IronFist]

Yeah I hear you on the balance thing. I missed that the first time I read it. However, I think that maybe he meant that your balance is done developing after the first few years, but you can still gain better muscle control or something, kind of like tightrope walkers learning to walk on the rope. Their balance improves the more they practice (ie. they learn to walk on it without falling off), but I suspect that that could be the result of better body awareness and muscle control or something and maybe not "balance" as something else. I don't really know anything about balance, tho, so nevermind.

I heard Bruce Lee was doing good mornings all the way down until his chest was on his knees. That's too far. I would just recommend never going to failure, or even close to failure.

[ElPietro]

Core training is important. However, the stability ball stuff is not some mystical method of doing so. I don't necessarily think balance can be trained. Balance is a function of your senses more than anything else. I think strengthening yourself at specific movements can help keep you stable and stronger at that position. Often you are losing your balance because you aren't sufficiently strong to keep up said movement and when something fatigues to a certain point you go out of balance.

Core training is important because it is something that is in continuous use. Your spinal erectors do exactly that, keep you erect. The stronger they are the stronger you will be in almost any vertical position. Same as the abs and hips as the opposing muscle group. These muscles working against each other keep you upright. This gets more complicated as more load is applied, ie, in a squat or deadlift, but also in your stances, or being able to resist force, such as strikes.

Having a strong core enables you in lifting, to lift more, which then translates into a stronger overall body. As you can train a great many things more intensely. Having a strong core is not enough though. If you can manipulate your breathing and air intake, you can greatly increase intra-abdominal pressure, which is like a solid pocket of air that further stabilizes the spine and makes you much more powerful.

I don't think there is a single compound movement that the core is not involved in, so it will play a role in your life for your entire life.

[Ka]

Stubbs
Dragon flag
http://www.powerathletesmag.com/pages/aussieabs.htm

Core is important but marketing is marketing, some people got to make a living.Sort the wheat from the chaff and stick with it.

[FooFighter]

"The idea is that if you increase the strength of the trunk muscles through various unstable exercises will result in an increase in athletic performance."

Correct. Does this idea make sense? Too me it does.


"Now, there are various offshoots of this "core" conditioning ideal but if you trace them all back this is the fundamental principle in which they all function to a more or lesser extent so instead of painstakingly debunking each and everyone of them I will simply debunk the main fundamental idea."

Ok.

"The idea that special "core" exercises, other than the conventional, will increase atheletic performance is rather hilarious."

I am laughing myself too.

"When you have a transference of motor function from one activity to the other then that activity MUST transfer back to the other as well....in other words, if A=C then C=A is also true. For instance, if balancing on a swiss ball while doing some activity will increase your atheltic performance in, lets say, performing as a defensive end, then the activities of a defensive end would transfer into increased performance doing the various "special core" activities....the problem is that they do not. The "special core" activities only increase performance in the "special core" activities...remember SAID?"

Let's see what is SAID? Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. So this main principle why this person thinks why core training is funny and not effective. This is actually a misunderstanding of SAID principle. Back in the days, many martial artists and atheletes would stay away from strength training and believed that just doing their techniques alone would improve their performance. We know now that doing other modes of training
can improve or enhance one's given technical abilities. If conventional weight training is good; why not core training?

"Many "core" proponents state that the "core" exercises increase ones balance and that translates into increase performance. This is even more hilarious."

Core proponents believes if you can stabilize your core in addition to doing one or muti functional movement(s) in a unstable environment it will yield greater performance. This concept is not hard to understand. Think about this way? What has more real world application in sports or martial arts, machine leg press or squats? Lat Cable Pulldowns or Weight Chin Up? Any exercise
that requires you to stablize yourself more while doing a compound movement is functional while doing something that requires least amount of balance is less functional.

"Balance is learned in the first few years of development and does not increase any from that point."

Really? LOL.

"Also, if one wanted to increase the possibility of increasing balance, which one would not anyway, then one would need to work the peripheral muscles and not the core because balance is a function of the peripheral muscles first and then later by the muscles of the trunk."

Core training does both.


"All in all, the promotion of "special core" exercises is just another marketing ploy to lure in those of us with less than a working knowledge of the human body, and even many of those that have a great knowledge of the human body. There is no substance to it and it is explained away. Save your time and money and energy."

LOL. This dude is a Hater. I wonder what he thinks of Pavel?

"One thing I think we need to get on the same wavelength with here is the origin of "core" training. "core" training, as best as I can figure, comes from the "functional" training realm, which was popularized by Paul Chek."

Yes, Paul is very sucessful and has plenty of people who would argue that he one of the leaders of corrective/ functional strength training and has been in business for a long time, longer than Pavel. If he was not producing anything good by now, he would be out of business.

"Problem is that doing all these "core" exercises promoted by the functional enthusiasts will not increase anyone functional ability, they have never been proven to do so and actually to do so would rewrite most of what we know about motor function."

LOL.


"You will strengthen the trunk just as well by doing something, anything that causes contraction of the musculature. The various other benefits promoted by the functional trainers are an illusion."

LOL. It true that you can work your core in a less stable environment or in a stable environment. Again you can press on the Smith Machine or the Flat Bench. Both has its pros and cons. Imagine if you only believed that doing Smith Machine Chest Bench was good enough for Pressing performace.

"You have to understand the fitness industry in order to understand why all this crap exists. In order to make it in the fitness industry now you must find a niche and go with it. You can make that niche whatever you want and you can even say whatever you want just as long as you can make it believable."

LOL. True. I am one of those ignorant masses.

People like Chek found something no one else had effectively marketed and went with it, doing whatever he needed to in the process to make it sell. Individuals like Hatfield, found his niche in the training certification business, Siff connected himself with WSB and so on and so on. They do not have to be able to truly substantiate what they are doing, hey, this is fitness and 99% of the folks out there have no clue what these guys are talking about anyway and it is a low liability arena so do what you can, sell what you can however you can and enjoy the stupidity of the average folk."

This dude wishes he was a baller like Pavel, Chek, Siff, and etc.

"Guys like myself will never be huge names in the fitness arena....we simplify things, we have nothing marketable and we do not push BS, so that leaves us with simple facts to sell and facts are so simple in their very existence no one will buy them."

This person is a wrankstar that is why no one wants his milkshake. LOL.

[Samurai Jack]

[QUOTE]"Let's see what is SAID? Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. So this main principle why this person thinks why core training is funny and not effective. This is actually a misunderstanding of SAID principle."QUOTE]

I too have noticed this. I've never seen an exercise physiology text that claims the Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands principal implies an EXCLUSIVITY of adaptation. There is often crossover from one exercise to the next.

For example, the trainee who is unable to perform a chin-up is advised to instead perform the flexed arm hang until he is able to perform a chin-up. If adaptaions were exclusive to the exercise being performed, the trainee would only develop strength for the flexed arm hang, but never be able to apply his strength to a chin-up.

Likewise, a trainee who only performed bench press with heavy weights would not be able to perform a push-up. Can you imagine a powerlifter who could squat 700, but couldn't move a piece of furniture?

This man's ideas just don't hold up.

[IronFist]

If he was not producing anything good by now, he would be out of business.


Um, piece of s.hit infomercial ab machines have been in business forever, and they're not useful for anything.

[FooFighter]

Iron:

Paul Chek's success, knowledge, and real world ability can't be compare to the those dumb arse ab machines on late night TV. I have been to fitness conventions in NYC and listened to his lectures. I am not kissing Chek's arse and there many things which I disagree with him, but I do respect his body of work. This man practices what he preaches. He is in good shape and has real world power. I have seem him Squat 135 while standing on a stability ball and do a single arm push up, hand on a stability ball, feet elevated.

[Ford Prefect]

Samurai Jack,

Sorry, but your examples don't hold water. A flexed arm hand increases strength in that angle of flexion +/- 15 degrees. That is the reason why it works. While that SAID example that was given was simply erroneous, that chin-up example of your was similarly erroneous. The powerlifter thing is correct though. Oly lifts improve vertical jumping, but vertical jumping does not improve olympic lifts.

Foo,

It sounds like you are putting way to much faith in the core training fad. I do beleive that the core is the most neglected part of the body in the average person, and I also beleive it is quite important to develop the core for power transfer, strength, and stability reasons, but I don't think doing all these funky exercises on stability balls and what-not really have that much value.

[FooFighter]

Ford:

I respect your views and I am not into any single particular fad. My own personal faith in core training and their tools eg swiss ball has come from my own increased performance and helping people with different kinds of limitations and martial artists to improve their performance.

I am open to any methodology or tool that will help increase performance, strength, and general health. Again core training is just one piece of a larger whole. It is not the magic bullet. I will not try to convince anyone here if they have made their opinion of core training already. The stability ball is just one tool of core training and people tend to over hyper any piece of truth. The swiss ball has benefited many sport professionals in many different ways; during their recovery, post rehab, and pre-season conditioning periods and I have seen many MMA fighters and even some Gracie fighters using core training methodology. This alone doesnt prove anything, however this should make one curious about core training and its possiblity of increasing one's performance. By the way, Kettlebells, clubbells, and anything in this nature are considered advanced core training tools.

[Ford Prefect]

To each his own Foo. Good luck with your training.

[FooFighter]

Ford:

Thanks.

I wish the same for you too. You lucky SOB with his home gym. Are you selling memeberships?

[IronFist]

Originally posted by FooFighter
He is in good shape and has real world power. I have seem him Squat 135 while standing on a stability ball

I've seen pics of someone doing that before. Not only is that needlessly dangerous, it doesn't really make you any better at anything other than doing squats on a stability ball.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The powerlifter thing is correct though. Oly lifts improve vertical jumping, but vertical jumping does not improve olympic lifts.


I asked that guy about that example. I should just invite him to this board. Anyway, this is what he said:

There have been studies that studied the vertical jump capability of OL lifters. Now, i do not remember what group they were comparing them too or what they considered the mean average or if the OL lifters were new or vets. The statement that vertical jump does not transfer to OL lift improvement is incorrect. Ever heard to "depth jumps" ? or maybe "squat jumps" ?, or maybe "plyometrics" ? All using the vertical leap to increase the GTO reflex to increase rate of force development and I all are a common part of the training repetoire of most OL lifters (I do know a few that do not use them).

Foo Fighter, this guy knows way more about this stuff than you or me, so when you're lol'ing at everything he said (in your big long post), you're probably incorrect.

[FooFighter]

Iron:

I am not an expert and I see myself as a student first. I am sorry if my reply was disrespectful to anyone, especially to the author which Iron gave as an example. However after reading his comments I found him to be arrogant and rubbed me as
narrow minded. So I responded very judgementally and after highsight I should have been more civil, respectful, and shown some character instead reacting immaturely.

Iron, the author which you seem to have a high opinion may have more knowledge than me and I am very sure I can learn from him. From reading your past posts, I trust your judgement about someone's knowledge of fitness and tho' you do not know my level of college education or background, I found it rather insulted and humorous you assumed the author had more knowledge then me. Dont you think this is rather a quick assumption about me? Clearly I am not beyond reproach and will never close my mind to all information that may be useful to me or those with special needs. However, the author's arguments against core training had reasonable doubts or errors that I saw as well as many people here. Were my long post not sound or reasonable? I hope my cynicism and rude undertones, did not take away the reasonable doubts I presented? It is my opinion because of these doubts. It shows that maybe it is possible that he is not so much an expert as you claimed him to be or perhaps those who disagreed with him are all misinterpeting his message?

As for Paul Chek squating on the ball, I agree with with you that is very dangerous but other movements do have the same high risk as well which in my opinion should not stop anyone who is confidently trained and skilled. Iron, I would beg the differ with you on its value in real work performance. If you can abstract the concept of any exercise that requires you to stabilize more is more functional or sport specific, then I hope you can see "some" value of in core training. Again as I stated before to Ford I will not try to convince anyone of core training here if they have made an opinion about it all ready. Let common sense be our guide. No one method is better or worst.

Cheers.

[IronFist]

I just thought you were kind of mocking him in your other post. It doesn't matter tho :)

[FooFighter]

Iron:

I thought your author was mocking and arrogrant and I replied fire with fire. In highsight, I realized this was wrong and definitely there was a better way to offer my counter argument in a more civil manner. I wouldnt want my character be reflected by this post and I definitely want to be a gentleman.

[FooFighter]

I like to relate the subject of the science of core training in relation to my basic understanding of wing chun gung fu. In general martial arts tecnhiques are based on power, speed, stability, and balance.

Wing Chun techniques are founded on the paradigm of "ecomony of motion that simultaneously covers and attacks in the shortest distance possible". I have only learned or heard of this wing chun paradigm from Sifu Alan Lee and Sifu Duncan Leung. There is a big difference of blocking or covering. I will not go into this is can of worms, but I will say this blocking is like a single threat or attack in chess which someone can simply defend or move away and/or return an attack if possible with no gain in material; while coverage is like a 'fork' or 'pin' or any multi-threat tactic which threaten more than one piece and your opponent is forced to lose something while you gain material, time for development, or a possible attack combination for a checkmate.

I have realized even tho' there are many branches of wing chun gung fu within the Yip Man klan, we must see or judge wing chun techincal effectiveness by its basic paradigm and its result. By the way, all theories of wing chun should fit within the basic paradigm of wing chun which I have mentioned and if it doesnt fit than it is not wing chun. When you hear or study a theory in wing chun, you must go back to the basic paradigm and asked does it conform to this model?

I will like to explain the relationship of basic stance (horse) of wing chun and its relation to the core, stability, balance, and/or power (gong lik). There is two quotes from Bruce Lee, a student of wing chun, that I will like for you to keep in mind as I explain my basic understanding of the wing chun horse.

Bruce wrote in Tao Of Jeet Kune Do, "To be accurate, the striking or throwing skills should be executed from a body base that possesses enough strength to maintain adequate balance during action." He also wrote "Balance is the all important factor in a fighter's attitude or stance. Without balance at all times, he can never be effective."

In all styles of martial arts, there is a fundamental stance which a new student learns usually on his first day of training. The basic stance is to train the body base and balance to help him or her develop fighting skills. The basic stance is probably the most over-looked and underestimated training that most martial artists take for granted or have not anaylize with much thought or care, especially with novices. The mentality is usually show me to punch or kick or throw or choke someone now, but how about developing the proper body base or balance for such awesome technical prowess? Often people can see the great value of developing strength, power, speed, or endurance for martial
tecnhical prowess however when it comes to understanding the value of structure, body base, and balance as a fundamental preliminary for performance. It is usually left unchecked and passed aside for something more ego-gratifying.

My Wing Chun sifu, Alan lee has taught me that a wing chun student should assume that his opponment will have the greater advantage in speed, size, and strength. So that it encourage wing chun students to be tactical clever in our approach in handling any opponents. This kind of mind set humbles the wing chun student to never underestimate their opponent, to first develop form, structure, balance, and timing in techniques before
seeking to develop speed, power, and etc. Mind you, Sifu Lee has nothing against speed, size, power but has often taught if you use power or speed alone, you will totally miss the finer concepts behind wing chun technique. And what if you meet someone who is faster or stronger than you someday, what then? A wing chun student must learn to use proper structure and leverage and balance first before power and speed. Using speed and power is not bad in any techniques but what is bad is when you keep using power and speed without knowing how to maxize your structure, body base, and leverage.

The wing chun fundamental stance or horse is based on two things stability and balance. It is not a fighting stance, but it is very unique way of developing power, leverage, structure, stability, and balance. Stability and balance is often confused sematically but they are inter-related in motion. Stability is when you resist movement, this mean you increase your base or center your gravity, however too much stability doesnt help mobility and balance relates to the ability of an object or body to maintain equilbrium. In wing chun we must have a body that can stabilize itself without sacrificing mobility and at the same time be in balance without losing stability when it is in motion. This is the basic concept of wing chun structure.

I know dont if the readers here are familar what a wing chun horse looks like or if the students of wing chun here consider the science behind it? I shall try my best to describe it now and try to keep this long arse essay as short as possible. LOL.

In the wing chun neutral horse stance, the feet in wing chun are within shoulder area, this is the most optimal position for stability without losing much mobility. The feet and leg should form a triangle structure with the knees slight squeezing together.
Unlike a shaolin wide horse or Karate, it has great stability but lacks much mobility. Wing Chun favors a basic stance which offers stability and mobility . Why are the feets slightly point inward? Has any student of wing chun asked their sifu this question? The feet are sightly turn in for many reasons. I shall explain a few of them. It helps main body from falling back. Here is an example for wing chun students. Place your feets in neutral and lean from your waist backward. What happens? Now place your feet sightly inward and lean backward like in a limbo dance game. What happen? What is more stable? Another reason is that wing chun movements is based on triangles which the strongest structure in geometry and with a strong body base you are able to effectively land powerful strikes. Another test. Get yourself a stability ball and place it underneath your feet while you are lying down in supine position. Perform a bridge and see what happens when you place your feet in like a duck, slightly inward, or in neutral and see where you are more stable? Your body is most stable when your feet slightly inward, yes?

The hips or butt of your the wing chun stance is in a posterior tlit which helps the lower back round and helps keep the center of balance. This also has to do with keeping your core stable. Your butt should not be relax but tense and the weight your body should fall on your knees and not so much and your quads as well as the base of your feet. Actually the quads should be as light as possible. The inner tights should be tense, this is also will stablize your core. Anyone who has Pavel's books can see where I am heading to. Once your inner tights are contracted your abs will naturally contract as well.




I will continue this when I have more time and I hope so far you enjoyed it?