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

[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.