'Core' Training

There's always something trendy in the fitness industry, something which supposedly revolutionises the way we train and makes us wonder how we ever managed before. At the minute it's 'functional' training and 'core' training. You may have sensed a note of sarcasm in that introduction. If not, I'll try a little harder as we go on.

First of all, why the fuss over 'core' training? Some of it comes from 'research' (yes, all the scare quotes are absolutely necessary) which suggested that people with low back pain had weak abdominal muscles. Strengthen core muscles and, voila, healthy back. Suddenly everything in gyms was done on stability balls and Pilates was the most important class on the timetable. There are too many problems to list with the 'research', but one obvious one is that studies done on unhealthy subjects should not be applied to the general public. Perhaps a bigger motivation for many people is aesthetics and the fact that for some reason a toned midsection has become the main criterion on which physique is measured. Grown men can have the body of a 12 year old boy but if you can see their abs then they are deemed to be in great shape. Many people still believe the old 'spot reduction' myth which says you can burn fat from an area of your body by working the underlying muscles; hammer away at endless ab exercises and your stomach fat will miraculously dissolve into your bloodstream to be excreted at your next visit to the loo. The problem is that it really is a myth. If you don't believe me then have a quick check in the loo next time, although it's probably better that you just take my word for it. Television shopping channels make a fortune selling pointless ab gadgets, recommended by people who most certainly didn't get their physiques from using the thing they're selling. I've lost count of the number of people who have proudly told me that they perform hundreds of crunches or sit-ups every morning and evening. I can't help but ask why because I sure as hell can't work it out.

Don't get me wrong, there is certainly merit in the argument for a strong core. It provides a solid platform from which your arms and legs can operate, and forces generated by your limbs are transferred efficiently through your midsection to wherever they are being directed instead of being lost or diminished in an unstable core. So it's not the idea that's the issue here, it's the current method of choice. Think of any movement from bending over to pick up a child or a shopping bag, to a judo throw or a rugby tackle. Our abdominal muscles function as part of what is commonly referred to as a kinetic chain, performing their role in various whole-body movements in an integrated fashion alongside other muscles performing their own roles. Their job may be to lock the spine in place, providing the aforementioned solid foundation and maintaining the integrity of the spine, or to produce movement, or a bit of both. What they don't do is work in isolation. We've been conditioned to believe that they do by the fact that most gyms have rows of machines designed to work individual muscles which, incidentally, does wonders for the bank accounts of equipment manufacturers, somewhat less for the bank accounts of unsuspecting gym owners who have to buy the damn things and even less for your body. But to return to my argument, we've been led to believe that our muscles should be trained in isolation and it follows that the muscles of the core must therefore deserve their own exercises. Hopefully you can see the major flaw in this.

If not, don't worry, neither can the hundreds of personal trainers who charge good money to train their clients' cores with ridiculous exercises. Here's a more obvious argument: it also appears that the abdominal muscles have little potential for strength gains when trained in isolation, with some experts claiming that if you isolate your abdominal muscles then you are likely to see some improvement for the first 8 weeks or so and then progress will cease. For the rest of your life. How many of you have been doing abdominal exercises for more than 8 weeks? 8 years more like. Okay, you can stop now.

Or how about a quick look at the physiques of athletes. Seriously, if you want to look good then take a leaf out of an athlete's book. Do you really think they get abs like that by doing crunches and Pilates? Nope, just proper training and diet. Oh yeah diet. Remember, if you want to see your abs then you need to have pretty low body fat. I'd guess 10-12% before you see too much of them. Training will build the muscles you want to see, diet will let you see them.

So what constitutes proper training if doing it lying on your back is a waste of time. The answer is easy, convincing people to do it is the hard part. Quite simply, you do the main barbell lifts: squat, deadlift, press, and maybe some Olympic lifting if you fancy learning something a bit more challenging. In other words, whole-body exercises. This isn't just my own thinking by the way; people measure this stuff, and the greatest activity in rectus abdominis (the best known of your abdominal muscles) has been measured during the deadlift, but to be honest there won't be much between them all. People in the industry who tell you otherwise either don't have the experience with these lifts or they are simply too lazy to do them themselves. Either way, don't be misled by their thinking. The weight is perfectly scaleable to your current capabilities and as you increase the weight you increase the demands on your core, as well as on the other muscles involved in the movement. Most of the stuff done in gyms and classes is no more challenging to your core than the daily activities you are supposedly training for, and certainly does not compare with what you will face in most sports.

So do yourself a favour: forget the endless crunches and sit-ups and see just how hard your core muscles work while performing correctly executed and properly loaded barbell exercises!

Comments

[norma]

Yet another beauty Bruce!