Topic: Core strength article

[Jack K]

In my math class, we had to find an article explaining a correlation between two things, someone brought this one in. I got the link from my teacher because i was pretty surprised. It says that core strength doesnt make a significant difference in sports.

although im not sure if i believe this, or if it holds true in parkour/freerunning (if it is true). but i have to say, its seems pretty legit.

For sure not free running i would have to say, judging by how sore my abs were after learning back tucks at the gym.
but anyway, heres the article.
just wanted to get this out here for discussion or whatever.

http://www.indstate.edu/news/news.php?newsid=952

[Chris Salvato]

What they are defining as core strength are things like weighted situps and crunches...

No real relationship, imho, unless you are REALLY out of shape and can't even do a single situp.  Core exercises like focused trunk flexion is somewhat worthless in terms of performance.  Back flips are not what they are talking about, here.

[Jack K]

I understand that this doesnt really apply to us, i was just sayin.

but i guess that my attention was on the quotes when i read this, because i dont really think its that unreasonable to say that trunk flexion will probably be basically useless.

you think its bogus then?

[Spencer B]

They also testes low intensity core holds like planks and back extensions.

And there are so many ways this test could be flawed.

For the strength assessments alone I could think of a dozen sources of error.

[Jack K]

i dont understand, why make a study that is so obviously flawed, that goes against common sense?

[Spencer B]

i dont understand, why make a study that is so obviously flawed, that goes against common sense?

Well, I doubt they did it to have a flawed test. 

But the problem is, IMO, is that they aren't aware of the intricacies of certain exercises. Of course that is do in part to the myths and 'facts' surrounding such a thing as dubious, again just in my opinions and observations, as high school sports training.

I hope that last paragraph made sense >.<

And as to common sense, it seems like they more wanted to find out what was what as any good scientist would try and do and they simply put their results out there.

[Chris Salvato]

Er...No.  It's pretty true that core exercises have no translation to actual athletic ability.

The movements are not sport specific at all.  No sport has you perform weighted trunk flexion nor does it represent anything that is even close to something we would do.  Even a back tuck requires a rigid core and that is mostly the hip flexors pulling the legs over the head.

There may be an argument for front tucks, but even then, the load on the trunk is minimal.

Trunk flexion exercises are useless and not sport specific.  This is one of the reasons we tend to push people away from that sort of stuff if they are interested in being a better traceur.

Traditional core/trunk flexion exercises are only really beneficial if you want your abs to get bigger, like, say a bodybuilder.

[Spencer B]

Umm.. Chris, was that directed at me or something, because I'm really confused all of a sudden. I'm wondering if I didn't say something that was misleading or mis-worded. 

Anyways, I'm fairly certain they would get much different results with more gymnastics like exercises like the L-sit and V-Sit. But how much of a carry-over is the question?

[Chris Salvato]

L-sit and V-sit are sport specific exercises.  They provide stability and strength in the ROMs of the joint as they are used in the actual sport.  For example, if you can V-sit you will have a much easier time doing a Pike Press; a much easier time doing a piked front flip and by translation also a much easier time doing a regular front flip.  Those are sport specific movements.

The studies in question *did* know what they were doing.  These people are smart individuals covering complicated topics -- the problem is that most people don't realize that there is no sport or practical movement that involves trunk flexion under a load.  If there was then there would certainly be translation to that movement.

The issue that they were trying to address, and cleared up, is the misconception that people need to dedicate a ton of time to core workouts that are not sport specific as if they will have some sort of translation.  There is no translation so they are useless. 

If you are going to do core exercises, then make them sport specific such as the L-sit or the V-sit.  More practically, they should be hanging raises through a full range of motion for practical application to the sports in question such as gymnastics, tumbling, flipping, jumping, etc.

[Spencer B]

Isn't there the possibility for misinterpretation of the article to say that core work is unnecessary?

[Chris Salvato]

Isn't there the possibility for misinterpretation of the article to say that core work is unnecessary?

Possibly.  That problem lies with the reader.  They lay out all the facts pretty well here...this is a very concisely written article though I can see the possibility of misinterpretation.  It is still a misinterpretation, though.

Core testing consisted of measuring how long the athlete could hold each of four different positions: back extension, trunk flexion, and left and right bridge.

Strength variables consisted of bench press, squat, and power clean; and performance variables included vertical jump, 20- and 40-yard sprints, and a 10-yard shuttle run.

Overall, the results of the study suggested that torso stability is only moderately related to strength and performance.

They are testing things that are sport specific and don't involve trunk flexion, trunk extension, left or right bridge.  If your sport involves any of these then working that movement would be very beneficial.  No sport utilizes things in that manner so there is no real reason to do it.

There is also more to trunk stability than these 4 movements.  Strength in the lats does a ton to stabilize the trunk (from the abdomen to the neck) and you can develop these with pullups, for example, and that has a super high translation to a ton of other stuff, as well.

The study shows that there is no translation to the sports most people care about.  Nothing more, nothing less.  People in general always try to make their research sound ground breaking because they have a lot of pride in it...thats understandable but this is part of developing the skill in learning how to read this sort of jargon.

The take home message is that movements must always, always, always be sport specific for the highest degree of sport translation.  That is why the deadlift is better than the squat for sprinting; the power clean is better than the deadlift for jumping; the V-up is better for flipping than crunches...etc, etc, etc.

[Shae Perkins]

Very very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing:)

I see the core a just one of the very many "movers" in the body. I don't think any one muscle group should be overlooked, because muscle imbalances can only lead to injury. And I personally have had plenty of experiences where a strong mid section would make or break a movement.

[Steven Low]

Here's what the core does in sports or athletics.

Basically it acts as a brace to resist movement for most activities. Think about it:

In baseball or golf, most of the power from the swing is coming fro your hips exploding. If your core does not resist this force when the club face hits the ball, your power is significantly weakened.

Similarly, in sprinting your core acts as a brace so that your upper body will move in conjunction with your lower body. if you've ever done pure sprints before sometimes you'll feel your core is sore the next day.

Basically, unless core is your "weak link" then it's not very useful to train it. For us who use weight training with heavy weights, our cores are already pretty strong. Thus, specific isolation work to improve doesn't really help at all.