The Myth of Core Stability, Part 3
Print This Post
By Sal | August 12, 2009
THE PROBLEM WITH CORE MUSCLE ACTIVATION
As Lederman points out earlier in the paper, CS attempts to teach people how to isolate their TrA muscles and/or to isolate “core muscles” while performing exercise. It is doubtful that these core muscles operate in a vacuum without help from other muscles during any kind of activity, and that this classification has anatomical relevance but no functional meaning.
“To specifically activate the core muscles during functional movement the individual would have to override natural patterns of trunk muscle activation. This would be impractical and potentially dangerous.” Lederman goes on to say that people move according to a natural muscular activation pattern that’s appropriate to maintain proper spinal stability and that a conscious effort to make adjustments to how the body moves “may actually decrease the stability margin of safety.”
Imagine trying to train and activate every muscle in the chain that produces movement. This is an impossible task as muscle-by-muscle activation does not exist, and there is no research that shows the TrA – or any muscle – can be “singularly activated.”
The final nail in the coffin is that CS training runs counter to three vital principals. The Similarity/Specificity Principle makes it impossible to train a muscle in a lying, kneeling or sitting position and have it transfer to movement in a real world plane of movement.
The Internal/External Focus Principles make it unreasonable and counter-productive (and unlikely) to expect a person to “think about their core” while performing functional activities. Research has shown that contracting the trunk muscles degrades postural control.
The Economy of Movement Principle makes it apparent that continuously contracting back and abdominal muscles reduces efficiency of movement during functional and athletic activities and results in wasting of energy.
Lederman makes more than a compelling argument that there’s a myth of core stability, he totally destroys this notion and provides an incredible amount of scientific data to support his position. Additionally, his position is logical from a practical standpoint, in that if you live, work and play while standing, walking and running, you should exercise in these positions and not while kneeling, lying or sitting.
“The Myth of Core Stability” is a must read for fitness professionals and fitness consumers, alike and if you haven’t already done so, you can download the paper, complete with references, at this link, http://www.cpdo.net/myth_of_core_stability.doc.
Related Posts
Topics: Personal Trainer Coaching, Training Education, Training Philosophy, Training Style | 8 Comments »
8 Responses to “The Myth of Core Stability, Part 3”
Comments
« The Myth of Core Stability, Part 2 | Home | Hardcore Training Methods Aren’t Just for the Hardcore »
2:25 pm on September 2nd, 2009
I suppose I’ll never play a sport, or fall down, or sit in my chair at work all day, or even sit up out of bed.
I’ll never do another pushup, no way I would be able to stabalize that.
We do not live in a 2D world…not everything, at least in my life, is standing. Once in awhile I like to be prone…heck sometimes even supine.
This paper is just an attempt to create a new “trend” to sell…don’t waste our time.
3:59 pm on September 2nd, 2009
Actually, Professor Lederman provides plenty of legitimate data to support his position, which by the way, is pretty much in total agreement with Vern Gambetta and Gary Gray, two leaders in the field who advocate the approach championed in this paper.
Also, this is an approach that has been in use at the highest levels of the profession for the quite a while. It’s quite a stretch to make the case that Professor Lederman is engaged in an attempt to sell a trend.
4:17 pm on September 2nd, 2009
WORKING THE CORE WHILE KNEELING OR LYING IS USELESS
I’d say by the title, it’s more of a sales thing. . .If it read something less dramatic, that might be a different story.
Tell a MMA wrestler that training his core in a lying position where he might be for 3 minutes of a round is “useless.” The ab wheel is done in a kneeling position, tell Mike Boyle it’s “useless.”
There might be better options depending on a tons of things, but guys who produce the best athletes in the world, recommend stuff because it works.
One of the major flaws in this article is defining the target audience. Maybe he is suggesting just the average 9-5 Joe who does no activity. In that sense I can agree to a lot of the points.
7:48 pm on September 4th, 2009
“His position is logical from a practical standpoint, in that if you live, work and play while standing, walking and running, you should exercise in these positions and not while kneeling, lying or sitting.”
Clearly from this passage and from the reference to the principle of specificity Professor Lederman says exactly what you are saying. The example of the MMA fighter is addressed with the recognition of this principle. And with few, valid exceptions in the athletic world and for the average Joe, working the core while kneeling or lying down is in fact useless. And keep in mind the words of Vern Gambetta, all work is core work.
To the point about the ab wheel, performing it from a standing position is more difficult than from a kneeling position and therefore, IMHO, has more functional value regardless of who is doing it.
Thanks for participating in the dialog!
9:13 am on September 7th, 2009
I received the following email and have the authors permission to post it here.
“Let me give a little background on Dr. Lederman. What he is speaking
about is a specific technique of core activation that targets two
muscles in isolation, that is the lumbar multifidius & the transversus
abdominus. The techniques involve pressing your lower back into a
specialized pressure cuff, and sucking your belly button in in
different positions- guided by ultrasonic imaging. This is popular is
some physical therapy clinics that specialize in back pain.
He is not speaking of core training in general. Mykael reminds us
that core training should be “purposeful”. That is, if an individual
is involved in an activity which requires them to get off their back
in a hurry (police, wrestlers, military etc) then a good percentage of
their time should be done in horizontal floor. We can even take that
concept a step further and say if this athlete might take a blow to
the mid section (football, boxing) then some isolated ab training may
also be considered “purposeful”.
However, when we speak of upright function, the role of the core
changes into one of integration & coordination of the upper & lower
extremities. If you follow my blog, I suggest the concept of
“reactive core”. I have a problem with the “rigid pillar” concept
that Verstegan et al speak of. I prefer the idea of the core being
reactive to high velocity changes of arms & limbs (sprinting, throwing
etc). Here different types of skips (such as Hans Boche advocates)
and jumping jacks can be considered “core ready” exercises.
It this situation, when we decide to return to the floor, we must be
sure we are getting something that we can’t get upright. Vern
Gambetta recommends, in these athletes that no more than 10% of their
core training be on the floor. I’m not sure where he came up with
that, but clinically I think it’s right on.
It is amazing to me that I’ve read the exact same books that Mike
Boyle has read, and have come to different conclusions. But yes
Makael, he has produced.
Joe Przytula ATC
Elizabeth High School NJ USA”
You can visit Joe’s web site at
http://joestrainingroom.blogspot.com/
9:14 am on September 7th, 2009
I received the following email and have the authors permission to post it here.
“Let me give a little background on Dr. Lederman. What he is speaking
about is a specific technique of core activation that targets two
muscles in isolation, that is the lumbar multifidius & the transversus
abdominus. The techniques involve pressing your lower back into a
specialized pressure cuff, and sucking your belly button in in
different positions- guided by ultrasonic imaging. This is popular is
some physical therapy clinics that specialize in back pain.
He is not speaking of core training in general. Mykael reminds us
that core training should be “purposeful”. That is, if an individual
is involved in an activity which requires them to get off their back
in a hurry (police, wrestlers, military etc) then a good percentage of
their time should be done in horizontal floor. We can even take that
concept a step further and say if this athlete might take a blow to
the mid section (football, boxing) then some isolated ab training may
also be considered “purposeful”.
However, when we speak of upright function, the role of the core
changes into one of integration & coordination of the upper & lower
extremities. If you follow my blog, I suggest the concept of
“reactive core”. (You can visit Joe’s web site at http://joestrainingroom.blogspot.com/) I have a problem with the “rigid pillar” concept
that Verstegan et al speak of. I prefer the idea of the core being
reactive to high velocity changes of arms & limbs (sprinting, throwing
etc). Here different types of skips (such as Hans Boche advocates)
and jumping jacks can be considered “core ready” exercises.
It this situation, when we decide to return to the floor, we must be
sure we are getting something that we can’t get upright. Vern
Gambetta recommends, in these athletes that no more than 10% of their
core training be on the floor. I’m not sure where he came up with
that, but clinically I think it’s right on.
It is amazing to me that I’ve read the exact same books that Mike
Boyle has read, and have come to different conclusions. But yes
Makael, he has produced.
Joe Przytula ATC
Elizabeth High School NJ USA”
8:26 am on September 8th, 2009
We need to clarify something first. Are we saying that a plank or side plank or Swiss Ball rollout or pike are all in the “standing position” too? Or by “standing position” do we mean literally on your feet? Because if the former are considered “standing” then my argument will change completely and I agree.
5:18 am on September 25th, 2010
Rather than go into all the reasons, I disagree with Lederman’s paper, I respectfully suggest you read Glenn Withers’ response: http://www.ausphysio.com/Files/files-filename-24.pdf
As a classically trained Pilates professional, I am disheartened at the lack of knowledge about the method, the hours of training and what we actually do. Exacerbating the problem is there are many streams of Pilates now and all not the same by any stretch of the imagination. The method is widely taught in community centres by inadequately trained teachers. Safe protocol is not followed. There is a huge difference in training with a certified professional. The fundamentals of Pilates are not being taught. Cues are not explained adequately. Medical forms are not requested. Classes are too large and students cannot be watched carefully. I just tweeted (I am PSPilates) about a friend who wrote to me to tell me she was taught advanced Pilates exercises in a beginner class in a community centre. With the demographics of the baby boomer generation and increased risk of injury, the public needs to be educated about the risks of these classes. Studio rates are high but there is a reason for that. In the end, you often get what you pay for. The public needs to know to ask to see the teacher’s certifications and then to check into their training.