Fitness: Core training questions remain

?

Lauren Mokry does a plank exercise at the Arthur Currie McGill gym. A generic core training program won?t produce the kind of results that will show up on the playing field.

Photograph by: Vincenzo D'Alto , The Gazette

MONTREAL ? In the past few years, we?ve replaced ab workouts with core training and banned sit ups in favour of planks, with everyone from scientists to infomercial hawkers lauding the benefits of a strong, stable core. These much heralded benefits include everything from running faster, jumping higher and throwing further to preventing back pain and injury.

The trouble is, not only is there no agreed-upon definition of the core muscles, there are questions about whether core training delivers on all its promises.

Back when a strong core was defined by its ability to endure hundreds of sit ups, the goal was to strengthen a single muscle, the rectus abdominis, a long sheath of muscle that runs from sternum to pubic bone. Now-a-days, the core is defined as the large group of muscles located from shoulders to hips, including those at the front, sides and rear of the trunk. A good core workout targets as many of these muscles as possible.

But even that expanded definition of the core is being challenged by some who believe the muscles of the hips and shoulders should be included as part of the core musculature.

The debate about what constitutes the core has to do with the synergistic nature of the muscles responsible for core movements. None works in isolation either when performing movements as complex as those used in sports to the simpler, but still important, movements of everyday life. So today?s definition of the core is an ?all in? approach vs. concentrating on a few prime movers.

As for its importance, the core is often referred to as the centre of power. Proponents of this definition suggest that a strong core has multiple roles, including effectively transferring energy from the lower body to the upper body ? think of a pitcher, supplying the power needed to perform explosive movements like a golf swing and supporting quality movement through a stable centre like that of a ballerina.

Then there is the therapeutic role of a strong core that protects the back against the strain of everyday movements like house and yard work. The problem is, there?s no general agreement among the scientists who study the core, the therapists who treat the core and the trainers who exercise the core on the most effective method to train this important group of muscles.

Part of the debate centres around deciding whether core stability or core strength is the goal. A stable core is one that supports good posture and movement. A strong core powers explosive movement like those used in sports or physical labour.

Also worthy of consideration is the need to build core endurance, which extends the time to fatigue, a crucial element in maintaining both core stability and core strength.

The general feeling among fitness professionals is that a stable core reduces the risk of back pain and injury, while a strong core improves athletic performance. The rule of thumb is to build stability before strength with static exercises like the plank coming before dynamic exercises like medicine ball throws.

Yet for all the planks and medicine ball throws done in the name of a more stable and stronger core, there is very little research proving that core workouts do as promised. In fact, there are a growing number of studies that suggest the importance of core training may be overstated, at least as far as its ability to improve athletic performance.

So far, studies of rowers, runners, cyclists and football players have demonstrated no significant improvements in athletic performance after weeks of core conditioning.

As for the belief that core training reduces the risk of injury or pain, again there is little scientific evidence to support the claims.

Does that mean that core conditioning is a waste of time?

Not necessarily. It could be that core training is more complex than we thought, requiring a series of exercises designed specifically for each individual sport. In other words, a generic core training program won?t produce the kind of results that will show up on the playing field.

The same goes for injury and pain prevention. The best core training programs need to be designed with individual strength and weaknesses in mind.

Then there?s the execution of the exercises themselves of which there seems to be few guidelines regarding best practices.

Stuart McGill, a professor of spine biomechanics at the University of Waterloo, suggests that core stability and endurance is best achieved by keeping the duration of static exercises like the plank to 10 seconds. He recommends improving endurance by increasing the number of repetitions of the exercise, not by how long the exercise is held. This is contrary to what most trainers and fitness instructors currently prescribe which, according to McGill, is why core training may not live up to its potential.

?Many trainers follow a ?recipe? for assessment, corrective exercise or performance training,? said McGill in a 2010 article published in the Strength and Conditioning Journal. ?Using this generic approach produces average results ? some clients will improve and get better and others will fail simply because the approach was above or below the optimum level necessary to address the deficit.?

With so many important roles to play, it makes sense that a one-size fits all set of exercises isn?t enough to fulfill the core?s athletic, therapeutic and preventive functions. So while core training is an important element of any training program, questions remain on how to achieve optimum results.

jbarker@montrealgazette.com

Twitter:? @jillebarker

?

?

?

?

?

?

Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/diet-fitness/Jill+Barker+Questions+remain+about+value+core/7600825/story.html

gabrielle union merle haggard ladainian tomlinson mark wahlberg pipa keystone xl sopa bill