The core conceptual instability of the 'core stability' concept.

Bare Lee

Barefooters
Jul 25, 2011
6,103
6,617
113
Saint Paul
I've always been skeptical about all the recent talk of core stability. Seems like just another exercise/health/nutrition fad. Here's a few items that seem to confirm my suspicions:

http://www.craigliebenson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sdarticle.pdf

http://www.fitness.com/articles/1547/core_stability_myths_exposed.php

I think if you do heavy lifts like the dead lift, power clean, squat, military press, and so on, you’re working your core and ‘balance muscles’ more than any plank exercise. Still, I've incorporated a few plank exercises into my routine, like the 'stir the pot' exercise in the second article's video. I still like doing crunches and back extensions though. I guess I’ll keep doing them until my body tells me not to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pjruns2
But...but...how will celebrities sell workout videos if 'core work' is proved a fallacy? What about all the jobs created by the CORE BLASTER XTREEEEME!!!!!!! Industry?


But, yeah. Compound lifts that require you stabilize yourself Are a better use of one's time. Hell, I've found an improvement in my 'core' just by focusing on posture while running/walking/standing and sitting.
 
I spent the weekend practicing 'Tai Chi Ball' exercises. We used basketballs for learning but the idea is to utilize much heavier balls made of marble or granite. The methods are ancient and I they stimulate pretty every joint, muscle and tendon in the body. It's going to become my 'core' strength routine in addition to the very basic targeted exercises I do at the gym - leg presses and the like.

For Taiji Ball, I'm going to look around for a used (cheap) heavy bowling ball.

Re static plank exercises, I've always hated them and questioned their value for runners. My system for judging exercise and health systems in general is pretty simple: if it's published in Runner's World magazine, it's probably crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Hello Willie,
I spent the weekend practicing 'Tai Chi Ball' exercises. We used basketballs for learning but the idea is to utilize much heavier balls made of marble or granite. The methods are ancient and I they stimulate pretty every joint, muscle and tendon in the body.

That sounds really interesting! :) Are there any links or videos to have a look at what it's like? Or even to learn some basics?
 
Hello Willie,That sounds really interesting! :) Are there any links or videos to have a look at what it's like? Or even to learn some basics?

Hey Hobbit :)

Just youtube 'Tai Chi Ball', there are 1,000 variations on the subject.

I was training with Frank Ranz aus Österreich. He's a student of Yang, Jwing-Ming. Here's a preview of a DVD. Most of the time was spent on the pelvic and spine work. The movements all start in the gut, so to speak. There are also many breathing elements involved:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hobbit
do i have to read it or cna you give me the readers digest version?
Sure honey:


· Weak trunk muscles, weak abdominals and imbalances between trunk muscles groups are not a pathology just a normal variation.
· The division of the trunk into core and global muscle system is a reductionist fantasy, which serves only to promote CS.
· Weak or dysfunctional abdominal muscles will not lead to back pain.
· Tensing the trunk muscles is unlikely to provide any protection against back pain or reduce the recurrence of back pain.
· Core stability exercises are no more effective than, and will not prevent injury more than, any other forms of exercise or physical therapy.
· Core stability exercises are no better than other forms of exercise in reducing chronic lower back pain. Any therapeutic influence is related to the exercise effects rather than stability issues.
· There may be potential danger of damaging the spine with continuous tensing of the trunk muscles during daily and sports activities.
· Patients who have been trained to use complex abdominal hollowing and bracing manoeuvres should be discouraged from using them.

Re static plank exercises, I've always hated them and questioned their value for runners. My system for judging exercise and health systems in general is pretty simple: if it's published in Runner's World magazine, it's probably crap.
LOL
Yah, I gave the plank thing a try, along with the stability ball, and most of it just doesn't make any sense to me. When you lift weights, you want a stable platform. Still, I've incorporated a few things into my routine. I try to keep an open mind despite the fadism involved in so much of this stuff.
 
k, so if you are already fit and strong, targeting one muscle group isn't worth it? riiiight. thought we knew that? and if you're not fit, and that's what's causign your back pain, working one thing ain't gonna cut it. is that what they're saying? agreed, if that's the case.

Specifically, they are targeting whatever a "plank" is? Is that where you hold yourself up on your side? I do that with a ball between my legs (!), but it's more for balance and I add in arm stuff while I'm holding it. Tried it with free weights in the hand that's not holding up my body. Hard to do.
Seems like decent exercise. Or is that not what you're talking about.


most of the stuff i do, especially on the 'stability' ball, works what feels like nearly everythign all at once. For example, I do one leg in the air push ups with the other leg balanced on the ball. Whew. Everything gives out after a few of those. I like it b/c it gives me bang for my buck.I balanced on the ball with the upper back and hold my legs and butt up and out and do arm weights. Again, after a few reps, I can feel it everywhere. Cool. Better than, say, bicep curls.

Not to be all "it's common sense" but my cure for back pain has been getting a more fit upper and lower body and not just doing aerobic. abs, back, shoulders, glutes have been a part of that overall conditioning. In other words, it's been all over st rather than running or biking or whatever else alone that's made me feel fitter and stronger. So when I want to pick up, say, my big kids and swing them all around, I can do so without having to go to er afterwards.

Most glaringly, however, you've said nothing about the therapeutic effects of ab exercises on a middle aged lady's ego. It's done wonders for mine, since you've asked. Those 20 somes with their little belly paunches at the gym, and their long lives ahead of them, their young intact teeth, supple joints, and thick hair, ain't got nothin on my solid middle. Eat it, kid. Or so I tell myself.
 
I woudl guess weak abs are a proxy for weak overall conditioning, wouldn't you? Who's really fit in the upper body and lower body, but has no abs? What would you have to do to attain that?
 
Most glaringly, however, you've said nothing about the therapeutic effects of ab exercises on a middle aged lady's ego. It's done wonders for mine, since you've asked.
Wha? I don't think I asked did I?

I should clarify that that summary came straight out of the article. I didn't write it.

As for ab work. I do it at the end of every st workout. I've also incorporated 4-5 stability ball exercises, and a few plank exercises, into my routine, so I'm not against them by any means. My main beef, regardless of what the article concluded, comes when people try to expand beyond the commonsensical use of these exercise tools or concepts.

For balance exercises, and certain kinds of body weight exercises, sure, using a stability ball makes perfect sense, like the first one you described. I particularly like doing pikes, roll-ups, side-bends, and back extensions with one, and the 'stir the pot' plank exercise with a stability ball is great too, along with a few other plank exercises that don't involve a stability ball.

For most exercises involving weights, however, you need a stable platform to get maximum benefit. So when someone suggests, say, doing military presses sitting on a stability ball, I cringe. Not only is it dangerous, but, by working the 'balance muscles' (or more accurately, by working muscles outside of the targeted area, or in ways that take away one's ability to do the exercise with good form) while trying to lift a heavy object over your head, you simply won't be able to lift as much. If you can't lift as much, you won't get as strong.

So there's a trade-off, which a lot of functional fitness types don't seem to understand. It's usually best to work fitness components--strength, endurance, stamina, balance, agility--in isolation, if you got the time. A functional fitness program like Kemme Fitness tries to work everything at the same time, which may make sense if you have limited time, but you won't make as much progress over time in any given component. In that second exercise you described, it sounds like you're working everything at once, which is great, but you could probably do those same arm exercises (although I can't be sure because I don't know what they are) with more weight, and thus become stronger, if you did them with a stable platform, like standing up or sitting on a bench.

Both ways are fine, just depends on what you're after. Personally, I would rather just do the arm exercises, and then find exercises that really work my balance, without any weights. It would take more time, and won't be as hard as an all-in-one exercise, but I believe I would make more progress in each component over time. I just got a wobble board in fact, and am looking into some basic 'balance beam' type exercises too.

I've never had back pain so I can't really speak to what the article said about that. Apparently some core stability proponents have stated that strong abs will cure back pain, and the article gives evidence that that is not the case.

For me, the main point of the article is that there is no such thing as a 'core' or 'core muscles' that can somehow be separated from the rest of the trunk and targeted in a workout. This is what I've always wondered about, ever since I began hearing about the core when I got back from Mozambique in 2010. I was like, what? They discovered the core while I was gone? Why didn't anyone know about its existence before? There are abdominal muscles, certainly, and we can target them, and why wouldn't you, along with every other area, if you want good overall conditioning, right? I'm still going to do my crunches, bicycle sit-ups, side bends, bent-knee leg lifts, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scedastic
For most exercises involving weights, however, you need a stable platform to get maximum benefit. So when someone suggests, say, doing military presses sitting on a stability ball, I cringe. Not only is it dangerous, but, by working the 'balance muscles' (or more accurately, by working muscles outside of the targeted area, or in ways that take away one's ability to do the exercise with good form) while trying to lift a heavy object over your head, you simply won't be able to lift as much. If you can't lift as much, you won't get as strong.

So there's a trade-off, which a lot of functional fitness types don't seem to understand. It's usually best to work fitness components--strength, endurance, stamina, balance, agility--in isolation, if you got the time. A functional fitness program like Kemme Fitness tries to work everything at the same time, which may make sense if you have limited time, but you won't make as much progress in any given component. In that second exercise you described, it sounds like you're working everything at once, which is great, but you could probably do those same arm exercises (although I can't be sure because I don't know what they are) with more weight, and thus become stronger, if you did them with a stable platform, like standing up or sitting on a bench.
............ I was like, what? They discovered the core while I was gone? Why didn't anyone know about its existence before? There are abdominal muscles, certainly, and we can target them, and why wouldn't you, along with every other area, if you want good overall conditioning, right? I'm still going to do my crunches, bicycle sit-ups, side bends, bent-knee leg lifts, etc.

Good points, now I get it. Yeah, I can't do as much weight while incorporating balance. On the other hand, I alternate doing heavier weights (it doesn't take much to be heavier for a wee lass anyways) more the "regular" way, and get upper body work lately from the swimming as well, which is a different sort of work altogether. So at some point everything is getting worked, I suppose.

I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people buy the fad stuff (core, stability, upside down plyometric wool weaving, etc), it sits on a shelf, or gets worn casually like expensive running shoes. I do think it's nice to see an emphasis on something other than just aerobic exercise for women. Remember the 80s? Jeesh. Even now, I'm just starting to see a few more women doing strength exercises, though the vast majority are still getting on aerobic equipment for half an hour and going home.

One thing I do wonder about though is the effect of keeping one's exercise routine completely the same all the time (as in "I run 20 miles per week every week that's all i do, no more no less, every year") can offer the same benefits as changing activities frequently.
Perhaps challenging the muscles in different ways is the more important component in the long term?
 
I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people buy the fad stuff (core, stability, upside down plyometric wool weaving, etc), it sits on a shelf, or gets worn casually like expensive running shoes. I do think it's nice to see an emphasis on something other than just aerobic exercise for women. Remember the 80s? Jeesh. Even now, I'm just starting to see a few more women doing strength exercises, though the vast majority are still getting on aerobic equipment for half an hour and going home.

One thing about st for women: it's no different than for men. Don't get talked into the idea that you can 'tone' your muscles with high reps/low weights. You'll get the best results with lower reps, higher weights, whether your goal is to simply have a nicely toned body and good bone density or to beat your husband in arm wrestling.

One thing I do wonder about though is the effect of keeping one's exercise routine completely the same all the time (as in "I run 20 miles per week every week that's all i do, no more no less, every year") can offer the same benefits as changing activities frequently.
Perhaps challenging the muscles in different ways is the more important component in the long term?

I think changing things up, as you and Sid do, is great. I stick with my 1-day-st/1-day-running because it's easy to schedule, can be done alone at home or outside, and it's what I know, so I don't have to think about it. Most of my day requires a certain about of mental exertion, whether it's my work or trying to be a good husband and father, so I like my workouts to be fairly mindless. Still, I do have plans to mix things up more, like get a climbing rope if I can figure out a way to keep kids off it when I'm not using it, or getting back into the martial arts. I do a good job of working out my strength, endurance, and stamina, but the balance, agility, and hand-eye coordination components of fitness are sorely lacking in my weekly routine. When the kids are a bit older I would like to do more of that sort of thing with them, like play catch, or ping-pong, or whathaveyou.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW
One thing about st for women: it's no different than for men. Don't get talked into the idea that you can 'tone' your muscles with high reps/low weights. You'll get the best results with lower reps, higher weights, whether your goal is to simply have a nicely toned body and good bone density or to beat your husband in arm wrestling.

Absolutely.
Honestly, for years I bought into the notion that weights made a woman "bulky" and should be avoided unless you did high reps low weight, which I found boring and so almost never did. I know of many women who, like I used to, do only aerobic, and at best, a few "toning" exercises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW and Bare Lee
I suspect that in some cases strengthening the core can help people, and not so much in others. I know of many people who swear by their "back exercises" for chronic pain, and others not really. I also suspect that the research is not well-defined enough to differentiate between the various groups. We see this happen in the controversial shoes vs. barefoot research, where some support one and some the other.

This Stanford professor who has worked with elite athletes thinks that the core is important. That link also has some of the very same exercises in the Anatomy for Runners book.

My best guess is that, if you have a strong core, then don't worry about it. The average American couch potato who doesn't exercise? Okay perhaps, but not all of them will have back pain.
 
I suspect that in some cases strengthening the core can help people, and not so much in others. I know of many people who swear by their "back exercises" for chronic pain, and others not really. I also suspect that the research is not well-defined enough to differentiate between the various groups. We see this happen in the controversial shoes vs. barefoot research, where some support one and some the other.

This Stanford professor who has worked with elite athletes thinks that the core is important. That link also has some of the very same exercises in the Anatomy for Runners book.

My best guess is that, if you have a strong core, then don't worry about it. The average American couch potato who doesn't exercise? Okay perhaps, but not all of them will have back pain.
I think perhaps it's just 'semantics,' as they say, but the point of the first article was that there is no such thing as a core musculature devoted exclusively to stabilization. Rather, abdominals, obliques, lower back muscles, etc., exist, sure, and one of their many functions is balance and stabilization, of course, but they function as such in the context of doing other stuff too, like bending, lifting, pulling, etc. It may help to conceive of a "core musculature ... composed of 29 pairs of muscles that support the lumbopelvic-hip complex" when working with folks who are weak in balance and stability, but the fact remains that these muscles haven't evolved and developed exclusively for this function.

I think you could probably argue that all muscles, even finger muscles, play some role in balance and stability. Obviously, the ones in the middle of the body, in the middle and lower part of the trunk, are the most crucial to balance and stability, because they occupy the center of mass and form the nexus where everything else is connected.

I also wonder if some of the exercises invented to promote 'core stability' are any better or even worse than traditional exercises like deadlifts, squats, power cleans, crunches, side-bends, hip-abductors, etc. I think a lot of times a 'core stability program' is just another marketing ploy used to differentiate one nearly identical approach, in terms of results, to health and fitness, from another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
I also wonder if some of the exercises invented to promote 'core stability' are any better or even worse than traditional exercises like deadlifts, squats, power cleans, crunches, side-bends, hip-abductors, etc. I think a lot of times a 'core stability program' is just another market ploy used to differentiate one nearly identical approach, in terms of results, to health and fitness from another.
My best guess is that core stability exercises were developed long before lifts, in yoga and such before the creation of barbells. Also, not everyone is going to have access to that equipment or would feel comfortable going to the gym, such as the elderly and infirm. Physical therapists try to choose exercises that are simple, accessible, non-intimidating, that require little or no equipment that people can do in their living room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
My best guess is that core stability exercises were developed long before lifts, in yoga and such before the creation of barbells. Also, not everyone is going to have access to that equipment or would feel comfortable going to the gym, such as the elderly and infirm. Physical therapists try to choose exercises that are simple, accessible, non-intimidating, that require little or no equipment that people can do in their living room.
Well, now we're talking separate traditions, Ancient Greek Olympians versus Ancient South Asian Yogis, and whatnot. I wonder what the Sanskrit for 'core stability' is?

But I think your point about the elderly and the infirm is totally valid. I was limiting my comments to the heath and fitness crowd (us folks), where 'core stability' has sprung up over the last ten years as one of the latest-greatest fads. I may come off as a cranky curmudgeon, but mostly I think the fitness fadism is funny, although, as I've said elsewhere, I try to keep an open mind and have indeed incorporated a few of the newer ideas I've come across (thanks to you, Scedastic, and others) into my routine since being back Stateside.

Still, I think anyone who has been led to believe that free weights are old-fashioned, dangerous, or only for body builders should do a few power cleans and see if it isn't a challenge to maintain their balance and good form (stability) while also pushing their muscles to become stronger. There's a reason pro athletes continue to do this stuff.

In sum, what I mostly object to is someone coming across the newer stuff and believing the marketing pitch that it has somehow completely replaced all that has come before.

That's why I try to use pro athletes as my standard for deciding what is truly state-of-the-art, because their training choices are determined by athletic rather than public relations (marketing-advertising) competition, on the one hand, and they represent a sample much larger than any given study can afford to throw in a lab or on a treadmill, on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
So here is my experience with this. I've run since I was in middle school. When I would start doing longer distance running (greater than 3 miles) I would get lower back pain. I always figured it was just part of running. I run very erect and upright so I figured that was just it.

When I went into the Marine Corps they make you work your core. Situps, leg lifts, planks...only we didn't call them planks. It was holding the push up position at varying heights off the ground. You do that for a couple minutes and feel the way it sets everything in the center of your body on fire and then the next day even blinking would make those muscles hurt. It wasn't until I had left boot camp that I realized I was running 5K regularly and my back wasn't hurting. I had no idea why. It wasn't until about a year or two later when I didn't have as rigorous PT sessions that my back started to hurt again. I realized that my abs had also gone away a bit and I started to think about it and put the two together. So I started to work on my core again. The back pain went away.

I am a firm believer in core training. I have had times where my core went to hell because I wasn't working it out and I was spending too much time focusing on other aspects of my weight training or running. When I do a core work out, it would hurt for so many days that I knew that I was neglecting it for too long. Because the core is used in just about everything you do, it stays sore for a lot longer. So I try to make sure to do a little bit every day. I notice that my back, shoulders, and hips feel better when I am doing my core exercises.

Anyway, just my experience. Your results may vary. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickW and skedaddle