Any thoughts on the following, again?

The Myth of Core Stability, Part 2
By Sal | August 5, 2009
This is the second installment of the review of Professor Eyal Lederman’s paper, “The Myth of Core Stability.” This week I’ll talk about some of the professor’s concepts that will really confuse, and possibly upset, those devotees of the mainstream core stability (CS) philosophy.

WORKING THE CORE WHILE KNEELING OR LYING IS USELESS

Lederman correctly observes that most CS exercise involves strength training of the TrA performing while lying down or on all fours. The idea is that exercises performed while in this posture helps correct motor control and the process by which muscles fire to produce movement. This kind of exercise for CS is not effective because it contradicts the basic principles of how our bodies adapt and learn to move.

“In essence these principles state that our bodies, including the neuromuscular and musculoskeletal systems will adapt specifically to particular motor events. What is learned in one particular situation may not necessarily transfer to a different physical event, if strength is required – lift weights, if speed is needed – increase the speed of movement during training…” To simplify, if you spend most of your time upright, you should train in an upright position. Lederman goes on to write that training people to continuously contract their abdominal muscles in an attempt to train the core, “is to impose an abnormal, non-functional pattern of control,” which is counter to our natural, “protective control strategy that is as old as human evolution.”

A colleague of mine put it best when he said, “You can train a muscle to do anything, but that doesn’t make it the right thing.”

TRUNK STRENGTH AND BACK PAIN AND INJURY PREVENTION

The issue of trunk strength as it relates to back pain and injury prevention is a cause for more confusion and, according to Lederman, leads to two more assumptions:

The loss of core muscle strength could lead to back injury

Increasing core strength can alleviate back pain

The professor reveals that the force level produced by the trunk muscles is not very high (less than 1% of maximum voluntary contraction - MVC) in order to stabilize the spine during standing and walking. These muscles are minimally activated and the deep spinal erectors, psoas and quadratus lumborum are “virtually silent,” and in some subjects there is no detectable EMG activity in these muscles.
These findings indicate that since such low-MVC levels are required for stability, strength losses are not likely an issue in performing functional movement and, therefore, why strength exercises are not necessary. Furthermore, “most individuals would find it impossible to control such low levels of activity or even be aware of it. If they are aware of it, they are probably co-contracting well above the normal levels needed for stabilization. This would come at a cost of increasing the compression of the lumbar spine and reducing the economy of movement.”

You can download the complete paper, complete with references, at this link, http://www.cpdo.net/myth_of_core_stability.doc.

The Myth of Core Stability, Part 3
By Sal | August 12, 2009
This is the third, and final, installment of the review of Professor Eyal Lederman’s paper, “The Myth of Core Stability.” Wrapping things up, the professor reveals the folly behind the concept of isolating core muscles during exercise as a way to build strength. Pretty much everything the professor writes is at odds with the mainstream approach to core stability (CS).

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.

It has always been my understanding that the Pilates conditioning will improve a person's strength, stretch and control. Like a building that is built to sway will better endure the shaking of an earthquake than one that is not, we must build a body that is pliable in order to accept the forces that are applied to us. Sitting is actually the position that most people work in their daily lives, lying down is basically standing with out the force of gravity acting against you. The way I see it; the more positions people can use in which to exercise, the better.