Question: What is Core Training?
Answer: Every five or so years the fitness and bodybuilding industry that includes professional organizations has to invent some new things to keep people interested and sell some new products. Core training is one of a number of the latest examples.
What does core training actually mean?
Its basic idea is a good one. People who are training should not neglect training 'core' muscle groups that should include abdominals, obliques, and lower-back muscles. In many ways, you are only as strong as your core muscles.
The question is how do you train these muscle groups? Do you need numerous, new and exotic exercises for many sets and a variety of repetition durations and range? Or, can you train these muscle groups as you would any other muscle group?
As you can see, if the correct answer is the second one, then training these muscle groups is really quite straightforward. You do not need special core training coaches or new exercises. And, training core muscle groups should not take much time let alone require special 30-60 minute classes.
Here is one example from my own training. I do each of these exercises for one set each, once per week: abdominal crunch on a machine (for the control and ability to effectively 'overload' this muscle group), dumbbell side bend, hanging reverse crunch with weight (which may or may not have a somewhat different effect than regular crunches), a rotary torso machine, stiff-leg deadlifts, a lower-back machine. Each set takes about 1 minute. Because the side bends and rotary torso machine are done in unilateral fashion, that's 8 sets. I do each of these movements once per week. That's 8 minutes of training time for my 'core training'.
Some data suggest that training the lower-back once per week is sufficient. I do all four abdominal and oblique exercises on the same day. Better outcomes may be produced by performing the crunch and side bend on one day and the reverse crunch and rotary torso movement on another day. However, the exercises are arranged, it will still only take 8 minutes per week- not 30-60 minutes two or three times per week.
Similar arguments can be made concerning 'functional' and 'stability' training. The basic assumptions are that training in a specific way transfers directly to a sport or activity of daily living and training in unstable environments activates more muscle fibers and also will better transfer to unstable 'real life tasks'.
The arguments made for this kind of training fall apart when the research literature is consulted. At best, studies suggest that transfer of training occurs very little or not at all. This is what is meant by these outcomes. Training in a certain way such as very rapid movements or jumping with weights does not enhance rapid movements or jumping, for example, in a sport, any more than conventional training enhances such performance.
The major outcomes of such studies suggest that the goal should be to gain strength in a safe, efficient, and effective way and then learn how to use that strength in a given sport. Trying to mimic the sport in training makes little or no sense.
As noted, stability ball training has two assumptions. The first assumption is that training in this unstable environment will activate more muscle fibers. The second assumption is that training in an unstable environment will transfer to everyday life for movements performed in unstable environments.
It's not clear what other muscle fibers will be activated. Some ads describe 'deep muscle fibers' that are reached by training with stability balls. The assumption then is that the term actually exists in exercise physiology and then one must assume we've only been training our 'superficial muscle fibers' all these years.
Which do you think would be a more effective way to train the chest muscles? You place yourself in a very secure position that is very safe and concentrate on contracting the pectoral muscles using a cable cross movement, or (as I saw in a gym with the trainer guiding the trainee), you perform the cable cross movement while standing on a stability ball? Which way of performing the cable cross movement will soon make any issue about training irrelevant because you are likely to severely hurt your shoulders?
I also do not belief that anyone would be stupid enough to perform some task of daily living in a way that resembles performing cable a cross-over while standing on a very unstable surface. What would be the point of that?
A critical issue both for functional training and for training in unstable environments pertains to what we are doing in our real life. Resistance training makes us strong to do lots of things pretty easily such as yard work, carrying groceries or luggage, or even moving lighter furniture. I have little interest much less need to move very heavy objects in my yard (that's what a hand truck or dolly is for) and I know enough as I'm sure you do that moving heavy furniture is not a matter of just brute strength but technique. That's better left to professional movers who know what they're doing and have the right equipment.
I also do not want to be in very unstable environments that require intricate balance. Do you want to purposely put yourself in a position where you're walking backwards down a flight of steps while holding a heavy object that weighs more on one side than the other? The point is we're all smart enough to avoid such situations, get help to carry unstable heavy objects, or perform the work in a way that makes an unstable environment more stable. But, even if somehow we had to perform these tasks in our daily life, training on a stability ball is not going to automatically transfer to these different real life circumstances.
Disclaimer
The information presented on this website is intended to be used for educational purposes only. Please consult with your own physician or health care practitioner regarding any suggestions and recommendations made.