"Core muscles are designed to prevent movement"

[perman]

Just heard a version of that quote on a recent Powercast with Stan Efferding. Sure I've heard variations of that several other places, including from Rip who used a saying like that as basis for why sit-ups, back-raises and the like aren't necessary and can cause back pain.

Now the quote rings true, flexion and rotation under load is something I think we can agree is bad due to experienced pain issues resulting from that, but is there a basis for saying the "core" muscles themselves are not supposed to cause movement beyond that? Just seems like some factoid with no concrete basis that keeps getting repeated because it seems true.

[JonA]

Seems to me that it's pretty obvious they are designed to move, as they control the only flexible bone structure in your body.

[Savs]

I once dated a girl who was designed this way.

[Shane]

Sounds like four-alarm bullshit to me. Hell, I don't want to do any core training specifically, but not supposed to cause movement? What the fuck would the dance/gymnastic/acrobatic/wrestling/other 3D bendy activity crowds have to keep them interested if everyone in those activities was replaced by cybermen? They're muscles, attached to stuff, that can change the body's position and configuration in space. Although I imagine the muscles of the pelvic floor and some other niche bits are not really prime infrastructure movers. Of anything other than 1&1/2 inch stainless steel balls.

[TimK]

Preventing movement is one important function of the "core" muscles... but they obviously do other things, like flexing and extending your spine.

Never really made sense to me that while every other muscle is trained through a range of motion because we know that is more effective to build strength, these muscles are only supposed to be trained isometrically. Yeah, that's how they function when doing the main lifts, but if you train them through a range of motion and that allows them to get stronger then they should be able to contract isometrically with more force as well, right?

[perman]

Sounds like four-alarm bullshit to me. Hell, I don't want to do any core training specifically, but not supposed to cause movement? What the fuck would the dance/gymnastic/acrobatic/wrestling/other 3D bendy activity crowds have to keep them interested if everyone in those activities was replaced by cybermen? They're muscles, attached to stuff, that can change the body's position and configuration in space. Although I imagine the muscles of the pelvic floor and some other niche bits are not really prime infrastructure movers. Of anything other than 1&1/2 inch stainless steel balls.

While I agree in principle, sit-ups and back raises have indeed caused back pain for myself, so it's hard to dismiss it entirely. Just wondered whether some physiology genius here could say something like "due to the insertion angles of ab and back muscles, these work better for isometric contractions bla bla bla".

People programming anti-movement core exercises like planks, side-planks and ab-wheel over concentric exercises like sit-ups is pretty common nowadays, so if there's a rationale for that beyond experienced superiority, I wondered whether someone had it...

[TimK]

I know @Cody has thoughts on this topic.

[cwd]

Re: not flexing the spine while training core muscles -- it's probably a function of age & disc quality.

My spine *really* hates being flexed, even when lightly loaded. Crunches and such make me hurt for days.
Compression as in deadlifts, and isometric work as in planks is fine.

If your spine is healthier, you are probably a better dancer than I am, and can probably train spine movement safely.

[iamsmu]

I once dated a girl who was designed this way.

Sounds frustrating!

[chrisd]

"designed" That sets the alarm bells ringing. If the human body was designed, was probably by a fat geologist who hates mobility work.

[Kregna]

Preventing movement is one important function of the "core" muscles... but they obviously do other things, like flexing and extending your spine.

Never really made sense to me that while every other muscle is trained through a range of motion because we know that is more effective to build strength, these muscles are only supposed to be trained isometrically. Yeah, that's how they function when doing the main lifts, but if you train them through a range of motion and that allows them to get stronger then they should be able to contract isometrically with more force as well, right?

But your other muscles are used in day to day (mostly) activities when going through a range of motion. How often do you need to curl up into a ball? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that your abs are 'designed' to be used in an isometric capacity

[TimK]

But your other muscles are used in day to day (mostly) activities when going through a range of motion. How often do you need to curl up into a ball? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that your abs are 'designed' to be used in an isometric capacity

The question is whether that is the most effective way to train them to be stronger, or if training through a range of motion is more effective to build strength, which can then be used isometrically.

[TimK]

Also, for the sake of argument, some examples where the "core" muscles would be used through a range of motion:

chopping wood
swinging a sledge hammer
batting (in baseball)
serving a volleyball
various fighting/martial arts movements like punching, knees, throws

[Hanley]

Also, for the sake of argument, some examples where the "core" muscles would be used through a range of motion:

chopping wood
swinging a sledge hammer
batting (in baseball)
serving a volleyball
various fighting/martial arts movements like punching, knees, throws

...Javelin throwing, fucking...

[PatrickDB]

People programming anti-movement core exercises like planks, side-planks and ab-wheel over concentric exercises like sit-ups is pretty common nowadays, so if there's a rationale for that beyond experienced superiority, I wondered whether someone had it...

Feigenbaum and Baraki do this in their programs. My guess is the reasoning is something like: we're really just interested in improving the squat, bench, and deadlift, and ab muscles are used isometrically there, so we should train them isometrically. So it's a tacit specificity thing, which seems reasonable enough. There's also the bit about sit-ups and back extensions possibly causing back pain.

[cwd]

Even "isometric" work has some motion.

I think my spine issues are just with hitting the end of my ROM. A bit of movement inside my "safe range" is OK.

[Savs]

I once dated a girl who was designed this way.

Sounds frustrating!

'Twas the worst.

Also, for the sake of argument, some examples where the "core" muscles would be used through a range of motion:

chopping wood
swinging a sledge hammer
batting (in baseball)
serving a volleyball
various fighting/martial arts movements like punching, knees, throws

...Javelin throwing, fucking...

Hanley, ya beat me to it, but only because I had to find the proper clip. (No, it's not Shakira).

[Kregna]

But your other muscles are used in day to day (mostly) activities when going through a range of motion. How often do you need to curl up into a ball? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that your abs are 'designed' to be used in an isometric capacity

The question is whether that is the most effective way to train them to be stronger, or if training through a range of motion is more effective to build strength, which can then be used isometrically.

I get you

But deadlifts are possibly the best back exercise you can do, and your back is worked isometrically there. People might do rows and things but how many people need to train active spinal flexion/extension?

[Hanley]

but is there a basis for saying the "core" muscles themselves are not supposed to cause movement beyond that? Just seems like some factoid with no concrete basis that keeps getting repeated because it seems true.

You really, really, really don’t want high-velocity/high-force/quick-fatigue trunk fibers.

Not sure why you’d want to train a shitload of type I fibers (that function isometrically as stabilizers in a huge number motor programs) using load and ROM.

[ithryn]

Not saying there's anything unbiblical or sinful with doing exercises with your lower torso musculature through its possible ROM, but it seems like it's obviously there to keep your axial skeleton attached and upright on top of your hip girdle and your spindly legs. They provide a little bit of motion when you're launching or something.

That doesn't mean ROM work might not help strengthen them, I don't see why not.

Your arms are designed to do all sorts of movements. Your thighs are designed both to move and to hold you upright. Your neck muscles move your head side to side to look out for sabretoothed tigers. Nothing is really analogous to your torso but the closest might be your calves and ankles, they seem like they mostly keep your entire skeleton upright on top of your feet, in addition to doing a little bit of flexion to push your foot against the ground and propel you forward. You don't often crouch ass to grass, and then jump or duck walk. I have a theory that heavy squats (where the ankles and calves barely move) contribute a lot more to calf growth than calf extensions do because of this, because that's their job, whereas standing on your tiptoes with a weight is not.