"Core" Stability "Training"

[stef]

The latest article by Mark Rippetoe.

Read it here (http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/resources).

Discuss...

[Gary Gibson]

"Why don't you just squat?"

Squats cure cancer.

There is so much that getting your below-parallel squat over 400 lbs will cure.

Good article. I'm going to go find someone using a bosu ball tonight. Then eat them.

[stef]

More useful than quadruped with alternate arm/leg raises...

http://www.wfac-gym.com/images/bk_sq_375.jpg

... x 5 squats.



More challenging than the prone plank...

http://www.wfac-gym.com/images/gh_pr_245.jpg

...any part of a heavy press.



More *everything, all the time* than even the supersetting of seated marching and multidirectional lunges...

http://www.wfac-gym.com/images/jl_cj_145.jpg

...the clean & jerk.


Who knew??!!!1

[loseyourname]

I distinctly remember reading, in Gordon Pirie's "Running Fast and Injury Free," written decades ago (and probably part of the basis for the current pose/chi running and barefoot running crazes), the recommendation that one be able to press a bare minimum of their own bodyweight overhead before even thinking about running optimally.

[The Sun]

this was a very good read. bravo.

[stronger]

Enjoyed this article very much. referring to a 500lb deadlift, 400lb squat, 300lb clean and 200lb press, Rip says "any decent 200 lb. male athlete should be able".

I assume this is in specific reference to an athlete in a competitive sense, and not the weekend warrior type, since these numbers indicate, based on data I've seen multiple years of training, and even then perhaps unattainable, since they all border on "elite" levels.

Look forward to more

[Kincain]

second that. very good article. will it be published in a journal? seems to may a lot of people can benefit from this point of view.

[stef]

will it be published in a journal?There are lots of problems with journals. Ever try to read primary literature when you're not hooked up through a major university, institution, or research company? The going price for individual purchase -- per article, not per journal issue --is about $30/each. It's like they don't really want you to read them. And really, for the vast majority, you really don't. Trust me.

Publishing here means more access for more people.

Link up.

s.

[Tom Campitelli]

Enjoyed this article very much. referring to a 500lb deadlift, 400lb squat, 300lb clean and 200lb press, Rip says "any decent 200 lb. male athlete should be able".

I assume this is in specific reference to an athlete in a competitive sense, and not the weekend warrior type, since these numbers indicate, based on data I've seen multiple years of training, and even then perhaps unattainable, since they all border on "elite" levels.

Look forward to more

Weekend warriors don't tend to know how to squat at all, let alone squat heavy three times a week.

[JLascek]

Good article. I'm going to go find someone using a bosu ball tonight. Then eat them.

It's about time you start talking about eating!

[GesD]

Rip for President!

I can see all of our economic, politcal, and social problems disappearing already!

Campaign Slogan, "Why Don't you Just Squat"

[Kyle Aaron]

Oh right, a pdf. Strange way to do it.

Read it now. As usual, focused on healthy young adult males. Which is fair enough, that's what he does as a coach.

Lifting goes beyond that, though.

Half the potential lifters are female, and a similar number not young adults, which doesn't affect the routine as such, but does affect the poundages he mentions as what anyone should be able to achieve.

A good proportion of people wishing to start physical training for the first time in their lives will have increased kyphosis (around 20% to a serious degree), scoliosis (2% of females, 0.5% of males), diabetes, obesity to a degree which impairs movement, history of heart disease, once had a knee reconstruction, and so on and so forth.

It's one thing to lift for some time, then suffer those conditions, and alter your lifting to accommodate them, it's another thing to begin lifting with those conditions.

There's always more to the story, but that doesn't make for such snappy and funny articles. ;)

[egeorgeh3]

I'm a middle to long distance runner that follows SS. So I posted a link to the article on a running forum just for some free comedy. They're little heads will explode. Due to SS I pass people on hills and speed up at the end of runs. I have none of the running injuries you hear about all the time. Knees, hips, hammies, back -nothing. I'm not as fast as I would be if I weighed 135lbs but I run pretty well for a 41-year old guy at 5'8' 180lbs (heavy for a runner). And I don't have to ask my wife to open the pickles.

[juicysweet]

Damn, Kyle. I'm not going to fisk your every statement, but you missed a few things in this article as well as many of his other articles.

The 200/300/400/500 was specifically given as numbers "that any decent 200 lb. male athlete" should be able to do.

And your middle paragraph describes a huge chunk of what walks into a commercial gym, exactly the kind of population Rip's trained effectively for decades.

[stronger]

I posted a link to the article on a running forum just for some free comedy.

I'd like to see a link to that...

[jtorres3]

Oh right, a pdf. Strange way to do it.

Read it now. As usual, focused on healthy young adult males. Which is fair enough, that's what he does as a coach.

Actually, I am sure Rip has coached as many older, screwed up folks as he has healthy young males

Lifting goes beyond that, though.

Half the potential lifters are female, and a similar number not young adults, which doesn't affect the routine as such, but does affect the poundages he mentions as what anyone should be able to achieve.

Which Rip Clearly defines within his statement: are you trying to make a point that has already been clarified?

A good proportion of people wishing to start physical training for the first time in their lives will have increased kyphosis (around 20% to a serious degree), scoliosis (2% of females, 0.5% of males), diabetes, obesity to a degree which impairs movement, history of heart disease, once had a knee reconstruction, and so on and so forth.

Well how the hell do you recommend fixing (or at least making the most of) these conditions.
By golly, we cant expect a guy with DIABETES to squat can we?! Oh wait, that is a metabolic disorder that won't affect his ability to squat-press-deadlift one tiny bit. How do you think most people become diabetic?
Over eating-under utilizing. How do we counteract that? Hard work and a sensible diet. Your arguments are not even adressing the points that Mark is making.

It's one thing to lift for some time, then suffer those conditions, and alter your lifting to accommodate them, it's another thing to begin lifting with those conditions.

There's always more to the story, but that doesn't make for such snappy and funny articles. ;)

Who says that having "more to the story precludes someone from effective training methods? I have been a training people for 5 years. ALL of them had issues (in fact, the ones you mentioned are most common). A smart coach knows how to work with those issues and still create an effective training model for the individual. Do you think Rip was going to include all of the possible scenarios in which he may tailor his training to a person's peculiarities? Of course not, that would be called a text book.

What he was saying is that progressive increase in real useful exercise is more "functional" than any amount of silly crap that should be relegated to those recovering from debilitating medical problems.

He was, in fact, making all of the points that you attempted to bring up.

[JLascek]

Oh right, a pdf. Strange way to do it.

Read it now. As usual, focused on healthy young adult males. Which is fair enough, that's what he does as a coach.

Lifting goes beyond that, though.

Half the potential lifters are female, and a similar number not young adults, which doesn't affect the routine as such, but does affect the poundages he mentions as what anyone should be able to achieve.

A good proportion of people wishing to start physical training for the first time in their lives will have increased kyphosis (around 20% to a serious degree), scoliosis (2% of females, 0.5% of males), diabetes, obesity to a degree which impairs movement, history of heart disease, once had a knee reconstruction, and so on and so forth.

It's one thing to lift for some time, then suffer those conditions, and alter your lifting to accommodate them, it's another thing to begin lifting with those conditions.

There's always more to the story, but that doesn't make for such snappy and funny articles. ;)

I'm confused by your apparent confusion, especially since your critique is not really pertinent to the article to begin with. The point? Barbell training is not accepted as something that strengthens "the core", nor is the importance understood by people who claim to know such things.

The same principles are applied to alternate populations, so your point is moot.

[Kyle Aaron]

Barbell training is not accepted as something that strengthens "the core", nor is the importance understood by people who claim to know such things.
It's not accepted? That's funny, because I ave a PT course manual right by me, and in big bold type at the beginning of the "core" section it says, "every exercise can be, is and should be a "core" exercise." Then they cover planks and so on, but go on to lots of barbell stuff.

Does every course do this? No. But it just shows that the world is not so simple, so black and white.

But if you want to win an argument, it's always easier if you get to make up not only your own but your opponents' arguments. By splitting the world into "people who agree with me and do lots of barbell stuff" and "everyone else who are pussies", this is just what Rippetoe does. Which as I said, makes for snappy and entertaining articles, but there's more to the story.

Rip's far from the only trainer to think everyone else is an idiot doing pointless stuff. I know one here down in Melbourne who thinks Rip is okay, but that his own approach is faster and better. In his garage (literally, a single-car garage) gym he's had almost 50 people deadlift over 200kg in the last two years, at least 30 of them never having lifted before going to his place, so his ideas can't be completely stupid.

There are lots of ways to do things. My own preference is for Rip's approach, but I don't pretend it's the only way that works, or that it works for everyone in every condition or situation.

[coldfire]

Oh right, a pdf. Strange way to do it.

Read it now. As usual, focused on healthy young adult males. Which is fair enough, that's what he does as a coach.

Lifting goes beyond that, though.

Half the potential lifters are female, and a similar number not young adults, which doesn't affect the routine as such, but does affect the poundages he mentions as what anyone should be able to achieve.


I think you can't read very well.



A good proportion of people wishing to start physical training for the first time in their lives will have increased kyphosis (around 20% to a serious degree), scoliosis (2% of females, 0.5% of males), diabetes, obesity to a degree which impairs movement, history of heart disease, once had a knee reconstruction, and so on and so forth.

It's one thing to lift for some time, then suffer those conditions, and alter your lifting to accommodate them, it's another thing to begin lifting with those conditions.

There's always more to the story, but that doesn't make for such snappy and funny articles. ;)

And people with all those conditions are not allowed to train effectively, right?

[Gottatri2lift]

Wondering if a copy of the study referenced in the essay could be accessed? Doing a term paper for English composition about critical thinking a novice trainee must develop when coming across these studies. An informative abstract or the actual study would be great. Also shouldn't the study be a reference? An understanding of this craptacular study will better prepare everyone when this article is shown to a 150 pound bosu balling squatter.

I am not questioning the integrity of the paper, but to better understand the bullshit study referenced so to further increase the strength of the argument would be beneficial to everyone, and if I can use it for my term paper all the better. Either way I have printed out the paper and bringing it to the gym this Tuesday.

[Gottatri2lift: Please clarify which study you mean. There is a link within Rip's article that goes directly to the article he discusses. If it is some other article you're looking for, I can't tell what that is and can't help you out. -seb]

[knox]

Rip's far from the only trainer to think everyone else is an idiot doing pointless stuff. I know one here down in Melbourne who thinks Rip is okay, but that his own approach is faster and better. In his garage (literally, a single-car garage) gym he's had almost 50 people deadlift over 200kg in the last two years, at least 30 of them never having lifted before going to his place, so his ideas can't be completely stupid.

Does the guy you're talking about get people to deadlift over 200kg by having them perform crunches on bosu balls? Or does he do it by having them barbell train with heavy weights? If it's the latter, you're only proving the point of the article: that the best way to strengthen your "core" is to lift heavy shit.

[egeorgeh3]

I'd like to see a link to that...

If the moderator OKs posting the link, here (http://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/16ffa4a85754410e9cfa66d793490e71)it is.

One comment already made me laugh: "He seems to be saying "If it's not barbells, it's crap".

Well, um, yeah. :rolleyes:

[August West]

Wondering if a copy of the study referenced in the essay could be accessed?

Yes, at the link Rip cites in the article: www.coachr.org/core_stabilisation_training_for.htm

It's actually worth visiting just for the pictures, they're straight up hilarious.


But if you want to win an argument, it's always easier if you get to make up not only your own but your opponents' arguments. By splitting the world into "people who agree with me and do lots of barbell stuff" and "everyone else who are pussies", this is just what Rippetoe does.

This is really strange. Seemed to me Lascek was telling you that many people who claim to know about exercise do not in fact understand the effects of barbell training. You respond by offering a single book you've read (cite? just curious) as proof that at least one such person gets it. My friend, he wasn't saying that no person associated with any PT program has ever understood barbell training; your one example to the contrary in no way obviates the actual point.

This is screwy argument, and I wouldn't even comment on it but for one thing: you then accuse Rippetoe of writing to an artificial antagonist that doesn't exist - that is, using a scarecrow argument. But he obviously isn't doing this because he cites extensively from the source (the foil) around which he builds his own thesis in the article. Someone definitely holds these opinions, you can follow the URL and see it yourself. Seems you are the one out building scarecrows, or maybe just listening to himself talk. Anyway, sorry dude, logical fail there.

[Gwynn]

Yes, at the link Rip cites in the article: www.coachr.org/core_stabilisation_training_for.htm

This article purports to be about training athletes but the thing reads like a program for rehabilitation after a seriously traumatic injury. It's like giving a cane to a healthy person and telling them they shouldn't walk without the cane until they can contract their transverse abdominus without contracting their rectus abdominus. I hated the term "core" when I first heard it. Now I am vindicated.

[DeepBlue]

Kyle:
With regards to the PT's out there who prescribe 'core training', they are 100,000s of them.

Look, I could get a coaching certification for martial arts given a few hours of study. And it's mostly simple material and testing protocols that a little reading and experience cover. In the part about high performance athletes, will it mention barbells? Sort of. I know it talks about leg press/bench press benchmarks.

Is the expectation after the course that I can go on to coach martial artists? Yes. Would I personally consider it enough: No. Do 1000s of people do similar courses and expect they can go on and train people: Yes.

Do the globo gyms put their staff through 'personal trainer' programs? Yes. Do you honestly think more than 5% of these people know about any squat other than a 1/4 air squat? I highly doubt it.

Most people would benefit from functional training with a barbell/dumbbells. Controlling heavy stuff improves balance (fall prevention in older people). The inference that people with kyphosis *wouldn't* benefit from barbell training is plainly silly (I'm sure you weren't trying to make that inference, were you?).

SCALABLE and PROGRESSIVE.

Physiotherapists on the other hand should, and often do know better.

[BryanM]

Guys can we just start calling it the "torso" now? I like that word. Let's try to get it to catch on.


It's one thing to lift for some time, then suffer those conditions, and alter your lifting to accommodate them, it's another thing to begin lifting with those conditions.
It seems obvious the ideal would be to get the knowledge and chance to train at a young age, around sixish, or at the very least inspire the foresight to gain some strength before one ends up as the old lady who has fallen on the floor and can not stand up.

For the first example, making children wiggle around on the floor is child abuse. For the second, weight and strength gain is one of the few things that can improve the quality of life for those suffering from a number of diseases - such as emphysema.

[Gottatri2lift]

I am a fucking idiot. Read and comprehended the article, but failed to see the link. Went to the bottom to review the reference or bib. page and since there isn't one b/c it is cited within the work and I didn't see it. Sofa king retarded!!! Sorry.

[strongdaniel]

It's not accepted? That's funny, because I ave a PT course manual right by me, and in big bold type at the beginning of the "core" section it says, "every exercise can be, is and should be a "core" exercise." Then they cover planks and so on, but go on to lots of barbell stuff.

Does every course do this? No. But it just shows that the world is not so simple, so black and white.

But if you want to win an argument, it's always easier if you get to make up not only your own but your opponents' arguments. By splitting the world into "people who agree with me and do lots of barbell stuff" and "everyone else who are pussies", this is just what Rippetoe does. Which as I said, makes for snappy and entertaining articles, but there's more to the story.

Rip's far from the only trainer to think everyone else is an idiot doing pointless stuff. I know one here down in Melbourne who thinks Rip is okay, but that his own approach is faster and better. In his garage (literally, a single-car garage) gym he's had almost 50 people deadlift over 200kg in the last two years, at least 30 of them never having lifted before going to his place, so his ideas can't be completely stupid.

There are lots of ways to do things. My own preference is for Rip's approach, but I don't pretend it's the only way that works, or that it works for everyone in every condition or situation.

It sounds to me like this guy is helping his clients get strong through heavy barbell work. Based on my reading of the article, Rip was arguing that if one really wants to strengthen the "core", one should perform heavy barbell work. Your post only contributes to the validity of Rip's argument.

[pbjorge12]

Guys can we just start calling it the "torso" now? I like that word. Let's try to get it to catch on.

I like the "trunk." It sounds badass.

[tremorviolet]

I like the "trunk." It sounds badass.

Yeah, the "core" sounds ridiculous now 'cause it's so overused but when it became popular (I first heard it in reference to Pilates), it was kinda a revolutionary idea (to the public, I'm sure it wasn't news to most trainers or coaches). Most mainstream fitness focused exclusively on the abs and crunches. The idea of the core was that it was more than just abs, the whole mid-section is important which is still true). Doesn't matter what you decide to rename it, it'll still be overused and eventually devalued just like how "moron" became "retarded" became "mentally handicapped" became "developmental disability" and is probably going to change again.

[misspelledgeoff]

I like the "trunk." It sounds badass.


I've got junk in my trunk.

[stronger]

hey guys, why don't we just call it the "tummy"? I predict it will be wildly popular with our demographic

[Krump]

This article struck a chord w me because I used to be a marathoner but developed IT band syndrome which ended my distance running career after a year of trying to run through it (interesting that one of the examples was about IT band syndrome). Of course during that year I tried to figure out why my IT band was F*ed up and of course it wasn't the IT band itself that was goofed but my hips. I DID go to physical therapy and they diagnosed me with an "uneven" hip. Basically my right femur jams up into my pelvis limiting my range of motion - it is painful to tuck my right knee to my chest and my right psoas (I think it is my psoas anyway) is always tight unless I stretch it several times a day. Anyway, during that time I really started to figure things out and had just begun strength training while my fitness philosophy was undergoing a paradigm shift.

Anyway I was "treated" three times - once per week - but I moved back to school and havn't gotten treatment from physical therapy in about 8 months (they basically jerked my femur out of my pelvis with a forceful "POP!"). It really did feel great afterwards and my ROM felt a world different but now without getting my femur forcefully removed from my pelvis every week my ROM stinks and hurts when I reach the limits of my ROM.

I'm blabbing on about all this because in the article Rip basically sarcastically dismisses physical therapy as BS but it seemed to start showing benefit for me and my F*ed up hip joint. I don't want to return to running but for my strength training's sake I want to restore my hip joint health and ROM. Is visiting the physical therapist going fix this eventually? I love BB training but it isn't unjamming my right hip joint any. Would gravity boots help decompress the hip joint?

Didn't mean to hijack, I just identified w the article because of my running past and IT band syndrome and because I am wondering about whether physical therapy is something I should pursue once I return home from school?

PS - thank you Rip and the Starting Strength community. This ex-marathoner now feels at home under a heavy barbell.

[vxmorpheusxv]

It didn't sound to me like Ripp was bashing on PT in general, just in the context of the article, which is in healthy populations. PT has it's purposes, but strength training for the general population is not one of them.

[JLascek]

It didn't sound to me like Ripp was bashing on PT in general, just in the context of the article, which is in healthy populations. PT has it's purposes, but strength training for the general population is not one of them.

The only relevancy this article has to PT's is that they typically have a misunderstanding on how to strengthen the trunk of the body effectively.

And strength training is rehab, or what you are referring to as "physical therapy". We can get far better results through using the compound barbell movements than the "covering of the ass" methods of a PT. It's just that the physical therapist doesn't see it this way.

[zendefone]

Does this article means that there is no need to do ''core''/abs specialisation work? Like turish get-ups or plank etc. ? Even though the core is my weak point in deadlifts/squats and i have weak abs?

[Sgsolberg]

From Practical Programming (1ed): p149.

Focused abdominal exercises may be the most important assistance movements to include. The lower back is supported from the anterior by the abs, and ab work, when done correctly, protects and assists lumbar stability. ...Weighted situps, or some version of them, and exercises that isometrically load the abdominals in a fashion similar to their normal postural-support function, are preferred over exercises that do not adequately stress the muscles in a way that actually applies to their role as spinal supporters.

ie: do 3x5-10 weighted situps with a weight that is difficult. Do NOT do 3 sets of 25, 50, or insane other numbers of situps. Strength train them.

[zendefone]

From Practical Programming (1ed): p149.

Focused abdominal exercises may be the most important assistance movements to include. The lower back is supported from the anterior by the abs, and ab work, when done correctly, protects and assists lumbar stability. ...Weighted situps, or some version of them, and exercises that isometrically load the abdominals in a fashion similar to their normal postural-support function, are preferred over exercises that do not adequately stress the muscles in a way that actually applies to their role as spinal supporters.

ie: do 3x5-10 weighted situps with a weight that is difficult. Do NOT do 3 sets of 25, 50, or insane other numbers of situps. Strength train them.
Thanks for the great info, about time to strengthen my weak abs.

But i'm confused here, isn't sit up a bad exercise for the abs which can harm your lower back? And also, whenever i do sit ups, reverse crunch on a hard floor, my spine will be getting in the way, the hard floor will put alot of pressure on my spine.

[Sgsolberg]

Situps can injure the lower back if you are rocking back onto your spine or abusing the movement. One way to help is to use a decline bench. Start at the top, lower yourself to below parallel, pause, then return. This will focus on a nice slow movement. The bench will cushion your back, and the pause will help with the isometric purpose of the abs. I like to use this with a 25-45 lb plate held overhead on the decline bench, training 3*8.

(http://www.lonkilgore.com/usawrdc/Abdominal_Intensity.pdf)

[zendefone]

Situps can injure the lower back if you are rocking back onto your spine or abusing the movement. One way to help is to use a decline bench. Start at the top, lower yourself to below parallel, pause, then return. This will focus on a nice slow movement. The bench will cushion your back, and the pause will help with the isometric purpose of the abs. I like to use this with a 25-45 lb plate held overhead on the decline bench, training 3*8.

(http://www.lonkilgore.com/usawrdc/Abdominal_Intensity.pdf)
Cool my gym has a decline situps bench, thanks.

So should the concentric(lifting part) be as fast as possible(high power) or controlled?

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

There are few reason for the concentric portion of any excersize to be "controlled" in the sense of moving slower than you can. THis does not mean you should sacrifice form for speed.

Also, don't move the weight around when doing weighted situps. You'll see someone start with the weight on the upper part of their chest and by rep 10, it's down to their belly button.

[confuzzl3don3]

Situps can injure the lower back if you are rocking back onto your spine or abusing the movement. One way to help is to use a decline bench. Start at the top, lower yourself to below parallel, pause, then return. This will focus on a nice slow movement. The bench will cushion your back, and the pause will help with the isometric purpose of the abs. I like to use this with a 25-45 lb plate held overhead on the decline bench, training 3*8.

(http://www.lonkilgore.com/usawrdc/Abdominal_Intensity.pdf)

By overhead do you mean arms extended holding the weight above you?
Any opinions on the other options like holding a plate across your chest (although when you hit the big plates it restricts your ROM), or holding the weight behind your head, etc

[taowave]

Like everything in life,there is more than one way to look at core strength.While Rip,who I greatly admire feels that having the strength to perform a 500lb deadlift, 400lb squat, 300lb clean and 200lb press is the "ultimate indicator" of core strength,one could argue that gymnast type training in movements such as the L-sit on rings,back levers,front levers and various planches is superior.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Then one should argue thusly instead of merely offering to do so.

[taowave]

Rip,it really boils down to how one measures core strength.

If the premise is that "just perform squat/deadlift" and you will have the core strength of a gymnast,we have the makings of a debate






Then one should argue thusly instead of merely offering to do so.

[IWillLiveFreeOrDie]

Entertaining article! The comments comparing the stability training to house work were pure gold.

I had a brief moment of enlightenment several years ago when I decided to change up my workout routine. This is well before I even heard of Starting Strength. I was working on the leg press machine, and decided I should up my game so I added the "squat" machine to my workout. This wasn't a "Smith" machine, but some other wierd contraption that had a vertical sled that simulated squatting. I did that for several weeks but didn't notice much of a difference.

So I decided to quit the leg presses and "squat" machine, and do real squats and deadlifts for a while. My squat form sucked. I had the bar too high, but I was trying to go deep. My deadlift form was even worse. I was doing sumo deadlifts.

Even with these limitations, after 4 weeks I tried the leg press and "squat" machine again. I went from 225 lbs on the "squat" machine to maxing it out at 405 pounds. It was ridiculously easy. My leg press numbers went from 315 pounds to 585 pounds.

At that moment the light came on, and I realized that all of these stupid machines were a waste of time. Too bad it took me a couple more years before I found Starting Strength to begin to understand how little I knew.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Rip,it really boils down to how one measures core strength.

If the premise is that "just perform squat/deadlift" and you will have the core strength of a gymnast,we have the makings of a debate

Okay, if I understand you correctly you're saying that a gymnast that doesn't squat has a stronger "core" than a powerlifter who squats 700+.

Or is it more likely that you're actually not saying anything at all except, "I disagree."

[genbie]

From Practical Programming (1ed): p149.

Focused abdominal exercises may be the most important assistance movements to include. The lower back is supported from the anterior by the abs, and ab work, when done correctly, protects and assists lumbar stability. ...Weighted situps, or some version of them, and exercises that isometrically load the abdominals in a fashion similar to their normal postural-support function, are preferred over exercises that do not adequately stress the muscles in a way that actually applies to their role as spinal supporters.

ie: do 3x5-10 weighted situps with a weight that is difficult. Do NOT do 3 sets of 25, 50, or insane other numbers of situps. Strength train them.

This is an important point for me as well. I think my weak abs are the culprit behind my squat problems. In the PP book it does not say which ab exercises are the best assistance movements, just that weighted lower reps are best. On bodybuilding.com's guide to Rippetoe's SS http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=13263270&postcount=17, it says this:


Question - I have heard of Standing Ab Pulldowns. What are these and how are these done? Should I do these instead?

Standing ab pulldowns are a very good exercise that is frequently performed by powerlifters. Because the squat and deadlift (2 primary powerlifting exercises) are taxing on the midsection, and both require you to stand up, the train of thought is that doing ab work in a standing position will have better carryover.

Here and here are a few pics of the standing ab pulldown. You attach a towel or a strap or whatever to a lat pulldown machine, face away from the machine, hold the straps on either side of your head, and use your abs to pull you down.

If you prefer those over situps or leg raises, then go for it! Be smart, start out easy, and gradually increase volume and/or intensity. Keep reps per set relatively low again (no 30-rep marathon sets)

Is this opinion shared by most people here? Do they really have better carryover than the other Ab exercises mentioned in the FAQ link above (NeedSize situps and chinup/slantboard leg raises)? Ab work will probably be the only assistance exercise that I will do so I want to focus on the best exercise with the best carryover to squat and deadlift.

[Gary Gibson]

This is an important point for me as well. I think my weak abs are the culprit behind my squat problems. In the PP book it does not say which ab exercises are the best assistance movements, just that weighted lower reps are best. On bodybuilding.com's guide to Rippetoe's SS http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=13263270&postcount=17, it says this:



Is this opinion shared by most people here? Do they really have better carryover than the other Ab exercises mentioned in the FAQ link above (NeedSize situps and chinup/slantboard leg raises)? Ab work will probably be the only assistance exercise that I will do so I want to focus on the best exercise with the best carryover to squat and deadlift.

Here's some stuff from Coach Staley's abs article that helped inform the article I wrote for the site:


Most people under-estimate how much work their abs receive through their regular training schedule. Squats, cleans, deadlifts, snatches, farmer's walks, kettelebell work, and even heavy dumbbell upper-body exercises result in very high levels of abdominal activation. And honestly, probably as much as you really need.

Perhaps one of the most productive ab exercises is heavy squats while wearing a belt, but I doubt that you consciously feel your abs while doing those squats.

[Nauticus]

This is an important point for me as well. I think my weak abs are the culprit behind my squat problems. In the PP book it does not say which ab exercises are the best assistance movements, just that weighted lower reps are best. On bodybuilding.com's guide to Rippetoe's SS http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=13263270&postcount=17, it says this:



Is this opinion shared by most people here? Do they really have better carryover than the other Ab exercises mentioned in the FAQ link above (NeedSize situps and chinup/slantboard leg raises)? Ab work will probably be the only assistance exercise that I will do so I want to focus on the best exercise with the best carryover to squat and deadlift.

I believe Rip favors Roman chair situps. He has also said the "functionality" of exercises for muscles that only work to contract isometrically, such as abs or the lumbar muscles, is not a factor.

[cjangelo]

In the PP book it does not say which ab exercises are the best assistance movements, just that weighted lower reps are best.

Lon wrote an article entitled "Abdominal Intensity." He proposed doing weighted crunches, starting with 3 sets of 12 reps, and working your way up to 5 sets of 12 reps.

I wouldn't think too hard about this. Just do something.

[ZEvenEsh]

great article, add hanging leg raises like Kono suggests in his weightlifting book and you'll have one bad ass mofo!

--z--

[taowave]

Yes indeed,I am saying a gymnast that doesnt squat has a stronger core(pound for pound)than a powerlifter who squats 700..

How many guys do you know that can squat well over 400 pounds that cant do 1 strict straight arm,straight leg raise?? Half the guys I know cant hold a "seated" L (for more than 5 seconds(if that) let alone anything else more challenging..

Rip,I can fully appreciate the "core strength" necessary to support the force generated by 700 pounds.Whether you agree or not,its a matter of perspective

T


Okay, if I understand you correctly you're saying that a gymnast that doesn't squat has a stronger "core" than a powerlifter who squats 700+.

Or is it more likely that you're actually not saying anything at all except, "I disagree."

[Mark Rippetoe]

Your depth of experience with this is interesting. You know both gymnasts and 700 lb. squatters, have measured their "core" strength, and have determined that the athlete who works only against his own bodyweight, its lever arms, and its momentum as resistance has somehow developed a stronger "core" than the lifter who works against a bar loaded to 700 lbs. Aside from the fact that pound-for-pound is bullshit (force production is a rather objective parameter), Joe Bradley squatted 650 at 132 back in 1980 (sorry for all the numbers). He was not a gymnast, but he was very strong, stronger perhaps than even the mighty Paul Hamm.

[Gary Gibson]

Just wanted to point out:

The gymnasts doing those bodyweight tricks don't have very large lower bodies. They would be a lot less impressive at those feats involving using their abs to hold their legs in various positions of impressive leverage disadvantage if they were also competent squatters with twice the leg mass.

It's sort of like me claiming that because I can chin with 100 lbs added at a bodyweight of 165 I'm stronger than a guy chinning with "only" 80 lbs added at a bodyweight of 300. Really not a fair comparison. (And the 300-lb guy is in fact a lot stronger.) Or like me claiming that because I can do a one-arm push-up (at 165 lbs and with a 250-lb bench, for example) or a pistol (with a 400-lb squat) that I'm stronger than the 300-lb powerlifter who can neither one-arm push up nor pistol, but can bench 500 raw and squat 700 raw. Again, the 300-lb guy is stronger. I may be better at maintaining tension to master some positions or movements with my smaller mass, but his relevant muscles are stronger.

[Raskolnikov]

Well said, Gary.

[taowave]

Mark,your assertion is lifting barbells is the best way to develop "core" strength..

I am saying it isnt "the best".

A you are far more knowledgable than me,please tell me what scientific testing methods you utilised to determine "the best"..






















Your depth of experience with this is interesting. You know both gymnasts and 700 lb. squatters, have measured their "core" strength, and have determined that the athlete who works only against his own bodyweight, its lever arms, and its momentum as resistance has somehow developed a stronger "core" than the lifter who works against a bar loaded to 700 lbs. Aside from the fact that pound-for-pound is bullshit (force production is a rather objective parameter), Joe Bradley squatted 650 at 132 back in 1980 (sorry for all the numbers). He was not a gymnast, but he was very strong, stronger perhaps than even the mighty Paul Hamm.

[taowave]

Gary I agree with most of what you stated..

You feel the guy who can do the 500 pound bench/700 squat with NO pistol/NO one arm pushup is stronger than the guy who can do the one arm pushup and the pistol but can only bench 250/ squat 400..Ok,he can definetly move heavier weights,so he is stronger than you in absolute terms.We agree.

But why is it he is unable to perform a single one arm push up??Could it be his "core" is not as developed/strong as the "weaker" individual??

I just dont know if having the strength to support a massive load automatically equates to having incredible core strength.




Just wanted to point out:

The gymnasts doing those bodyweight tricks don't have very large lower bodies. They would be a lot less impressive at those feats involving using their abs to hold their legs in various positions of impressive leverage disadvantage if they were also competent squatters with twice the leg mass.

It's sort of like me claiming that because I can chin with 100 lbs added at a bodyweight of 165 I'm stronger than a guy chinning with "only" 80 lbs added at a bodyweight of 300. Really not a fair comparison. (And the 300-lb guy is in fact a lot stronger.) Or like me claiming that because I can do a one-arm push-up (at 165 lbs and with a 250-lb bench, for example) or a pistol (with a 400-lb squat) that I'm stronger than the 300-lb powerlifter who can neither one-arm push up nor pistol, but can bench 500 raw and squat 700 raw. Again, the 300-lb guy is stronger. I may be better at maintaining tension to master some positions or movements with my smaller mass, but his relevant muscles are stronger.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Mark,your assertion is lifting barbells is the best way to develop "core" strength..

I am saying it isnt "the best".

A you are far more knowledgable than me,please tell me what scientific testing methods you utilised to determine "the best"..

Okay Tao, I just pulled it out of my ass. You got me. What methods do you use to develop excellent core strength in your athletes?

And I just love this observation: I just dont know if having the strength to support a massive load automatically equates to having incredible core strength.

[TrackJunkie]

But why is it he is unable to perform a single one arm push up??Could it be his "core" is not as developed/strong as the "weaker" individual??

Think about this for a second. Which takes more core strength. Stabilizing Gary Gibson's burger-starved, 165 lb frame over one arm and pushing it off the floor, or stabilizing the 300 lb powerlifter and doing the same? I think it's pretty easy to see that it's harder for the powerlifter to complete the movement. Now maybe this is where you're going to get into "relative" strength and all that nonsense, but I think it should be obvious that the clearest test of core strength is supporting heavy weights with the core.

[taowave]

Mark,are you always this defensive/aggressive when one has a different view than you?

I have a different perspective on core strength than you.It does not make me right,I have said that I have immense respect for your work and am NOT an expert in the field.I have worked with powerlifters/martial artists who are incredibly strong but lack functional core strength(and flexibility).

I do not think it is so outrageous to question if supporting a massive load equates to superior core strength.I was hoping you would define how you measure core strength in a more gentlemanly fashion.

Regardless,I have a call in to 2 PHd's in Biomechanics who work with world class athletes/strongmen/mere mortals and asked their opinion,and how they test from a scientific/quantitative perspective.I am perfectly happy to be 100% wrong in my assessment as I will have learned something which is more important to me than "being right"...

Right or wrong,I would be happy to share their responce...

T




Okay Tao, I just pulled it out of my ass. You got me. What methods do you use to develop excellent core strength in your athletes?

And I just love this observation: I just dont know if having the strength to support a massive load automatically equates to having incredible core strength.

[Mark Rippetoe]

You have not stated anything but the opinion that a heavy squat does not equal the "core" strength of a gymnast. How does one support a massive load on one's shoulders and move it through space without the spinal stability along which to transfer the force? How do you not see that the loaded bar is the direct measurement of the stability of the spine during the properly executed squat? How can the squat be performed without a stable "core"? I am not being aggressive/defensive. And all who know me will attest that I am always a gentleman. I am merely puzzled by your calculus, as if you had told me that my opinion about the sum of 2+2 was subject to debate, without telling me that you thought it was 5.

I am anxious to hear the conventional positions of the PhDs. Please post them.

[taowave]

Hi Mark,
I got a responce from one of the people I REALLY respect.He has done a ton of research in this field,but unfortunately didnt answer the question directly.

This is most of the responce,and I post this to hopefully add food for thought.I welcome your feed back..

Essentially,one of the issues with powerlifters is that they lift with both feet on the ground.In strongman comps,we know that the lifter must carry large loads.To take a step,the pelvis on the swing leg side needs to be lifted to allow swing.My source feels that this may be one of the shortcomings of some programs that powerlifters engage in.They dont necessarily work their lateral core sufficiently..

Unfortunately,the methods for revealing this were not named,so we have to go by what he said.But I promise you he is as sharp as they come and has spent an enormous amount of time and energy rsearching and testing.
He concludes by stating that movements such as dragging the sled,suitcase carries and farmers walks should make for a better lifter..

That is essentially all I have at the current time,but I do believe their may be something published shortly.I will let you know..

Thanks,

T

[Gary Gibson]

Well said, Gary.

Thanks.


Gary I agree with most of what you stated..

You feel the guy who can do the 500 pound bench/700 squat with NO pistol/NO one arm pushup is stronger than the guy who can do the one arm pushup and the pistol but can only bench 250/ squat 400..Ok,he can definetly move heavier weights,so he is stronger than you in absolute terms.We agree.

But why is it he is unable to perform a single one arm push up??Could it be his "core" is not as developed/strong as the "weaker" individual??

I just dont know if having the strength to support a massive load automatically equates to having incredible core strength.

Back when I had really tiny thighs and could do ten pistols on my left leg (which was and still is stronger, bigger and better wired to my brain than my right) and when my best squat was a shaky 225 I used to argue with a 700-lb squatter that my legs were "somehow stronger" than his.

That same 700-lb squatter confessed that he could only do pistols with practice, and that he got them more easily with his left leg than right.

Since I've stopped practicing pistols, I've added close to 200 lbs to my squat. I can do a couple pistols on my left leg if I had to before needing to use my hands to steady myself. My ability to perform pistols has withered to nearly nothing without practice, but I'm pretty confident that my legs are still stronger in every meaningful sense (i.e. that which doesn't involve balancing on one leg as I try to exert for on through the leg on which I'm standing).

I submit to you that pistols are a matter of practice and balance far more than they are a matter of strength. They are the "functional" equivalent of squatting 135 lbs on a stability ball. You need to practice to get them right much more than you need strength. And getting good at them only makes you good at... well, at doing pistols. (Your ability to perform the Crane Technique may also improve...though even there I would suggest you practice your Crane Technique at least as much as you practice your pistol in hopes of carryover.) In fact, anyone who can squat his bodyweight on a barbell could do them.

Pistols may well reveal imbalances, but I can attest to you that they don't correct them (I tried for years to use them for this instead of just upping my two-legged back squat). You know what made my lagging right leg bigger, stronger and better wired to my brain? If you said "squatting heavy and for volume and adding nearly 200 lbs to your best squat", then you are correct.

[FatButWeak]

Like everything in life,there is more than one way to look at core strength.While Rip,who I greatly admire feels that having the strength to perform a 500lb deadlift, 400lb squat, 300lb clean and 200lb press is the "ultimate indicator" of core strength,one could argue that gymnast type training in movements such as the L-sit on rings,back levers,front levers and various planches is superior.

Taowave has confused the discussion but treating two separate things as if they are one. He has confused a practiced skill (gymnasts' planche, L etc.) with the expression of strength. This confusion is not uncommon, and I half expect his experts to make the same mistake.

Strength (including core strength) is a general attribute necessary for sports, including gymnastics. Strength is increased most effectively by Barbelling (copyright me, 2010). Gymnasts moves are a highly practiced and honed skill that do require a certain strength. But you cannot logically argue that an athlete who cannot press 200 pounds has greater core strength than one who can. Pressing 200 pounds overhead is not a skill (although with a very small amount of practice anyone can learn who to more effectively perform the lift) it is an expression of strength, including core strength (if the lifter did not have the core strength to press 200 pounds, he would collapse under the weight). Gymnast moves are the expression of skill requiring core strength; deadlifts are core strength requiring little skill.

Andy Bolton cannot perform a plie or an arabesque (probably). But it is patently absurd to state that the 110 pound anorectic ballet dancer who can perform these ballet moves (which do require a certain strength as well as skill) has greater core strength. It is equally absurd to state that a gymnast's position is a better expression of strength. No, its a better expression of skill.

Saying that a gymnasts' planche requires greater core strength than deadlifting 500 pounds is like saying that shooting a three pointer in basketball (throwing a 22 ounce ball with great accuracy for 20 feet) requires greater arm strength than putting a shot (throwing a sixteen pound ball with almost no accuracy for 75 feet), which is to say ridiculous. The gymnastics move and the three pointer both require a great deal of strength, its true, but the limiting factor in doing it is practice and skill. Deadlifting and putting a shot (not to diminish the value of technique to shot putters, but this is a simplified internet discussion board, after all) are much closer to expressions of pure strength - strength is the greatest limiting factor, not skill.

Anyway, if a gymnasts planche is a superior expression of core strength, how might you measure the comparative core strength of two gymnasts who can do the planche? By how long they hold the position? No, that would be endurance. By how quick they can snap to the position? No that would be speed. How about by who can hold the planche with ten pound ankle weights? With twenty pounders? 50 pounders - now we are talking about strength. That's the biggest problem with calling a skill a strength - how do you measure it?

Again, strength is a general attribute needed for athletic activity. People ask "How much ya bench?" because it is a convenient if imperfect metric for gauging someone's absolute strength without needing to calculate skill, weight, age, practice, training, etc. For the same reason, no one asks "How long ya planche?"

[Mark Rippetoe]

Essentially,one of the issues with powerlifters is that they lift with both feet on the ground.In strongman comps,we know that the lifter must carry large loads.To take a step,the pelvis on the swing leg side needs to be lifted to allow swing.My source feels that this may be one of the shortcomings of some programs that powerlifters engage in.They dont necessarily work their lateral core sufficiently..

Unfortunately,the methods for revealing this were not named,so we have to go by what he said.But I promise you he is as sharp as they come and has spent an enormous amount of time and energy rsearching and testing.
He concludes by stating that movements such as dragging the sled,suitcase carries and farmers walks should make for a better lifter..


What is unfortunate is his bizarre bias. He fails to grasp the fact that a powerlifter can pull the sled as effectively as a strongmen BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS STRONG, not because he trains with one leg off the ground. If he trained himself he would know this, and this is the danger of speaking from a lack of personal experience. It should be noted that many powerlifters train the sled and the Farmer's walk, but the ones that don't are strong enough to manage to get the sled pulled and the Farmer walked. It is also important to note that if all you do is the sled and carry the weights, you won't be strong enough to squat 800.

Excellent post, FBW.

[Mirage]

I'll interrupt your discussions with a pretty uninteresting story of mine.

I'm training with the practical programming novice program since 10 weeks. During this time, I didn't do a single isolation exercise for my abs. Yesterday, I felt like adding some leg raises and weighted crunches after my workout as assistance exercises.

I did two sets of each with full ROM, as heavy as I could. I was expecting a very intense soreness because I didn't do such exercises for a long time. Results? No soreness at all. Normally, if I don't do a particular exercise for more than one week, I get sore the next time I do it. Yet the last time I did them was 2-3 months ago. I guess barbell exercises do cover all abdominal area.

[taowave]

Intereresting,but lets add another scenario..

Your lifter can easily press 200 pounds

My lifter can lift 150..

You maintain that the lifter capable of pressing 200 pounds has a stronger "core" than the lifter who is capable of pressing 150.

My lifter who is only capable of pressing 150 overhead is able to hold a plank with 150 pounds on his back..

Your lifter who is capable of pressing well over 200 pounds can barely hold a plank without arching.

Who has the stronger core??



But you cannot logically argue that an athlete who cannot press 200 pounds has greater core strength than one who can. Pressing 200 pounds overhead is not a skill (although with a very small amount of practice anyone can learn who to more effectively perform the lift) it is an expression of strength, including core strength (if the lifter did not have the core strength to press 200 pounds, he would collapse under the weight.

[Mark Rippetoe]

If you specify that my lifter can't do what your lifter can, I guess you win. Dammit, I really hate losing like that.

[Mr.City]

Intereresting,but lets add another scenario..

Your lifter can easily press 200 pounds

My lifter can lift 150..

You maintain that the lifter capable of pressing 200 pounds has a stronger "core" than the lifter who is capable of pressing 150.

My lifter who is only capable of pressing 150 overhead is able to hold a plank with 150 pounds on his back..

Your lifter who is capable of pressing well over 200 pounds can barely hold a plank without arching.

Who has the stronger core??

Is this even possible?

[confuzzl3don3]

Intereresting,but lets add another scenario..

Your lifter can easily press 200 pounds

My lifter can lift 150..

You maintain that the lifter capable of pressing 200 pounds has a stronger "core" than the lifter who is capable of pressing 150.

My lifter who is only capable of pressing 150 overhead is able to hold a plank with 150 pounds on his back..

Your lifter who is capable of pressing well over 200 pounds can hold a plank with 200 pounds on his back.

Who has the stronger core??

Corrected to be in accordance with real life scenarios rather than in fantasy land.

[hbriem]

Intereresting,but lets add another scenario..

Your lifter can easily press 200 pounds

My lifter can lift 150..

You maintain that the lifter capable of pressing 200 pounds has a stronger "core" than the lifter who is capable of pressing 150.

My lifter who is only capable of pressing 150 overhead is able to hold a plank with 150 pounds on his back..

Your lifter who is capable of pressing well over 200 pounds can barely hold a plank without arching.

Who has the stronger core??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

A lifter that presses 200 lbs can't hold a fucking plank?!

You've got to be fucking kidding me!

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

I haven;t done planks in god knows how long (they are boring and I don't think they do much). I do the big lifts and oly work and I can press 170 for 5. I'm about to go the gym and I'll see how long I can hold a plank with 50 lbs sitting on my sacrum.

I doubt you'll find someone who can Standing Press 200 who can't hold a plank with 50 lbs.

[Tom Woodward]

Let me get this straight. You're describing a person who has the midline strength and stability to overhead press 200 pounds, yet when this person is placed horizontally on the ground, they can barely stabilize their own bodyweight? This is why hypothetical arguments go off the tracks.

[elVarouza]

Your lifter who is capable of pressing well over 200 pounds can barely hold a plank without arching.

I'm sorry, what? Have you EVER done a press? I don't do anything for my abs (although I should) and I can hold, for 3 sets of 30 seconds each, a plank with 75lbs on my back without arching. But yea, I guess that has nothing to do with a 400+ deadlift, 300+ squat, and 145 press (my press sucks), right?

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

okay, I did an experiment with planks

at the end of my light day workout I did a series of planks

with the weight placed at the top of the buttocks. Elbows and fore arms were on the ground, fore arms were turned in, but hands did not touch. toes were on the ground, feet vertical, ankles together. The body stayed in a gymnastics hollow position.

I held 60, 80, 100 and 155 lbs for 11-12 seconds each. THis was with less than 1 minute between sets. I then weighted for 2 minutes and held 220 lbs for 6 seconds. THe last one was rather difficult.

Again, my press is only 170 ish for 5. I would be extremely surprised if you could find a 200 lb presser that couldn't hold 100 lbs in a plank for 15 seconds, let alone a 200 lb presser that worked his weight up to that while giving equal attention to deadlifts, squats and oly lifts.

[78704]

So I laid prone, fumbled the 88# kettlebell onto my sacrum, did a pushup, came down into a plank, watched the second hand impatiently for a minute, came down to the floor, fumbled the kettlebell off me*, got up and wrote this post. No panting, no difficulty. I wouldn't say presses contribute nearly as much to core strength as squats and deadlifts, but planks are a joke, even to obese middle-aged guys like me.

*The plan was to reach back with my left hand, catch the kettlebell handle, then slowly roll to my right, gently lowering the kettlebell to the floor. Execution was, um, imperfect.

[taowave]

Guys,the example of a plank was to counter the arguments made and illustrate the "other side of the coin".The author feels that powerlifting is the best if not only way to develop core strength.I do not feel that way.I have worked with offensive lineman/defensive tackles who are exceedingly strong in one plane and fairly weak in others.

I have never claimed that one does not develop immense strength for lifting.There is no doubt it does,and it is undeniable.Is it the best and only?Perhaps to some,but not from my experience.Lifters have massive strength in the saggital plane,but can rarely match it in torsional strength.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I guess somebody has to keep the Swiss Ball market alive and healthy.

[Mr.City]

Guys,the example of a plank was to counter the arguments made and illustrate the "other side of the coin".The author feels that powerlifting is the best if not only way to develop core strength.I do not feel that way.I have worked with offensive lineman/defensive tackles who are exceedingly strong in one plane and fairly weak in others.

I have never claimed that one does not develop immense strength for lifting.There is no doubt it does,and it is undeniable.Is it the best and only?Perhaps to some,but not from my experience.Lifters have massive strength in the saggital plane,but can rarely match it in torsional strength.

So anyone who presses, benches, squats, and deadlifts is a powerlifter now? And what does your reference to football players have to do with the argument? I'm surprised you keep insisting with this even after the plank claim blew up in your face.

[confuzzl3don3]

Well for starters Tao, i don't think you have specified a way to test "core" strength. Is there a simple machine or exercise that can do this without bringing in the element of technique. All those gymnastic moves you talk about require technique and practice to master, as do the lifts. I just don't see how there is a way to test so-called "core" strength in a fair manner.

[taowave]

Interesting quote from an author of books on Barbell training..

Mark,regardless of what anyone says(including one of the foremost Phd's,researchers in biomechanics and strength/athletic performance),you will pound your chest and continue to look at things with a myopic view.Keep in mind,I am not the one who makes blanket statements boldly stating what is the BEST and ONLY(his own method) while finding fault in any other modality or individual who offers another perspective.

This is my initial quote which you have taken great exception to


Like everything in life,there is more than one way to look at core strength.While Rip,who I greatly admire feels that having the strength to perform a 500lb deadlift, 400lb squat, 300lb clean and 200lb press is the "ultimate indicator" of core strength,one could argue that gymnast type training in movements such as the L-sit on rings,back levers,front levers and various planches is superiorIf you or anyone else can not see that the lifting movements you feel develop superior core strength work most efficiently in the saggital plane,in a closed kinetic chain and that there are other dimensions,there is nothing to discuss.You are obviuosly right,strength is only measured/necessary in that one dimension and that anything else is an exercise in futility.

Best of luck,

T


I guess somebody has to keep the Swiss Ball market alive and healthy.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Tao, you are a fucking moron. This assessment is derived from other than the fact that you disagree with me. Do you not understand that all 3 dimensions are involved in barbell training, that "planes" and "dimensions" are different, that your beloved plank is just as "saggital" as a squat, and that planks are isometric and don't move through space while a squat does? If anything is as one-dimensional as you appear to be, it is a fucking plank.

[william jackson]

im confused at what tao is saying. the major lifts only develop core strength that can be applied only if the force is applied directly over the center of gravity?
i recommend you train with barbells for 12 weeks and then i will dare you to say that. anyone whos been lifting has, at one time or another, relied on "core strength" to stabalize them when bar path wasnt linear.
so a plank stabilizes the "abs" when force is directed forward. so does a press when their is too much lean back.
in a planche, ones lower back must support the perpendicular force of gravity on the legs. which is what the deadlift does if one lets the barbell get away from their shins on the start of the lift.

just sayin

[confuzzl3don3]

Tao, how does balancing and stablising a bar on one's back so that it does not fall off sideways, backwards, or in any other direction, while also moving it through space not constitute to being more than movement in 1 dimension. Or does one have to perform all exercises on a bosu ball to meet your 3 dimensional expectations.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

Clearly, taowave has not read the books, else he would find Rip has said direct ab work is the most useful assistance work. Weighted situps, roman chairs, ghd, good mornings and curved back training are some of the things you should do outside of the main lifts.

I'm personally a fan of L-chins, saxon bends, full contact twists and stienborns. If you are paying attention, all of these excersizes have a few things in common; they are heavy, they are hard and they don't use either 2 lb medicine ball or a goofy unstable surface.

And as far as unstable surfaces goes, this weekend at the gym, after squatting 395 for 4 nearly atg (until calves and hamstrings touch), some said "thats not too bad but you should try squatting on this bosu ball. After suppressing my urge to fry up his liver, I said "sure lets load it up".

This gentleman thought that 135 done to 90 degree knee angle for 8 on a bosu was the test of a real athlete. You can imagine his surprise when I did 225 for 6 atg.

I told him he should try squatting real weights.

[taowave]

Guys,I have said my piece,and its clear that I say no more.

[Paul Sousa]

If anything is as one-dimensional as you appear to be, it is a fucking plank.

Awesome.

[78704]

Guys,the example of a plank was to counter the arguments made and illustrate the "other side of the coin".The author feels that powerlifting is the best if not only way to develop core strength.I do not feel that way.I have worked with offensive lineman/defensive tackles who are exceedingly strong in one plane and fairly weak in others.

I have never claimed that one does not develop immense strength for lifting.There is no doubt it does,and it is undeniable.Is it the best and only? Perhaps to some, but not from my experience. Lifters have massive strength in the saggital plane,but can rarely match it in torsional strength.

Well, true, a heavy squat by itself won't let you put a shot fifty feet, fine. I'd bet the lifter would throw further than the gymnast, though. And every serious competitor in rotational strength events (shot put, discus, hammer throw, javelin...) lifts heavy.

[Dastardly]

Well, true, a heavy squat by itself won't let you put a shot fifty feet, fine. I'd bet the lifter would throw further than the gymnast, though. And every serious competitor in rotational strength events (shot put, discus, hammer throw, javelin...) lifts heavy.

Dont be so sure.

A gymnast could use their gymnastic skills to drive more momentum into the object.

Here is an example, a PE teacher with some gymnastic background set the world record for furthest soccer ball throw.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19012010/58/pe-teacher-sets-world-throw-record.html

There are also examples of (women especially) from gymnastic backgrounds excelling in olympic weightlifting.

Theres a bit in PP about power. Covering a longer distance at greater speed = more power.

Creating a longer range of motion (with use of gymnastic skill) while still getting good speed will make the ball go further. This is why shot putters and discus throwers spin around in circles.

A shot put could probably be sent a lot further with a front flip, but it wouldnt work in competition as you have to stay in the throwing circle.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Dont be so sure.

A gymnast could use their gymnastic skills to drive more momentum into the object.

Here is an example, a PE teacher with some gymnastic background set the world record for furthest soccer ball throw.



Skill does not produce momentum. Force does, and a soccer ball is not the equivalent of a 16-pound shot.

[Chewie_jrc]

Tao is suffering from a classic case of "paralysis by analysis". I really think you're looking into this way too hard man (dimensions, sagitarius, whatever). Look, the "C-Word" is a critical link in holding something really heavy on your back while you move it through space. The heavier it gets, the more critical it is that your "core" is stronger. Simple.

And yes tao, there are several ways to look at a problem and solve it. That being said, some of those views are going to be shitty, some mediocre, and some effective. Empiricism trumps all the bosu-yoga theory. That's life, sorry.

--
Justin

[Gwynn]

Lifters have massive strength in the saggital plane,but can rarely match it in torsional strength.

Tao thinks squats are done with a Smith machine.

[joey_jersey]

This post almost got as bad as the forum on nj.com.

anyway, I've been messing around for years with different ways to train and my nephew turned me on to SS.

My "core" has never been leaner, harder, and stronger since I've been doing barbell squats.

So I gotta believe in Rip.

the article is great, this CORE craze has gotten so out of control. It just goes to show how media outlets control everything!

[darn48]

This site was recommended by one of my power lifting friends. I enjoy reading your material as i dont know a lot about power lifting. I have been a sports guy growing up, Hockey, Football, Boxing, Sprinting and Long distance running, and Soccer were my sports of choice. I now train athletes using the fundamentals i was taught and now have learned. I wanted to talk to you about stability training. I know you dislike this topic however, i think you can give me great insight.

First off, I 100% agree with you that in order to gain the strength needed you MUST do load bearing exercises. A squat or a deadlift, multi joint exercises in general are the #1. I also agree with you that in regard to Core, i have never felt that looking at the abdominals as the core to be true. But some of the things i would like to as about i felt were a bit short sighted in your disection of stabilization training.

You mentioned tennis players for example, how the surface they play on is a stable flat surface, so why train on an unstable one? True the surface may be stable but the players body is in full movement. Unlike a squat where everything is stationary, they are running and bounding side to side. Athletes who play on a field, and even though the surfaces looks flat we know turf is soft and as soon as you dig into it, it all of the sudden becomes unstable.

I have come to learn that every muscle ( each individual muscle ) has its own core. Through stabilization training yes there is no point in adding heavy weight; but heavy weight is not the point. When you are doing a squat on say a bosu ball for example, you are working your quads, but because of trying to focus on staying stable you are engaging the muscles in the calf that would not be engaged on a stable surface. Its like having a guy who can squat 700 lbs in the gym and then asking him to do the same thing out in the bush; we know it is not going to happen. But you train him to take the conditions in the bush but apply it to the gym and think about where you will go from there.

In my opinion stabilization training is crucial to train athletes to activate other muscles that would not other wise be worked. This will give more overall strength to the player, and help to prevent injury since more muscles know how, and have the strength to combat an ill moved opposing force.

Again these are my thoughts, and i would love to hear your thought on it. I will continue reading your insights, as i hope that one day a power lifting athlete seeks my training. Thank you again for considering this, and thank you for your time.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Do you train with barbells yourself? How much do you squat?

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

I don't typically squat on the bosu ball, but I can squat more on it than the guys who do squat on it because I am stronger. I was challeneged a while back and crushed them, it was fun, even got lower.

You are missing the point of strength training. Strength training makes you stronger. Everything else being equal, you will be better at what you do. Then, if you have something specific you want to be good at, you practice it, skill being the most efficient way of demonstrating strength.

There are movement patterns that strength training won't address, but it will strength the muscles and tendons involved so that the specific pattern is more effective.

And for further proof, look at professional baseball. THey took steroids, got stronger and crushed the ball. It was about the heavy weight.

[blowdpanis]

I don't know if it's been mentioned here, but the "official" argument concerning core/stability stuff, straight out of a Doctor of Physical Therapy program in which I'm enrolled, is basically this...

The central nervous system calls upon both "global" (the big, primary force producers) and "local" (the smaller, "fine-tuning" type muscles) musculature in the spine for demands that involve the back/neck, with the globals producing most of the actual force demands, and the locals handling fine-tuning of the inter-segmental stability between vertebrae. Examples of the globals would be erector spinae, semispinalis (thoracis, cervicis), splenius (for the neck), etc. Some locals would be the multifidi in the back, the transverse abdominis, some of the deep fibers of the erector spinae, etc.

In a normal subject, there is a healthy relationship between the globals and locals, and they work together well to meet force demands and keep the spine healthy/uninjured. The conjecture is that, in people with low back pain, there is an alleged screwed up relationship between the two, with the local system often not working properly, and the global system sometimes taking up the slack. There is some evidence of comparatively increased recruitment of globals vs. locals in these subjects, as well as evidence of atrophy of these locals while the globals are still otherwise working fine.

So the PT solution, of course, is to target the locals, and you are supposed to do this by learning how to properly "activate" them, and then continuing to do so in a progression that eventually involves sitting, standing, and moving around. Their belief is that aggressive loading of the spine will exacerbate the globals taking over the movement, and that the local musculature will never really catch up.

On the one hand, they do have some actual, peer-reviewed evidence of some of the deep, spinal musculature seeming to be working improperly, atrophied, etc in patients with chronic/recurrent pain. On the flip side, if generally sitting on your ass, i.e. being a sedentary slug, is probably what led these people to improperly working spines in the first place, I am wholly incredulous that nature would design us such that the only intervention capable of properly reversing this trend is arbitrary, gay ass exercises that have only existed for a few decades. I have a really, really hard time believing that the local musculature stays silent if you were to progress somebody's squat, deadlift, and overhead lifting capacity.

But yah, there you have it. That's modern day PT thinking about the subject of spinal stability and what "core" strength means.

[darn48]

I use bar bells for squats, hack squats, deadlifts. I have had major spine surgery in the past and have 2 rods and 6 screws in my back, so heavy overhead lifting is difficult. I am at a 250 lbs deadlift, i do 8 sets of 8. and i do a 300 lbs squat at 8 sets of 8. I am currently at 180 lbs body weight, and i hope to reach over 190 under 200 by the end of the summer then drop back to 175 - 180 for the hockey season.

[PVC]

In my opinion stabilization training is crucial to train athletes to activate other muscles that would not other wise be worked.

I'm confused. Do you mind listing some of these muscles that are not otherwise worked?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am at a 250 lbs deadlift, i do 8 sets of 8. and i do a 300 lbs squat at 8 sets of 8. I am currently at 180 lbs body weight

I'm afraid that these numbers tell us quite a bit about your barbell training experience with full-ROM squats and deadlifts. I don't think you're really in a position to correctly evaluate the effects of this type of training wrt "core" stability.

[VikingPower]

This site was recommended by one of my power lifting friends. I enjoy reading your material as i dont know a lot about power lifting. I have been a sports guy growing up, Hockey, Football, Boxing, Sprinting and Long distance running, and Soccer were my sports of choice. I now train athletes using the fundamentals i was taught and now have learned. I wanted to talk to you about stability training. I know you dislike this topic however, i think you can give me great insight.

First off, I 100% agree with you that in order to gain the strength needed you MUST do load bearing exercises. A squat or a deadlift, multi joint exercises in general are the #1. I also agree with you that in regard to Core, i have never felt that looking at the abdominals as the core to be true. But some of the things i would like to as about i felt were a bit short sighted in your disection of stabilization training.

You mentioned tennis players for example, how the surface they play on is a stable flat surface, so why train on an unstable one? True the surface may be stable but the players body is in full movement. Unlike a squat where everything is stationary, they are running and bounding side to side. Athletes who play on a field, and even though the surfaces looks flat we know turf is soft and as soon as you dig into it, it all of the sudden becomes unstable.

I have come to learn that every muscle ( each individual muscle ) has its own core. Through stabilization training yes there is no point in adding heavy weight; but heavy weight is not the point. When you are doing a squat on say a bosu ball for example, you are working your quads, but because of trying to focus on staying stable you are engaging the muscles in the calf that would not be engaged on a stable surface. Its like having a guy who can squat 700 lbs in the gym and then asking him to do the same thing out in the bush; we know it is not going to happen. But you train him to take the conditions in the bush but apply it to the gym and think about where you will go from there.

In my opinion stabilization training is crucial to train athletes to activate other muscles that would not other wise be worked. This will give more overall strength to the player, and help to prevent injury since more muscles know how, and have the strength to combat an ill moved opposing force.

Again these are my thoughts, and i would love to hear your thought on it. I will continue reading your insights, as i hope that one day a power lifting athlete seeks my training. Thank you again for considering this, and thank you for your time.

Bosu balls have already been debunked at length by many established studies for their ineffectiveness at resulting in any performance advantage on weightlifting or other athletics. 1 example; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530966
"In the bush" or woods would need to be more specific onto what the actual activity is and the surface trained for. No one would attempt a 700 pound squat on say a rocky hillside but If you could do that on unstable ground I guarantee you could handle say a heavy backpack full of gear (50-100 pounds
is what I normally pack here on the sierra's) much easier than say someone who trained on US surfaces with a minimal amount of weight. I know this from experience(not the 700 pound squat, but much more than anyone I have seen using that US surface junk).
The point is those kind of exercises dissipate the energy reserves you have to many muscles in minor ways,triaining them in minor ways. It does not hold any advantage to SS training whatsoever.The difference being training specifically for an event or activity, which will increase your own personal skill level. These are the kind of myths that need to be destroyed by the trainers themselves, much like lifting light weights with high reps for "weight loss" or "muscle toning". It comes from magazine mentality by inexperienced people who have either never been strong or never will be.

Also which muscles do you think a bosu ball uses which do not come into play doing multi joint, compound moments like the heavy back squat?

I
use bar bells for squats, hack squats, deadlifts. I have had major spine surgery in the past and have 2 rods and 6 screws in my back, so heavy overhead lifting is difficult. I am at a 250 lbs deadlift, i do 8 sets of 8. and i do a 300 lbs squat at 8 sets of 8. I am currently at 180 lbs body weight, and i hope to reach over 190 under 200 by the end of the summer then drop back to 175 - 180 for the hockey season.

I find this a bit dubious as Someone who could actually full squat 300 pounds would have no trouble lifting much less over head as well as the fact that their is almost no on in the world squats more than they dead lift in the gym unless the are using equipment and since you mention that you have no PL experience, I would garner that you do not use such.

[darn48]

Im in no way stating that i am a powerlifter. In my main sport hockey, it is not worthwhile nor beneficial to do so. At 5'9" a great deal of size would slow me down and a great deal of agility lost. You would have to judge your competion and train accordingly. For the type of competitions you competed in, agility training would have been useless. Barbell training is one crucial aspect of a wide aray of training that is neccessary; of course this is in my opinion. I dont train with heavy weights, nor can I, I am physically limited. However to dismiss training that is performed everyday be elite level athletes like NFL players, Hockey players, and Rugby players is ultimately saying they are wasting their time. certain positions require extreme force, like defensive line men; and they train big. But a wide reciever would not.

All i am trying to understand is why it is dismissed. Working your body and putting it through its paces is what it is all about. I know that in a 10k run i could place better than a powerlifter, but get my ass worked when coming to lift heavy weight in the gym. You know your profession and your sport very well, and the information you share has been around for a long time. Every training style evolves, as even the sport of powerlifting before the 70s.

I mean why dismiss a viable training method just because it is not useful to your sport?

[rdp]

On the one hand, they do have some actual, peer-reviewed evidence of some of the deep, spinal musculature seeming to be working improperly, atrophied, etc in patients with chronic/recurrent pain. On the flip side, if generally sitting on your ass, i.e. being a sedentary slug, is probably what led these people to improperly working spines in the first place, I am wholly incredulous that nature would design us such that the only intervention capable of properly reversing this trend is arbitrary, gay ass exercises that have only existed for a few decades. I have a really, really hard time believing that the local musculature stays silent if you were to progress somebody's squat, deadlift, and overhead lifting capacity.
I've often found that "I am wholly incredulous" is not a good standard of proof, especially for something that that would seem to be testable in a somewhat scientific manner, e.g., take a bunch of people with the problem, train some with the standard PT crap and train some with squats, DLs and OH lifting and see what happens.

Being a sedentary slug might be a recent (in evolutionary terms) phenomena, so why shouldn't the fix be something recently developed? Lots of useful stuff has existed for a few decades.

[gordonrumble]

I imagine that doing some loaded work on unstable surfaces could work proprioceptive motion, but I don't see how it would change your muscular development.

[Mark Rippetoe]

However to dismiss training that is performed everyday be elite level athletes like NFL players, Hockey players, and Rugby players is ultimately saying they are wasting their time.

This is precisely what I am saying. They are wasting their time. You don't think this can happen at the elite levels of athletics? That is awfully credulous of you.




I mean why dismiss a viable training method just because it is not useful to your sport?

Because it is not "viable" in that it doesn't produce as much "core stability" as basic strength training does.

[blowdpanis]

I've often found that "I am wholly incredulous" is not a good standard of proof, especially for something that that would seem to be testable in a somewhat scientific manner, e.g., take a bunch of people with the problem, train some with the standard PT crap and train some with squats, DLs and OH lifting and see what happens.

Being a sedentary slug might be a recent (in evolutionary terms) phenomena, so why shouldn't the fix be something recently developed? Lots of useful stuff has existed for a few decades.

It's testable, but like a lot of exercise science, people aren't usually testing very interesting things (most PT research is abysmal imho). Most around here are curious about the role of barbells in this discussion - if you can find that in the peer reviewed literature, in terms of global vs. local muscle functioning for my previous post, I'd certainly appreciate it. I can find no such literature.

And for what it's worth, I'm not arguing that "recent" = invalid, I would even accept all the fruity exercises may potentially help, I just think the foundation of evidence for this line of thinking is pretty weak, and the relationship of pain to all of this rather confusing (i.e. the evidence that these "activation" exercises actually reduce pain vs. other modalities is particularly weak).

[darn48]

Apparently most of the readers are missing that i have had major back surgery. I have 2 rods and 6 pins in the L4,L5,and S1 vertabrae. I am fortunate to be once again walking without a cane let alone doing a deadlift. It is far to hard on my spine to do a great deal of weight on a deadlift. I can add the weight to a squat but i make sure i dont go too heavy because the last thing i want to do is damage it further. The stability training techniques that i use and have researched have developed the muscles surounding my spine so that i can live a normal life and moderately do the things that i want to do.

Of course im not implying that Training is perfect even at elite levels. And the fact of the matter is we could never have perfect training. With each individual having a different genetic make up we need to be trained in different manners ultimately.

It kind of seems that people are thinking that i assume heavy lifting is a waste of time; that is not the case. I find it just as crucial to do the exercises that you state, and do them frequently. But to prepare your body for motion you should apply motion and movement subject to your field. Is stability geared to your core? no. It is intended for the rest of the body, to move appropriately during times of increased stress.

But also as in the case of someone in my position it allows me to apply added stress without increasing the load too much to injure myself further. I try to apply all training to my regiment as i believe it is all viable. I dont think that you should miss one element of your training at all. Subing off strength training to stability would also allow rest time for your body to relax and then come back to push past plateau's and compensate for possible injury.

[selters]

I'm afraid that these numbers tell us quite a bit about your barbell training experience with full-ROM squats and deadlifts. I don't think you're really in a position to correctly evaluate the effects of this type of training wrt "core" stability.

Isn't 8 sets of 8 at 300 lbs fairly good at 180 lbs bodyweight, provided that he does the sets with proper depth?

[Monster]

darn48, Rip clarified that it was crap.

Those of us who have tried it, including myself, can confirm from experience that its crap.
(And I personally believe an easier way to get injured than is real training.)

What then is the point of additional trolling?

PS: You sir, are not squatting 300 below parallel for 8 x 8.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Apparently most of the readers are missing that i have had major back surgery. I have 2 rods and 6 pins in the L4,L5,and S1 vertabrae. I am fortunate to be once again walking without a cane let alone doing a deadlift. It is far to hard on my spine to do a great deal of weight on a deadlift. I can add the weight to a squat but i make sure i dont go too heavy because the last thing i want to do is damage it further. The stability training techniques that i use and have researched have developed the muscles surounding my spine so that i can live a normal life and moderately do the things that i want to do.

This is why I know that you have no experience with heavy squats, deadlifts, and presses, and are therefore not in a position to comment on their effectiveness regarding this topic. Nothing personal, but not everyone is entitled to an opinion just because they are interested.


Isn't 8 sets of 8 at 300 lbs fairly good at 180 lbs bodyweight, provided that he does the sets with proper depth?

He's not.

[LimieJosh]

The stability training techniques that i use and have researched

This attitude is common to people who hold opinions such as yours; you have information to which we are not privy. The real difference is that we have been exposed to this information with different experiences that led us to be a bit discerning with our evaluation of the theories. Experience provides one with a pretty decent bullshit detector.

[rdp]

It's testable, but like a lot of exercise science, people aren't usually testing very interesting things (most PT research is abysmal imho). Most around here are curious about the role of barbells in this discussion - if you can find that in the peer reviewed literature, in terms of global vs. local muscle functioning for my previous post, I'd certainly appreciate it. I can find no such literature.

And for what it's worth, I'm not arguing that "recent" = invalid, I would even accept all the fruity exercises may potentially help, I just think the foundation of evidence for this line of thinking is pretty weak, and the relationship of pain to all of this rather confusing (i.e. the evidence that these "activation" exercises actually reduce pain vs. other modalities is particularly weak).
Your post was, in essence: they have some actual, peer-reviewed evidence to support their view, but I think it's silly bullshit. I was pointing out that the unsupported view that something is silly bullshit is hardly a convincing response. Today you seem to say they have weak evidence. Weak evidence trumps no evidence.

I have no idea who's right here, I'm just a fan of basic empirically based science. If there are no useful studies out there, is there any reason you can't do your own study? I don't mean something super-formal, just a simple test of this versus that. That would be the most convincing. Otherwise your argument is just that it's wrong because you don't like it.

[blowdpanis]

Your post was, in essence: they have some actual, peer-reviewed evidence to support their view, but I think it's silly bullshit.

I originally wrote a bunch of stuff here, but we've now talked this out via IM. I agree that peer-reviewed evidence is the best route we have for formulating our models of how the world works, and that casually dismissing said evidence without warrant is unwise. This, however, wasn't my intention.

If anybody would like to discuss the actual evidence side of this further, start a thread somewhere else, so as to avoid hijacking a thread about Mark's article, and I'll gladly contribute.