Anti-rotation or thoracic rotation (diagonal patterns, which occur in sport, i.e. chops, reverse chops, BB swings, etc)
Plyometrics (the ability of the core to transmit elastic force: repetition MB throws, slams, explosive throws…)
Some strength or strength endurance (curls, reverse curls, plate raises, roll-outs… etc)
However, it is questionable how much from this is actually psoas/iliacus (hip flexor) strengthening and how much is actually rectus/obliques work, especially in the strength group.
Regarding core training I take a lot from Michael Boyle and to be honest I don’t like too much CF approach toward core work, but this is just me. Anyway, I’m very flexion intolerant and my low back really cannot sustain too much flexing, bending and twisting. Please note that I do do chops, side bridges, hip flexion, MB throws and roll-outs although in neutral spine and sometimes I do plate raises, explosive MB throws and classical curl and reverse curl.
Under the anti-rotation term I mean stabilizing the low back against forces that produce twisting torque, and diagonal forces that goes from opposite shoulder/opposite hip. Are we thinking on the same Charlie?
Also, rotation in upper back/thoracic spine may happen and the mobility of this segment is something that can cause low back problems and shoulder problems. What I usually see, there is the problem with thoracic ‘dome’* or kyphosis that limits normal thoracic spine movement and even breathing (sometimes breathing work may help: the breathing is the connection between motion and emotion; if you don’t breath well you cannot move well, if you don’t move well you cannot breath well)
Please see the following papers, part one and two:
A model of movement dysfunction provides a classification system guiding diagnosis and therapeutic care in spinal pain and related musculoskeletal syndromes: A paradigm shift
Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (2008) 12, 7–21.
I agree with Charlie regarding keeping options open. If you really read McGill’s work in detail, his emphasis on side bridges, curl ups and the bird dog is within the context of minimizing spinal compression and shear forces in a clinical setting. His recommendations are conservative because they assume he is dealing with someone with pain or dysfunction. However, he also allows for the use of more stressful core exercises depending on the capabilities of the individual. Much of his book on performance training is devoted to evaluating who can withstand more stressful exercises.
McGill has stated in several places that there is a difference between training for optimal back/spine health and training for maximum performance, and the two goals might contradict each other at times. The key question is whether the individual can handle the training. As a practical matter, fit athletes are not going to have much trouble tolerating traditional ab exercises. Millions of athletes around the world have used old school traditional ab exercises for decades without causing back problems.
There really isn’t any reason why you can’t combine the static hold exercises used by McGill with more dynamic movements like the ones Charlie and others use. I think the static holds are nice warmups. And if you watch any of the videos of the ab exercises used by Charlie, a lot of them do not involve flexion or rotation of the lumbar spine, most require movement in the thoracic spine. Some do involve lumbar movement, but again, if the athlete can tolerate the motion, it shouldn’t be a problem. This is training, not rehab.
As far as making the side bridge more challenging, try this: from the side bridge position, rotate forward until you are essentially in a front plank position but only stay on one arm, do not put the other one down, then rotate back to the side position. This turns the plank into a dynamic exercise. Trust me, you’ll feel the ab muscles engage.
I should also point out that Stuart McGill’s research backs up Charlie’s emphasis on low intensity endurance training for the core musculature, in contrast to the high intensity loading that became very vogue in the late 90’s.
Incidentally, if you’re looking for unconventional abdominal exercises that cover both static stabilization and dynamic movement, I highly recommend getting a copy of Building the Gymnastic Body by Chris Sommer. It just came out a couple months ago and it’s really terrific. There’s nothing else like it out there. Although the exercises are new to most of the sport and strength training world, they have a long track record of effectiveness in gymnastics and are applicable to many athletes. It wasn’t too long ago that the typical gym had equipment like pommel horses and rings in addition to barbells. If you watch any movie up through the 60’s that had some scene in a gym, there is almost always some gymnastics equipment in there. Unfortunately, the machine revolution in the 70’s relegated a lot of effective strength training to gymnastics specialists.
IMHO, before we started to label exercises as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘dangerous’, ‘functional’, etc, we need first to define the purpose/goal of the ‘core’ training. When the goals are clearly defined, then we can select appropriate exercises for the given athlete, taking into account his strengths and weaknesses.
Doing buch of ‘core’ work for the sake of doing it, or because you can tolerate it, or because other’s are doing it doesn’t seems smart to me.
What training effects we are hoping to achieve with core work and what kind of transfer to main activity (sprinting, agility, weightlifting…) we are seeking (or prevention)?
I guess we should first deal with those stuff, before telling what is good or bad…
I cant see it making much of a difference if your a Front row forward in footy or a winger in soccer or a 100m sprinter. They all require sprint speed etc.
Perhaps the footy player needs the ability of Stronger core from being involved in contract sport?
The reason for a strong core is to enable the ability to transfer as much of ‘your’ power to the ground to run faster without loosing that power from an inefficient core.
If Arms preceed the legs by a spit second, and the arms are seperated from the legs by the “core”, then there would be a delay in power/speed from the arms to the legs, and vice versa.
Ok, we have a starting point. Taking this goal into account, IMO, the best core exercise would be running drills and sprinting itself, followed by strength exercises, and MB throws (explosive and repetitive against a wall). I wonder how lying down core exercises can have huge transfer to the sprinting mechanics, except maybe strengthening the hip flexors? Please, keep in mind that we are talking specificity now (training transfer), not GPP or injury prevention, etc
To make the torso muscles and posture ‘taught’ and ready. If your posture is taught, then you feel taller and more energy efficiant when you walk, as well as when you run.
To make it easy and natural for all abdoman (spelling?) and any other muscle near center of mass to controll and not limit hip rotation. There is a point of dimishing returns when it comes to hip rotation. Too much versus too little for example.
I dont like the pilates style training one bit as it teaches you to lock the hips when you run (which ends up slowing you down.) Good for swimmers, and useless for runners.
I dont think high intenstiy floor exercises develope point number one. For example, weighted crunches would give any one a six-pack, yet they did not make me feel as tall, and taut as other exercises have. All they did was make my abs thick, (which might be good if you’re a boxer who takes punches to the gut) but dont seem relevant to athletics.
Charlie mentioned loading parameters. I was going to mention myself, right from the start, that it seems most sprinters do a high volume of core work, and that in itself, seems to be the main postural and core enhancer, than what actuall exercise you choose.
Therefor; why is nobody talking about reps and sets? It is quite well known that to have a functional and tone core, you need quite a lot of muscular endurance and ‘work capacity’ in that area.