T Nation

Core Training: Misleading Info?

i seem to hear two different points of view on this so im a little confused. probably a case of too much thinking, not enough doing.

-on one hand you have people/articles giving the thumbs up for weighted crunches, side bends, hypers, and other such twists, bends and so forth.

-on the other hand you have people/articles stating the core is designed to be stable and not mobile, and is best worked through lifts such as squats, deads, farmers, and other such lifts where movement is minimal around the core.

so which would it be? would one style build more strength and the other more size? or is it just a preferance of what type of workout you prefer? they seem to contradict one another, one stating thecore shouldnt be worked through movements and the other stating it should. any insight?

you should probably do weighted ab work or static hold type things–cable crunches, various bridge/plank stuff, pallof press, hanging leg raises, etc…

Just because you squat and deadlift heavy doesn’t mean that you don’t need direct ab work. In fact your “core” might hold you back on those lifts.

I think we throw the “just squat and deadlift heavy” thing around because so many people focus really hard on abs–as if doing them 80x/week will somehow make them show up. But that’s not the case as we all know. Do a few sets of a good exercise during your lower body day or whenever and call it good. there’s no need for endless crunches or stupid shit like that.

thanks.

i also found this thread which provided alot of decent info. ill leave it here for others to read, it cleared up things for me nicely

The writer of that article decided a while after writing it that a different approach should be taken–something with less bending of the spine.

[quote]eggywontgrow wrote:
o which would it be? would one style build more strength and the other more size? [/quote]

Yes. That’s precisely it.

You have a group of people who views “core training” in terms of core strength. This group consists of people who have never seen their abs. They will tell you that squats are all the core training you need.

You have another group of people that views “core training” in terms of building a visible six-pack. These people need to crunches and side bends and things like that.

So there you have it. It’s a question of strength vs. visible abs.

Every exercise that builds core strength does nothing to improve ab definition.

I like to define core seperate from abs. Core being postural and balance muscles, and Abs being what people see. I train the two very differently.

I train my abs with squats and weighted crunches.
I train my core with holds these days like from yoga and articles such as ‘making gains with pain’. It was only recent, but has made a difference.

Once again, definition of your abs are only partially size, the rest is low body fat %

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
eggywontgrow wrote:
o which would it be? would one style build more strength and the other more size?

Yes. That’s precisely it.

You have a group of people who views “core training” in terms of core strength. This group consists of people who have never seen their abs. They will tell you that squats are all the core training you need.

You have another group of people that views “core training” in terms of building a visible six-pack. These people need to crunches and side bends and things like that.

So there you have it. It’s a question of strength vs. visible abs.

Every exercise that builds core strength does nothing to improve ab definition.[/quote]

Diet is what determines whether you have a visible 6 pack. Most of the people with 6 million ab exercises in their workouts are pathetically weak and would benefit much more from squats/deads/overhead pressing. And for those people who have no idea what their “core” is and focus only on abs, you can get shredded abs on the basic compound exercises.

[quote]eggywontgrow wrote:
i seem to hear two different points of view on this so im a little confused. probably a case of too much thinking, not enough doing.

-on one hand you have people/articles giving the thumbs up for weighted crunches, side bends, hypers, and other such twists, bends and so forth.

-on the other hand you have people/articles stating the core is designed to be stable and not mobile, and is best worked through lifts such as squats, deads, farmers, and other such lifts where movement is minimal around the core.

so which would it be? would one style build more strength and the other more size? or is it just a preferance of what type of workout you prefer? they seem to contradict one another, one stating thecore shouldnt be worked through movements and the other stating it should. any insight?
[/quote]

The first approach has the priority of developing the ab muscles. I have my doubts about the usefulness of side bends, though.

The second approach has the priority of reducing the risk of injury. And the greater the ability to resist movement of the spine when the extremities are working, the more force the extremities will be able to generate.