    |
|
See the core strength and stability category for more articles about training the core.
By Eric Troy
An already somewhat infamous article came to light on Elite Fitness by Michael Yessis called "Are Plank Exercises for You?" which originally appeared on his website.
In it he calls planks, and by extension, any static core exercises a fitness rage and proposes that dynamic movements are always superior to isometric ones.
Besides the fact that static is not necessarily the same thing as isometric, this article reads as nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction by someone who has simply closed his mind to anything which differs with what he has always believed.
My first reaction was to let him and Stuart Mcgill duke it out. I’m pretty confident that Mcgill would come out on top of that little exchange. You won’t get a better rebuttal than Dr. Mcgill's article on back stiffness so you don’t even need to rush out and buy Mcgill’s book, Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance (although I wholeheartedly recommend that you do).
But we don’t need the likes of Dr. Mcgill to counter these quite misleading arguments against static core exercises. I can counter them by pointing out the obvious problem with Dr. Yessis’s general thesis, the idea that planks are a fad or rage.
I've talked before about the false dichotomies or "false dilemnas" that are constantly being created in the strength and conditioning industry. Alwyn Cosgrove called it "short term over-reaction" and "long-term under-reaction" to trends in the strength and conditioning industry and that hits the nail right on the head. These are fallacies concern the belief that there are but two options and these options tend to be on the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Of course they are not always new things. They are old things resurfacing and it happens over and over again in a cycle. A great example would be 5x5 training.
So Yessis’s article starts out with "One of the latest rages in the fitness industry is the plank exercise". What he is implying is that there has been an over-reaction to planks that may be similar to, say, the over-reaction to swiss balls, bosu balls or unstable surface training.
Could there be an over-reaction to something like planks? Sure. Are they the answer to everything and all your back problems etc? Of course not. Does that mean they are worthless and you just stubbornly cling to sit-ups and such? NO.
Just because there is an over-reaction to something doesn't mean it is not a useful thing. Unstable surface training and the overuse of Swiss balls are both great examples of over-reaction but this does not mean that the tool is not useful, only that it is sometimes misused. You can choose to react reasonably and thoughtfully to a new thing and use it as part of a coherent philosophy. You can recognize it's value, if it exists for you, without over-reacting. But to decry over-reacting and instead prematurely go right to the under-reacting phase is falling into a trap which does not involve critical thinking at all.
You may be wondering why I make such a big deal out of one article. Well, it’s not just Yessis. Such statements will continue to be made not only about sit-ups and crunches but about each and every exercise that a person may be attached to.
Our knowledge and understanding of exercise science changes constantly. To my way of thinking it is either keep up or shut up. Certain individuals will inevitably be left behind if they fail to adapt. Perhaps they are unwilling or unable to adapt. Or perhaps they are simply unable to comprehend the emerging complexities. They only know that their comfort-zone is being threatened and their only choice is to try to bring others back to that familiar area, because they themselves are unable to step beyond it.
Individual exercises are nothing more than tools. Most people don’t view strength or fitness this way but logically, it must be so. A huge deadlift is not “strength”. It is a display of specific strength. As trainers in the pursuit of general strength or fitness when we become too attached to our tools we often lose site of the what our purpose is: What we create with those tools.
A hammer is just a hammer. It’s what you build with it that is important. A paintbrush is only an object. It’s the painting that counts. Nobody cares how nice your violin is. They only know whether they like the music. Getting the picture?
But for ‘experts’ like Yessis, who have become attached to tools, if you take those tools away, they can no longer build or create. I am not saying that tools are not important, only that you need many of them in your toolbox. A handyman may only know one way of creating something out of wood, for instance, by using a hammer and nails, but a woodworker knows many.
Obviously Yessis has never even tried a plank himself. Or at least found it too difficult to bother with. He complains about it being to hard to support the body in the pushup position. Apparently he’s never heard of these things I like to call ‘elbows’.
Tony Gentilcore, just to bring up one of many examples, recently blogged again about situps. Stating: "…in Low Back Disorders: Evidence-based Prevention and Rehabilitation, Dr. Stuart McGill notes that the traditional sit-up imposes approximately 3300 N (about 730 lb) of compression on the spine. “Incidentally, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set the action limit for low back compression at 3300 N; repetitive loading above this level is linked with higher injury rates in workers, yet this is imposed on the spine with each repetition of the sit-up! Hello people?!?!?!?! Stop doing freakin sit-ups, for the love of all that is holy." Now, you can't have your Gentilcore without your Cressey, and vice versa so here is what Eric Cressey has to say, in short and succinct terms: "I'm not a fan; not at all"
I do want to point out that Mcgill states we have more to fear from shear forces than compression but the point is still well made! And it is the cumulative cyclic stress loading and unloading that leads to much of the damage to our spines. For further reading I recommend Mcgill's newer book, "Ultimate Back Fitness and Performance".
What this all shows me is that even authority figures like Yessis (look at his background) can make lazy over-generalizations couched in pseudo-scientific terms.
In this case the over-generalization is "dynamic versus isometric". It is really silly if you know anything about mobility, stability, and the function of the core. But if you've only read some roundabout stuff on the effects of dynamic movements versus isometric holds on performance you could easily get confused. But it's a beginner's mistake being preached by a PhD! Just goes to show how easily it is to be mislead in this industry. Comparing sit-ups and crunches to planks (and related) is not about comparing dynamic to isometric. Because we are talking about fundamentally different functions.
You can, for instance, compare an isometric press (or static hold, similarly) to a bench press… You don't compare core stabilization movements to abdominal flexion (hip flexion as well)…even if you believe that sit-ups have their place in terms of performance, which is debatable.
According to Stuart McGill’s research, the key to low back health is muscular endurance training rather than strength training. He states that “the safest and mechanically most justifiable approach to enhancing lumbar stability through exercise entails a philosophical approach consistent with endurance, not strength; that ensures a neutral spine posture when under load (or more specifically avoids end range positions) and that encourages abdominal muscle co-contraction and bracing in a functional way.”
Co-contraction and Abdominal Bracing
To feel for yourself what this co-contraction and bracing is all about, conduct the following experiment.
1. Stand up and put one hand on the lower back and the other on the abdomen.
2. Bend forward at the waist. You should feel the lumbar extensors contracting and a slight co contraction of the abdominal. This is bracing at work. It is a natural or “neurophysiologic” process which is designed to protect the spine. When you come back upright you should feel them relax. If they don’t relax that is a problem of posture. So look into it.
3. Contract your abs and glutes. You should feel the lumbar extensors co contract as well. Now you see the connection between the muscles of the trunk and more accurately the whole “pillar” as it involves the hips as well.
This is what Mcgill calls “super stiffness” and we should be training and enhancing this ability, and/or, fixing imbalances or deficiencies that interfere with it, in order to prepare ourselves for heavy loads. Sounds like PLANK exercises (among other things) fit the bill nicely. Sounds like SITUPS do NOT.
Endurance and Diaphragmatic Breathing
Planks involve endurance. This co-contraction must be held for a long period of time. The other advantage therefore is learning how to achieve this stability independent of breathing. When you are lifting a very heavy load you might use the valsalva maneuver and release the breath in a controlled way. But in most activities, and especially athletic ones, you have to breathe. If you try planks you’ll notice that you have to learn how to breathe without losing stability. It involves short little diaphragmatic breaths and this ability will extend to other activities where bracing is involved. So this is a way that planks could be called “functional”.
From John Sifferman, here is a nice video of several basic plank variations. For most, I would advise to start out with the basic front and side planks and try for 2 minutes on front planks, and 1 minute on side planks. From there move on to more difficult variations rather than trying to continually increase time.
Basic Plank Variations
Beyond these variations are endless varieties to further challenge yourself.
Plank Switches
For the less advanced here is a simple plank progression:
Simple Plank Progression
Comments
This page created 09 Jan 2009 18:09
Last updated 01 Apr 2012 22:52
| Share Site | Follow Us! | ||
   |
