Core Everyday??
Replies
-
I started my core training (6 months ago) doing it every day, but soon found i was getting regular minor injuries. Cutting back to 2 or 3 times a week stopped that and I’ve made solid progress ever since. As an example, I started planks at 5 (very wobbly) seconds. Now I’m doing reps at 50 seconds and can do a single for 75 or more.
I lost 4 years of my life to back problems, so keeping a strong core is bit of an obsession.3 -
I work a very active job so i only spend about 40 mins on my arms/legs/core lifting and the only part of my gym i LOVE is my 20-30 mins at the end in the studio all alone with my core exercises and some basic body weight things. So yeah i do core daily between either lifting furniture at work or my studio time. But for me a very strong core is essential or i get hurt at work. Dont think its necessary for everyone especially if you leave hurting, I never hurt i think again its because my work i lift hundreds of pounds around up and down stairs for 6-10 hours 4 days a week im kind of used to it so i can do it daily. If you hurt thats a sign you need time in between to heal2
-
I started my core training (6 months ago) doing it every day, but soon found i was getting regular minor injuries. Cutting back to 2 or 3 times a week stopped that and I’ve made solid progress ever since. As an example, I started planks at 5 (very wobbly) seconds. Now I’m doing reps at 50 seconds and can do a single for 75 or more.
I lost 4 years of my life to back problems, so keeping a strong core is bit of an obsession.
Thanks for this note @Johnd2000. I've done my circuit 2 days in a row now and really don;t think I can do a third. And well summed up re: the back issues. Thanks for this. I appreciate it.0 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I work a very active job so i only spend about 40 mins on my arms/legs/core lifting and the only part of my gym i LOVE is my 20-30 mins at the end in the studio all alone with my core exercises and some basic body weight things. So yeah i do core daily between either lifting furniture at work or my studio time. But for me a very strong core is essential or i get hurt at work. Dont think its necessary for everyone especially if you leave hurting, I never hurt i think again its because my work i lift hundreds of pounds around up and down stairs for 6-10 hours 4 days a week im kind of used to it so i can do it daily. If you hurt thats a sign you need time in between to heal
Thanks @JaydedMiss. It's funny that you said it, but as trying and challenging the core circuit is, I find it very relaxing at the same time. I just really need to focus more on how I breathe. Sometimes I find I hold my breath. Thanks again for the note.0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Some of the guys i know with a strong core and visible abz do absolutely zero core specific work. No crunches, no planks, no anything. What makes their core stronger is heavy compound lifts.
While i still have some mid section fat to lose, i can whole heartedly verify that this is true. Nothing, and i mean nothing has made a bigger difference in that area for me than squats and dead lifts. You cannot perform those lifts progressively without engaging your core. I did not believe that to be true but it is. Now that I'm cutting again after 9 months in a progressive lifting program my abs are just starting to peak out....for the first time in my life. And I'm 55. I've done core centered exercises. Nothing had compared to eating at a deficit and compound lifts.
ETA: btw i have nothing against core exercises to be clear. I think planks are certainly helpful. Crunches and the like not so much. The purpose of core strength is to solidify your back and trunk area for lifting heavy and moving well. Planks do exactly that. As does heavy compound lifts. Planks certainly assist that.
Compound lifts are not very effective at engaging your core. Its minimalistic at best. If one wants a strong core, they should do core work, just like if a person wants big biceps, they should incorporate direct bicep work.
I should clarify that it really depends on how much weight you are lifting. If you are doing compound lifts with lighter weights, that obviously has some bearing. The heavier the weight, the more you have to engage the core.
You can also grow your biceps through indirect work as well - again things that compound lifts (or whole body exercises can do). That also depends if you are working on a strength-centered program or a hypertrophy-centered program. Either of those will give growth on the other one as well. My biceps have grown more than an inch apiece without any direct bicep work. Barbell rows, pull-ups and chin-ups have been the ticket.2 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Some of the guys i know with a strong core and visible abz do absolutely zero core specific work. No crunches, no planks, no anything. What makes their core stronger is heavy compound lifts.
While i still have some mid section fat to lose, i can whole heartedly verify that this is true. Nothing, and i mean nothing has made a bigger difference in that area for me than squats and dead lifts. You cannot perform those lifts progressively without engaging your core. I did not believe that to be true but it is. Now that I'm cutting again after 9 months in a progressive lifting program my abs are just starting to peak out....for the first time in my life. And I'm 55. I've done core centered exercises. Nothing had compared to eating at a deficit and compound lifts.
ETA: btw i have nothing against core exercises to be clear. I think planks are certainly helpful. Crunches and the like not so much. The purpose of core strength is to solidify your back and trunk area for lifting heavy and moving well. Planks do exactly that. As does heavy compound lifts. Planks certainly assist that.
Compound lifts are not very effective at engaging your core. Its minimalistic at best. If one wants a strong core, they should do core work, just like if a person wants big biceps, they should incorporate direct bicep work.
I should clarify that it really depends on how much weight you are lifting. If you are doing compound lifts with lighter weights, that obviously has some bearing. The heavier the weight, the more you have to engage the core.
You can also grow your biceps through indirect work as well - again things that compound lifts (or whole body exercises can do). That also depends if you are working on a strength-centered program or a hypertrophy-centered program. Either of those will give growth on the other one as well. My biceps have grown more than an inch apiece without any direct bicep work. Barbell rows, pull-ups and chin-ups have been the ticket.
If you look at the EMG data, compound lifts for the most part, are inferior to direct work. I am not saying you won't see some improvement, but it won't be as much as if you incorporate direct work.0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Some of the guys i know with a strong core and visible abz do absolutely zero core specific work. No crunches, no planks, no anything. What makes their core stronger is heavy compound lifts.
While i still have some mid section fat to lose, i can whole heartedly verify that this is true. Nothing, and i mean nothing has made a bigger difference in that area for me than squats and dead lifts. You cannot perform those lifts progressively without engaging your core. I did not believe that to be true but it is. Now that I'm cutting again after 9 months in a progressive lifting program my abs are just starting to peak out....for the first time in my life. And I'm 55. I've done core centered exercises. Nothing had compared to eating at a deficit and compound lifts.
ETA: btw i have nothing against core exercises to be clear. I think planks are certainly helpful. Crunches and the like not so much. The purpose of core strength is to solidify your back and trunk area for lifting heavy and moving well. Planks do exactly that. As does heavy compound lifts. Planks certainly assist that.
Compound lifts are not very effective at engaging your core. Its minimalistic at best. If one wants a strong core, they should do core work, just like if a person wants big biceps, they should incorporate direct bicep work.
I should clarify that it really depends on how much weight you are lifting. If you are doing compound lifts with lighter weights, that obviously has some bearing. The heavier the weight, the more you have to engage the core.
You can also grow your biceps through indirect work as well - again things that compound lifts (or whole body exercises can do). That also depends if you are working on a strength-centered program or a hypertrophy-centered program. Either of those will give growth on the other one as well. My biceps have grown more than an inch apiece without any direct bicep work. Barbell rows, pull-ups and chin-ups have been the ticket.
If you look at the EMG data, compound lifts for the most part, are inferior to direct work. I am not saying you won't see some improvement, but it won't be as much as if you incorporate direct work.
That's probably fair. I know compound lifts do work because I see the improvement. If I ever do decide I really want my abs to pop (and more importantly look for even more core strength), it's likely I'll incorporate some of that. Not sure I'll go that far, but I'm certainly open to data. Thanks for the reponse.
0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Some of the guys i know with a strong core and visible abz do absolutely zero core specific work. No crunches, no planks, no anything. What makes their core stronger is heavy compound lifts.
While i still have some mid section fat to lose, i can whole heartedly verify that this is true. Nothing, and i mean nothing has made a bigger difference in that area for me than squats and dead lifts. You cannot perform those lifts progressively without engaging your core. I did not believe that to be true but it is. Now that I'm cutting again after 9 months in a progressive lifting program my abs are just starting to peak out....for the first time in my life. And I'm 55. I've done core centered exercises. Nothing had compared to eating at a deficit and compound lifts.
ETA: btw i have nothing against core exercises to be clear. I think planks are certainly helpful. Crunches and the like not so much. The purpose of core strength is to solidify your back and trunk area for lifting heavy and moving well. Planks do exactly that. As does heavy compound lifts. Planks certainly assist that.
Compound lifts are not very effective at engaging your core. Its minimalistic at best. If one wants a strong core, they should do core work, just like if a person wants big biceps, they should incorporate direct bicep work.
I should clarify that it really depends on how much weight you are lifting. If you are doing compound lifts with lighter weights, that obviously has some bearing. The heavier the weight, the more you have to engage the core.
You can also grow your biceps through indirect work as well - again things that compound lifts (or whole body exercises can do). That also depends if you are working on a strength-centered program or a hypertrophy-centered program. Either of those will give growth on the other one as well. My biceps have grown more than an inch apiece without any direct bicep work. Barbell rows, pull-ups and chin-ups have been the ticket.
If you look at the EMG data, compound lifts for the most part, are inferior to direct work. I am not saying you won't see some improvement, but it won't be as much as if you incorporate direct work.
I'd guess it also has something to do with the fact that the core engagement during compound lifts is largely isometric. It would be akin to trying to develop biceps by doing a half curl and holding it there for 30 seconds vs. doing a set of full-ROM curls, where you're actively contracting and relaxing the muscle. I'm not even convinced that planks are a great core exercise, for the same reason. They're a much more compound exercise than, say, crunches or Pallof presses, but they're still an isometric exercise. I could be off base on this, but I'd really be interested to see the EMG data for planks vs. crunches, ab wheel rollouts, Pallof presses, etc.
Developing biceps through compound exercises is a somewhat different discussion, since they're utilized pretty extensively in chins, rows, etc. - and not in an isometric manner.0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Some of the guys i know with a strong core and visible abz do absolutely zero core specific work. No crunches, no planks, no anything. What makes their core stronger is heavy compound lifts.
While i still have some mid section fat to lose, i can whole heartedly verify that this is true. Nothing, and i mean nothing has made a bigger difference in that area for me than squats and dead lifts. You cannot perform those lifts progressively without engaging your core. I did not believe that to be true but it is. Now that I'm cutting again after 9 months in a progressive lifting program my abs are just starting to peak out....for the first time in my life. And I'm 55. I've done core centered exercises. Nothing had compared to eating at a deficit and compound lifts.
ETA: btw i have nothing against core exercises to be clear. I think planks are certainly helpful. Crunches and the like not so much. The purpose of core strength is to solidify your back and trunk area for lifting heavy and moving well. Planks do exactly that. As does heavy compound lifts. Planks certainly assist that.
Compound lifts are not very effective at engaging your core. Its minimalistic at best. If one wants a strong core, they should do core work, just like if a person wants big biceps, they should incorporate direct bicep work.
I should clarify that it really depends on how much weight you are lifting. If you are doing compound lifts with lighter weights, that obviously has some bearing. The heavier the weight, the more you have to engage the core.
You can also grow your biceps through indirect work as well - again things that compound lifts (or whole body exercises can do). That also depends if you are working on a strength-centered program or a hypertrophy-centered program. Either of those will give growth on the other one as well. My biceps have grown more than an inch apiece without any direct bicep work. Barbell rows, pull-ups and chin-ups have been the ticket.
If you look at the EMG data, compound lifts for the most part, are inferior to direct work. I am not saying you won't see some improvement, but it won't be as much as if you incorporate direct work.
I'd guess it also has something to do with the fact that the core engagement during compound lifts is largely isometric. It would be akin to trying to develop biceps by doing a half curl and holding it there for 30 seconds vs. doing a set of full-ROM curls, where you're actively contracting and relaxing the muscle. I'm not even convinced that planks are a great core exercise, for the same reason. They're a much more compound exercise than, say, crunches or Pallof presses, but they're still an isometric exercise. I could be off base on this, but I'd really be interested to see the EMG data for planks vs. crunches, ab wheel rollouts, Pallof presses, etc.
Developing biceps through compound exercises is a somewhat different discussion, since they're utilized pretty extensively in chins, rows, etc. - and not in an isometric manner.
Jeff Nippard has a good video on the EMG data. Ironically, planks are ok but there are much better versions.
https://youtu.be/_xdOuqokcm4
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions