The Reality of Core Stability

Okay, I’ve heard this claim many times (stabilisation originates from the
“centre.”. Do you have anything to prove this? From a biomechanical point of
view, all movement and stabilization occurs from the ground up

This is a claim that far too many people take for granted. Courses on
"Core Stabilisation" are offered by numerous fitness gurus, physical
therapists and fitness organisations, but few people dare to make heretical
remarks that question the 'Core is All Important' philosophy. If one has
back problems, poor technique in sport, lack of flexibility and so on, 'blame
it on deficiencies in core stability' is the cry.

An article that I wrote for several other Internet discussion groups is
relevant in this regard.

CORE STABILITY?

Today, in the fitness and therapeutic world, one of the latest buzz terms
is “core stability” and courses are cropping up everywhere to teach this
amazing new discovery in the world of motor control. The implications are
that an athlete or normal human is somehow seriously deficient if core
stability exercises are not being done in some or other discrete, isolated
fashion.

The belief here, of course, is that isolated core stabilising exercises
necessarily improve balance and postural control. They do not, since most
stabilisation and movement in sports where the hands and feet are in
contact with a surface also depends very strongly on PERIPHERAL contact
with the given surface (some exceptions are diving, airborne gymnastic and
skating manoeuvres, and trampolining.) If this contact is inefficient or
unstable, then no amount of core stabilisation is going to overcome any
deficiency in peripheral stability.

Some simple examples - imagine what would happen to a gymnast or trapeze
artist with poor ankle strength and stability or a huge weightlifter with
great core stability but deficiencies in grip or ankle strength and
stability? One could list a thousand similar examples.

This concept of a separate motor quality called “core stability” leads to
the very faulty belief that core stability is more important and more
central to overall stability than peripheral stability. The fact is that
the body is a linked system of many interacting components, and current
“core stabilisation” dogma happens to be yet another example of
isolationist training. To borrow a somewhat cliched term from the
vocabulary of the late South African Prime Minister, General Jan Smuts (who
coined the word “holism”), it would be far better to talk about “holistic”
stability training. An emphasis on “core stability” is a step towards
general instability, unless it is matched by peripheral stabilisation.

Once upon a time we had kinaesthetic or proprioceptive training or even
motor skill training - now we have “core stability” training, which is by
no means an suitable modern substitute for what used to be offered.
Possibly it is time for the whole “core stabilisation” industry needs to
carefully re-examine itself and take a step back to its more solid older
roots. “Core stabilisation” may be a new term, but it offers little or
nothing new to fitness, therapy or sports training that was not covered
perfectly well a long time ago.
Dr Mel Siff
Author of Supertraining + Facts and Fallacies of Fitness
http://www.drmelsiff.com