The Core Misunderstanding – Part One

In recent years the term core strength has found its way into virtually all circles of the health and fitness industries. From medical professionals to sports coaches to personal trainers – everyone is emphasizing the need for core strength.

Ask the average person what core strength is, and they will invariable pat their abdominal area. Strong, well-defined abdominal muscles seem to be the marker of core strength. Magazine covers are awash with images of men and women alike sporting ripped abdominal muscles. A person who can easily bash out a hundred crunches surely has excellent core strength, right?

Others will object, saying that the core refers not only to the lower abdominals but also muscles of the lower back, forming, as it were, a belt of supportive muscles. Still others will argue that the core consists more precisely of several groups of muscles, namely the transversus abdominus, the pelvic floor muscles, the diaphragm, and the erector spinae muscles of the back.

While none of these observations are necessarily wrong, they are incomplete.

The incompleteness stems from an incorrect application of the term ‘core’. The origin of the word is uncertain, although it is highly likely to have come from the Latin word, cor, which means ‘heart’. The reason this application of the word is problematic is because the word essentially refers to a central place, which in this context, suggests a central area or group of muscles which constitute the ‘heart’ of the muscular system, and around which all the postural mechanisms of the body are built.

However, unlike the heart which is the life-giving centre of the body, our muscular system does not likewise have a ‘centre’. Rather, our muscular system is a complex latticework of interconnected fibres, contracting and extending in innumerable and immeasurable configurations. To suggest that any one muscle or group of muscles is the primary muscle or group of muscles is to make the fundamental flaw of seeing the muscular system not as an integrated whole, but in fragmented parts, working in isolation from each other. And any form of exercise or movement which uses a fragmented understanding of the body as its starting point, will at best produce only fragmented results.

Now, while the body may not possess a muscular core as such, it does possess a central structure around which all the muscles of the body are organized and integrated. That structure is the spinal column. The aim of all the muscles of the body are to support the spinal column, either directly or indirectly, and ultimately the head, which rests on its top. It is through the head that we experience the world, since all our five senses as well as the brain are located here. It is the job of the legs to carry the head, the job of the arms, to bring objects towards or keep them away from the head, the job of the chest and abdomen to house the vital organs that sustain it. Thus, any muscle that works to support the spine in its work of holding the head up should be considered a core muscle. The word core here is more correctly being defined as ‘essential’. When we begin to examine which muscles play an essential role in keeping the spine erect and in a state of length, we find that there are many more at play than those commonly credited. What we can note is that certain muscles play a direct role in maintaining the uprightness and length of the spine while others, although not having an immediate effect can exert an indirect influence. Take for example the little finger. No one would suggest that the little finger plays a role in keeping the spine erect and in a state of length, and yet, undue tension in the fingers, in turn affecting the wrist, and consequently the elbow and shoulder, can exert a disturbance on the muscles that link the arm to the back. This can destabilize the spine and interfere with its ability to remain at full length. And what about the legs? When standing upright is it not true to say that the use of the legs will indirectly affect those muscles acting directly on the spine? One can thus see that the commonly held notions of core strength are at best overly simplistic and inadequate, and at worst, misleading and potentially harmful in that they do not address the body as a whole.

What we really need to understand is that the spine is the core of body. Core strength means spine strength. A strong spine is one that is always at its full length, and developing a strong spine requires learning to work with our spine in such a way that doesn’t compromise its length, and the delicate relationship between the head, the neck, and the back. This requires a deep understanding of the workings of the body as an integrated whole, and a strengthening of ALL the muscles that work to maintain the length of the spine.