MWI, thanks again for the reply, couple of points:Sorry about being annoying, I assure you in person I am the most charming and warm individual! I do enjoy the discussion and differing views.
To be fair I never used the term oxygen thief (at least I don’t recall?), I have also highlighted that there are very good PT’s out there, although they are the minority. I base this on having taught cert 3-4 and diplomas in fitness and having first-hand experience with what is taught by the other staff (who perpetuate myths and crap on the students as the staff only have certs themselves) and many years working in gyms. To be fair I have also critised physios, chiros have copped more than most from me, natural medicines, alternative therapy, nutritionists, professional athletes (dumber than potatoes a lot of the time - just gifted physically), exercise physiologists, my own lack of knowledge and my own biases. I feel I am fairly equal opportunity when it comes to criticism.
If I was in charge of fitness Australia, I would require ALL PT’s / fitness instructors to have exercise science degrees (3 years minimum)! Dealing with real people and prescribing exercise, when done wrong can permanently maim or kill people. There’s actually a push in government (Lobbied by ESSA and SMA) to require all PT’s to be supervised by accredited exercise physiologists at fitness facilities.
I don’t mind if you believe differently to me, the only thing that makes me concerned is your rationale is wrong, in regards to where you get your knowledge from.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed, scientific evidence is ranked in quality,
(1) systematic reviews and meta-analysis
(2) randomised control trials
(3) Cohort studies (although the intervention can be randomised)
(4) Cross sectional servays
(5) Case studies
(6) Expert opinion (athletes/coaches)
You are relying on the lowest form of evidence for you approach and practices, I myself rely on the highest levels, much of my work is peer reviewed (and grumpy professors really like destroying substandard work) and I typically only work with people either prior to or immediately following major orthopedic surgery, I am not allowed to base my decisions off my or someone else's opinion - I must base it off the best quality, up to date and peer reviewed evidence. An excellent PT would take my approach and ensure their clients get the best possible outcomes for their money and effort put in.
This already happens, most professional clubs will require strength staff to have PhD's, myself and others (I know quite a few AFL, NRL, Cricket, VIS, AIS strength coaches) don't think core stability is a waste of time, we think directly training for it is a waste of time, you'll find many clubs over the last few years have gone away from isolating it - basically they stopped listening to physio's. You gain all the core strength you need by using heavy loading that challenges posture and general training specific to a given sport, the evidence strongly supports this, you have given an example very much the same as this, professional clubs are doing this... yet the fitness industry still is following fads and ignoring evidence, basically misleading paying clients.
Secondly, there is NO MONEY in athletic training, smart people avoid this area and go into medical research or academia, better money (job security) better hours, less hassles of dealing with idiots. Some do it part time, I do, most don't.
This is the problem, I started this thread because it does not make sense that core stability helps function or performance. Since then some quality high level evidence has come out that fully supports my earlier posts, core stability training has no meaningful effect on functional or sports performance.
I agree with Pastavore, it may be because of poor quality research is resulting in a false negative in the findings, but a lot of different approaches have been used and still nothing significant has been found.
Being on the fence is a pretty good place to be, it means you haven't made a decision one way or the other, as long as it;s quality evidence that sways you one way or the other.
Gymnasts dont do core specific work, as their regular training is more than adequate to stimulate positive adaptation. In regards to injury rates, nothing has been shown in regards to core stability as a 'pre'hab or preventive exercise as fair as I am aware. It certainly has been shown in feild sports in regards to lower limb training (strength and balance) reducing injury rates, just not core... might suggest that core has very little to do with injury?
- I added in the 'oxygen thief' remark to add emphasis to your continued bashing of everything PT but thank you for assuming I'm warm and charming. Don't worry, I come from a career in Human Resources in the mining industry so am used to people not liking me or my opinion. Water and ducks back and all that.
- When I say I listen to professional teams/athletes re: training, I do that because I make the assumption that they would be getting the best scientifically and performance proven advice from a team of professionals such as physioligists etc. When so much money is on the line for them, why would they not be getting the best people's advice.
- I think we agree on the core stability being fundamentally important but I think this argument is getting confused because no one has clarified exactly what 'core stability' or 'core training' is. As someone has said previously, it means vastly different things to different people but I think I agree with you. It is important and best trained by completing weighted compound exercises with correct posture that are specific to your sport.
- Definitely don't agree that having a PT sit in a classroom for 3 years to get a certificate is required or will make them a good PT (I've got a number of bachelor degrees as well as Cert qualifications and I know most of what I learnt about doing my jobs well was learnt on the job). For most of the general public, the biggest skill required to be a good PT is being able to unlock their clients reasons for not exercising previously and being able to keep them motivated and exercising regularly. Taking someone from a couch to keeping them motivated for training is going to require variety and fun in workouts at times so if this is taking them from a bench onto a swiss ball to change things up, then that's what you do. Does the general client care that the change isn't maximising their strength gains or athletic performance? No! Is it causing them damage if still performed with good form and posture - no! Are they still at the gym training rather than sitting at home on a couch - yes. Now I agree that PT's with Cert III & IV don't have the experience or qualification to train special populations though (rehab, high risk clients, etc) but this is why you guys are specialists and why a good PT would refer those clients to a qualified professional. Making every single PT do this level of qualification is over the top though.