Why I don't Like The Biggest Loser

So this post I'll actually talk about a media other than magazines.  It seems more pertinent to today; magazines just aren't quite as popular as they used to be.


I'll preface this by saying I have a guilty pleasure for before and after shows - especially ones about weight loss.  (Though it's also the reason I know the channel number for HGTV)  A&E's "Heavy," obesity documentaries, hell, even MTV's "I Used to be Fat" I flock to and watch with the utmost attention. So it would seem that I'd love watching The Biggest Loser, right?  No.  I hate it.  I can't watch more than 5 to 10 minute bits of it.  Mostly it's because that's as long as the show can go without this happening:

Now I get it, being overweight can take a toll on emotions, and sometimes being overweight is the symptom of a larger, emotional problem.  So it's not like I expect that part of weight loss to be totally neglected.  Crying on shows like these is expected.  But on the Biggest Loser, it happens entirely too often.  The focus of the show should be on the diet and exercise - not on the crying.  But I guess crying and touching moments gets ratings.

Other reasons I cannot support the show:

1) Creation of Unrealistic Expectations

The show centers around the big "weigh ins;" this is where the competition arises, where the show gets its name, where all the hard exercise and dieting culminates on a giant scale for all of America to see.  What are the results we often are presented with?  Over 10 pounds lost, usually.  Sometimes even into the 20's!  What an accomplishment!  Yes, indeed it is, but then maybe someone only loses 5 pounds that week.  They feel ashamed, they feel as though they did something wrong and they let their team and the trainers down.  More than likely someone is crying.  There's a chance they're going to get kicked off of the show for not doing well enough.

It took 10 minutes and a commercial break for these numbers to finally pop up.

Think about this for a minute.  These contestants are receiving feelings of shame and guilt for losing weight.  Not only losing weight, but losing more weight than is even recommended by most fitness professionals: 1-2 pounds a week, maybe 3 for the obese.  They face punishment for not losing enough.  What kind of message does that send?  What if as a viewer you go a week without losing any weight, or God forbid, you actually gain a pound?  Any chances of thinking "well there are a lot of factors that go into weight loss and the numbers don't always mean anything significant or meaningful' decreases by virtue of the now-instilled unrealistic expectations.

And there are a lot of factors that go into what the number on the scale reads.  The most applicable one to The Biggest Loser is water.

What contestants on the show go through before a weigh in is akin to what a wrestler, fighter, or anyone who needs to make a weight class will go through before weigh-ins.  The most prevalent method for losing weight quickly is fluid manipulation.  This will mean dehydration, frequent trips to the sauna and working out in heavy clothing for maximal sweat production.  Cutting out all of the carbohydrates and solids a few days before helps as well: carbohydrates cause your body to retain water and solids can take time to go through your entire digestive track.

(For more details on weight-cutting methods, see http://www.grapplearts.com/How-to-Cut-Weight.html)

Here are some quotes from former contestants themselves on how they prepared for weigh-ins:

Ryan Benson:

“I wanted to win so bad that the last ten days before the final weigh-in I didn’t eat one piece of solid food! If you’ve heard of “The Master Cleanse” that’s what I did. Its basically drinking lemonade made with water, lemon juice, maple syrup, and cayenne pepper. The rules of the show said we couldn’t use any weight-loss drugs, well I didn’t take any drugs, I just starved myself! Twenty-four hours before the final weigh-in I stopped putting ANYTHING in my body, liquid or solid, then I started using some old high school wrestling tricks. I wore a rubber suit while jogging on the treadmill, and then spent a lot of time in the steam room. In the final 24 hours I probably dropped 10-13 lbs in just pure water weight. By the time of the final weigh-in I was peeing blood.

Was this healthy? Heck no! My wife wanted to kill me if I didn’t do it to myself first. But I was in a different place, I knew winning the show could put us in a better place financially and I was willing to do some crazy stuff. All this torture I put myself through has had no lasting effects on me (that I know of) and at the time it was sort of a fun adventure for me – but I am sure it reeked havoc on my system.

In the five days after the show was over I gained about 32 lbs. Not from eating, just from getting my system back to normal (mostly re-hydrating myself). So in five days I was back up to 240 – crazy!”

Kai Hibbard:

"I dehydrated off 19 pounds in the last two weeks before the BIG weigh in. I stopped eating solid food after eating only protein and asparagus (a diuretic) then I had two colonics and spent the night before the weigh in and out of a sauna. there really was no “diet” the day of the weigh in, we weigh in as dehydrated as possible on empty stomachs after 2 hour workouts in the morning."

So if most of this weight loss is actually water, how much is really fat loss?  Which brings me to my next point:

2) Emphasis on weight loss, not fat loss.

For a lot of people, weight loss and fat loss are synonymous.  In reality, however, this is far from the truth.  When we talk about 'body composition,' fat is only one factor; bone density and muscle must also be considered.  

Let's say you've lost 5 pounds, according to your scale.  Excellent, right?  Your goal weight is 130lbs and you're that much closer!  But what if you got that way by being sedentary and losing 5 pounds of muscle?  Is this still a positive step towards your goal weight?

What if you gained a pound one week?  Most people who are dieting and exercising in an effort to lose weight would see this as a big blow to their confidence.  It may even make you consider giving up.  But what if you got that way by exercising regularly and gained 3 pounds of muscle?  Is this still a negative roadblock on your way to 130lbs?

This is a reason why I don't recommend meticulously weighing yourself.  Maybe once a month would be appropriate for making sure you're making a general trend downward. but since there are more factors that go into the scale number than just your body fat, it can be confusing and downright discouraging to weigh yourself more often.  Most people don't want to weigh a certain number just to be able to say they weigh that number.  Most want to weigh whatever their goal weight is because there's an image in their head of how they'll look at that number.  In that case, I feel it is more appropriate to track progress with circumference measurements, accurate body composition tests, checking if your clothes fit better, or the tried and true method of looking at yourself in the mirror and liking what you see.

She probably knows how much she weighs, but does it really matter?

So, a contestant on the Biggest Loser would be encouraged to not gain any muscle - in fact they would be encouraged to lose it!  How is that encouraging a healthy lifestyle?

3) Unrealistic Methods

This is a point that gets touched on over and over by people who critique the show.  Contestants are held on a ranch where their only job is to lose weight, free from distractions of everyday life.  All the tools needed to accomplish this are at their disposal: knowledgeable trainers, nutritionists, therapists, supportive teammates, and a $250,000 prize for the winner if the rest of that wasn't motivating enough.

We're not learning about real-life tools for how to lose weight - we're learning how exercising 4-6 hours a day and eating food prepared for you that is approved by nutritionists with no chance of getting outside junk food will make you lose weight.  

It is certainly arguable that the show isn't supposed to be educational, however, so I'll just leave this point as a personal peeve of mine.

4) Overtraining

I want you to get up out of your seat right now and put on a 300-lb weight vest.  Got it?  Okay good.  Now I want you to go run a mile.  Oh and it's mid-day, sunny, and hot.  Oh and it helps if you've been sedentary for most of your life.

That sounds like fun right?  Well it is something that contestants are told to do their first day.  I wouldn't be making someone so massively overweight and previously sedentary go for a brisk walk, let alone a mile-long jog.  Forcing someone under those conditions to do that isn't 'pushing' them to work hard, it's just plain dangerous.  

And that's not an isolated incident.  A sign of a good workout isn't one where you throw up, especially if you're new to the exercise game.  It's not hard or skillful to make someone throw up; it is however to make them have a difficult workout where they are pushed to their limits safely.  

And regardless of if you have nothing better to do with your day, working out for 4-6 hours everyday is going to lead to overtraining.  Overtraining leads to depression, lack of motivation, and stress fractures among other things.  It's a good way to get more people crying, though!

5) Jillian Michaels 

Sometimes I like Jillian Michaels.  Sometimes the things she says are, while tough, true and what people need to hear.  However, other times what she says is just cruel and abusive:

Trainers know that sometimes you have to yell at people to motivate them, and to push them to places that they never thought they could get to.  However, this does not work with everyone and trainers also know that you have to adapt your methods for certain people.  Some people are going to shut down completely if you yell at them like Michaels does in this video.  If a contestant quit because of how they were treated and couldn't take it, it's certainly their loss, but as a trainer, have you done your job if your client walks away?

As well, I don't like when people use their fame to sell useless products.  See: Jillian Michaels weight loss pills. (Use to jumpstart any sensible diet and exercise program, then attribute your success to my product!)

Selling out: The Pill

6) The Overall Process and Message

It seems wrong that someone gets kicked off just because one week they happened not to lose as much weight as another person.  Weight lost in a given week doesn't necessarily say anything about how hard someone worked - which is really the good ol' American mantra isn't it?

How I would change the show:

The Biggest Loser has the potential to be a huge positive force in the fitness industry, instead of the generally negative one it is now.

There are certainly good aspects of the show.  I am very much in favor of how it promotes working out and dieting as the way to lose weight rather than product placement of pills / supplements / weight loss surgery.  If the show inspires just one person to make positive changes in their life, well I certainly can't complain there.  But there is opportunity for it to do so much more.

1) Instead of focusing on weight loss, focus on fat loss.  Bring in some really accurate body composition analyzers, such as a DEXA machine or hydrostatic weighing.  They can certainly afford it and contestants won't have to resort to unhealthy weight-cutting techniques.  At the very least, explain why someone may lose a lot of weight one week and then not near as much the next despite the same amount of effort.

2) In spirit of the entire purpose of the show, keep the competition in place.  However instead of kicking someone out give the option of staying on the ranch for the rest of the duration of the show.  

3) Teach methods that contestants and viewers can bring into their real, daily lives.  How to eat healthy on a budget, how to fit in exercise around work, how to lose weight without the help of a squad of professionals and infinite free time, etc.

4) More emphasis on nutrition.  As it's near impossible to out-exercise a bad diet, nutrition really needs more time in the spotlight.

5) More specifics on the workouts.  Give viewers an idea of what contestants are doing, show proper form for a couple of exercises an episode.  Give an idea of what someone can do to exercise efficiently when they don't have 4-6 hours to exercise.  Of course, points 3, 4 and 5 take time to explain.  Which brings me to point 6:

6) Less crying.  Please.  Seriously if you took that out you'd probably have at least 10 minutes more time on your show.  Weigh-ins don't need to be as dramatic as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and don't have to take nearly as long.

But I guess that's television.  Crying and drama get higher ratings than real information.

A good summary of all these points plus more can be found in this clip, for Inspired: The Movie.  It's short and pretty enlightening!

http://vimeo.com/1801486

Women's Health - Better than Cosmopolitan, not as good as Oxygen

I thankfully got a lot of feedback from my last posting.  Rants are always popular it seems.  


Some of the feedback I got was that I shouldn't expect anything better from Cosmopolitan in regards to fitness articles, but that they though I'd have a point if it was Women's Health.  I'll save my retort to that for the end of this article, but in the meantime let's take a look at Women's Health.  


Their magazine for this month didn't have much in the way of fitness articles.  They did have a 1-page spread on a kettlebell circut however which was pretty decent.  I like kettlebells, they're a lot of fun.  

Well, okay, this is just silly.

"The secret to shaving time off your workout without sacrificing results: doing dynamic combo moves that target at least two muscle groups (think quads and biceps) in each rep...they are great time-savers and also challenge your stabilizer muscles which help improve core strength and balance."


True enough!  This is one of the reasons that I like moves such as the squat or deadlift - they work multiple muscles in one movement rather than isolating muscles like one does on machines.  As well since you're using more muscles, you will be saving time doing just a few exercises cover your total body rather than going from machine to machine isolating muscles for no particular reason.  And, as I mentioned in another post, free weights will make you use your stabilizer muscles and improve core strength.


They recommend doing the circuit of 4 exericses they give you for 2 sets with an 8-10lb kettlebell.  I always dislike it when magazines give you a recommended weight.  I get asked this all the time: "What weight should I be using?" If you want a universal answer here it is: Whatever makes the routine difficult for you.  When it comes to doing strength training, the weight should be heavy enough that the last 2-3 reps are strenuous and difficult.  In the case of this circuit, it's going to be whatever makes you want to lay on the ground and die by the end of it.  No, seriously.  Circuits are supposed to be HARD.  They are a combination of strength and cardio that are excellent for getting your metabolism up and burning calories while maintaining muscle.  Not to mention a million times more interesting than running on a treadmill or chilling on an elliptical.  

Has clearly progressed from the 8-10lb recommendation

They don't give you a rest interval between sets either, which is also important and a component many seem to forget about.  For circuits I usually say 60-90 seconds.  As well it should be mentioned that a workout like this should not be your entire routine for a strength day unless it's a rest day and you just have a compulsion to go and workout. (That's not just me right? .....right...?)  Something like this should take place after you already do your strength training at the end of your workout.  You could also do this instead of your typical cardio day. (Assuming your goals are physique-related and you don't have specific running goals.)


The four exercises they give you are a little complicated for a beginner and require some serious coordination.  However, it's in no way a bad routine.  Hooray!


So in an effort to get some more out of Women's Health, I picked up "Women's Health Ultimate Weight Loss Guide," something apart from their usual monthly magazine.  80% of the book is about diet, which is great.  Diet is about 80% of the battle when it comes to weight loss, a point they make in the beginning of the guide.  Unless you're a teenage boy, it's hard (impossible for most) to out-exercise a bad diet.  However this is not a nutrition blog so I'll leave all that part alone.


Let's get to the fitness part!


First fitness chapter they have is entitled "Fast Track to a Fit Body," because I guess the title "The slow and steady track with moderate, over-time changes to a fit body" just is never enticing.  In this article they'll be talking about interval training and high-intensity training.  The tagline for this chapter is "The workout secret that will slash pounds - and the time you spend in the gym."  This annoys me.  This isn't a 'secret.'  Fitness knowledge is free and available and out there to anyone who cares to take the time to look.  Women's Health isn't selling you something that hasn't already been said before.  I guess that's just me getting uppity over semantics but the language of health and fitness magazines and infomercials really bothers me.

"Is..is that....?"

"Yes, it's the secret....of how to slash pounds."

Anyways, where was I?  Oh yes.  This article.  They cite a study that concluded that interval training will get you the same benefits as a longer, steady-state cardio workout in much less time.  As far as what they mean by 'benefits,' I'm not sure.  Why don't magazines have to cite their sources?  They go on to talk about how to mentally prepare yourself for high-intensity, how to know if you're making a max effort and a couple of examples of interval training.  Then I came upon a wondrous quote that I was very pleased to see:


"Picking up the pace during spin class isn't the only way to pump up your routine.  Programs such as CrossFit and P90X are intense workouts that have women busting out pushups, lifting barbells and swinging weights.  (And no, these chicks don't look like bodybuilders.)" Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay.


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!


"Some women are intimidated when they see a workout like 50 pullups, pushups, and squats because they assume they can't do it...But the challenge empowers them.  They get a chance to do things they thought were impossible."


"There's just now way around it:  If you're not uncomfortable, you're not working hard enough."


There's a tear in my eye.

I'm just so HAPPY!

"Only 20% of your workouts should be high intensity"


....aaaand there it goes. 


 So if you exercise 5 times a week only 1 should be high intensity?  Maybe this is true if you're an athlete during the in-season.  However, CrossFit gives a workout of the day...everyday.  People who do CrossFit do it many times per week.  I do high-intensity work 2-3 times per week.  They give all these lovely quotes about working hard and then tell you to only do it once a week, and that's if you're one of the few people who works out 5 times a week?  Just wrong.  If you're a beginner, yes, chances are high intensity work isn't something you can do more than maybe once a week.  However as you get used to the workload this will change.  The definition of high-intensity also needs to be refined if they're going to put out this kind of statement.  


But, let's not put down Women's Health.  Here's another great quote they give in this guide:


"To burn more fat while weight-training, higher weight, fewer reps instead of lower weight, more reps."


Yaaaaaaaaaay.


However, Women's Health does not hold a candle to Oxygen in the fitness department.  If you want good info on exercise and fitness Oxygen is definitely the way to go.  It's targeted towards women, however the information is just as applicable to men.  Their models actually look like they workout.  It's shocking, really.  They have success stories from readers every issue who go on to do powerlifting, figure competitions, bikini shows, etc. from their advice.  One of their readers submitted in a sarcastic piece of mail that takes after my own heart: 


"I hate the gym!  A friend took me to her gym for a workout last week.  I hated it.  There were too many sweat-covered grunting gorilla types.  I had to get out.  I realize that Oxygen is a big promoter of weight lifting, but sorry guys, Oxygen just isn't right for me.  I get much more from Shape magazine because they don't believe in strenuous exercise - and neither do I.  When I feel an urge to exercise, I lie down until the feeling goes away."

From the cover you wouldn't be able to tell how good this magazine is, except for the fact the cover girl has meat on her bones.

So I'm going to transition here onto the retort I got back the most from my last blog post; that no one should expect good fitness information from Cosmopolitan - it's Cosmopolitan.  It'd be like expecting an electronics magazine to have a decent article on fitness.


Well, if an electronics magazine decided for whatever reason to write an article on fitness, I would indeed expect them to have decent information in it.  If you're going to put out any kind of writing on any topic to the public, if you're going to give advice to anyone about anything, you better know what you're talking about.  Cosmopolitan covers a variety of topics and frequently fitness is one of those topics.  Whether or not their main focus is telling women how to have better sex, if they are going to write about fitness they should write with care and with an informed opinion.  The whole idea that people don't expect good information from Cosmo is telling.  Considering how many women (okay so it's probably a lot of 14 year old girls reading how to give better blow-jobs also) read the magazine and take it for truth should be enough argument to say that we should expect better.


Well this is probably the longest post I've written!  If you made it this far, congratulations!  You win my gratitude! 

It's Rant Time

While one day perusing men's and women's magazines for the content of a new post, I noticed something disturbing.


One of the main fitness contributors for Men's Health is Alwyn Cosgrove.  One of the frequent contributors for Cosmopolitan is Tracy Anderson.  Now my first post already dissected some of Tracy's....questionable advice.  But I'm sure most people don't know who Cosgrove is (except for fitness nerds!) so let's compare these two:


Alwyn Cosgrove (http://alwyncosgrove.com/about/)


Cosgrove owns one of the top gyms in the country, has written hundreds of articles on the subject of exercise and sport performance, and is a sought-after lecturer by fitness professionals.  He is endorsed by other big names in the field such as Mike Boyle, Joe DeFranco, Mike Robertson, Dave Tate, Eric Creesey, the list goes on.  Also note how his website has archives of all of his blog posts and articles available to you for free.  Just take a look at a couple and you'll know this man is the real deal and a true expert.


Tracy Anderson (http://tracyandersonmethod.com/tracy/)


Anderson has no formal education in exercise, anatomy or physiology that we know of.  All that's said is that she did extensive personal research into the field, which tells us essentially nothing.  In the fitness professional community she is seen as a bit of a joke.  Not much more can really be said about her credentials.  She has none other than being able to say she's trained celebrities.  Let's take a look at when Kelly Ripa went for a visit to her studio:

Note how when Anderson speaks about exercise, she never really says anything.  Not one thing that comes out of her mouth makes any sense or says anything substantial.  It's like listening to a politician give talking points.  I mean really, just look at that cube.  What is that?  What is the science behind what she does?  (Hint: there isn't any)


Let's look at an article written by someone who went through her exercise and diet plan: 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1367879/Gwyneth-Paltrows-personal-trainer-Tracy-Andersons-diet-plan-gave-blackouts.html


Key notes to take away from that article:
-Anderson's diet plan puts you on a 700 calorie a day diet with mostly non-solid food.  (Good luck keeping up with that)


-2 hours of exercise a day 6 days a week. (Good luck keeping up with that when you're only eating 700 calories a day)


-"Tracy is totally against other forms of cardio, such as running, where you repeat your movements over and over. That, she says, will bulk muscles."  I'm sorry has she ever even LOOKED at a marathon runner?  They're TINY.  Oh wait, you can run for free.  You have to buy her super special cardio routines.

Gosh just LOOK at how bulky she is!  I mean I guess that's a female, it's just so bulky it's hard to tell.

Even men with their 10x more testosterone than women are small when they are marathon runners.

- "I would go to bed so hungry that I could hardly sleep.  I feel faint on several occasions and in the middle of Oxford Street everything starts to black out." Anderson's method backed by the hard science of "If you literally starve yourself, you will probably lose weight."

-"There are no fats (in the diet)"  Yeah those aren't necessary for essential bodily functions or anything important like that.

- "On the downside I feel woozy and find it difficult to concentrate. At first I had loads of energy but now I'm always tired and am told I'm horribly grouchy to boot.  My skin is terrible and my nails are flaking and weak. And  -  how can I put this  -  my system has become, shall we say, somewhat sluggish. Normally I'm as regular as clockwork. Not any more."  The price we pay to have someone tell us how to be anorexic for beauty.

-A real, actual dietitian is appalled by the diet and says "I see patients suffering with anorexia nervosa and now I'm reading their diet in pamphlet form."  Ohhh SNAP.

-Author makes posts on Anderson's support forums with the dietitian's findings and questioning Anderson's methods; posts are deleted.

- "Jo Doust, professor of physiology at the University of Brighton, says there's nothing new or magical about Tracy Anderson's exercises.

He says: 'She claims you can re-engineer your muscular structure and defy your genetics through her programme, but you just can't do that.

'You can develop your muscles but you can't defy your genetics. Her exercises aren't special  -  you could get a similar plan from any trainer in any gym.'"  Except you wouldn't from any legitimate trainer, unless you said "I want to spend money without getting results, what do you have for me?"

-Gwenyth Paltrow, one of Anderson's big-star clients is also her business partner.  Is there a wonder why she endorses her products?  Oh, and she also has osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis.  Fun!

So why do other celebrities train with Anderson?  She probably has a great personality and is fun to work out with.  She probably sells herself very well.  Is it so hard to believe that celebrities are as easily duped by good salespeople as anyone else?  Why do some people continue to go to psychic healers, use magnet therapy or buy and endorse a shake weight? 

And let's not forget there are other celebrities.  Cameron Diaz works out with A-Rod.  Jessica Biel works out with Jason Walsh. (A fellow UNC-CH graduate, whose entire list of celebrity clients is available on his website).  Both lift weights that are (GASP) more than 3-5lbs which Anderson swears will make you bulky.  Just look at these hulking offenses against femininity: 

You both disgust me with your manliness and lack of osteoporosis.

Just to throw it in your face more, here is a whole video of various women and various body types lifting heavy objects for varying repetitions:

$10 says these women eat more than 700 calories a day.  Another $20 says that they can take all their groceries inside in one trip.

So I feel like I've gotten off my original point of Cosgrove vs. Anderson.

Why does Men's Health deserve a reputable expert such as Cosgrove, but Cosmo readers get the joke of fitness professionals?  I can only assume it is the continued wide-spread ignorance about women's fitness, which is only perpetuated by people like Anderson.  

Will you get slightly more muscle than Paltrow if you lift weights?  Sure.  But I'm here to say that muscle is GOOD.  Muscle is what is going to make you look tighter, firmer, leaner, more sculpted, whatever crazy buzz-word you want to use.  Muscle is what makes Biel's butt look firm while if you just do cardio all day and diet like crazy it will probably be tiny but flabby.  Muscle is what will make your underarm less flabby. 

Is it worth osteoporosis, an excruciating, unrealistic, near-anorexic diet, 2 hours of cardio 6 days a week, and not having enough strength to support yourself to look like this 

Instead of this?

I doubt it.

P.S. This is a great blog post by Dean Somerset about how to tell an expert from an "expert":  

http://deansomerset.com/2011/09/01/how-to-spot-the-experts-in-a-room-full-of-experts/

Abs are Sexy, the Core is Sexier

So in my last post I feel I interchanged the words "core" and "abdominals" a little too freely.  Let's take a look at the differences, because it's an important concept.


These are abs:

Yay.

More specifically, these are the abdominal muscles:

Sexy.

Alternatively, this is (some of) the core:

Mmm look at that multifidus.

The abdominal muscles are also part of the core, which is comprised of 29 muscles in total.  The core is also often referred to as the "lumbo-pelvic-hip complex."  This pretty much just means the lumbar area of the spine, the pelvis and hips are included in the core, along with the thoracic and cervical spine.  If you'd like to get real specific, here is a list of some of those muscles to get an idea:


- Levator Ani (Pelvic Floor)
- Coccygeus (Pelvic Floor)
- Transverse Abdominis
- Internal Obliques
- External Obliques
- Rectus Abdominis
- Multifidus
- Erector Spinae
- Latissimus Dorsi
- Trapezius 
- Gluteus Maximus

- Quadratus Lumborum 


So, there is a lot more to the core than most people probably think.


The core serves a number of purposes.  Some important ones for many today is posture and spinal stabilization.  A lot of lower back pain can be attributed to a weak core.  Other functions (that are just as important but seldom thought of) include: efficiently generate and absorb force and correct distribution of weight.  The core is essentially your foundation, and a strong foundation is needed for any structure.


The importance of core training is one reason why I dislike the use of machines in strength training.  Let's take a look at the difference between a row machine and a bent-over row with a barbell:

Here you are in a seated position, with no core activation required to keep us steady and stable.  The machine does that for us.  The weights are on a track and you don't have to guide or control the movement.

Let's look at the difference here.  In order for the man to keep his spine straight (like we talked about with the planks!) the core has to be activated and strong enough to maintain stability.  As well, the weights are not a fixed track, so in order to do the movement correctly there must be some amount of control and stability in the latissimus during a rep.  Try doing these two exercises and see if you can feel the difference in core activation and difficulty!  Which one is more strenuous?  Which one will get you more reward for your time?


This can be applied to a number of machine vs. free weight exercises.  Dumbbell Overhead Press vs Overhead Press Machine:

Laid back in a comfortable seated position.

Must keep core stable to prevent excessive curving of the lower back.

Etc!

So if you do a routine with free weights instead of machines, you can be working on core stabilization the whole time without doing a specific core exercise.  Of course, this doesn't mean you shouldn't include core work in a daily routine.  

Once again, thanks for reading!