Autumn/Winter Core and general strength challenge discussion forum

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

On core and general strength work...

A recent study looked at the effect of exercises on abnormal running mechanics. A common pattern of abnormal running mechanics is that of the hip collapsing a little on weight bearing. This is typically due to poor recruitment of some of the gluteal muscles. It is known that such abnormal mechanics and/or suboptimal gluteal muscle recruitment are implicated in a number of running related lower limb injuries e.g. anterior knee pain (knee cap or just below), shin splints, foot pain. It has also been shown that doing gluteal and other exercises can be beneficial in terms of pain relief for these conditions.

......... essentially it looks like to improve running mechanics, incorporating such muscle recruitment strategies has to be incorporated into running itself.
Just pointing this out as I think there are some people doing the challenge expecting an improvement in their running mechanics; doing more specific exercises might be more beneficial, failing that spending the time running instead of doing exercises might be a better use of time![/

This argument indicates to me that form should be worked on in conjunction with strenght work rather than instead of it. Stronger glutes may not translate to better form. Stronger glutes + practicing form will be worth more to you than practicing form alone.

Form defects are largely eliminated in very high mileage runners with a history of speedwork.

For mid mileage runners, form defects are more serious. Strenght training with form training should in theory be of more significant benefit for us. The time better spent running argument only applies if the running mileage is pushed to a very high level where the body, through increased strenght and practice forces a more economical style.

For mid mileage runners, doing 45 minutes of strenght especially to the core
would be of far greater benefit than doing an extra 45 minuters easy running.

Finally, why do people do the plank, rather than push-ups? Surely doing push-ups you get the plank work out and a pecs/triceps etc. workout. Not to mention that it involves a more dynamic exercise, trunk still and arms moving more specific to running (albeit on the floor!) than the static plank exercise...

The plank is actually quite specific to running. You are engaging your core to keep your body alighned while it is fatiguing. Same excercise as running albeit with higher resistance. When you start moving your legs during the core excercises it is even more specific. The movement of teh arms in press ups is not the same as teh arm movement in running.
The limiting factor in press ups is arm strenght so the core is not adequately fatigued.

Doing pressups after your core excercises may help with fatiguing the core more.

Larry Brent

T runner wrote: »

For mid mileage runners, doing 45 minutes of strenght especially to the core
would be of far greater benefit than doing an extra 45 minuters easy running.

I'm talking about improved running performance, i.e. times as opposed to running form. Running an extra 45mins would be far more beneficial to improved race times than 45mins of exercises which have been shown not to lead to improve runing mechanics.

T runner wrote: »

You are engaging your core to keep your body alighned while it is fatiguing. Same excercise as running albeit with higher resistance.

The trouble is, in the plank the spine is still whereas when running it is moving - flexing, extending, rotating and side-bending. This small, dynamic spinal movement needs to be controlled, but holding the spine still in a plank won't train that.

The theory alone for core strength and improved performance is flawed and the practical evidence has yet to be found and probably won't be until more specific exercises/approaches are studied.

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

I'm talking about improved running performance, i.e. times as opposed to running form. Running an extra 45mins would be far more beneficial to improved race times than 45mins of exercises which have been shown not to lead to improve runing mechanics.

So am i. A strong core will eliminate the most common mid mileage form flaw which is leaning forward at the waist especially when fatigue sets in later in race. Eliminating this means that the runner is pushing parallel to the ground rather than into it which will improve efficiency with every stride and therefore running times.

45 minutes extra running wont get you the same bang for your buck for a mid mileage runner.

The trouble is, in the plank the spine is still whereas when running it is moving - flexing, extending, rotating and side-bending. This small, dynamic spinal movement needs to be controlled, but holding the spine still in a plank won't train that.

Gravity is also a force on the spine, as a forward lean late in races when the core is tired will testify. That is tested by the plank. Also if you look at most of the plank excercises that most of the runners here follow, you will see that there are dynamic leg movements.

These type of exercises seem to advocated by running coaches the world over who have access to empirical evidence.

The theory alone for core strength and improved performance is flawed and the practical evidence has yet to be found and probably won't be until more specific exercises/approaches are studied

Youll have to link to your study before I can take your word for that one! Exercises and results have been studied empirically by coaches. Always with the same conclusion: Core work is an essential part of a distance runners training.

Youll have to clarify there. Core strenght mixed with running will improve running performance better than the same amount of running.

As ive pointed out core work will be more valuable to mid mileage runners who have more serious form flaws and strenght deficits.

Most training principles work by concentrating on different aspects of the building blocks needed to achieve an optimum performance in a certain distance. Each boundary is pushed out in turn before they are coordinated as race time approaches.

Running at the same speed at all times will provide non optimal improvement. So we run at different speeds: each one pushing out a particular limiting phsiological system at taht speed/intsensity.

Everyone accepts that we need a strong stable core and trunk in distance running. This allows the core to absorb any movements so that the leg muscles can efficiently drive in a straight line forward. Obvioulsy if the core muscles are weak, movement is passed to other muscles: form is compromised and more energy is used to maintain the same pace especially in teh latter stages of an endurance race.

Can enough core strenght be achieved by running alone?

Lets look at an elite runner (180kpw) and a mid mileage (60 kpw) runner.

The elite runner is taking roughly three times more strides per week. He is lifting his thigh muscles slighly higher to accomodate a longer stride.

His core is strong and should give him reasonable stability through a half marathon and for most of a marathon. As a high mileage runner running twice a day his body tries desperately to become more efiicient so his form will be good: his body will naturally push his hips out as this is more efficient and thsi will be possible with a strong core.

The 60kpw runner is not running enough that his form significanly improves through running alone and his core is weak anyway. Unless he/she is a natural they will probably have a slight lean from the waist. This will be exacerbated late in a race as the core weakens, (meaning that a similar angle of lift of the leg (thigh extension) will yield a smaller stride lenght in distance, and reduced efficiency.

If core excercises (including dynamic plank exercises) are carried out before running then this encourages the spine to be held in teh correct position and with extra strenght to keep it there. The exercises are not identical to running but are similar enough that most of the strenght gains are transferred to running.

As ive alluded i feel midpackers gain most and i also feel that midpackers gain most (% wise) from form and rythm workouts.

Even elites do a lot of core work and coaches have used core work because empirical evidence has dictated so. Thats probably all the evidence i need, but youll at least need to link to your recent study to be in a position to validate your point for a mid mileage runner like me.

Larry Brent

T Runner,

There most certainly is not any empirical evidence that any form of core work improves running mechanics or more importantly performance. Certainly top coaches advocate these but this is not based on empirical evidence rather perhaps some seemingly logical yet flawed theory and maybe purely because everyone else is doing it. Similar to stretching a few years ago, or maybe push-ups and sit-ups before that.

It was hoped that more functional, specific (to running) exercises e.g. single leg squat as opposed to plank/gymball work prove effective but this is emerging not to be the case, see here:

The effect of a hip-strengthening program on mechanics during running and during a single-leg squat.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=willy%20AND%20running

Willy RW, Davis IS.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN:
Block randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES:
To investigate whether a strengthening and movement education program, targeting the hip abductors and hip external rotators, alters hip mechanics during running and during a single-leg squat.

BACKGROUND:
Abnormal movement patterns during running and single-leg squatting have been associated with a number of running-related injuries in females. Therapeutic interventions for these aberrant movement patterns typically include hip strengthening. While these strengthening programs have been shown to improve symptoms, it is unknown if the underlying mechanics during functional movements is altered.

METHODS:
Twenty healthy females with excessive hip adduction during running, as determined by instrumented gait analysis, were recruited. The runners were matched by age and running distance, and randomized to either a training group or a control group. The training group completed a hip strengthening and movement education program 3 times per week for 6 weeks in addition to single-leg squat training with neuromuscular reeducation consisting of mirror and verbal feedback on proper mechanics. The control group did not receive an intervention but maintained the current running distance. Using a handheld dynamometer and standard motion capture procedures, hip strength and running and single-leg squat mechanics were compared before and after the strengthening and movement education program.

RESULTS:
While hip abductor and external rotation strength increased significantly (P<.005) in the training group, there were no significant changes in hip or knee mechanics during running. However, during the single-leg squat, hip adduction, hip internal rotation, and contralateral pelvic drop all decreased significantly (P = .006, P = .006, and P = .02, respectively). The control group exhibited no changes in hip strength, nor in the single-leg squat or running mechanics at the conclusion of the 6-week study.

CONCLUSION:
A training program that included hip strengthening and movement training specific to single-leg squatting did not alter running mechanics but did improve single-leg squat mechanics. These results suggest that hip strengthening and movement training, when not specific to running, do not alter abnormal running mechanics.

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

There most certainly is not any empirical evidence that any form of core work improves running mechanics or more importantly performance.

If a coach observes that his runners perform better when core work is added then this is empirical evidence.

Certainly top coaches advocate these but this is not based on empirical evidence rather perhaps some seemingly logical yet flawed theory and maybe purely because everyone else is doing it.

Have you any evidence that top coaches who are now coaching sub 2:04 marathon times are going about their work in this slip shod fashion?

Every great coach has used observation of his athletes to form his ideas. They now have the most advanced methods of observing and recording data.
A core program is tailored for each athlete and believe me if it did not improve an athletes performance it would not be done.

It was hoped that more functional, specific (to running) exercises e.g. single leg squat as opposed to plank/gymball work prove effective but this is emerging not to be the case, see here:

Is i have already pointed out dynamic plank exercises are very similar to how the core works during running.

The effect of a hip-strengthening program on mechanics during running and during a single-leg squat.

This is only a level 2b trial (a low quality randomized controlled trial).

The study suggests that hip strenghtening may not alter running mechanics in the hip: thats all.

It does not measure whether running performance is increased through this strenghtening exercise.

This is no evidence to conclude that core work is futile and time bettr spent at running itself.

A strong core will keep you tall and upright to teh derath in a marathon. A weak one wont and performance will suffer. Core strenghtening work enables this good posture and the endurance gained enables it for longer. So many coaches and athletes have observed it that theer is little mystery left.

The xperts in thse field are coaches who ahve observed the diferent affects of core work on performance. Not the proponents of a level 2b trial on hips. Have you any empirical evidence showing that core strenghtening exercises does NOT improve performance to contradict what every elite coach in the world seems to believe?

Larry Brent

T runner wrote: »

If a coach observes that his runners perform better when core work is added then this is empirical evidence.

Is this not anecdotal (and not placebo controlled) as opposed to empirical? Apologies if my terminology is incorrect.

T runner wrote: »

Have you any evidence that top coaches who are now coaching sub 2:04 marathon times are going about their work in this slip shod fashion?

No. But some years ago they'd have been advocating passive stretching, now they are advocating 'core'. This is not based on evidence of effect but rather it's the fad of the day.
I think Sonia O'Sullivan gave a good insight in her book to the mind of a top athlete, presumably working with top coaches when talking about ice baths. Basically said that she had no idea if they worked but if there was any tiny chance that they would she'd take it, particularly as it was difficult!

T runner wrote: »

A core program is tailored for each athlete and believe me if it did not improve an athletes performance it would not be done.

How can you explain passive stretching being advocated for years then? Similary to 'core' in that it was not evidence but theory based.

T runner wrote: »

This is only a level 2b trial (a low quality randomized controlled trial).

It does not measure whether running performance is increased through this strenghtening exercise.

This is no evidence to conclude that core work is futile and time bettr spent at running itself.

Fair point it's only level 2b, but it's a start. There's no evidence in the other direction (i.e. that it is beneficial). Surely we'd be better off doing stuff known to be beneficial (e.g. aerobic training) rather than doing stuff that may be beneficial but has yet to be shown to be? It is a pity that they didn't examine effect on performance, soething I lamented earlier.

T runner wrote: »

A strong core will keep you tall and upright to teh derath in a marathon. A weak one wont and performance will suffer. Core strenghtening work enables this good posture and the endurance gained enables it for longer.

With all due respect, this is layman theory and based on perhaps a poor understanding of the 'core'. With all that is known now about neuromuscular recruitment, specificity of training and transfer of training the field has moved on. Original proponents of these exercises as a means of rehabilitation are all running a mile from their original papers in the 90s. They rue the fact that the exercises they had recommended have been taken up by every therapist, gym worker and athlete out there.

T runner wrote: »

So many coaches and athletes have observed it that theer is little mystery left.

The xperts in thse field are coaches who ahve observed the diferent affects of core work on performance.

Look, like I said about stretching above...Reading great tomes such as Lore of Running and Peter Coe's book, I marvelled at the exercise physiology and coaching aspects. Then came to a chapter advocating stretching and pictures of Seb himself doing all the stretches and got a bit despondent. I don't have these books to hand, but while the preceding chapters were littered with references, I doubt the stretching chapters were.

T runner wrote: »

Have you any empirical evidence showing that core strenghtening exercises does NOT improve performance to contradict what every elite coach in the world seems to believe?

Can I turn it around, please? Can you provide any evidence (not theories or reference to coaches or top athletes doing it) that they DO improve performance?

I don't believe I'll change your view, so maybe not much point in going round and round and derailing the thread (sorry about that) but always good to have these discussions

Now I'm off to stretch my hamstrings - hang on a minute :P

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

Is this not anecdotal (and not placebo controlled) as opposed to empirical? Apologies if my terminology is incorrect.

Empirical means based on observation rather than theory.

No. But some years ago they'd have been advocating passive stretching, now they are advocating 'core'. This is not based on evidence of effect but rather it's the fad of the day.

No. Thats what you say. The theory of the day works on what evidence they have available and what observations they make. They observed that long supple muscles seemed to aid performance and prevent injury. They used static stretching to achive this. Now they use dynamic stretching as they reckon this is superior to static stretching. That does not mean static stretching is a fad: it just means it was the best fit within the overall training methods of the day.

Coaches also introduced, intervals, plyometrics, tempo runs, hard/easy days, advanced nutrition. Were thses also fads? As ive pointed out athletes have now being coached to such a degree that 9 finished under 2:10 in teh FRankfurt marathon last Sunday. Coaching isnt a lucky mixture of fads. It is an evolution of ideas based on empirical and scientific ideas.

I think Sonia O'Sullivan gave a good insight in her book to the mind of a top athlete, presumably working with top coaches when talking about ice baths. Basically said that she had no idea if they worked but if there was any tiny chance that they would she'd take it, particularly as it was difficult!

That just means that she trusted her coach, taht she did not need to burden herself with understanding every facet of their race preparation. If the coach had no idea if it worked or not you may have a point in this individual case relative to ice baths. Ice baths seem to be still common enough. Not a fad perhaps. Sonia did massive amounts of core work i believe. Did she give any insight into why she carried out this?

How can you explain passive stretching being advocated for years then?

Explained above.

Similary to 'core' in that it was not evidence but theory based.

Thats your opinion. If you read any of the books etc of the great coaches you will see taht tehir methods are almost always empirical. They do what works. Arthur Lydiard for example ran up to 500k per week himself until he settled on a figure (160kpw i think) that an athlete could run at a steady state every week sustaineably.

Percy cerutti was also a pioneer. Jack Daniels takes blood samples of all his top runners to analyse exactly their spectrum of thresholds and teh efefcts of various training on them. These are not men who are likely to coach by fads. All of them advocate core work: bar none.

Fair point it's only level 2b, but it's a start.

It is a level 2b theory about the effects on a certain defect by using single leg squats. The defect was observed. Running performance wasnt even mentioned.

Can I turn it around, please? Can you provide any evidence (not theories or reference to coaches or top athletes doing it) that they DO improve performance?

Heres a study i found with a quick google scholar search. Also the evidence that all great coaches advocate it.

Does Core Strength Training Influence Running Kinetics, Lower-Extremity Stability, and 5000-m Performance in Runners?

Sato, Kimitake; Mokha, Monique
AbstractSato, K and Mokha, M.

Does core strength training influence running kinetics, lower-extremity stability, and 5000-m performance in runners? J Strength Cond Res 23(1): 133-140, 2009-Although strong core muscles are believed to help athletic performance, few scientific studies have been conducted to identify the effectiveness of core strength training (CST) on improving athletic performance. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of 6 weeks of CST on ground reaction forces (GRFs), stability of the lower extremity, and overall running performance in recreational and competitive runners. After a screening process, 28 healthy adults (age, 36.9 ± 9.4 years; height, 168.4 ± 9.6 cm; mass, 70.1 ± 15.3 kg) volunteered and were divided randomly into 2 groups (n = 14 in each group). A test-retest design was used to assess the differences between CST (experimental) and no CST (control) on GRF measures, lower-extremity stability scores, and running performance. The GRF variables were determined by calculating peak impact, active vertical GRFs (vGRFs), and duration of the 2 horizontal GRFs (hGRFs), as measured while running across a force plate. Lower-extremity stability was assessed using the Star Excursion Balance Test. Running performance was determined by 5000-m run time measured on outdoor tracks. Six 2 (pre, post) × 2 (CST, control) mixed-design analyses of variance were used to determine the influence of CST on each dependent variable, p < 0.05. Twenty subjects completed the study (nexp = 12 and ncon = 8). A significant interaction occurred, with the CST group showing faster times in the 5000-m run after 6 weeks. However, CST did not significantly influence GRF variables and lower-leg stability. Core strength training may be an effective training method for improving performance in runners.

Your argument was that the work we have been doing is largely non-consequencial to running performance was based on a level2b study on single leg squats that did not even measure performance! It seems that it is your views that seem to be the ones not backed by weight of evidence. That might be worth considering before the next news flash.

Ill leave it with another abstarct from another scholarly article. It says start by isolating individual core muscles then make the movements more complex. Sounds like what weve been doing!

Core strengthening and stability exercises have become key components of training programs for athletes of all levels. The core muscles act as a bridge between upper and lower limbs, and force is transferred from the core, often called the powerhouse, to the limbs. Stability initially requires maintenance of a neutral spine but must progress beyond the neutral zone in a controlled manner. Some studies have demonstrated a relationship between core stability and increased incidence of injury. A training program should start with exercises that isolate specific core muscles but must progress to include complex movements and incorporate other training principles.

Larry Brent

T Runner, sent you a pm rather than derailing further.

TFBubendorfer

Say, has everyone else given up on the challenge? That's three updates in a row from me and not a beep from anyone else!

Krusty_Clown

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Say, has everyone else given up on the challenge? That's three updates in a row from me and not a beep from anyone else!

[F5]. It's the button just above the [5] key.

T runner

Just updating once a week at the moment. Busy times and have been cramming my sessions towards the weekends. Next week will be more regular!

huskerdu

I am still keeping up the routine 3 times a week, but I am doing more short sessions (5/10 minutes) and they are getting easier, which may be a good sign.

But, I am worried that it is getting easier and a bit samey and I am losing the incentive as a result. Basically I should be pushing myself a bit more.

Anyone else feeling like this ?

Any suggestions ?

RoyMcC

huskerdu wrote: »

I am still keeping up the routine 3 times a week, but I am doing more short sessions (5/10 minutes) and they are getting easier, which may be a good sign.

But, I am worried that it is getting easier and a bit samey and I am losing the incentive as a result. Basically I should be pushing myself a bit more.

Anyone else feeling like this ?

Any suggestions ?

I could have posted exactly that! I've stuck to the same routine as it's doable in the apartment. But what I've done is extend the length of time on the planks and the number of reps of the other moves. Finally I've added a couple of extra bits (e.g. double leg raises, crunches). Although I feel I could/should be doing more I don't want it to turn into a chore I don't want to do.

Slogger Jogger

I'm happy to get 3 sessions in per week. I think if I did more I'd get bored and/or be moving the balance away from the running which is what I'd prefer to be doing. A delicate family / work / hobby balancing act.

T runner

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

I'm happy to get 3 sessions in per week. I think if I did more I'd get bored and/or be moving the balance away from the running which is what I'd prefer to be doing. A delicate family / work / hobby balancing act.

Ive been struggling to make the three for several weeks and my strenght has suffered. I have a plan which will counter this from now on. That said i would have stopped several weeks ago were it not for teh challenge.

Possible improvements ive noticed so far:

Stability.

I seem to be more stable for my runs. I noticed thsi especially with my recovery runs where my form would be poor (v tired). After several core workouts, i remained pretty upright for these. Ive noticed since ive been missing sessions that my form has dipped a bit. Im also noticing the improved stabilty later in long fast runs. All i have to think about is hips forward and keep the cadence and the body is able to keep a good posture late in a fast two hour run.

Body composition:

I havent been this light since 2006. I guess there are more working muscles looking to burn more glycogen/fat which is increasing my metabolism and reducing fat stores. Makes a significant difference to running speeds.

No injury:

Touch wood but so far so good.

Anyone else?

T runner

huskerdu wrote: »

I am still keeping up the routine 3 times a week, but I am doing more short sessions (5/10 minutes) and they are getting easier, which may be a good sign.

But, I am worried that it is getting easier and a bit samey and I am losing the incentive as a result. Basically I should be pushing myself a bit more.

Anyone else feeling like this ?

Any suggestions ?

RoyMcC wrote: »

I could have posted exactly that! I've stuck to the same routine as it's doable in the apartment. But what I've done is extend the length of time on the planks and the number of reps of the other moves. Finally I've added a couple of extra bits (e.g. double leg raises, crunches). Although I feel I could/should be doing more I don't want it to turn into a chore I don't want to do.

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

I'm happy to get 3 sessions in per week. I think if I did more I'd get bored and/or be moving the balance away from the running which is what I'd prefer to be doing. A delicate family / work / hobby balancing act.

Hi Folks..a potential remedy here...a change is as good as a rest....and it needs to be kept interesting and challenging... Some strenght endurance circuit exercises in this 2 week winter schedule. These will help the core as well as the legs but the leg strenght should help greatly. Tough doing this stuff but hopefully well reap rewards come the Spring. Uphill sprints after a run are a good way of getting strenght minutes in also.

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddpx5gb6_5cjpgdzgr&hl=en

Slogger Jogger

@T. How does one get time to do morning and afternoon sessions at this time of year I'm all for trying something different to liven things up but with the short hours and torchlight evening runs its kinda difficult for me anyways.

T runner

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

@T. How does one get time to do morning and afternoon sessions at this time of year I'm all for trying something different to liven things up but with the short hours and torchlight evening runs its kinda difficult for me anyways.

The relevant parts of the schedule are the strenght exercises. i.e the squat jumps etc. Just something to naturally progress to when the core is strong.

I was too lazy to isolate them and paste them here!!!

However..im doing some doubles now. I live 12-13k from work so its cycle in: 40 mins lunch run, run home.
Run in, lunch run..cycle home. Dont do it everyday, but the lunch run is key.

I can do a threadmill session on saturday with baby observing and do a very early or late long run and sunday and thats a good lot of kilometers without too much disruption. I used to do the core stuff at lunch but this is problematic now as i need the mileage. Plan now is doing some of the leg exercises during 1 or two lunche runs and nipping upstairs for 15mins a couple of late evenings to maintain the core.

TFBubendorfer

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

I'm happy to get 3 sessions in per week. I think if I did more I'd get bored and/or be moving the balance away from the running which is what I'd prefer to be doing. A delicate family / work / hobby balancing act.

I do all my runs in the morning, when everyone is asleep. I usually do the core exercises in the evening, when I come home from work, every second day.

The core stuff only takes 20-30 minutes, significantly less than what a run would take, so it's not really disrupting the family life. In fact, sometimes my kids join in "the exercise" (which usually means my own workout suffers, but hey).

As for the exercises themselves, I started out doing a lot of planks but for variety's sake switched over to the P90X abs workout. That stuff is actually fun.

GoHardOrGoHome

I aim to come back to the strength challenge with renewed vigour. Soon. This weekend. Defo!

captain P

Just got a load of strengthening exercises from a physio for an injury.

It involves some planks and bridges, so would you count it as a session for this?

T runner

captain P wrote: »

Just got a load of strengthening exercises from a physio for an injury.

It involves some planks and bridges, so would you count it as a session for this?

Yep

Krusty_Clown

I have two types of workouts that I've been doing:
1) Core strength exercises and weights - takes around 30-40 minutes and it's tough (twice a week)
2) 5 Minute plank exercises (once or more a week).

While the longer session is the key workout, it's great to have the option to do the 5 minute session, as an alternative, as it's not easy to fit in a 30-40 minute session regularly (I'd rather be out running to be honest). It's only been 6 weeks, but I'm already noticing a really positive difference. For a recent XC race, aerobic capacity was the limitation (rather than the normal aerobic capacity + muscle/form fatigue). Also, at the start I had to take a break between doing each of the plank exercises, but for the last 3 session, I can do the full 5 minutes going straight from one to the other. I'm also changing shape and still hovering around my race weight from early October.

Long story short: It's been very valuable and I'm reaping the rewards, but it's also good to have an alternative 'go-to' session (where all you need is 5 minutes and a patch of floor).

T runner

OK. Somehwre i think it was mentioned that the first part of the challenge was to 1-1-2012. I assume were on for continuing for the rest of the winter? Well done all. Im going to reset my missed sessions to zero in an effort to get back consistency.

Anyone wanting to take up the challenge for the new year...jump aboard!

Slogger Jogger

T runner wrote: »

Anyone wanting to take up the challenge for the new year...jump aboard!

I'd be hoping to keep a few sessions ticking over each week into the new year.

meijin

I've started some body weight strength training at home 5 weeks ago.
Very basic plan so far:
- abs (various types of crunches) & back (bridges) - Mon, Wed, Fri
- push-ups, dips, pull-ups, squats, calf raises - Tue, Thu, Sat
(rest on Sunday)

Only missed few sessions so far; I hope to keep it going. I need to review my plan and come up with something covering whole body better.

Is any of you on fitocracy? You can join me on http://www.fitocracy.com/profile/meijin/ using the invite code from http://ftcy.co/veY1Xb (it's free)

T runner

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

I'd be hoping to keep a few sessions ticking over each week into the new year.

Hi sj. That's great and hopefully well get a newbie or two. I've slacked off and really notice it on my Moderate and easy runs where I'm leaning forward a bit especially if im generally fatigued. It's 3 a week now till the spring!