Isolation or Integration Core Exercises? That is the Question…

by | Apr 12, 2013 | 6 comments

Integration Core Exercises Elicit Greater Muscle Activation Than
Isolation Exercises         

Gottschall JS, Mills J,
Hastings B.  J Strength Cond Res. 2013
Mar;27(3):590-6. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2cc7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22580983

Take Home Message:
Exercises that elicit abdominal/lumbar co-contraction coupled with shoulder and
hip activation (integration exercise) provoke greater core muscle activation
than muscle isolation exercises.

It
is widely accepted that a strong core will benefit the individual in sports
performance, rehabilitation, and general fitness. However, knowing what type of
exercises to select to aid performance and prevent injuries is absolutely
paramount.  While most studies have
focused on isolation type exercises, no studies have been done to determine if
muscle isolation exercises elicits greater muscle activation compared with
abdominal/lumbar co-contraction coupled with shoulder and hip activation
(integration).  Gotschall et al.
hypothesized that isolation type exercises will elicit greater abdominal/lumbar
muscle activation compared with integration-style exercises.  For this study they recruited 20 (10 male, 10
female) healthy college aged students. 
Participants had surface electromyography placed on six core muscles:
the rectus abdominis, external oblique, lumbar erector spinae, thoracic erector
spinae, anterior deltoid and gluteus maximus.  The participants then performed 7 core
exercises (4 isolation and 3 integration, respectively): the crunch, an oblique
crunch, prone back extension with forward arm elevation, bird dog with
resistance and hover with contralateral arm reach, side plank with arm raise, and
mountain climber with alternating hip flexion to the opposite elbow.  Results showed that integration style
exercises had a greater amount of rectus and lumbar extensor muscle activation
compared with isolation exercises.  Most
notably when comparing the isolation abdominal crunch with prone hover with
lateral reach, there was a 27% increase in rectus abdominis and external
oblique activity for the hover. 
Furthermore, there was a 2-fold increase in lumbar erector spinae activity
during integration style exercises. Integrated thoracic extension (Birddog)
also elicited a 38% increase in lumbar and thoracic erector spinae activity
when compared with the prone forward arm elevation isolation exercise. The same
integration exercise elicited a 3-fold increase in external oblique activity as
a result of the contralateral arm/leg raising.

While
the findings of this study are interesting and enlightening, it is not
surprising that integration style exercises were superior at eliciting greater
muscle activity.  These exercises are
designed to activate the core functionally and create overall stability as
opposed to isolation exercises that elicit a concentric contraction.  For example, the resisted pointer (birddog)
and the prone hover exercises elicit activation in the sagittal plane, but
there is also an anti-rotational and stability component.  This requires co-contraction of the entire
core which creates greater muscle activation. 
The integration style exercises attempt to build isometric stability
while performing functional activities. This study suggests that by performing
integration style exercises athletes can optimize muscle activity thereby
improving performance and prevent injuries. 
When performing core strengthening regimens, do you use isolation or
integration style exercises, or a combination? 
If you are using both styles, isolation and integration, at what point
do you begin to use one versus the other?

Written
by: Mark Rice
Reviewed
by: Stephen Thomas

Related
Posts: 
Guest Post: Hip and Core Rehabilitation Improves Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Getting “Back” on Track – Abdominal Bracing, Rehabilitation and Low Back Pain
Accuracy of Clinical Tests to Identify a Subset of Patients with Low Back Pain
Guest Post: Trunk Muscle Activity During Various Exercises

Gottschall JS, Mills J, & Hastings B (2013). Integration core exercises elicit greater muscle activation than isolation exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27 (3), 590-6 PMID: 22580983

6 Comments

  1. Nic Philpot
    Nic Philpot on July 12, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    From my experience, I have used a combination, but prefer integration style exercises. This is because the body does not act in isolation. There are very few times where an athlete is only going to need to activate one muscle in order to perform their activity. So it seems to make sense that rehab should not only target one muscle at a time. Rehab is meant to get the athletes back into full participation as quickly and safely as possible. Isolation is useful in the beginnings of a rehab program, but I feel that they need to be progressed up to integration style exercises as soon as their pain level will tolerate it. So it just depends on the injury, and the athlete as to when you do either isolation exercises or integration exercises.

  2. Gabriella Basile
    Gabriella Basile on December 10, 2013 at 2:24 am

    I incorporate both isolation and integration style core exercises. I believe that during any sport you are using multiple muscles not just one so integration style seems better than isolation. However isolation should be used in the beginning of a rehabilitation program like Nic mentions above.

  3. Anoopbal
    Anoopbal on January 24, 2014 at 2:35 am

    I think the first line of the abstract needs a reference or some evidence to show that this belief is indeed true 🙂 "It is widely accepted that a strong core will benefit the individual in sports performance, rehabilitation, and general fitness". I am yet to see anything that shows this is true. Has anyone?

  5. Anoopbal
    Anoopbal on January 26, 2014 at 10:40 pm

    Thank you Stephen for the studies!

    I think one of the systematic reviews above conveys the value of core training truthfully:
    Targeted core stability training provides marginal benefits to athletic performance. Conflicting findings and the lack of a standardization for measurement of outcomes and training focused to improve core strength and stability pose difficulties. Because of this, further research targeted to determine this relationship is necessary to better understand how core strength and stability affect athletic performance.

    Here is one of the randomized controlled studies above showing benefit for core training. Core training group: 40 min 5 days a week! Control group: Does nothing. Surely, we need a better design to study this.

    I do think the benefits of core training are way too exaggerated that could be justified by the evidence.

  6. Meaghan McMillen
    Meaghan McMillen on July 10, 2014 at 9:54 pm

    I have used both techniques of isolation and integration within specific rehab protocols. Usually it is the case of beginning with isolation as more of a teaching technique then moving into integration once the person/patient/athlete has a better understanding of the role of the muscle.

    Then I believe there are levels to integration, first being where you include basic limb movements with the cocontractions of muscles that work together, but then moving it into tasks where you also have to have some cognitive distraction or process, then finally within an actually sport specific movement.

    I think that breaking integration down it may help make these rehab exercises into more natural processes as opposed to something that is done just within a clinical setting and forgotten or misused within an actual activity setting