Why the Plank and Voluntary Muscle Activation Cueing Don’t Belong in Dance Training!

Introduction

Training dancers requires methods which develop essential physiological capacities, such as strength, stability, and coordination. However, it is crucial to recognise the principle of specificity in physical training programs, especially when preparing dancers for various genres. Training must not only build general physical attributes but also support the technical specificity required in ballet, jazz, contemporary, tap, commercial, and street dance, along with refining these techniques to suit individual dancer's needs (Hopper et al., 2018).

The training specificity principle emphasises physical adaptations are highly dependent on the type of training stimulus provided (Kanehisa, & Miyashita, 1983b; Behm & Sale, 1993). For dancers, this means exercises should directly enhance the movement patterns, muscle activation, and coordination that are necessary for their specific genre (Krasnow & Wilmerding, 2015). Exercises like the plank, which are designed to train generic core stability, fall short of meeting these requirements. Such exercises fail to consider the dynamic, multi-planar movement demands of dance, instead emphasising voluntary muscle activation cueing (VMAC), where students are asked to consciously engage specific muscles, such as "engage your core" or “squeeze your glutes”.

While this approach may seem effective in theory, research suggests VMAC is counterproductive in the context of skill-based movement training. By focusing on individual muscles, rather than whole-body coordination, VMAC disrupts natural movement patterns and can impair both performance and skill retention (Wulf, 2013; Sweller, 1988). Dancers benefit more from exercises which foster automatic muscle coordination and dynamic stability that is representative of the physical demands experienced in dance practice and performance. Training methodologies should therefore promote development that enhances the efficacy and efficiency of axial skeletal musculature (core) to respond to proprioceptive feedback and provide alignment control and movement precision without the need for conscious engagement of muscles.

Why the Plank is NOT Suitable for Dancers

The plank encourages dancers to hold rigid positions, limiting mobility in key areas such as the shoulders, spine, and hips. Dancers need their axial skeletal (spinal) alignment to be precisely controlled as part of an ongoing interaction with the physical demands of their performance and the environment in which they are performing. Essentially, dancers require dynamic control, allowing for fluid movement across multiple planes. Static trunk stabilisation and generic "core" exercises like the plank can lead to:

• Shoulder impingement: Prolonged pressure on the shoulders during plank positions may lead to shoulder impingement and overuse injuries. The overuse of anterior shoulder musculature and associated scapular alignment is of particular concern for neck and shoulder posture and musculoskeletal tension related issues (Magill & Anderson, 2017).
• Spinal stiffness: Dancers require upper back mobility for arm movements, turns, and extensions, but the plank restricts movement in the thoracic and lumbar regions of the spine, potentially inhibiting performance and negatively impacting development of efficiently coordinated spinal kinematics (Schmidt & Lee, 2019).
• Diaphragmatic tension: The plank’s rigid core bracing strategies encourage tightening and bracing of the axial skeletal musculature. This includes the diaphragm, which is particularly problematic for dancers in musical theatre who need dynamic unimpeded breath control for singing (Porter et al., 2010).

Moreover, static exercises like the plank, which incorporate isometric contractions of muscles typically utilised for dynamic, large-range movements, do not develop functional strength throughout the entire range of motion (Kanehisa & Miyashita 1983a). Isometric training tends to limit strength gains to a very narrow range around the joint angle adopted during the exercise (Kitai & Sale, 1989). Studies indicate that improvements in strength through isometric contractions are typically limited to approximately 10-20 degrees on either side of the joint angle trained (Folland et al., 2006). This limitation means that dancers, whose movements require a full range of joint and muscle engagement, will not benefit from strength training that does not extend through the full dynamic ranges of motion they need to access during practice and performance.

Problems with Voluntary Muscle Activation Cueing (VMAC)

VMAC, which encourages dancers to focus on consciously activating specific muscles, adds cognitive load and interrupts the natural coordination dancers need. Research shows internal focus can reduce movement efficiency and disrupt automatic control, impairing performance (Wulf, 2013; Sweller, 1988). In contrast, an external focus of attention, where dancers concentrate on the outcome of the movement has been shown to enhance motor performance and coordination (Lohse, Sherwood, & Healy, 2012). For instance, instead of instructing students to "activate the core" or "squeeze a muscle," using external focus cues that direct attention toward achieving optimal alignment for specific dance tasks, while using the least amount of effort necessary, can promote more natural muscle engagement. This supports better coordination and enhances long-term skill retention (Wulf, 2013).

The plank's reliance on VMAC underscores its limitations as an appropriate training exercise, as it reinforces static, rigid positions that restrict the dynamic movement patterns essential for dance. However, the use of VMAC is not only problematic in static exercises like the plank, but also in traditional dance postures and movements. Instructions such as "engage your lats" in static arm positions like 2^nd position or "squeeze your glutes" during dynamic actions like pliés and rises can lead to similar issues. These cues encourage dancers to fixate on isolated muscle activation, which detracts from the integrated, whole-body coordination necessary for fluid and efficient movement. Such practices ultimately hinder the natural adaptability required for complex, multi-planar dance movements, potentially reducing both movement quality and performance longevity (Ives, 2014; Krasnow & Wilmerding, 2015)

Impact on Dance and Singing Performance

The consequences of static core exercises like the plank manifest across multiple dance genres and musical theatre:

• Ballet and Jazz: These styles demand fluidity in the spine, shoulders, and hips which are compromised by the spine and hip stiffness that can be induced by unrelated exercises like the plank and VMAC strategies (Ives, 2014; Bronner & Ojofeitimi, 2011)
• Contemporary Dance: Movements such as floor work and spirals require dynamic use of all axial skeletal musculature which could never be coordinated with VMAC, Static isometric exercises do not support and may even impede the development of motor skills associated with these performance requirements (Wulf, 2013; Schmidt & Lee, 2019).
• Musical Theatre: The Plank exercise can cause diaphragmatic tension, alter length tension relationships of musculature and posture important for singing. This may negatively impact vocal control, impairing students' ability to manage breath while dancing and singing. (Hodges & Gandevia, 2000; Parry, 2004; Arboleda & Frederick, 2008)

Dancers need movement-based training that emphasises functional dynamic stability that aligns with the physical and technical demands of dance performance. “Core training” strategies should address these demands objectively in a pragmatic manner. If a lack of effective balance in développé or turns is deemed a weakness of “core strength”, the true nature of the issue has been missed! Any weakness associated with such issues will conceptual or technical not physiological. Effort is better invested strategies for effective technique acquisition, efficiency and consistency of the step in question. Pursuit of performance capabilities for exercises that bear no physiological, neuromuscular or experiential relationship to the step in question, is frivolous at best but could even be viewed as obstructive or reckless.

Better Approaches to Core Training for Dancers

Core training for dancers should prioritise functional movement tasks biomechanically related to the performance task/step cited for improvement. Static holds will only ever be relevant, if the hold reflects a biomechanical demand within the dance performance. Some effective alternatives to the plank include:

• Dynamic balance exercises: These focus on (stability) alignment control in motion, like single-leg work with rotation, engaging nothing voluntarily, while maintaining coordination and precision. Doing so will ensure not only task efficacy but also efficiency which is extremely important for 8 shows per week!
• Movement-based core exercises: These integrate full-body movements, which replicate the dynamic nature of dance. If trunk musculature is to be targeted it should be done with movement tasks that create demand on those muscles not VMAC.
• Challenge all trunk musculature: It is also essential to include more than the abdominal muscles! Muscles on the back that extend the spine, control the rate at which it flexes, and rotation are arguably more important than the front! This is a discussion for another article!
• Rotation and control exercises: Focusing on the ability to control rotational movements through the spine is far more beneficial for dancers than static holds.

These approaches build the type of (core) axial control and stability that directly enhance performance across all dance styles.

Conclusion

Dance teachers, are advised to avoid static isometric exercises like the plank in their classes. Instead, they are encouraged to focus on movement-based training exercises that directly relate to the biomechanical demands of dance performance. Avoiding the use of VMAC in teaching instructions is strongly recommended due to the negative impact this has on motor learning and movement economy. Using exercises that promote dynamic stability and external focus cues will better support dancers’ ability to move fluidly and reduce the risk of injury, which is key to improving dancers' long-term health and performance capabilities. By adopting these principles, we can ensure students are training in a way that optimally aligns with the real-world demands of their art form.

References

1. Arboleda, B. M. W., & Frederick, A. L. (2008). Considerations for maintenance of postural alignment for voice production. Journal of Voice, 22(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.08.001
2. Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports Medicine, 15(6), 374-388. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199315060-00003
3. Bronner, S., & Ojofeitimi, S. (2011). Pelvis and hip three-dimensional kinematics in grand battement movements. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, 15(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089313X1101500103
4. Folland, J. P., Hawker, K., Leach, B., Little, T., & Jones, D. A. (2006). Strength training: Isometric training at a range of joint angles versus dynamic training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(8), 817-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021783
5. Hodges, P. W., & Gandevia, S. C. (2000). Activation of the human diaphragm during a repetitive postural task. Journal of Physiology, 522(1), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00165.xm
6. Hopper, L. S., Weidemann, A. L., & Karin, J. (2018). The inherent movement variability underlying classical ballet technique and the expertise of a dancer. Research in Dance Education, 19(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2017.1420156
7. Ives, J.C. (2014). Motor behavior: Connecting mind and body for optimal performance. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
8. Kanehisa, H., & Miyashita, M. (1983a). Effect of isometric and isokinetic muscle training on static strength and dynamic power. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 50, 365 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00423242
9. Kanehisa, H., & Miyashita, M. (1983b). Specificity of velocity in strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 52, 104 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00429034
10. Kitai, T. A., & Sale, D. G. (1989). Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 58, 744-748. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00637386
11. Krasnow, D., & Wilmerding, M. V. (2015). Motor Learning and Control for Dance: Principles and practices for performers and teachers. Human Kinetics.
12. Lohse, K. R., Sherwood, D. E., & Healy, A. F. (2012). How changing the focus of attention affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography in dart throwing. Human Movement Science, 30(4), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.001
13. Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2017). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
14. Parry, C. W. (2004). Managing the physical demands of musical performance. Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance, 41-60.
15. Porter, J. M., Anton, P. M., & Wulf, G. (2010). Focus of attention and verbal instructions: Strategies of elite track and field coaches and athletes. Sport Science Review, 19(1), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10237-011-0018-7 
16. Schmidt, R. & Lee, T. (2019). Motor Learning and Performance 6th edition with web study guide: From principles to application. Human Kinetics Publishers.
17. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
18. Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728