Need alternative to Crunches

Azdak

mtaratoot wrote: »

Thanks for those details; makes sense. More to work on for sure. I'll pay attention to weather I touch my heel or not. It's definitely doing SOMETHING, so I am not doing it COMPLETELY wrong. The closest name I could think of is Crunch with Heel Touch. But... no touch now. I've heard of Dead Bug, but I thought that was on hands and knees.

If you are able to maintain your pelvic tilt and not arch the lower back, then you cannot do the exercise “wrong” since that IS the exercise. Not touching the floor just makes it a little more challenging.

Dead bug is one of those exercises where you have to consciously look for ways to make it more challenging as you progress or else you can outgrow it pretty quickly. There are plenty of you tube videos for new variations.

Azdak

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@azdak: "dead bugs" is a great exercise description, I think.

So: what's so bad about crunches? I've been doing them for years without problems. I was taught (by some abs video in the 90s) to keep my back flat on the floor (no space) and do a wide variety of them, some where you elevate your legs, some where you elevate your head, some where elevate both (e.g., "dead bugs"). I never felt that any of these were very hard on the back.

More difficult is a straight leg lift, which I worked up to a minute at one point. I also do side leg lifts (which are more of a "C" done at about a 45 degree angle). These are harder on the back and need to be worked up to slowly. (And are probably not good if you have back issues.)

I was also taught to do front and side planks. I find both to be pretty hard on the back and hard in general. I also found side planks to be hard on my shoulder and stopped doing them at one point, favoring other oblique exercises.

For me, December and January are good times to think about indoor exercises, including core. I'm ready to learn some new tricks!

"I've been doing them and have no problems" is not a good criterion for exercise recommendations for the general population.

If someone said "exercise x" has a 70% injury rate, you probably would think that's a pretty bad exercise. Yet 1 out of 3 people could do it with no problem.

In evaluating crunches, or any other exercise, I use these factors:

1. Is it an effective exercise--does it do what you think it is doing?
2. Is it a safe exercise--can the average person do it without an increased risk of injury?
3. Is it an "approachable" exercise--meaning can the average person of low to moderate fitness do it?
4. Is it an exercise that most people perform with good form with little to no coaching?

The "core" consists of everything from the neck down to the hips. The core functions to counteract forces--flexion, extension, rotary, and lateral flexion--keep the trunk stable during movements and transferring force efficiently from the lower body to the upper body (and vice versa).

So how do crunches stack up?

1. Poor--crunches are not that effective at training the core, especially the way they are performed by 75% of the population. Training the abdominal muscles to "pull" harder serves no useful purpose. It is an isolation exercise that has little carryover. An untrained person can get some benefit if they do crunches properly, but only as practice in how to perform a pelvic tilt. Unfortunately, most people have a conventional image in their minds and little control over their abdominal muscles, so they instantly start yanking the back of their heads to "pull" the shoulders forward.

2. I think sometimes the "risks" of doing crunches is overstated--most of the injury issues from doing crunches come from improper form (although that leads to the number 4, which is how many people CAN learn good form). For people with back issues--herniated disks, past spinal surgery, etc--flexing the lumbar spine is not a good idea. Since many adults suffer from various back problems, it's not a horrible idea to discourage people from doing crunches--esp since it's such a mediocre exercise to begin with.

3. In a modified way, a crunch can be a very approachable exercise, so it can have some benefit for untrained people. It is certainly easier for a beginner than a plank. There are modified exercises called "ab curl ups" that are suitable for beginners.

4. Again, crunches rate "poor" in this category. For the most part, the only people I see doing crunches properly have enough athletic ability that they should be doing more advanced exercises anyway. Crunches and high rows are the two exercises with the worst form displayed by 75% of gym users.

So you have an exercise that is difficult for most people to master, has a moderate injury risk for both the cervical and lumbar spine, that more than 75% of the time is done improperly and, even if performed properly, does a mediocre job of training the muscles it is supposed to train.

That is "what's so bad".

jeffjeff85

Theres certainly nothing 'wrong' with crunches, which are very beneficial when done correctly.
The purpose of your ab muscles is to flex the spine. Yes, it stabilizes while performing other exercises (meaning it opposes extension of the spine). Just like the serratus 'aids' a bench press.

Keep in mind that any exercise performed incorrectly can be unfruitful or even dangerous, but that's no reason not to perform them. Correctly.

Crunches are not leg lifts. Not neck flexors. If your getting work o. The neck or hip flexors, you arent going it right.

Azdak

jeffjeff85 wrote: »

Theres certainly nothing 'wrong' with crunches, which are very beneficial when done correctly.
The purpose of your ab muscles is to flex the spine. Yes, it stabilizes while performing other exercises (meaning it opposes extension of the spine). Just like the serratus 'aids' a bench press.

Keep in mind that any exercise performed incorrectly can be unfruitful or even dangerous, but that's no reason not to perform them. Correctly.

Crunches are not leg lifts. Not neck flexors. If your getting work o. The neck or hip flexors, you arent going it right.

I’m not sure where you stand in the whole “facts vs opinions” debate, but the preeminent expert in back biomechanics would disagree with you.


https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/

And this article is from 2010. The evidence has grown quite a bit more since then.

girlwithcurls2

Don't rule out swimming or a deep water cardio class. Both require incredible core strength. For the deep water class, you wear a flotation belt. The idea is to perform the exercises while keeping "ears over shoulders over hips" the entire time. No sticking your butt out, no tipping forward. It's actually quite challenging.

For specific land exercises, I'd talk to a PT (physical therapist) to find out what you can safely do.

jeffjeff85

Azdak wrote: »

I’m not sure where you stand in the whole “facts vs opinions” debate, but the preeminent expert in back biomechanics would disagree with you.


https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/

Strange what some are willing to call' evidence'.

Muscle strengthens by performing "work". Eccentric, concentric, or isometric - not without purpose.
'Planks' are. 'good', compared to couch sitting. But this isometric contraction can never equate to the flexion/extension of concentric and eccentric motion.
Anybody thinks that's false should probably be doing bench presses by picking up the weight, lowering it 2 inches, hold it for a period then rack it. STILL better than couch sitting, but minimally beneficial to building the chest.

Your spine has segments. For a reason. It was MADE to flex. Strengthening the core muscles will lead to LESS back problems, not more.

Theoldguy1

Azdak wrote: »

jeffjeff85 wrote: »

Theres certainly nothing 'wrong' with crunches, which are very beneficial when done correctly.
The purpose of your ab muscles is to flex the spine. Yes, it stabilizes while performing other exercises (meaning it opposes extension of the spine). Just like the serratus 'aids' a bench press.

Keep in mind that any exercise performed incorrectly can be unfruitful or even dangerous, but that's no reason not to perform them. Correctly.

Crunches are not leg lifts. Not neck flexors. If your getting work o. The neck or hip flexors, you arent going it right.

I’m not sure where you stand in the whole “facts vs opinions” debate, but the preeminent expert in back biomechanics would disagree with you.


https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/

And this article is from 2010. The evidence has grown quite a bit more since then.

I heard a recently recorded podcast interview with Dr McGill, he still is not a fan of crunches.

goatg

I do sit ups with a 40 lb dumbbell on my chest (after a decent warmup). I've been doing them for years, feel like I have good form/control, and enjoy the load on my biceps, shoulders, and back. But...I've always wondered at the general efficiency/safety.

Katmary71

Interesting that this was said, I've been given the half crunches where you just slightly curl up before going back down after my back surgeries and in three different clinics. For sure don't do the crunch machine at the gym, I was told not to pre-surgery and thought post surgery it might be ok, I only put 10lbs on and couldn't walk for a few days!

I'm just upping my core workout but do planks, obliques similar to bicycles, side planks, and straight-legs one at a time off the ground (like hard dead bugs).

Azdak

Katmary71 wrote: »

Interesting that this was said, I've been given the half crunches where you just slightly curl up before going back down after my back surgeries and in three different clinics. For sure don't do the crunch machine at the gym, I was told not to pre-surgery and thought post surgery it might be ok, I only put 10lbs on and couldn't walk for a few days!

I'm just upping my core workout but do planks, obliques similar to bicycles, side planks, and straight-legs one at a time off the ground (like hard dead bugs).

What is a foundational exercise for basic rehab is not always a good choice for regular training. PT clinics tend to see people at their weakest and people who need specific exercises. By the time they get to the point where they are able or need more advanced exercises, they are out of PT.

Also, curl up you describe does not involve (loaded) flexion of the spine, which is the main concern with sit ups (other than the fact that it is a mediocre exercise). So it’s actually a different exercise. There is nothing wrong with a curl up other than the fact that it is a very basic exercise that even a beginner will outgrow very quickly.

Azdak

goatg wrote: »

I do sit ups with a 40 lb dumbbell on my chest (after a decent warmup). I've been doing them for years, feel like I have good form/control, and enjoy the load on my biceps, shoulders, and back. But...I've always wondered at the general efficiency/safety.

I had a detailed answer written which disappeared when I was checking another source

In short: for an athlete such as yourself, doing those crunches poses little risk of injury, but IMO they are not the best in terms of the effort:benefit ratio. If you work hard enough, even at a mediocre movement, you can get some benefits. But with the same time and effort you could probably do better.

My cycling coaching experience and skills are not at the same level as your new bike, so I am not going to suggest any specific alternate exercises. But I would recommend reaching out to some people with specific experience training higher level cyclists and see if they have any additional exercises.

grob49

cherylseptember wrote: »

After back surgery my neurosurgeon told me to never do crunches again. What are the best ab workouts that don’t involve crunches?

Take a look at planks and the plank challenge

goatg

Azdak wrote: »

goatg wrote: »

I do sit ups with a 40 lb dumbbell on my chest (after a decent warmup). I've been doing them for years, feel like I have good form/control, and enjoy the load on my biceps, shoulders, and back. But...I've always wondered at the general efficiency/safety.

I had a detailed answer written which disappeared when I was checking another source

In short: for an athlete such as yourself, doing those crunches poses little risk of injury, but IMO they are not the best in terms of the effort:benefit ratio. If you work hard enough, even at a mediocre movement, you can get some benefits. But with the same time and effort you could probably do better.

My cycling coaching experience and skills are not at the same level as your new bike, so I am not going to suggest any specific alternate exercises. But I would recommend reaching out to some people with specific experience training higher level cyclists and see if they have any additional exercises.

Thanks Azdak! Highly appreciated. I spend a crazy amount of time on my core relative to benefit...but it is pretty strong. I’d love some lore, full body movements. My abs routine is long/involved but no doubt redundant.

Highly appreciate the input. Thanks (my approach to fitness doesn’t optimize for triathlon/cycling —more of a hodgepodge with room for improvement)

Merry Christmas 🙃