Stop Doing Sit-Ups!

HAHA well...if you insist!

GLADLY! :laugh:

Even with lots of reps, I've not had a great time with crunches until I added in some of these other exercises (planks, leg raises). I think I will experiment with a no crunch ab routine (I do hate the neck pain). Thanks!

I stopped doing them a while back just cuz I hate 'em! I started doing the straight leg lifts and soon I'm going to (re)incorporate -- I don't remember what they're called, but the ones where you lie on your back, with legs straight up/feet together and keeping the shoulders flat on the mat, drop both legs to the left and then to the right and back to center. Seems to work the obliques. It's not Torso Twisters, those were done from a standing position...Windmills? No I don't think that's right either....dang it, now I'm going to have to go dig out one of my old USMC books.

Dark riider42, my tranier had me do those,, they were called leg sweeps but i had to hold a 30lb bar bell straight above me at the same time. He also did not believe in crunches unless there was something supporting my back. i used either a medicine ball on my lower back or a bosu ball. I have found through experience that the leg sweeps, leg raises and planks both reg and side have made a huge difference on my core. just sayin,,,,,,

Thanks for that, i've been looking for alternatives. I hate crunches.

but but but i love my crunches

however, I understand the OP's take on sit up's. All sciences are based on theories and research, and like you, Trainingwithtony, I have the resources to look for cited research in most fields, however, I am in a psychology based science. All research has it's pros and cons and is there to be cited or challenged. I am sure if you returned to your journal database, you could find a similar number of studies who support the OP's theory.

Actually, no, I looked for alternative opinions from my own and my professors from reputable sources but they aren't there. Every possible piece of research I could find on back injuries has stated that movement through a full range of motion of flexion and extension should be used to prevent injury. Nothing about flexing and extending the spine in it's normal range of motion has been proven to cause back injuries. Letting the joints lose flexibility by not using the joints between the vertebrae through a full range of motion, however, has been proven to increase the risk of injury in normal daily activity because normal daily activity requires those movements.

I commented on this because as a trainer I hate to see people risk their future health because of listening to quacks who put their opinions in rag mags to increase sales and to increase their own business and don't base it on science. That would be irresponsible as a trainer because my first job is to prevent injury in a workout setting, even on an online forum.

My personal experience while decreasing my weight from clinically obese to what I am now has shown me that as long as I am using proper form with my exercise, crunches do not cause injury. When my form fails to be correct, I get injured.

After reading articles on BOTH sides of the fence, it is obvious to me that the back pain observed by people are not performing proper crunches. It is a much smaller movement than most people actually do, and if you are moving too much for your flexibility range and strength, sure, it can hurt and cause strain. Sit-ups, even those half ones where you touch your elbows to your knees, is too much movement to be considered proper form.

There are great alternatives to lying on the floor and doing crunches, but make sure that you are not using your hip flexors instead (such as the leg lifts discussed earlier...if your abs aren't strong enough, all you will do with those is make the tops of your thighs ache!).

But please don't make the mistake in leading people away from crunches when all they really need to do is clean up their form. It only causes strain if done improperly.

I sure don't know why all the chiropractors are pointing to the studies like those done at the University of Waterloo on the spine and how situps exert more than the recommended newtons of force on your back. It just makes no sense since Tony can't find anything. Weird right? All those chiropractors and none of them know **** about back strain and what can cause it. Weird.

First of all, since you finally mentioned a specific study, here is what I could find on the Waterloo study that actually mentioned some specifics of the study. http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/low-back-pain-exercises.html

They were actually focused on finding out if knee position was a factor in preventing back pain/injury during abdominal exercises and to find what exercise might optimize the muscle recruitment of all of the abdominal muscles (rectus, transverse and obliques). Nothing in there says that sit ups are bad for your back. They actually tested several forms of ab exercises, including the isometric that your original article recommended. Quoting from the article in the Sports Injury Bulletin link I just posted,

"The Waterloo investigators had things well covered, and they were interested in a unique variable associated with each of the 12 exercises – the maximum abdominal muscle EMG value divided by the maximum compression value of the spine. As you can see, those exercises which stressed the abs to the greatest extent and compressed the spine to the least extent would have the highest scores (as a result of the lofty numerator and depressed denominator) – and could be assumed to provide the best ab-building and smallest spine-crunching effects. However, the Waterloo explorations revealed that no single exercise optimally trained the abdominal muscles while simultaneously minimising the loads and forces applied between vertebrae of the back.

As it turned out, there was absolutely no statistically significant difference in the compressive force applied between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae for the straight-leg versus bent-leg sit-ups! In fact, bent-leg sit-ups tended to produce the highest amount of lumbar compression, while curl-ups generally produced the least compressive force. No single exercise was able to appreciably stimulate all of the abdominal muscles simultaneously. For example, simple straight-leg sit-ups provided a good challenge for the rectus abdominis muscles but not for the external obliques. Meanwhile, isometric side supports did a great job with the external-oblique muscles but failed their rectus-abdominis test."

So, according to the study you referred to, sit ups weren't any worse then anything else, crunches seemed to be the best, and isometrics failed to engage the rectus abdominis.


Second, Chiropractors aren't Exercise Physiologists, so no, they don't have a clue how an Exercise will effect anything. I'll be glad to give you a list of the 2 dozen or so chiropractors over the years who have had me train their patients because they aren't educated in how to train their ab and back muscles in how to maintain the full range of motion for the spine and to strengthen those muscles to maintain proper alignment. I fully believe in chiropractic medicine because it worked wonders for the 2 herniated disc's I received in a car accident years ago. I refer my clients to them when needed, so chiropractors have their benefits. The reason they refer their clients to me, however, is because I'm the first person they've ever worked with who has absolutely no lumbar pain. The low back pain that plagues 80% of the population isn't an issue for me because I've trained my core muscles, rectus abdominis, transverse abdominis, obliques, erector spinea, etc. for years. I have done crunches since I was in elementary school, took PE every year in high school to continue them, was a professional athlete right out of high school and continued them, and have been a trainer for 14 years to continue a complete core training program. For the past few years, I've taught a twice weekly 30 minute core class that includes approximately 1000 repetitions of various crunches, twists, and extensions to hit every angle of the torso. That class uses all forms of ab work to build strength and endurance. The endurance aspect of it is what they are looking for in the other study mentioned in the article above that has actually proven to be an indicator of the prevention of back pain. Back pain isn't caused by an exercise unless it is done with poor form. Back pain is caused by lack of exercise. So, my best advice is to quit believing media hype that says a specific exercise is bad for you and using it to give you an excuse to not do something. Do a variety of ab exercises, AND low back exercises. Use proper form and do as many as you possibly can with that form. When form is lost, stop. In a couple of days, do as many as you can again. Build that endurance and strength together and maintain a full range of motion of the spine in order to prevent possible future injury. If you don't and you choose to believe this mis-quoted hype that sit ups and crunches are terrible for your back, then don't be surprised when 20 years from now when you are sitting on the couch and reach for something on the coffee table if your back suddenly spasms or subluxates. I've done my job and given you the facts.

And BTW, that other poster's name is TONYA not Tony. LOL...look at the signature. :flowerforyou:

Thank you! It's always shocking to me that people can't tell the screen name is cut off due to space since I have my name in the signature. It's refreshing to see that there are people on here who actually do completely read a post before replying. ;-)