Good Strength Training for Abs (without crunches) ?

Deadlift, squats, leg raises, planks...

Here is an article..( i didn't even look at it, but thought it was funny since the title is "Ab Workouts without Crunches)...lol.

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20664616,00.html

Ugh... people should do a little more than DL's and Squat's. Prescribing those 2 exercises on this site is like doctors prescribing anti-biotics. You have a runny nose, take this Zpac. You want to improve core strength, overall strength, have a nice *kitten*, and solve world hunger, squat and deadlift. While those two lifts do actively engage your core muscles; they are not the end-all-be-all to core training. For an overall stability and healthy (injury prevention) stand-point, you should do some separate core training. If you do squat & deadlift it doesn't have to be a ton because of the activation involved but some is a really good idea. You will want to do a mix of exercises, albeit not all at once, that target abs, obliques, quadratus-lumborum (lower back essentially), and the gluteals.

-Planks in the form of... side planks, front planks, front planks with hip extension, or a "superman" (not really a plank but it's similar enough)

-Cable Machine: Trunk Rotation, cable chops, cable lifts

-Back Raises on a 45-degree bench

-Hanging knee raises

Those are not the end-all be-all to core training of course, but those are some basic exercises that can easily be implemented.

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

Ugh... people should do a little more than DL's and Squat's..
While those two lifts do actively engage your core muscles; they are not the end-all-be-all to core training.

No one here said they were. But they are foundational exercises, and it's common for people here to skip them, which is why i asked her if she's including them. If she's not, adding them would be my first priority, not adding lots of supplementary ab exercises.

Doesn't hurt the neck in the least bit...

cwolfman13 wrote: »

The best thing you can do for your core is compound lifting movements. Beyond that I do plank variations, cable chops (I prefer kneeling), swiss ball jacknives, and hanging leg raises.

Sit-ups and crunches are just about the worst thing you could do and the only reason to do them really is if you have to PT qual for armed forces/law enforcement/emergency responder, etc.

I do a lot of Oly stuff so my core is pretty engaged throughout my primary workout...so I focus on that first and foremost. If I have time and I'm not completely shot to *kitten*, I throw in some extra core work. I also do plank variations pretty much daily...usually how I start my day off.

I hear this a lot. What is the reason that crunches and sit ups get such a bad reputation?

Loaded get-ups and walks are great core exercises, and I don't think that anyone mentioned them yet. Farmer walks (walk around with something really heavy in your hands), walking/skipping around with a sandbag on your shoulders, turkish getups with a kettle bell or a dumbbell.

The ab-wheel is great, too. You can buy one for peanuts if they don't have one at your gym or if you mainly train at home. When you manage sets of 12 standing up, you know that you have a solid core.

JoRocka wrote: »

curved spine people usually pulling on their neck and using more hip flexor than abs.

It's just ineffective and causes more problems than worth the potential pay off.

I dont disagree that performing an exercise improperly can lead to injury and that a sit-up is hip flexor dominant. We would not say dont do squats because if done improperly it can lead to injury. Working hip flexors along with some abdominals is not a bad thing either IMO.

"Just about the worst thing you can do" seems to imply something more than just being ineffective.

JoRocka wrote: »

Well you skipped the "people pulling on their spines" bit. that's usually where I see the most damage- but there is quite a lot of research that shows the low back risk as well.

http://www.peaksportsandspinept.com/articles/whysitupsareabadidea.cfm

I take what live strong says usually with a grain of salt- but there are usually worth while nuggets in there
http://www.livestrong.com/article/483473-are-situps-crunches-bad-for-the-spine/
specifically this part

Because you flex your back during a situp, you place a tremendous amount of stress on the vertebrae in your spine. In a study reported in June 1995 in "Clinical Biomechanics," Stuart McGill tested the effects of situps on the spines of 12 young men. The study found that both bent and straight leg situps placed over 3,000 N of force, or roughly 674 lbs., on the lower spine. This strain can eventually lead to bulging or herniated discs, compressed vertebrae and nerve damage.

This one actaully lists some alternatives
http://ruggedfellowsguide.com/10-alternatives-crunches-situps/



I'd say the reason why it's inheiriently bad- vs a say a squat which CAN be done badly (and often is) is for the same reasons- just worse....

B/c so often you see an extremely curved spine- hands wrapped around the head pulling- and their banging back and forth- or lunging with momentum.

Considering there are significantly other ways to work your core in a more life applicable manner- it's not really that hard to just do away with them- most people do sit ups wrong- and I'd say crunches are just asking for an effed up back.

This is not really a bad thing, since most people have really weak hip flexors and could really use some training for those muscles as well. It is of course not a very good ab exercise if you do that, but I wouldn't condemn it quite as quickly as is the trend these days.

do leg raises or L sits- way safer- and promote more growth in other places as well.

and isn't a hip flexor a tendon?

Sorry I did move pass the "curved spine" part of the sentence. I didnt see that as a bad thing all by itself as that is what it supposed to do. You added a lot more information though so thank you. I will look over the articles you linked.

Here is a pretty good article on it as well.
http://www.t-nation.com/training/to-crunch-or-not-to-crunch

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Fulltext/2011/08000/To_Crunch_or_Not_to_Crunch__An_Evidence_Based.2.aspx#

ETA: I dont think there is an actual part called hip flexor. The iliacus and the psoas major/minor are the muscles used for the motion.

sofaking6 wrote: »

Anecdata, but I have a grumpy lower back and crunches exacerbate it. And they are hard on my neck as well and just very uncomfortable (not in a good way).

Yeah Im not saying to do them or not do them. I was just curious about the very strong stance against them.

Sit-ups work hip flexors is a common reason they suck for abs. But then L sits and hanging leg raises get recommended. Im pretty sure those are hip flexor dominant also. JoRocka pointed out they are better because they dont have an added risk that a sit-up might have. That makes sense to me but then the reason wasnt because it was a hip flexor but because it had an injury risk from loaded spinal flexion.

I like knowing what a muscles function is and then trying to work it in that path through its range of motion. Isometric is great but is there a benefit to resistance in the fully contracted position also? I dont know, thats why I was asking.

Reverse crunches. Back and head on the floor, legs raised at a right angle and lift bum off the floor. You can hold onto something with your arms over your head if you wish to held get your bum higher off the floor.