Need alternative to Crunches

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".