Sit ups and crunches.

shizz

Hey guys. Just something that's been bothering me about sit ups and crunches.

Basically they always hurt my back. Not straight away like but when it gets to the ten mark, more so on situps which I rarely do anymore.
They feel like they are working my lower back muscles more than anything else. Just wondering if this is common or am I doing something wrong?

Id also like to point out that I have never done these enough to have all my muscles completely used to these exercises and am only getting into doing them loads now.

Just want to be sure.

Thanks.

J-Fit

shizz wrote: »

Hey guys. Just something that's been bothering me about sit ups and crunches.

Basically they always hurt my back. Not straight away like but when it gets to the ten mark, more so on situps which I rarely do anymore.
They feel like they are working my lower back muscles more than anything else. Just wondering if this is common or am I doing something wrong?

Id also like to point out that I have never done these enough to have all my muscles completely used to these exercises and am only getting into doing them loads now.

Just want to be sure.

Thanks.

The only thing you are doing wrong is the crunches themselves. They become a more redundant exercise as the days go by. Sure there are those people who do them regularly with no trouble but the fact remains that in tests on pig spines, sustained and repeated flexions can lead to vertebral disc rupture. You'll get two schools of thought on this and plenty of people who will say the opposite to me but it remains a fact. The lumbar region is built for stiffness (not to be confused with pain) and should be trained using core exercises that emphasise anti-rotation and anti-extension capacities. Think diagnol cable chops and lifts, swiss ball rollouts, paloff presses, planks etc. You will often hear that "squats and deadlifts are enough" but in my opinion they are not as the spine often ends up in a flexed position in both exercises. We need to train the core specificaly. Have a look at the below video. A warning to some that it is a little gruesome but it offers a wonderful insight into the type of research that is being conducted in this area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mZF9mAgjw4&feature=PlayList&p=2751A74F3DB6909F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

ragg

Good video that - a bit too much for a saturday morning, especially as im about to hit the gym :eek: but it does a great job of explaining exactly what the problem with crunches is

S.R.F.C.

I've never really come across someone so opposed to crunches, would many on here be of the same opinion? I've often wondered the same about crunches but because of their popularity and the amount you come across them etc. I've always presumed they're fine!
Anyone else have any recommendations for other ab exercises that don't require equipment, planks are really the only other one I've been doing apart from crunches. Cheers in advance for any help.

Brian?

S.R.F.C. wrote: »

I've never really come across someone so opposed to crunches, would many on here be of the same opinion? I've often wondered the same about crunches but because of their popularity and the amount you come across them etc. I've always presumed they're fine!
Anyone else have any recommendations for other ab exercises that don't require equipment, planks are really the only other one I've been doing apart from crunches. Cheers in advance for any help.

Crunches are popular due to the misguided notion that they'll give you a 6 pack. Once you do over 15 of them, they become pointless though. With core work, as with everything else, progression is the key i.e. adding resistance.

My favourite ab excercise is hanging leg raises. Transform did a video on it a while back, you might want to have a search for it.

Annuv

As a teenager I used to do hundreds of situps each night.
I'm now just under 30, I have a degenerative changes in my L5-S1 disc, it appears very dehydrated on a MRI with loss of disc height, and is herniated pressing on my sciatic nerve. The sciatic pain almost brings me to tears at times.
Always look after your back and don't do sit-ups or crunches

mushykeogh

S.R.F.C. wrote: »

I've never really come across someone so opposed to crunches, would many on here be of the same opinion? I've often wondered the same about crunches but because of their popularity and the amount you come across them etc. I've always presumed they're fine!
Anyone else have any recommendations for other ab exercises that don't require equipment, planks are really the only other one I've been doing apart from crunches. Cheers in advance for any help.

Iv banned them completely for my swimmers, havent used them in about 2 years now and there not missed, planks, side bridges, planks with a row (either a dumbbell or lift hand to opposite shoulder) roll outs on the ball or TRX if there able, ab wheel roll outs with good alignment, and the paloff press as mentioned earlier im really loving at the moment.

J-Fit

S.R.F.C. wrote: »

I've never really come across someone so opposed to crunches, would many on here be of the same opinion? I've often wondered the same about crunches but because of their popularity and the amount you come across them etc. I've always presumed they're fine!
Anyone else have any recommendations for other ab exercises that don't require equipment, planks are really the only other one I've been doing apart from crunches. Cheers in advance for any help.

Yeah I hate, hate, hate them! I've seen far too many people injure their backs over an extended period of time and then look for an acute cause like deadlifts to blame it on. You can still stress the abdominal region without doing crunches or planks. Hanging leg raises as were mentioned are a great place to start. You can do reverse crunches where you are lying on your back and extending and flexing the legs out and back in again or you can do double leg lowerings. There's loads of options, you just need to search around. Also, squats and deadlifts ARE excellent for this purpose also. I just meant that they should not be the only way of training you midsection.

shizz

J-Fit wrote: »

Yeah I hate, hate, hate them! I've seen far too many people injure their backs over an extended period of time and then look for an acute cause like deadlifts to blame it on. You can still stress the abdominal region without doing crunches or planks. Hanging leg raises as were mentioned are a great place to start. You can do reverse crunches where you are lying on your back and extending and flexing the legs out and back in again or you can do double leg lowerings. There's loads of options, you just need to search around. Also, squats and deadlifts ARE excellent for this purpose also. I just meant that they should not be the only way of training you midsection.

I always thought it was sit ups that where really bad for your back and not crunches?

You mentioned there about reverse crunches, well they are the ones i do mostly. So they are relatively ok?

solway

shizz wrote: »

I always thought it was sit ups that where really bad for your back and not crunches?

You mentioned there about reverse crunches, well they are the ones i do mostly. So they are relatively ok?

Ya i always thought the same. I thought while doing a crunch your only rolling your shoulders and a sit up your coming all the way up to your knees.

J-Fit

shizz wrote: »

I always thought it was sit ups that where really bad for your back and not crunches?

You mentioned there about reverse crunches, well they are the ones i do mostly. So they are relatively ok?

solway wrote: »

Ya i always thought the same. I thought while doing a crunch your only rolling your shoulders and a sit up your coming all the way up to your knees.

Sit-ups and crunches are basically the same thing. Repeated spinal flexions. Sit-ups can be done with a flat back but most people will transition into flexion as they fatigue. Reverse crunches can be done lying down with a neutral lumbar curve and with the legs being lowered down. I suppose there are a number of interpretations and most of the youtube examples show spinal flexions for reverse crunches. Instead of reverse crunches think 'leg lowering' but with a flat back. This can encourage spinal extension -the opposite of flexion- so should also be exercised with caution but it is infinitely safer and more beneficial than old school sit-ups/crunches.

Ouijaboard

J-Fit wrote: »

Sit-ups and crunches are basically the same thing. Repeated spinal flexions. Sit-ups can be done with a flat back but most people will transition into flexion as they fatigue. Reverse crunches can be done lying down with a neutral lumbar curve and with the legs being lowered down. I suppose there are a number of interpretations and most of the youtube examples show spinal flexions for reverse crunches. Instead of reverse crunches think 'leg lowering' but with a flat back. This can encourage spinal extension -the opposite of flexion- so should also be exercised with causion but it is infinitely safer and more beneficial than old school sit-ups/crunches.

Yes but for all the advocating of Leg raises, (both hanging and lying) they also put the the spine into flexion when performed correctly.

Just raising the legs in either hanging position or lying position, predominantly hits the hip flexors and have virtually no abdominal activation UNTIL the legs are raised enough to put the spine into flexion. Then and only then are the abdominals put into compression and included in the workout. So this must be a contraindicated exercise also?

I think you may be scaremongering slightly here....Stu Macgill advocates doing
crunches (or curl ups as he calls them!) but performing them correctly by stabilizing the spine and taking care not to put the spine into too much flexion (i.e. dont flatten it to the ground!). This with protecting the cervical spine by concentrating on raising the shoulders just a few inches and not pulling the neck forward should give reasonable activation of the RA without over stressing the spine.

J-Fit

cougar1 wrote: »

Yes but for all the advocating of Leg raises, (both hanging and lying) they also put the the spine into flexion when performed correctly.

Just raising the legs in either hanging position or lying position, predominantly hits the hip flexors and have virtually no abdominal activation UNTIL the legs are raised enough to put the spine into flexion. Then and only then are the abdominals put into compression and included in the workout. So this must be a contraindicated exercise also?

I think you may be scaremongering slightly here....Stu Macgill advocates doing
crunches (or curl ups as he calls them!) but performing them correctly by stabilizing the spine and taking care not to put the spine into too much flexion (i.e. dont flatten it to the ground!). This with protecting the cervical spine by concentrating on raising the shoulders just a few inches and not pulling the neck forward should give reasonable activation of the RA without over stressing the spine.

I don't think I'm scaremongering at all. I've seen this too many times to justify it's inclusion in any of my programming and I think there has been a fair amount of practical evidence in this thread that confirms that. You say that the abdominals don't engage until flexion is attained but I'm not sure if EMG has confirmed this or if it's in your own experience? In any case we do have up to 2 degrees of rotation per segment in the lumbar spine so it's not as if it can't flex or move - it's just that when doing crunching movements, people tend to OVER-flex. How is your average gym-going person ever going to know about McGill's research?

What level of flexion is attained during supine leg-lowering? I don't know for sure but what I do know is that my clients who did have back pain no longer do because I exercise a minimal flexion protocol in all of my programming and we work on anti-rotation and extension exercises. Why do it if there are safer alternatives?

To me, practical observations backed up by all the other anecdotal stuff is enough. Having said that, if you know the rules, you can break them and if you see a genuine need to include flexion in your own programming -and can do so safely- then I don't see a problem but as I said earlier, there are two schools of thought on this. It's a controversial issue -one that has split the industry- but it's one I feel strongly about.

Ouijaboard

I do echo your point on minimising excessive flexion and extension and promoting core stabilizing exercises. I didn't post just to shoot down your comments regarding crunches and sit ups, they are a huge problem when performed incorrectly, and regardless of whether the average gym goer would be familiar with mcgill or not I think the onus is on the person to find the best execution of any exercise (this goes for squats, deadlifts etc aswell).

You are absolutely right about people over flexing during crunches, but I firmly believe there is a learning curve with a lot of core exercises that people seem to ignore and take it for granted that they can just jump in anywhere and perform the exercise correctly. Even with simple planks most people starting out put their spine into too much extension which is also a contraindicated way to perform the exercise. Its often a better alternative to start off doing variation of bird dogs until the person finds correct neutral spine posture before jumping into more difficult planks.

Yes in regards to leg raises there are plenty of studies to confirm that the RA have minimal activation until the the the hips are put into posterior pelvic tilt (i.e. back flattened) and the activation increases as spinal flexion increases. I will try to find a study to confirm that but as far as I know it is well documented and google is your friend

If anyone wants to see what a Mcgill crunch looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey9uiWiiL6I