Logical,
I used to hold the same opinions regarding ab training that you do, but I have changed my mind for a number of reasons. May I try to persuade you? I’ll go point by point–
[quote]Logical Lifter wrote:
Sit-ups are not an ab exercise; they target the hip flexors almost exclusively. Sure, the abdominals are involved in a postural stability role during sit-ups, but that’s the case in almost every exercise imaginable.
Doing sit-ups as an ab exercise is like doing bicep curls for the front delts…pointless and ineffectual.
[/quote]
I agree that sit-ups do not ioslate the abdominal muscles. However, I strongly disagree that they do not work the abdominals.
Why try to isolate the abs? I am confident that you know that maximal tension is created and max reps can be performed not by isolating a muscle, but by incorporating in a total-body exercise that emphasizes it. We do chins instead of lat-pulldowns or curls.
We do presses or push-presses instead of front raises and triceps pushdowns. Do we not? As the legs assist the shoulders and tris in the push-press, so the hip flexors assist the abdominals in the sit-up: Substantially, but not to the point that the abdominals are no longer the focus of the exercise.
Done for max reps, I agree that the sit-up will not hit the abs hard unless you are weak. However, hold a plate on your chest, or increase the range of motion, and you will find that they work the abdominals strongly. The best way to increase ROM is do sit-ups on a glute-ham bench or back extension bench facing up with your toes pointing up under the foot pads.
[quote]Logical Lifter wrote:
There’s another reason to avoid sit-ups (as well as leg raises, which are an identical movement, only with the upper body fixed and the legs moving): the hip flexors attach to and pull on the ligaments of the lower spine during activation. This means that sit-up and leg raise movements can exacerbate or even cause lower back problems.
[/quote]
Ever since I read Sarno’s book on back pain, I have been skeptical about the rounding of the back causing serious back pain. But to set this aside…
The ligaments, etc., are loaded when you cease to contract the abdominal muscles, are they not? But do you really need to do this? If you are performing a sit-up on the floor, you can maintain activation of the abdominal muscles by maximally contracting the muscles of the posterior chain and driving the heels into the floor throughout the sit-up.
This is basically an unassisted version of the Janda Sit-up popularized by Pavel Tsatsouline, in which a partner or contraption pushes UP on your calves, forcing you to shut down your hip flexors by an antagonistic contraction and make your abs do all the work. If you’re unfamiliar with this sit-up I encourage you to try it.
Another solution to the rounding of the back is to extended ROM sit-ups on the glute-ham bench or back extension bench as described above WHILE STRONGLY EXTENDING THE LEGS THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT. This keeps the abs engaged. Again, don’t take my word for it; try it.
Maybe you could even get away with using momentum through the movement this way; I have seen many people do this for 50+ reps without any problem whatsoever (except extreme ab pain). I usually do them with weight behind my head, and slow. I descend until my torso and head are basically perpendicular to the floor. I have had no back problems.
[quote]Logical Lifter wrote:
There’s no real reason for most people to train their hip flexors. They don’t play any major strength role, and from a bodybuilding perspective, having defined flexors is more a question of bodyfat percentage than a training issue.
When it comes to ab training (and when I say abs, I’m referring to the visible, sixpack muscles of the abdomen) the crunch is king. There’s a simple reason for that which ought to be familiar to anyone with a background in biomechanics: the rectus abdominis, which IS the “sixpack muscle”, functions to curl the spine forward and reduce the distance between the sternum and navel. And this movement is the very definition of a crunch. Therefore, crunches and reverse crunches are the ONLY movements worth doing for aesthetic ab development. Core strength is a different issue, but even there, sit-ups do not play a role.
[/quote]
Are not the hip flexors the muscles antagonistic to every hip extension movement? Aren’t squats and pulls the cornerstone of every training program? And aren’t the hip flexors crucial to the eccentric and to turning the motion around at the bottom? It seems to me that hip flexor strength would be not unimportant.
Please explain what meaning ‘core strength’ has when you set aside abdominal strength and the ability to integrate that strength to support hip flexion, extension, and rotation.
Finally: Those athletes with the best-developed abdominal muscles with regard to strength (gymnasts) seem to do abominal movements that STRONGLY incorporate hip flexion and extension. Setting aside dynamic skills (tumbling, kipping), in the lever, hanging leg raise, and L-support, the abs are trained in conjunction with hip flexion.
[quote]Logical Lifter wrote:
Your case is interesting for the following reason: When most people think they’re training abs, they’re actually hitting their hip flexors (as explained above). Since the flexors are far stronger than the abs, pure ab movements tend to be a hell of a lot harder to do than their faux HP counterparts. According to you, “sit-ups” are easier for you in a legs-flexed position than when your feet are on the ground. Now, when the legs are fully flexed at the hip, the capability of the HPs to engage in trunk flexion is significantly reduced. Therefore, the abdominal muscles account for most of the movement. Your abs would seem to be stronger than your flexors – very strange, indeed. There is one relatively simple explanation, however.
Newton’s 3rd law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This can be applied to hip flexor training. Ordinarily, sit-ups are done with the feet held down in a stationary position, either by a person or by a pad. When the movement is executed, the tendancy of the feet to rise is counteracted by the resistance of the pad (or the spotter). This resistance is the “opposite force” which the feet ordinarily push against in order to execute the movement. When there is no resistance present, either one of two things will happen:
-
having nothing to push against, the feet will rise in an attempt to execute a classic, hip flexor-only situp.
-
if the feet stay on the floor, the abs will largely take over for the HPs and the movement will be converted to a crunch.
I say “largely” rather than “entirely” in #2 because it’s still possible for the HPs to play an active in an unrestrained sit-up. There is, after all, traction between the feet of the participant and the floor, by means of which he can “push against” the latter and activate his HPs to execute the movement.
Here’s the bottom line: Always do conventional crunches and their reverse counterparts with HPs in 90 degree flexion. Forget sit-ups. Learn how to do reverse crunches - if you can do an entire rep on your first attempt (or second, or tenth!) you aren’t doing them right. Reverse crunches are probably the hardest exercise there is. Remember, ab training consists of flexing the spine. You can either initiate the movement with your torso, as in a conventional crunch, or with your pelvis, as in a reverse crunch. But if there is a change in the angle at the hip, you’re no longer training your abs. What’s the secret for real ab training for fat-or-weak bastards who can’t do a single concentric rep? Slow, controlled negatives. And there you have it.[/quote]
I agree with a lot of what you say here. For instance, slow, controlled negs working on isolating the abs (a la Janda Sit-up) is a good way to start. It’s how I started, and it teaches you the difference between using your hip flexors and not using them, which is really useful. However:
-
I don’t see why you would do partial-ROM sit-ups with hip flexor inhibition (or, ‘crunches’) when you could do full-ROM sit-ups with hip flexor inhibition (Janda sit-ups or glute-ham sit-ups).
-
The abs are trained by extending the hip, flexing the hip, and keeping the hip stationary. When you lower into the lever position in a tuck and slowly open the hip angle by extending a leg, you will feel it in the abs. When you hold a L-sit or L-support, which is a static hip flexor contraction, you will feel it in the abs (or the obliques, if they’re weaker).
All the kick-ass ab exercises have the abs do what they exist to do - SUPPORT OTHER MOVEMENTS, rather than do work on their own in isolation. Which leads me into my final point:
- With respect to difficulty, the crunch and reverse crunch are easier than full ROM, heavy Janda sit-ups and glute-ham sit-ups, and positively pale beside gymnastic exercises like L-sits lowering from inverted hang through lever or a lever progression to hang, or strict hanging leg raises (back flat against a wall or partner’s hand - don’t think I can quite do one of these yet!).
[Catches breath] That was a long post. Was it persuasive?