Ab crunches detremental to hips??

[Red9]

Okay so I watched a video today on youtube of a trainer explaining that ab crunches are actually bad for you. He says that by doing crunches, you shorten your hip flexor and cause your body to throw your hips forward giving yourself bad posture.

Anybody know anything about this or have any opinions with research to back it up?

[napalm]

repeated spinal flexion = bad

train your abs in a functional manner...

[Red9]

repeated spinal flexion = bad

train your abs in a functional manner...

For example on the day I train abs, I do 3 or 4 variations usually. 1. Crunches 2. Knee raises 3. Kneeling rope crunches 4. Planks

Am I creating a negative impact on my hip flexor or spine?

[Red9]

*Bump*

[asooneyeonig]

if you are working on hip mobility several times a week i dont see how it could be bad.

[Red9]

if you are working on hop mobility several times a week i dont see how it could be bad.

Ok, and what kind of exercises would you suggest for that?

[loganchristop]

Abs should not really be trained directly. I mostly like to train them by doing squats and big deadlifts

[asooneyeonig]

Ok, and what kind of exercises would you suggest for that?

foam rolling the area.

also, mobilitywod.com, search hip and you will find lots of mobility stuff.

[jimbuick]

Abs should not really be trained directly. I mostly like to train them by doing squats and big deadlifts

I disagree completely. Its true that squats and DL really target the core but their is no reason one should neglect more direct core work. (Notice I say core not abs)

[Rodja]

Abs should not really be trained directly. I mostly like to train them by doing squats and big deadlifts

Everyone should train abs directly. Indirect training is not sufficient stimulus.

[pyrobatt]

Okay so I watched a video today on youtube of a trainer explaining that ab crunches are actually bad for you. He says that by doing crunches, you shorten your hip flexor and cause your body to throw your hips forward giving yourself bad posture.

Anybody know anything about this or have any opinions with research to back it up?

You just need 2 to 3 sets of an AB exercise and choose 2(like me) to 4 different exercises and you'll grow. I do believe there's a saying about trusting every thing you hear haha. He's probably a "guru" with little to no experience teaching others. This is what we call a moron. Everyone is different.

[bpmartyr]

Everyone should train abs directly. Indirect training is not sufficient stimulus.

Not to be overly anal but, everyone? I am not training for a specific sport, not a powerlifter or bodybuilder, I have had no issues and don't train core directly. Sprinting works my abs, one arm dumbbell presses hit stabilizers, I do a ton of push ups, body weight rows etc. that give similar effects of planks. I see no diff in aesthetics nor performance over when I used to train them directly.

I know there are arguments to be made from both sides but I just lean more towards "to each his own" over "everyone should train abs directly".
I am sure looking through the lens of a power lifter delineates your pov but we are not all power lifters.

[Rodja]

Not to be overly anal but, everyone? I am not training for a specific sport, not a powerlifter or bodybuilder, I have had no issues and don't train core directly. Sprinting works my abs, one arm dumbbell presses hit stabilizers, I do a ton of push ups, body weight rows etc. that give similar effects of planks. I see no diff in aesthetics nor performance over when I used to train them directly.

I know there are arguments to be made from both sides but I just lean more towards "to each his own" over "everyone should train abs directly".
I am sure looking through the lens of a power lifter delineates your pov but we are not all power lifters.

You are incorrect in asserting that my personal style of training has skewed my POV.

When it comes to training the core, I lean towards several reasons. First and foremost is how large of a muscular system the core comprises and the ROM that this entails. It really doesn't make sense in terms of balance and functionality to neglect such a vital aspect to overall stability and its indirect role in enhancing nearly every lift out there. For example, think of how much more efficient and effective each rep is when the core is tighter. To me, this is akin to grip and how much performance is improved with enhanced grip strength. Also, to me, saying that indirect training is enough when it comes to the core is similar to saying that zero assistance work is necessary and only compounds should be performed.

[bpmartyr]

You are incorrect in asserting that my personal style of training has skewed my POV.

When it comes to training the core, I lean towards several reasons. First and foremost is how large of a muscular system the core comprises and the ROM that this entails. It really doesn't make sense in terms of balance and functionality to neglect such a vital aspect to overall stability and its indirect role in enhancing nearly every lift out there. For example, think of how much more efficient and effective each rep is when the core is tighter. To me, this is akin to grip and how much performance is improved with enhanced grip strength. Also, to me, saying that indirect training is enough when it comes to the core is similar to saying that zero assistance work is necessary and only compounds should be performed.

Then I probably shouldn't mention that I only do compounds.

I have not seen a lick of difference in performance either way is all I am saying and although a good thing, don't think everybody necessarily "should".

I did not say anything about your POV being "skewed" and certainly didn't mean to infer it either. I used the word "delineate" intending to capture the essence of clarity on the matter only. Certainly I would not advocate NOT training abs directly especially for the specific sport/activity related benefits for something like powerlifting or MMA.

I also do not feel I am "neglecting" them as I train in specific ways that do work them albeit not "directly". I have a finite amount of time for play and training. If I do not see much personal benefit and/or enjoyment, I am not likely to partake in what I consider to be a waste of time for ... myself. So if weighing everything in my life in balance, "should" I train my abs directly? I say no. But that is my choice, based on my priorities, goals etc. I made a decision to treat everything as play time. I consider going out on a run: playing. Many resistance training exercises: playing. Life is short and I aim to enjoy every second of it.

[Red9]

Okay guys so I haven't been able to read all of your guys responses yet, but I thought maybe you'd like to view the link yourself. It's from Elliott off of the Strengthcamp channel if any are familiar with him:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=8Zq_n...%3D8Zq_nM5H3bk

[Blergs]

if you are only working them 1 time a week and you work your other core muscles id say its fine. but i RARELY ever work abs. you get abs showing from diet for the most part.
DEFF keep training your core, just dont work them like you would your biceps and chest.

leg raises and crunshed 1 or 2 times a week i dont see how that would be bad. for a guy thinking he needs to work abs to get abs showing and he gots nuts on that... i can see it being an issue.

[Geoforce]

Everyone should train abs directly. Indirect training is not sufficient stimulus.

Agree wholeheartedly.

[Geoforce]

you get abs showing from diet for the most part.

Quite simply if your bodyfat is high enough it matters not how strong the area is for visible abs. Low bodyfat (achieved through caloric deficit/exercise deficit) is essential to seeing the abs. Direct training may change their appearance, but you can work on your core all the time and if your a pile of fat it won't matter.

[Red9]

I think the point of my post has been turned into a completely different topic. My question was not whether core and ab training was necessary or needed.

If you watch the link I provided of where I heard the statement, you would see my question. Do AB CRUNCHES actually play a negative role on your hip flexor, and should they truly be avoided???

[ZiR RED]

I think the point of my post has been turned into a completely different topic. My question was not whether core and ab training was necessary or needed.

If you watch the link I provided of where I heard the statement, you would see my question. Do AB CRUNCHES actually play a negative role on your hip flexor, and should they truly be avoided???

Core training is necessary, but core training is a lot more than spinal and hip flexion. It is bracing/static stabilization of the spine (think planks), trunk rotation, trunk antirotation, truck rotation+flexion, lateral flexion, extension, and to some degree, hip extension. The movements you mentioned you do for your abs are all hip-flexor based hip flexion and spinal flexion. This creates an imbalance.

The guy is actually correct, and I have been saying this for some time.

Here's whats happening when you do a typical "AB" workout that is predominantly hip flexion:

http://mattsiniscalchi.files.wordpre...vic-tilt21.jpg

This actually leads to the rectus abs themselves being in a constantly stretched position (among other negatives to the spine and hips). Overtime, it weakens the abs.

If you are going to do those movements, you need to balance them out with movements that return the hip to its natural position (i.e,: movements that target the recuts abs and the glutes)

http://www.webbfitness.net/wp-conten...elvic-tilt.jpg


In my opinion leg raises should be avoided by most people.

Ab crunches can be modified to make sure you are actually using your abs:
1. Do them on a swiss ball.
2. Contract your glutes real hard before each crunch. This will tilt your pelvis slightly posteriorly, and ensure the hip flexors are not doing the work.
3. Squeeze your ribs toward your hips. Its a small ROM, about 2-4".
4. Add resistance via bands or cables.

Br