Is Direct Ab work nessessary?

[BlazingAirMAx]

If you stimulate your abs during core lifts, why bangout situps and crunches?

[Oscar_Actuary]

why bangout situps in crunches?

fyp.


For me, my core limits me, imo, and so I do Planks, Pallof Press, Suitcase Carries, and Deadbugs. I tend to cave (lean forward too much) on Squats. also general posture issues, so I train anti flexion/rotation sort of stuff

[Jungledoc]

"Core" does not equal "situps and crunches"!!!!! Not at all. Most of the regulars here condemn situps and crunches as tools of the devil. See Oscar's post, and every article that has been written on core training in the last 5 years.

[Dub]

I'm strongly on the side of adding some direct ab work to your programs. I don't think that stabilizing core work is enough for your abs. I personally think that not doing abs might make you more lower back dominant, in example, in squats and presses and other stabilizing work. But sit-ups aren't the way to go. They might damage your lower back and you usually have to do half a thousand to get feeling to your abs instead of your hips.

Me, I do Abs twice a week, four sets of 10 reps. Moves differ from curl-ups (Moving only your thoracic spine, try to eliminate all lumbar spine activity, with some kind of abmat or foam roll or something to put on the lumbar curve.)to Standing cable pulldowns, controlled leg raises (Hanging, supported, etc.) or ab rolling to say a few. It won't take much workout time, and I think your body will thank you. Mine does.

[KPj]

Worth noting that a lot of "stabilising" work puts your abs in a position to directly fight against the lower back. Any anti extension exercise (planks -> roll out variations) has the underlying purpose of preventing your lower back from taking over. Most people I train have a dominant lower back (in fact, I would say most people with back pain have a dominant lower back) and, making the abs fight against this has easily been the best way to counter it.

Also, a dominant lower back is almost always met with weak glutes.

I don't see anything wrong with the curl up variation mentioned, btw, just wanted to comment on the dominant lower back thing.

KPj

[robertscott]

I don't think sit ups are the devil that a lot of people make them out to be, however, a strong core is MUCH more important than being able to bash out a few zillion sit ups. It's all about priorities.

[BlazingAirMAx]

Worth noting that a lot of "stabilising" work puts your abs in a position to directly fight against the lower back. Any anti extension exercise (planks -> roll out variations) has the underlying purpose of preventing your lower back from taking over. Most people I train have a dominant lower back (in fact, I would say most people with back pain have a dominant lower back) and, making the abs fight against this has easily been the best way to counter it.

Also, a dominant lower back is almost always met with weak glutes.

I don't see anything wrong with the curl up variation mentioned, btw, just wanted to comment on the dominant lower back thing.

KPj

Lowering the weight so that your hips can initiate the movement will restore the balance. If I feel a weight in my back, I lower it so that my legs do most of the work. I see this as the problem with lifters of an advanced age. They perform lifts in a back dominant manner and progress until they get injured.

[Stefan 93]

If you like compound lifts and you want to work your abs a little bit more, you'll love this interesting exercise to stimulate them more: gorilla chin/crunch.
Maybe I like it because it is gorilla but it might do something to your abs.
What do you think, is it dangerous because we round our lower back (like in sit-ups)?

If you use heavy weights in compound lifts you don't need to do direct ab work (according to some guys that are famous). There is no way to put enough weight on abs to stimulate them more...

[robertscott]

There is no way to put enough weight on abs to stimulate them more...

classic Stefan nonsense. Try this: Get on a decline bench, hold a heavy loaded barbell above yourself and do some sit ups. Either that or try a heavy weighted cable crunch.

Do either of those and tell me what you think about not being able to get enough weight to stimulate your abs.

[Dub]

If you like compound lifts and you want to work your abs a little bit more, you'll love this interesting exercise to stimulate them more: gorilla chin/crunch.
Maybe I like it because it is gorilla but it might do something to your abs.

Why not do hanging leg raises? You can do chin-ups with those too?

If you use heavy weights in compound lifts you don't need to do direct ab work (according to some guys that are famous). There is no way to put enough weight on abs to stimulate them more...

Unless you got some serious proof here I wouldn't be talking like that. If you want to know, Dave Tate in example recommends direct ab-work with main lifts, and he's pretty famous. I think Rippletoe has said it is useful to do extra ab-work too.
That last line was just total nonsense with no real thinking behind it. Why wouldn't a muscle contract more when it has to work a whole lot more?

[acanta]

Extra ab work can't hurt. I think it all depends on your priorities.

[commodiusvicus]

Extra ab work can't hurt.

Tell that to Dr. Stuart McGill :)

I personally do some hanging leg-hip raises, ring rollouts, and side bridges at the end of my workouts but there ARE ab exercises that can hurt you. According to McGill, "Twisting torque creates four to five times the load on the disks compared with other kinds of movements" so i've stopped doing twisting stuff. I think my obliques get enough work from the side bridges anyway.

[commodiusvicus]

Having researched the matter further, i've discovered that leg raises are apparently even harder on the lower back than sit-ups. Oops. (here's my source, it's a study by McGill: http://www.jcca-online.org/ecms.ashx/PD ... bility.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

I'm interested in Dragon Flags, since you don't flex at the lumbar spine at all, only the thoracic, right? It should be better than exercises where you flex at the hip, anyway. What's a good progression? Just do negatives until you can do one?

[Dub]

Having researched the matter further, i've discovered that leg raises are apparently even harder on the lower back than sit-ups. Oops. (here's my source, it's a study by McGill: http://www.jcca-online.org/ecms.ashx/PD ... bility.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

I'm interested in Dragon Flags, since you don't flex at the lumbar spine at all, only the thoracic, right? It should be better than exercises where you flex at the hip, anyway. What's a good progression? Just do negatives until you can do one?

Yeah well, the tricky thing with ab exercises are they most usually either flex the thoracic spine, or cause a posterior tilt. I've been thinking about those leg raises too, and yeah, it does cause a posterior tilt. I still prefer them over situps.

Dragon Flags might be good if you can maintain tightness on your body for the whole movement. It's a very hard exercise when you're trying to maintain the neutral spine as doing that. Curl-ups and cable pulldowns are what I'd recommend for sure.

[commodiusvicus]

I was wondering if the leg raises might have lower activity in the psoas if you essentially did a "hanging reverse crunch", that is, with flexion occurring at the waist but not at the hips (after the first "rep", anyway). I found some youtube videos of people doing them, and i also found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo7LhSH ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which seems even better if you can work your way up to it.