Comments on: Ab Exercise – Clarifying my view on Crunches

By: Is Your Workout Schedule Really Going To Work? | Buffing Up

Is Your Workout Schedule Really Going To Work? | Buffing Up — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:51:01 +0000

[...] Ab Exercise – Clarifying my view on Crunches « Nick Tumminello Fitness | Baltimore Perso… [...]

By: Reese

Reese — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:41:06 +0000

As a beginning trainer, what would be some alternatives to crunches? Reverse crunches, leg lifts?

By: nick

nick — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:08:19 +0000

You are very welcome Colin!

Many thanks for your positive comments!

Coach N

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:38:18 +0000

Guys
As s beginning trainer I’m finding this discussion tremendously beneficial. It seems that we are really getting to the root of what is a good philosophy of training. I think you’re ‘spot on’ Nick and will try to carry your views into the future. They are pretty much universal principles and apply in most fields of endeavor.

Thank you
Colin

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:07:57 +0000

Coach Tumminello,

How does your girlfriend approach the issue of lumbar flexion given that aesthetics is definitely one of the primary goals of her training? I know that some people contend that some measure of dynamic flexion work is needed (above and beyond simply being very lean and doing plent of stability work).

Does she do much if any flexion work (crunch or reverse crunch-type movements), or has she found that these weren’t needed at all? Just curious what the combined experience between you and her and the physique competitors you’ve worked with has to say on this matter.

Another thing I often wonder is that it’s often said that even if you don’t seek to train lumbar flexion in training, you needed to have optimal range of motion at all segments in order for proper proprioception and overall function. Is flexion in some capacity from time to time needed to maintain that ROM, or do things like keeping the t-spine and hips optimally mobile along with what is generally regarded as solid training tend to prevent any loss of this spinal motion without actually going into those ranges much?

Hopefully I haven’t articulated this too poorly.

By: Chance

Chance — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:05:43 +0000

Coach N, I always respect your open mindedness when it come to today’s hot topics in the strength/fitness industry. What it all seems to boil down to is , what’s in the best interest of the client/athlete. Most people would be better off following Dr. McGills stabilization protocol but there will always be a few that could benefit from spinal flexion based core exercises such as physique competitors. Thanks for your insight.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:46:53 +0000

Nick, if Dr. McGill did his research on human rather than pig spines, do you think the results would have been different? I think not. I once had a neurosurgeon tell me that the reason there is so much chronic back pain is that our ancestors learned how to walk on their hind legs. He said that our spine was designed for a quadruped. I can’t think of any reason to do crunches.
Pat

By: Andrew Heffernan

Andrew Heffernan — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:31:31 +0000

It’s always easy to say this or that expert hates/loves this or that exercise; in practice, however, many of them turn out to have a somewhat more tempered approach.

Even Stuart McGill–whose work most people cite when they recommend avoiding spinal flexion– doesn’t take an absolute approach to crunches; he’s all about what’s important for the individual. Some athletes, he concedes, need to train spinal flexion, and in those cases he’s all for it.

Everyday folks and most athletes are better off with more functional movements, as both Boyle and NT suggest.