# Thoughts on this Ab Bench?



## fireman (Nov 12, 2009)

Is this Ab Bench any good? It felt pretty solid & can do back workouts and folds to store.

It's made by Omni (never heard of them?) and sells for $95 @ Sports Authority


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 12, 2009)

send me 85 bucks, I'll tell you why you don't really need it and you'll save 10 dollars!  Act now!  

Really, what is your motivation, please don't say a six pack.  please


----------



## fireman (Nov 13, 2009)

Merkaba said:


> send me 85 bucks, I'll tell you why you don't really need it and you'll save 10 dollars!  Act now!
> 
> Really, what is your motivation, please don't say a six pack.  please




wow....exactly the reason I haven't posted anything on this site in 3 years.


----------



## urbanski (Nov 13, 2009)

i'd say the same thing to you had this been posted on AM or t-nation. why do you want an "ab bench"? generally the answer is "so i can do 100 crunches monday through friday" which shows a lack of basic training understanding. so yeah, send me the money and we can design a real diet/training program to fit your goals. until then, i hear tony little gazelles are going cheap.


----------



## fireman (Nov 13, 2009)

urbanski said:


> i'd say the same thing to you had this been posted on AM or t-nation. why do you want an "ab bench"? generally the answer is "so i can do 100 crunches monday through friday" which shows a lack of basic training understanding. so yeah, send me the money and we can design a real diet/training program to fit your goals. until then, i hear tony little gazelles are going cheap.



Thank you for explaining urbanski....it sounds like floor exercises would be better if that's what your getting at. 

I'd certainly be willing listen to someone if they were to design me a diet/training program. I'd even trade someone a nice ab bench to do it! haha


----------



## Marat (Nov 13, 2009)

fireman said:


> I'd certainly be willing listen to someone if they were to design me a diet/training program. I'd even trade someone a nice ab bench to do it! haha



Check out the link in my signature on getting started. It'll get you going in the right direction. Feel free to ask questions.


...you can send Built the bench.


----------



## fireman (Nov 13, 2009)

m11 said:


> Check out the link in my signature on getting started. It'll get you going in the right direction. Feel free to ask questions.
> 
> 
> ...you can send Built the bench.



thank you very much


----------



## urbanski (Nov 13, 2009)

fireman said:


> Thank you for explaining urbanski....it sounds like floor exercises would be better if that's what your getting at.
> 
> I'd certainly be willing listen to someone if they were to design me a diet/training program. I'd even trade someone a nice ab bench to do it! haha



yes, check Built's signature to get started. Outline your goals (we still dont know what they are). and we can go from there.


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 15, 2009)

fireman said:


> wow....exactly the reason I haven't posted anything on this site in 3 years.


3 years?  Great!  With questions like that why don't you make it another 3 and do us all a freakin' favor! 



Just kidding.   

Sorry if it sounded too much like a smart ass comment but its just how I keep it entertaining.  

You asked and I told you.  You've got other opinions coming, don't take my word for it.  Look at it like this.  I could have said "Woa I have that same one and its awesome!  I can adjust the height and angle to work my abs from all directions. Look at my abs and you can tell why you need it.  I would suggest you buy it immediately so that you'll have one all to yourself and you'll be able to wow your self with amazing ab definition.  "  But I didnt.  And it looks like you're well on your way to saving some money, so....


----------



## fireman (Nov 15, 2009)

Merkaba said:


> 3 years?  Great!  With questions like that why don't you make it another 3 and do us all a freakin' favor!
> Just kidding.
> 
> Sorry if it sounded too much like a smart ass comment but its just how I keep it entertaining.



thanks asshole!  j/k/....thanks for the help, I'm just trying to learn!


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2009)

just stop doing crunches!

what is the point of doing a repetitive flexion exercise that we now know is not healthy for the spine?

patrick


----------



## Phineas (Nov 15, 2009)

P-funk said:


> just stop doing crunches!
> 
> what is the point of doing a repetitive flexion exercise that we now know is not healthy for the spine?
> 
> patrick



P-Funk, do you do any direct ab work?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2009)

Phineas said:


> P-Funk, do you do any direct ab work?



Plank variations
Bridge variations
chop and lift patterns
all my regular exercises

no flexion based movements when it comes to the spine


patrick


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 15, 2009)

I always thought you were suppose to hinge at the hips and not come all the way up? I also thought being at an incline was better as well?


----------



## PushAndPull (Nov 15, 2009)

No hanging leg lifts?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 15, 2009)

Nope, no hanging leg lifts.

patrick


----------



## PushAndPull (Nov 16, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Nope, no hanging leg lifts.
> 
> patrick



Think they're bad for you? Just don't like them? Not necessary?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 16, 2009)

PushAndPull said:


> Think they're bad for you? Just don't like them? Not necessary?



I am not a fan of flexion based exercises as the spine like that.  Even though the spine is not moving in the leg raises, the pelvic position, hip flexor tone, t-spine, and breathing needs to be accounted for, so the exercises doesn't make sense to me from a proram design standpoint.


patrick


----------



## T_man (Nov 16, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I am not a fan of flexion based exercises as the spine like that.  Even though the spine is not moving in the leg raises, the pelvic position, hip flexor tone, t-spine, and breathing needs to be accounted for, so the exercises doesn't make sense to me from a proram design standpoint.
> 
> 
> patrick



What if you do them at the same time as a pullup/chin?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 16, 2009)

T_man said:


> What if you do them at the same time as a pullup/chin?



Like Isometrics?

I just don't see the point in doing this.  How does that address the things I was talking about above?

patrick


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 17, 2009)

P-funk,
Do you have a 6-8 pack?


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 17, 2009)

T_man said:


> What if you do them at the same time as a pullup/chin?



I can't even stand watching people do this crap they got out of a mag or some crap.  Stop!


----------



## T_man (Nov 17, 2009)

Merkaba said:


> I can't even stand watching people do this crap they got out of a mag or some crap.  Stop!



I didn't actually get it from anywhere, infact I thought it was my own ingenous plan. But tbh I find it really hits my abs. Hard. What's wrong about it?

When taking breathing into account, why is that an issue?
And don't you make the same movement, but with one leg at a time when sprinting?


----------



## Gordo (Nov 17, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> P-funk,
> Do you have a 6-8 pack?


Everyone has a 6-pack. Your question belongs in the Diet/Nutrition section


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 17, 2009)

Gordo said:


> Everyone has a 6-pack. Your question belongs in the Diet/Nutrition section


Let me rephrase for the Canadians (no offense Built): Do you have VISIBLE abdominal muscles.


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 17, 2009)

T_man said:


> I didn't actually get it from anywhere, infact I thought it was my own ingenous plan. But tbh I find it really hits my abs. Hard. What's wrong about it?
> 
> When taking breathing into account, why is that an issue?
> And don't you make the same movement, but with one leg at a time when sprinting?




Oh my HEAVENS, you're sprinting!! Don't you keep up with the current studies or even read the news !!?  EVERYTHING has been proven to be bad for you.

Hamstring injuries in sprinting


----------



## fireman (Nov 17, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> P-funk,
> Do you have a 6-8 pack?



bump for an answer on this


----------



## T_man (Nov 17, 2009)

Hoglander said:


> Oh my HEAVENS, you're sprinting!! Don't you keep up with the current studies or even read the news !!?  EVERYTHING has been proven to be bad for you.
> 
> Hamstring injuries in sprinting



I know a guy who died falling down the stairs. Maybe it's safer to jump down instead.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 17, 2009)

T_man said:


> I didn't actually get it from anywhere, infact I thought it was my own ingenous plan. But tbh I find it really hits my abs. Hard. What's wrong about it?
> 
> When taking breathing into account, why is that an issue?
> And don't you make the same movement, but with one leg at a time when sprinting?



If the diaphram doesn't work properly nothing else will.  Breath is everything and is key to turning on the inner unit for adequate movement.

Yes, you do the same thing in sprinting (hip flexion)...but in an asymetrical stance.  So, no, you do not do the same thing in sprinting at all.

Look, this is not my opinion.  This is what the research says.  If you are still doing crunches then you probably need read that research from the past 5 or 6 years.

patrick


----------



## P-funk (Nov 17, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> Let me rephrase for the Canadians (no offense Built): Do you have VISIBLE abdominal muscles.



I have a 10-pack.

And it is functional!  It works and I can use it in dyanmic tasks.

patrick


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 17, 2009)

T_man said:


> I know a guy who died falling down the stairs. Maybe it's safer to jump down instead.



Only if you jump with one leg.


----------



## soxmuscle (Nov 17, 2009)

People are really underestimating the power of the weighted chin-up.

Other than my other compound exercises, I don't normally do ab exercises.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 17, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I have a 10-pack.
> 
> And it is functional!  It works and I can use it in dyanmic tasks.
> 
> patrick


I highly doubt your claim of a 10 pack, (you're more than welcome to prove it, of course) but whatever. I actually agree with most of what you're saying and don't presume to know more about this subject than you, however it seems as though you're taking the research to an extreme. If everyone followed your logic, we may as well just forget about doing any kind of sport, and simply walk around (or maybe just sit, no wait...not sit, that's bending...so just stand) with a spinal/abdominal brace so as to keep us perfectly align. Fact is, many activities require us to make the exact same movement you're condemning.

I think the key is not to avoid the activity altogether as that would only make those muscles weaker, but the research shows that it is the repetitive and excessive repetitions that cause the problems. I'm guessing no movement is good for you that requires hundreds of repetitions to be effective. This is why I agree that crunches and situps are no good, however I do agree with weighted ab work that still requires me to bend at the waist/hips, I just don't make it the core of my workout and I keep my reps very low. I also incorporate your suggested alternatives, and I get plenty of stimulation from the compounds I do, but nothing gets them like direct, properly executed weighted lifts IMO. 

As far as being functional, how many other muscles do you recommend working with mainly static exercises. I get to do all your exercises and then some, so as far dynamic goes, by definition I believe I've got you there. I can lift kids from a burning pit with my legs while hanging from a bar as well as allow women to cross said pit on my back by creating a bridge. You might save the women, but those kids kids are toast if it's only you around to hear their screams.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 17, 2009)

soxmuscle said:


> People are really underestimating the power of the weighted chin-up.
> 
> Other than my other compound exercises, I don't normally do ab exercises.


Which explains why you don't have any front shots without a shirt, but plenty of back. Hey...just sayin'


----------



## soxmuscle (Nov 18, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> Which explains why you don't have any front shots without a shirt, but plenty of back. Hey...just sayin'



I feel no need to "prove you wrong" so to speak, but I've posted plenty of pictures in my journals where I wasn't wearing a shirt or showing my back.

I'm leaner in my stomach and bigger in other places now than I was back in February '08, which is the last batch of pictures I have of myself.

As an ectomorph, my abs are one of my best attributes from a bodybuilding perspective.


----------



## soxmuscle (Nov 18, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> I highly doubt your claim of a 10 pack, (you're more than welcome to prove it, of course) but whatever. I actually agree with most of what you're saying and don't presume to know more about this subject than you, however it seems as though you're taking the research to an extreme. If everyone followed your logic, we may as well just forget about doing any kind of sport, and simply walk around (or maybe just sit, no wait...not sit, that's bending...so just stand) with a spinal/abdominal brace so as to keep us perfectly align. Fact is, many activities require us to make the exact same movement you're condemning.
> 
> I think the key is not to avoid the activity altogether as that would only make those muscles weaker, but the research shows that it is the repetitive and excessive repetitions that cause the problems. I'm guessing no movement is good for you that requires hundreds of repetitions to be effective. This is why I agree that crunches and situps are no good, however I do agree with weighted ab work that still requires me to bend at the waist/hips, I just don't make it the core of my workout and I keep my reps very low. I also incorporate your suggested alternatives, and I get plenty of stimulation from the compounds I do, but nothing gets them like direct, properly executed weighted lifts IMO.
> 
> As far as being functional, how many other muscles do you recommend working with mainly static exercises. I get to do all your exercises and then some, so as far dynamic goes, by definition I believe I've got you there. I can lift kids from a burning pit with my legs while hanging from a bar as well as allow women to cross said pit on my back by creating a bridge. You might save the women, but those kids kids are toast if it's only you around to hear their screams.



You're really missing the point here.


----------



## fireman (Nov 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I have a 10-pack.
> 
> And it is functional!  It works and I can use it in dyanmic tasks.
> 
> patrick



I've got to see this,....post a pic and shut us all up!


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 18, 2009)

Wow, are you people really this daft?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 18, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> I highly doubt your claim of a 10 pack, (you're more than welcome to prove it, of course) but whatever. I actually agree with most of what you're saying and don't presume to know more about this subject than you, however it seems as though you're taking the research to an extreme. If everyone followed your logic, we may as well just forget about doing any kind of sport, and simply walk around (or maybe just sit, no wait...not sit, that's bending...so just stand) with a spinal/abdominal brace so as to keep us perfectly align. Fact is, many activities require us to make the exact same movement you're condemning.
> 
> I think the key is not to avoid the activity altogether as that would only make those muscles weaker, but the research shows that it is the repetitive and excessive repetitions that cause the problems. I'm guessing no movement is good for you that requires hundreds of repetitions to be effective. This is why I agree that crunches and situps are no good, however I do agree with weighted ab work that still requires me to bend at the waist/hips, I just don't make it the core of my workout and I keep my reps very low. I also incorporate your suggested alternatives, and I get plenty of stimulation from the compounds I do, but nothing gets them like direct, properly executed weighted lifts IMO.
> 
> As far as being functional, how many other muscles do you recommend working with mainly static exercises. I get to do all your exercises and then some, so as far dynamic goes, by definition I believe I've got you there. I can lift kids from a burning pit with my legs while hanging from a bar as well as allow women to cross said pit on my back by creating a bridge. You might save the women, but those kids kids are toast if it's only you around to hear their screams.



Obiously in athletic activity, we may get into that movement....But who isn't ready for that movement?  I have not done crunches in years and I can still flex my spine.  Why do we need to train that movement more in the gym and why do we need to load it?  If we are prepared properly, then we can achieve that movement without having to worry about it.  You don't build stability at the expense of optimal mobility.  All joints must have mobility before they can become stable.  You can screen out lumbar mobility with standing toe touch and standing extension.  If those movements are 'clean' I would have reason to believe that flexion shouldn't be a problem, but I don't need to go ahead and perform that movement in a training environment.

Like soxuscle said....chin ups are a great 'core' exericses.  push ups too.

With regard to your second paragraph....why are you even asking me then?  It sounds like you have made up your mind and you are content with your training program.  You certainly don't need me to justify it.  All I did was comment on not doing ab exercises and then people asked a few questions why.  You are welcome to do whatever you want to do in your training program.  I think the issues with things like hanging leg raises are that you can't get great pelvic position and control for the other factors to train what you really think you are training.  I would much rather do the active straight leg lower progression as that trains what you think you are training, in an asymetrical sitatuation (like sprinting, running, walking) and allows you to focus on the other factors to ensure you get the biggest bang for your buck.

patrick


----------



## P-funk (Nov 18, 2009)

With regard to my ab shot....I don't have any pictures.  I don't even care to take any.  I am not a physique competitor or even interested in that type of stuff.

If you don't believe me, I don't care.  You can come down to my facility and we can talk there.  I'll give you a free assessment and we'll see how strong your core muscles really are.  I can garuntee you that I have had people come in who do "tons of core" and can "hold planks for ever", only to have them end the assessment by saying "what happened?  why can't I do any of this?"

patrick


----------



## Gordo (Nov 18, 2009)

soxmuscle said:


> You're really missing the point here.





DB clean and press and db snatches seem to work the core pretty decently. Plus, they're way more fun then endless crunches anyway.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Obiously in athletic activity, we may get into that movement....But who isn't ready for that movement?  I have not done crunches in years and I can still flex my spine.  Why do we need to train that movement more in the gym and why do we need to load it?  If we are prepared properly, then we can achieve that movement without having to worry about it.  You don't build stability at the expense of optimal mobility.  All joints must have mobility before they can become stable.  You can screen out lumbar mobility with standing toe touch and standing extension.  If those movements are 'clean' I would have reason to believe that flexion shouldn't be a problem, but I don't need to go ahead and perform that movement in a training environment.
> 
> Like soxuscle said....chin ups are a great 'core' exericses.  push ups too.
> 
> ...



I don't recall asking you anything other than if you had a six pack. I'm simply disagreeing with the blanket statement of avoiding flexion movements altogether.

I don't have a whole paragraph of scientific research/explanation as to how I've come to my opinion, but simply this:
I've tried the advise (from this board) of eliminating flexion ab work and letting the compounds (weighted pulls/chins, push-ups, overhead/back squats, deads, etc.) and static exercises make up the difference. Did I have a six pack while doing this? Yup, as long as my BF% was low enough. Were they functional during this period. Yup. Were they as prominent, defined and as functional in my particular activities (beach v-ball, b-ball, freeclimbing, mtnbkng, mma), as when I incorporate low rep weighted flexion movements? Not even close.

I've no doubt you could design a physical assessment that I could not complete my first time, just as I'm pretty sure I could design one that I can do that you wouldn't complete, in fact I have a couple movements, that I doubt you could could complete one rep. Big deal. It's all about personal goals.

My point is, regardless of what the OP's goals are in asking his question about the bench, the advice of just "don't do flexion movements" and "avoid all direct ab work" (this one's for others), IMO isn't really optimal.

Oh and thanks for the permission to continue my regiment. I plan to.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

Oh yeah, since I guess you guys missed it the first time, I agree on the crunches.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

IainDaniel said:


> Wow, are you people really this daft?


Sorry,
I'm just not a blind, close minded disciple.


----------



## T_man (Nov 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> If the diaphram doesn't work properly nothing else will.  Breath is everything and is key to turning on the inner unit for adequate movement.
> 
> Yes, you do the same thing in sprinting (hip flexion)...but in an asymetrical stance.  So, no, you do not do the same thing in sprinting at all.
> 
> ...



Im not talking about crunches. They do really disturb my breathing pattern. I'm talking about hanging leg raises in conjunction with a pullup. 

When you breath out, while going up, and you do the leg raise, your diaphragm is relaxed so I don't see how it would affect it. I certainly don't get affected, apart from the usual running short of breath in a pull up motion.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 18, 2009)

T_man said:


> Im not talking about crunches. They do really disturb my breathing pattern. I'm talking about hanging leg raises in conjunction with a pullup.
> 
> When you breath out, while going up, and you do the leg raise, your diaphragm is relaxed so I don't see how it would affect it. I certainly don't get affected, apart from the usual running short of breath in a pull up motion.



If you think you can do them properly and you think they have value in your program then do them.  I am not a fan, but if you can justify your position for doing them then go for it.

I just don't see a lot of people doing things right in the gym.  I went and worked out at LA Fitness last night and 100% of the people there were doing nonsense - waste of time exercises, horrible technique, poor training programs, etc - It is my belief that most people don't know what they are doing.  In fact, there are probably a lot of people on this site who think they know what they are doing, but upon closer inspection, they know very little.  

All I can do (and my whole goal) is to give you the best information that I can based on what research says, empiricoal evidence and my opinion.  When something is my opinion or based on empiricoal evidence, I let you know.  When something is based on scientific research, I also let you know.  I am not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes.  I don't have some strange ajenda. I don't even have a mass of products to sell, so it isn't like this is financially driven!  I am driven and motivated by the fact that I spend my time studying this stuff because it is what I love.  If I can share that with others and help them achieve their goals, then great.  If you don't agree with something I am saying, then fine.  Just have a good reason to do whatever it is you want to do.  If you don't agree with something I am saying when I quoting research, then don't complain to me.  Get on the phone and call or email the researchers and complain to them.  I am merely telling you what their literature says.

patrick


----------



## T_man (Nov 18, 2009)

P-funk said:


> If you think you can do them properly and you think they have value in your program then do them.  I am not a fan, but if you can justify your position for doing them then go for it.
> 
> I just don't see a lot of people doing things right in the gym.  I went and worked out at LA Fitness last night and 100% of the people there were doing nonsense - waste of time exercises, horrible technique, poor training programs, etc - It is my belief that most people don't know what they are doing.  In fact, there are probably a lot of people on this site who think they know what they are doing, but upon closer inspection, they know very little.
> 
> ...



Hey patrick, I'm here to learn. I just wanted to iron out any grey areas. Was just trying to find out if they will actually be harmful to me and for this I have to ask questions. I just want to find something I find comfortable but also I don't want to waste my time, or even worse, endanger my health later in life.

Is the flexion of the spine in such a way detrimental to the health of my spine? I have spine curvature and this is an area that I'm concerned about.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

What literature are you referring to that concludes to avoid all flexion based movements? 
I'm seriously interested, and not just trying to be an a-hole. Thing is, from what I can tell from the small amount I've researched on this subject, the conclusion to eliminate them entirely is an extreme reaction to the research.

Believe it or not, I do value your opinion and appreciate and believe that you are entirely unbiased and selfless in your advice. I have personally benefited from some of your counsel on this board, and for that I thank you. This doesn't change the fact that I disagree with you on this matter, and I know you could care less. I would be curious however to see the material you are drawing your conclusions from if you don't mind, but to be honest, I trust my own real world experience far more than a study of which I had no involvement in, especially when it comes to the fitness industry.


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 18, 2009)

So most if not all at LA Fitness do movements wrong. Lots of people here that think they know better are doing moments wrong. What about the people in the studies?? lol

Anyhow, I guess it's to be expected that sit ups and such would need to be chastised. For years and years retarded ab products have been sold with false claims. Not surprising that research would swing in a direction totally against the common myths of the six pack.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 18, 2009)

T-man: It is the problem with repeated flexion of the spine.  It is the cyclical pattern that we go through many times a day for years (that some of us then want to add into our gym program) that creates the pathological conditions and the wear and tear.

Jbish - The research I am talking about has been conducted by Dr. Stuart McGill at the University of Waterloo.  He has a few books on the subject that highlight his research, as well as offer practical applications.  In addition much of his research has been published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning as well as other sources.  Do you read the journals?  There was actually a study just poublished (not by McGill) in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercises that took military recruits and put half of them in a group who perfored traditional sit up training and the other half in a group that performed stabilization training (bridges, bird dogs, planks, etc).  The groups had the same outcome in the military PT test.  I was going to review the article for my blog one of these days.

Hoglander - I don't even know how to answer your question regarding people in the studies?  Do you know how research is conducted?  It isn't a free-for-all.  They go through a process of teaching appropriate exercise technique for the given exercise prior to the study (a familarization period) and then the researchers ensure that this form is kept during the study.  This is to allow others to replicate the study at a later date to further its validity to the field.  This is just a bunch of people showing up and others watching to see what happens.

patrick


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 18, 2009)

Come on. Take a look at the movements he shows as being wrong. Sure have everyone do those to much.

The Science of Sit-ups: Video Edition! - The Human Condition Blog - Newsweek.com


----------



## P-funk (Nov 18, 2009)

Hoglander said:


> Come on. Take a look at the movements he shows as being wrong. Sure have everyone do those to much.
> 
> The Science of Sit-ups: Video Edition! - The Human Condition Blog - Newsweek.com



What issues do you have with that video?

I thought he explained his exercises well.

I would have personally done ab roll outs instead of the "stir the pot" exercise, but I thought he gave good alternatives to common exercises that people do.

patrick


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 18, 2009)

Another good exercise for abs (I find) is grab some pads and a medicine ball.  Lie down and hold the medicine ball behind your head with your arms extended.  Then, start doing a bicycle motion with your legs.  Do not let your back come off of the pads - you will need to keep your core pretty damn tight all the time to pull that off.  Try to do it for 20-30 seconds, rest, repeat.


----------



## Hoglander (Nov 18, 2009)

Alternatives are fine. I think the video is good as well. I liked it when he genitally put his hands on her, kidding. There is nothing wrong with not doing sit ups. Just don't think they are that "SATANIC," IMHO. 

:  )


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks Patrick, 
That helps to put things in perspective and actually solidifies my opinion on this topic. Here's why:
Near as I can tell, you are getting virtually all of your information from one source (as it all trickles back to Dr. mcgill), who unlike you DOES have an agenda as many sites quoting his studies link to his sales site to buy his media containing his new improved exercises.

Even then, I have have a hard time concluding from his research that he himself is condoning to completely eliminate all flexion motion as he mentions that it all depends on many factors, such as age, current core strength, history of injury as well as form. I can certainly respect the decision to simply suggest to eliminate flexion movements to those asking for advise on this forum as it's impossible to discern some of these factors online, but to conclude that it is optimal is off base IMO.

Here's a link that I found while researching Dr. Mcgill that explains the middle ground better than I've been doing. Hopefully the OP has gotten enough info to make an effective informed decision.
TMUSCLE.com | How to Build a Muscular Midsection


----------



## danzik17 (Nov 18, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> Thanks Patrick,
> That helps to put things in perspective and actually solidifies my opinion on this topic. Here's why:
> Near as I can tell, you are getting virtually all of your information from one source (as it all trickles back to Dr. mcgill), who unlike you DOES have an agenda as many sites quoting his studies link to his sales site to buy his media containing his new improved exercises.
> 
> ...



To me it's a simple question of risk versus reward.

Most of us are not trying to build mass monster olympia physiques, most of us simply want to have an athletic physique.  You don't need to be doing thousands of super heavy weighted crunches to get that, you just need a bit of core work and a good diet.

Near as I can tell, there's only one sport that even consistently makes you repeatedly perform flexion and that's gymnastics (and even then it may not be that particular muscle group doing the work, I'm not an expert).

Why perform exercise(s) that can potentially cause serious issues for at best  marginally better gains than what P-Funk is suggesting?  That and if you never train your trunk for stability, how can you expect it to be stable when you need it to the most?


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 18, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> To me it's a simple question of risk versus reward.
> 
> Most of us are not trying to build mass monster olympia physiques, most of us simply want to have an athletic physique.  You don't need to be doing thousands of super heavy weighted crunches to get that, you just need a bit of core work and a good diet.
> 
> ...



You're funny.
Did you read ANY of my previous posts? First off Who's talking about monster bodybuilding abs. I'm talking about what is the most optimal and effective way to train For BOTH function and physique. Patrick has stated he doesn't care about the latter, and I respect that, however from what I've seen on this board, especially from first timers, he's the minority.

My whole argument is that by NOT performing thousands although not entirely eliminating flexion work, you can achieve better results both in function and and physique. I've never said to not do what Patrick is suggesting for training abs (just the opposite actually), yet I am suggesting to increase the DYNAMIC nature of the routine by incorporating some key movements that done correctly and within proper weight training volumes will IMO not just minimally increase but greatly increase results, without adding any more danger to your spine, than doing a couple sets of heavy presses will do to your elbows, or squats will do to your knees. (there's research out on both these, but I believe we haven't eliminated them entirely).

If you really think Gymnastics is the only sport where this movement is made, you need to start playing more. I've mentioned a few previously, but it's obvious you didn't get that far.

I don't understand how you could assess minimal versus maximal results in this setting as you would need to achieve visible abs to even start to notice a difference at least physique wise, and at higher than 10% BF I'm doubting you've acheived that.


----------



## urbanski (Nov 19, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> P-funk,
> Do you have a 6-8 pack?





fireman said:


> bump for an answer on this



if this is what you're basing whether you believe what patrick says or not....that's pathetic.


----------



## urbanski (Nov 19, 2009)

patrick, it isnt worth it anymore. dont raise your BP


----------



## P-funk (Nov 19, 2009)

Urbanski, my blood pressure is not rising (haha).  I enjoy debate and when it comes to the application of research, there certainly can be a lot of it.

Anyone can read a study and read research and come to their own conclusions.  This is why I encourage others to sit down and read the literature.  jibish8, have you read Dr. McGill's book?  He cites other sources behind his own to show where his thought process came from.  It isn't like he just made it up.  He is the one that is kind of "pushing" the movement, I guess you could say.

Like Danzik said, this is a case of risk vs. reward.

With any exercise, there is a risk vs. reward.  It is not my job to judge anyone on the exercises they choose in their training menu, as you will have a different risk vs. reward than I will and I will have a different risk vs. reward than someone else.

When you look at the literature on flexion of the spine, especially repeated flexion of the spine (as occurs in daily life - lifting things off the floor, moving around, sitting in a desk all day), the question that I then come to is, "why do I need to do more of this in the gym?"  People are always felxing (whether it is right or wrong, or whether it is occuring for other reasons - improper biomechanics, poor hip mobility, etc...).  So, I would rather go and train other factors in the gym, to help develop the muscular in a stabilizing role.

Anyway, to show I am not bias to McGill, here are some studies on repeated or prolonged flexion (IE, sitting in a desk all day)and the spine, and the flexion-relaxation phenomenon (which discusses why this position places us at a greater potential for injury).  You can take this information and do what you want to do with it.  

But, if you are going to argue, please provide some research to support your conclusions.  I have said before, you can do whatever you want in your own training program or your own program with your clients/athletes.  However, you need to fully explain why you are doing something, what purpose it serves and what you have read to come to that conclusion.  




> *Flexion-relaxation response to cyclic lumbar flexion*
> 
> Michael W. Olsonabc, Li Liac, Moshe Solomonowabc
> 
> ...





> *Changes in the flexion relaxation response induced by lumbar muscle fatigue.*
> 
> BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jan 24;9:10.
> 
> ...





> *Repeated spinal flexion modulates the flexion-relaxation phenomenon.*
> 
> Dickey JP, McNorton S, Potvin JR.
> 
> ...





> *An in vivo assessment of the low back response to prolonged flexion: Interplay between active and passive tissues.*
> 
> Shin G, Mirka GA.
> 
> ...



patrick


----------



## T_man (Nov 19, 2009)

Okay I see. But I'd only be doing about 6-8 leg raises in 3 sets so are they really that high risk?

Btw I did like bridges followed by pushups yesterday and my abs are sore :'(


----------



## P-funk (Nov 19, 2009)

T_man said:


> Okay I see. But I'd only be doing about 6-8 leg raises in 3 sets so are they really that high risk?



My crystal ball isn't working to well these days...lol


Honestly, I don't know.  That is for you to decide.  Remember, you have your own risk vs. reward, and that will be different than mine.  To me, the object of training in the gym is to not get injured.  Rather, it is to make you better (more healthy, etc).  If you are in the gym creating the mechanism of injury (that mechanism has been shown in research over and over - as flexion is typically when disc herniation happens), why would you want to load that pattern?

But again, it is your program.  I am just giving you my views on how I apply that research.

patrick


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 19, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I have said before, you can do whatever you want in your own training program or your own program with your clients/athletes.  However, you need to fully explain why you are doing something, what purpose it serves and what you have read to come to that conclusion.
> 
> patrick



I thought I had done this. But here goes again.

I believe that by incorporating SOME low rep flexion based movements into an overall routine that is sufficient in core stability movements, and with an individual that has sufficient core strength to complete said movements with proper form, that one can increase a NOTICEABLE amount of improvement in both athletic function as well as physique. I want increased athletic function and I DO like improving my physique. I believe that explains the purpose and the reason I'm doing it

Now for how I came to this conclusion:
I TRIED the advise given by you, and others on this subject for a few months first by eliminating ab work altogether and then to only do plank/bridge variations and rotational movements. Prior to this I was doing higher rep flexion movements and minimal stability exercises. For the past few years now, I have maintained a BF% of between 6-8%, and prior to adhering to said advise I had achieved a relatively decent midsection a secondary goal to my primary one of enhancing my athletic ability so as to perform better in my selected athletic activities. While doing NO ab movements, other than maintaining a base training routine of compounds with free weights (Squat var., press var. and dead and row var.), I noticed a decrease in abdominal definition and prominence as well as decreased athletic function in some of my athletic activities. After incorporating the stability and rotational movements prescribed by you and others, I noticed virtually NO improvement in abdominal definition and prominence however did notice a marked improvement in athletic function. After including some low rep weighted flexion movements, to the current stability and rotational exercises, I quickly noticed an improvement in abdominal definition and prominence as well as increased athletic ability (specifically in rock climbing, MMA, and vertical jumping). I should note that I am anally tedious in monitoring all my progress and have defended that practice on this board as well, but I'm not claiming the impossibility of there being other factors that affected my results rather the improbability.

Is this a controlled conclusive study? Nope. Should anyone put more stock in this than one "no name dudes experience on a bodybuilding forum"? Nope.
My whole goal to even get involved with this thread, was to give an alternate view to others who may be listening to advise on this particular subject that IMO is not entirely accurate, so as not to make the same mistakes I made, or at least be able to make a more informed decision than I was privy to. 

Now as to what I've read to come to this conclusion, it is very little, as I don't need google (or even the journals) to tell me what my results are when my own body says different. However within the past couple days I have read some studies (including the ones above) thanks to you that have made my decision to continue that much more solid. Here's why:
So far every study you've produced so far, no matter if it's own claim happens to be "reputable", "experimental" or "hypothetical" has only shown one thing as far as I can tell, and that is that prolonged, repetitive, flexion movements MAY lead to problems. I have never once in this thread (nor any other) advised to do this (just the opposite), so why do you insist on loading me with your endless studies about something that we agree on? There's millions of things that are healthy in moderation but detrimental when taken to extremes (except for sex....oh wait... dehydration).

I also READ this directly from your blog and you explain it far better than I could so I hope it's ok to quote you.


> I operate under the idea that once the individual establishes or re-gains that awareness/understanding and can function properly in that static environment, it is time to get them up and start preparing them for challenges that they will face in the real-world or on the field of play.  This is especially important considering that posture in sports is not static.  It is dynamic!  Muscles need to relax and contract at the correct times in order to achieve the desired movement, with the desired amount of force and at the appropriate speed.


This also solidifies my opinion.

Look, I know your not going to change your view at this point and after my said experience, I'm happy with what I'm doing. I believe the OP has enough info to make an informed decision about his ab bench, so unless you have something new to add, other than your many studies, I think I'm done here. Gotta get to the gym to work the abs.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 19, 2009)

urbanski said:


> if this is what you're basing whether you believe what patrick says or not....that's pathetic.


If it makes you feel better, I have also never bought a Richard Simmons video on how to workout.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 19, 2009)

Can you provide research to back up what you feel to be true?

That is what I am saying.  We can argue about n = 1 all day.  What have you read that brought you to this opinion, besides the "it works for me" argument?

If the advice is not that acurate, then post some more acurate resources (besides an article from t-nation, which is not a peer-reviewed source).

Every study concludes with words like MAY or POSSIBLE.  Researchers never give you a straight answer because they are always looking for more data.  Very few things are scientific truth, but rather theories.  After a certain period of time, when things are looked at long enough and the same studies are carried out time and time again, researchers start to build conclusive evidence, but they never say "this is what it is".  That is not how the mind works in academia.

You could say that some who do crunches MAY never have back problems and some who do crunches MAY have back problems.  There are outliers all the time.

All I am giving you is the science that supports my contention and the biomechanics that tell us - THIS IS THE MECHANISM OF INJURY.

So, if we don't overaload the mechanism of injury, then the statistics are more in our favor that we will not get a disc pathology.  Is that hard to understand?

I am fine with you doing what you want in your work outs.  I am fine with you offering a different opinion....but you need to back that opinion up with something other than "works for me."

I have nothing more to add.  People can make the decisions they want....It shouldn't be hard since only one of us provided actual scientific evidence to back up our points.  

patrick


----------



## fireman (Nov 19, 2009)

urbanski said:


> if this is what you're basing whether you believe what patrick says or not....that's pathetic.



As for P-funk having a 6 pack or not, I don't care either way. I certainly wasn't trying to knock him, I really appreciate his honest & knowledge based answers.


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 19, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Can you provide research to back up what you feel to be true? *No, and neither have you.*
> 
> That is what I am saying.  We can argue about n = 1 all day.  What have you read that brought you to this opinion, besides the "it works for me" argument?*At least I have that.*
> 
> ...



Jbish


----------



## P-funk (Nov 19, 2009)

You say there are hundreds of studies yet you haven't posted any.  If there are studies that conclude what you are saying, please post them!  I am ready to change!  You have to convince me though.  I am not so head strong in my ways that I am not open to change.  But, I need to be convinced, as so far those on the other side of the fence have not got me convinced.

What back squat research are you referring to?  Could you post that too?

The important thing about volume (as you noted) is that we do flex all day.  That is the argument against doing it in the gym.  Some other things:

*“The margin of safety is much larger in the compressive mode than in the shear mode since the spine can safely tolerate well over 10 kN in compression, but 1000N of shear causes injury with cyclic loading.” (McGill, pg. 102)*

*“A fully flexed spine is 20-40% weaker than one in a neutral position.” (Gunning, Callaghan, McGill. 2001. pg, 103)*

*“Esola and associates report that subjects with low back pain move more in the lumbar spine than at the hips during the 30-60 degree phase of forward bending.” (Sahrmann, pg. 59)
*

and finally....

*"Norman and colleagues' 1998 study showed a joint shear to be very important as a metric for risk of injury of auto plant workers, particularly cumulative shear (high repetitions of subfailure shear loads) over a work day" (Low back Disorders : Evidenced based Prevention and Rehabilitation pg. 102)*

It is cumulative load over an entire day of sitting or flexing and lifting with the spine.  Why would you want to then go to the gym and train this pattern some more (or even load it)?

patrick


----------



## P-funk (Nov 19, 2009)

Also, the fact that you called me arrogant shows how little you know of me.  I have met several people on this site and I don't think they would describe me as arrogant.  I am eager to learn and I am eager to talk and discuss shop.

If this is going to turn into personal attacks, then I will bow out of the discussion right now because I am not interested in acting unprofessionally. In addition, you are a total stranger to me and I to you, so I cannot comment on your character and do not wish to get into a pissing match.

patrick


----------



## jbish8 (Nov 19, 2009)

P-funk said:


> You say there are hundreds of studies yet you haven't posted any.  If there are studies that conclude what you are saying, please post them!  I am ready to change!  You have to convince me though.  I am not so head strong in my ways that I am not open to change.  But, I need to be convinced, as so far those on the other side of the fence have not got me convinced.
> 
> What back squat research are you referring to?  Could you post that too?
> 
> ...



Are you really questioning that there are studies showing certain things to be healthy in moderation yet detrimental in excess, or did you just miss my point? If the former, let me give you ONE example: WEIGHT TRAINING. I believe your familiar with this subject and can find plenty of studies as to the effects of overtraining on your own (I'm betting you've written a few). If you want more, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Look, I don't know how to say this any clearer. I don't have any studies backing up my OPINION that by adding a low volume of flexion movements will not significantly increase my chances of back problems.

I do understand how you have come to your OPINION that adding them will
increase the chances, I simply don't agree with your logic.

I don't believe that you have provided ANY studies that allow me to make the same conclusion as you have, as everything you've provided was studying situations where volume was MUCH higher than I'm suggesting.

Based on the fact that in health and fitness (and life for that matter), volume is a very important variable as to whether or not something is healthy and/or safe, I can simply not come to the same conclusion you are from studies testing entirely different volumes simply because the movement is the same, especially when I have tested both for myself and found one method to be superior in reaching my goals without any perceived ill effects.

If I succumb to that logic, I would literally have to stop weight training and physical activity of any kind altogether and only eat things I grew, oh and never leave my home. 

As far as your latest ammunition that the spine is weaker when flexed, you'll get no argument from me there, just like the elbow and knee is is weaker when flexed. We still weight them, quite heavily I might add, with great results and minimal injury as long as the setting and subject is sufficiently prepared and capable.

I'm really tired of repeating and rereading the same arguments, and I feel as though I've accomplished what I intended to when I started in on this discussion, which was NOT to try to convince you of anything. At this point, I believe the only way you would change your opinion is if old Doc. McGill put his arm around ya and whispered in your ear "Cool down...it's ok to bend over, just don't overdo it."

I apologize for implying that you're arrogant, but repeatedly assuming that I'm here for your approval while I repeatedly state that I'm not happens to come across as such to me. I really do respect your opinion and admire your dedication to your field, so much so that I've incorporated much of yours and others advice here into my own routines. Does that mean I will blindly follow every bit of advice you give like some here? Nope, not if it's not working for me. But if there's one thing I've learned here. What works for some may not work for others as we are all different and there's more than one way to get results. I am perfectly content to agree to disagree.


----------



## gtbmed (Nov 20, 2009)

You acknowledge that the spine is weaker in this position, so your recommendation is to load it with heavy weights and do exercises which put it in such a position?  That doesn't sound very good to me.

Your argument, in the end, falls on n=1.  You make a claim that they are not detrimental - you have burden of proof and your proof is not very convincing.

Also, how did you measure that your athletic performance declined when you stopped doing weighted flexion exercises?  Also, did you control all of the other variables in your life?  Doesn't seem like a very sound way to draw a conclusion.


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 20, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> I don't have any studies backing up my OPINION that by adding a low volume of flexion movements will not significantly increase my chances of back problems.



Then it doesn't matter how clearly or forcefully you outline your argument.

If you took 100 smokers and followed them for the rest of their lives, not all of them will get lung cancer, but theres no doubt they are more at risk than non-smokers.

This is the same deal. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but unless you can move on from opinions to research you're gonna get called out. You may be fine with that, but don't act so surprised.

If you weren't here for approval you wouldn't still be arguing this point, man.


----------



## urbanski (Nov 20, 2009)

hey Patrick, you can't convince the abercrombie model 6-pack crowd that anything other than 5000 crunches a day (in addition to curls and bench) is dumb. they won't hear it. now...for those of us who desire hypertrophy and strength, now that's the crowd that understands you.


----------

