If you're still doing crunches, watch this Stuart McGill Video

[lisarah]

Very informative video -thanks for posting this to share!

[Sue B]

Originally Posted by Yogadad

Hi Gina,

There definitely are still too many videos crunching away!

Even Mark Verstegen, who is a hero of mine, has some Swiss ball crunches in his programs, he also has planks and side planks (I'm referring to his Core Performance Essentials book/dvds, which are great overall), but those crunches are shockingly there.

His very latest, Core Performance for Women, is not only crunch-free but also eliminates the stability ball entirely, which I was really surprised to see, but it's good to know that he keeps up with the latest research. Instead of ball exercises, the pillar prep stages contain planks, bridges and foam roller exercises.

[Yogadad]

Originally Posted by kitty12

From his video I would think he wouldn't like any sort of posture that flexes the spine. For example many yoga type poses such as spinal twists or cobra. I take some of these things with a grain of salt. Many times injuries are related to poor posture during the poses. There are so many different exercises that make the rounds as being bad for a while and then sometimes they are good again - pushups for example. For me variety is what is important. I work my core in all different ways including the examples in the video. Well, the first example wouldn't do much of anything for me so not that one.

I know a few people that would say that Core Fusion type core exercise has really helped their back. I know it has me. But would clearly be something that McGill wouldn't recommend. I have found that through the variety I use, including yoga type work to promote flexibility that my SIJ rotation has stabilized now and I rarely have lower back pain.

The other thing I would be curious about is how many other experts support McGills idea that you should never do crunches, even in a balanced workout.

Hi Kitty,

Well as a fitness professional, I know that most of the people in the field that I respect and learn from take McGill's recommendations. There is a great debate on the Strength Coach Podcast with Mike Boyle (one of the top strength coaches in the world), Charlie Weingroff (physical therapist/trainer) and Nick Tumminello (top strength coach) regarding this issue (you can also access this via Itunes, free subscription):

http://strengthcoachpodcast.typepad....h-podcast.html

In fact, it's not all "crunch bashing" because Nick Tumminello actually argues the other side of the issue regarding spinal flexion (though he doesn't recommend doing it a lot). It's a VERY interesting and heavily detailed debate.

Also, I did want to clarify that Cobra is spinal extension not flexion. It doesn't pinch down on the front of the disc the way spinal flexion would.

I had cervical spine surgery several years ago from injuries I sustained in a car wreck and when I was speaking to the Physical therapist a month later she explained that the front of the annulus is weaker and more likely to rupture.

I am a huge Yoga fan but there are many things in Yoga that are plain unhealthy (and I do Yoga daily).

For example, some of the legs behind head postures that are "advanced" poses really create hyper mobility that really has no usefulness and in fact could create plastic deformation in the connective tissue that can create a loss of critical stability (overstretching ligaments).

I know that most people aren't sticking their leg behind their head, but Yoga, like any other discipline has many wonderful things and many things that are best avoided.

McGill's research is pretty thorough and it's something he has devoted his life to studying so I take it pretty seriously. He's not basing his views on opinion but rather from detailed study. It's important to note that he isn't just some academic based on theory but based on hands on research with patients, many of them world class athletes who had nowhere else to turn.


Go to this link by Mark Young and you will get a more graphic representation of the spine and it's actions. He uses a pig spine, but apparently it is supposed to be very similar in function to a human spine. Granted Pigs are on all fours and would be subjected to different forces (I guess they refer to them as force vectors, something I am not educated about to be honest), but still the ranges of motion of the various segments is supposed to be pretty close to humans.

http://markyoungtrainingsystems.com/tag/spine-injury/

Still, I appreciate your opinion of this subject, it is a very interesting topic!

Best,

Scott

[Yogadad]

I wanted to put my money where my mouth in terms of showing that crunches aren't necessary to get pretty good development.

Here's a recent progress pic from June and while I'm not ripped like a Tony Horton (nor do I have his genetics), I feel pretty happy with my "abs" (for a 50 year old guy) and this is without doing crunches (or very rarely, but I do a modified version which has no lumbar flexion).

[Yogadad]

Originally Posted by Sue B

His very latest, Core Performance for Women, is not only crunch-free but also eliminates the stability ball entirely, which I was really surprised to see, but it's good to know that he keeps up with the latest research. Instead of ball exercises, the pillar prep stages contain planks, bridges and foam roller exercises.

Hi Sue, I'm glad to hear that he went "crunchless" on the new book!

He's had other things, such as the "scorpion" which was in the first core performance book which he has pretty much abandoned.

Take care and thanks for sharing that info!

Best,

Scott

[kitty12]

Yeah, I understand that cobra is the other way. I did already read some of the debate you mentioned. I know the sports medicine therapy group I recently worked on related to my knee still includes crunch type work in their recommendations, but also includes planks, etc. I just think a balanced approach is what is really important.

I also saw a debate that mentioned that research on pigs wouldn't be very valuable for humans as their spine is completely different. Seeing that they walk on all 4's and their overall spinal shape is different I can see that argument.

[Yogadad]

Originally Posted by kitty12

Yeah, I understand that cobra is the other way. I did already read some of the debate you mentioned. I know the sports medicine therapy group I recently worked on related to my knee still includes crunch type work in their recommendations, but also includes planks, etc. I just think a balanced approach is what is really important.

I also saw a debate that mentioned that research on pigs wouldn't be very valuable for humans as their spine is completely different. Seeing that they walk on all 4's and their overall spinal shape is different I can see that argument.

Hi Kitty,

Re: the pigs spine, I think the basic architecture may be similar and the basic range of motion.

I found this explanation: "Similarities in the morphology of human and porcine spine have been shown in many histologic and biomechanical investigations". I also read where there are some definitely differences as well. It appears the pig's spine has a little more ROM, which would in my view mean that a human spine would be even more vulnerable in lumbar flexion (but I'm not a biomechanist myself so I have to rely on the research of people who are ).

In any case, a "balanced" approach doesn't necessarily mean one should include exercises that may present an unnecessary risk vrs reward if one can reach their goals in other ways.

I'm not trying to convince you specifically not to crunch, that is entirely a personal choice, but I think people should be aware that loaded spinal flexion is probably not the best idea. Even a crunch is loaded flexion because of the weight of the torso.

With my personal training clients I would feel irresponsible programming an exercise that most current research points to as presenting a risk that I can't justify.

That being said, if a client INSISTS on crunching even after I have given them the info, then I will try to show them the way to do it with the least amount of risk (McGill's version is preferred but I may also show them a more traditional way if they insist). BUT I would first try to talk them out of it!

Take care,

Scott

[kitty12]

This is interesting:
http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/06/17/d...-help-or-hurt/


http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...bexercises.pdf
The last one highlights one thing on terminology. I would consider all of the exercises in it to be variations of the crunch.

[Yogadad]

Originally Posted by kitty12

This is interesting:
http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/06/17/d...-help-or-hurt/


http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...bexercises.pdf
The last one highlights one thing on terminology. I would consider all of the exercises in it to be variations of the crunch.

Kitty, The ACE article which they refer to (and I'm ACE certified by the way) is from 2001, not current. Even though McGill's research may have been out by then it was probably not as well known.

Interestingly I purchased the new ACE manual and materials for the 4th edition, just to keep up to date with things.

In the materials is a dvd and on the dvd they actually show a crunch.

I wrote to ACE about this and asked "Why did you invoke McGill's name in one part of the dvd and show crunches in another part of it?" I further asked "Was this because you felt that clients were going to want to do crunches so you felt it was better to at least show them the best way to do them if they were going to do them anyway?"

They said that they originally did not want to have crunches on the dvd but then they realized that clients were often going to insist on them and that is why they decided to include them so that at least they could show them the least dangerous way to do them. Still they would have ideally preferred to have left them out completely!


People can ALWAYS find ways to support their point of view, but to me it's always a matter of weighing risk versus reward.

If you want to crunch that's totally fine, but I work with clients who trust me to act in their best interest and my first rule of thumb is "Do no harm".

So even if there's a chance that McGill could be wrong, I wouldn't risk intentionally putting my client's in a situation that I could easily avoid and yet give them safer alternatives.

From a purely aesthetic perspective, I have had the same results for my own physique and I've barely done any crunches for quite a while. My clients have great results as well and 99 percent of them don't crunch (in fact none of my current clients are doing any crunching at all, I've had some in the past who insisted so I did my best to help them do it in the safest way possible).

If one wants to create some gentle movement in their spine, they can do Cat-Cows (aka Cat-Camels) from Yoga which is unloaded flexion and I use this with everyone, but it's about the only movement like this I do and I stress thoracic movement more than lumbar.

Best,

Scott

[videofit]

I've been doing the McGill crunch but modifying it by holding one hand under my lower back and one under my head because otherwise it stresses my neck,which is what happens in crunches. Do you think my form is wrong if I need to hold my head?

I've also been doing straight planks. I really don't want to buy a stability ball because it takes up too much space. Can I get the benefit of those rolling planks another way or would my continuing with straight planks be fine? I do them on forearms and throw in the knee drops, alterate and together, for variety.

I don't like oblique twists so I've always done the side planks but with my wonky shoulder, it was a good reminder to hold the shoulder.