Thoughts on this Ab Bench?

[T_man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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. Better give up squats then, or haven't you read the research.

All I am giving you is the science that supports my contention and the biomechanics that tell us - THIS IS THE MECHANISM OF INJURY. while leaving out one important variable, VOLUME.

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? Not for me. If you haven't got it yet, my entire contention with you, is HOW your interpreting the research. There are literally hundreds of subjects with hundreds of studies showing said subject can be healthy in moderation yet detrimental in excess. This is one such subject and not one of your studies refutes this nor confirms it. You are taking an extreme and knee jerk reaction to studies that are not concluding what you are saying. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

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 don't care what you are fine with nor do I care what you feel I need to have in order to state an opinion that contradicts yours. I have stated my reason for posting and it's not for your approval. Your arrogance is humorous.

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. Finally.

patrick

Jbish

 

[P-funk]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.