Likely because it involves ab flexion, the latest boogeyman of the functional fitness craze.
It's a good exercise, as are many ab flexion exercises except for situps and the usual crunch, and it might make a good addition to your program. It was popular in the past because it really works the abs like crazy and there's nothing wrong with that.
Ab flexion is being blamed for hurting people's backs because too many newbies don't train the lower back and then do too many situps and/or crunches. Instead of just training up the lower back and avoiding bad exercises (like situps) the dogma has become "all ab flexion is bad" or non-functional. It's crazy.
Train planks, do bird-dogs, train up the lower back, and be smart about the ab flexion exercises you do and you'll be fine. No reason to avoid ab flexion in a well-rounded program IMO.
Why do people still talk in bodybuilding language about "working" the abs?
Feeling a muscle "burn" doesn't mean anything - look at all the bros or group fitness people doing curls and 10 kinds of crunches for days who don't have shit to show for it.
Crunches might not injure you, but by this point it's safe to say they won't help either.
If you want lean, well defined abs then no amount of torso flexion will help you. I've trainer a lot of people that have gotten lean midsections who have never done a single crunch.
If you want a back less prone to injury then crunches will likely get you further from your goal. Dr. McGill knows a thing or two about abz (wink) and states that bracing activates core musculature best.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Ab flexion is being blamed for hurting people's backs because too many newbies don't train the lower back and then do too many situps and/or crunches. Instead of just training up the lower back and avoiding bad exercises (like situps) the dogma has become "all ab flexion is bad" or non-functional. It's crazy.
Train planks, do bird-dogs, train up the lower back, and be smart about the ab flexion exercises you do and you'll be fine. No reason to avoid ab flexion in a well-rounded program IMO.
As said, reverse crunches are great.
A couple of comments;
1. (and this pertains to your first post) although there are "faddish" elements to avoiding certain movements in the name of "function" the potential deleterious effects of spinal flexion/rotation are very real. McGill cautions against them - especially in flexion intolerant individuals.
2. While there may be no valid reason to avoid flexion/twisting movements for certain people, we have to look at the risk/benefit ratio. Is there a compelling reason to include them - even though this movement can promote disc herniation?
3. What's the difference between sit-ups (bad) and bicycles (not bad)? How are you making this discernment? Are you talking about full sit-ups?Both sit-ups and bcycles involve trunk flexion and can are equally capable of causing herniation.
4. I agree that more noobs may be prone to this type of injury for doing too much too soon, but it sounds like you think eschewing flexion is some kind of unsubstantiated fad.
I don't necessarily think that all flexion needs to be avoided either, but they need to be used judiciously (based on individual needs/mechanics/injury history/movement screen results) and properly executed (short range to coincide with the architecture of the abdominals and the potential bulging/herniation concerns of the intervertebral discs).
Most importantly - what will you stand to benefit from including bicycles over and above other core exercises that are more anti-rotary and otherwise isometric and stabilization-based?
I don't necessarily think that all flexion needs to be avoided either, but they need to be used judiciously (based on individual needs/mechanics/injury history/movement screen results) and properly executed (short range to coincide with the architecture of the abdominals and the potential bulging/herniation concerns of the intervertebral discs).
Then you basically agree with me. Great. That's pretty much what I'm saying. The rest is trivia.
Quote:
Most importantly - what will you stand to benefit from including bicycles over and above other core exercises that are more anti-rotary and otherwise isometric and stabilization-based?
The ability to get up off the floor in a stronger, faster fashion?
Yes, i do think that the current anti-flexion trend is just that -- a trend. Or maybe fetish is better. It's gone too far.
As part of a WELL-ROUNDED program with rotation, anti-rotation, planks, etc. included, SOME flexion exercises are okay.
BTW, I would replace bicycles with reverse crunches and hanging leg raises. Both are ab flexion exercises and both are pretty good.
Then you basically agree with me. Great. That's pretty much what I'm saying. The rest is trivia.
The ability to get up off the floor in a stronger, faster fashion?
Yes, i do think that the current anti-flexion trend is just that -- a trend. Or maybe fetish is better. It's gone too far.
As part of a WELL-ROUNDED program with rotation, anti-rotation, planks, etc. included, SOME flexion exercises are okay.
BTW, I would replace bicycles with reverse crunches and hanging leg raises. Both are ab flexion exercises and both are pretty good.
Yeah, we're probably not as far away philosophy-wise as I first suspected. I don't agree that avoiding flexion is a "fad" or "fettish" though as there is a cogent argument to be made against them.
I don't think their inclusion would necessarily be warranted even if they were performing all the other movements you mentioned. Even if someone weren't flexion intolerant - most of the clients I see have poor hip mobility and compensitory excessive lumbopelvic mobility. For these individuals (they are many) I don't think that potential risk outweighs the benefit of possibly being able to get up faster.
While reverse cruches can impart some flexion, the ROM is generally very small and hence not as much of a comprimise as the bicycle. Hanging leg raises can and should be performed in neutral. Plus the back rest prevents going into any flexion.
You can perform more stabilization-based exercises;
- Side plank
- front plank
- prayers
- barbell rollouts
- pallof press
- hanging leg raise
And multiple variations of each of those. Add to that more dynamic movements such as landmines, med ball slams, zercher/front squats, Turkish getups, renegade rows, jacknifes etc...
You could do a different exercise each day for year and not run out of movements that don't increase lumbar compression while in flexion.
And finally, Doug, if you want abs then hit the nutrition forum and implement a good eating plan.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Been thinking of getting into these.. Getting a decent ab-roller..
What would be a good ab-roller, btw?
A barbell works! But be careful. The first time I did them I hurt my back. You need to tighten the living hell out of your core to avoid over extending your spine. It's not super difficult. It's just that you need to be aware of it.
I'm told you have to really go slow, progression wise, so you don't hurt yourself..
I should PM Lost Dog, see what ab roller he's holding in his avatar..
I'll probably start with a ball, and work up to an ab roller..
A good plan! A prayer exercise with a ball is a good option - you don't even need to push the the arms out (shoulder flexion) too far - just be sure your knees/hips/shoulders are in line and you are focusing on bracing.
Bicycle crunches
Linear Mode
