Is it bad to do sit ups with weights?
i was thinking, like, crossing my arms, and holding 20lbs
i was thinking, like, crossing my arms, and holding 20lbs
sit ups with weights
- Thread starter michaelwoodcock
- Start date
i know they may not be the best, i do a huge combination, varying each day
including
tail bone lifts(lowe abs)
crunches(upper abs)
oblique crunches (obliques, not abs)
reach throughs
leg lifts (lower abs)
sit ups (upper abs)
and, just wanted to know if weighted sit ups were good or bad, inefective, etc.
including
tail bone lifts(lowe abs)
crunches(upper abs)
oblique crunches (obliques, not abs)
reach throughs
leg lifts (lower abs)
sit ups (upper abs)
and, just wanted to know if weighted sit ups were good or bad, inefective, etc.
Heres a good article. Gonna try the weighted leg raises.
Bodybuilding.com - Shawn LeBrun - 3 Keys To Killer Abs
Bodybuilding.com - Shawn LeBrun - 3 Keys To Killer Abs
Your going to get various opinions on situps. I have done some experiments on myself to get an idea of the torso isolation.
What I have learned is, when you begin to LIFT the upper body at the beginning, you ever notice the abs FRONT UP (its hard to explain) or sort flex flat, at the first part. As you go toward the knees (with knees bent), one can feel the hip flexors become more involved. They (at least with me) act more as stabalizers and do contract albeit a bit different, than say the crunch.
With that said, is the reason I do half-ups with weights with what I call "keep tension on par" at that level. And yes they do work the abs contrary to current views. I think the most damaging thing about situps can be lower back, pelvis, and the use of the hip flexors, and a bit LESS isolation than say the crunch (but the crunch over time, can TOO become a burden in progression even with static holds, unless weight progression is applied)
I believe the most misunderstood exercise in addition to not even being in the same "Breath" when one is asking about working the abs AND Torso, is the SQUAT. If I had to choose ONE exercise above ALL others, if I had no time, it would this. I despise it and hate it, but love it at the same time, if one understands.
What I have learned is, when you begin to LIFT the upper body at the beginning, you ever notice the abs FRONT UP (its hard to explain) or sort flex flat, at the first part. As you go toward the knees (with knees bent), one can feel the hip flexors become more involved. They (at least with me) act more as stabalizers and do contract albeit a bit different, than say the crunch.
With that said, is the reason I do half-ups with weights with what I call "keep tension on par" at that level. And yes they do work the abs contrary to current views. I think the most damaging thing about situps can be lower back, pelvis, and the use of the hip flexors, and a bit LESS isolation than say the crunch (but the crunch over time, can TOO become a burden in progression even with static holds, unless weight progression is applied)
I believe the most misunderstood exercise in addition to not even being in the same "Breath" when one is asking about working the abs AND Torso, is the SQUAT. If I had to choose ONE exercise above ALL others, if I had no time, it would this. I despise it and hate it, but love it at the same time, if one understands.
Best thing ever invented I reckon. Today I was doing doing situps on an inverted situp bench of sorts with a 10kg weight.
It's only logical if you think about it. Once you can do many situps, there's little or no benefit in doing any more or the same amount, you need to put some weight on your chest while doing them, that will put greater stress on your abs and will make them stronger, naturally.
And yes, I agree with goergen1, if you do them properly, situps are very good.
Hell, if I look at my abs now compared to half a year ago, they are MUCH stronger, and noticeably bigger. And I didn't get here by not doing situps, so to say it's not good for ab workouts is a statement I refuse to accept.
So long as you bring your upper body up no more than 30 degrees from horizontal ( to minimize the involvement of your hip flexors) , don't anchor your feet, and do the sit-up slow enough to avoid issues of monentum, I suppose sit-ups can be of ' some ' benefit. The question is probably more about whether sit-ups are an ' optimal ' way to train abs.
That said, if the idea is to minimize the extent to which your hip flexors are used in any contraction ( upward ) of your upper body, I'd opt for a crunch instead of a sit-up every time. Better still, opt for a crunch on stability ball, which some suggest, is even better than a floor crunch.
And on adding weights to an ab session - I can see how it can have some benefit if you want to fatigue at much lower rep volumes. When I was younger, I used plates when doing crunches for many years.
Why would minimizing the involvement of the hip flexors be a bad idea?
The body needs to be trained as a unit. Hip flexors are part of the core, and should be trained with the core.
By using the hip flexors a situation is created where the abdominal muscles are required to increase tension in order to stabilize the spine. Which is a good thing.
Using the hip flexors as a stabilizing muscle during different types of sit ups allows for an increase in the use of weight, which will increase the demand for the abdominal muscle.
The Psoas attaches on all of the lumbar vertebrae and the top thorasic vertebrae. Again, it is utilized to stabilize the spine. So really there is no way to strengthen the core without using the hip flexors to a certain extent. Crunch, sit-ups, leg raises, it does not matter.
The straight answer would be that abdominal training will include hip flexor training.
With an incline bench, I do about...probably around 80 degrees a rep at least.
What exactly do you mean about 'anchor your feet' ?
I suspect you know more about anatomy than I do - but here's my ' layman's ' understanding of how to ' optimize' ab work- as it pertains to the muscles involved in sit-ups and crunches.
My understanding is that the rectus abdominus has - as among it's primary purposes - moving or contracting your upper torso foward, or ' up ' and forward from a horizontal position. In other words, it draws the trunk area ( chest / rib cage ) foward toward your pelvis.
You lie on your back ( usually on a floor ) for both a sit-up and a crunch.
Once on your back, that rectus abdominus muscle will contract to slowly draw your torso upward. My understanding is that up until a point of 30 degrees or so from being horizontal on the floor, the bulk on this movement is being done by that rectus abdominus muscle. Once you get beyond that point of 30 degrees or so from horizontal, it is mostly your hip flexors that take over to bring your torso foward beyond 30 degrees - which is what happens in most sit-ups I've seen. And, that is why I said " the question is probably more about whether sit-ups are an ' optimal ' way to train abs ". Sit-ups may involve your rectus abdominus to some degree even if done beyond 30 degrees , but there may simply be other more ' optimal ' ways to target that muscle - i.e a crunch.
So, if your goal is to isolate the rectus abdominus for adaptation, the most ' opitmal ' way to go about it is to have the rectus abdominus carry do most of the work in a given exercise. In other words, the ' optimal ' approach is to choose exercises that maximize the involvement of the rectus abdominus and minimizes the involvement of the hip flexors.
Not saying it wont, but if the goal is to isolate your rectus abdominus, you want to try exercises where the rectus abdominus is the prime mover during most ( if not all ) of the exercise - and not the hip flexors. That's all I meant.
Last edited: