"Lengendary Abs" and abdominal strengthening

[Dean]

Hello. I was reading some of the posts about 500 situps and I had a question about this. I've been following the exercise regiments delineated in the routines in the "Legendary Abs" books (Health For Life). They dissuade people from doing sit ups. I quote:

"Here's the rule to know: If you lie on your back with your legs extended, your abs have the capacity to raise your shoulders about 30 [degrees] off the floor. No further. Any exercise that involves movement beyond that 30 [degree] range involves muscles other than the abs (emphasis theirs).

Is it necessarily bad to involve other muscles? In this case, yes. These other muscles, the psoas magnus and psoas parvus, run from the front of the legs, up through the pelvis, and attach to the lowest six spinal verebrae. They pull your trunk toward your legs, as do your abs. But unlike the abs, their range of motion is huge....the psoas tug at the lower spine. That tug doesn't do much harm as long as the abs remain strong enough to prevent the back from arching. But unfortunately, even if you're in great shape, the abs tire fairly quickly, allowing your back to arch. This causes the vertebrae around the psoas' attachment to grind together. And in a decade or so you may be stuck with permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration"

Given this, rather than doing 500 situps to get the abdominal strength one one need for full contact sparring, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to supplement the sit up with the exercises given in the Legendary Abs II book (leg raises, 1/4 sit-ups, crunches, hanging leg raises, etc.) and still get the desired abdominal strength.

[Thomas Kurz]

"Here's the rule to know: If you lie on your back with your legs extended, your abs have the capacity to raise your shoulders about 30 [degrees] off the floor. No further.

And what moron does sit-ups with legs extended?

[Dean]

"Here's the rule to know: If you lie on your back with your legs extended, your abs have the capacity to raise your shoulders about 30 [degrees] off the floor. No further.

And what moron does sit-ups with legs extended?

I'm not sure how to take this. I'm a bit disappointed with this response to my post. I understand your point but I also expected a more thorough response and a bit more professionalism. I take the time to ask my questions because I am genuinely interested in getting an intelligent response.

So, if I am to understand your response correctly, Mr. Kurz, if I keep my legs bent (and not straight like the aforementioned moron) while doing sit-ups then it is ridiculous to be concerned about the psoas magnus and psoas parvus tugging too much on the lower back and causing the vertebrae around the psoas' attachment to grind together thus leading to permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration? If this is your contention then how would you respond to someone who argues that kineseologists have long warned against abdominal exercises where both the psoas come into play and the position allows/encourages your back to arch? Would you argue that the traditional sit-up with legs bent does not fit this criterion and is, therefore, safe for the lower back?

Secondly, you forgot to answer my question. I'll state it again here. Rather than doing 500 situps to get the abdominal strength one one need for full contact sparring, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to supplement the sit up with the exercises given in the Legendary Abs II book (leg raises, 1/4 sit-ups, crunches, hanging leg raises, etc.) and still get the desired abdominal strength?

I look forward to getting a response that isn't flippant.

Cheers,
Dean

[jrlefty]

Secondly, you forgot to answer my question. I'll state it again here. Rather than doing 500 situps to get the abdominal strength one one need for full contact sparring, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to supplement the sit up with the exercises given in the Legendary Abs II book (leg raises, 1/4 sit-ups, crunches, hanging leg raises, etc.) and still get the desired abdominal strength?

I look forward to getting a response that isn't flippant.

Cheers,
Dean

Thomas Kurz always says that you need as much endurance and strength as NEEDED for the sport that you are in. So the 500 situps is only a minimum recommendation for martial artist and full contact fighters because your muscle endurance, not just strength, in the abdominals, back AND psoas muscles needs to be very good to practice your techniques without being tired. I have a copy of legendary abs II and it does work on strengthing the abs but, I believe, will not give you that adequate ENDURANCE needed for martial artist. Doing high reps in situps (and other high rep exercises) will allow you to practices punches and kicks for many reps without loosing form. Also with this muscle endurance you will improve your progress in weight training because your endurance will not hold you back and may speed up your recovery.

In my opinion, yes when you do go up in the levels of legendary abs there are more reps in total then in the beginning but you are not constantly stressing all the muscles at the same time. You constantly switch exercises to give breaks to either the abs, psoas or back which is fine if you want to strengthen them but we as martial artist ALSO need great endurance in them. If you think that this legendary abs program does give you the endurance need for aikido and Tae Kwon Do, which I doubt, then go for it. In my opinion, it is a good workout to add to your strength program.

But unlike the abs, their range of motion is huge....the psoas tug at the lower spine. That tug doesn't do much harm as long as the abs remain strong enough to prevent the back from arching. But unfortunately, even if you're in great shape, the abs tire fairly quickly, allowing your back to arch. This causes the vertebrae around the psoas' attachment to grind together. And in a decade or so you may be stuck with permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration"

This is why, I believe, that kurz recommends working on your crunches first then move on to situps so your abs will be strong enough for them. If you think about it, you need your psoas muscle to be strong because you use it in all your kicks. That is why Kurz recommends martial artist do many situps. So if your worried about your back from doing situps then you should also wonder about your martial arts training because your kicks will tug on your back also. Back injuries seem to be very popular in Tae Kwon do schools, at least around me. And, again in my opinion, if you work on any exercises with sloppy technique or weak muscle endurance then of course that will lead to injury.

So try to think of the situps, crunches, back extensions on the floor, running and free weight squats that is recommended for beginners in column 19 as endurance training instead of strength training. You need this type of endurance training to prepare you for your martial arts and for your weight training. Weak aerobic and muscle endurance leads to sloppy technique and for martial artists that will definitely lead to injury because most of our training requires great endurance.

jrlefty

p.s. I tried to be as non-flippant as possible. hehehe. You seem to be asking the wrong questions and getting things confused (like thinking 500 reps of situps is a strength exercise and not understanding why martial artists would need situps or even aerobic and muscle endurance). Just keep reading the columns because its written pretty much for martial artists but if you really want to fill in the gaps from the columns then seriously consider getting Science of Sports Training. It will teach you the different types of training for all sports (Endurance, strength, Technique, agility and so on), their role in your training and how to improve them. It is very thorough though, so thorough that it gets intimidating to read but worth looking into.

[Dean]

Thomas Kurz always says that you need as much endurance and strength as NEEDED for the sport that you are in. So the 500 situps is only a minimum recommendation for martial artist and full contact fighters because your muscle endurance, not just strength, in the abdominals, back AND psoas muscles needs to be very good to practice your techniques without being tired. I have a copy of legendary abs II and it does work on strengthing the abs but, I believe, will not give you that adequate ENDURANCE needed for martial artist. Doing high reps in situps (and other high rep exercises) will allow you to practices punches and kicks for many reps without loosing form. Also with this muscle endurance you will improve your progress in weight training because your endurance will not hold you back and may speed up your recovery.

Thank you so much for this well thoughtout response. This is the kind of response I was looking for and I appreciate you taking the time to give it to me. I agree with everything you said. It does seem that the book is geared more torwards powerlifters/bodybuilders.

In my opinion, yes when you do go up in the levels of legendary abs there are more reps in total then in the beginning but you are not constantly stressing all the muscles at the same time. You constantly switch exercises to give breaks to either the abs, psoas or back which is fine if you want to strengthen them but we as martial artist ALSO need great endurance in them. If you think that this legendary abs program does give you the endurance need for aikido and Tae Kwon Do, which I doubt, then go for it. In my opinion, it is a good workout to add to your strength program.

Thank you. More good points. So, would you agree that I could use routines in "Legendary Abs II" as a template and work from them and simply drastically increase the number of reps (as long as I work lower abs first followed by upper abs)?

This is why, I believe, that kurz recommends working on your crunches first then move on to situps so your abs will be strong enough for them. If you think about it, you need your psoas muscle to be strong because you use it in all your kicks. That is why Kurz recommends martial artist do many situps. So if your worried about your back from doing situps then you should also wonder about your martial arts training because your kicks will tug on your back also. Back injuries seem to be very popular in Tae Kwon do schools, at least around me. And, again in my opinion, if you work on any exercises with sloppy technique or weak muscle endurance then of course that will lead to injury.

Thank you again! Actually, I was thinking the same thing. As you said, martial artists should be strengthening and increasing the endurance of their psoas muscles to do lots of kicks before fatiguing. If this is the case then I'm curious to know why there is this fear of disc degeneration in the lower back due to strengthening these muscles. My guess is that it has to be related to an imbalance of the strength of other muscles in conjunction with the psoas muscles that would lead to the lower disc degeneration. Perhaps Mr. Kurz can enlighten us.

So try to think of the situps, crunches, back extensions on the floor, running and free weight squats that is recommended for beginners in column 19 as endurance training instead of strength training. You need this type of endurance training to prepare you for your martial arts and for your weight training. Weak aerobic and muscle endurance leads to sloppy technique and for martial artists that will definitely lead to injury because most of our training requires great endurance.

Yeah, I just read that column yesterday. Thanks. Actually, based on that column and others I decided to scrap almost everything I was doing and just start from the beginning with the endurance training. I totally concur with your assessment above. Thank you for your help.

p.s. I tried to be as non-flippant as possible. hehehe. You seem to be asking the wrong questions and getting things confused (like thinking 500 reps of situps is a strength exercise and not understanding why martial artists would need situps or even aerobic and muscle endurance). Just keep reading the columns because its written pretty much for martial artists but if you really want to fill in the gaps from the columns then seriously consider getting Science of Sports Training. It will teach you the different types of training for all sports (Endurance, strength, Technique, agility and so on), their role in your training and how to improve them. It is very thorough though, so thorough that it gets intimidating to read but worth looking into.

hehehe. Thank you. I didn't find any of your comments to be flippant They were perfect. I appreciate that. And you may be right. It's been quite a while since I even gave any of this stuff a thought so I may very well be asking the wrong questions. As for the 500 sit-ups I probably was thinking of them as more of a strength exercise than an edurance one but I think my main concern was that doing too many of them would lead to lower back problems over a long period of time but I guess that may be an unnecessary concern. I wish Mr. Kurz would answer this more thoroughly for me and give us a concrete scientific explanation why such a concern is unnecessary but your comments have helped. Thank you. I've been reading the columns and I actually already own a copy of "Science of Sports Training" which I've browsed a little but I intend to read it more thoroughly. I'm going to help coach the high school wrestlers and hope to apply some of this stuff to their training but I'm the new guy on the block so it'll be interesting to see whether or not the coaches know how to train their athletes. Thanks again for your help.

[Dean]

That is why Kurz recommends martial artist do many situps. So if your worried about your back from doing situps then you should also wonder about your martial arts training because your kicks will tug on your back also.

Right. I just found the answer to my question about this in Column 24.

It is very thorough though, so thorough that it gets intimidating to read but worth looking into.

My degrees are in science so it shouldn't be that intimidating.

I wish Mr. Kurz would answer this more thoroughly for me and give us a concrete scientific explanation why such a concern is unnecessary but your comments have helped.

I believe I found my answer to this in column #19, 20 and 24.

[jrlefty]

So, would you agree that I could use routines in "Legendary Abs II" as a template and work from them and simply drastically increase the number of reps (as long as I work lower abs first followed by upper abs)?

That seems ok for now just listen to your body when you start adding the reps and you will know when it becomes to much or not enough.

jrlefty

[Thomas Kurz]

Secondly, you forgot to answer my question. I'll state it again here. Rather than doing 500 situps to get the abdominal strength one one need for full contact sparring, wouldn't it be perfectly fine to supplement the sit up with the exercises given in the Legendary Abs II book (leg raises, 1/4 sit-ups, crunches, hanging leg raises, etc.) and still get the desired abdominal strength

My answer to your question: Probably yes. But why don't you do it and find out yourself?

About my question “And what moron does sit-ups with legs extended?”--well, just picture someone doing sit-ups with legs straight--it's a riot!

I pointed out the straw man argument the author of “Legendary Abs” makes (on page 3 of his book, as I recall) and you uncritically quoted: The argument is that straight-leg sit-ups (but who does them?) are bad, therefore sit-ups are bad, therefore his program that does not include sit-ups is good. (The program may be good anyway, but not because it does not include sit-ups.) So this argument is based on a false premise that sit-ups are to be done with extended (straight) legs. Another false premise implied in the rest of the statement you quoted is that any abdomen exercise that engage muscles other than those of the abdomen wall (for example, the psoas) are bad.

Increasing activation of the psoas, in a progression of exercises from crunches to leg raises, gradually strengthens it until it can deliver powerful kicks without strain. Of course, strengthening of the hip flexors (psoas, etc.) has to be matched with strengthening of their antagonists (hip extensors and back extensors).

If you are so concerned about psoas involvement and potential for back arching, have your kinesiologists examine the leg raises and hanging leg raises in the “Legendary Abs.”

About sit-ups: I write for athletes and martial artists--performance-oriented people. Such people do things that the “general population” does not and perhaps should not because that general population lacks the discipline to progressively strengthen themselves. Athletes train systematically until they can handle physical demands of their activity with (relative) ease. “Train hard, fight easy.”

It also takes an athlete's discipline to carefully study instructions and then to follow them from A to Z without skipping a step.

Now, the mechanics of sit-ups: Both sit-ups--the straight-leg and knee-bent--considerably activate the psoas. Some measurements show that the bent-knees sit-ups cause the psoas to tense harder than the straight-leg sit-up. The reason knee-bent sit-ups are less likely to cause back pain (in rationally trained people) has to do with the position of the pelvis and not just with the amount of force exerted on the vertebrae by the psoas.

In the knee-bent sit-up the pelvis is rolled/tilted back and so the lumbar spine is flattened. In the straight-leg sit-up pelvis is rolled/tilted forward and so the lumbar lordosis is increased and the tug of psoas does the dreadful thing your kinesiologists describe. Now, how stupid one has to be to do a straight-leg sit-up more than a couple of times and not realize that it is not good?

[Dean]

My answer to your question: Probably yes. But why don't you do it and find out yourself?

Actually, you didn't have to answer the questions on this since I had already found your answers in your columns but I appreciate you answering them nonetheless.

About my question “And what moron does sit-ups with legs extended?”--well, just picture someone doing sit-ups with legs straight--it's a riot!

I'm sure it is.

I pointed out the straw man argument the author of “Legendary Abs” makes (on page 3 of his book, as I recall) and you uncritically quoted: The argument is that straight-leg sit-ups (but who does them?) are bad, therefore sit-ups are bad, therefore his program that does not include sit-ups is good. (The program may be good anyway, but not because it does not include sit-ups.) So this argument is based on a false premise that sit-ups are to be done with extended (straight) legs. Another false premise implied in the rest of the statement you quoted is that any abdomen exercise that engage muscles other than those of the abdomen wall (for example, the psoas) are bad.

First, I agree with you. It was a bad argument and I also agree with you that sit-ups are not evil after having read your other columns on this and after jrlefty had made some thought provoking points. So, now that we have that out of the way, I think you are actually misrepresenting the argument and building a strawman yourself or at least pointing out too many false premises than there really are. The argument is not based on a false premise that sit-ups are to be done with extended legs because no such premise exists (not even implied). The example of extend legs was simply to point out that sit-ups involve the psoas muscles. You even agree with this. So this is not in contention. Now, what is in contention, as you pointed out with regard to the second false premise, is that any abdomen exercise that engages muscles other than those of the abdomen wall are bad. I am in full agreement with you on this point and this is the point that I had originally failed to see.

And just to be accurate on our logical terminology this argument wouldn't be a strawman. A strawman is when you build up an argument that is different (and weaker) than your opponents original argument and you knock down the strawman claiming victory (it is easier to knock down a strawman than a flesh and blood one ) Actually, the argument you put up claiming to be the argument used by the author of Legendary abs is a good example of a strawman since the author's original argument had no premises involving straight legs. Sorry about the detour into logic but a majority of the people can't even get Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens right, I took a teaching opportunity to make sure people understood what a strawman argument is.

Increasing activation of the psoas, in a progression of exercises from crunches to leg raises, gradually strengthens it until it can deliver powerful kicks without strain. Of course, strengthening of the hip flexors (psoas, etc.) has to be matched with strengthening of their antagonists (hip extensors and back extensors).

If you are so concerned about psoas involvement and potential for back arching, have your kinesiologists examine the leg raises and hanging leg raises in the “Legendary Abs.”

No need. Based on what I've read so far and the arguments made, I think sit-ups are fine and so I don't feel the need to spend time and money on kinesiologists on this issue.

Now, the mechanics of sit-ups: Both sit-ups--the straight-leg and knee-bent--considerably activate the psoas. Some measurements show that the bent-knees sit-ups cause the psoas to tense harder than the straight-leg sit-up. The reason knee-bent sit-ups are less likely to cause back pain (in rationally trained people) has to do with the position of the pelvis and not just with the amount of force exerted on the vertebrae by the psoas.

In the knee-bent sit-up the pelvis is rolled/tilted back and so the lumbar spine is flattened. In the straight-leg sit-up pelvis is rolled/tilted forward and so the lumbar lordosis is increased and the tug of psoas does the dreadful thing your kinesiologists describe.

Thank you. That was very insightful. The mechanics is very interesting. I'm amazed (not really) by the fact that this was never explained to me before. Usually you hear people say, "Do a sit up. You know, lie on the floor with knees bent and bring your chest to your knees." I recall people arching their backs inbetween each sit up. No one corrected them. Who says ignorance is bliss? The ignorant. Thanks again for your insiteful comments.

[dragon]

But why don't you do it and find out yourself?

That's the best answer i've heard so far.

I'm all for having the scientific research to back things up but martial arts training(or any training) is still a physical activity.
Reading all the articles,medical journals,and sports books won't make you better,fitter,or stronger.They will certainly provide you with all the information you need,but only by actually "getting your feet wet" will you know if it's right for you.

Dragon.

[Thomas Kurz]

Actually, the argument you put up claiming to be the argument used by the author of Legendary abs is a good example of a strawman since the author's original argument had no premises involving straight legs.

The title of the chapter in Legendary Abs you quoted from is "The Good Word on Sit-Ups: Don't Do Them!" and the first sentence after the quote goes:

Since the Straight-Legged Sit-Up calls for about 90 degrees of trunk flexion, two-thirds of the motion is wasted on other muscles.

Later on, straight-legged sit-ups are mentioned four more times. You must have noticed this as your other quote

And in a decade or so you may be stuck with permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration.

also comes from a paragraph talking about "straight-legged contraction." The only other kind of sit-up mentioned in that chapter of Legendary Abs, the Roman Chair Sit-Up, is also done with extended legs or at least with extended thighs (depending on the chair).

[Dean]

Actually, the argument you put up claiming to be the argument used by the author of Legendary abs is a good example of a strawman since the author's original argument had no premises involving straight legs.

The title of the chapter in Legendary Abs you quoted from is "The Good Word on Sit-Ups: Don't Do Them!" and the first sentence after the quote goes:

Since the Straight-Legged Sit-Up calls for about 90 degrees of trunk flexion, two-thirds of the motion is wasted on other muscles.

Well, I don't have that sentence in my book. I have "Legendary Abs II" not "Legendary Abs". I think you are quoting from a different source than the one I have, at least not in the place that you say you are quoting from.

Later on, straight-legged sit-ups are mentioned four more times. You must have noticed this as your other quote

And in a decade or so you may be stuck with permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration.

also comes from a paragraph talking about "straight-legged contraction." The only other kind of sit-up mentioned in that chapter of Legendary Abs, the Roman Chair Sit-Up, is also done with extended legs or at least with extended thighs (depending on the chair).

I see. Touche. I was more focused on another statement that was made where he says "Any exercise that involves movement beyond that 30 degrees range..." where I interpreted him as referring to sit-ups other than straight-legged. I reread the passage again and saw that in the last paragraph he says, "Based on these criteria, traditional situps (both straight-Legged and Roman Chair) must be discarded." I must have been thinking that when they say "traditional sit-up" they meant bent legged as well not taking into account what was written parenthetically. So, your points are well taken and I stand corrected.

Cheers,

Dean

[Dean]

Actually, the argument you put up claiming to be the argument used by the author of Legendary abs is a good example of a strawman since the author's original argument had no premises involving straight legs.

The title of the chapter in Legendary Abs you quoted from is "The Good Word on Sit-Ups: Don't Do Them!" and the first sentence after the quote goes:

Since the Straight-Legged Sit-Up calls for about 90 degrees of trunk flexion, two-thirds of the motion is wasted on other muscles.

Well, I don't have that sentence in my book. I have "Legendary Abs II" not "Legendary Abs". I think you are quoting from a different source than the one I have, at least not in the place that you say you are quoting from.

Later on, straight-legged sit-ups are mentioned four more times. You must have noticed this as your other quote

And in a decade or so you may be stuck with permanent lower back pain as a result of disk degeneration.

also comes from a paragraph talking about "straight-legged contraction." The only other kind of sit-up mentioned in that chapter of Legendary Abs, the Roman Chair Sit-Up, is also done with extended legs or at least with extended thighs (depending on the chair).

I see. Touche. I was more focused on another statement that was made where he says "Any exercise that involves movement beyond that 30 degrees range..." where I interpreted him as referring to sit-ups other than straight-legged. I reread the passage again and saw that in the last paragraph he says, "Based on these criteria, traditional situps (both straight-Legged and Roman Chair) must be discarded." I must have been thinking that when they say "traditional sit-up" they meant bent legged as well not taking into account what was written parenthetically. So, your points are well taken and I stand corrected.

Cheers,

Dean