I agree with all of this except for the notion that we all sit in lumbar flexion. I personally find that this is more common in men than women. Women seem to be locked into extension more often in my experience.

Thanks so much for the comment!

I can’t speak for Mike, but when people ask if they can do flexion exercises I’m inclined to ask why they feel they’re needed in the first place. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I can’t say that I think crunches (or even weighted crunches) have a great deal to do with appearance of the abdominals. We all have a six pack (or eight pack depending on the number of ligaments) beneath the abdominal fat. Lose this and you’ll have abs…period. The more shredded you are the better they’ll look. Will abdominal training make the abs more visible? Maybe. But I don’t think they really hypertrophy that much.

When I think about training the abs (or anterior core) I think of it more as a means to provide support for the rest of the body so it can handle greater loads, prevent injury, perform better. In doing this my body will ultimately be able to train harder. This will allow me to make great improvements in appearance and performance.

With regards to training specific angles for strength, a recent study has shown that doing static exercises has some transfer to sit-ups. Now, I’m not saying that I really like sit-ups as a measurement tool for core strength, but it is a start.

Check out this post for more info on the study. I have to admit that this study is still sitting beside my computer waiting to be read, but at least it provides some support for the notion that crunches aren’t necessary.

Will everyone who does crunches get a bad back? Probably not. But why take that chance when other options are just as good?

2. I continue to love your site and this was a great interview thank you for asking the questions we all were wondering. I will throw in my quick opinion on A&C..I think its fantastic, it has helped me out a lot. I like the FMS and have used it to the best of my knowledge, I would also use the McGill endurance tests, and now I have another great tool that helps me incorporate some Kendall and PT type tests as well (Bill is one smart dude). I think its helpful to know movement patterns but at times you need to FORCE a client to take care of their body and stretch and A&C will allow you to hit them with what they need most and send them on their way. So anyway I love it.

3. If I may be so bold I have a quick comment for Rob Difilipo. Rob a couple of thoughts. To your comment to do “minimum amount of work to build up strength in most ranges of motion wouldn’t be a bad thing” one thought I have is, science aside on why its not a good idea, I understand you want to work every area even if its low volume however I think a lot of people work this range as it is, we sit in flexion and posterior pelvic tilt all the time(and its a longer volume), even when we diligently try not to. So it seems to make more sense to work the abs/core for its true purpose..anti-extension, transfer hoop stress, anti-rotation and so on. In the case of someone who wants to FEEL their abs being used try swiss ball roll outs and progress to ab wheel roll outs (with neutral spine) or a pallof press. I have never had a client want to go back to crunches after some of the exercises that train the “core” for its true purpose. There are a lot of other exercises you can use as well. Anyway just some thoughts.

Thanks Mark, great stuff.

Before asking a question, congratulations on the newest addition to your family. I hope this is the start of several decades of joy for all of you!

It’s hard not to get the message that spinal flexion exercises (especially forward flexion and side bending) are anathema in the fitness industry these days on account of being “spine wreckers”. But what do you (and possibly Mike) think about using parameters like the ones Pvael Tsatsouline lays out in some of his work pertaining to “core” training, namely doing 3-5 sets of 3-5 reps (he has advised 3-5 minutes rest in various places, but these could be worked in as filler between other stuff or with shorter rest periods).

Would these types of parameters allow for a small measure of side bending and flexion work (for someone who wasn’t already majorly kyphotic or presenting with a history of disc issues) without causing problems?

I get the sense a lot of the time that these types of exercises (involving flexion and side bending) are just plain bad news. Some go so far as to say that the may grudgingly allow for a stubborn client to do a very small volume but that it confers not benefit whatsoever. But there’s a part of me that wonders if a very small and controlled amount can indeed have positive benefits and if it is merely the excess and the wild misapplication of movements or poor quality of execution that often is responsible (in conjunction with poor habits the other 23 hours of the day)for deleterious effects on the spine.

I definitely recognize that an athlete would not derive a massive amount out of endless volumes of such work, but it seems like a minimum amount of work to build up strength in most ranges of motion wouldn’t be a bad thing, even if people gung ho about specificity claim otherwise. And I obviously do not disagree that a lage volume of such work is a problem in the making, but parameters like 3-5 sets of 3-5 reps no more than 1 or 2 times per week (and not necessarily in all training blocks) seems like it wouldn’t create problems unless the persona was already majorly jacked up (in which case an assessment should have told you to stear clear of these for now in the first place). If anything, I’d almost be worried if a person had problems with such a low volume of those types of movements, as it would seem to indicate a problem all its own.

Then again, I am probably just an ignorant guy who has always gotten most of my knowledge in the gym and doesn’t have the research and scientific background to strongly back up my thoughts on the matter.