Sit-ups versus Crunches
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009One of the more common topics in the fitness industry over the past several years is the debate over performing sit-ups or crunches. In recent years, the use of the crunch has been somewhat more favorable to the full sit-up because of concerns with low back strain/pain, but a full-sit up does have its place.
It is true that a full sit up has the tendancy to place more stress on your back, but it may provide a more complete range of motion exercise for athletes who participate in running, jumping, and throwing sports. A full sit-up not only requires the use of abdominals, but also places demand on the hip flexors. The hip flexors attach to the lower back and the pelvis. When the hip flexors contract, they add pressure to the lower back, but this is a normal biomechanical process. The problem occurs when the lower back is irritated or injured because extra pressure from the hip flexors may increase discomfort.
Here is where crunches come in. For those exercisers who have poor flexibility, bad posture or alignment, weak abdominal muscles, weak back muscles, a previous injury to the back, or poor exercise technique, the crunch may be a better option. The risk of injury may simply outweigh any benefit of the sit-up. Crunches work the abdominal muscles really well without putting too much compression on the joints of the lumbar spine, but also have a flaw. To gain the most out of a simple crunch, add a stability ball into the equation to ensure that you are performing the crunch through its entire range of motion. When performed correctly, they isolate your abdominal muscles without adding pressure to your low back and hip flexors.