Janda situps

[stinkoman]

I was wondering what other peoples opinion on Janda situps were.I find I can do close to 30 normal situps but not 1 janda.BTW I don't use a "pavelizer" I use a doorway pull up bar that can be used for situps but I just wrap the back of my legs around it instead of my feet under it I can get the same effect as having a partner.

 

[gbg]

I'm pretty familiar with Janda and his work but I never herd of the Janda sit up. I Gogled it and that's the way I always do sit ups, unless I'm missing something here.

 

[MAAddict**]

One of the things I learned here on S&C is hat sit ups really are not worth doing your midsection is a real weak spot. Compound movements like the squat and deadlift(hence their name "core lifts") will do more for your abs and the endless ab variations you see at a regular gym or TV.

 

[Squat More]

But doing core lifts along with assistance abdominal training is twice as good. Look at any top deadlifter or squatter, they also do other core work besides the compound movements of squats and deadlifts... Of course, you don't do endless sets of sit ups or crunches, but standing exercises using machines, free weights, and bands.

 

[Revok]

Pretty thorough appraisal in this vid...

 

[miaou]

I was wondering what other peoples opinion on Janda situps were.I find I can do close to 30 normal situps but not 1 janda.

I am going to assume that by "janda situps" you are basically talking about a normal situp only your feet are flat on the floor and your feet/legs are free and not held down by anything/anyone. If you're referring to something else, disregard my post.

I used to do situps like that, in the distant past.

They don't use your hip flexors a lot (since your legs are hooked under anything your hip flexors to don't have much to work against) so they effectively isolate your abs (particularly the rectus abdominis), but they do put your lumbar spine into maximal flexion (which is contra-indicated for people with lower-back issues and generally not a great idea). I don't see any particularly important reason to do them, other than aesthetics. They don't simulate the function of abdominals in any common or athletic movement (it's not like you will ever have to do a torso flexion without any concomitant hip flexor participation) and they have you hunching for dear life. One good thing I can think about them is that, if the lower part of your rectus abdominis is weak/inhibited, you will have to learn to contract your entire rectus abdominis simultaneously. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone today.

BTW I don't use a "pavelizer" I use a doorway pull up bar that can be used for situps but I just wrap the back of my legs around it instead of my feet under it I can get the same effect as having a partner.

You completely lost me here. EDIT: maybe you were referring to something different.

 

[miaou]

Pretty thorough appraisal in this vid...

Is that guy retarded or something?

Those are crunches, not situps.

 

[War Wagon]

Ze Pavelizer

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

Those are crunches, not situps.

I watched 7 minutes only to come up with the same conclusion.

One of the things I learned here on S&C is hat sit ups really are not worth doing your midsection is a real weak spot. Compound movements like the squat and deadlift(hence their name "core lifts") will do more for your abs and the endless ab variations you see at a regular gym or TV.

But doing core lifts along with assistance abdominal training is twice as good. Look at any top deadlifter or squatter, they also do other core work besides the compound movements of squats and deadlifts... Of course, you don't do endless sets of sit ups or crunches, but standing exercises using machines, free weights, and bands.

Heavy and proper lifting will no doubt stress and strengthen your core musculature. However, if you are training for sport other than strength sports (or even if you are training for certain strength sports), it would be folly to disregard sport-specific core work, and core endurance work. Core work can be important for both your sport performance and your general health, and can help with injury prevention and maintaining a healthy lower back.

 

[Revok]

Is that guy retarded or something?

Those are crunches, not situps.

Not at all. He explains this in his explanation of reciprocal inhibition.

Further reading...

The Hardest Situp

 

[MAAddict**]

I watched 7 minutes only to come up with the same conclusion.





Heavy and proper lifting will no doubt stress and strengthen your core musculature. However, if you are training for sport other than strength sports (or even if you are training for certain strength sports), it would be folly to disregard sport-specific core work, and core endurance work. Core work can be important for both your sport performance and your general health, and can help with injury prevention and maintaining a healthy lower back.

I was thinking more of the bad effects spinal flexion has on the body(I actually got that from you).

 

[miaou]

Not at all. He explains this in his explanation of reciprocal inhibition.

Further reading...

The Hardest Situp

I know what reciprocal inhibition is.

I also know what situps are, and that dude in the video was not doing them! (the photos in your link show people doing situps ...which is what that dude was NOT doing!)

 

[Revok]

AFAIK standard crunches don't involve purposeful contraction of the hamstrings (and thereby de-activation of the iliopsoas thanks to RI).

At 6:00 of the vid he explains "squeezing back" with the legs against the ball to tighten the hams.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

I was thinking more of the bad effects spinal flexion has on the body(I actually got that from you).

I'm not sure what context I said that in, but lumbar flexion (especially under load) can be an issue with certain core exercises. However, it's not an excuse nor reason to avoid all core development, especially if you are training for a sport where some added degree of core strength/endurance might be necessary. And in fact, some degree of spinal flexion training could be good for anyone, almost regardless of goals.

A lot of misinformed people try to train the rectus abdonimus (abs) through standard lumbar flexion exercises (crunches, sit-ups, etc.) and, aside from being ineffective core training, this can also result in certain imbalances in your core musculature.

But there are definitely core exercises that can contribute to both athletic performance and injury prevention.

 

[yeeeehaw]

on the topic of abs... i've always wondered something..
with the decline/any benchs etc that have the pegs for your feet... when you do situps or whatever on them, is that kind of cheating ? Whenever I use them (which isnt often, I prefer weighted crunchs flat on the floor) it feels like the lower back/body/legs is doing most of the work ?

If I do the same exercise flat on the floor with weights I strugle 100% more than if im one of the benchs. On the floor it feels like its my core area doing the work but on the benchs It seems more lower body... or am I just doing it incorrectly on the bench ???

 

[miaou]

on the topic of abs... i've always wondered something..
with the decline/any benchs etc that have the pegs for your feet... when you do situps or whatever on them, is that kind of cheating ? Whenever I use them (which isnt often, I prefer weighted crunchs flat on the floor) it feels like the lower back/body/legs is doing most of the work ?

If I do the same exercise flat on the floor with weights I strugle 100% more than if im one of the benchs. On the floor it feels like its my core area doing the work but on the benchs It seems more lower body... or am I just doing it incorrectly on the bench ???

When you do situps with your feet/legs hooked under pegs (like you do with those ab "benchs"), it's not just you abs, it is also your hip flexors (mainly the psoas) that contribute to your torso sitting up. When you are doing situps on the floor with your legs free, it is almost exclusively your abs (the more your knees are bent, the more you "isolate" your abs), that's why those are harder.

 

[miaou]

AFAIK standard crunches don't involve purposeful contraction of the hamstrings (and thereby de-activation of the iliopsoas thanks to RI).

At 6:00 of the vid he explains "squeezing back" with the legs against the ball to tighten the hams.

Come on man, are you really going to argue over this?

A situp is when you sit up, i.e. when your entire torso comes off the ground (wikipedia says "elevating both the upper and lower vertebrae from the floor until everything superior to the buttocks is not touching the ground").

The crunch is when your shoulders/scapulae lift off the ground, but the lower back (i.e. all the lumbar vertebrae) stays on the ground. Whether or not you position your feet flat on the ground, whether or not you lift your legs up or let them rest on a chain, or whatever, it is still a damn crunch.

The dude spent entirely too much time to explain something very simple (situps with concurrent glute/ham contraction), and when it finally came time to show the exercise he didn't even show a situp!

I personally find that retarded.


EDIT: Unrelated to our argument, contraction of the hip extensors is suggested as a way to lessen hip flexor participation in the situp, via reciprocal inhibition (something I find very "iffy" in itself, btw). This dude takes it one step further, and is proposing contraction of the hip extensors to lessen the already-lower hip flexor participation in crunches. To me that shows poor understanding of the biomechanical principles involved. The dude is talking way too much and is saying way too little of value; he is simply trying to impress people who don't know any better.

 

[Revok]

OK. So... Janda crunches?

I thought you were disputing the ham contraction/iliopsoas thing, not the use of the term 'situp' to describe what is, I agree, clearly a crunch.