Why Crunches are fucking useless

Crunches are a misunderstood subject. If you are looking to strengthen (Power-lifting, martial arts etc) the abdominal region, aimlessly doing sets of 100 crunches is NOT the way to go about it.

(Skip down 3 paragraphs if TLDR). Firstly though, I need to get this off my chest. For the love of god, why do so many people obsess with abs? Its like some epidemic contaminating society followed only closely by skinny jeans and straight caps. Fuck me dead. Chicks may like a six-pack, but they also like Tiffany's and they also like big dicks. Moral of the story? Get the fuck off the ground you twat because your wasting your damn time son.

In a nutshell, when you workout you are basically exploiting the ROM for a particular muscle through  a particular movement which in addition to subjecting it to unfamiliar stresses, muscular (hypertrophy) and CNS (neurological) adaptions occur as a result. To all you ass-monkeys out there, we don't have muscle as humans, so we can workout and be "huuuge cuntz to pull da bitchez". We have them so we can move. Muscles allow our bones to rotate, adduct and abduct etc. You get the picture. What's my point? My point is that muscles have a purpose, and to properly train these muscles we must exploit their unique characteristics. Eg. Chins are an effective  bicep movement because they exploit the fully supinated position of the forearm which fully engages the bicep muscle. Because supinating the forearm is the natural function of the biceps-brachii. So are we on the same page here? To properly work a muscle, we must work with it.

Relating this all back to abs. Whats the sole purpose/function of abdominals? If you are thinking its for "da chix bru", go jump off a bridge you useless maggot. The principal task of the abs is to stabilize specifically the lumbar vertebrae and the whole fucking mid-section of your body. When I say mid section im not just talking about your rectus abdominis, im talking about your entire core. Namely, the rectus, the internal and external obliques running across the lateral aspect of the abdomen, the transversalis abdominis, and the muscles of the floor of the abdominal cavity. They stabilize in an isometric contraction. Now when I say isometric, im talking about a static position in which the muscle is fully contracted without movement of the joints or muscle itself. Think of doing a regular curl and stopping half-way through the concentric and holding it. That's isometric resistance. Got it fool?

Okay so (finally), why are crunches useless? They are useless ineffective because they do not adhere to the natural role of the abdominal muscle, which sole function is to stabilize the entire mid-section including lumbar region in an isometric contraction. Therefore it would only make sense to train them accordingly; through isometric resistance training. Crunches are NOT isometric movements. Feel free to quote me on this, because im willing to put my money on it - From an anatomical standpoint, the BEST exercise for your abs is  (correctly performed) major compound movements like the squat, deadlift and OHP. They all force your midsection to stabilize the weight, therefore making the abs do what it does best.  Planks and ab-rollers also fall into this category. There's also  probably a million other variations and exercises too. Special mention to the front squat, which freaking demolishes your core! So whats so wrong about crunches? Okay, so maybe I went off on one of my signature rants again, over-exaggerating and blowing it out of proportion. The point I am ultimately trying to press here, is that if your doing heavy squats, deadlifts and OHP's, they will suffice and further ab work is not necessary until you are a well seasoned lifter. And it all comes back to basic fact that compounds are better than isolation's (crunches etc) at doing just about everything. Those 3 (and other isometric exercises mentioned etc) will do more for your core than crunches will ever do, therefore rendering them useless.

Mark Rippetoe covers this in SS. Don't be like "WHERS DA PubMed BRA?" Because dude, its Rippetoe, he is a genius. Don't fuck with him. He explains it much more in-depth using sophisticated language and particularity focuses on the relationship of the lumbar curve to the abs and finally their relation to the deadlift and squat.

Link - http://startingstrength.com/articles/abs_rippetoe.pdf

So to end, crunches are not the most effective way to hit your abs, period. Go squat, deadlift or hold some heavy planks before you even think about doing crunches. Now in saying this im not drawing the definitive conclusion that they are absolute garbage and should never be performed. I'm saying they have their place, but its way way way behind exercises that utilize isometric resistance for your abdominal's.

- Later homies

Common Myths Debunked

When was the last time you heard someone say you need to eat regularly to increase your metabolism? Or that you need a fast-digesting protein such as whey post-workout? 

Did you question them? Did you ask them to supply peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims? Or did you blindly follow their advice because it 'sounds right' and has been repeated many times before? Chances are you did the latter like a fucking stupid tool.

People believe shit because of repetition. Ask someone how 6 meals a day increases basal metabolic rate, and they will respond with "... everyone knows that". That seems to be the response for everything. People 'just know'. They 'just know' because they've been told by other people who 'just know'. Well people don't 'just know'. Blindly following advice is a sure-fire way to set yourself up for failure, as is taking anecdotal evidence over scientific. This isn't just relevant to fitness & nutrition, but to life in general.

Science > Anecdote

Broscience is fucking contagious. Don’t fall victim.

       Meal Frequency

Having to shape your life around eat precisely 6 meals a day with the perfect amount of macronutrients “so they don’t get wasted” is a load of shit and complete and utter broscience. I know all you IF'ers out there are keen to tear this to shreds like I am, but I want to disprove this through science, so there is no argument to the contrary left standing

The generally accepted thought is that your metabolism is like a fire. Firstly, what is the metabolism? We know it has something to do with calories. It basically determines how many you will burn in a rested state (BMR). People with a high metabolism will burn more calories sitting still than people with a low metabolism.

What determines how fast it is depends on two main thyroid hormones - T3 (triiodothyronine) and T4 (thyroxine). When those are high, your metabolism is high, and vice-versa. When you are in a state of underfeeding, these hormones will down-regulate. When you are in a state of overfeeding, they will up-regulate. Its not that fucking hard.

Now back to the original idea that your metabolism is like a fire. You need to keep adding wood to a fire to keep it going out. What this -supposedly- correlates to, is that you need to keep adding food (wood) to your body (fireplace) to keep your metabolism (fire) burning steady and strong. Why do people believe this? Because it kind of makes sense, and this plays a big part in myths and why they are so easy to be fooled by. The fact that a calorie is also a unit of heat makes this explanation a lot more believable.

When food is consumed, it has a thermic effect on the body. This is called the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). Basically, it's your metabolism rising. Your metabolism rises because energy is required to break down the food you're eating in order to absorb it. The amount of energy needed is directly proportionate to the amount of food being consumed. (A 200 kcal meal will take 200 kcal of energy to breakdown and absorb the nutrients). The total energy expended by the TEF is your metabolism.

Let’s take a 3000 kcal diet.

i) Split into 6 meals - 6 x 500 kcal meals/day

ii) Split into 3 meals - 3 x 1000 kcal meals/day

iii) Split into 1 meal - 1 x 3000 kcal meal/day

Now let’s look at the total energy expended over the day by the TEF.

i) 6 x 500 = 3000 kcal expended to absorb nutrients

ii) 3 x 1000 = 3000 kcal expended to absorb nutrients

iii) 1 x 3000 = 3000 kcal expended to absorb nutrients

You can see, the total TEF energy expenditure is exactly the same over each method no matter how you split the meals up. It's the same if you walked down a 20km straight line. It doesn't matter if you sit down every 5km and take a break, or if you just walk the 20km in one go - you still walked a total of 20km.

I hope that explained things simply enough, now here's the scientific backup;

A comparison of 2 meal/day to 7 meal/day. Conclusion: 

"With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

A comparison of 1 meal/day to 3 meal/day. The 1 meal/day approach resulted in an increase in hunger, but lower fat free mass and cortisol levels. A very good study showing that reducing meal intake to 1/day will not cause a stall in fat loss because your metabolism "isn't burning".

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

This study compares 6 meals/day to 2 meals/day, its effect on energy expenditure and total energy levels. It shows that a decreased meal frequency does not have an effect on your metabolism (energy expenditure) as well as no decrease in physical performance.

"In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

There have also been studies showing that alternate day/intermittent fasting have a positive effect on overall health - quite contrary to the broscience belief system that is contaminating our society. I thought LeanGains fucking destroyed all those IF haters once and for all, but they seem to be popping back up.

One benefit is the effect on neurodegeneration which is the precursor to such diseases as Alzheimer's, dementia and Huntington's. This study showed neurodegeneration was less prevelent in individuals who restrict calories.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

There are also studies showing fasting has a positive effect on the body's glucose, lipid and cholesterol profile. This study showed fasting improved overall blood sugar regulation and reduced LDL cholesterol in individuals subject to fasting.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19940418

Basically, don't eat because you think your blood sugar is dropping (it actually takes 84 hours of fasting for your blood sugar levels to drop, not because you missed a meal. And don't eat because you think by not doing so, you'll crash your metabolism

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405701

You should eat to fit your lifestyle. Don't strain yourself to eat every 2-3 hours to 'keep metabolism burning', and don't have an unnecessary snack because you think it will help overall. People should eat at their own preference, and not feel they 'have too' because it's healthier.

   

Post-workout shakes and Nutrient Timing

“Finished my workout bruz, let’s go smash down this shake ASAP to make the most of the anabolic window”

*Facepalm*

Well first of all, why do people do it? A lot of people don't actually know. Again, they are mere victims of repetition. They just do it because that's what they've been told and everyone does it.

Again, the general thought is that after you workout, your body is craving nutrients, and for a small amount of time post-workout, your body will absorb a lot more protein than usual so you must take full advantage of this and slam a fast-digesting shake to improve anabolism.

While this IS true and protein synthesis is infact higher post-workout with the consumption of a protein beverage, the only thing that matters is net anabolism and total protein intake.

The timing of the nutrient is irrelevant as it results in the same thing. A whey protein consumed immediately post-workout will result in a quicker peak amino acid balance, but having any other type of protein will produce the same affect - total protein synthesis - overall.

Here's a study showing Whey  and Casein proteins being consumed post-workout. Both achieved the same peak level of amino acid balance, with the whey protein in a shorter amount of time, but net balance was the same.

"In conclusion, whey and casein intake immediately after resistance exercise results in an overall equal MPS response despite temporal differences in insulin and amino acid concentrations and 4E-BP1." 

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172

Here's another showing the same thing, with net protein synthesis resulting in the same despite a 'slow-digesting' protein being consumed in place of a 'fast-digesting' one.

"Acute ingestion of both WH and CS after exercise resulted in similar increases in muscle protein net balance, resulting in net muscle protein synthesis despite different patterns of blood amino acid responses."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570142

The bottom line? It doesn’t matter where the protein comes from (slow/fast digesting), the net protein balance is the same. So drinking milk post-workout is a perfectly fine option. Heck, you don’t even need to eat protein post-workout if you have had enough beforehand throughout the day or optimally, in your Pre-WO meal. And “refilling glycogen stores”? I haven’t looked into this enough to make substantial claims about it, but to me it seems that it’s pretty pointless to load up on carbs post-workout if you’re not going to do any other strenuous physical activity. Everyone’s body reacts differently to insulin spikes. Only reason I can think of is if you’re doing a carb-load and wanted to make the most of the naturally elevated metabolism Post-WO.

And also, you should only be drinking your calories if you have trouble eating your a) daily calories or b) total minimum protein intake. Other than that, there is no reason why you should be drinking calories. Skip the shake and get your calories from a meal. A big steak is a lot more appetising than a protein shake, and A LOT more wholesome and nutritious.

Training Frequency and Single Body Part Splits 

I know this topic is now pretty wide-spread and alot of people have gotten the picture, but I still want give my opinion on it. I’ll make it short though; I don’t want to be repeating what is now already common knowledge.

Does your training routine look something like this?

Mon: Chest/Tri
Tues: Back/Bi
Weds: Shoulders
Thurs: Arms
Fri: Legs

Or does your chest routine look something like this?

Bench - 3 x 6
Incline DB Press - 3 x 6
Flat DB Flyes - 3 x 10
Decline Bench - 3 x 6
Cable Cross-over - 3 x 10

You might want to consider that ridiculous typical single body part split, because research shows that training your muscles 2-3 times a week, even at the exact same amount of sets, reps, exercises and weights, will elicit a greater response in muscular hypertrophy unless you're a) an advanced lifter (5 years+ not including retard training and including proper nutrition) b) juicing, and even this is debatable. Furthermore, reducing your total sets to 4-8 each workout (that means, 2 sets DB press and 2 sets DB flyes is enough for chest OMG) will have the same effect.

Why do people do absolutely preposterous amounts of sets for their muscles, and why do they follow stupid splits like the one above? Because AGAIN, it’s what everyone does. It's in magazines, it's what the big guy in the gym does, and again, it’s what everyone does. But once again, science has something else to say about this.

Here's a peer-reviewed scientific study showing that training each body part 3 times a week at a mean volume of 4 sets resulted in greater strength gains and in turn muscular hypertrophy in beginners. Before you conclude you're not a beginner because you've been lifting since yr10, remember what I said above - training like a retard does not count, neither does disregarding nutrition.

"For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained non-athletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

In conclusion - training like Arnie won't get you big like Arnie. There’s heaps of FBW’s for beginners so I won’t bother even naming any. This will result in maximal strength and muscular hypertrophy gains. The biggest take home message from this? More is not always better. In fact, it rarely ever is.

  

The Body Can Only Absorb So Much Protein in One Sitting

Ah one of my favorites. It really is a load of nonsense. Your body is not stupid - it's not going to shit out 100 grams of protein because it only needed 20g at that point in time. We are designed to survive, not waste nutrients.

Here's a big article written by Alan Aragon (renowned fitness & nutrition guru) who explains the entire thing in detail and concludes;

"So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g."

-   http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

What is important to note though is that the amount of protein able to be absorbed is dependant on a number of things. Total absorption will be relevant to the person's LBM and current protein requirements, length of time since last protein-containing meal, amount of protein at previous meal, type of protein source, state (Post-WO, Pre-WO, resting?), total calories in the meal, overall caloric balance, level of circulating amino acids and the composition of the foodstuff itself (increased fiber = faster transit time = generally more excreted without absorption). 

But the gist of it still comes down to net balance. What matters in the end is total protein intake, not timing. Do you think cavemen had to space out their meals into 30g portions throughout the day because their body could only absorb so much? Don’t be a fucking twat.

"Starvation Mode" and Not Eating Will Cause Muscle Loss

Well this already ties in with all the other myths somehow so I’ll just get to the point.

The only thing that matters is total calorie & macronutrient intake and net balance. Generally speaking, if these are in check, it doesn't matter how you space out your meals, the end result is the same. Believe me, it takes longer than just missing a few meals for your body to go into "starvation mode".

There is a study that shows a decrease in fat mass with lowered meal frequency despite calorie intake being the same. Your lean mass retention is dependent on total calorie and macronutrient intake, not the timing.

"Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Diurnal variations may affect outcomes."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

There is a set order in which your body breaks down and uses energy sources in the body, an order which does not change. This order is Glucose > Glycogen > Fat > Protein.

Glucose is the first to be used by the body as it is vital for many tissues and organs, most importantly the brain. Sadly it doesn’t last long and when the body is deprived of glucose or has none left to use it turns to glycogen stores and converts them into usable energy. This process can last for up to a few days, but probably not for longer than 8-12 hours. Body fat is then converted to ketones, a usable fuel source. After around 2 days of fasting you enter starvation and muscles begin to catabolise for proteins. This stage will never be reached through normal fasting and certainly is not reached overnight just because you have not eaten for 8-16 hours. This is also why it is not necessary to have 'fast digesting carbs post workout to restore glycogen stores', as glycogen stores take a much longer time to empty.

I’ve debunked (or tried my best to) most of the common exercise and fitness myths that are evident in the bodybuilding circles with solid scientific back-up. Not much else to say, I hope you learned alot, and are no longer a victim of broscience propaganda.  If there are any errors please let me know. Proofreading 3k + words can become quite the chore. Hopefully I will do regular write-ups on hot-topics. Hit me up on MSN if you have questions or suggestions.

Nemo out.