Is doing 100s of sit ups another example of moronic backwards boxing training?

[ShoulderRoll]

This is the same "argument" boxing fans use against proper weight training for other body parts: Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray Leonard, etc. didn't train their necks, didn't train their legs, didn't lift weights in general, and all three are all-time greats, THEREFORE, one should not train one's neck, should not train one's legs, and one should not lift weights in general.

This logical fallacy--known as "appeal to accomplishment" posits that because a person or persons became successful whilst doing certain things, those things represent the optimal approaches or techniques, didn't detract from the achievements of the successful person or persons, etc.

Those usu

"Appeal to accomplishment" sounds like simply asking for proof that a method works.

We have over a hundred years of boxing history to look at as evidence for the effectiveness of certain training methods. Proponents of new training approaches should have to prove their way works better before we throw out the tried and true.

[OctoberRed]

"Appeal to accomplishment" sounds like simply asking for proof that a method works.

We have over a hundred years of boxing history to look at as evidence for the effectiveness of certain training methods. Proponents of new training approaches should have to prove their way works better before we throw out the tried and true.

Drinking beer and smoking cigs worked for Mayorga

[GelfSara]

"Appeal to accomplishment" sounds like simply asking for proof that a method works.

We have over a hundred years of boxing history to look at as evidence for the effectiveness of certain training methods. Proponents of new training approaches should have to prove their way works better before we throw out the tried and true.

You are making exactly my point. What is the definition of "tried and true"? Collins Dictionary defines it as "proven by experience over time to be useful, effective, reliable, etc."


Does anyone argue that people who regularly do hundreds of sit ups will not generally have stronger abdominal muscles than those who do not train them?


I certainly don't. I doubt the OP does, either.


The issue is not, however, whether doing hundreds of sit ups continually is "better than nothing".

The issue is whether, given current knowledge and options, choosing to train one's abdominals in such a way would be "moronic backwards...training ". That it certainly is, for several reasons.


First, sit ups, as conventionally performed, are notorious for causing lower back problems due to the unbalanced compressive forces they place on discs in the lumbar region.


Second, if a trainee can perform hundreds of repetitions of ANY strength training exercise the resistance is too low. In general, provided one trains to failure on a given exercise with 30%-80% of one's one-repitition maximum (1RM) the improvements in size and strength will be virtually identical, however, there is a threshold (around 30% of 1RM) below which results become significantly worse. To quote Simon Shawcross and Ioanna Koliou:


"Research published in 2018 by Lasevicius et al, studied the effects of performing (volume-matched) sets to failure with differing loads from as little as 20% of 1RM up to 80% of 1RM. Their results showed that exercises performed with 40%, 60% and 80% of 1RM loads all stimulated similar amounts of hypertrophy. In comparison, using 20% of 1RM only stimulated about half the amount of muscle growth."


If one can perform an exercise for hundreds of repetitions at a conventional cadence, the % of 1RM being used is significantly below 30%.


Even if the above were not true--and sets taken to failure with a very low percentage of 1RM were as effective as sets with higher loads--choosing to use extremely low loads would be a bad idea; first, one would be wasting time needlessly, second, the wear and tear on the body would greater.


I have no idea how many boxers train their abs in this manner. Not many, I hope. It is true, however, that boxing generally remains antediluvian in its approach to training; why this is so is a sociological question best answered elsewhere. Boxing is not the only sport that suffers from this handicap, in Japan sumo wrestlers continue to train and eat largely as they have for hundreds of years; while the demands of the sport are very similar to those of NFL linebackers, the strength training, diet and supplementation approaches couldn't be more different. Sports at the other end of the spectrum--in which the participants and coaches tend to be "early-adopters" of improved technologies and techniques--include triathlon, tennis and cycling.

[ShoulderRoll]

You are making exactly my point. What is the definition of "tried and true"? Collins Dictionary defines it as "proven by experience over time to be useful, effective, reliable, etc."


Does anyone argue that people who regularly do hundreds of sit ups will not generally have stronger abdominal muscles than those who do not train them?


I certainly don't. I doubt the OP does, either.


The issue is not, however, whether doing hundreds of sit ups continually is "better than nothing".

The issue is whether, given current knowledge and options, choosing to train one's abdominals in such a way would be "moronic backwards...training ". That it certainly is, for several reasons.


First, sit ups, as conventionally performed, are notorious for causing lower back problems due to the unbalanced compressive forces they place on discs in the lumbar region.


Second, if a trainee can perform hundreds of repetitions of ANY strength training exercise the resistance is too low. In general, provided one trains to failure on a given exercise with 30%-80% of one's one-repitition maximum (1RM) the improvements in size and strength will be virtually identical, however, there is a threshold (around 30% of 1RM) below which results become significantly worse. To quote Simon Shawcross and Ioanna Koliou:


"Research published in 2018 by Lasevicius et al, studied the effects of performing (volume-matched) sets to failure with differing loads from as little as 20% of 1RM up to 80% of 1RM. Their results showed that exercises performed with 40%, 60% and 80% of 1RM loads all stimulated similar amounts of hypertrophy. In comparison, using 20% of 1RM only stimulated about half the amount of muscle growth."


If one can perform an exercise for hundreds of repetitions at a conventional cadence, the % of 1RM being used is significantly below 30%.


Even if the above were not true--and sets taken to failure with a very low percentage of 1RM were as effective as sets with higher loads--choosing to use extremely low loads would be a bad idea; first, one would be wasting time needlessly, second, the wear and tear on the body would greater.


I have no idea how many boxers train their abs in this manner. Not many, I hope. It is true, however, that boxing generally remains antediluvian in its approach to training; why this is so is a sociological question best answered elsewhere. Boxing is not the only sport that suffers from this handicap, in Japan sumo wrestlers continue to train and eat largely as they have for hundreds of years; while the demands of the sport are very similar to those of NFL linebackers, the strength training, diet and supplementation approaches couldn't be more different. Sports at the other end of the spectrum--in which the participants and coaches tend to be "early-adopters" of improved technologies and techniques--include triathlon, tennis and cycling.

Where does the idea that sit ups are notorious for causing back problems come from? Boxers have done them for generations. Do Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao complain of back problems?

Second, boxing is not just a "hypertrophy" sport. It's not all about having muscle size. The muscle has to be able to have endurance. Which is why the traditional methods developed the way they did.

Before we throw them out in favor of the latest and greatest hypertrophy fad I would like to see the new ways prove themselves over time. And not in isolation in a lab, either. I want to see their results in the ring where it counts.

[DreamFighter]

dont do so many, in itself the movement isnt bad but over 100s you will lose concentration through sheer ennui of maintaining posture, and slowly wreck your back. You'll know it by age 50 if not before, and then every day becomes a trial avoiding your back freezing up.

[AlexKid]

you dont hit with the midsection, you dont slip with it much, you do need endurnace to support the upper body but do your abs get tired during the day as you walk about or on the bag etc? No

Backward boxing r-tards!

Its Armour and you are better off with lower reps because it builds a bigger thicker wall of armor much faster

[GelfSara]

Where does the idea that sit ups are notorious for causing back problems come from? Boxers have done them for generations. Do Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao complain of back problems?

Second, boxing is not just a "hypertrophy" sport. It's not all about having muscle size. The muscle has to be able to have endurance. Which is why the traditional methods developed the way they did.

The poster above asks, essentially, two questions:

1) What is the evidence that sit ups are likely to cause lower-back problems?

2) Why should boxers maximize the size of their rectus abdominis and internal and external obliques?

With regard to #1, there are multiple studies demonstrating both a strong association between sit ups and lower back pain and providing an explanation as to the mechanism of action by which sit ups injure the lower back. See (Warning: PDF)
https://tinyurl.com/y5trjdcx for example and you will find that the US Army discovered that sit ups were the exercise soldier did most strongly linked with injury--even more so than running--which is consequently why they began phasing sit ups out of their training and testing.

The reason WHY sit ups are a dangerous exercise is because the discs of the lower back are simultaneously flexed and placed under a significant (unbalanced) load. Think of discs as being a bit like a tire inner tube If you pick up and flex this inner tube a bit--that's fine, the stress is tolerable. Similarly, if you place the inner tube on a flat surface and press down on the whole inner tube evenly, that too is also fine provided the force is not absolutely enormous. BUT...if you place significant stress on one side of the inner tube while simultaneously pulling up on the other side of the inner tube the risk of either suddenly rupturing the inner tube or causing the inner tube to wear out more quickly than it otherwise would is significant. Back expert Dr. Stuart McGill put it thus:

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sets exposure limits for substances that are known to compromise the health of the American worker. Along with obvious limits for things like poisons, radiation exposure, etc., they've found values for low back compression that lead to elevated rates of disabling back disorders.
The NIOSH have sponsored research that surveyed workers, and their data show that when lumbar loads exceed 3400N, the injury rates go up and interventions are recommended...
Now, the sit-up recruits torso and hip muscles that impose compressive load on the spine for the average male of about 3400N. Performing sit-ups uses some training capacity – compression plus repeated bending – to achieve training of the torso and hip flexors. But remember that this combination of load and motion is a potent cause of annulus collagen delamination." (https://www.t-nation.com/training/in...-mcgill-part-2 )

Additional discussion here, if interested: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...ower-back-pain

By way of contrast, think of leg raises done in a dip station (see https://youtu.be/711U6NbJRmc or https://youtu.be/0CpUfmyKtkg ). Not only is this a more challenging and hence efficient means of training the abdominals than a conventional situp--especially if one does this exercise slowly and without cheating (see http://baye.com/get-better for a great article on form) but because the lower body is hanging when the flexion occurs, there is vastly less compression of the discs and consequently far lower risk of either injury.

As to question #2, the reason one should train one's abdominals and obliques with loads sufficiently heavy to maximize hypertrophy of those muscle groups is that maximizing hypertrophy of a given muscle is necessary to maximize either said muscle's strength OR its endurance. For a boxer to train his abs with countless repetitions of an extremely low load would be akin to a distance runner training his legs with extremely light weights (distance running already provides a very low-intensity, high-volume stimulus to the muscles of the legs, just as boxing training does to postural muscles such as the lower back, neck, abs, etc.), both redundant and suboptimal at best, counterproductive at worst.

Here is Arthur Jones on the subject:

http://www.arthurjone***ercise.com/U.../Endurance.pdf and

http://www.arthurjone***ercise.com/Bulletin1/15.PDF

Essentially, there are two ways of improving ACTUAL strength or endurance of a given muscle, and three ways of improving the appearance of strength or endurance, or of improving the ability to "demonstrate" strength or endurance.

First, the way that improves the appearance of strength or endurance, or the ability to demonstrate strength or endurance, without actually improving strength or endurance: Improvement in form or technique of a given exercise or action, such that it become biomechanically easier or involves more muscle groups. For example, a powerlifting coach can take a average gym rat who can bench press 275lbs, show him a few tricks to decrease the range of motion on his bench press, involve his legs a bit more, use his traps a bit more, keep his entire body tight, etc. and in less than an hour the gym rat will be able to lift 300 or more lbs.

Similarly, a boxing trainer can show a novice boxer how to put his shoulders into his punches, "sit down on them" more, improve his leverage, and suddenly the novice will be able to throw significantly harder punches.

When it comes to actually improving strength or endurance of a given muscle, however, there are essentially two means of doing so--1) improving the ability to contract the muscle and coordinate movements (the neural aspect, or the "mind-muscle connection") or 2) increasing the size of the muscle. #1 is task specific; a cyclist may be adept at contracting his quads while sprinting on a bike, but may be unable to contract them with similar efficacy when speedskating.

Conventional boxing training teaches fighters the mechanics of properly throwing punches, slipping punches, etc. and as long as boxers deliberately practice punching, slipping punches, etc. as quickly as possible they will be adept at using the abdominal and oblique muscles they have efficiently. That leaves #2: progressively overloading these muscles with meaningful resistance so that they will be forced to adapt by increasing the size of the myofibrillar protein pool, resulting in larger muscles which can generate greater maximal force and more "reps" with a given submaximal load. As one obviously wishes to be able to rotate one's torso, slip a punch, throw a right hand, etc. as quickly as possible, and--just as importantly--take punches to the body without being hurt or KO'd--one should continue progressively training these muscles until they become as strong--and consequently as large--as possible.

Staying within a weight class may require one to avoid maximizing the size and strength of certain muscle groups--the lats, for example--but the muscles of the neck and the abdominals, obliques and the muscles of lower back should always be as strong as possible.

[AlexKid]

The med ball as you do sit ups is a good exercise, sport specific trains you very close to the real thing, but even when punched in the midsection over and over you dont get abs that become worn out have you ever had tired abs in your life?

I havnt.

So endurance wo weight I think is inferior, but the med ball colliding into you provides extra resistance in the form of extra isometric contraction and should still be included, but the loads of sit ups you see pacman doing etc are a waste of time I bet, so you are better off using a resistance there and lower reps

[ShoulderRoll]

The poster above asks, essentially, two questions:

1) What is the evidence that sit ups are likely to cause lower-back problems?

2) Why should boxers maximize the size of their rectus abdominis and internal and external obliques?

With regard to #1, there are multiple studies demonstrating both a strong association between sit ups and lower back pain and providing an explanation as to the mechanism of action by which sit ups injure the lower back. See (Warning: PDF)
https://tinyurl.com/y5trjdcx for example and you will find that the US Army discovered that sit ups were the exercise soldier did most strongly linked with injury--even more so than running--which is consequently why they began phasing sit ups out of their training and testing.

The reason WHY sit ups are a dangerous exercise is because the discs of the lower back are simultaneously flexed and placed under a significant (unbalanced) load. Think of discs as being a bit like a tire inner tube If you pick up and flex this inner tube a bit--that's fine, the stress is tolerable. Similarly, if you place the inner tube on a flat surface and press down on the whole inner tube evenly, that too is also fine provided the force is not absolutely enormous. BUT...if you place significant stress on one side of the inner tube while simultaneously pulling up on the other side of the inner tube the risk of either suddenly rupturing the inner tube or causing the inner tube to wear out more quickly than it otherwise would is significant. Back expert Dr. Stuart McGill put it thus:

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sets exposure limits for substances that are known to compromise the health of the American worker. Along with obvious limits for things like poisons, radiation exposure, etc., they've found values for low back compression that lead to elevated rates of disabling back disorders.
The NIOSH have sponsored research that surveyed workers, and their data show that when lumbar loads exceed 3400N, the injury rates go up and interventions are recommended...
Now, the sit-up recruits torso and hip muscles that impose compressive load on the spine for the average male of about 3400N. Performing sit-ups uses some training capacity – compression plus repeated bending – to achieve training of the torso and hip flexors. But remember that this combination of load and motion is a potent cause of annulus collagen delamination." (https://www.t-nation.com/training/in...-mcgill-part-2 )

Additional discussion here, if interested: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...ower-back-pain

By way of contrast, think of leg raises done in a dip station (see https://youtu.be/711U6NbJRmc or https://youtu.be/0CpUfmyKtkg ). Not only is this a more challenging and hence efficient means of training the abdominals than a conventional situp--especially if one does this exercise slowly and without cheating (see http://baye.com/get-better for a great article on form) but because the lower body is hanging when the flexion occurs, there is vastly less compression of the discs and consequently far lower risk of either injury.

As to question #2, the reason one should train one's abdominals and obliques with loads sufficiently heavy to maximize hypertrophy of those muscle groups is that maximizing hypertrophy of a given muscle is necessary to maximize either said muscle's strength OR its endurance. For a boxer to train his abs with countless repetitions of an extremely low load would be akin to a distance runner training his legs with extremely light weights (distance running already provides a very low-intensity, high-volume stimulus to the muscles of the legs, just as boxing training does to postural muscles such as the lower back, neck, abs, etc.), both redundant and suboptimal at best, counterproductive at worst.

Here is Arthur Jones on the subject:

http://www.arthurjone***ercise.com/U.../Endurance.pdf and

http://www.arthurjone***ercise.com/Bulletin1/15.PDF

Essentially, there are two ways of improving ACTUAL strength or endurance of a given muscle, and three ways of improving the appearance of strength or endurance, or of improving the ability to "demonstrate" strength or endurance.

First, the way that improves the appearance of strength or endurance, or the ability to demonstrate strength or endurance, without actually improving strength or endurance: Improvement in form or technique of a given exercise or action, such that it become biomechanically easier or involves more muscle groups. For example, a powerlifting coach can take a average gym rat who can bench press 275lbs, show him a few tricks to decrease the range of motion on his bench press, involve his legs a bit more, use his traps a bit more, keep his entire body tight, etc. and in less than an hour the gym rat will be able to lift 300 or more lbs.

Similarly, a boxing trainer can show a novice boxer how to put his shoulders into his punches, "sit down on them" more, improve his leverage, and suddenly the novice will be able to throw significantly harder punches.

When it comes to actually improving strength or endurance of a given muscle, however, there are essentially two means of doing so--1) improving the ability to contract the muscle and coordinate movements (the neural aspect, or the "mind-muscle connection") or 2) increasing the size of the muscle. #1 is task specific; a cyclist may be adept at contracting his quads while sprinting on a bike, but may be unable to contract them with similar efficacy when speedskating.

Conventional boxing training teaches fighters the mechanics of properly throwing punches, slipping punches, etc. and as long as boxers deliberately practice punching, slipping punches, etc. as quickly as possible they will be adept at using the abdominal and oblique muscles they have efficiently. That leaves #2: progressively overloading these muscles with meaningful resistance so that they will be forced to adapt by increasing the size of the myofibrillar protein pool, resulting in larger muscles which can generate greater maximal force and more "reps" with a given submaximal load. As one obviously wishes to be able to rotate one's torso, slip a punch, throw a right hand, etc. as quickly as possible, and--just as importantly--take punches to the body without being hurt or KO'd--one should continue progressively training these muscles until they become as strong--and consequently as large--as possible.

Staying within a weight class may require one to avoid maximizing the size and strength of certain muscle groups--the lats, for example--but the muscles of the neck and the abdominals, obliques and the muscles of lower back should always be as strong as possible.

Lots of nice scientific theory. But where is the actual proof of boxers reaching world class status with the methods of Dr. McGill or Arthur Jones?

Here's Lomachenko's ab training. He hasn't ruptured any discs yet.

[F l i c k e r]

I don't think it's necessary but at the same time, it sort of the easiest way to create density in the abdomen.

Show me a boxer who doesn't do sit ups at all or create any form of density in their abdomen and I'll show you a boxer who can't take a body shot. 100% of the time.