Gary Player does 1,000 sit-ups

Golf''s original Mr. Fitness is now 75, but keeps up a grueling core conditioning program every week.

An Aug. 2 Wall Street Journal piece reviews Player's accomplishments and describes his workkout routines:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903520204576482082753114232.html

He's blowing smoke up your ass. He doesn't do 50 a day of either. He stayed in my friend's guest house a few years ago and would wake up after 8am, drink a bunch of coffee, and sit outside reading the paper. Then he'd shower, get dressed, and head out. At night he'd fall asleep in the La-Z-Boy and then eventually wander to bed.

Maybe he was on holiday?

But yeah, Gary's always been one for, shall we say, hyperbole. Either way, if I'm in his kind of shape at 75 I'll be quite happy (not to mention bloody surprised!)

Actually i read a book recently, "New Rules of Lifting for Abs" It went into detail how doing sit-ups and crunches are bad for you because they put unwanted stress on your spine.

They had a few points, 1 you do thousands of crunches, but to what benefit. Studies have shown allready that after the first set, additional sets do minimal muscle gain. Its the first set of repetitions that work the muscle the most. So why would doing a thousand be benefitial. Another point to this is, that the crunch is basically like a bicep curl, its the same function. Your contracting your abs, you contract your bicep. But to do a bicep curl you need heavy weights, with a crunch you use your body weight. So lets say if you can't do 1 sit up, and work doing them, you can now do 12. Typical set of reps. you work up to 1 thousand, didn't they tell most peopel once you can do an easy set of 12-15 that you up the weight. We can't up the weight, and in many cases we loose weight because of exercising.

Second, our backs are always in flexion, why do we want to flex them more. it puts unwanted stress on the back. Most people have bad posture at desk jobs, so why do a crunch that performs the same basic direction of movement. If anything you probably want to do supermans to counter act that movement. The only people who require the muscle movement that a crunch provides are MMA fighters. Because contracting the abs like that is a way to absorb the blow of a punch to the stomach.

in 2009 the the US army did a test, they had a set of soldiers do a exercise routine that included sit-ups. They had another group just do core stablization exercises (non-back Flexion, such as planks). The study shown there is no significan difference between the two groups in there fitness tests after the twelve week study. Basically doing excessive amounts of sit-ups does nothing more than doing non-situp type core exercises, and doesn't promote greater strength or endurance in the abdominal muscles.

So, save your back, cut out the sit-ups and crunches.

Quote:

Another problem with old-style sit-ups. People used to clasp their hands behind their head to do sit-ups. Several years ago the Marine Corps found out that people trying for max sit-ups in two minutes would sometimes sprain their neck: too much hand pressure behind the head. USMC changed the sit-up rules so that the person must cross the arms across the chest, making the sit-ups safer and more abdominally driven.

Why cant you up the weight? Place a weight on your chest and sit up? Besides this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Well, alot of people don't have free weights, or access to them. Alot of people just workout at home. Also, as i pointed out before, situps and crunches are bad for your back, they put it further in flexion. Also, a point made was that sit-ups and crunches did nothing to out do other methods of working out the abs and having endurance in the core, which those methods not putting strain on the back.

lol, people always seem to doubt what they can't do!

Zeph is true, fat can not be isolated with its loss. You loose fat uniformly through out the body, or how your genetics favor fat loss. Its impossible to say, i will do 1000 crunches and loose fat in the abdominals.

Crunches only contract the abdominal muscles, like your bicep contracts. The only time you need that movement is if your trying to stip up from lying down with out using your hands to help you up. Or you need to stay curled up into a ball. When you walk around your not bding yourself forward in a crunch. I can tighten my abdominal muscles with out performing a crunch. The onlything crunches will do is make your abdominal muscles look bigger. They do not enhance the strength or endurance in such a way to be superior to other exercises like Planks.

I have had more abdominal workout doing planks, mountain climbers, and incorporating abdominal resistance in weight lifting, such as doing alternating chest presses on a medecine ball, than i ever did doing a regular workout and crunches.

It really depends on how you do the crunches, but you are correct in that crunches alone with not shed fat. But , it is possible to turn cardio in a fat burning exercise as well. I do (5) reps of 100 every morning and night. I've been doing this for over 2 years now and my heart rate still raises 20 percent and I always finish in a pool of sweat... :-)

How much time does it take to do 500 crunches?  (Is this like asking how many licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop?  Nobody knows because nobody actually gets there?)

What is the full range of motion that you perform?  I'm assuming it is a small contraction and your shoulders only move a few inches.  On the surface, I'm impressed by a number like 500 or 1000, but what is actually being done here?  Sorry, I am always a skeptic on the internet where everyone goes 300 yards off the tee.  But I have no frame of reference for 500 reps of any exercise.  I don't know how I would measure up or how hard this would be.  It just seems impossible.

And why not spend time on more effective ab exercises like the plank, bicycle, captain's chair, reverse crunch, vertical leg crunch, and so forth?  What is gained by so many old fashioned crunches?