Talk:Sit-up/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Someone added this text to Section 2: ", and possibly by regulating hormonal imbalances like excessive cortisol from stress". This is possibly true, but it is unsourced. Even worse, the position that it was in made it appear as if the statement was being vouched by the source for the preceding part of the section, which someone else (ok, me) had written. Please don't do this! It's much worse even than adding unsourced statements - the mess it could create, and the need for every source to be checked in detail against apparent claims is horrific. Umptious 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I had to re-write the sit-up page from scratch because EVERYTHING there was unsourced. As it was, the page was nothing more than a random sampling of "what some guys on the Internet" thought. This is an important subject - getting things wrong can lead to serious injury - surrounded by a lot of voodoo from selling something or promoting their self esteem. If you want to make additions or changes, PLEASE DO SO REFERRING TO CREDIBLE SOURCES! By which I mean people with meaningful qualifications (which you have checked to make sure that they are not bought off the Internet) in exercise science, medicine and biomechanics. If you can't source something from the website of an academic at a respectable institution or a peer reviewed journal, in this area it is probably dangerous nonsense. Umptious 14:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not blank the page, start a new section instead. WLU 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- When discussion refers in content that is completely gone, it can only mislead new contributors. So - except for the discussion of merging - it is gone

I did some re-working, but didn't really change much of the content. Though I did removed the Janda thing, 'cause it was essentially unsourced (a bodybuilding forum doesn't reall count as a reliable source). WLU 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- The janda is back. You need to think more about sources ***and the claim being substantiated*** before fiddling them. In this case the only claims in the article that were being sourced are that i. there is such a thing as a janda, and ii. it is being ***claimed*** that its use of a certain technique stops hip flexor recruitment: by definition the source substantiates both these points. Now, if the article had definitely stated a particular *benefit* for the Janda, that would have required a very different, much weightier, source. Umptious 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• Merge - the name sit-up is much better known, though crunch has a better page setup. WLU 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"name sit-up is much better known, though crunch has a better page setup": Ok - you seem think these two exercises are two names for the same thing. No, they're not. They look alike if they're done wrong, or if you don't understand what you are seeing - but these are grounds for a merge. A reference each way is quite sufficient. If more abdominal exercises are added (but given the voodoo science level of previous contributions, I think this is over ambitious for now...) then it would be appropriate to add a page on abdominal exercises in general and have each way links with each exercise Umptious 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would argue against merging the two articles. For one, I would argue that the exercises are not the same (just like a 'Clean and Jerk' is different than a 'Snatch' despite the similarities, which are reasonably approximate to those between a crunch and a sit-up). Additionally, there has been some debate over whether or not "sit-ups" are harmful to the lower back - referenced in the Sit-up page. And I quote: "Controversy regarding recruitment of the abdominal muscles has caused sit-ups to be replaced by crunches in many places." (On another note, shouldn't this kind of phrase need a citation of some sort? I'd agree with it, not that I'm a calisthenics expert, but it does seem a tad ambitious of a statement without some source.) I feel that the fact that the crunch seems to be replacing the sit-up suggests a marked difference in exercise, and not simply the same named action with a different range of motion. -UB 76.100.187.20 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's also a question of having two stub articles, or a single article that compares the two. New article could be named abdominal exercises, or we just call it sit-ups and add crunch as a sub-section. Any links to crunch can link directly to the sub-section, no loss of information. WLU 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Have a single page called "Abdominal crunch", with redirects from sit-up and curl-up. Alex9788 11:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Hadn't been back in a while. WLU's rationalization works for me, with the redirects - I'd suggest not calling it 'abdominal exerciises,' though, because sit-ups/crunches aren't the only two by a long shot. Sit-up seems to be the more thorough article, so bringing crunch over here does make sense, I suppose. -UB 71.107.56.146 07:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI abdominal exercise. I was looking up which was better and found more than I bargained for, so created this ;-)--Mig77^(t) 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep separate. Move the general stuff and layout into the sit up article, and leave the crunch in its own article. A crunch is a sub-type of sit-up. I think merging the two articles would confuse matters. --Mig77^(t) 07:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep separate: These are entirely different movements. Crunches focus on spinal flexion only with no movement in the rest of the body. Sit-ups always include hip flexion (actually as the main focus) though spinal flexion can occur in the movement depending on how it is performed. The focus in the sit-up is to raise the torso and head at all costs, the focus in the crunch is to flex the spine in an isolated fashion. If these are merged, both articles' specificity will be lost, as will the controversies between their advocates. Doing so would be similar to merging an article on deadlifting with an article on barbell curling. Tyciol 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

a little biased

I find this a little biased because it starts out with the criticism.--BLACKLEMON-67 yay! (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I call nonsense on recent edit

I think the recent edit about concealment of erection with sit-ups is nonsense, please someone try it and see if it holds any truth. I would say if in an audience of 10 people, 1 spots it, then this is nothing but vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.25.46 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very confusing artile it referes to sit-ups as 'crunches', but crunches has a seperate page! "Full crunchs involve the hip flexors, as well as the abdominal muscles. This can cause the back to arch, with the risk of spinal damage. This is a particular risk for individuals with weak abdominal muscles, but also for individuals who train aggressively, exhausting their abdominal muscles in a training session. Even if these risks are avoided, the leverage exerted by the hip flexors risks compression of the lumbar intervertebral discs.[3] Most branches of the US armed forces have ceased using crunchs in training because of the problems resulting from these factors, which can include direct back damage and referred pain or numbness due to pinching of the spinal cord.[4]

According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, a straight leg crunch generates approximately 3500 newtons (790 lbf) of force on the spine, and a bent-knee crunch 3350 newtons (750 lbf), both levels above the 3300 newtons (740 lbf) that correlates highly with lower back injury.[5]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

sit ups are dangerous?

If sit ups are dangerous then how come every soldier on the planet isn't walking around with a back brace? Can we even name one soldier out of the billions of soldiers on earth who owes any major back problems to the military sit up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.236.88 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 March 2009 --ANON 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.54 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 May 2013

International Association of Fire Fighters say sit ups are dangerous

The results of McGill’s decades of spine research is slowly being accepted outside the worlds of academia and elite athletics. Ian Crosby of the Calgary Fire Department saw the shift first-hand. He’s on a committee of the International Association of Fire Fighters that establishes criteria for the make-or-break fitness test. A few years ago, they reviewed the annual sit-up test, which involved doing steady crunches in time to a metronome. The problem, for Crosby, is that anyone being assessed “will train to get better. And that involves repeated bouts of sit-ups.” So last year, after talking to Stuart McGill and other experts, the IAFF dropped the sit-up in favour of the prone plank—basically a static push-up that will leave the unfit trembling with fatigue.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/19/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/ --ANON 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.54 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 May 2013

Added "cn" onto the point at which we claim that situps cause lordosis. Kortoso (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Stuart McGill seems to have reputable credentials - he's professor of spine biomechanics at the University of Waterloo, but the first citation of his work comes from a Chiropractic website, which takes away his credibility. Perhaps a link to a source such as this would be better: http://www.backfitpro.com/documents/Spine-flexion-myths-truths-and-issues.pdf

I'm sure he's an utter saint (jk), but reputable cites are always needed with WP. Thanks! Kortoso (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sit-up (exercise) → Sit-up – Might as well. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't mind the move, but what happened to the dab page that was at Sit-up until recently? I can't find a record of a move anywhere, and there's no hatnote on Sit-up (exercise). Powers ^T 23:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore disambiguation page that was unceremoniously redirected to this page. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have WP:BOLDly restored the disambiguation page. If this is renamed, the disambiguation page can be displaced to Sit-up (disambiguation) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Two of them don't even have a link, and "Sit Up Ltd." is a perfect case for a hatnote. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, you might be right that a dab page isn't needed. Powers ^T 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Commend 65.94.76.126, for sure. However, I fully support this move. This is silly. Red Slash 18:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Upon further review, the dab page is indeed unnecessary. The broadcaster will be hatnoted and the Wiktionary links will be added to the article. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sit ups punishment

The use of sit-ups as a punishment should be discussed in the sit-ups article, assuming it can be sourced. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Dig up a source first, then we can discuss it. Kortoso (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree, but I didn't want to yet suggest its deletion. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)