Six Pack

>>40110758
They're not bad, they're just over valued. People only focus on one group of muscles and forget about the others.

There's also a normie meme that all you have to do is sit ups and you'll get a six pack overnight.

>>40110758
To get a six pack you just need to burn the fat in the stomach area and sit ups are a really inefficient way to burn calories. I have always seen sit-ups/crunches as a way for people to catch a break between exercises.

File: 1484431237244.jpg (65KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x400px

>>40111110
1 off

>>40111111

Aren't situps and crunches bad for your spine?

abs can be trained like any other muscle, with progressive overload.

I think sit-ups and crunches are not great for that, because

1) they aren't that easy to overload (other than going to infinite reps) and
2) they just train the type of low-intensity stabilization-kind-of-pattern that your abdominal muscles perform day-in day-out anyway. They are very used to this kind of constant, high-rep, low-intensity stressing.

I like to hit them with a weighted crunch machine for 6-10 reps 3x a week, and I try to go for a PR at least once a week. This has really made them noticably bigger for me, even after only like 4 weeks of doing it.

Other alternatives that allow weighting like cable crunches exist, but once you go past a certain weight, they might become a little impractical unless you anchor yourself to the ground somehow or something.