Sign in or 
Share this
Showing 2 posts
ben360 |
Why Not Crunches?
Jul 26 2011, 6:26 PM EDT
They're really a better gauge of strength than sit-ups, due to the fact that you can 'rock' while performing sit-ups to give your body momentum, and thus not use your muscles as much. Crunches are like sit-ups, except you only go up to a 45° angle, eliminating the ability to 'rock'. Also, the marines use crunches in their test.
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
None
|
Abu_Fulan |
1. RE: Why Not Crunches?
Jul 26 2011, 6:31 PM EDT
That's just like the Marines, doing the job halfway and then quitting. But seriously, I'm pretty sure the APFT includes sit ups because they're easier to grade than crunches -- less room for discussion about whether a guy is doing the exercise properly. With the sit up, a soldier's back has to "break the plane" (pass the 90 degree angle) when he sits up or the repetition doesn't count. Do you find this valuable? |
