When it comes to building an effective workout routine, selecting the right exercises is crucial. However, not all exercises contribute to long-term progress or injury prevention. Some exercises are either inefficient, redundant, or even potentially harmful.
In this article, we will explore five common exercises that you might want to reconsider or eliminate from your training routine, especially if your goal is performance, muscle growth, or longevity in fitness.
Backed by science and informed by expert recommendations, these alternatives will guide you towards better choices for optimal results.
1. The Crunch
Why Crunches Might Be Ineffective
Crunches are a popular ab exercise, but they have significant limitations. The movement isolates the rectus abdominis, often referred to as the “six-pack” muscle, but it does not fully engage other important core muscles like the transverse abdominis and the obliques. A strong core is essential for overall athletic performance and injury prevention, but crunches don’t provide comprehensive engagement of the entire core complex.
A study published in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy found that crunches placed significant stress on the lumbar spine, which can lead to back pain over time, especially for those with pre-existing lower back conditions (McGill et al., 2005). Furthermore, crunches contribute little to functional strength, meaning they don’t replicate the kind of movements you use in daily life or sports.
Alternatives to Crunches
Instead of crunches, consider performing exercises that challenge the entire core in a more functional way. Planks, dead bugs, and anti-rotation exercises like the Pallof press are better at engaging multiple muscles simultaneously and improving core stability. Research supports the effectiveness of planks over crunches in activating the deeper core muscles that stabilise the spine (Ekstrom et al., 2007). These exercises enhance both strength and functionality, ensuring your core is working as a unit.
2. The Leg Press Machine
The Problem with the Leg Press
The leg press machine is a staple in many gyms, but it may not be the best choice for developing leg strength. One of the key issues with the leg press is that it isolates the quadriceps, while neglecting the role of the glutes and hamstrings. This imbalanced development can lead to strength discrepancies, which may increase the risk of injury. Additionally, the seated position of the leg press places your lower back in a compromised position, particularly when lifting heavy weights.
A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research found that squat exercises elicited greater muscle activation in both the quadriceps and hamstrings compared to the leg press (Escamilla et al., 2001). Moreover, the study indicated that squats had a more significant impact on core engagement, providing a better overall functional benefit.
Squat Variations: A Superior Choice
Instead of using the leg press machine, consider incorporating squat variations like back squats, front squats, or goblet squats. These exercises engage multiple muscle groups simultaneously, including the glutes, hamstrings, and core, while promoting functional movement patterns. Squats also help improve mobility in the hips and ankles, contributing to better overall athleticism.
For those concerned about knee health, research shows that properly performed squats, even with deep ranges of motion, are safe for the knees and can enhance knee joint stability (Hartmann et al., 2013). By choosing squats over the leg press, you can develop strength more effectively and with fewer risks.
3. The Behind-the-Neck Lat Pulldown
Risks Associated with Behind-the-Neck Pulldowns
The behind-the-neck lat pulldown is an exercise that is often recommended for building back strength, but its benefits are overshadowed by the potential risks. Pulling the bar behind the head places undue stress on the shoulder joint, specifically the rotator cuff muscles, which are highly susceptible to injury. Moreover, this position forces the neck into a forward-leaning posture, which can lead to strain or injury in the cervical spine.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research published a study that found behind-the-neck pulldowns to be less effective and more dangerous than traditional front-of-the-head variations. The study demonstrated that performing pulldowns to the front activated the latissimus dorsi more effectively, while reducing the risk of shoulder impingement (Signorile et al., 2002).
Safer and More Effective Alternatives
A front lat pulldown or pull-up offers a safer and more effective alternative. These variations keep the shoulders in a natural position and activate the back muscles more thoroughly. Pull-ups, in particular, are a compound movement that not only strengthens the back but also engages the core and shoulders in a functional manner. When performed correctly, pull-ups improve posture, build strength, and reduce the risk of injury compared to behind-the-neck exercises.
4. The Smith Machine Squat
The Limitations of the Smith Machine Squat
The Smith machine is designed to make squatting easier by guiding the bar on a fixed vertical track, but this restriction in movement creates problems. The natural squatting motion involves a combination of vertical and horizontal movement, which allows for the proper distribution of force across the hips, knees, and ankles. However, the fixed path of the Smith machine limits this natural movement, placing unnecessary strain on the knees and lower back.
A study conducted by Schwanbeck et al. (2009) in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research found that free weight squats activated more stabiliser muscles and produced greater overall muscle engagement than Smith machine squats. Additionally, free weight squats improve coordination and balance, making them a more functional exercise.
Free Weight Squats Are Superior
If you’re looking to build lower body strength and improve overall fitness, free weight squats should be your go-to exercise. They engage more muscles, enhance coordination, and have been proven to be more effective at building muscle than their machine-based counterparts (Schwanbeck et al., 2009). Furthermore, learning to perform squats with proper form will help protect your joints and reduce the risk of injury.
5. The Triceps Kickback
Why Triceps Kickbacks Are Inefficient
Triceps kickbacks are a common isolation exercise aimed at targeting the triceps, but they are not as efficient as other compound movements for building upper arm strength. One issue with triceps kickbacks is the limited range of motion, which prevents full engagement of the triceps throughout the entire movement. Additionally, since the exercise is performed with light weights, it doesn’t provide enough resistance to stimulate significant muscle growth.
Research comparing different triceps exercises, published in the American Council on Exercise (ACE), found that triceps dips and close-grip bench presses elicited much higher levels of muscle activation compared to triceps kickbacks (ACE, 2011). Compound exercises like these are more effective because they engage the triceps along with other muscles, promoting greater overall strength development.
More Effective Triceps Exercises
For building stronger and more defined triceps, consider prioritising dips or close-grip bench presses over triceps kickbacks. Both exercises allow for greater loads and engage multiple muscle groups, leading to better overall strength and hypertrophy. Dips, in particular, are a bodyweight exercise that targets not only the triceps but also the chest and shoulders, making them a far more functional and efficient movement.
Key Takeaways
Bibliography
American Council on Exercise (ACE). 2011. Triceps exercise effectiveness. Available at: https://www.acefitness.org/research.
Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Lowry, T.M., Barrentine, S.W. and Andrews, J.R., 2001. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of the squat during varying stance widths. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(4), pp. 984-998.
Hartmann, H., Wirth, K. and Klusemann, M., 2013. Analysis of the load on the knee joint and vertebral column with changes in squatting depth and weight load. Sports Medicine, 43(10), pp. 993-1008.
McGill, S.M., 2005. Low back disorders: evidence-based prevention and rehabilitation. Human Kinetics.
Schwanbeck, S., Chilibeck, P.D. and Binsted, G., 2009. A comparison of free weight squat to Smith machine squat using electromyography. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(9), pp.2588-2591.
Signorile, J.F., Zink, A.J., Szwed, S.P., 2002. Differences in muscle activation patterns among various lat pull-down exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4), pp.539-546.
This content is originated from https://www.boxrox.com your Online Magazine for Competitive Fitness.