ExRx.net

ok ok, I'll retract my foam rolling example, but hold the phone there Kenny, I definitely feel my abs working during chin ups, I assumed everyone did. It came as no surprise to me that there was so much activation reported when Contreras tested that.

Then again, my abs are quite weak in comparison to the rest of me so that could be a factor.

Don't Turkish get ups start with a loaded sit up?

Also, if I want to stop my back arching during OH press, I have to squeeze my abs like crazy.

During front squats, if I'm going to stop them hurting my back I have to brace my abs so hard that they sometimes fatigue before my legs do! Although again my specific weaknesses make me not such a great example.

As for deadlifts, while I agree that the abs are involved, I do not believe they train them to an extent that they'll hypertrophy, which is the level of activation I'm talking about

It didn't come as a surprise to me, either. I don't question you feel your abs to at least some extent on chin ups, it's not unheard of. However i'm questioning the relevance of what you feel vs what is going on and to what effect. Going by your indicators of effectiveness (DOMS, "feeling the burn" , etc), and throwing in Brets EMG data, you should "feel" your abs in chin ups more than you feel them in sit ups, crunches, leg raises, etc.



Could be. I must admit I don't think i've ever had DOMS in my abs from chin ups, and rarely feel them to any noticeable effect. However, I have had 1 or clients tell me they could "feel" them working.

Likewise, the first few times people do stir the pot or pallof press, most of the time they DON'T "feel" their abs doing much of anything, but are rewarded with some really nice DOMS over the next few days. Interestingly i've noticed as they get better and can "feel" the abs doing what they're supposed to do, they tend to not get any DOMS. Not really a surprise, as one of the things we do know about DOMS is that "new stuff" seems to cause it. One of the things we don't know is whether it has any relevance whatsoever on how the exercise or workout went.

As an aside, the worse "midsection" (abs and obliques) DOMS i've ever had was from learning how to do leg kicks.



In short, yes. But not really <----- temped to leave it at this just for the wording

First thought is I wonder the relevance? It's a very small part of a large sequence of movements. However, no it's not a sit up. It's really the second step, well actually the third step if you include rolling over from the fetal position. You press a weight out, lock the arm, pack your shoulder (this is key), your knee on the same side is bent, your opposite hand is on the floor. You dig the heel of the bent leg in (kinda like squatting),whist driving your chest up, leading with the sternum, rolling on to the elbow of the other hand. The chest shouldn't cave in, this is actually what i'd consider technique break down. It indicates a loss of core control and normally you'll see the bent leg lift off the ground when this happens, too. If this does occur then you have something that looks a lot more like a traditional situp. This step gets referred to as "punch and crunch" but, there should be minimal flexion if any, though. In truth a decent weight WILL cause minimal flexion, but the chest shouldn't cave in and if it does, you've just compromised movement/joint integrity which defies the point in the exercise in my book (unless you're going for a PB, in which case, it's game time and sometimes sh*t goes bad).

So, yes, it could be said the first part is a loaded sit up. The similarity is like comparing, say, a Box Squat to those ankle quarter squats that most people in most gyms do. You could say they're the same because they're both squats but when you really look at them they're drastically different.

Can you tell i've fell in love with Turkish Get ups recently?



Agree on OH press but we're going by feel in these movement vs feel on more traditional forms of "ab work".

On front squats - we need to book this other session - i'd actually argue your abs are strong, bob, and it's your hips you need to engage more. However, you are still correct and front squats are a great exercise to "feel" your abs - actually the "plate loaded" front squat, you will feel it even more (holding a plate in the front raise position).

It's just how much weight (pun intended) you put on feel/doms/lactic acid, etc, i'm questioning.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

It's not that I feel DOMS to be the main indicator of effectiveness, but if I have DOMS in a bodypart, then I take that as a reliable indicator that the bodypart was worked.



I feel my abs like crazy doing stir the pot. Your clients must all be in much better shape than me! Their core will be anyway. That's very believable. My core sucks. The worst abs DOMS I get in my abs is consistently from rollouts. I feel it right down in my LOWER abs, haha.



are you Tyciol in disguise? It's a loaded sit up! At least it is the way I do them. Read an interesting thing by Mike Robertson today where he said that sit ups and crunches aren't all that bad for you seeing as how if you do them right the movement should come from your t spine and not your lumbar spine.



I've said this in every thread we've spoken in for like the last week! We'll get a session booked sometime this month if you're free?

I haven't even attempted a front squat since the last time I hurt my back doing them. Tried to do that grip where you use lifting straps and it was really wobbly and unstable and I ended up hurting my back loads. Just gave up on them after that. In fact, all my quad work has been done on a leg press for the last couple of months! I'm so ashamed. I'm trying to rationalise it by saying I'm getting my core up to snuff, but really I'm just too scared in case I get injured again.

If you do the turkish get up with enough weight, you have to use proper form or else you won't be able to do it. You can not do a loaded situp with as much weight as you should be able to get up with. If you can situp, you're a pussy. Kenny gave you some of the steps. The "sit up" portion is supported with your non working hand and you are actually more on your side. Starting from the arm-bar position, you push yourself up high enough to get your leg under you. It's actually the tranistion to the high kneeling that uses the most of your core, almost like a windmill. Then of course is the standing up which challenges your core stability.

Does this look like a sit up?


here's the Robertson link. Is there any point in this sequence that looks like a sit up?
http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blo ... p-by-step/

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

woah looks like I struck a nerve there Stu. I thought after you rolled onto your back you had to do a sit up to get your shoulders off the floor then put your non working hand down to get you into a lunge position

Sorry if I came across abruptly. Start doing them with more weight and You'll know what I'm talking about.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

no not at all Stu, no apology necessary

Foam rolling is at hypothesis status, we notice it has these certain benefits. We know for a fact that X action has Y effect. It's just not proven because we don't know why. The cause/effect was observed *BEFORE* people made a conclusion. That is the difference.

Experience is only a hypothesis, which as I said appears unlikely based on what we know. A feeling of where it comes from doesn't tell you anything. The ENG is suspect, and there are other possible explanations.

Your explanation of "theory" applies to EVERYTHING in science. It's a definitive characteristic of empiricism in general actually. It says nothing about his experiment specifically.

Regarding experience:
Yes, that's the movie. Seeing it really explains it better than reading an explanation. Basically an experience you have, where you know something based on real experiential empirical evidence, is something you know to be real. If for whatever reason that evidence no longer exists, then obviously you will not be able to prove it, and nobody else will have this knowledge of reality. However it doesn't invalidate what you know from actual evidence. If people had direct access to your mind, then they would know what you know. So while this experience is irrelevant to other people, it's not irrelevant to you. I hope that makes sense.

How did you observe it? How do you know it is true?

It can't be seen.

That is not an accurate indicator of which part of single head muscle is being used. The best you can get with this is oblique vs rectus. Sometimes it's even hard to tell rectus vs hip flexors.

That's why you accept them with no scrutiny. You are not being skeptical at all. You are looking for excuses to justify believing it.

LOL Yes indeed, I made phrasing error there. It should have been phrased "the human brain", as you rightly point out.

Yes, they certainly do.


One piece of evidence I would accept:
A person who has major imbalance between the upper and lower abs. Say for example someone who is totally ripped so you can see the abs clearly, and the top portion is considerably larger than the bottom, or the other way around. Maybe a skinny person who is mostly untrained can do nothing but high volume weighted crunches, and then show that the upper portion got larger and the lower didn't.

A twin study wherein two skinny-fat computer nerds do one exercise apiece... now that would be interesting.

but I noticed it before I made my conclusions too. I'll explain: back in my late teens I did a zillion sit ups a day. Then I watched the film American Psycho and saw him doing crunches so I switch to doing those, and I noticed more development in the lower portion of my abs. That led me to believe that the lower portion could be emphasised. Fast forward a few years to when I started taking my training seriously and started researching it, and I saw written everywhere that you couldn't target different parts of the abs and I was thinking "WTF? I've been doing it for years."



I'll agree the EMG is suspect. I actually asked Bret what he did to control for increased hip flexor activation and he said "nothing" which is a little disappointing.



so I'm Jodie Foster in Contact? Ah well, it's better than being Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver I suppose...



by observing the effect on my own abdominal development



I don't feel I need justification, I observed it (in my mind at least) and that's enough for me



hehe, no hard feelings big guy


Yes, they certainly do.

at least we agree on something!

I'm sorry if this discussion is making me come across as stubborn or arrogant, I don't mean to be. I just really do think that I managed to emphasise my lower abs. Perhaps it was my mind playing tricks on me, but I don't think so.

I don't think that.


The rest of it can really be summed up with hip flexors. There is a reason to do stuff for "lower abs", and that's because it strengthens the hip flexors. How do you know that wasn't the development you were seeing? You are also ignoring the evidence of how the rectus is, and how it contracts as a whole. This should be enough to show the cause of your observation is almost certainly because of something else. There is also the issue that the abs are smaller at the bottom, so as you develop, the top will be big enough to pop out before the bottom is. So you can also have a coincidence with when you happened to start doing those types of exercises. Pretty much anything is better than the conclusion that is almost certainly physiologically impossible. You can't make a rope tighter at the bottom by pulling on it, without something in the middle making the tension different.