Good Work Out For Abs?

[quote]Robert P. wrote:
Squats, deadlifts, and overhead presses, as heavy as you can. Also, several sets of “pushing away from the dinnertable”, something pretty much every coach on T-Nation recommends if you want to get shredded. Also, post some stats and maybe a picture if you want advice and not flames.[/quote]

ugh… another oversimplification. althugh abs are activated during these activities, the mast majority of people are going to need some direct work that gives the abs work through a greater range of motion.

quality abs need direct work. hanging tucks, pikes, crunches on the floor or on an exercise ball, leg raises, etc.

and of course dieting is important for the large majority of people looking for visible abs.

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

rrjc5488 wrote:
SQUATS AND MILK!

No, that ain’t how you build abs. Back to the dungeon with you.

Thanks, bud. It was a joke.

If you really wanted to get technical, though… Squats DO work your abs very well, and with enough milk (calories) you’d be able to build them with squats and milk, they just might not be visible.[/quote]

I agree with this sense training right with plenty of squat and deadlift varations and being on a bulking cycle
well my stomach has obviously gained size My top of row of ab muscles is visually more defined and bigger than before

Nominal prospect find a diffrent website please

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Goddamn wrote:
Hi Guys and Gals

Would love to get a really good workout for my abs. Going on holiday and want to try and cut as mcu as possible.

So bring on the pain??

Diet more than anyting. My skinny-assed 9 year old son has a great six-pack without doing a single crunch. We all have a nice six-pack under the fat.

[/quote]

no, we don’t all have a nice pack under the fat. you make it seem like everyone’s got great abs if they just go low-carb. that’s hardly the case. like any other muscle, abs need to be developed over time with progression. your legs will look better when they can help you squat 500 pounds than when you started: squatting 135 pounds.

same goes for your abs: they will look better when you can do many reps and sets of hanging pikes with good form, and not just some half-asses crunches on the ground at the end of some thursday workout for 15 minutes.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
For visible abs, DON’T squat, DL, row, or any of the other compound movements.

Core strengthing exercises don’t do jack shit for developing the visible abdominal musculature. [/quote]

you are joking right?
If you want increase the liklihood of back trouble keep crunching away. I prefer to work the abdominal muscles in their specific function, that is, resistors of motion.
Crunchers are the kind of people that do “leg curls” only for hamstring development.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
same goes for your abs: they will look better when you can do many reps and sets of hanging pikes with good form, and not just some half-asses crunches on the ground at the end of some thursday workout for 15 minutes.
[/quote]

Most definitely. Most people are just not “born” with great abs. Sedentary types will have even more work to do.
Not to sound like a typical PTrainer bitch, but this ab class at my gym is pretty good. It’s 30 minutes of straight-up torture, and about the most legit use of the swiss ball and bosu at the gym.

…in regards to the hips bent to 90 to inhibit hip flexors, and this is only if you want to consider the knowledge of Stuart McGill, that advice has been proven to be inaccurate.

Want to test your ab strength? Flat on your back, shoulders to ankles all against the ground, no support. Can you curl up without lifting your thighs? most people cant too well. Now with hands behing your head, elbows flat, can you curl up your hips without using momentum? If not, your ext obliques are weak.

the best exercise i ever did for visible abs is also the hardest one. Any type of hanging abdominal exercise…like a reverse crunch or even a leg raise always seemed to bring out the lines. my $.02

but if you really want abs, just stop eating and do alot of drugs

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Goddamn wrote:
Hi Guys and Gals

Would love to get a really good workout for my abs. Going on holiday and want to try and cut as mcu as possible.

So bring on the pain??

Diet more than anyting. My skinny-assed 9 year old son has a great six-pack without doing a single crunch. We all have a nice six-pack under the fat.

no, we don’t all have a nice pack under the fat. you make it seem like everyone’s got great abs if they just go low-carb. that’s hardly the case. like any other muscle, abs need to be developed over time with progression. your legs will look better when they can help you squat 500 pounds than when you started: squatting 135 pounds.

same goes for your abs: they will look better when you can do many reps and sets of hanging pikes with good form, and not just some half-asses crunches on the ground at the end of some thursday workout for 15 minutes.
[/quote]

Well yes and no. But your comparision of abs and legs is a wrong one. I would compare abs to biceps. You can get amazing bi’s without doing any direct work, and in fact, you will probably see better results from never doing any direct bi work. Of course its because your bi’s are getting blasted by doing heavy compound movements like rows, pullups, hell, even deads.

Your abs are the same way as the bi’s. They get slammed every time you do a heavy compound movement. Cleans hit the abs. So do pullups. So do squats. hell, pretty much any heavy duty olympic lift punishes your abs. Thats why I, like alot of people who lift heavy compound movements, don’t directly do much ab work just like we don’t do much bi work.

I havent done a situp in forever, but I could probably crank the hell out of whatever ab exercise I wanted to because they are strong from doing other stuff. Just like bi’s. Show me a big guy who can pull a ton of weight, yet hardly does a curl, yet if wanted, he could curl a ton.

Bottom line - lift heavy compound movements and your abs will grow. Plus you get the benefit of the other muscles growing, not just abs. Want to see the results? Single digit BF. Diet down.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
For visible abs, DON’T squat, DL, row, or any of the other compound movements.

Core strengthing exercises don’t do jack shit for developing the visible abdominal musculature.

you are joking right?
If you want increase the liklihood of back trouble keep crunching away. I prefer to work the abdominal muscles in their specific function, that is, resistors of motion.
Crunchers are the kind of people that do “leg curls” only for hamstring development.[/quote]

since when does performing crunches increase the likelihood of back trouble? you gonna explain that in a little more detail?

and since when is the ‘specific function’ of the abdominals ‘resitance of motion’?

that is some stupid shit. when the abdominals contract, they flex the thorax forwards and elevates the pelvis. . the obliques, when contracts, descend the ribs and also flex the thorax over the pelvis.

i never heard of this ‘resistors of motion’ shit. sounds like another bullshit term just like ‘functional training’. yes, the abs act as stabilizers in many movements… so?

[quote]Kratos wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
same goes for your abs: they will look better when you can do many reps and sets of hanging pikes with good form, and not just some half-asses crunches on the ground at the end of some thursday workout for 15 minutes.

Most definitely. Most people are just not “born” with great abs. Sedentary types will have even more work to do.
Not to sound like a typical PTrainer bitch, but this ab class at my gym is pretty good. It’s 30 minutes of straight-up torture, and about the most legit use of the swiss ball and bosu at the gym.[/quote]

although you’ll never catch me in one of those classes, i know that properly done ab-specific classes will definitely yield big results for people who are also paying their dues in the gym with other exercises and in the kitchen.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
the best exercise i ever did for visible abs is also the hardest one. Any type of hanging abdominal exercise…like a reverse crunch or even a leg raise always seemed to bring out the lines. my $.02
[/quote]

I’ll agree with that. I like kneeling pull-down cable crunches as well.

I don’t see the point of avoiding direct work for any body part that you want to improve. Have a guy with long arms and strong shoulders do nothing but barbell bench press. Is his chest going to get huge?

Probably not because his triceps and anterior delts are going to do all the work. Your body is going to try to move the weight as efficiently as possible. If that doesn’t coincide with your physique goals, then you’re missing out, IMO.

The primary core muscles targetted by power movements are the internal stabilizers, the IO and TA. These muscles don’t contribute to an aesethetic midsection.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
you are joking right?
If you want increase the liklihood of back trouble keep crunching away. I prefer to work the abdominal muscles in their specific function, that is, resistors of motion.
Crunchers are the kind of people that do “leg curls” only for hamstring development.[/quote]

The OP wasn’t looking for functional core training, he was looking for aesthetic development. As far as the former is concerned, I agree with you. But power movements emphasizing abdominal stabilization don’t build sixpacks. Sorry, but it’s a fact.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
like any other muscle, abs need to be developed over time with progression. your legs will look better when they can help you squat 500 pounds than when you started: squatting 135 pounds.

same goes for your abs: they will look better when you can do many reps and sets of hanging pikes with good form, and not just some half-asses crunches on the ground at the end of some thursday workout for 15 minutes.
[/quote]

Very true. You can get a better looking midsection by training your abs directly more often.

[quote]Phatshady912 wrote:
Wasn’t there an article saying this was false in the last 2 days?[/quote]

The article referred to bent knees, not hips. Whether this was a mistake, I do not know. But there were plenty of things wrong with the article besides that.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
…in regards to the hips bent to 90 to inhibit hip flexors, and this is only if you want to consider the knowledge of Stuart McGill, that advice has been proven to be inaccurate.

Want to test your ab strength? Flat on your back, shoulders to ankles all against the ground, no support. Can you curl up without lifting your thighs? most people cant too well. Now with hands behing your head, elbows flat, can you curl up your hips without using momentum? If not, your ext obliques are weak.[/quote]

The advice about bending the hips while performing crunches is not inaccurate; it is very easy to demonstrate and see the difference for yourself. Simply try performing crunches with your legs down and then raised. When you raise them, you will immediately feel the activation of the RA increase ten-fold.

Sit-ups should never be performed, period, and crunches should never be done with feet on the ground. The tests of ab strength you wrote about in your second paragraph actually validate this point. As you pointed out, most people have weak RA’s and dominant flexors. That’s why, in any type of movement involving flexion of the trunk or spine, their flexors will inhibit the RA from activating properly. The solution is very simple.

As described above, simply modify the movement to begin with the flexors in their fully contracted position (i.e. hips raised perpendicular to the ground). If they are fully contracted in the starting position, then they have nowhere else to “go” during the movement. Thus, they cannot be engaged and cannot take-over for the RA. I’m telling you, the difference is unmistakable. You don’t need a physiology textbook. Get on your back and compare the two types of crunches in terms of how much they stress the abs.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
since when does performing crunches increase the likelihood of back trouble? you gonna explain that in a little more detail?

and since when is the ‘specific function’ of the abdominals ‘resitance of motion’?

that is some stupid shit. when the abdominals contract, they flex the thorax forwards and elevates the pelvis. . the obliques, when contracts, descend the ribs and also flex the thorax over the pelvis.

i never heard of this ‘resistors of motion’ shit. sounds like another bullshit term just like ‘functional training’. yes, the abs act as stabilizers in many movements… so?[/quote]

There is a school of thought in the strength/functional training field (not without merit) that says those things about the abs. I believe there was an article posted about it not too long ago. Either Stuart McGill, Paul Chek, or Pavel T. or all three have said similiar things.

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:

Well yes and no. But your comparision of abs and legs is a wrong one. [/quote]

no it isn’t. muscles will become bigger through progression. it does not matter what muscles we are comparing. progression comes in many forms. more reps, more sets, better technique, more weight, more often per week, shorter rest times, etc.

like any other muscle, abs will look better when they can do more. your legs will look different when you can squat 495 pounds as opposed to 135 pounds. to be fair, i’m sure quaite a few parts of a trainee’s body will look better when squatting that weight <lower back, abs, overall body weight, etc>.

but if you really want a barometer for abdominal development rather than just looking in the mirror and subjectively guessing if they look better, measure their strength by doing abdominal-dominant exercises. can you do more crunches than last month? more hanging tuck or pikes than a few months ago? that’s how you’ll test your abdominal progression.

I would compare abs to biceps. You can get amazing bi’s without doing any direct work, and in fact, you will probably see better results from never doing any direct bi work. Of course its because your bi’s are getting blasted by doing heavy compound movements like rows, pullups, hell, even deads.

actually, i don’t think i’ve ever seen anyone with ‘amazing’ biceps that doesn’t do some direct work for biceps, as well. and where are you coming from with someone getting better results without any direct bicep work? it’s clear that you do not have much experience in the gym and you’re sounding a lot like those anti-isolation fanboys that are all too common in these forums.

all things being equal between two trainees, the one who adds direct abdominal and bicep work into his/her routine <while maintaining a smart program and balance of total work volume on his/her body respective of his/her current conditioning> will have better abs and biceps than his/her counterpart who is NOT doing direct abdominal and bicep work.

and let me tell you this, if your biceps feel ‘blasted’ after doing deadlifts and chin-ups, that just shows how out-of-condition your biceps are. of course biceps do get stimulation during upper body pulls which involve forearm flexion <rows, pull-ups, etc>, but for any trainee with at least a few years of training experience <SMART training experience, i should say> under his belt, he can add some direct bicep work and accelerate his progression in biceps development.

Your abs are the same way as the bi’s. They get slammed every time you do a heavy compound movement. Cleans hit the abs. So do pullups. So do squats. hell, pretty much any heavy duty olympic lift punishes your abs. Thats why I, like alot of people who lift heavy compound movements, don’t directly do much ab work just like we don’t do much bi work.

look, 99% of my routine is compound movements. but my abdominals hardly get ‘slammed’ when i do heavy front squats or weighted chins or whatever. of course they are activated, but it is not significant activation. it is hardly ‘punishment’.

let’s look at heavy bench, for example. when you do heavy bench <and if you do it my way, semi-powerlifting style> you get big activation in the pecs, tris, delts, and to a lesser degree lats, abs, forearms and quads. but what really grows from this movement? the first three muscles i mentioned.

I havent done a situp in forever, but I could probably crank the hell out of whatever ab exercise I wanted to because they are strong from doing other stuff. Just like bi’s. Show me a big guy who can pull a ton of weight, yet hardly does a curl, yet if wanted, he could curl a ton.

i’m pretty sure you couldn’t hang in with anyone who does a lot of ab work . it shows your lack of experience in the gym to think that if you don’t even do crunches you’d somehow be good at leg raises or hanging pikes simply because you do squats and chins.

same thing goes for the curling, although biceps do get signifant stimulation from compound upper body pulls, you’ll reap even more cosmetic and performance benefit if you add an adequate amount of direct arm work where appropriate.

same for abs. squat all you want, but if you want great abs you’re gonna need to give them some direct work and focus on progression in those movements.

Bottom line - lift heavy compound movements and your abs will grow. Plus you get the benefit of the other muscles growing, not just abs. Want to see the results? Single digit BF. Diet down.[/quote]

just out of curiousity, i wonder what you look like and how strong you are. at the end of the day, those of us with a lot of quality experience understand that abs are one of those muscle groups that, for most people anyways, need direct work in order to be great.

"look, 99% of my routine is compound movements. but my abdominals hardly get ‘slammed’ when i do heavy front squats or weighted chins or whatever. of course they are activated, but it is not significant activation. it is hardly ‘punishment’. "

Personally, I feel that some direct abdominal work should be done, but I have to tell you the day after maxing out on front squats, the deep abdominal muscles responsible for compression, internal obliques and transverse abdominis will be somewhat sore when I try to forcefully expand my abdominal region.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
For visible abs, DON’T squat, DL, row, or any of the other compound movements.

Core strengthing exercises don’t do jack shit for developing the visible abdominal musculature.

you are joking right?
If you want increase the liklihood of back trouble keep crunching away. I prefer to work the abdominal muscles in their specific function, that is, resistors of motion.
Crunchers are the kind of people that do “leg curls” only for hamstring development.

since when does performing crunches increase the likelihood of back trouble? you gonna explain that in a little more detail?

and since when is the ‘specific function’ of the abdominals ‘resitance of motion’?

that is some stupid shit. when the abdominals contract, they flex the thorax forwards and elevates the pelvis. . the obliques, when contracts, descend the ribs and also flex the thorax over the pelvis.

i never heard of this ‘resistors of motion’ shit. sounds like another bullshit term just like ‘functional training’. yes, the abs act as stabilizers in many movements… so?[/quote]

OK, you are probably right. Guys like Stuart McGill and Mike Boyle are complete idiots. What do they know?
and isn’t that Sahrmann full of shit too.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
…Want to test your ab strength? Flat on your back, shoulders to ankles all against the ground, no support. Can you curl up without lifting your thighs? most people cant too well. Now with hands behing your head, elbows flat, can you curl up your hips without using momentum? If not, your ext obliques are weak.

My test would be…can you do 6 - 10 or more hanging pikes, strict form…minimal rocking of the upper body, toes pointed, knees locked, slow and under control in both directions.[/quote]

That is post grad ab stuff. If someone can do this, I would say that they have strong abs

and just because I have the time, an article that discusses the study that shows that flexed hip and knee actually INCREASE psoas activity is med sci sports exerc, 30 (2):301-302

can someone provide a study to the contrary?

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
OK, you are probably right. Guys like Stuart McGill and Mike Boyle are complete idiots. What do they know?
and isn’t that Sahrmann full of shit too. [/quote]

They aren’t bodybuilding coaches. They probably don’t know a whole lot about bodybuilding. Why do you continue to pretend that there aren’t 2 diametrically opposed schools of thought here? I am merely acting as a devil’s advocate for the bodybuilding school because that’s what the thread creator asked for.

By and large, people who don’t powerlift aren’t interested in “strong abs”. They don’t want a “bench belly”, no matter how strong it is. What they want is a Brad Pitt/Bruce Lee sixpack, and squats aren’t going to give it to them. Sorry.

[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
"look, 99% of my routine is compound movements. but my abdominals hardly get ‘slammed’ when i do heavy front squats or weighted chins or whatever. of course they are activated, but it is not significant activation. it is hardly ‘punishment’. "

Personally, I feel that some direct abdominal work should be done, but I have to tell you the day after maxing out on front squats, the deep abdominal muscles responsible for compression, internal obliques and transverse abdominis will be somewhat sore when I try to forcefully expand my abdominal region.

[/quote]

ok… but that’s maxing out. and even in that case i’d say your abs are out of condition if they feel sore from maxing out on front squats.