The big abs debate...

[TheNegation]

You would not believe the load of bull**** I've seen on this site over the years. And it never gets better. There are like six guys on here -- maybe four, now -- who understand training science and modern exercise theory.

There was one thread on here where a guy was asking for advice because he was getting a cramp in his side when running. Some assmonkey told him, and I quote:

"Digging your fingers into the muscle will pop the bubbles and make it go away."

Just FYI, I have an NSCA-CPT and I'm a former bodybuilder. I used to box, briefly coached, and then quit coaching because the head coach knew f-ck all about physiology. He wouldn't let the kids drink water during a 90-minute workout because "water makes you weak and fat," and didn't want them to stretch because, and I quote, "Stretching makes your muscles flabby. You need to stay tight and hard, so those punches bounce off." These kids were getting muscle spasms and headaches from dehydration and he was telling them to work through it, to toughen up.

I **** you not.

When I pulled him aside and asked him WTF, he started yelling at me, saying things like, "You think you know everything 'cuz you've been to college and studied all that stuff."

Well, *******, it sure helps.

So I quit coaching and now I'm back to boxing. Well, I was back to boxing. I joined the Army Reserve last year and I'm shipping out in a couple of weeks.

Boxers are, as a group, the most willfully ignorant, clueless bunch of morons I've ever witnessed when it comes to nutrition and physiology, and especially about modern training concepts. At my first gym guys were arguing over water vs. Gatorade, and whether or not protein worked. (You'll still see posts on this board about "Does Protein Work?" "Is Creatine Good?" "Are Pushups Good for Boxing?")

I know fencers who know more about training than most boxers.

I do believe that a young boxer who takes advantage of modern exercise science -- who throws off the shackles of steak and potatoes and jump rope -- will dominate this sport and bring it back from the edge of extinction. I really do. I wish I'd found this sport twenty years ago.

Since I'm leaving, I leave you with this thought: As long as boxers and trainers want to pretend they're still living in the glory days of the past, the sport is going to remain there: in the past.

Agreed 100%. Green K your way.

What's even more annoying is that people refuse to accept and embrace these proven new training concepts, even when the evidence is clear as ****ing day.

I would like to say it doesn't bother me because I know it works and I'll take full advantage of it, but at the same time it pisses me off because people here spread around falsehoods like they are facts, and in the process end up ****ing with peoples well being and their own, which I don't like to see happen.

[jrosales13]

This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.

If I want to be cut up and lean muscles should I go on a stright protein and fiber diet? I don't want to get a buff and huge like a body builder. But, I would like to be cut up... And, somebody told me the best way to get like that is too like very little carbs and just a lot of protein and fiber. But, he is not expert... So I don't know if that is true... but it seems like you know what you are talking about... so maybe you can help me out...

[Spartacus Sully]

If I want to be cut up and lean muscles should I go on a stright protein and fiber diet? I don't want to get a buff and huge like a body builder. But, I would like to be cut up... And, somebody told me the best way to get like that is too like very little carbs and just a lot of protein and fiber. But, he is not expert... So I don't know if that is true... but it seems like you know what you are talking about... so maybe you can help me out...

if you just want to be skinny diet, or diet and do light exercise.

if your actually trying to maintain some strength and work out routinely i would first take my lean mass lets say im 150 and im 10% bf so thats 135 lb thats not fat, on average each lb of non fat needs about 19 calories so 135 * 19 = about 2500 calories a day.

so about 1 gram of protein for every lb of bodyweight so 150 g of protein which is 600 calories. this leaves 1900 calories a day id say about 70-80% of this should be carbs and the rest fats.

as well i would recommend training 4-5 times a week for about an hour each time if not more.

or at least thats what i would do if tasty cakes, cookies, and ice cream didn't taste so damn good.

as well just because some one can claim that some one else is wrong dosnt mean that they know whats right.

[DeadlyWeapon]

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

[Spartacus Sully]

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

i dont know its a good starting point its just almost all the people with them take what they learned and read as the word, if they would actually take some of the stuff they assume to be correct and research it, try it out, and compare it to other similar activities with different variables they would have a much greater understanding on the aspect, what variables can be changed, and what results those variables provide.

you know instead of assuming that no matter how you exercise a muscle you should always do it to failure and your always going to get the same results.....when rep size rep weight set number speed of exercise stretching and between set break time are all factors in the result of an exercise.

[DeadlyWeapon]

Agreed.

i dont know its a good starting point its just almost all the people with them take what they learned and read as the word, if they would actually take some of the stuff they assume to be correct and research it, try it out, and compare it to other similar activities with different variables they would have a much greater understanding on the aspect, what variables can be changed, and what results those variables provide.

you know instead of assuming that no matter how you exercise a muscle you should always do it to failure and your always going to get the same results.....when rep size rep weight set number speed of exercise stretching and between set break time are all factors in the result of an exercise.

----------------------------

[skyler]

I did no training except push ups and crunches doing about 2000 a day when i had an ankle injury.. and my abs definitely got a lot bigger..

[Sugarj]

In response to Fraidycat's earlier post:



I said:

'Higher reps for muscle density. In layman's terms how hard the muscle feels.

Lower reps plus increased resistance for increased muscle size.

Boxers tend to do higher reps for abdominal exercises as it will more than likely harden the stomach muscles and help them absorb body blows later into a fight.'


Fraidycat's response

'This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.


My answer:

Amusing comment, it raised a smile!!





Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.


My answer:

I am an experienced trainer not much younger than yourself with a pretty fair physique that reflects what I have found to work through two decades of training, not withstanding all the books, magazines and articles I have read! Training methods have everything to do with muscle gain. It forms the basis of difference between a sprinter's physique and a marathon runner's.



High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.


My answer:

You are correct here, but you have not expanded your point sufficiently. A person who does for example 50 abdominal reps with resistance to failure will over time develop a different shaped set of abdominals to one who reaches failure without resistance at 300 reps. Its why bodybuilders tend to benchpress higher weights with lower reps to failure rather than do for example 100 pressups to failure. Its because while both exercises cause 'microscopic tears in the muscle' no bodybuilder will achieve the greatly increased muscle size due to the higher repetitions of the press up. But thats not to say that the person who does the press ups wont have terrifically hard pectoral muscles, perhaps harder and denser than the bodybuilder's. Its Bruce Lee vs Arnie for want of a slightly daft example.


There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.


My answer:

Yes there is! Muscle mass and muscle density are two different things, as are fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibres. The muscles of differently trained athletes do very in density! for example Manny Pacqiou's muscles would feel harder than those of the participants for 'The Worlds Strongest Man' irrespective of body fat. You are correct about water and glycogen in the muscle, but it is the population of the muscle protein fibres themselves too that add to the density of the muscle.

I agree with what you say about about a boxer carb-loading for energy storage but 'Mass hence leverage'. Are you sure you know what mass and leverage are? The George Foreman that came back in the late 80s had greater muscle mass (the size of the muscle) but far less leverage in his punches due to that mass.

[TheNegation]

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

Then I guess medical degrees aren't worth **** either... that field of study changes constantly.

[SkilledB]

My trainer always tells us to do 200 abs every night before we leave. We do whatever we want, situps, crunches, on an incline, not on one, with weights, anything we want just do 200.

Then every other day we do a medicine ball drill where my trainer stands on top a bunch while we lay on our backs and he drops the medicin ball on out stomachs. We do 5 sets of 20 with that, and then he gets a heavier ball and we do 5 sets of 10.

All I know, is what we are doing works lol. I feel I have a nice six pack and body shots usually don't faze me none.

ray taught me that when i was younger too. he knows his ****