Am I cheating myself by skipping abs?
- 10-02-2012, 05:58 PM
Am I cheating myself by skipping abs?
So just what the title asks..I'm eating a surplus and am trying to gain as much weight as possible. Aesthetics are not really that important to me right now so I'm not at all concerned with having a beach body but am I hurting myself in other aspects of my training by not doing abs?
Currently my routine is squat, bench, deads, rows, and OHP
- 10-02-2012, 06:33 PM
that said, would it be a good idea to add some hanging leg raises? probably, strong core = a bigger squat, dead, ohp and row
10-02-2012, 07:29 PM
So you train every other muscle group, yet you skip the core. The core is also a muscle group is it not? A strong core can help transfer power from the legs to the arms, can help prevent lower back pain because when contracted, a strong core will help keep the body upright when performing certain lifts, and so on.
Skipping it is not a good idea.
10-02-2012, 07:36 PM
skipping is bad, but that doesnt mean hit it every singel day like a little high school prick. treat it like any other muscle group
10-02-2012, 07:46 PM
10-02-2012, 08:19 PM
What is your definition of core? As far as core strengthening exercises, I'd say those the OP listed are spot on regarding spinal stabilization. All of which have prime mover applications utilizing the core in its intended fashion. I've gotta say I'm an advocate of planks and variations as assistance spinal stabilization work. These exercises will addresses the core in the synergistic manner the muscle groups involved were meant to work.Originally Posted by Jiigzz
OP, I wouldn't say your neglecting your abs. Your just not feeding into the flawed mentalities out there of spinal flexion as the function of the abdominal complex. Like it was said you could incorporate assistance exercises to further the improvements. You are getting a hell of a lot of core work from something like an OHP, as long as your not lordotic or kyphotic, and it is being done in the manner the core was designed to work.
10-02-2012, 08:19 PM
everything else you are doing besides bench hits core, its like "am I losing out by not doing biceps separately". I don't know how many people here look for big abs, and as far as strength for support during the big lifts if you are doing the big lifts you are workingthat.
10-02-2012, 08:23 PM
Bench most definitely will activate the muscles involved with core/spinal stabilization. It will be even more so if he is utilizing leg drive in his press.Originally Posted by EasyEJL
10-02-2012, 10:29 PM
Even as you said, incorporating things like planks should be a definite.
10-02-2012, 11:51 PM
The degree of acceptable spinal rotation at any point suggests that the primary function of the abdominal complex is not to initiate rotation but rather to resist it. Thus protecting the spine from excess torque and resulting in dynamic stability and power through the proximal and most distal joints. While yes, the abdominal complex is capable of producing spinal rotation in the transverse plane, to a degree, it is a secondary function. The abdominal complex is also responsible for spinal flexion (ie. sit-up) and we all know the result of repeated spinal flexion under load. In addition during rotation the abdominal complex is still acting primarily as a spinal stabilizer because excess flexion/extension during rotation puts the individual at a extremely high risk of vertebral disk herniation. Just as a side note it seems as if you are assigning the word core to solely the abdominal complex, I could be mistaken but that's just how I read it. When you think of the core think outside of just the abs.Originally Posted by Jiigzz
10-03-2012, 12:02 AM
Thanks guys, a lot of great info. I use the word "abs" to explain the general core, I could see where that would be a pet peeve. I try to incorporate planks into my routine but I admitt I likely don't do them often enough. I know I get a lot of work through my other excercises so I wasn't entirely worried about it but was wondering.
I've always hated doing abs and find them to be boring as hell. so I guess if I could find an interesting routine besides typical sit ups (which usually kill my back anyways) I could incorporate some of those into my routine.
10-03-2012, 12:35 AM
10-03-2012, 01:24 AM
The point was that spinal rotation is not a primary function of the abdominal complex. If he is using good form and as previously stated, is not lordotic or kyphotic through the movements stated then he is utilizing the abdominal complex in its primary function, maintaining and stabilizing a neutral spine. Also I added the side point being that the core is not only the abs.Originally Posted by Jiigzz
With your point taken on the OHP and for arguments sake by viewing just the abs as the core you could actually end up weakening core strength/stability. What would be the reasoning for adding any specific additional assistance work to his lifts, if being properly executed, without first properly assessing him? For example if an individual has a slight posterior tilt of the pelvis and it is said to continue to do hanging leg raises because we need to strengthen and activate your "core" so you can better stabilize/activate during your lifts. The result will only make his core weaker by playing into the hypothetical lower cross syndrome. What actually needs strengthening in a situation like that would be in the posterior kinetic chain, also a part of the core.
10-03-2012, 03:19 AM
But I never actually said that the abdominals were the only part of the core, in fact I never isolated any one part. I just stated the effects of a strong core and that it performs more than just flexion.
Hence why I said why skip it; planks and other such static holds should be a must
10-03-2012, 10:26 AM
That's why in one of my posts I asked for your definition of core. Then I followed it with an inquiry asking if I was reading your statements wrong. When no response to either was given coupled with your statement about core lacking activation in an OHP due to hyperextension of the spine I assumed you were speaking just on the abdominals. This is because during a OHP if the individual does become overly lordotic the erector spinae is over active, a part of the posterior core, and there isn't a lack of core activation but rather an imbalance between abdominal activation and erector spinae activation.Originally Posted by Jiigzz
10-03-2012, 10:42 AM
10-03-2012, 10:43 AM
10-03-2012, 01:00 PM
By not specifying and using the word core loosely, as you have, you actually have specified in this instance. By saying an individual, in lordosis and/or anterior pelvic tilt during an OHP, has a lack of core activation your are in fact assigning the function of the core to spinal flexion and isolating it to the anterior aspect of the core. The individual does not have a lack of core activation, they would have an imbalance in activation. The ensuing altered movement patters would be present and visible, as you have stated in a lordotic OHP.Originally Posted by Jiigzz
10-03-2012, 09:28 PM
10-03-2012, 09:33 PM
I still disagree. I think core traininng, especially planks and other stabilizing exercises should be included in any training program. You cna argue it as much as you want, but thats just my opinion.
10-03-2012, 09:41 PM
10-04-2012, 12:23 AM
10-04-2012, 12:44 AM
Essentially your arguing the saeme thing, however all I suggested that he maintain some form of stabilization exercises.
I think where you got mislead was assuming that by core I meant abs, and therefore starting arguing something that I wasnt even suggesting.
10-04-2012, 12:46 AM
10-04-2012, 06:20 AM
10-04-2012, 10:42 AM
10-04-2012, 06:28 PM
Same goes for abs, dropping them should mean that you have at least got perfect form to continue indirectly hitting them effectively, if not, you could end up hurting your other lifts.
10-04-2012, 06:36 PM
i'm still not getting this logic. Lets just stick with one exercise, the OHP. If he isn't hitting core appropriately doing OHP then his overall form on OHP is such that the core isn't his limiting muscle set on this exercise either. If his core is the limiter, then he is already hitting his core as hard as he can for support for that exercise, which will be continuing to strengthen it. Or what is it I am missing here?
And again, I totally understand that there is a difference if his care/concern is as part of sports performance, or he if was talking about his next year's worth of workout plan periodization. but this is a moderately short term program where his goal is mass gains (which tends to leave me thinking that unless he's in football, sports performance is moderately low on the list). I just don't particularly see him meaningfully cheating his performance or gains with 6-8 weeks of all core-heavy compound lifts and skipping separate core work. Again, some of the same logic could apply to "am I cheating myself by not working bis and tris separately".
10-04-2012, 07:01 PM
But I stress that is IMO and i'll always argue from the viewpoint in which ive been taught, until proven otherwise. As NYIron has done in the past
10-04-2012, 07:10 PM
I planned on running this program for most of the winter so I'm probably going to add in some core routines. Tbh I have neglected my core quite a bit the last few years so I'm not exactly sure how to approach them. Anybody have any ideas?
Thanks for all the info guys. Some of the terminology and technical stuff is a little over my head but appreciated none the less.
Similar Forum Threads
- By raulob72 in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 31Last Post: 08-24-2012, 12:45 PM
- By DreamWeaver in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 16Last Post: 02-23-2012, 08:22 AM
- By Umpire10589 in forum Weight LossReplies: 10Last Post: 05-24-2006, 03:55 AM
- By NeilB in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 05-09-2005, 07:42 PM