# hellz yeah....i'm getting veins on my stomach....



## cheesegrater (Oct 15, 2005)

didn't even think that was possible.....diet and advanced abs program seem to be really working.


----------



## 99hawkins (Oct 15, 2005)

Tell us about the diet and the program.


----------



## MyK (Oct 15, 2005)

just so you know, they where always there!


----------



## GFR (Oct 15, 2005)

MyK said:
			
		

> just so you know, they where always there!


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 15, 2005)

well i know they were always there, it's just i never noticed them on myself or really any other bodybuilder before.....never thought of stomach skin as thin enough to show veins.

anyway, the diet is just the normal strict cut diet, the ab program is from one of those mens health ultimate abs books......graduated program, starts off fairly simple, moves towards advanced exercises over a 12 week period, i'm 3 weeks into the most advanced phase.....doing these V sit ups where i start in a reverse crunch position, slowly lift to a 45 degree V, hold it, then contract a leg towards my chest slowly, then lower, switch legs.....really kills the lower abs


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 15, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> really kills the lower abs



Can you tell me which muscle the lower abs is again?  I could've sworn there was no such thing.


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 15, 2005)

the lower abs are the abdominal muscles that are on the lower part of the abdominal region. they lie in close proximity to the upper abs, but sit lower on the torso.


----------



## 99hawkins (Oct 15, 2005)

There you go Cowey. They lie in close proximity to the upper abs, but sit lower on the torso.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 15, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> the lower abs are the abdominal muscles that are on the lower part of the abdominal region. they lie in close proximity to the upper abs, but sit lower on the torso.



Can you name the muscle for me?  I'm pretty sure it's all the rectus abdominus.  Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## god hand (Oct 15, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong.


Shit I guess your right


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 15, 2005)

sheesh, does anyone not know what i mean by lower abs?


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Oct 15, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> sheesh, does anyone not know what i mean by lower abs?


 Cowpimp knows what you are talking about. You can't only contract your lower abs is all he is saying.


----------



## Bobert11284 (Oct 15, 2005)

awesome on the abs!


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 16, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Cowpimp knows what you are talking about. You can't only contract your lower abs is all he is saying.



no shit, but certain exercises are gonna hit em more than the upper abs


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Oct 16, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> no shit, but certain exercises are gonna hit em more than the upper abs


 No they aren't. That is what he is saying.


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 16, 2005)

farmer cowboy is just an ass


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 16, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> no shit, but certain exercises are gonna hit em more than the upper abs



Wrong.  It is one muscle, and you can't stimulate part of a muscle without stimulating the whole thing.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 16, 2005)

Upper chest what?


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 16, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Wrong.  It is one muscle, and you can't stimulate part of a muscle without stimulating the whole thing.



oh yeah? so how come before i did this program, which has exercises specifically designed to hit lower abs, my top two rows of abs were well developed but had little to none lower ab development?


----------



## PreMier (Oct 16, 2005)

You had the development already, but since you are dieting, and have reached a lower bodyfat, the lower abs are more visible.  You cant target specific areas of a single muscle, just like you cant spot reduce fat.


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 16, 2005)

no......the muscle wasn't as hard even when i pushed thru the fat...yeah the dieting has made the muscle able to be visible, but the specific exercises have built it up


----------



## PreMier (Oct 16, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> no......the muscle wasn't as hard even when i pushed thru the fat...yeah the dieting has made the muscle able to be visible, but the specific exercises have built it up



Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works?  If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle.  Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs.  So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole.  You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other.

Thats not saying you shouldnt do different exercises.. but you CANT "build your lower abs".


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 16, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> no......the muscle wasn't as hard even when i pushed thru the fat...



Think about what you just said.  You were "pushing through the fat."  Obviously it isn't going to feel as hard when you are feeling through a layer of fat.  That is simply because we tend to store fat lower on the abdomen.  The top portion of the rectus abdominus is always visible first, unless you are a genetic freak.




> yeah the dieting has made the muscle able to be visible, but the specific exercises have built it up



Yeah, it built the whole thing up.  Not just the upper or lower portion.


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 17, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works?  If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle.  Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs.  So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole.  You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other.
> 
> Thats not saying you shouldnt do different exercises.. but you CANT "build your lower abs".



so then why do different exercises? why not just 10 sets of conventional crunches? you gonna tell me a reverse crunch doesn't contract the lower part of the ab wall more than a regular crunch does? cuz it sure feels like it's a more intense contraction....


----------



## cheesegrater (Oct 17, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Think about what you just said.  You were "pushing through the fat."  Obviously it isn't going to feel as hard when you are feeling through a layer of fat.  That is simply because we tend to store fat lower on the abdomen.  The top portion of the rectus abdominus is always visible first, unless you are a genetic freak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so it's impossible to have the top part of the abs stronger than the lower part?

can you tell me why my low right ab muscle is significantly smaller, softer and weaker than all the other muscles including the low left? shouldn't crunches eliminate that kind of isolated weakness under your theory?


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 17, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> so then why do different exercises? why not just 10 sets of conventional crunches? you gonna tell me a reverse crunch doesn't contract the lower part of the ab wall more than a regular crunch does? cuz it sure feels like it's a more intense contraction....



You really don't have to, actually.  However, there are a few reasons: variety makes exercise more interesting, there are neural adaptations that take place with different movements, and because the rectus abdominus can contract differently depending on the movement.  It can contract from top to bottom or from bottom to top; the whole muscle is still contracting though.

There is something called proprioception.  Read the sticky at the top of the page about isolating different parts of the chest.  It mentions this phenomonen.  Some of it has to do with the facts that certain parts of a muscle may be stretched more than others, and some has to do with the fact that your brain wants to logically apply feeling to an area that it seems should be most involved in a movement.




> so it's impossible to have the top part of the abs stronger than the lower part?



Yes, because it's the same muscle.




> can you tell me why my low right ab muscle is significantly smaller, softer and weaker than all the other muscles including the low left? shouldn't crunches eliminate that kind of isolated weakness under your theory?



There is no low right ab muscle!  Unless you're talking obliques now.  It is one muscle.

Genetics.  Just because it is one muscle doesn't mean it has to display perfect symmetry.  However, there is no strength difference.  That's all in your head.  Remember, it's one muscle, so you can't measure the strength of part of it.  You only think you can.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Oct 17, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works?  If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle.  Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs.  So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole.  You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other.
> 
> Thats not saying you shouldnt do different exercises.. but you CANT "build your lower abs".



nice post.


----------



## drew.haynes (Oct 17, 2005)

Cowpimp and Premier called this one. Get used to finding at LEAST 50% USELESS info in magazines.


----------



## ness (Oct 17, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> shouldn't crunches eliminate that kind of isolated weakness under your theory?



I like how you have turned basic anatomy/physiology into a "theory"   

Way to keep your patience with this one Cowpimp.


----------



## Devlin (Oct 17, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You really don't have to, actually.  However, there are a few reasons: variety makes exercise more interesting, there are neural adaptations that take place with different movements, and *because the rectus abdominus can contract differently depending on the movement.  It can contract from top to bottom or from bottom to top*; the whole muscle is still contracting though.
> 
> There is something called proprioception.  Read the sticky at the top of the page about isolating different parts of the chest.  It mentions this phenomonen.  Some of it has to do with the facts that certain parts of a muscle may be stretched more than others, and *some has to do with the fact that your brain wants to logically apply feeling to an area that it seems should be most involved in a movement.*



The contracting differently from top to bottem or bottem to top depending on the movement makes sense as to why one feels the different ab exercises in different parts of the muscle.  I had not thought about the brain applying feeling to certain areas, but it would make sense.  Thanks Cowpimp for posting that.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 20, 2005)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works?  If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle.  Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs.  So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole.  You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other.
> 
> Thats not saying you shouldnt do different exercises.. but you CANT "build your lower abs".




I don't know this to be 100% true.  Physiologically, the tendinous inscriptions could allow movement of just one portion of the abdomen and I believe the areas to be separately innervated (6 nerves innervate the rectus abdominus alone).  Whether or not people have the ability to do this is up in the air, but physiologically speaking it is possible.  Most of the people who refute it use the all or none principle, but the presence of the tendinous inscriptions chop that argument to bits.  If I were to guess, maybe a tiny portion of the population could do this, but if you could train it, I don't know that it would be something you would want to spend a significant amount of time doing. Altough for a BBer it might look pretty fucking cool on stage.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 20, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I don't know this to be 100% true.  Physiologically, the tendinous inscriptions could allow movement of just one portion of the abdomen and I believe the areas to be separately innervated (6 nerves innervate the rectus abdominus alone).  Whether or not people have the ability to do this is up in the air, but physiologically speaking it is possible.  Most of the people who refute it use the all or none principle, but the presence of the tendinous inscriptions chop that argument to bits.  If I were to guess, maybe a tiny portion of the population could do this, but if you could train it, I don't know that it would be something you would want to spend a significant amount of time doing. Altough for a BBer it might look pretty fucking cool on stage.



Could you point me toward some literature regarding this possibility?  Everything I have ever read in reference to this topic would be contrary to this.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 21, 2005)

What portion do you want?  I will put what I have for you in little topics below.

Innervation
http://www.geocities.com/medinotes/abdomen.htm

Rectus abdominus is half way down.

Physiology
This I kind of think is a given because of the tendinous inscriptions.  If you look at the way the rectus abdominus is laid out, the lower tendinous inscription of the top set of "six pack" muscles is attached to the rib cage which would lead you to believe that this set alone could pull against the ribs if innervated separately.  Even if you don't take that into consideration, if you think about it, if they are innervated separately and you tense the upper left portion of abdomen, that will actually cause the portion below it to lengthen.  Physiologically, the tendinous inscriptions are said to be there for structure, but if they tense up equally at the same time, there is no need for the inscriptions.

To be honest, I don't know if you can or can't, but every argument I have seen that says you can't has been made through erroneous theory (ie.  all or none principle).  I don't know precisely how the rectus abdominus is innervated so I certainly can't say for sure that each portion can contract separately, but structurally it is certainly logical.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 21, 2005)

Interseting.  Nonetheless, I don't see the body allowing certain portions of the rectus abdominus to hypertrophy or strengthen more or less relative to the rest of it, even if partial contraction is possible.  

Furthermore, it seems to me like it would take some serious muscular control, beyond that of your average human, to be able to separately innervate the nerves controlling contraction of the rectus abdominus.

Also, I think we can all agree that the average person assumes their "lower abs" are a weak point simply because of the body's propensity to store more fat in this area.  Hence, the definition of that portion of the muscle is blurred relative to the rest, and people make assumptions based on this.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 21, 2005)

Oh, I agree it is a trend, and it is prolly difficult to accomplish the separate activiation, but if the body is wired that way, it can be done.  I suppose the only real way of knowing is through a neurologist, I work for one so i will ask him.  Makes me wish I didn't delete that primal pictures interactive spine from my hard drive.


----------

