# Abs Daily???



## G13 (Apr 25, 2005)

Just wondering how often most people work thier abs?


----------



## WATTS (Apr 25, 2005)

i do mine 2 times a week, they are a muscle like any other and should not be trained every day (at least in my opinion and many books/magazines i have read).  but some will disagreee.


----------



## Alaric (Apr 25, 2005)

WATTS said:
			
		

> i do mine 2 times a week, they are a muscle like any other and should not be trained every day (at least in my opinion and many books/magazines i have read).  but some will disagreee.



I completely agree with you, the most I'll train is twice a week, but some weeks I'll just do it once.


----------



## musclepump (Apr 25, 2005)

I do abs 2, sometimes 3, times a week.


----------



## topolo (Apr 25, 2005)

twice a week


----------



## Kracin (Apr 25, 2005)

my abs get enough damn work holding me up, and get worked a ton at my job anyway, i try not to work them anymore because my obliques are huge and look like love handles at the moment....


----------



## Uzi9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Kracin said:
			
		

> my obliques are huge and look like love handles at the moment....


....................


----------



## Kracin (Apr 26, 2005)

Uzi9 said:
			
		

> ....................



lol hey, gimme a break, some people love em, some people dont. same thing with having other muscles being big, some people would love to have a huge ass chest, and other people dont care for it.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

ABS......olutely  work them every day!  They and your calves can take the beating!!!


----------



## maxpro2 (Apr 26, 2005)

Once a week; they get enough work from other exercises.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

I still think that if you aren't doing core strength exercises then you need to work them everyday!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> ABS......olutely  work them every day!  They and your calves can take the beating!!!



Yeah, listen to this guy and you'll get nowhere in a big fuckkin hurry.


----------



## sgtneo (Apr 26, 2005)

i do mine twice a week 5 sets with increasing resistance


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Yeah, listen to this guy and you'll get nowhere in a big fuckkin hurry.


You are a well versed man with your opinions.  Probably educated at home!


----------



## naturaltan (Apr 26, 2005)

I revert back to my boxing mentality when it comes to working my abs.  I do some abs inbetween every exercise.  That is 4 times a week.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> You are a well versed man with your opinions.  Probably educated at home!



Thanks for the input, you mental defective dunderhead.


----------



## sgtneo (Apr 26, 2005)

lol theres never a thread without bitching, just for the record though i would have to agree with duncan on this one, i do mine twice a week and hit them hard, they show great results


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input, you mental defective dunderhead.


You are welcome.

Maybe I should rephrase this.  I think it is important to work your abs everyday that you workout.  In my case that would be 5 days a week.  If you are a three day person then three days. Now this doesn't have to be three different excercises at three sets each.  In my case I do one set every day that I work out.  I also vary the type of exercise that I do.  Works for me but may not for you.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

"dunderhead"?  Come on, surely you can search the archives of that great mind of yours for a better reply than that?  I am somewhat disappointed in the "duncan donut"!


----------



## sgtneo (Apr 26, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> "dunderhead"? Come on, surely you can search the archives of that great mind of yours for a better reply than that? I am somewhat disappointed in the "duncan donut"!


yeah man get a life, you made what would seem a fairly mature reply above this post, but then you go a put this. everyone is different and train different, i personnly would not recomend hitting a single muscle group every single workout day as when are you going to give your abs enough time to recover and grow.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 26, 2005)

Yeah, You are right that was a somewhat smartassed comment.  My apologies!


----------



## IJ300 (Apr 26, 2005)

I use to them them everyday for a warmup.  Two sets of crunches and two sets of leg raises.  But now doing abs twice a week with more intensity.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Apr 26, 2005)

I think it depends on intensity. You could work them once a week to absolute failure, or you could give them a little something three times a week. Neither answer is really wrong; neither is right. Personally, I like working them about three times a week, three sets of weighted sit ups (nothing to intense) each time.


----------



## fUnc17 (Apr 26, 2005)

i do them twice a week with at least 2 days rest in between. 6 sets and 2 exercises every time i work them


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> You are welcome.
> 
> Maybe I should rephrase this.  I think it is important to work your abs everyday that you workout.  In my case that would be 5 days a week.  If you are a three day person then three days. Now this doesn't have to be three different excercises at three sets each.  In my case I do one set every day that I work out.  I also vary the type of exercise that I do.  Works for me but may not for you.



Let me spell this out for you.

You are a fucking retard.  I hate this mystic bullshit about "Works for me".  Tell me why it works for you? Tell me why it's optimal? Tell me why anyone should do what you say?  Don't just say something that contradicts common sense.  GIVE A REASON.  Because you didnt' give any reason why the abs can be trained everday while everything else can't.

Then you threw in something about core strength.  You think you'll get strong working your abs every day?  Wow, this is amazing, another newbie  parading around telling people bullshit and setting the case of exercise science back a decade.  Got any reasoning behind your nonsensical statement?  Besides "CUZ IT WORKS FOR ME!".  I bet it doesn't, actually.  I bet your midsection is as atrophied as a nutsack stacked on 2 grams of deca and half a gram of oxymeth.  

Let me point out that all I did was criticize his position, initially, which I was polite about.  I restrained myself.  The firs thing that hit my mind, frankly, was that if you listen to this dumb fucker, you're even stupider than he is, which says a lot.  This is how I know that nobody listened to him, because finding two people on this board as encompassed in sheer dimwitted buffoonery would completely shit on everything i know about statistical odds.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

Oh, you did give a reason:



> They and your calves can take the beating!!!



From what divine source was this epiphany laid upon you?  Did the notice come with all those exclamation points?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Apr 26, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Let me spell this out for you.
> 
> You are a fucking retard. I hate this mystic bullshit about "Works for me". Tell me why it works for you?


 Um, please don't tell me you just insulted his intelligence and them implied that the same things would work for all people...



			
				Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Tell me why it's optimal? Tell me why anyone should do what you say? Don't just say something that contradicts common sense. GIVE A REASON. Because you didnt' give any reason why the abs can be trained everday while everything else can't.


 There is a reason, actually. I forgot what it is, but it may have something to do with slow twitch muscle fibers. In other words, it takes a lot more exercise to tire them out, just like your calves. They get used an awful lot, and can therefore take much more exercise than the typical muscle. Plus it depends on the intensity with which they're worked.



			
				Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Then you threw in something about core strength. You think you'll get strong working your abs every day? Wow, this is amazing, another newbie parading around telling people bullshit and setting the case of exercise science back a decade. Got any reasoning behind your nonsensical statement? Besides "CUZ IT WORKS FOR ME!". I bet it doesn't, actually. I bet your midsection is as atrophied as a nutsack stacked on 2 grams of deca and half a gram of oxymeth.


 Abs do indeed have a lot to do with core strength. They're involved in the two biggest powerlifting moves: squats and deadlifts. They're main stabilizers and get worked quite a bit when the exercises are done properly. Without strong abs, those two lifts won't be very big.



			
				Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Let me point out that all I did was criticize his position, initially, which I was polite about. I restrained myself. The firs thing that hit my mind, frankly, was that if you listen to this dumb fucker, you're even stupider than he is, which says a lot. This is how I know that nobody listened to him, because finding two people on this board as encompassed in sheer dimwitted buffoonery would completely shit on everything i know about statistical odds.


 I'm not really sure what to say about this...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Um, please don't tell me you just insulted his intelligence and them implied that the same things would work for all people...



Is that what I said?  I think you're confused.



> There is a reason, actually. I forgot what it is, but it may have something to do with slow twitch muscle fibers. In other words, it takes a lot more exercise to tire them out, just like your calves. They get used an awful lot, and can therefore take much more exercise than the typical muscle. Plus it depends on the intensity with which they're worked.



Or you could say that since they are already so overworked, it requires a great (meaning large or immense) and UNUSUAL stimulus to break out of it's current homeostatic state.  You could look at it lots of ways, actually.  To fatigue anaerobically something with a high percentage of slow twitch fibers could probably be done with higher reps, higher TUT, with no more than 2-4 sets done per exercise session.  You could up the volume, sure, but again we're speaking of optimization - and I'm not saying not to do that - but do you work any part of your body 5 times a week??  Does anyone (not on steroids) ??  So what makes the abdominals any different, beyond the assesment that they are already used a great deal and need exorbitant amounts of volume to progress?  And I'm saying that I'm completely sure that if you train your abs daily, you won't have powerful abs.  

I know of MEDX testing that indicated because of the enormous amount of work done on the lower back that high intense exercise done more than once ever 2-3 weeks resulted in overuse atrophy.  You can reference the studies done at UF in Gainesville if you want to see how the theory of "it's used all the time so it needs more work volume to improve" might be flawed.



> Abs do indeed have a lot to do with core strength. They're involved in the two biggest powerlifting moves: squats and deadlifts. They're main stabilizers and get worked quite a bit when the exercises are done properly. Without strong abs, those two lifts won't be very big.


Wow, thanks for the update.  Go reference what he said about core strength (if you don't do any core strength, train your abs 5 times a week) and tell me how what you said relates to that?



> I'm not really sure what to say about this...


Funny, I was wondering the same about yours.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Apr 26, 2005)

That's pretty much how I understood this: "I hate this mystic bullshit about "Works for me"." What did you mean if you weren't talking about certain things working for certain people? Maybe I just didn't read his post carefully enough.

 "And I'm saying that I'm completely sure that if you train your abs daily, you won't have powerful abs." I agree, but that's not what was originally said. He said that you should work your abs every day that you otherwise work out. That does not mean every single day.

 "Wow, thanks for the update. Go reference what he said about core strength (if you don't do any core strength, train your abs 5 times a week) and tell me how what you said relates to that?" He said to do ab work for core strength; I said that ab work increases core strength; you felt the need to tell me that my statement was unrelated...

 Now I didn't mean to come off as a jerk, but many of the things you said seemed to contradict things I know you know, so I felt the need to pick at what you said because I was extremely bored (and still am). Basically everything I said was probably a misunderstanding of your post, or at least I hope so, and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say as well.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Apr 26, 2005)

So much hate here, you all need to go to the grocery store and buy some pills that says "Chill Pills" ...you need them


----------



## P-funk (Apr 26, 2005)

shiznit2169 said:
			
		

> So much hate here, you all need to go to the grocery store and buy some pills that says "Chill Pills" ...you need them




some of us a jsut pasionate about the things we study and are interested in.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 26, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> "And I'm saying that I'm completely sure that if you train your abs daily, you won't have powerful abs." I agree, but that's not what was originally said. He said that you should work your abs every day that you otherwise work out. That does not mean every single day.



QUOTE:
"I still think that if you aren't doing core strength exercises then you need to work them everyday"

Again, I quote:
"ABS......olutely work them every day! "



> "Wow, thanks for the update. Go reference what he said about core strength (if you don't do any core strength, train your abs 5 times a week) and tell me how what you said relates to that?" He said to do ab work for core strength; I said that ab work increases core strength; you felt the need to tell me that my statement was unrelated...



What you did was lecture me on core strength.  What the hell did you lecture me on core strength for:



> Abs do indeed have a lot to do with core strength. They're involved in the two biggest powerlifting moves: squats and deadlifts. They're main stabilizers and get worked quite a bit when the exercises are done properly. Without strong abs, those two lifts won't be very big.



Again, let me thank you for the update, although your tangent had absolutely no relation to anything I said.



> Now I didn't mean to come off as a jerk, but many of the things you said seemed to contradict things I know you know, so I felt the need to pick at what you said because I was extremely bored (and still am). Basically everything I said was probably a misunderstanding of your post, or at least I hope so, and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say as well.



I'd like you to point out these contradictions?  I didn't misunderstand anything you said.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Let me spell this out for you.
> 
> You are a fucking retard. I hate this mystic bullshit about "Works for me". Tell me why it works for you? Tell me why it's optimal? Tell me why anyone should do what you say? Don't just say something that contradicts common sense. GIVE A REASON. Because you didnt' give any reason why the abs can be trained everday while everything else can't.
> 
> ...


Ok Dipshit,

I tried to be nice but I see that your overactive thyroid is getting in your way.  The reason it works for me is because I am a 39 year old man that struggles with body fat %.  By doing my abs every day I can assure that they are strong and lean.  Combined with cardio 4 times a week it keeps me at approx 16-18% body fat.  I don't do Cleans, heavy squats, and push presses any more.  The only compound exercise I do is squats (not very heavy 315 is as heavy as I go)  and SDLD.  So when I say that it works for me it does. Just to put things into reference for my groided gut friend, This is a program sent to me from the Air Force Acadamy. Who spends more money on research than Mr Donuts ever thought of having. By the way, they suggest if you are not doing core strength exercises, ( Dognut if you are not sure what they are PM me and I will spell them out for you) that you should train your core 4-6 times a week!  

Now Knucklehead,
If your research is more complete and applied at a more common rate than the Air force Acadamy I will shut up on this subject, if not then you are just spouting a personal preference and a accepted praqctice in the body building arena.  Keep in mind that most competitive body builders are taking some sort of gear so their core is going to respond and need rest to repair.

Think of it this way my simple minded smurf, people who train to run, be it a sprinter or a distant runner they run every day of their life!!!! Lance Armstrong is on his bike everyday of the week 8 hours a day. SO why not do sit ups at a higher rate.  It is a muscle group that is used every day to assist in almost all that you do.  

But I am not here to give advice Only tell you what I do.  If it doesn't work for you..............don't do it.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Ok Dipshit,
> This is a program sent to me from the Air Force Acadamy.


Wow-wee!  Air Force!  Our government is defitently the source you want to cnosult for physiology. 


> Who spends more money on research than Mr Donuts ever thought of having. By the way, they suggest if you are not doing core strength exercises, ( Dognut if you are not sure what they are PM me and I will spell them out for you) that you should train your core 4-6 times a week!


  I doubt that you are stronger than most of the people on here who intelilgently train 2-3 times a week.  In fact, I'll bet on it. I'll bet that if we were to use some kind of static strength test for our abdominals, I'd crush you.  4-6 times a week??


> Now Knucklehead,
> If your research is more complete and applied at a more common rate than the Air force Acadamy


Please provide these RESEARCH STUDIES from the Air Force that indicate what position you are referencing.  My subsciption to several prominent exercise journals don't indicate some of what you've claimed..  I'd also like to point out the bias and abstract nature of most research, so to add that even in papers that support my position it is best to train an eye of skepticism on them.



> I will shut up on this subject, if not then you are just spouting a personal preference and a accepted praqctice in the body building arena.  Keep in mind that most competitive body builders are taking some sort of gear so their core is going to respond and need rest to repair.



I backed my so called personal preference up with, at least, substantiated hypothesis.  You just made up shit (stupid shit, actually).



> Think of it this way my simple minded smurf, people who train to run, be it a sprinter or a distant runner they run every day of their life!!!! Lance Armstrong is on his bike everyday of the week 8 hours a day. SO why not do sit ups at a higher rate.  It is a muscle group that is used every day to assist in almost all that you do.



Oh wow..this statement is so littered with fallacies that I don't know where to start.  Does doing work at a "higher rate" instigate muscle growth?  Does it correlate to a greater overall core strength than doing more marginal reps?  If so, does that imply one is inaffective?  If such is the case, what studies are you referencing?  Also, what does strength training ANAEROBICALLY a muscle group have to do with long distance running or bike riding?  Such a comparison demonstrated a pronounced misunderstanding of the bodies energy systems and, in conjunction with the SAID principle, the fact that you don't realize that you can't train something SPECIFICALLY for aerobics and maximize force potential output (and vice versa).  Your logic belongs in the toilet, stop wasting time.



> But I am not here to give advice Only tell you what I do.  If it doesn't work for you..............don't do it.  Plain and simple.



Ignorance is bliss.


LMAO..


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

Before I argue this point any further I think it is important that we get on the same page.  I am not refering to muscle growth, I do not want to promote growth, I am more interested in defining and maintaining.  I think we are debating on two sides of the issue.  By the way Dunkin, what is it that you do for a living, and where were you educated on the anomolies of strength training?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

If that is the case, definition is a point of low body fat percentage.  Muscles can not be "trained" to be in a toned state..


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

Still waiting.............................................................


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2005)

the only compound movenents you do are squats and SLDL?  No bench press?  overhead press? pull ups?  rows??


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

Let me rephrase....... I used the word compound when in fact I meant floor based exercises.  Yes I still Bench, Military, and Pull Up!


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase....... I used the word compound when in fact I meant floor based exercises.  Yes I still Bench, Military, and Pull Up!




oh...lol, i was going to say..."what a weird workout...squat, bb curl, lateral raise."


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

No, I have gotten away from Hang cleans, Full Cleans, Push Presses etc....  I only do deads once a week.  Maybe I am just lazy or just getting old!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Still waiting.............................................................



What are you waiting for


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

Just wondering where you acquired all of your knowledge on this particular subject....................other than "journals" that you subscribe to.  Have you had any formal training?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

Why should I have to explain anything to you?  If someone uses the gravitational consant in an evaluation with mathematics, do the values change if he the person performing has no degree or any "formal training" ?

In any case, I am currently in school as a physiology major, although my "training" is of no concern to you.  If you can't argue the merits of your belief, and instead try to dissuade attention from the argument itself by pointing out something that is utterly irrelevant, well, have at it.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

I thought so.  

Nevertheless, I respect your opinion on the issue and can appriciate that you have drawn your conclusions on what works best for you.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> I thought so.
> 
> Nevertheless, I respect your opinion on the issue and can appriciate that you have drawn your conclusions on what works best for you.



I haven't draw my conclusions on what works best for me.  I see that you are not even aware of what physiology is, in regards to my explanation of formal training and your "thought so".  Comical to see a man (20 years older than me) so weak in an argument to bring up "formal training" after speaking on something so fundamentally wrong as "toning" a muscle with high reps.

As far as respecting my opinion, as you have completely misinterpreted the source of my "conclusions", that is of little regard to me.


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 27, 2005)

I am going to hit my abs every second of everyday.  Not only am I going to wear the shocking belts, but I am going to keep my abs flexed all day, everyday.  ABS 4 Life!


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

I can see we are going nowhere fast here so we can agree to disagree, or not I really don't care. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. Now, aren't you late for class?  "More Learning to be had"  Jethro.

By the way. The toning I am refering to is the maintanence level and work load that a given muscle needs to perform at a constant rate at an optimal level.  How many cross country runners do you see increasing the size of the muscle through the constant work load and mileage base of their daily workouts?  Granted they have a different goal than you but the argument is that you can and many people do "tone" a muscle through high reps.  Perhaps you haven't had that class yet?


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> I am going to hit my abs every second of everyday. Not only am I going to wear the shocking belts, but I am going to keep my abs flexed all day, everyday. ABS 4 Life!


     At last someone can make light of this conversation in good way!  

Hats off to ya Brother!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> I can see we are going nowhere fast here so we can agree to disagree, or not I really don't care. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. Now, aren't you late for class?  "More Learning to be had"  Jethro.
> 
> By the way. The toning I am refering to is the maintanence level and work load that a given muscle needs to perform at a constant rate at an optimal level.  How many cross country runners do you see increasing the size of the muscle through the constant work load and mileage base of their daily workouts?  Granted they have a different goal than you but the argument is that you can and many people do "tone" a muscle through high reps.  Perhaps you haven't had that class yet?



You are seriously not in good shape for a 40 year old man.  You keep vainly trying to cut me down intellectually, but you have yet to present a cognitive argument in any form.  You have not responded to my statements except to (again vainly) deride me.

In any case, let me very carefully explain to you how you are completely confused, wrong, sorely mistaken, and so forth.

The so called "toning" you are referring to is disuse atrophy of the Fast-Glycotic muscle fibers as a function of use via the SAID principle (that is, fast-twitch over-use atrophy accounting for an overall smaller cross-sectional area) and high development of the smaller slow-twitch fibers.

A quick word on the SAID relationship: if you aren't going to use your muscles for high intense contractions, the need for maximal force generation is not there, and you won't keep huge muscle.  Low-intense exercise done ad nauseaum is not demanding to the musculature in the same way that intense contractions are, so the body will adapt specifically.  

This is not toning.  This is literally atrophy of the largest fibers and development of the smaller ones.  If the largest fibers are atrophied, you will not have big muscles.    Maximal (optimal) development in both is impossible at the same time.

Let me point out that muscles will stay the same, progress, or regress.  Be noted that progression can not just be related to hypertrophy: energy levels (glycogen, creatine) also contribute.  Any level of detail is because of a lower body fat percentage, water retention, etcetera.

Let me point out that nobody on this entire board with a decent understanding of muscle physiology would dare suggest that you can tone a muscle with high reps.  These things stated are all aligned with pretty basic tenents (principles) including stress physiology, the General Adaptation Syndrome, and basic anatomy.  If you'd like to argue them rationally, I'd be so tickled to see what you've got.



> Perhaps you haven't had that class yet?



Have you ever gone to school?  Because at my school they don't have classes on make-believe nonsensical exercise mythology.


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> At last someone can make light of this conversation in good way!
> 
> Hats off to ya Brother!


I said what I said in a completely joking manner.  Anyone who works there abs daily is a laughing stock to the bodybuilding world and to Ironmag.  I am now dumber for having read your posts, thank god DD is there to counteract that stupidity or else I'd be done for.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

Still waiting.............................................................


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

I have never disagreed with your viewpoints DD ( I don't think) I am mearly saying there are other ways to do things.  But as it seems we are not trying to achieve the same end.  So, having said that I am asking you.......what should I do?


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> I have never disagreed with your viewpoints DD ( I don't think) I am mearly saying there are other ways to do things.  But as it seems we are not trying to achieve the same end.  So, having said that I am asking you.......what should I do?




what should you do for what??   diet if you want abs.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

No.no no.  I have abs, granted cleaning up my diet would help reveall them.  What I am asking is if working them 5days a week has worked for me is DD sugesting that I should change the way I train them?


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 27, 2005)

Well if it works for you I guess you should keep it up, but you currently have nothing to compare them too. Why not try working them out 2-3 times per week instead of 5 and see how they react? It can only help, its not like working your abs out 2-3 times per week is going to make you lose that appearance, but who knows they could make you have some amazing abs.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 27, 2005)

I am up for trying anything even if it comes from a load mouth college student!  LOL!  Don't blow a gasket on me DD!  I will run with 3 sets of abs 2 times a week and see whats up. If nothing else it will save time..................I guess?  See how easy that was DD.  All you had to do was approach it is a little different manner.  THanks to soxmuscle!


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2005)

I only train abs directly 1 or 2 (if I am lucky) times a week.

All my other lifts carry over to a stronger core.


----------



## jphess2 (Apr 27, 2005)

So the general consensus is that it is best to do abs once or twice a week similarly to any other exercise which you would do once a week (like biceps)?
It's strange but one of the trainers I work with is really into doing abs every day for pilates and talks about "core" strength.  Does anyone know if this really works?  Some of it seems pretty cool with the mix of balancing with free weights, but the abs continually being hit before these exercises seems like overkill.  Would anyone here have any experience with this type of training?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

Balancing with free weights?


----------



## jphess2 (Apr 27, 2005)

Yes with a swiss ball sitting and on a platform device that looks like a half beach ball that I have to balance on and either do free weights standing or sometimes cable work standing too.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

You can't train balance, it is an innate ability that can only be refined in specific situations (such as sport).

Here's a good example.  Balance yourself on the edge of a sidewalk.  After several attempts, you will be able to do it relatively well.  If this generally made you better at balancing, there will be an immediate transference to walking on a tight-rope.  Obviously this is not true.

If someone has inherently poor balance, though, they will never be able to walk a tight rope (or even a side walk) very well.  Using a swiss ball will do nothing (absolutely nothing, except maybe play some indirect confidence factor) for "training" balance.


----------



## jphess2 (Apr 27, 2005)

I have been practicing on the balancing aspect in between sessions, but it is very hard to maintain the proper form when you are also trying to keep your balance.  I am not the most graceful dude and I have had a hard time with this.  I am not sure if this is the best thing for me to be doing which is why I was seeking advice on pilates and the constant focus on abs everyday.  I really want to hit the weight room with the free weights as I have been using machines for 2-3 years and feel they are not doing anything for me but managed to go from 260 to 225.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

Do not practice balance, unless you want to be good at what balancing exercises you are practicing.  An innate ability cannot be generally improved by improving within a range of genetic CAPACITY under specific circumstances.  Work your abs through any number of exercises incorporating the overload principle.  

Machines are fine, especially Nautilus type machines, while most everything else is sub par compared to free weights.  Free weights do have huge limitations, though.


----------



## jphess2 (Apr 27, 2005)

The trainer dude keeps stressing that the balance improves "core", thus your center is stronger and this will lead to becoming stronger overall. I don't think I am really sold on this which is why I am asking. I have been practising the balancing with weights in the hope that I will become better at the exercises, both balance and correct form in using the free weights. I suppose I could keep a journal here (even with my doubts). Thank you for your advice as it has given me something to think over.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 27, 2005)

Sure.  Just about any progressive overload can increase the size of your muscles, so if these so called balance exercises incorporate that principle, they will get stronger.  However, there are probably much better ways to do it..


----------



## jphess2 (Apr 27, 2005)

Based on what I have been reading here, that is what I supected also.  I am not trying to build crazy abs - to be in better shape is cool, but I have been hoping to develop the back, shoulders, legs and chest and this focus on abs with the selling of pilates as the way to go does not seem to be the answer.


----------



## ironman (Apr 27, 2005)

anyone try those 8 minute abs videos? i checked out one of them and they said to do it everyday..... but i never did it i was wondering if it really worked?

 btw, i too work out my abs twice a week, but i'm just curious about this 8 minute abs video.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 28, 2005)

Ok DD, I am back..........  I am convinced now that you are very knowledgable and give good advice even to an "old man that isn't in very good shape".  Here is my question.  I am closely tied to the airforce acadamy football program and all they preach is explosive exercises/lifts and core strength.  This was the foundation of my argument before, even though I made a shambles of it.  If you can't train or work you abs everyday why do they do execrcises to strengthen the "core" everyday.  Many of the lifts they attemp are on the swiss balls or spheres.  Now all of the schools in the Mountain West conference are following the same model.  So is it a fad or is there something to it.  They do produce some very strong athletes.


----------



## reg56 (Apr 28, 2005)

Peter : I read it in a book somewhere.

 Brian : Are you sure it was a book?  Are you sure it wasn't NOTHING?

 Peter : Oh yeah.


----------



## reg56 (Apr 28, 2005)

Now that's random


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Ok DD, I am back..........  I am convinced now that you are very knowledgable and give good advice even to an "old man that isn't in very good shape".  Here is my question.  I am closely tied to the airforce acadamy football program and all they preach is explosive exercises/lifts and core strength.  This was the foundation of my argument before, even though I made a shambles of it.  If you can't train or work you abs everyday why do they do execrcises to strengthen the "core" everyday.  Many of the lifts they attemp are on the swiss balls or spheres.  Now all of the schools in the Mountain West conference are following the same model.  So is it a fad or is there something to it.  They do produce some very strong athletes.



For an extensive discussion on such topics, reference this:
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=45174
In terms of football programs doing so called core training everyday, I am well familiar with such techniques as they currently do this with the program I'm in.  The logic behind it is faulty and wrong.  If you are training your core in the way that they profess, in accordance with specific adaptation to the demands, you will lose force output potential by placing a higher demand on "endurance" for your abdominals.  Not to say they won't be strong, but certainly not strong maximally, and certainly not strong in application other than catching a swiss ball and "exploding" up with it.

When I started football, I could sit-up with 145 pounds on my chest for 25-30 reps.  After a few weeks of football training, including these marathon swiss ball exercises, I struggled getting 95 pounds for 26.  It should be noted that this lapse in performance was SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO OVERUSE ATROPHY - I determined this because regular sit-ups were being performed during this phase and therfore my neurological attunement did not go down at all (perhaps there was a slight lapse in attunement, but not the degree of losing roughly 35 percent of my performance capacity).  I literally lost huge amounts of my functional capability in the span of less than a month...

Such is the lnature of regression for those who don't ask "why" but simply follow dogmatic tradition..


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 28, 2005)

Ok, but why?   Why would a division one school do something that is going to retard the development of a muscle?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> You can't train balance, it is an innate ability that can only be refined in specific situations (such as sport).
> 
> Here's a good example.  Balance yourself on the edge of a sidewalk.  After several attempts, you will be able to do it relatively well.  If this generally made you better at balancing, there will be an immediate transference to walking on a tight-rope.  Obviously this is not true.
> 
> If someone has inherently poor balance, though, they will never be able to walk a tight rope (or even a side walk) very well.  Using a swiss ball will do nothing (absolutely nothing, except maybe play some indirect confidence factor) for "training" balance.



I believe this to be patently false.  For instance, there is at least some transfer from one-legged drops from a height to stopping ability.  Both are eccentric in nature, and the increased load you would experience by dropping from a height would be a way to overload the muscle.  You don't need 100% transfer for something to be effective at improving an ability.  I would agree that the Bosu or swiss ball are not going to help you at all wrt balance.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Why do current physicist believe the confounding, unsubstantiated, anti-scientific-method hokum of Einstein and other philosophically retarded theoretical physicsts? 

Because the scientific community is, at large, a joke.  Who wants to admit they are wrong after they've been doing something for years?  Who wants to be innovative, if innovation is mocked?  How long did it take people to believe the Earth was round?  How long was it before people acknowledged that the continents of the world were likely, at one time, joined together?  

A number of D1 schools perform things of this nature because they don't know how to ask why.  I'm not implying all, but many of them do.  These trainers typically look at the big boys and emulate - something that is devoid of intelligence.  We train at our school in this fashion because "USC" does it (ignoring, presumably, the fact that USC athletes are so elite that they can do what they do despite their training).  A large number of Division one schools do not perform core training in this way, though - namely Penn State, Michigan State, Michigan, and a number of others.

http://www.strongerathlete.com/teams.html


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I believe this to be patently false.  For instance, there is at least some transfer from one-legged drops from a height to stopping ability.  Both are eccentric in nature, and the increased load you would experience by dropping from a height would be a way to overload the muscle.  You don't need 100% transfer for something to be effective at improving an ability.  I would agree that the Bosu or swiss ball are not going to help you at all wrt balance.




Again, this improvement in "ability" would be general in nature (muscle overload) and not specific in nature.  The question is, is there a better way (read: safer) to induce muscle overload than to do one-legged drops?

You can't train your balance to make it better generally.  The example of the tight-rope and the sidewalk is a sufficient example of this. You can practice walking on a sidewalk until you can do it quickly and confidently; this won't make you better at walking on a tight rope in the slightest iota (well, I won't say that, there may be a very minimal transfer, but the point is it is so insignificant as to be useless). Some people have the capacity to improve their balance to enormous degrees in a specific situation (such as basketball, football) by practicing it specifically - this improvement is limited by genetic ability.  Likewise, if you have shitty balance, you won't be able to improve this beyond what is genetically determined (innate) - swiss balls or not.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 28, 2005)

Just Curious because this is being passed on as the new and improved way to train athletes.  So as A highschool football coach do you suggest I ignore what they are telling me?  If so How do you think I should be training them?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Again, this improvement in "ability" would be general in nature (muscle overload) and not specific in nature.
> 
> You can't train your balance to make it better generally, however.




Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack.  I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again.  I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it.  Balance is a function of Reactive ability.  You can train to improve reactive ability, therefore, you can train balance.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Just Curious because this is being passed on as the new and improved way to train athletes.  So as A highschool football coach do you suggest I ignore what they are telling me?  If so How do you think I should be training them?



It isn't new, and likewise not improved.  Such training was done for football teams before olympic lifts, therefore it is old and was (in my opinion) always better.  A lot of people around here would disagree, people who I respect, but I am of a very oppositve view.  One of the strongest power-cleaners on our team is a 285 pound Center who can throw up more than his bodyweight in the clean.  He outdoes me by a substantial amount.

I can head up with him, despite my lower weight, and I am a pretty good bit faster than him, too.  I also squat more than he does, deadlift independently (our coaches don't have us deadlift at school, sigh), and am stronger in every other exercise except the bench press.

So from my own anecdotal experience, I will say that slow-controlled exercises and training with the team has made me explosive, not power-cleans (which I manage to avoid doing every week because of an old tendon injury).


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 28, 2005)

Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis.  Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track.
Mon and Wed:
Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear)
Hang Cleans
SDLD
Ab/Core Work (weighted Situps and twists)

Tue Thurs:
Push Press (top end of the clean and jerk)
Bench Press
Latpull/Pullup
"Jammer" Machine (hammer strength)
Back Extentions

My goal is to make these kids stronger and to get them out of the weight room in less than an hour.

What do you think?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack.  I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again.  I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it.  Reactive ability is a function of balance.  You can train to improve reactive ability, therefore, you can train balance.



Let me elaborate.  From everything I've studied about the brain and neuro-control, balance is a range.  Some people (as with intelligence range) have a high range, other people have a low range.

Now take a very specific open-skill that requires a number of things: specifically endurance, muscle contractions, balance, discrete and serial skills (and whatever else might be included).  Lets say basketball.

A person with a high range of balance (Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett) can make the complex, intricate, multi-joint SKILLS look easy.  Footwork, for example.  Most of these skills require balance - this balance is improved SPECIFICALLY, although guys like Duncan obviously have high ranges of balance in the first place.  Compare this to an average, akward seven footer (Greg Ostertag) who obviously has a lower range of such balance, but has still optimized it to a degree that he is able to compete.

Now have Tim Duncan walk a tight-rope or balance himself on a sidewalk curb, with no prior experience with it, as well as someone with less balance range who has been practicing such a performance.  

Sure, old Timmy has good balance, sure he has perfected this balance in a specific endeavor, but this does not mean such refinement transfers over.  The person who has practiced it with less innate balancing ability will likely perform the motion much more smoothly and less akward than the super-athlete.



> Example, I used to twist my ankle walking down the road whether it be by stepping improperly or steeping side ways on a crack.  I have been training to improve balance, and it has not happened again.  I have caught myself in situations where I am about to do it, but notice that the muscles of my lower leg and foot react much quicker to stabilize it.



This very much proves my point.  You are "training" your balance in walking (this training is probably more related to accute awareness more than anything, since it's difficult to improve walking since it is a motor-function that is done daily and the old nervous system has likely perfected the gait) and subsequently you aren't likely to screw up in walking (i.e. tripping).

Reactive ability is based on ones reaction time, which is in fact a function of mental sharpness and attentiveness.  How the body reacts to such a stimulus is very much related to balance (and many other things)


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis.  Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track.
> Mon and Wed:
> Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear)
> Hang Cleans
> ...



I will reference you to works by Ken Mannie, the strength & conditioning coach at Michigan State.  Look him up on google and you'll find some excellent articles of work.

If you evaluate the link I gave above, you'll see a very good discussion on the physics of explosiveness, force output potential and it's relationship to speed via muscular contraction, and specificity.  After reading that you may agree with me, or agree with people like P-Funk - it's a good discussion, in any case.

I did my own independent football training (as I hope to be a strength coach if I ever get my M.S. when I get to grad school) and designed a program similar to the ones of Ken Mannie.  I worked very, very hard on sprinting / fieldwork / drills 2-3 days a week and did a program composed of multi-joint exercises modified every 4-5 weeks to increase muscle size and force output potential.

Typically:

Workout A:
Squat: 1 sets, 15-20 reps, failure 
Three minutes
Bottom Squat: 1 set 10-12 reps (each rep paused in bottom position 2 secs)
No pause
Leg Extensions: 1 set 12-14 reps, 1.5 minute pause, 1 set 12-14 reps
Calf-Raises: 1 set, 12-14 reps, 1.5 minute pause, 1 set 12-14 reps

My last workout was this:
Squats: 375 x 15 (thre minute rest)
Bottom Squat: 285 x 12 (no pause)
Leg extensions: 200 x 11 (1.5 minute pause) 200 x 14
Calf Raises: 280 x 15 (1.5 minute pause) 280 x 13

I'll elaborate on my current training protocol when I get back, but I have a class right now and have to limit my explanation to that.  I usually keep my volume enormously low on leg day, although this varies every 4 weeks (typically an increase in volume, decrease in reps, etc. - change all variables)

I had someone instruct me that this low volume would not allow me to be fast, but I've improved my 40 yard time to below 4.6 seconds by training ON THE FIELD and generally increasing my strength.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Let me elaborate.  From everything I've studied about the brain and neuro-control, balance is a range.  Some people (as with intelligence range) have a high range, other people have a low range.
> 
> Now take a very specific open-skill that requires a number of things: specifically endurance, muscle contractions, balance, discrete and serial skills (and whatever else might be included).  Lets say basketball.
> 
> ...




I agree it is a range, and that all of us have a different high end.  Some people will eventually reach their genetic potential before others.  They are screwed with that.  Much the same way some people plateau in strength before the others.

I don't understand your example, that proves MY point, that you can train balance.  Sure someone who has been doing task A for years will outperform another who has been doing another task.  And, as you said, if the second person practiced they could eventually good at task A.  The only problem is that you are using 2 examples from complete opposite ends of the spectrum and uitilizing 2 different apparatus.   You wouldn't train on a tight rope to learn how to keep your balance while bouncing off a tackle, etc.  But, things such as one-legged squats, one-legged landings, and other things that you would do to train balance are effective at improving, at the very least, proper  application of ground forces which is another variable in balance.  Say you have 2 people, 1 who can stand on 1 leg for an unlimited time and one who falls as soon as they get touched when standing on one leg.  Who do you think will be easier to push over when standing on 2 legs?

Stuff like the Bosu, and balancing on top of a Swiss ball are useless for the reasons you point out, but stuff you would do on a stable surface that you would use in competition is useful for improving balance.

EDIT: Just wanted to point out that the stuff I did to improve my balance was not just to walk and focus on walking, I did one-legged squats, plyos, agility stuff, which would prove my point.  I didn't train specifically by walking, I used other means to get to that end.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 28, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I don't understand your example, that proves MY point, that you can train balance.  Sure someone who has been doing task A for years will outperform another who has been doing another task.  And, as you said, if the second person practiced they could eventually good at task A.  The only problem is that you are using 2 examples from complete opposite ends of the spectrum and uitilizing 2 different apparatus.   You wouldn't train on a tight rope to learn how to keep your balance while bouncing off a tackle, etc.  But, things such as one-legged squats, one-legged landings, and other things that you would do to train balance are effective at improving, at the very least, proper  application of ground forces which is another variable in balance.



I'm sorry, how often is a one legged squat or a one legged landing going to be used in a football game, basketball, hockey, etc??  To try and "train" balance with a one legged depth landing would not help in any way in a sport, unless hopping around on one leg were a part of that sport.  The wider the base of support, and the lower the center of gravity, the greater the stability and balance.  I'm pretty sure this is universally true.  Who tackles someone when they have one leg off the ground?  Such behavior is a physical restraint, as fundamentally the wider the base of support, the greater balance and stability, regardless of how well balanced a person is innately.



> Say you have 2 people, 1 who can stand on 1 leg for an unlimited time and one who falls as soon as they get touched when standing on one leg.  Who do you think will be easier to push over when standing on 2 legs?



Again, someone who can stand on one leg for a limited time has inherently good balance.  The only way to adequately test such balance is if they both performed that exact test for the first time together.  Through practice, if one of the individuals was lagging behind, he could improve significantly in such a behavior.  

But I don't understand how such a behavior would help in sports??  And I don't know how someone getting knocked over when touched while standing on one leg would have any kind of relevance to someone who knows and practices balance and stability in the context of a support on two feet?

Even that balance would be governed by a number of intrinsic factors, like center of gravity, musculature, and so forth.  That means a person with good balance and no muscle or understanding of center of gravity could get creamed by someone with no balance at all.  Balance is more significant in running fast, twisting, juking, changing direction while maintaining joint positioning, center of gravity, etc. without falling down (or getting hit while in motion and being able to stay afoot).



> To explain this phenomenon further ,as limbs move, there exists a changing reference of correctness.  At each moment there are different specifications for position of the limbs relative to each other and the body, as well as force generation, the effects of gravity acting upon each segment of each movement, quickness of movement, acceleration, cognitive perception, etc.  As limbs constantly change positioning, force output, or any other factor, the data matches against the feedback of the moving limb relative to how the limbs actually should be moving to complete the task/skills in question.  As a consequnce, errors in a movement's pattern can be detected and corrected.  Hence, there is a movement compensation based on length-tension relationships of body parts, which produces appropriate stabilization and movement when, and where appropriate.  Therefore, each task we perform is unique, and feedback (from reflexes), motor programming, and relative skills are unique in each and every respect.  Accordingly, this also means that the nature of one task or set of skills in nonspecific to another.  This further means that any transfer of skill - to enhance another, although seemingly similar yet requiring a different set of skills- is so infintesimal in scope that the degree of "transfer" of skill is trivial and wasted effort.



The point is that, again, all of these things relate to each other; things like balance can be improved in the context of a sport, but cannot be trained generally.  My point when comparing the tight-rope and the sidewalk is that as similar as these tasks are, there is no transference   The same goes for standing on one leg - a very specific, learned, unique motor-sequence that has likewise unique degrees of freedom that are simply completely different from standing on two legs, moving on two legs, bracing for impact on two legs-  even the preparatory postular reaction (the bodies sequential, ordered series of muscle contraction  that is used to optimize the function at hand, or rather, optimize the skill in question) is different.  In fact, if you studied the differences between standing on one leg and moving in the context of a sport on two legs, it would become very obvious that such skills are difference to the tune of hundreds of distinctions.

In fact, my original point is simply that if you have bad balance, you won't ever have good balance.  Balance is innate - you can't "train" balance (particularly because of it's relationship to specificity) every day and hope to be walking a tight rope blindfolded, even if you really, really want to.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 28, 2005)

devildog88 said:
			
		

> Ok, Here is what I have my guys doing on a four day basis.  Keep in mind that most all of them are currently involved in Track.
> Mon and Wed:
> Squat (atlnernate between Front and rear)
> Hang Cleans
> ...





clean before you squat.  speed before strength (which can be argues either way I know but I find it to be better that way....so, I guess what I am saying is take my opinion for it or not.  LOL.  I think Dale does it the opposite of me).

make sure you really know what you are talking about with cleans, especially with the younger kids.

I would put more rest in ther mon-thurs is brutal.  Especially since all three days are hip involved exercises (push press, cleans and squats) and without seeing what intenstiy you are working at it would be tough to tell how effective this workout can be.  Also, they probably do a lot of running and agility work in practice as well.  So, inseason, this program would be brutal.


----------



## nmuriqi (Apr 28, 2005)

What do you guys think about these people that practice basketball with ankle weights.  I know it doesn't improve their skill but is it improving their speed or jumping ability at all? - I ask because i have done it, and have not really noticed a significant difference.  And what about the football players that run in waist high water. - Is that really helping them at all?


----------



## P-funk (Apr 28, 2005)

nmuriqi said:
			
		

> What do you guys think about these people that practice basketball with ankle weights.  I know it doesn't improve their skill but is it improving their speed or jumping ability at all? - I ask because i have done it, and have not really noticed a significant difference.  And what about the football players that run in waist high water. - Is that really helping them at all?



Re: ankle weights:
i think it does wonders for your hip flexors and running biomechanics.

*sarcasm*

the running in waist high water is just about doing cardiovascular exercise without any impact.  Plus, the water is adding resistance.  It is great for physical therapy also.  I have never tried it.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, how often is a one legged squat or a one legged landing going to be used in a football game, basketball, hockey, etc??  To try and "train" balance with a one legged depth landing would not help in any way in a sport, unless hopping around on one leg were a part of that sport.  The wider the base of support, and the lower the center of gravity, the greater the stability and balance.  I'm pretty sure this is universally true.  Who tackles someone when they have one leg off the ground?  Such behavior is a physical restraint, as fundamentally the wider the base of support, the greater balance and stability, regardless of how well balanced a person is innately.
> 
> *Any lateral movement is based off of a one-legged landing as your outside leg bears a large majority of the force.  This is the way we are taught to cut, cut off the outside leg, not cut off both legs.*
> 
> ...



Responses embedded.

P-Funk,

My theory is Strength before speed if you are periodizing one before the other.  If you are doing both in a single session, speed first, always.


----------



## Supermans Daddy (Apr 28, 2005)

Wow!  I work my abs everyday except Sunday. Depending on if I'm prepare'n for a fight or not determines tha amount and intensity for tha excerises.  I focus on different results than a BB I suspect. My goal is to develop endurance and density in my abs, not so much for looks but protection of my ribs and organs, and my upper thigh/hip strength for kick'n ( which abs play a super large part in.) Normal amounts of ab work for me is at least 1000 6 days a week, which goes up to as much as 4000 6 days a week when train'n for a fight. These sound like alot ,but once you click into a groove and some music you can blow thru them in 60 to 45 minutes. I also do sets of 250, when I started doin this ( about 13 yrs ago) I was doin 50 reps to get to 500 ! Tha results are now I don't even flinch when I get a good knee to tha gut or a good round kick or hook to tha body, plus I got tha abs lthat look like batmans body armour.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Apr 29, 2005)

> Any lateral movement is based off of a one-legged landing as your outside leg bears a large majority of the force. This is the way we are taught to cut, cut off the outside leg, not cut off both legs.



A one legged depth jump landing in no way bears any specific resemblance to cutting in a sport.   This is tied into my explanation of specificity below, so I won't bother running in that circle again.



> You are using "If he stays up longer he has inherently better balance" as a crutch to base your beliefs off of. Do you have any proof this is the case?



If the movement has not been practiced, and then one stays up longer than the other, it is a fact that one has inherently better balance.  What other explanation is there?  Maybe one has stronger legs?  Again, I don't understand how practicing balance on one leg has any relevance to a sport.  In fact, the juxstaposition is ludicrous.  Anyone who tries to train balance in a sport in such a way is wrong.



> Regarldess, take someone who has never stood on one leg, and another who has, the person who has can stay up longer, which one do you think will stay up longer if shoved holding the amount of times they have practiced on 2 legs constant.



We're discussing a hypothetical situation.  I'm reading that you've made an assumption as the result.  I personally think that your assumption wrong.

Then in the exact same paragraph, you say:

"Do you have any proof this is the case?"

Remember, we're discussing a hypothetical situation here.  So I'll ask you: do you have any proof in support of your contention?  

Of course not.  It is, at this point, an imaginary scenario.



> Don't get what you are saying here. Are you saying that a smaller guy wit better balance can't beat a bigger guy with no balance?



No, I wasn't saying that.



> Running, which is a component of most every sport, is rarely done on two legs. In fact, close to 0% of the time that you are running are 2 legs in contact with the ground. As my example of cutting above, you cut on the outsides leg, not both. Therefore, being able to balance on 1 leg is important.



Actually, you're quite wrong here.  Running is a description of a serial (continuous) movement.  The act of running can't be done on one leg; if it is tried, it in fact is a hop.  The idea that since both legs are not involved at the same time does not mean one doesn't run with (or on) two legs.  Both legs are integral to the function.

Your notion that you cut on one leg (I'd like to see someone cut without using the other leg) does not explain how balancing statically with literally no change in velocity, on one leg has any relevance to such an action.  In fact, if you look at the complexities of changing motion (including the muscle action of maintaining a center of gravity, the muscle action of the lower back, abdominals, calves, thighs, quadriceps, gluteals; physical position of the leg, joint angles [HIP, ANKLE, KNEE] - force of gravity, open-skill extrinsic factors like the grass and opponents, lights, noise) I would suppose that the distinctions number in the HUNDREDS.  At this point I'm just repeating myself again.  The idea these things are anywhere near specific means we'd literally have to change the definition of the word.  

Since you so kindly classify my example as ridiculous, I would submit that yours are ludicrous.  

I don't think you read the context of my example well, so I'l repeat it:

"In fact, my original point is simply that if you have bad balance, you won't ever have good balance. Balance is innate - you can't "train" balance (particularly because of it's relationship to specificity) every day and hope to be walking a tight rope blindfolded, even if you really, really want to."

So let me rephrase.  Just because you work at something hard, doesn't mean you'll do it.  If you practice playing football, a complex skill, you probably don't have the factors of genetic ability to do it professionally, regardless. You probably won't have the balance, reflex action, muscle potential, and neuro effiicency range to accomplish such a feat.  

I'll summarize my point once more.  Skill Training should always be specific.  Why not practice balance in a specific situation (such as running, twisting, etc. around opponents) instead of while standing on one leg?  

If you think you can train balance for football by standing on one leg, have it it, because it won't do anything.  That's my evaluation.

As far as my example, it meant that, even if you SPECIFICALLY PRACTICED walking on a tight-rope on a one foot platform blindfolded, you won't ever be able to do it; especially with bad balance.  This is because the level needed to walk on a tight-rope is absurdly high, and no amount of standing on one leg, or walking on a sidewalk corner, or catching a swissball (or whatever) will change that.  Therefore:

"You are setting an unattainable goal."

Yes, I know I was.  I was setting it as an illustration.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 29, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Responses embedded.
> 
> P-Funk,
> 
> My theory is Strength before speed if you are periodizing one before the other.  If you are doing both in a single session, speed first, always.




oh okay.

I actually asked Lyle McDonald about this once after seeing a program he wrote for a powerlifter he was training in which day 1 of legs the would squat heavy first and then do speed deadlifts and day 2 (later that week) they would deadlift heavy and then box squat (for speed).  He told me that either way is okay.  He said some strength coaches do it my way but others feel that if you do the heavy stuff first it will make the speed stuff feel that much lighter.  I don't know though, I have never tried it in that order.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> oh okay.
> 
> I actually asked Lyle McDonald about this once after seeing a program he wrote for a powerlifter he was training in which day 1 of legs the would squat heavy first and then do speed deadlifts and day 2 (later that week) they would deadlift heavy and then box squat (for speed).  He told me that either way is okay.  He said some strength coaches do it my way but others feel that if you do the heavy stuff first it will make the speed stuff feel that much lighter.  I don't know though, I have never tried it in that order.



Yeah, my reasoning is that if you do speed stuff second, form will suffer and the chance of injury would be greater.  To each his own.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> So let me rephrase.  Just because you work at something hard, doesn't mean you'll do it.  If you practice playing football, a complex skill, you probably don't have the factors of genetic ability to do it professionally, regardless. You probably won't have the balance, reflex action, muscle potential, and neuro effiicency range to accomplish such a feat.
> 
> I'll summarize my point once more.  Skill Training should always be specific.  Why not practice balance in a specific situation (such as running, twisting, etc. around opponents) instead of while standing on one leg?
> 
> ...



I won't respond to the other things, we just go around in circles and neither one of us has any empirical evidence that the other is wrong.  I am going based on anecdotal evidence from myself.  You DO run with two legs, but you are ON 2 legs never, therefore applying appropriate groundforces with one leg is something that needs to be learned.    I agree, some people just will never walk a tightrope blindfolded.  Again, that is something maybe 1% of the population will ever do and that level of balance is not needed in prolfessional sports, just like there are linemen who will never bench 900lbs.

As for practicing open skills, I agree with you.  Open skills are important and should be the focus of a training program, ONCE THE ATHLETE HAS MASTERED THE CLOSED SKILLS.  Training these closed skills teaches the athlete to propererly apply ground forces and use positive angles to make a cut or stop dead in his tracks.  Certainly once the skill is attained less time will be used doing these closed skills movements, but they will still be there in the dynamic warm up and during the offseason  and transition phases of the periodization calendar.

Here is a source from the late Mel Siff that supposedly states that practicing balance on 1/2 legs does lead to improvements in general balancing ability.  Keep in mind I have not even looked at this source as I only have Medline on my work computer and am heading out the door to go play tennis, so I have no idea what the source contains.  If someone has it post it.

BTW, this is not an argument, it is an exchange of ideas.  In fact, DD PM'ed me and told me how smart and sexy he thought I was, seriously.  Well maybe not, but still, I am smart and sexy.  


PS. P-funk and DD, do you 2 ever go to sleep, damn.


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 29, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> clean before you squat. speed before strength (which can be argues either way I know but I find it to be better that way....so, I guess what I am saying is take my opinion for it or not. LOL. I think Dale does it the opposite of me).
> 
> make sure you really know what you are talking about with cleans, especially with the younger kids.
> 
> I would put more rest in ther mon-thurs is brutal. Especially since all three days are hip involved exercises (push press, cleans and squats) and without seeing what intenstiy you are working at it would be tough to tell how effective this workout can be. Also, they probably do a lot of running and agility work in practice as well. So, inseason, this program would be brutal.


P-funk,
My problem is that all of my athletes are two and three sport people.  Now don't get me wrong I like them involved because it keeps their competitive juices flowing.  But in the spring I try to rest them on Friday because they usually have a track meet on SAt.  So Mon-THurs is really the only way to get them in there 4 days a week.  It is pretty intense in and out in 45 minutes.  By the way they are great kids.  Second in the state in Football, State Champions in Basketball, and going to be state champions in Track. ( they have won every meet this year by 60 point sor more)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

What sport do you coach?


----------



## devildog88 (Apr 29, 2005)

I am the head football coach and assistant basketball coach.  I don't coach in the spring so I can run the spring weight training for my Football players.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 29, 2005)

> Yeah, my reasoning is that if you do speed stuff second, form will suffer and the chance of injury would be greater. To each his own



yea, that is what I say too.




> PS. P-funk and DD, do you 2 ever go to sleep, damn.



I occasionally nap between the hours of 12-2am.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> yea, that is what I say too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's pretty sweet, we are off by about 12 hours.  I often take a nap at work between the hours of 12-2pm.  I just grab a pillow, climb up onto one of the Physical Therapist tables, and nod off.  I sometimes get adventurous and hop on the motion table we are testing and sleep, that is pretty fun.


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 29, 2005)

you guys really only get like 3 hours of sleep per day?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 29, 2005)

no, i get 3 xtra during the day on days after I go out at night.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 29, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> you guys really only get like 3 hours of sleep per day?




I was joking.  I would love to get 8hrs straigh per night.  As it turns out I usually get only 5-6 and if I am lucky I get a 45-60min nap in the middle of the day as well.


----------



## KarlW (May 1, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I was joking. I would love to get 8hrs straigh per night. As it turns out I usually get only 5-6 and if I am lucky I get a 45-60min nap in the middle of the day as well.


Sound about the same


----------



## soxmuscle (May 1, 2005)

Same with me.  I wish I could get more, but I sit here on the computer doing nothing instead.


----------



## Lankster (May 9, 2005)

fuck abs i do them maybe once every 2 weeks


----------



## aversion209 (May 12, 2005)

Alright, I finally got done reading all that . . . . 

I know you have to watch your diet in order for the lower portion of your abs to stay revealed . . . but the thing is I haven't been watching my diet and now I have a little love flab.  I recently got back into lifting and am now watching what I eat.

QUESTION: will running help deplet the love flab?  What are some excercises that I can do to lose the love flab, not neccesarily  tone it (the top portion of my abs are noticeable but the lower has the excess fat).  Right now I do reverse crunch, regular crunch and weighted side bends.


----------



## CowPimp (May 14, 2006)

aversion209 said:
			
		

> Alright, I finally got done reading all that . . . .
> 
> I know you have to watch your diet in order for the lower portion of your abs to stay revealed . . . but the thing is I haven't been watching my diet and now I have a little love flab.  I recently got back into lifting and am now watching what I eat.
> 
> QUESTION: will running help deplet the love flab?  What are some excercises that I can do to lose the love flab, not neccesarily  tone it (the top portion of my abs are noticeable but the lower has the excess fat).  Right now I do reverse crunch, regular crunch and weighted side bends.



You cannot spot reduce.  All the reverse crunches in the world will not make your "lower abs" (They don't exist; it's one muscle that is not separately innervated) become visible without dropping the fat there.  

Running will help you in that you will burn more calories and potentially start using your fat stores for energy if your diet is also in check, but it isn't necessary.  Diet is still of utmost importance.  To achieve a full fledged six pack that is totally visible unflexed requires ridiculous attention to diet though, or kickass genetics.


----------



## fufu (May 15, 2006)

I train 4 days a week and my abs are always being used so I said I train them 4 days a week.


----------



## GFR (May 15, 2006)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Let me spell this out for you.
> 
> You are a fucking retard.  I hate this mystic bullshit about "Works for me".  Tell me why it works for you? Tell me why it's optimal? Tell me why anyone should do what you say?  Don't just say something that contradicts common sense.  GIVE A REASON.  Because you didnt' give any reason why the abs can be trained everday while everything else can't.
> 
> ...


Now this is a class post


----------



## Gazhole (May 15, 2006)

This is another good topic!

For me: i do weighted ab work once a week, since like a lot of people two of my staple movements are squat and deadlift.


----------



## katt (May 15, 2006)

I do them twice a week,


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Now this is a class post



I enjoyed that post also!
I happen to believe that Duncan is 100% correct, but I dare not claim to have factual data to back it up. Neither Duncan nor Devil has posted any pictures of their midsection from the front, so the jury is still out. 
Everything this site has taught me makes me believe devil has no clue what he is talking about, and Duncan's logic is correct.
That is also combined with the numerous times where I have seen devildog commit to logic fallacies in Open Chat.  
Who cares really, because I don???t work abs. I do compound core exercises with a lean diet.


----------



## GFR (May 15, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> I enjoyed that post also!
> I happen to believe that Duncan is 100% correct, but I dare not claim to have factual data to back it up. Neither Duncan nor Devil has posted any pictures of their midsection from the front, so the jury is still out.
> Everything this site has taught me makes me believe devil has no clue what he is talking about, and Duncan's logic is correct.
> That is also combined with the numerous times where I have seen devildog commit to logic fallacies in Open Chat.
> Who cares really, because I don???t work abs. I do compound core exercises with a lean diet.


I was being sarcastic...Duncan is a arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all....and he dosent.


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I was being sarcastic...Duncan is a arrogant prick who thinks he knows it all....and he dosent.



I still agree with Duncan. I can't prove what he is saying, but by applying what I have leaned on IM, I would work my abs like I work my calves. I work my calves 1.5 to 2 times a week, or every other 3 or 2 days.
I haven't actually read where the knowledgeable sources posted their opinion on the matter yet.


----------



## GFR (May 15, 2006)

I would train abbs with high reps and low volume EOD or 2x a week.


----------



## CowPimp (May 15, 2006)

I directly train my abs twice each week.  I do one exercise each squat/deadlift day for a few sets.  To train them every day is ridiculous.


----------



## KelJu (May 16, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I directly train my abs twice each week.  I do one exercise each squat/deadlift day for a few sets.  To train them every day is ridiculous.





			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I would train abbs with high reps and low volume EOD or 2x a week.



Well, there are two knowledgeable sources right there. Case closed as far as I am concerned.


----------

