Prove that they're no lower abs

[NomortaL]

My sis thinks that she can work the lower abs, says she has tons of friends that say the same thing. Can someone show me proof so i can debunk 'em :D

[David]

If you're in the UK, go to the BodyWorlds (http://www.bodyworlds.com) exhibition.

I went there and one of the most interesting things I noticed was that the muscles come in separate layers (with separate attachments) eg a bicep might have 4 individual muscles making up the entire bicep. I can't remember specifics; my intention is to go back there and take shedloads of photos.

It's a great exhibition. You can view all the victi... volunteers from any angle and can all but poke your head up inside their rib cages - well, the hollow ones, anyway. And there was no restriction on photography.

What I do remember from the exhibition is that there seemed to me to be abs which could, for all intents and purposes, be called lower abs. The same with the upper/lower pectorals which people argue about. They're all there. Bruce Lee thought he invented a new leg muscle but all he did was develop one that most people never use, a minor muscle from a 'dormant' layer.

Most people only use their big muscles, always compensating for the lesser muscles by building up the ones that are already strong. Even body builders and lifters pick and choose what they're going to work on. People with physiques like that don't know what's hit them when they try holding a qigong posture for just a few minutes.

You have a lot of muscles in your body and there's a lot more to them than the bump under your skin suggests.

-David

[SevenStar]

here's a good basic explanation:

http://www.exercisexpress.com/LOWERABS.htm

I'll find a more scientific source though, as that may be what she's looking for. Tonight after bjj I'll try to find some stuff in my NSCA book if nobody's replied by then. The problem is that so many people talk about the lower abs and if you do a simple search for lower abs, you get tons of sites telling you how to work them. There's so much about it available that most people buy into the myth.

[SevenStar]

also, she can look for herself. tell her to go to google and do a search for "lower abs myth"

[David]

Where a muscle has more than two ends, it can be used in more than one way, hence the idea of lower abs.

-David

[IronFist]

It's one muscle.

If she insists otherwise, tell her to flex just her lower abs and have her upper abs remain soft and pliable.

End of story.

And if she still doesn't believe it, go have her read an anatomy book (note: a book called something like "Awesome Abs" is NOT an anatomy book. Give her a medical anatomy book).

IronFist

[Ford Prefect]

Psssst... check an anatomy book and then ridicule her for her pagan beliefs.

[David]

You've all been kind in merely ignoring me rather than personally ripping my arguments. Thankyou!

Last night, I loook into a couple of physiology books - inc. Gray's Anatomy - and I can't see where the idea of a single (ie mono-directional, mono-use) abdominal muscle group comes from. The muscles are labelled as one but they appear to be more complex.

1. Biceps, considered one muscle but actually multiple.
2. Pectoralis majoris (or whatever) considered one muscle but isn't - there are people with the lower or upper areas developed at the expense of the other.
3. Abdominals have many parts and therefore many load-patterns and therefore different exercises will affect different parts of the muscle differently. So what if the whole region tenses to the same degree under strain - the physicis of it is that the only muscles that'll break are the ones in the line of force with the load - and these are the fibres which will be replaced with more.

This reminds me of the Biologists conundrum of trying to label everything and fit it into boxes. There are constant debates as to whether a particular tree belongs to one genus/species/family or another. Who cares. Is Pluto a planet? Who cares, it's a rock, Earth is a rock, if it's too small for your interest then move on.

Labels won't prove anything; they're negotiable and should be adjusted to use. As specialists, we may have to make finer and finer distinctions between things that appear unified at a coarser level.

I do crunches, squat-thrusts, leg-raises to name but a few and this works the abs all over. I don't necessarily say it works the upper and lower - it just works all over.

-David

[prana]

Muscles are also length specific. Just because you work your muscles at 40%-90% length does not mean it will be strong in the 10% stretch region.

Sorry my anatomy lingo is not up to par.

hence different exercise can work the same group of muscles but feel different.

[Ford Prefect]

David,

That's the exact "assumption" that is the myth. Different exercises feel like they are loading different parts of the abdominal muscles because of strain placed on the connective tissue. Crunches will feel like they are loading the "upper" abs because the strain is being placed on the connective tissue on top of the ab wall and the reverse is true for stuff like leg lifts.

As for your biceps example. There are two completely seperate "heads" to the bicep. (ie BI - cep... guess how many heads the TRI-cep has. I bet you can't... ;) ) Each head has a different name. You don't see the same thing along the abdominal wall. It is one muscle and is aptly named with just one name. It isn't broken up into different heads or units. It is all one muscle. When a muscle contracts, the entire muscle muscle contracts the same. That's how muscles work. No if's and's or but's. Anything else is just a delusion. Maybe you need a physiology book then if you can't put together what you see in the anotomy one.

I just don't see why people wish to remain ignorant. Intuitiveness alone should tell you that the abs are one muscle. Nevermind all that modern medical science hog wash. It's like saying that the heart doesn't pump blood through the body. It's just rediculous that's all.

[David]

Cheers Ford - that's quite convincing.

To be annoying though, I think I'm wrong only in the sense that it's wrong to think of the Earth as flat or the sky as blue.

You've convinced me I'm wrong about the discrete existence of separate heads so take this as an attempt at reconiliatory compromise!

My point is that the location of the strain is the location of the muscle breakage/build-up cycle. If you can have upper-region strain and lower-region strain then that's working upper and lower abs respectively.

-David (looking over his shoulder at the precipice)

[Ford Prefect]

No biggy. This is just such a recycled topic that I usually don't reply to them, but it's a slow day at work today. ;) Believe what you want to. As long as you are working your abs and staying in shape, then you already won 99% of the battle, IMO. Speaking scientifically, it is absolutely 100% impossible to build different areas of the same muscle differently. Since you are stressing and imflaming different connective tissue with your exercises, it feels like you are hitting them differently. Also, the abdominal wall, although a major player in the core of the body, isn't the only one. Some "ab" exercises will hit some of the others as well. While you may not be building the "upper" and "lower" abs differently, you may be building the muscles that border them and aid them differently.

[ElPietro]

Just to chime in quickly with an added point...even if a muscle group contains multiple heads, this really doesn't reflect the fact that you can isolate each head individually, or more or less. It is the point of attachment that dictates which musclegroups are responsible for whatever work you are performing. This is why you cannot isolate different parts of your chest, the pec major and minor share the same point of attachment, and therefore are both recruited for the lifts you perform. Some musclegroups have multiple points of attachment, such as your shoulder, which you can target the heads differently depending on arm angle, etc.

[rubthebuddha]

hm. interesting point, EP. what about triceps? different exercises seem to focus more on a certain one of the three heads. think tricep pulldowns. with the palms facing down, one part seems to be emphasized, but with the palms facing each other, a different part, and with the palms facing up, another different part.

i'm not saying that only one part is used at a time. it just seems certain angles focus more of the tension on one area, while the entire muscle group is still a-workin. is that a connective tissue thing again?

[Ford Prefect]

Buddha,

The tricep heads come into play as tension is increased. Most of the work is done by your medial head. The long and lateral heads only come into play as tension is increased. What this means is that you'll need to lift HEAVY weights in order for them to become active. You aren't using heavy weights on a tricep kickback. If you do close-grip, 4" bench press lockouts though, you are. That's why it may seem like different exercises work them differently. BTW, the most visable tricep head is the lateral head, which is one of the lazy pair.

[rubthebuddha]

bling bling

[TigerJaw]

There are two debates here.

1) There is one ab muscle. Is it possible to perform an excercise that builds or strengthen one of the divisions of it more than another.

Pretty much everybody who knows anything says no because all the heads and attatchments perform the same action.

2) Is it possible to perform an excercise that focuses on one head or another of any muscle in the body. Specifically, the pectral, bicep or tricep. note the pectorilis major and minor are two seperate muscles, the so-called upper chest is the clavicular attatchment of the pectoralis major and the lower chest is the sternal attatchment.

I'm not conviced either way but i think you can. www.exrx.net agrees with me that performing an incline shoulder bench puts more load on the clavicular attatchement than the sternal. This means that the clavicular attatchement is taken closer to failure than it would during a flat bench press. Now if you don't bring the muscle close to failure, it won't get stronger so if you can't bring the clavicular attatchment close to failure during bench but you can during incline, you will build the clavicular attatchment better by doing the incline press. The reverse logic is true for decline press. This is different to argument 1 because we're talking about seperate groups of muslce fibres, not diferent fibres in the same group or diferent portions of the same fibres,

[David]

The reason for my obstinacy on this point is a simple visualisation that I have for multiheaded muscles.

I imagine a sheet with each corner representing a head. Imagine having 2 people, each pulling on a corner. The regions of strain across the sheet vary in each circumstance and, if pulled hard enough, the sheet tears differently.

Now, why doesn't that apply to the abs?

Obviously, I understand that you can't prove anything to a fool...

-David

[Ford Prefect]

David,

That's just now how a muscle functions. A muscle contracts. That is how tou do crunches and leg raises. Your abdominal contracts. When a muscle contracts, every single fiber in the muscle contracts at the same time and at the same rate. Muscles don't think. They can't tell the difference between a crunch and a leg raise. All they known is contract. The only differences in contractions is the amount of tension needed. ie they have to contract harder for some exercises than others. That's it.

Don't try to come up with theories out of thin air. Just read some books on physiology and anatomy. Only every single modern medical text agrees that it is PROVEN that this is how a muscle functions. The world isn't flat. It's round you know.

[FatherDog]

What sorts of motions, in martial arts and in general life, are the hip flexors used for?

Most of the exercises that target the nonexistent "lower abs" seem to actually be targeting the hip flexors. Clearly this isn't going to help you improve your ab strength, but if the hip flexors are used for certain things, clearly it's not necessarily a bad idea to do "lower ab" exercises, yes?

[Ford Prefect]

Correct. I never said hitting the hip flexors was a bad thing. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any action that uses only the abs without bringing the hip flexors or other core muscles into play. That's why I find it funny that Pavel emphasizes the Janda sit-up after billing himself as Mr Hardcore Training. The thing is like ab training's version of the leg curl.

[David]

FP, I am really disappointed! Your answer makes less sense than my analogy! How can a part of the muscle less involved than another part suffer the same strain, flat earth or no?

I know when to shut up and it was a couple of days ago... Am I a troll?:eek: :confused:

-David

[Dragon Warrior]

there have been times in my training where only my lower abs were sore, and my upperabs where fine. I know it is one muscle, and you can't work lower without upper, but there have been times when they were more sore than upper, anyone have an answer for this?

[TigerJaw]

Originally posted by Dragon Warrior
there have been times in my training where only my lower abs were sore, and my upperabs where fine. I know it is one muscle, and you can't work lower without upper, but there have been times when they were more sore than upper, anyone have an answer for this?

I think the standard answer to this is that it was a combination of your hip-flexors and abs that were a little sore. Since they 'overlap' in the lower ab region, it gives the illusion that your lower abs are sore. I don't know that to be true, it's just what I've heard other people say.

[Dragon Warrior]

i know the difference between my hip flexers and abs, and i have to say that there's been times when only my lower abs were sore.

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
David,

. . .Don't try to come up with theories out of thin air. Just read some books on physiology and anatomy. Only every single modern medical text agrees that it is PROVEN that this is how a muscle functions. The world isn't flat. It's round you know.

This is exactly the sort of weak thinking and close mindedness which had every one believing the world was flat. EVERYONE AGREES. It is PROVEN. etc.

David has asked some valid questions and so far nobody has given any answers. Even if a muscle can only contract as a unit, the lines of force being applied to the muscle will still place stain at different locations. This is PHYSICS. Everybody knows :p this to be true. Maybe you could pick up a book on physics if you can't find it in your physiology book.

Is it PROVEN exactly what stimulates muscle hypertrophy and how?

I don't believe there are 'upper' and 'lower' abs either but I don't know how to answer Davids questions and feel that in mocking them you are only displaying your own ignorance.

Last point: I don't think "every single medical text" agrees on much of anything.

[IronFist]

How can a part of the muscle less involved than another part suffer the same strain, flat earth or no?

When a muscle contracts, the entire thing contracts. You cannot contract part of a muscle. Test after test has proven this. Please note that tests consist of electrodes and computers, and not some guy going "hey I feel this in my lower abs."

The abdominus rectus is one muscle. Then why do people have six packs, you ask. The answer is because tendons stretch across the muscle. Everyone is different, however. Remember the genetic factor. This explains why some people have even six packs, other people have offset six packs (where the "six pack" muscles don't appear side by side, but kind of jaggered a little bit. You've probably seen what I mean), etc.

If you have more questions, or need further clarification, just ask.

IronFist

[TigerJaw]

The logical corrolary is that it is the contraction of the muscle that causes hypertrophy, not the tension on it. This would make sence, otherwise, stretching alone would cause hyperthrophy, which it doesn't. If the muscle can only contract evnenly, it can only build evenly, irrespective of where the tension is.

Does that make sence? I'm just applying logic, I really don't know much about such things.

[Ford Prefect]

Omar,

The questions have been answered. Not only have they been answered on this thread, but they have been answered and verified in every modern medical text on physiology. I'm all for questioning knowledge, but this is being done by people completely uneducated to the very basic facts of the way muscles work. (yourself included)

I guess I learned my lesson yet again when it comes to these ab threads. Let the ignorant remain so.

[abobo]

Originally posted by TigerJaw
There are two debates here.

I'm not conviced either way but i think you can. www.exrx.net agrees with me that performing an incline shoulder bench puts more load on the clavicular attatchement than the sternal. This means that the clavicular attatchement is taken closer to failure than it would during a flat bench press. Now if you don't bring the muscle close to failure, it won't get stronger so if you can't bring the clavicular attatchment close to failure during bench but you can during incline, you will build the clavicular attatchment better by doing the incline press. The reverse logic is true for decline press. This is different to argument 1 because we're talking about seperate groups of muslce fibres, not diferent fibres in the same group or diferent portions of the same fibres,

I think this (http://nbaf.com/nbaf/apr8pgg.html) is "press"-isely what you need.

[Dragon Warrior]

from the article


However, this familiar premise may be nothing more than another unfounded gym myth. According to the Barnett EMG study, the flat bench produced much more electrical energy in the lower pecs than did either the decline or incline positions. "I agree with this research" says NPC National Champion and pro bodybuilder Jay Cutler, "The flat bench is much better for lower pec development than the decline."


EMG studies have also shown that when doing the flat bench, the muscle fibers of the lower pecs are activated the most when using a wide grip. "This is very much true," adds Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield, Ph.D. "A wide grip with the elbows out will cause much more lower pec activation."


According to EMG studies this advice seems to be pretty much true. The Barnett study tells us that the incline position produces just slightly more electrical energy in the upper pecs that either the flat or decline positions. However, the flat bench was found to be very close. While the difference between the two was considered insignificant, the slight advantage of the incline over the flat bench in upper pec activation may be just what some of us need to further develop the upper pecs. "This is all very true," says Robinson. "There is no doubt the incline bench hits the pecs more than the flat bench."

So this article says that you can use parts of the same muscle more than other parts.

What do you guys have to say about this?

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by SevenStar

http://www.exercisexpress.com/LOWERABS.htm

The long fibers in the rectus abdominus muscle go from the origin (on the ribs and xiphoid process of the sternum) to the insertion site (on the pubic symphysis).


This is not true. There are three or four tendinous inscriptions which separate the belly into sections. These sections are innervated separately, so it would seem reasonable that they could be contracted separately. They are arranged in series and have a common attachment at each end, so it would also seem reasonable that they'd have to all work together under a load.

There have been several studies that looked at emg evidence in specific abdominal exercises. Lehman and McGill (3rd link) argue that you need to account for movement of the emg electrodes during the exercise and claim that their data are more accurate. Their conclusion is that the differences in activity between the upper and lower portions of the rectus abdominis aren't enough to be significant.

Here are some links:


http://www.24hourfitness.com/html/fitness/articles/abs/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8976314&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ptjournal.org/PTJournal/May2001/v81n5p1096.cfm

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine/physiologicalaspectsofphysiquebuilding2.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11319934

[omarthefish]

"I'm all for questioning knowledge, but this is being done by people completely uneducated to the very basic facts of the way muscles work. (yourself included)"

This kind of off the cuff insult is based in ignorance. Specifically ignorance of my education on the topic. I did quite well in my college anatomy classes. I started out in pre-med before I changed my major top Chinese.

Your elgent answer to Davids question was quote:

"David,

That's just now how a muscle functions."

David asked a question about 'why' and you answered with 'what'.

You go on to say:

"Only every single modern medical text agrees that it is PROVEN that this is how a muscle functions. "

A false statement. Most texts certainly may say that this is how muscles function but nothing is PROVEN. There is only the bulk of the evidence seeming to indicate. You can only DIS-prove.

I think some answers have been suggested. Namely that the experience of different areas being worked is more a matter of the strain applied to different tendonous attatchments. Using Davids initial analogy, there are horizontal strips in the abs which perhaps could be sore from the strain causing the sensatio of different areas having been worked.

Grandeous statements such as "Not only have they been answered on this thread, but they have been answered and verified in every modern medical text on physiology. " make it difficult to take anything you say seriously. EVERY MODERN MEDICAL TEXT ? ? ?

There is no need to be dismissive off or insulting too somebody because you are unable to express yourself clearly.

[FatherDog]

Different parts of a muscle can be sore. That's a function of strain on the muscle.

However, strain on a muscle doesn't cause it to get stronger. Repeated contraction of the muscle does.

Strain on the lower part of the abdomen muscle can make the lower part of it sore. However, nothing can make it contract only part of the muscle.

Therefore, while someone might 'feel' an exercise in their 'lower abs', nothing is going to work one part of the abs more than another.

Ford and IronFist aren't being dismissive because they can't express themselves; they're being dismissive because variations of this thread have been cropping up for years, and they're ****ing sick of it. Hell, [i]I'm[/i/ ****ing sick of it at this point, and I don't even do most of the replying on these threads.

Yes, on this particular thread, they haven't been exhaustive about proving their points, but that's because they've done so so often in the past. Do a search on 'lower abs' on the conditioning forum and check out the threads there. The idea that you can work on part of the abs more than another has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

[IronFist]

Alright. The pecs have different heads. I wrote all about this a long time ago and if I feel like digging the post up I will. I think people are mixing terminology and stuff.

This is how it works:

If a muscle has different HEADS, they can be stimulated differently. For example, the triceps has three heads (hence the name, "triceps"). You can do different exercises and hit the different heads with varying degrees of intensity.

YOU CANNOT WORK DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SAME HEAD!!!! If you want to hit the lateral head of the triceps, that's all fine and good, and there are exercises to do this. But when the lateral head contracts, THE ENTIRE THING CONTRACTS OR NONE OF IT CONTRACTS. You cannot work part of it more than the other part.

The abdominus rectus (the six pack muscle) is ONE MUSCLE. You cannot hit different parts of it because it is all ONE MUSCLE. If it were more than one it would be called biabs or triabs or something. You know your quadriceps? They have FOUR HEADS. you know your abs? It's ONE PIECE OF MUSCLE.

IronFist

[omarthefish]

Fatherdog,

Thank you.

That was an answer. If your sick of answering, don't post. No problem. The fact is almost all of these threads tend to go in circles. Fair enough. Goos post.

Omar

[ElPietro]

Sorry, don't have time to read any responses...was just dropping in for a quick browse...but wanted to state that EMG studies are pretty much absolutely worthless and have no application to weightlifting. So if you use this to back up an argument, don't. :)

[Dragon Warrior]

Ironfist

I remember you saying that you cannot work the upper pecs, middle, and lower seperately. Your proof was "try to flex only your upper pecs," or something like that.

Am i mistaken, did you not say this in the past.

[IronFist]

You cannot work them seperately. They all flex together. You can change the emphasis placed on the upper pecs because it is a seperate muscle head. Just like the triceps. You can change which head is stressed the most a little bit, but you cannot isolate them.

The abs are different. You cannot change the stress placed on it because it is all one muscle.

Sorry for any confusion.

IronFist

[Ford Prefect]

Editted...

Don't want to bother.

[IronFist]

?

You know you have something good to say :)

IronFist

[Ford Prefect]

Heh. I would type something out, but I'm deathly afraid of carpel tunnel syndrome!

[ElPietro]

Is that the disease you get from having to debate the same question over and over again?

It certainly qualifies as "repetetive stress" in my books. :D

[Ford Prefect]

lol! You have a point!

[Royal Dragon]

Lower Abs = Hip Flexors.

End of argument.

[IronFist]

Heh, kinda :)

IronFist

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

so how do i work my lower abs?

i dont get it.