The latest craze of strength building literature seems to revolve around 'Everything you think you know about lifting is a lie, this is the truth' ect.... ect... After reading soo many eBooks it's becomming harder to seep through the garbage and look straight ahead. Currently reading 'The Bodybuilding Truth' By Nelson Montana It is based around a simple idea of eating well and striving for heavier weight, but the abdominal's section threw me right off. It basically says that leg raises & situps and the like are ineffective as a method of strengthening the abdominals. It purely mentions one excercise, the static sit up. It's basis for this is that the abs (much like the calves) are white muscle, and only respond to and strengthen when contracted, not moved/contracted (I thought it made a bit of sence seeing as the abs are used for stabilisation so are primarily used just in tension). Holding the static sit-up for 10 seconds and then relaxing (thats one rep) and doing as many sets as possible once or twice a week. "This will avoid hypertrophy and strengthen the abdominals" according to Nelson. I find this difficult to believe as it renders all other abdominal excercises obsolete. Truth/Fiction?
that exercise most definately isnt the be all and end all of core exercise! i do, however, believe that the core is best worked through putting it under increasing stress as a stabalisers. the way i see it there are two forms of stabalisation which you core can do: static and dynamic. static stabalisation would be during something like squats are deadlifts where you core keeps you on the right path from the bottom to the top of the lift. dynamic stabalisation would be during something like a barbell good morning in which your core is the muscle group which stops the lift failing. these sort of exercises are great for when your static stabalisation fails (e.g if you fall forwards on a squat) and you need to recover the movement. thats just my opinion, feel free to trash it as it isnt really based on science as much as personal experience.
In it's entirity the book is trash (bit of a sweeping generalisation ) It's a hypertrophy bad-boyz bible, over-kill delux. On the plus side: It mentions keeping your body in check by constantly bringing new aspects to excercises, which I totally agree with as I get bored stiff after 4 weeks of a set workout.
the trend you speak of is not a new one. Its been around for years, but its been brought about due to the missinformation and crap spouted in 'muscle comics'. I haven't read the book in question so can't comment on that, but if it encourages basic compound movements with small progressive increases in load and plenty of rest, then it is probably on the right track. As for the abs part, not sure what to make of it really without reading the full chapter. The abs are like any other muscles, work them hard and they will strengthen and grow. If there is one thing I hate about bodybuilding is when they pick a muscle to keep small to give a better apearance. Why would you want your stomach muscles to be small, if you have big abs but a low bodyfat they will look awesome. Some bodybuilders also minimize the developemt of the traps in an atempt to make there shoulders look wider. The body works as a unit, get it all strong or don't bother. Keep it simple, get an ab wheel Do full contact twists, or heavy strict sidebends. Do deadlifts, and dorsal raises. All these will give a very healthy and strong core when done correctly.
Situps with a plate on your chest, easy enough Situps alone aren't hugely effective for building the ABS, that is true, but doing them with weights...
I have never read the book, but I know Nelson Montana. His stuff can be controversial at times, and should be taken with a grain of salt, imo.
I'm not sure the abs would be mainly white muscle (fast twitch). Given that the abs are used alot, I'd have expected it be more red muscle (slow twitch). Also the calves are used a lot - think about when you walk. So surely they'd be red muscle. Note: I realise there are 3 muscle twitch types and that all muscles will be a combination. I just wanted to keep things simple.
The abs are an extremely thin muscle (Difficult to get to 1 inch in thickness), so complements the idea of white muscle with it's minimal growth. Whereas the red muscle i.e. pecktoral, are the red so you see gains exceptionally fast (at first). I guess it's the same with all material coming through in literature. Take it with a pinch of salt and take from it what you want! He doesn't (Nelson Montana) encourage atrophy of the obliques tho, which I hear is common for a 'trim waist line'. But on other hand he doesn't promote hypertrophy in them either.
It is slightly off the point but I have an abs related question. I am a bit of a weights newbie and I currently do sit ups holding a 50kg barbell against my chest. Is that worth while?.
It is definatley better than nothing at all, but there are numerous other excercise which will tax your abs further i.e. hanging leg raises. Small peices of equipment such as the 'Ab-Wheel' are a great upper/lower abdominal excercise.
