Growing THICK abs

J

jwbond

New Member
I feel like my abs are respectably thick, but I would like them to pop even more when I am done my summer cut...

What is the best way to stimulate hypertrophy? I was doing weight situps, but decided to take it easier on my back recently and started weighted crunches on an incline. I don't feel like I am hitting them as hard anymore though...

What do you guys think will stimulate the most growth (keeping in mind I am already doing leg press [which should help])
 
I have never seen really thick abs on anyone who wasn't on chemicals. That said, the abdominus rectus muscles will respond to load just like any other muscle group. What you have to watch out for is trying to use progressive load and putting your back into a weak position because you allow too much fatigue build up which compromises your form.

It very often seems to be the case that, when someone does an abdominal exercise, they push close to failure on every set – going for a burn. It's conditioning, I suppose, and probably stems from when we did them as school kids.

If we are going to be using progressive loading for sit-ups or leg raises then my feeling is that, like an oly lift, we don't want our form to drop off so that we put our back at risk of injury. Therefore, if we do weighted sit-ups of any kind, we want to be sure to keep good form and finish a set when we feel unable to control the concentric movement as well as we would like. That means stopping short of failure and perhaps only doing sets of 10 reps with our 15RM, or 6 or 7 reps (or perhaps just sets of 5) with what might be our 10RM.

To directly target your abdominus rectus muscles you would need to do some sort of weighted crunches. However, lots of different compound exercises indirectly stress your core muscles, which act as stabilisers and undergo a strong and mainly static contraction. Deadlifts and the various forms of squatting will give your abs a good workout. Chins are great too.

My favourite ab exercise is to do loaded sit-ups using a Roman chair but I haven't done them for ages now. Front squats are currently filling their roll.
 
The rectus abdominis is responsible for lumbar flexion. Sit ups utilize the abs only isometrically. I think you were right to leave them. I evaluate ab lifts by two criteria: can I go from extending my lumbar to flexing it AND how much resistance can I go with this.

If you're not up to speed on kinesiology the way you extend your lumbar is to pose like a female swimsuit model arching her back and pushing out her chest. Do it standing and then lean your head back until you're looking at the ceiling. Ta da. Your abs will engage. Your lumbar is extended. Starting from a lumbar extended position in any ab lift is like starting from a dead hang when you do chins or making sure the bar touches your chest when you bench - you're at the stretching end of the ROM. Think about this when you do your incline weighted crunches.

When it comes to adding resistance free weights will only take you so far with classical ab lifts. I gave up ball crunches because I got tired of hauling dumbells to the ball, getting set up on the ball, getting the dumbell on my chest, crunching. My gym has high cable pulleys and ropes so I was doing weighted cable crunches until holding the cable behind my neck began to bug both of my elbows. Low and behold I found a standing cable crunch machine (I don't venture into the machine area very often). It has an upright pad and two pulleys that attach to 24 inch straps with handles sewn down their length. I jam my ass into the pad like I'm a girl dancing at a club and arch my back like a swimsuit model, look up at the ceiling and curl forward like a pillbug. That's one hail mary.

Like you I have spent a lot time thinking about abs. There is a lot of crap out there about how to train them. I have looked at studies from the NSCA on the efficacy of ab devices and as well as studies both supporting and rejecting the lower ab myth. For the longest time I have wanted a gym that had a Nautilus torso rotation machine because I find the twisting function of the obliques difficult to do with ordinary equipment (f--- broom handles!). Because the abs are said to be predominantly slow-twitch I have looked for studies on how to stimulate slow-twitch hypertrophy and, like hyperplasia studies, found little to nothing that was encouraging. After all this I drew a few conclusions:

1. Abs can be more difficult to grow because they are more easily hidden by bodyfat than other muscles, especially while bulking. So it can be difficult to know if you are getting it right.

2. Even if they are predominantly slow twitch, the 80 % RM maxim still applies because of the size principle. Use 70-80% RM and you are getting full recruitment, regardless of any possible hypertrophic response differences between ST and FT fibers.

3. Extend your lumbar. Extend your lumbar. Extend your lumbar.

4. Abs are an important bodypart, in fact probably one of the most important. Even if you don't have large arms or great calves, non bodybuilding people do not hold you to professional bodybuilding standards and will be impressed if you have a noticeably well defined mid section - even if you are lacking by your standards elsewhere. Do not treat abs like an afterthought and do them last all the time. Prioritize. If you want abs, do them first or after an ab-demanding lift like squats (dont wanna hurt yourself on those).]

5. Like every other muscle abs take time to develop. They are not borne overnight. Do the right thing at the right time and your abs will take of themselves.

* Try cable crunches Max-Stim style 1st or 2nd in the workout for 6 weeks.
 
Joe,

I really think you can treat the abs like any other muscle in HST when your primary goal is growth. Unfortunately, they won't be seen until body fat percentage drops to at least 12%.

-Colby
 
I have considered sets and reps. The traditional view on training predominately ST muscles such as the abs and calves (actually just the soleus) is to use high reps (12+ reps) because ST fibers do not fatigue as quickly as the FT fibers. Underlying this recommendation is the assumption that fatigue causes hypertrophy. Dan Moore has done the reading and, if you follow his review of scientific literature, it is not fatigue but mechanotransduction - the effect of mechanical strain - that initiates the hypertrophy response. Examined in this light it is possible to see how the old school recommendation came to be gospel: a high-fatigue muscle can perform more reps than a lower fatigue one and each rep causes mechanical strain. I am not advocating 20 rep weighted crunches only offering an explanation of how the idea got started.

In my view, the 20 rep suggestion is as valid as Colby's HST one because both recommendations derive from some manner of reasoning and/or research. Neither has been definitively proven and each has users who swear by it. The only thing to do then, is to pick one be it HST, Max-Stim, 20 reps, 3 x 10s, whatever, and do it persistently for a length of time to determine its effectiveness. This is not the miraculous for-certain advice we sometimes look for but it is the only way to find out for sure. As Byran Haycock has written and will likely tell you the individual responses to exercise of advanced trainees varies widely. I have experienced this a little bit and am slowly becoming a believer.

That being said the question now becomes how to find the set/rep and method scheme that you will respond to. Obviously you may find it following whatever program you try next. Its happened to me for some body parts. Barring that there are three ways we can determine the efficacy of a program no matter what:

1. Strength.
2. Visual observation.
3. Measurements.

Strength is part hypertrophy, part CNS. If you are getting stronger then to some extent you are getting bigger.

Visual observation is universally used but it is the least reliable. We are prone to self-deception. The use of pictures taken at regular intervals - be it daily, weekly, or monthly will show you where you are going. Another option is to have people comment on your physique. Use the same people and ask them separately what they think. A consensus is a good indicator. When it comes to abs Colby is right - you've gotta get down to where you can see them. How can you measure the progress of this very visual body part otherwise? This means that you will have to cut which means no bulking. There are trade offs. Are there not trade offs elsewhere in your life? Pick one.

Measurements. Like every other metric of progress it should be done regularly. Obviously its difficult to measure abs.

My system boils down to this:

Step 1. Make up your mind that its abs you want.

Step 2. Diet down to where you can see them.

Step 3. Once your body fat is stable and you can see your abs, asses your current ab training - not with a mirror but with a camera and/or your personal judging panel.

Step 4. If its not working change it. What to change it to? Pick something. Get an ab book. Ask someone else what they did. Try a program you think makes sense. The point is to experiment because once you find it, hell yes, you've got it.

Step 5. Determine how long you'll give this new method to produce results. Stick with it until then.

Step 6. Reassess. If it didn't work, try something else.

Here's how mine recently went, gleamed from notebooks and memory:

1. Ya ok. Abs. Lets do this.
2. No problem there.
3. Ah crap. I don't have a camera and I'm low on cash. I'll just have to use my room mate.
4. Last ab work I used a Nautilus crunch machine. I maxed it out. Still no amazing abs. It was not the right thing. Did a bunch of reading. I think ball crunches will be fine. Looks like you can really arch backwards and get a good stretch. I'll give this a shot.
5. 6 weeks.
6. Week 3 - this is becoming a pain. I'm crunching dumbells I can't yet curl and the weight on my chest is making my injured shoulder hurt more. I cannot progess with this. Time to find something new.

back to step 4: ta da! Standing crunch pulley machine in the nether reaches of my gym. Form looks good. Lots of weight on the stack I can't yet lift - there's room to grow. I'll go for 10 reps using a 4 second positive and 4 second negative. That's old school HIT.

Step 5. 6 weeks.

Step 6. Week 4 - I cannot progress steadily in strength. One day I can add 5 lbs to the stack the next day I can't. I am failing mid-way through the set and dropping the weight to make the reps. For some reason I am adding a set of lighter 10's.

Week 6 - some change in appearance noted by myself and room mate. Looking back at my notebook I've noticed that when I do the drop-weight thing I can come back the next workout and complete 10 reps with the target weight. I have made notes about form sometimes lacking. Be sure to pay attention and do the lift the exact same way every time. All of this gives me an idea: progress the weight every other workout. Go for 10 reps for the first workout. Then see how many reps I can go the second. Add weight on the third and repeat. Time will bear out a pattern. This is classical progression. Looks like I was adding too much too quickly.

Back to step 5: 6 weeks.

If you're prone to overanalysis like me you'll find all sorts of variables to wonder about:

Why 6 weeks?
>Could be longer I suppose. Maybe it should be 8. Or 10. Or 2?

Your TUT is 80 seconds, is that the best? Does it matter?
>No idea. I used to do TUT style training and 60s was the sweet spot much of the time.

Why 10 reps?
>Everyone does 10 reps!

Why a 4s pos and 4s neg?
>Read it in a book. AND it keeps me from jerking the weight.

Hey, those aren't brilliantly researched reasons.

No they are not. But I had to start somewhere.
 
jwbond, has someone who can squat with 700lb or deadlift 800lb got weak, puny abs? I think not. Can you see how great their abs are? Depends on their bodyfat levels.

Build that foundation. Shut up and squat!
cool.gif
smile.gif
 
<div>
(jwbond @ Nov. 13 2007,16:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">F squats, they are the one exercise I REFUSE to do...

I'll stick to deads and leg presses ;)</div>
But there's so MANY squats , surely you could make friends with one?
smile.gif



                   A lot of guys who just hate the conventional back squat find front/front box squats to be a good compromise.


                   You could do overheads (straddling a bench in case balance doesn't kick in immediately) with a broom stick just to &quot;experiment&quot; , for fun to see if this is something you could get with , you could work up to more respectable depths via a box till you felt completely comfortable with balance and then hoist an unloaded bar - eventually you'll give in to the temptation to slap some plates on that bar and see how that feels! I think the overhead is a great lift for back squat wary lifters because the emphasis on form and balance needed to keep from dumping or falling over tend to negate the &quot;optimistic&quot; loads people often tempt injury with before form is really up to speed on back squat.
                    leg presses ? Hmmmm , is that some kind of dry cleaning chain?
biggrin.gif
 
Looking at different bodybuilders its evident that ab shape and potential size varies considerably. Some pros have broad flat abs that are not pronounced even when they are in contest shape. Other pros have smaller but more bulging midsections. If you watch 300 again (or for the first time) you'll notice that while each actor underwent the same training regimen (they trained as a group under professional direction) each developed different looking abs. Butler, who played Leonidas, had wide muscles that were well seperated but not pushing outward, while the actor who played the storyteller had narrow abs that jutted out from his midsection.

Moreover, some lifters and people I have seen in person have abs that look like bricks
 
<div>
(QuantumPositron @ Nov. 15 2007,07:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Looking at different bodybuilders its evident that ab shape and potential size varies considerably.  Some pros have broad flat abs that are not pronounced even when they are in contest shape.  Other pros have smaller but more bulging midsections.  If you watch 300 again (or for the first time) you'll notice that while each actor underwent the same training regimen (they trained as a group under professional direction) each developed different looking abs.  Butler, who played Leonidas, had wide muscles that were well seperated but not pushing outward, while the actor who played the storyteller had narrow abs that jutted out from his midsection.

Moreover, some lifters and people I have seen in person have abs that look like bricks</div>

As you have pointed out, so much od the look of one's abs is down to genetics. And, of course, some of the look for the 300 movie depended on how good the airbrush artists were.
smile.gif


As a kid, I remember that Salvador Ruiz's abs always looked really chisled.

salvadorruiz1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top