Page 2 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

28 Jun 2012, 12:15 am

TM wrote:
I don't get the obsession with abs to be honest.


Again it depends on the sport you train for, one could say all power comes from training specific forms of hypertrophy and I don't think boxers should train like body builders either.

Your core is incredibly important because it is called upon to perform almost every move you make while boxing. Not only does a strong core help absorb blows to the body, it helps with stability, rotational power, and movement. The core is an important aspect in sports because it's a source of power, a pitcher generates power from the core to pitch a ball, a puncher generates power from the core, that's why there's a great emphasis on core training in boxing. The core houses vital organs such as the kidneys, liver, spleen and intestines.

There's a reason why many boxers and Thai boxers focus on training the core, it isn't simply for aesthetics. Notice the mechanics in this video and how the core and rotational movement is used and how the power is generated.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfUS9WwBfhc[/youtube]



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

28 Jun 2012, 12:22 am

To compare the different forms of athletes would be like putting Arnold, Rippetoe and Mike Tyson in a ring together, one trains to maximize strength, one trains for development of the muscles through hypertrophy and the other trains for explosive power and athletic performance. It would be unfair to put Mike Tyson in a bodybuilding contest with Arnold but it would be unfair to put Arnold in the ring with Mike Tyson. They train for different types of hypertrophy with different goals in mind.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

28 Jun 2012, 1:59 am

Wow, lotta posts.

Quote:
Again it depends on the sport you train for, one could say all power comes from training specific forms of hypertrophy and I don't think boxers should train like body builders either.

Your core is incredibly important because it is called upon to perform almost every move you make while boxing. Not only does a strong core help absorb blows to the body, it helps with stability, rotational power, and movement. The core is an important aspect in sports because it's a source of power, a pitcher generates power from the core to pitch a ball, a puncher generates power from the core, that's why there's a great emphasis on core training in boxing. The core houses vital organs such as the kidneys, liver, spleen and intestines.

There's a reason why many boxers and Thai boxers focus on training the core, it isn't simply for aesthetics. Notice the mechanics in this video and how the core and rotational movement is used and how the power is generated.


Hypertrophy and strength really aren't related. Much of strength has to do purely with the CNS. IE, women who don't lift weights that can randomly pick a car up off of a child. Why's it happen? The brain overrode it's protection mechanisms (mainly for your tendons and ligaments, and muscles too.) So much of strength training is just training your brain to lift heavier weights. Muscle mass and strength aren't really correlated. I mean, as a generality, yes, they are, as bigger people tend to be stronger, but it's possible by CNS training to be small and strong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_Gant Lamar Gant is a huge example of this, at 132lbs he deadlifted 688 and benched 352. For the deadlift, he has long arms, so leverage advantage, but this same advantage hurts him on the bench. If it was all down to hypertrophy, then I'd be able to deadlift 1000lbs, due to my muscular weight advantage, but it doesn't work like that. But, it comes down to the CNS, your brain tells you to do it, and you do it.

Arguably, too, your tendons are more important than your actual muscles in strength training, that's where isometrics comes into play. Your brain pretty much won't allow your muscles to fire unless the tendons can withstand what you're doing, as your muscles can be as strong and big as ever, but if the tendons aren't up to snuff, you'll break the muscle off the bone, and put yourself out of commission.

As far as the "core" is concerned, this is a problem. Most people completely miss out that the "core" is the lower back, too. And I'd say for 99% of the population, training the back, is much more important. And your back muscles, protects, well, your back, which most people have pains and injury with sometime in their lives. Nobody ever goes "OH MAN I JUST HURT MY ABS" because all they are stabilizer muscles, they can't exert any force in any activity you do besides situps, they can only stabilize.

The other problem with the "abs" craze is the rationale is wrong. You can't just strengthen one muscle and expect things to change much. Your body works as a unit, not just a collection of muscles. There are times where increasing one muscle's strength can help things in whatever activity you're doing, I'm not denying that. Part of the reason fighters like strong abs isn't just ability to execute moves, but increased abdominal hypertrophy helps them prevent injuries and basically works like armor for their organs. But increasing individual muscle strength won't really do much unless the muscles are a weak point. But, individual muscles as an example, individual muscle strength, most people can leg press much more than they can squat. Why? Because the "core" muscles, both front and back, aren't developed enough to support the weight. So the problem I see in the "core" trend is it's basically the same as if someone were to go around saying that leg presses are the best exercises ever, and you need strong leg strength to support yourself. It's true, you do in fact need strong legs to support yourself, but there's plenty of people with strong legs and weak lower backs, who are not athletic at all. Many people can leg press 300-400lbs, but squat significantly lower than that. So it's the same thing with "abs," it's trying to fix one bodypart and expecting magic when the other parts aren't being worked in unison.

Anyway, time for bed, I'll try to respond with a bit more later. Fun debates (sorry your thread is hijacked now, OP.) Least I agree with Frank Zane about skating being good for the obliques.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jun 2012, 2:17 am

kx250rider wrote:
Honestly, if I see a picture of abs that ARE even, I immediately think it's a fake. The human body is formed initially in the womb as two halves, which join together, and therefore we all have a mismatch of features of the body which repeat on left and right sides. That includes ears, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, and ab muscles. As with anything natural, some people have a closer match than others from side to side, but none is perfectly balanced if actually measured out.

Charles

^^^this.

Delphiki, if your asymmetry is severe, you might want to get checked for scoliosis or whether one leg is longer than the other, etc.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


starryeyedvoyager
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 942
Location: Berlin, Germany

28 Jun 2012, 9:20 am

I agree that, visible or not, you need power in your hips and abs to generate power in martial arts at least (Bruce Lee said that if you don't have good ab muscles, you had no business in sparring). If you talk about the visible abs, well, it is basically just a popcultural thing: Being overweight today is not a sign of wealth anymore, but a one that people relate to low self-control. If you run around sporting visible abs, something only a minority of men have... well, you now the old story, if it is rare, people value it.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 178
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

28 Jun 2012, 9:57 am

hyperlexian wrote:
kx250rider wrote:
Honestly, if I see a picture of abs that ARE even, I immediately think it's a fake. The human body is formed initially in the womb as two halves, which join together, and therefore we all have a mismatch of features of the body which repeat on left and right sides. That includes ears, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, and ab muscles. As with anything natural, some people have a closer match than others from side to side, but none is perfectly balanced if actually measured out.

Charles

^^^this.

Delphiki, if your asymmetry is severe, you might want to get checked for scoliosis or whether one leg is longer than the other, etc.
At my highschool in 9th grade everyone got a (quick) check for scoliosis. I didn't have it according to that. I have gone to a chiropractor before (not that I needed to) and I one time she compared my legs and one was slightly longer. So she popped something and they were the same length.

Hijacking the thread- Besides the terrible comment about skinny guys and tits on fat girl I am fine with it.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


kx250rider
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,140
Location: Dallas, TX & Somis, CA

28 Jun 2012, 11:00 am

Kurgan wrote:

Abs on a skinny guy are like tits on a fat chick--they don't count! :P


My wife says she doesn't think huge guys are attractive, if the choice is smaller overall with fine-cut abs and definition. Too extreme of anything is probably not so good, so I think the goal (for me at least), is balanced between big and cut. I could have arms and pecs twice the size I am, but the abs would go away. Huge upper body with no neck, and no abs looks older, while less-than-huge arms & chest with sharp-edged abs and visible heads of the delts, etc., is younger-looking.

Charles



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

28 Jun 2012, 11:01 am

Wolfheart wrote:
TM wrote:
I don't get the obsession with abs to be honest.


Again it depends on the sport you train for, one could say all power comes from training specific forms of hypertrophy and I don't think boxers should train like body builders either.


Misunderstand me correctly, I don't mean that ab training is wrong, I mean the pursuit of constant visible abs as some sign of being in good shape. Having strong abs and a strong lower back is like wearing a permanent weight lifting belt and prevents injury. I just tend to take issue with "ripped" 120 lbs dweebs.



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

28 Jun 2012, 11:41 am

TM wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
TM wrote:
I don't get the obsession with abs to be honest.


Again it depends on the sport you train for, one could say all power comes from training specific forms of hypertrophy and I don't think boxers should train like body builders either.


Misunderstand me correctly, I don't mean that ab training is wrong, I mean the pursuit of constant visible abs as some sign of being in good shape. Having strong abs and a strong lower back is like wearing a permanent weight lifting belt and prevents injury. I just tend to take issue with "ripped" 120 lbs dweebs.


Of course it's important to do a program that trains the core entirely, hyper extensions, superman's, cat stretches, seated spinal stretches, wheel holds are all good exercise and important for the lower back. Stretching and core training can be a vital part of training to prevent injury.

I am surprised to think anyone would think of someone being 120 lbs and anything over 6'0 as being healthy as the person wouldn't have good development. Bruce Lee was around 135 lbs but he was short and skinny, he could generate great power and I have seen short and skinny Thai boxers and boxers produce a great amount of power through technique and practice so I'm not against people that train for a specific weight class in a sport. If they start acting like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lee Haney or Flex Wheeler though, that's a different case entirely.

120 lbs at 6'0 would look something like this.
Image



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

28 Jun 2012, 12:31 pm

Wolfheart wrote:
TM wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
TM wrote:
I don't get the obsession with abs to be honest.


Again it depends on the sport you train for, one could say all power comes from training specific forms of hypertrophy and I don't think boxers should train like body builders either.


Misunderstand me correctly, I don't mean that ab training is wrong, I mean the pursuit of constant visible abs as some sign of being in good shape. Having strong abs and a strong lower back is like wearing a permanent weight lifting belt and prevents injury. I just tend to take issue with "ripped" 120 lbs dweebs.


Of course it's important to do a program that trains the core entirely, hyper extensions, superman's, cat stretches, seated spinal stretches, wheel holds are all good exercise and important for the lower back. Stretching and core training can be a vital part of training to prevent injury.

I am surprised to think anyone would think of someone being 120 lbs and anything over 6'0 as being healthy as the person wouldn't have good development. Bruce Lee was around 135 lbs but he was short and skinny, he could generate great power and I have seen short and skinny Thai boxers and boxers produce a great amount of power through technique and practice so I'm not against people that train for a specific weight class in a sport. If they start acting like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lee Haney or Flex Wheeler though, that's a different case entirely.

120 lbs at 6'0 would look something like this.
Image


Training for specific weight classes is different, and force is really just a matter of mass and acceleration, so you can still pack a serious punch at a light weight with enough speed involved. My program now should have me leaning out at about 90 kgs at 10% body fat provided the body fat measurements are accurate. I just dislike people who think they are "ripped" when they have no muscle definition what so ever.

I do use a body fat scale to measure though and those may be off so I guess we'll see when I reach my goal if I have another 10kgs to get rid of or not. I just tend to assume that with my lifting numbers there has to be muscle under the fat somewhere.



Last edited by TM on 28 Jun 2012, 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jun 2012, 12:37 pm

Delphiki wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
kx250rider wrote:
Honestly, if I see a picture of abs that ARE even, I immediately think it's a fake. The human body is formed initially in the womb as two halves, which join together, and therefore we all have a mismatch of features of the body which repeat on left and right sides. That includes ears, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, and ab muscles. As with anything natural, some people have a closer match than others from side to side, but none is perfectly balanced if actually measured out.

Charles

^^^this.

Delphiki, if your asymmetry is severe, you might want to get checked for scoliosis or whether one leg is longer than the other, etc.
At my highschool in 9th grade everyone got a (quick) check for scoliosis. I didn't have it according to that. I have gone to a chiropractor before (not that I needed to) and I one time she compared my legs and one was slightly longer. So she popped something and they were the same length.

Hijacking the thread- Besides the terrible comment about skinny guys and tits on fat girl I am fine with it.

ok good (except the weird comment). funny that a person would consider a natural physique such as thin with abs to "not count". i mean, not count for... what?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

28 Jun 2012, 12:41 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
ok good (except the weird comment). funny that a person would consider a natural physique such as thin with abs to "not count". i mean, not count for... what?


Being "ripped" in the "nice body" sense. Anyone has abs at a low enough body fat percentage, just like any girl who is quite a lot overweight tends to have big breasts.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jun 2012, 12:51 pm

TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
ok good (except the weird comment). funny that a person would consider a natural physique such as thin with abs to "not count". i mean, not count for... what?


Being "ripped" in the "nice body" sense. Anyone has abs at a low enough body fat percentage, just like any girl who is quite a lot overweight tends to have big breasts.

as a female, i disagree that they would not have a "nice body". with the exception of a person who looks starvation-skinny, a man who is quite thin and has abs by default can be very attractive.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

28 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
kx250rider wrote:
Honestly, if I see a picture of abs that ARE even, I immediately think it's a fake. The human body is formed initially in the womb as two halves, which join together, and therefore we all have a mismatch of features of the body which repeat on left and right sides. That includes ears, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, and ab muscles. As with anything natural, some people have a closer match than others from side to side, but none is perfectly balanced if actually measured out.

Charles

^^^this.

Delphiki, if your asymmetry is severe, you might want to get checked for scoliosis or whether one leg is longer than the other, etc.
At my highschool in 9th grade everyone got a (quick) check for scoliosis. I didn't have it according to that. I have gone to a chiropractor before (not that I needed to) and I one time she compared my legs and one was slightly longer. So she popped something and they were the same length.

Hijacking the thread- Besides the terrible comment about skinny guys and tits on fat girl I am fine with it.

ok good (except the weird comment). funny that a person would consider a natural physique such as thin with abs to "not count". i mean, not count for... what?


Not count for the vanity of bodybuilding/physique comparison. (Not that weightlifting/powerlifting isn't a vanity, just one is a vanity of "look at me, I look really good" and the other is a vanity of "look at me, I'm really strong." And then of course bodybuilding, the purpose is to look strong, but being strong isn't one of the requirements.

But as you can see, they're two pretty different disciplines nowadays, bodybuilding and weightlifting. I mean weightlifters to a point care about physique, but once you get to the unlimited levels, physique is thrown out the door, and they'll just get more mass, muscle and fat, to lift heavier weights up. Bodybuilding on the other hand, again, just about physique, not about strength. They used to be sort of one in the same, Olympic weightlifting events used to have physique contests included in them, and some people would walk from the weightlifting platform to the physique show, but gradually as ideology in the two sports got different (for sake of argument, let's say bodybuilding is a sport, and not a pageant,) that stopped. But in the "old days" physique and strength weren't considered this mutually exclusive thing they are sort of now.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jun 2012, 1:08 pm

^^^interesting information, 1000Knives!


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

28 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm

1000Knives wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
kx250rider wrote:
Honestly, if I see a picture of abs that ARE even, I immediately think it's a fake. The human body is formed initially in the womb as two halves, which join together, and therefore we all have a mismatch of features of the body which repeat on left and right sides. That includes ears, eyes, teeth, arms, legs, and ab muscles. As with anything natural, some people have a closer match than others from side to side, but none is perfectly balanced if actually measured out.

Charles

^^^this.

Delphiki, if your asymmetry is severe, you might want to get checked for scoliosis or whether one leg is longer than the other, etc.
At my highschool in 9th grade everyone got a (quick) check for scoliosis. I didn't have it according to that. I have gone to a chiropractor before (not that I needed to) and I one time she compared my legs and one was slightly longer. So she popped something and they were the same length.

Hijacking the thread- Besides the terrible comment about skinny guys and tits on fat girl I am fine with it.

ok good (except the weird comment). funny that a person would consider a natural physique such as thin with abs to "not count". i mean, not count for... what?


Not count for the vanity of bodybuilding/physique comparison. (Not that weightlifting/powerlifting isn't a vanity, just one is a vanity of "look at me, I look really good" and the other is a vanity of "look at me, I'm really strong." And then of course bodybuilding, the purpose is to look strong, but being strong isn't one of the requirements.

But as you can see, they're two pretty different disciplines nowadays, bodybuilding and weightlifting. I mean weightlifters to a point care about physique, but once you get to the unlimited levels, physique is thrown out the door, and they'll just get more mass, muscle and fat, to lift heavier weights up. Bodybuilding on the other hand, again, just about physique, not about strength. They used to be sort of one in the same, Olympic weightlifting events used to have physique contests included in them, and some people would walk from the weightlifting platform to the physique show, but gradually as ideology in the two sports got different (for sake of argument, let's say bodybuilding is a sport, and not a pageant,) that stopped. But in the "old days" physique and strength weren't considered this mutually exclusive thing they are sort of now.


Bodybuilding and strength are kind of connected though, Ronnie pulled something like 800x3 5 weeks out from Mr Olympia. Powerlifting is one of those "f**k it, I can lift a buick" and bodybuilding is one of those "well, to look like I can lift a buick, I kind of need to be able to lift a buick.