What's the best exercise for the lawer abs !?

[eslammourad]

What's the best exercise for the lawer abs !?
to got this view in the picture !?

[captainmo55]

Nothing can isolate a portion of the abdominal wall completely, but Reverse Crunches and Leg/Knee Raises are effective at putting more emphasis there.

[eslammourad]

Nothing can isolate a portion of the abdominal wall completely, but Reverse Crunches and Leg/Knee Raises are effective at putting more emphasis there.

There is no specific exercise ?

[brudman]

Decline sit ups with a good stretch works for me to emphasize lower abs.

[BDiamond]

Reverse Crunches and Leg/Knee Raises

This

[bigw10921]

There is no muscle called lower abs

[brudman]

There is no muscle called lower abs

Good point. I guess we better call it a day and not train things like upper chest, lower lats, upper traps, lower traps, different heads in the triceps, different heads in the biceps, different parts of the quad, different parts of the calves, or different heads of the delts.

Thanks for clarifying.

[aaronr94]

Reverse crunches and leg rasies using ur hips and abs

[smooth5161]

My favorite is to hang from a pull up bar and grab a 25 lb db inbetween my feet and just tuck my knees to my chest. Make sure you point your toes away from your body to put more emphasis on your abs. Also reverse crunches hit them alright as well.

[biliff]

Good point. I guess we better call it a day and not train things like upper chest

Nope, the clavicular head of the pec major is a separate part from the sternal head. You can emphasize it if you want.

lower lats

Correct. Lats are one muscle. Trying to isolate lower lats is broscience.

upper traps, lower traps

Nope. Traps have three functional regions, so you can train them separately. Upper traps shrug the shoulders, middle traps retract the scapulae, and lower traps depress the scapulae.

different heads in the triceps

Nope. Triceps has (you guessed it!) three heads, and you can emphasize each of them.

different heads in the biceps

Nope. Two heads, so you can work them differently.

different parts of the quad

Nope, quad is four muscles, you can definitely work them separately.

different parts of the calves

Nope, calves have lots of different muscles.

or different heads of the delts.

Nope. Delts have three ehads, each of which can be worked separately.

A simple rule is that if a muscle has multiple heads, they can usually be worked separately. This includes most muscles with a number prefix (ex, bi, tri, quad) and some without (ex deltoid). "Muscles" like the hamstring, which is actually a group of 3 different muscles, can also be worked separately.

No, you can't "hit your lower lats" or your "inner pec" or your "upper middle outer 1/4 of your second ab." Sorry, it doesnt work that way. Either you activate a muscle head or you don't. Stop the broscience.

Thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome.

[ThickAsABrick]

No, you can't "hit your lower lats" or your "inner pec" or your "upper middle outer 1/4 of your second ab." Sorry, it doesnt work that way. Either you activate a muscle head or you don't. Stop the broscience.

Firstly, he was being sarcastic, so you totally wasted your time with all of that.

Secondly, the part I quoted here is not correct. Read about compartmentalization.

Results from an EMG test:

"And what about the notion that you can train your upper vs. lower abs? Here’s an area where there is a big dispute concerning the role of the ab muscles. Many believe that the rectus abdominus is one muscle (which is correct) that is activated equally when you contract it (which is incorrect!). A study done at the University of Valencia in Spain compared the average EMG activity of the upper and lower abs during a curl-up and posterior pelvic tilt exercise. They found that it is true that the stomach crunch or curl does elicit greater rectus abdominus activity in the upper abs while doing posterior pelvic tilt exercises hits the lower abs better as long as they’re performed correctly!"
http://www.joseantoniophd.com/websit...cles.php?id=17

And for fcks sake, stop using the term broscience. it's as played out as "bling," "haters," etc

[biliff]

Firstly, he was being sarcastic, so you totally wasted your time with all of that.

Secondly, the part I quoted here is not correct. Read about compartmentalization.

And for fcks sake, stop using the term broscience. it's as played out as "bling," "haters," etc

He was being sarcastic, but was sarcastically implying that all of the muscles he listed could be isolated and trained separately from other parts. I was pointing out the distinction between the muscles he listed, so that he and others wouldn't make the mistake of lumping multi-headed muscles in with single head muscles.

Here are 3 studies more recent than the study you mention, all of which fail to show any difference between upper and lower abdominal activation across a variety of exercises:

Clark KM, Holt LE, Sinyard J.(2003) Electromyographic comparison of the upper and lower rectus abdominis during abdominal exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 17(3):475-83.

Lehman GJ, McGill SM. (2001) Quantification of the differences in electromyographic activity magnitude between the upper and lower portions of the rectus abdominis muscle during selected trunk exercises. Phys Ther. 81(5):1096-101.

Vera-Garcia FJ, Grenier SG, McGill SM. (2000) Abdominal muscle response during curl-ups on both stable and labile surfaces. Phys Ther. 80(6):564-9.


Here's a possible reason. As it turns out, if readings are not normalized correctly, differences can appear between upper and lower abominal EMG:

Lehman GJ, McGill SM. (1999) The importance of normalization in the interpretation of surface electromyography: a proof of principle. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 22(7):444-6.


At best, upper vs lower abs is controversial. However, the conventional view is that they can not be differentially activated. More evidence currently exists for that viewpoint, so it would take substantial evidence to convincingly argue that the opposite is true.

I don't think that the term broscience is played out. I think that some people think that it's played out because people keep saying it about the advice that they give. All I'm saying is that if a piece of advice is contradicted by both 1) a theoretical, anatomical reason, and 2) empirical evidence, then it's fair to call it broscience and instruct people to ignore it.

[chazzy1864]

Seems upper/lower abs is possible. A couple from 2010, just to be safe.

While the abs can't truly be "isolated", there are exercises that can provide more emphasis to the upper or lower portion. Here are some studies that confirm this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12930170

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16649890

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726260

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20436242

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20508456

I also feel that broscience is played out. Anecdotal evidence has shown people to emphasize various parts of muscles. I personally have noticed a difference in my stomach when I include exercises to "target" the "lower abs".

[ThickAsABrick]

buttsecks

[brudman]

Firstly,

No, your post was 11th

he was being sarcastic, so you totally wasted your time with all of that.

You guessed it. There was nothing serious about my post so dissecting it into several muscle groups is pointless.

Secondly, the part I quoted here is not correct. Read about compartmentalization.

Broscience, browshon moreno.

Results from an EMG test:

More like Elecbromagnetic test

"And what about the notion that you can train your upper vs. lower abs? Here’s an area where there is a big dispute concerning the role of the ab muscles. Many believe that the rectus abdominus is one muscle (which is correct) that is activated equally when you contract it (which is incorrect!). A study done at the University of Valencia in Spain compared the average EMG activity of the upper and lower abs during a curl-up and posterior pelvic tilt exercise. They found that it is true that the stomach crunch or curl does elicit greater rectus abdominus activity in the upper abs while doing posterior pelvic tilt exercises hits the lower abs better as long as they’re performed correctly!"
http://www.joseantoniophd.com/websit...cles.php?id=17

Booorring.

And for fcks sake, stop using the term broscience. it's as played out as "bling," "haters," etc

Brobling
Sciencehaters

[biliff]

Seems upper/lower abs is possible. A couple from 2010, just to be safe.

I also feel that broscience is played out. Anecdotal evidence has shown people to emphasize various parts of muscles. I personally have noticed a difference in my stomach when I include exercises to "target" the "lower abs".

Neither of the first two studies you posted support any difference in upper/lower activation. I'm at home so I can't access the full text of the other 3, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had similar findings.

There's no problem with doing a range of different exercises for one muscle group. Different synergist muscle groups are used for different exercises, meaning that it's entirely possible that you might feel burned out on one exercise, but still be able to work the target muscle harder by switching to a different one.

However, at best there is controversy, and at worst there is little credible evidence for differential activation between "upper" and "lower" rectus abdominis. Just because a study places EMG electrodes on upper and lower abs, doesn't mean they are endorsing the idea that upper and lower abs can be activated separately. If you actually read the full text of the studies, you'll find that upper and lower activation levels stay similar to each other across a variety of exercises.

[chazzy1864]

Neither of the first two studies you posted support any difference in upper/lower activation. I'm at home so I can't access the full text of the other 3, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had similar findings.

There's no problem with doing a range of different exercises for one muscle group. Different synergist muscle groups are used for different exercises, meaning that it's entirely possible that you might feel burned out on one exercise, but still be able to work the target muscle harder by switching to a different one.

However, at best there is controversy, and at worst there is little credible evidence for differential activation between "upper" and "lower" rectus abdominis. Just because a study places EMG electrodes on upper and lower abs, doesn't mean they are endorsing the idea that upper and lower abs can be activated separately. If you actually read the full text of the studies, you'll find that upper and lower activation levels stay similar to each other across a variety of exercises.

So.... studies that do notice a difference on EMG results are irrelevant, yet studies that don't notice a difference on EMG results are relevant and able to be used to prove a point?


How about we all just go about what we were doing, since clearly those who require a study for something to be true, choose to ignore studies that actually show a difference in activation amongst various abdominal and oblique regions.

More anecdotal evidence shows that emphasis can and does occur in trainees and studies are even showing that compartmentalization does exist, yet people want to cling to the "all or nothing" rule.

[ThickAsABrick]

Chuzzle has won the thread.

[biliff]

So.... studies that do notice a difference on EMG results are irrelevant, yet studies that don't notice a difference on EMG results are relevant and able to be used to prove a point?


How about we all just go about what we were doing, since clearly those who require a study for something to be true, choose to ignore studies that actually show a difference in activation amongst various abdominal and oblique regions.

More anecdotal evidence shows that emphasis can and does occur in trainees and studies are even showing that compartmentalization does exist, yet people want to cling to the "all or nothing" rule.

I never said anything about obliques. You absolutely can hit obliques differently from rectus abdominis, since the obliques are a different muscle.

What I did say is that just because they put EMG leads on upper and lower abs, doesn't mean that they actually found different activation patterns. If you read the full text of the study, look at the data tables, and read their detailed conclusions, the majority of studies (including the only two of yours that I can read from this computer) show no difference in upper vs lower activation.

The point is, from an anatomical perspective, the default theoretical position is that since the RA is one muscle, all parts should contract evenly. The majority of empirical studies so far support this view. There are definitely 1 or 2 studies that found a difference, but there have been many more that support the conventional view.

As I said, there are reasons to do different exercises, and some of these reasons could be behind a different feeling from different exercises. The fact that you're using a certain pattern of synergists and antagonists can make you feel more of a pump in a certain area of your body, without actually changing upper vs lower activation. So there are definitely reasons to do certain exercises over others, but those reasons aren't involved with emphasizing a certain area of the RA.

[unity]

I never said anything about obliques. You absolutely can hit obliques differently from rectus abdominis, since the obliques are a different muscle.

What I did say is that just because they put EMG leads on upper and lower abs, doesn't mean that they actually found different activation patterns. If you read the full text of the study, look at the data tables, and read their detailed conclusions, the majority of studies (including the only two of yours that I can read from this computer) show no difference in upper vs lower activation.

The point is, from an anatomical perspective, the default theoretical position is that since the RA is one muscle, all parts should contract evenly. The majority of empirical studies so far support this view. There are definitely 1 or 2 studies that found a difference, but there have been many more that support the conventional view.

As I said, there are reasons to do different exercises, and some of these reasons could be behind a different feeling from different exercises. The fact that you're using a certain pattern of synergists and antagonists can make you feel more of a pump in a certain area of your body, without actually changing upper vs lower activation. So there are definitely reasons to do certain exercises over others, but those reasons aren't involved with emphasizing a certain area of the RA.

pics of your lats please?

[chazzy1864]

I never said anything about obliques. You absolutely can hit obliques differently from rectus abdominis, since the obliques are a different muscle.

What I did say is that just because they put EMG leads on upper and lower abs, doesn't mean that they actually found different activation patterns. If you read the full text of the study, look at the data tables, and read their detailed conclusions, the majority of studies (including the only two of yours that I can read from this computer) show no difference in upper vs lower activation.

The point is, from an anatomical perspective, the default theoretical position is that since the RA is one muscle, all parts should contract evenly. The majority of empirical studies so far support this view. There are definitely 1 or 2 studies that found a difference, but there have been many more that support the conventional view.

As I said, there are reasons to do different exercises, and some of these reasons could be behind a different feeling from different exercises. The fact that you're using a certain pattern of synergists and antagonists can make you feel more of a pump in a certain area of your body, without actually changing upper vs lower activation. So there are definitely reasons to do certain exercises over others, but those reasons aren't involved with emphasizing a certain area of the RA.

I wasn't bringing up obliques to argue, I said the studies placed electrodes all over.

None the less, you can go and read the full studies, but here is the summarized results of the studies that spoke of differences in upper and lower RA activation.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative electromyographic (EMG) activity of the upper and lower rectus abdominis and the external oblique muscles during 5 commonly performed abdominal strengthening exercises. Twenty-five healthy subjects participated in the study. EMG data were collected under isometric and dynamic conditions. The reverse curl resulted in the greatest amount of lower rectus activity, the v-sit and reverse curl exercises resulted in the greatest amount of external oblique activity, and the trunk curl, reverse curl, trunk curl with a twist, and v-sit all resulted in similar amounts of upper rectus EMG activity. The vacuum exercise resulted in moderate levels of external oblique EMG activity but very low levels of activity in the rectus abdominis. Our findings support the concept that abdominal strengthening exercises can differentially activate various abdominal muscle groups, but contradict some traditionally held assumptions regarding the effects of specific exercises.

RESULTS: EMG signals during the roll-out and pike exercises for the upper rectus abdominis (63% and 46% MVIC, respectively), lower rectus abdominis (53% and 55% MVIC, respectively), external oblique (46% and 84% MVIC, respectively), and internal oblique (46% and 56% MVIC, respectively) were significantly greater compared to most other exercises, where EMG signals ranged between 7% to 53% MVIC for the upper rectus abdominis, 7% to 44% MVIC for the lower rectus abdominis, 14% to 73% MVIC for the external oblique, and 16% to 47% MVIC for the internal oblique. The lowest EMG signals were consistently found in the sitting march right exercise. Latissimus dorsi EMG signals were greatest in the pike, knee-up, skier, hip extension right and left, and decline push-up (17%-25% MVIC), and least with the sitting march right, crunch, and bent-knee sit-up exercises (7%-8% MVIC). Rectus femoris EMG signal was greatest with the hip extension left exercise (35% MVIC), and least with the crunch, roll-out, hip extension right, and decline push-up exercises (6%-10% MVIC). Lumbar paraspinal EMG signal was relative low (less than 10% MVIC) for all exercises.

[biliff]

I wasn't bringing up obliques to argue, I said the studies placed electrodes all over.

None the less, you can go and read the full studies, but here is the summarized results of the studies that spoke of differences in upper and lower RA activation.

I read that, but in that study they weren't specifically comparing upper vs lower. That isn't what they were interested in, and without reading the full results section I don't know if they performed a statistical test to see whether the upper/lower activation ratio was significantly different between the roll-out and pike. 63/53 and 46/55 sounds like a big difference, but in many of these studies the standard error is something like +/- 15%, in which case it's likely that difference is not significant. It's impossible to say without reading the whole study.

[ZoranM]

Studies constantly brought up in e- section, are far from being that important. Or important at all. People were successfully lifting weights and willingly achieving their goals-the goals those studies say are impossible, before EMG and studies.

I've seen parts of muscle being improved.
I've seen great cuts with complete change in rep ranges.
I've seen successful spot reductions.

God him self can post studies, if something was done in the gym that proves that study wrong, that study can s*ck my balwz.

[Tyciol]

Lats are one muscle. Trying to isolate lower lats is broscience.

I don't agree, the lats all attach to a single point on the humerus (much like the pecs) but their attachment to the torso fans out to a variety of attachment sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latissi...cle#Variations
Just like the pecs fat out to attach to the medial clavicle, sternum and upper ribs, the lats attach to 4-8 different ribs. These could just as plausible have different lines of pull. Like for example, the lower lats would likely work in closer sync with adduction movements that might be shared with the pec (such as dips) and the upper lats would likely work in closer sync with extension movements like that which would hit the teres major or the various exteral rotators of the upper back.

The lats don't get labelled as having a distinctive "head" due to the fanning quality, just like the erector spinae, but it's clearly a series of fibers attaching to different spots with subtly different actions.

Triceps has (you guessed it!) three heads, and you can emphasize each of them.

I understood how the long head could be emphasized due to the scapular attachment, but I always got confused how people could emphasize the medial or lateral triceps since they both attach to the humerus. It's even more confusing than how people claim to target the vastus medialis/lateralis in the quads, at least that has a drifting knee cap to explain variations. The triceps just connects to the ulna which seems pretty affixed and hingelike, so I get confused thinking how we could emphasize one of the shorter tricep heads over the other.

I also feel that broscience is played out. Anecdotal evidence has shown people to emphasize various parts of muscles. I personally have noticed a difference in my stomach when I include exercises to "target" the "lower abs".

Anecdotal evidence shows nothing, we can easily misunderstand what muscles are working. When I tense my upper back I still have no clue if it's the teres major or infraspinatus or whatever. In the same regard, if I feel a spinal flexor working, I have no idea if it's the 'lower abs' or the psoas. Believing other's testimonials requires faith in their muscle awareness or whatever, but a lot of guys get big in spite of not bothering with that.

So.... studies that do notice a difference on EMG results are irrelevant, yet studies that don't notice a difference on EMG results are relevant and able to be used to prove a point?

How about we all just go about what we were doing, since clearly those who require a study for something to be true, choose to ignore studies that actually show a difference in activation amongst various abdominal and oblique regions.

To be fair, we haven't actually seen the study, or did I miss the .gif of the EMGs or something? We only see the summary and are expected to have faith in Dr. Antonio. His creds make me want to read more and pay attention, but I still think it's important to see the EMG and find out just how preferential this supposed difference in activation actually is.

More anecdotal evidence shows that emphasis can and does occur in trainees and studies are even showing that compartmentalization does exist, yet people want to cling to the "all or nothing" rule.

"Anecdotal evidence" supports ideas like bigging a bigger curve to the bicep, spot reduction, rib cage expansion, etc. All ideas with varying amounts of controversy around them. Supporters or not, what's clear is that there's not consensus and that's why skeptics and believers settle the lack of it via the studies, why I like the importance.

I've seen parts of muscle being improved.

Which parts?

I've seen great cuts with complete change in rep ranges.

Maybe you burned more fat, or maybe slower-twitch fibers are located deeper in the muscle.

I've seen successful spot reductions.

Over what period of time? Anyway some doc at t-nation made an argument for spot reduction you might be interested in, but even he concluded that the effect is likely minor.

God him self can post studies, if something was done in the gym that proves that study wrong, that study can s*ck my balwz.

You don't seem to be taking into account that you could be misinterpreting the cause of perceived changes. Of course this is something that scientific studies are also prone to.

[-Lucifer]

buttsecks

BYOC.

(bring your own condoms)

[chazzy1864]

To be fair, we haven't actually seen the study, or did I miss the .gif of the EMGs or something? We only see the summary and are expected to have faith in Dr. Antonio. His creds make me want to read more and pay attention, but I still think it's important to see the EMG and find out just how preferential this supposed difference in activation actually is.

I didn't link that study. I linked other studies summaries of entirely different groups. It merely required a click of the link.




Yes, it might be hard to determine which actual muscle you are feeling, but when you notice new growth it is usually easier to assess based on common size proportions of the muscle. I know this is hard for you to grasp, considering you can't figure out why the anterior deltoid is larger than the posterior deltoid on the majority of humans, or why people say the triceps should be bigger than the biceps.


I will give you credit, you are quite the contrarian; but simply asking a contradictory rhetorical question, does not contribute to the discussion, nor make you appear smarter.

[biliff]

I don't agree, the lats all attach to a single point on the humerus (much like the pecs) but their attachment to the torso fans out to a variety of attachment sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latissi...cle#Variations
Just like the pecs fat out to attach to the medial clavicle, sternum and upper ribs, the lats attach to 4-8 different ribs. These could just as plausible have different lines of pull. Like for example, the lower lats would likely work in closer sync with adduction movements that might be shared with the pec (such as dips) and the upper lats would likely work in closer sync with extension movements like that which would hit the teres major or the various exteral rotators of the upper back.


The lats don't get labelled as having a distinctive "head" due to the fanning quality, just like the erector spinae, but it's clearly a series of fibers attaching to different spots with subtly different actions.

I don't really agree with this line of reasoning. In my mind, differential activation has more to do with distinct innervation, rather than distinct pulling angles. However, I'll admit that I don't really know enough about the subject to say that your idea is wrong. It's certainly more productive to approach the question from an anatomical perspective than from a "my bro Vinny totally has huge lower lats, and he says 45 degree rows totally emphasize lower lats" perspective.

Anecdotal evidence shows nothing, we can easily misunderstand what muscles are working. When I tense my upper back I still have no clue if it's the teres major or infraspinatus or whatever. In the same regard, if I feel a spinal flexor working, I have no idea if it's the 'lower abs' or the psoas. Believing other's testimonials requires faith in their muscle awareness or whatever, but a lot of guys get big in spite of not bothering with that.

This is one of the main things I've been trying to get across. There are reasons that different exercises give you a different feel afterwards, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're emphasizing different parts of one muscle. Current empirical evidence suggests you aren't.

To be fair, we haven't actually seen the study, or did I miss the .gif of the EMGs or something? We only see the summary and are expected to have faith in Dr. Antonio. His creds make me want to read more and pay attention, but I still think it's important to see the EMG and find out just how preferential this supposed difference in activation actually is.

And this has been my other point. People have been taking studies out of context, like for example claiming that because a study placed EMG electrodes on both the lower and upper abs, that study endorses differential activation. However, of the studies that I've had the chance to read in their entirety, the activation has not been significantly different between the upper and lower electrodes. In many cases, the interpretation of a study is not straightforward, especially if the experimental question was not directly aligned with what you're trying to figure out (ie, the scientists weren't trying to answer "can you emphasize lower or upper abs?" but rather some other question).



What I don't understand is why [some] bodybuilders, who are presumably as smart and reasonable as the general population, reject science when it applies to their specific interests, when they accept it in their general life. I presume that for most of you, if you found out you had cancer, would go to a doctor and follow whatever regimen that scientific studies suggest would give you the best chance of beating it. You wouldn't go down to the vitamin store and get some witchhazel, because "there are, like, lots of anecdotes about witchhazel helping with cancer." How come you trust the reliability and accuracy of science in most areas of your life, but when it comes to superstitions and anecdotal evidence about bodybuilding, you refuse to believe studies that refute them?

[bigw10921]

look what I started

[laserpistol]

Cool thread why did it end?

[shaneee]

Nope, the clavicular head of the pec major is a separate part from the sternal head. You can emphasize it if you want.


Correct. Lats are one muscle. Trying to isolate lower lats is broscience.


Nope. Traps have three functional regions, so you can train them separately. Upper traps shrug the shoulders, middle traps retract the scapulae, and lower traps depress the scapulae.


Nope. Triceps has (you guessed it!) three heads, and you can emphasize each of them.


Nope. Two heads, so you can work them differently.


Nope, quad is four muscles, you can definitely work them separately.


Nope, calves have lots of different muscles.


Nope. Delts have three ehads, each of which can be worked separately.

A simple rule is that if a muscle has multiple heads, they can usually be worked separately. This includes most muscles with a number prefix (ex, bi, tri, quad) and some without (ex deltoid). "Muscles" like the hamstring, which is actually a group of 3 different muscles, can also be worked separately.

No, you can't "hit your lower lats" or your "inner pec" or your "upper middle outer 1/4 of your second ab." Sorry, it doesnt work that way. Either you activate a muscle head or you don't. Stop the broscience.


You're welcome.

You're a moron.. you CAN put more emphasis on the inner chest, same with the lower lats, and lower abs
neg'd for spreading lies