Watch the last episode of so you think you can squat and see what Mr. Wenning has to say about your thoughts
Head to about 1:50
"That's right, I don't care how big you are, if you aren't strong you're a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on." - Jim Wendler
Can only be beneficial and will make you that much better.
I usually do 4 sets of hanging leg raises, 4 sets of weighted decline crunches, and use an ab wheel..usually 2x/week.
I don't train really to win contests. Not to win friends. Not to look pretty. Not to look at some chick's ass. I train and train very hard cause it's uncomfortable. It's painful. It's demanding. I like that. Time to bleed. - Manu
If you truly believe that then I suggest you have a lot of reading to do. The people who suggest DLs and Squats are sufficient simply are being polarizing for no reason. It's not only about having good looking abs. Training them directly improves performance a lot. More importantly, training them directly is probably one of the best things to do for injury prevention, especially for the lower back.
Also, Rippetoe isn't a good rebuttal. He single-handedly convinced a ton of lifters that buttwinking is the result of hamstring tightness. That isn't necessarily wrong but it's wrong when you consider individuals in anterior pelvic tilt, which is probably your average noobie.
"Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential." - Winston Churchill
My log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=149354033
No Stress Nutrition: http://forum.nostressnutrition.net/index.php
Training them directly improves performance a lot. More importantly, training them directly is probably one of the best things to do for injury prevention, especially for the lower back.
This. Smart.
I don't train really to win contests. Not to win friends. Not to look pretty. Not to look at some chick's ass. I train and train very hard cause it's uncomfortable. It's painful. It's demanding. I like that. Time to bleed. - Manu
I'll give that a read a bit later. Little too long to read the whole thing at work.
"That's right, I don't care how big you are, if you aren't strong you're a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on." - Jim Wendler
If you truly believe that then I suggest you have a lot of reading to do. The people who suggest DLs and Squats are sufficient simply are being polarizing for no reason. It's not only about having good looking abs. Training them directly improves performance a lot. More importantly, training them directly is probably one of the best things to do for injury prevention, especially for the lower back.
Also, Rippetoe isn't a good rebuttal. He single-handedly convinced a ton of lifters that buttwinking is the result of hamstring tightness. That isn't necessarily wrong but it's wrong when you consider individuals in anterior pelvic tilt, which is probably your average noobie.
Depends who you want to believe. Some say direct ab work is necessary, some say it is not. Who's right and what makes them right? Yes, I'm strictly talking performance here, not aesthetics.
No, Rippetoe is not a good rebuttal (LOL, I frantically Googled to find something supporting my stance), but is that guy in the video a better source than Rippetoe? If so, why? Serious. Who is a good source to listen so?
I don't do THAT much with them, but I do train them.
Mainly because I feel that, although compound lifts require tightening of your core, it's not as though you're getting a FULL contraction from them.
It's kind of like saying you shouldn't target your hamstrings because your deadlifts, hyperextensions, and squats also hit them.
I usually do 3-4 weighted sets (for upper/center) and 3-4 hanging/raising sets (for lower)... every time I have an upper day or twice a week.
The other thing is that they don't require that much energy since the focus is so targeted... so why not train them anyway? It's kind of like calfs: you never get exhausted training them!
I don't do THAT much with them, but I do train them.
Mainly because I feel that, although compound lifts require tightening of your core, it's not as though you're getting a FULL contraction from them.
It's kind of like saying you shouldn't target your hamstrings because your deadlifts, hyperextensions, and squats also hit them.
I usually do 3-4 weighted sets (for upper/center) and 3-4 hanging/raising sets (for lower)... every time I have an upper day or twice a week.
The other thing is that they don't require that much energy since the focus is so targeted... so why not train them anyway? It's kind of like calfs: you never get exhausted training them!
My two cents.
Read the Rippetoe article and see if your opinion changes. It probably won't but there is some food for thought in there, if nothing else.
I do a core workout once a week, usually ab wheel, bb core rotation/twist, weighted decline crunches and reverse incline crunches but I do mix it up weekly.
Last edited by taptomyarmbar; 04-28-2012 at 12:44 AM.
Weighted ab wheel 3x / week. I'd rather have extremely strong abs for big pulls and have a little bit of abs sticking out than weak abs and a herniated disc, especially how I dead.
Depends who you want to believe. Some say direct ab work is necessary, some say it is not. Who's right and what makes them right? Yes, I'm strictly talking performance here, not aesthetics.
It's a situational basis. Many people have gotten away with never doing direct work, but if I had my own client you think I'd risk their safety hoping that they are one of these people who can train heavy lifts with a weak core?
And adding in direct work is as simple as adding planks, birddogs, dead bugs, paloff presses, ab rollers, etc. It only has to be 2-3 sets at around 10-12 reps at the end of a workout. It doesn't have to be 100+ crunches and such. It only takes 4-5 minutes and this will help performance and safety, so why not spend the 4-5 minutes?
Not doing them is logically unsound because there are more benefits to training it directly than not.
No, Rippetoe is not a good rebuttal (LOL, I frantically Googled to find something supporting my stance), but is that guy in the video a better source than Rippetoe? If so, why? Serious. Who is a good source to listen so?
Guys who powerlift AND have a reputation of being "functional." For me, instantly, Eric Cressey and Mike Robertson. They are both powerlifters, have competed, and the former (EC) DLed 660 at 181lbs. These guys have an extensive knowledge of anatomy and they practice what they preach. They work with everyone ranging from athletes (such as baseball players, which is EC's primary clientèle base) to PLers (Mike Robertson works with a lot of them).
"Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential." - Winston Churchill
My log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=149354033
No Stress Nutrition: http://forum.nostressnutrition.net/index.php
What do you think about this part of Rippetoe's article (forget the messenger, pretend Eric Cressey wrote it):
I don’t think a novice needs to do situps as a part of novice-level programming; the program relies so heavily on the good form provided by a rigid spine during all the barbell exercises that the abs are receiving as much work as they can possibly do. This is especially true of heavy work sets in the squat and deadlift which require a high degree of focus on a flat back for completion of the set as the lifter gets stronger.
Read the Rippetoe article and see if your opinion changes. It probably won't but there is some food for thought in there, if nothing else.
So I browsed through the article anyways because my job sucks ahole. He seems to really only make a case for situps and ab exercises which involve spinal flexion being a bad choice for some people. Makes sense. When I went to physical therapy for lower back disc-related issues, there was a lot of core training, but none involved spinal flexion.
If you can avoid this and strengthen abs at the same time, I don't see why you wouldn't want to. However, I also agree that it's not like you aren't getting solid work if you are doing heavy squats/deads/presses/cleans multiple times weekly. For most people, this is probably enough for what they are doing. For some advance trainees, some additonal work probably wouldn't hurt.
"That's right, I don't care how big you are, if you aren't strong you're a sham. Having big muscles and no strength is the training equivalent of wearing a strap-on." - Jim Wendler
What do you think about this part of Rippetoe's article (forget the messenger, pretend Eric Cressey wrote it):
I don’t think a novice needs to do situps as a part of novice-level programming; the program relies so heavily on the good form provided by a rigid spine during all the barbell exercises that the abs are receiving as much work as they can possibly do. This is especially true of heavy work sets in the squat and deadlift which require a high degree of focus on a flat back for completion of the set as the lifter gets stronger.
I agree that they don't need sit-ups and rarely does anyone need sit-ups. The problem is that he's being far too general. Who is this novice and what is their current structure like? Squats and DLs do provide a lot of abdominal stimulation but what if it's such a large weak point that it's consistently holding them back (since the abdominals are essentially the foundation)? What if they're in anterior pelvic tilt? What he is saying can be true but it can also be wrong.
He is talking about a flat back but not many people can maintain a flat back or know what it feels like to have a flat back. Hip tuck is one of the number one things you see wrong with squats on BB.com and in the gym.
As a side note, I think sit-ups are overrated, which is what he mostly talks about.
"Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential." - Winston Churchill
My log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=149354033
No Stress Nutrition: http://forum.nostressnutrition.net/index.php
Most of the high level PL guys that write about abs work do some sort of ab work every day. Not sit ups or any of that "not an ab move but really hip flexors" type work, but actual ab work. Something wendler mentioned when asked about 5/3/1 and why it didn't include ab work was he said people should be doing abs every day anyway (something to that effect).
Neglected direct ab work for the last two years because I bought into the idea that deadlifts/squats were enough work. The heavy compounds definitely helped but my abs always looked rather weak in comparison to the rest of my body.
Started direct weighted ab work 3 months ago and already seeing great results and my core feels much better all around. Notice avi - this was prior to hitting abs specifically, I look completely different in the core now. Abs are now hit 2-3x a week for just 10 minutes or so max.
"Overtraining" - sponsoring fukarounditis & half a$sed workouts since 1991
"Its quite hard to hit Calories equal to macros." -LDNpeter
^This is why the Nutrition section can't have nice things.
"Look son, there comes a time in every man's life when he has to make a decision. Do you want to be big, powerful, jacked, yoked up, have women everywhere want you and men fear you . . . or do you want to do crossfit?"
Discounts & Deals - Sign Up!
Bookmarks