Lower Abs Question..

[WannaBPowerful]

I have heard on this board so many times that you cant isolate different areas of a muscle, and u cant isolate lower abs. If thats the case, why are my top 4 abs so much bigger than my lower abs? I really need something to isolate them and get them to really grow so they match my upper abs better. Can anyone help me here?

 

[The Shadow]

Lay flat on your back, feet shoulder width apart on the floor as well.

Raise feet 8-10 inches off the ground and alternate crossing one leg over the top of the other and vice versa.

Start wide cross legs over each other, alternating which leg is on top..

Fold hands and place in small of back to relieve pressure.

 

[bignate73]

Lay flat on your back, feet shoulder width apart on the floor as well.

Raise feet 8-10 inches off the ground and alternate crossing one leg over the top of the other and vice versa. nice isometric contraction for abs, yes.

Start wide cross legs over each other, alternating which leg is on top.. adductor and hip flexors working overtime on this one, is this to add stress to the isometric contration?

Fold hands and place in small of back to relieve pressure. skip this, learn how to stabilize your spine in a neutral position, if you can do this exercise as was described anywhere beyond 45 deg near the ground(meaning you wont be 8-10 inches from the ground when you start), your "abs" wont be an issue. the hand in the small of the back thing is so that people dont have to work to stabilize their lumbar region under muscle control. its your choice whether this is a priority or not. leg raises and similar exercises are as worthwhile as situps; hip flexor movements with abs along for an isometric ride. [/B]

incorporate some twisting and reverse crunches for a new stimulus.

 

[b fold the truth]

I still suggest full range roman chair sit-ups...but what can I say...lol...I train for functional strength.

Good idea Cornholio...I'll give those a try.

B True

 

[The Shadow]

I still suggest full range roman chair sit-ups...but what can I say...lol...I train for functional strength.

Good idea Cornholio...I'll give those a try.

B True

They work - especially if yo have big legs.
he hands behind the back thing - it's kinda like a wrap on a squatting bar - I don't see wht the bar digging into my traps will help my legs grow.

Same thing with the small of the back deal. Since the abs aren't technically in a contracted position, ie - torso being shortened, the back muscles aren't contracting anyway.

 

[bignate73]

Same thing with the small of the back deal. Since the abs aren't technically in a contracted position, ie - torso being shortened, the back muscles aren't contracting anyway.

what??

in that position, the abs are extremely contracted as are the muscles in your low back. pelvic and lumbar stabilization is what their function is in that position. the reason you have to put your hands in the small of your back is because you are falling into an anterior pelvic tilt (back arch) due to your deep stabilizers being ill equipped to handle the position/exercise.

 

[The Shadow]

what??

in that position, the abs are extremely contracted as are the muscles in your low back. pelvic and lumbar stabilization is what their function is in that position. the reason you have to put your hands in the small of your back is because you are falling into an anterior pelvic tilt (back arch) due to your deep stabilizers being ill equipped to handle the position/exercise.

Below.

 

[The Shadow]

They work - especially if yo have big legs.
he hands behind the back thing - it's kinda like a wrap on a squatting bar - I don't see wht the bar digging into my traps will help my legs grow.

Same thing with the small of the back deal. Since the abs aren't technically in a contracted position, ie - torso being shortened, the back muscles aren't contracting anyway.

I was referring to the fact that the movement is not a peak contracting for the abs meaning that their fuction is not to shorten the distance between the chest and the pelvis. Placing the hands will reduce perceived back strain. Can you still focus on driving the pelvis down to get a good base - yes you can. Think of progressive resistance. THen as you get stronger you go to one hand and then finnaly you can do the exercise without them.

 

[bignate73]

the point of progression is not to work a muscle through bad form until it becomes "good". its to work through its good range to become better. creating faulty muscle recruitment patterns and strengthening muscles in poor positions is not progress. sure the body will adapt to the stress and you will have percieved improvement, with an arched back, or one accustomed to some sort of support, all the while creating a further strength imbalance because you allowed support to strengthen one side while waiting for the other to catch up (or hoping at least). this is probably why physical therapists are percieved as "cautious" because they follow a sound, progressive paradigm, vs. forcing adaptation and hoping for the best. the difference between gym science and exercise science.

if there is percieved back strain or actual back pain or even break in neutral spinal position, the point of the exercise is lost. the exercise described being one for abdominals (spinal stabilizers) yet there is an imbalance between the anterior stabilizers (abs) and posterior (low back). is that a beneficial exercise? cosmetically probably, functionally no. its up to the individual, look decent but be prone to injury or take some time...and look decent and be bulletproof.