workout911.com

In a previous post, I discussed the evidence that supports the ability to target the upper vs. the lower abdominal region. For those who still aren’t convinced, check out the video below. It shows a bodybuilder actively “rolling” his abdominal wall, sequentially controlling the different segments of his rectus abdominis.

embedded by Embedded Video

Still skeptical that this proves cause and effect? Well, a recent study showed that such movements, in fact, do indicate preferential recruitment of the upper and lower rectus (1). Researchers studied middle-eastern belly dancers, using EMG to assess muscle activity in the rectus abdominis. Results showed significant differences in activation levels between the upper and lower abs throughout dance movements. It again clearly indicates that provided you have muscular control over your abdominal region, the rectus abdominis does function as semi-independent units that can be selectively targeted depending on the choice of exercise.

Stay Fit!

Brad

1) Moreside JM, Vera-Garcia FJ, McGill SM. (2008). Neuromuscular independence of abdominal wall muscles as demonstrated by middle-eastern style dancers. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008 Aug;18(4):527-37

One of the biggest fitness controversies concerns whether you can target the lower portion of the abdominal muscles. Bret Contreras, has an excellent blog post on the topic, titled ABC (Ask Bret Contreras) – Is it Possible to Isolate the Upper or Lower Abs?. Bret cites the science as well as the practical applications for training in a very balanced way. It’s highly recommended reading.

In support of Bret’s conclusions, the body of research does suggest that it is possible to target the lower abdominal region. Realize that there is a physiological basis for activation of selective aspects of the abs. Specifically, the rectus abdominis is partitioned by the tendinous intersections (this is what gives the abs the “six pack” appearance). What’s more, the upper and lower abs are innervated by different nerves, providing a mechanism for selective activation.

As Bret notes, the research itself is rather mixed on the topic, with some studies showing an ability to target the lower abs and some not. However, a closer look at the methodology and results of these studies does indicate that targeting the lower abs is, in fact, possible. One of the best studies on the subject was performed by Sarti and colleagues (1). The researchers divided participants into two groups–a high physical activity group that had trained seriously for at least 1.5 hours, 3 days a week for 3 years, and a low physical activity group that did not meet this criterion. Each of these two groups performed a crunch (intended to target the upper abs) and a reverse crunch (intended to target the lower abs). Electromyograph (EMG) readings were obtained to determine muscle activity in the upper vs. lower abdominal region. Exercise performance was monitored by fitness professionals and the groups were then further subdivided into correct and incorrect performers based on the participant’s ability to perform the exercises properly (in this case, correct performance of the reverse crunch was dependent on the participant being able to initiate a posterior pelvic tilt). The interesting finding of this study was that only the physically active participants deemed “correct performers” were able to target their lower abs!

The take home message here is that you must initiate a posterior pelvic tilt if you want to increase activation of the lower abdominal musculature. This is accomplished by lifting only from the butt so that you bring your pelvis up towards your belly button–standard leg raises are primarily a hip flexor exercise and will only work your abs statically without targeting the lower aspect of the abs (the abs play a stabilizing role in this movement). Develop a mind-to-muscle connection so that when you lift your pelvis, you forcefully contract the lower abdominal segments. Provided you perform the movement correctly, you should be able to elicit greater development in the lower abdominal region.

Stay Fit!

Brad

1) Sarti MA, Monfort M, Fuster MA, Villaplana LA. Muscle activity in upper and lower rectus abdominus during abdominal exercises. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Dec;77(12):1293-7.

The term “functional fitness training” is one of the most hyped trends in the field of exercise. But what does the term “functional fitness training” really mean? I recently wrote an article for ASCM Certified Newsletter titled, “Is Functional Training Really Functional? that challenged many of the concepts promoted by fitness professionals as to how to achieve fitness that is functional. You can read the article at the link below: it begins on page 5.

Is Functional Training Really Functional?

Here are the key points summing up the take-home message of the article.

1) For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as a “non-functional” exercise. Rather, the functional transfer of exercise exists on a continuum, where some exercises are more functional than others based on the needs of a particular functional task. I’ve coined this the “functional fitness continuum.”

2) The primary reason that most people lose functional capacity is due to a loss of muscle tissue. Therefore, simply increasing a person’s strength will promote better functional capacity. This can be achieved through any type of resistance training, whether it be machines, cables, body weight or free weights. Remember that strength is highly correlated with muscle cross sectional area (i.e. the size of the muscle), so increasing muscle development will generally promote greater functional capabilities in most people.

3) To optimize the training response from a functional standpoint, it is necessary to take heed of the principle of specificity. Simply stated, this means that the closer the training replicates the movements a person wants to accomplish, the better the transfer to performance of the movement. Thus, while a machine will promote functional improvements, free weights will tend to promote better results because they more closely approximate the way functional tasks are performed.

4) Unstable surface training is generally inferior to stable surface training in terms of promoting functional fitness. Realize that the vast majority of activities of daily living are performed in a stable environment. Thus, the concept of unstable surface training violates the principle of specificity; better transfer necessarily will be achieved by performing the exercises on stable surfaces. What’s more, stable surface training increases strength to a greater degree than comparable exercises performed on unstable surfaces, providing yet another advantage from a functional standpoint.

I will be co-presenting a workshop on the “Functional Fitness Continuum” (with my colleague Jay Dawes) at the upcoming NSCA Personal Trainer Conference this March at Bally’s Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Hope to see you there!

Feel free to send along any comments you have on the topic. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Stay Fit!

Brad

For those seeking better arm development, I co-authored an article on T-Nation with Bret Contreras and Tony Gentilcore. You can read the article at the following link:

3 Total Body Programs for Big Arms

Stay Fit!

Brad

No question about it, protein is the most important macronutrient in your diet. But many people are confused as to how much protein they really need to consume. Here’s the lowdown…

If you go by the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) espoused by the Department of Agriculture, protein intake should equate to a little less than 0.8 grams per kilogram of bodyweight. The RDA, however, has a major flaw in its design: it bases protein requirements on the average couch potato. While this is fine if you want to be an average couch potato, it has little relevance if you are a hard training fitness enthusiast. In truth, those who aspire to optimize body composition require significantly more protein than what is prescribed in the RDA.

For active individuals, especially those involved in strength training regimens, studies have consistently shown optimal intake to be about 1.6 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight (roughly double the RDA). The reasons are twofold: First, during exercise, amino acids are oxidized for fuel at an accelerated rate. Depending on the intensity and duration of training, these amino acids can supply up to 10 percent of the body’s energy needs. What’s more, the stresses associated with physical activity cause an increased breakdown of body proteins, leaving the body in a catabolic state. The only way to reverse these effects and promote an anabolic environment is by consuming additional dietary protein, over and above RDA guidelines. Abide by the RDA and you’ll surely be in a negative nitrogen balance (i.e. your body is breaking down proteins at a greater rate than it’s synthesizing them).

A protein-rich diet also confers specific metabolic benefits. For one, a large percentage of calories from protein are burned off in the digestion process—a phenomenon called the thermic effect of food (TEF). Of all the macronutrients, protein has the highest thermic effect, burning off approximately 25 percent of the calories consumed. In comparison, only about 8 percent of the calories from carbs are burned off in digestion; the thermic effect of dietary fat is minimal. When the TEF is factored into a mixed meal, higher intakes of protein can as much as double post-prandial thermogenesis (i.e. the number of calories burned after eating), leaving fewer calories available to be stored as fat.

Further, protein tends to curb appetite. During its digestion, protein potentiates the secretion of a hormone called cholecystokinin (CCK), which acts to suppress the body’s hunger mechanisms. These satiety-inducing effects are pronounced, lasting several hours after a meal. And when appetite isn’t driven by hunger, food choices can more easily be made based on rationale rather than impulse. This is why studies have consistently shown that when people are left to make their own nutritional decisions (called an ad libitum diet), those who consume high amounts of protein take in significantly fewer calories than those who don’t.

A higher protein intake is especially important when you are restricting calories (i.e. the goal is weight loss). During stringent dieting, there is a tendency for your body to break down protein stores into glucose (through a process called gluconeogenesis) so that the brain and other tissues have adequate fuel. Since skeletal muscle is not necessary for sustenance (as opposed to the internal organs and other protein-based tissues), it is the primary bodily tissue to be cannibalized. The only way to counteract this occurrence is by consuming extra protein. Keeping protein intake high helps to preserve lean tissue, preventing the negative consequences of muscle wasting.

Taking all factors into account, my general recommendation is to consume approximately one gram of protein per pound of ideal bodyweight (i.e. the weight you aspire to being when you are at your leanest). This provides a margin of safety, ensuring you never fall into negative nitrogen balance. And in case you’re worried about negative health effects, rest easy. As long as you have healthy kidney function, research has debunked the claims that higher protein diets will put you on dialysis. For more info, read my article High Protein Diets: Myths, Half-truths and Outright Lies.

Stay Fit!

Brad