Building a 6-pack?

[Viktri]

Originally Posted by knucks

well that may be the biggest crock of **** i've ever heard, but whatever.
1+

Originally Posted by adversity04

Maybe initially the mask was making it harder to breath putting him in anaerobic land therefore stressing his system in a different way which made him adapt and develop. After he stopped getting dizzy, when he was used to it, his breathing the 'same' as before he wore the mask. Just speculation though

I don't think breathing less = stronger works =P

 

[blueguitar322]

Originally Posted by ken

1) Does that guy have a bloated stomach? No.
Yes. Take a look at that pic again. You can CLEARY see the shape of his rib cage. He's puffed his chest and sucked in his abs. I bet you see him walk around and talk to people - even on contest day - and it'd be much clearer than a pose like that.

4) Is that guy truly motivated? Why don't you question his motivation to his face sometime.

Nah, motivation isn't an issue with most bodybuilders. Priorities might be - I'd be he cares more about his upper body muscles than his core muscles - but I never said he's lacking motivation. BUT you go to the average gym where every other guy is training for a six-pack and there's tons of room to question motivation. Most of those guys care enough to hit the gym, but certainly don't care enough to stop guzzling alcohol and lower calorie count on the weekends. I guarantee 90%+ of them won't ever reach their goal, and the majority of those will blame genetics in some way.

There's really only four possibilities for why you don't see your muscle definition - abs or anywhere else.
(1) You have too much fat, which smooths over the definition.
(2) Your muscles aren't big enough to have enough definition
(3) Water retention & bloating - caused by steroids, among other things.
(4) You've lost a ton of fat weight and your skin is irrepairably stretched.

Obviously genetics will play a huge role in how easy it is to achieve a six-pack. But there are way WAY WAY too many tried-and-true, proven methods to rectify (1), (2) and (3) to substantiate your ridiculous claim that six-pack abs are "100% genetics". (4) happens, and there's a point where it might well be impossible to ever achieve a six-pack without cosmetic surgery. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here....

 

[ken]

Originally Posted by blueguitar322

(4) happens, and there's a point where it might well be impossible to ever achieve a six-pack without cosmetic surgery. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here....

I thought that's exactly what we were talking about. Some people will never have six-packs, regardless of motivation, body fat, muscle size. Obviously a guy with 25% fat and the genetics for great abs will still have lousy abs. I was being sarcastic with my percentage breakdown. I thought that might be apparent when I allocated 115%.

 

[adversity04]

Originally Posted by Viktri

I don't think breathing less = stronger works =P
It's the same premise as high altitude training. Less oxygen = more work done by the lungs to adapt to conditions. Go run a few miles with a mask/bandana on and tell me it isn't harder and you therefore do more work. I can tell you from multiple runs like that that it is indeed more work. It may not be aerobic vs anaerobic as I said in my previous post but to think he's doing the same or less by breathing less is idiotic.

 

[blueguitar322]

Originally Posted by ken

I thought that's exactly what we were talking about. Some people will never have six-packs, regardless of motivation, body fat, muscle size. Obviously a guy with 25% fat and the genetics for great abs will still have lousy abs. I was being sarcastic with my percentage breakdown. I thought that might be apparent when I allocated 115%.
My case (4) was talking about guys who are fat - very fat - and then lose 100lb to get down to single-digit body fat. They'll have too much loose skin to ever see their abs without surgery. That's not genetics at all. That's a direct result of an unhealthy lifestyle.

I know you were exaggerating with the percentages...but geez, so many people look at their fat selves and say "oh well - it's in my genes" and refuse to do a single thing about it. In our western McCulture with 5-minute everything, those willing to put in the effort required - for the duration of time required - to get to six-pack abs are such a strong minority.

It reminds me of the motivational speaker who, in a big conference, was asked a question by an entrepreneuer about why his business wasn't succeeding. "I've tried everything!" he exclaimed. "Everything?" asked the speaker. "Everything" the man replied.

"Well, then, tell me the last 100 things you've tried." The man paused for a moment. "Well, I haven't tried 100 things."

"How about telling me the last 10 things you've tried." The man paused again. "I don't know if I've tried 10 different things."

"So how many things have you tried?" asked the teacher. Sheepishly, the man responded "two or three."

"Then why are you asking the question?"

 

[Viktri]

Originally Posted by adversity04

It's the same premise as high altitude training. Less oxygen = more work done by the lungs to adapt to conditions. Go run a few miles with a mask/bandana on and tell me it isn't harder and you therefore do more work. I can tell you from multiple runs like that that it is indeed more work. It may not be aerobic vs anaerobic as I said in my previous post but to think he's doing the same or less by breathing less is idiotic.
Just because something is harder to do doesn't mean it's good for you! http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/altitude.html Furthermore, while adaptation to high altitude makes you better at high altitude it hasn't proved useful for making you faster at sea level. There is a lot of mysticism that surrounds the belief of enhanced sea-level performance after altitude training, but the current scientific evidence is lacking. The reason is that some of the adaptive responses at high altitude are actually a hindrance at lower altitude. As more research is done then perhaps a training regimen that shows definitive improvement will emerge. The best advice as of 1994 is that high-altitude training is like "magic shoes" -- If it works for you then wear them. Anyway, my point was that it doesn't make you stronger. It doesn't. It improves your oxygen flow temporarily (increases red blood cell count) but doesn't seem to make you stronger; you won't be able to lift more although endurance should increase slightly - at least that is what testing so far has shown. Lots of misconceptions like this fly around the gym. Just because you can lift 10lbs 1000x doesn't mean you can lift 10,000lbs once. There's no direct correlation. Just because you use less oxygen to perform an exercise doesn't mean you're any stronger when you're done. You're going to have a better oxygen flow which results in a temporary boost in endurance which MIGHT mean you can perform a few extra reps (which can be performed now because you're not as oxygen deprived as you were before) but this doesn't mean you're any stronger.

 

[mr.loverman]

do crunches and flex at the top for 3 sec. flex hard.


also hanging leg raises. start with knee raises and work your way up to full out leg raises.

cut out sweet stuff and alcohol. no carbs at night either.

 

[adversity04]

Originally Posted by Viktri

Just because something is harder to do doesn't mean it's good for you!

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/altitude.html
Furthermore, while adaptation to high altitude makes you better at high altitude it hasn't proved useful for making you faster at sea level. There is a lot of mysticism that surrounds the belief of enhanced sea-level performance after altitude training, but the current scientific evidence is lacking. The reason is that some of the adaptive responses at high altitude are actually a hindrance at lower altitude. As more research is done then perhaps a training regimen that shows definitive improvement will emerge. The best advice as of 1994 is that high-altitude training is like "magic shoes" -- If it works for you then wear them.


Anyway, my point was that it doesn't make you stronger.

It doesn't. It improves your oxygen flow temporarily (increases red blood cell count)
And you only quoted a paragraph that supported what you thought to be true. If you take the second link from a google search on "High altitude training" (you took the first obviously) you get http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/altitude.shtml

The primary benefit of altitude training is an increase in the natural production of the hormone erythropoietin (EPO), which increases the hemoglobin content of your blood. Oxygen is transported in your blood attached to hemoglobin. An increase in EPO, therefore, leads to an increase in the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood, which lets more oxygen reach your muscles allowing you to maintain a faster pace. The downside to training at high altitude, however, is that due to the thin air you cannot train as intensely as at sea level. Less intense training produces a less fit athlete, which is why studies of athletes training at altitude to compete at sea level have had inconsistent results.

The limiting factor was the amount of oxygen that he was receiving which caused him to get dizzy. Once his oxygen capacity increased he was "good while wearing it and great without it". His intensity after acclimation was the same. Did I know about the reduced intensity at high altitudes? No, but I was basing mine off thoughts of the reduction in oxygen.

but doesn't seem to make you stronger; you won't be able to lift more although endurance should increase slightly - at least that is what testing so far has shown.

Lots of misconceptions like this fly around the gym.
Just because you can lift 10lbs 1000x doesn't mean you can lift 10,000lbs once.
There's no direct correlation.
Just because you use less oxygen to perform an exercise doesn't mean you're any stronger when you're done. You're going to have a better oxygen flow which results in a temporary boost in endurance which MIGHT mean you can perform a few extra reps (which can be performed now because you're not as oxygen deprived as you were before) but this doesn't mean you're any stronger.

When did STRENGTH even come into play? Everything you wrote here is completely meaningless because you're making a comparison that wasn't even being drawn upon from you misunderstanding my initial post. Nowhere in there did I make a mention to strength and you assumed I did. As anyone familiar with working out will tell you the body adapts and gets used to the same movements and exercises when performed repeatedly and plateaus occurs. In order to have gains you must change what you're doing. The mask acted as this change for him.

You wrote it yourself, there would be an increase in endurance which in turn means there was work done. Work requires energy and our energy comes from calories which is the whole point of trying to get a '6 pack' as this thread is addressing. In order to have one there is one major point that all will agree with and that's having low enough body fat to make the abdominals visible. Now in order to do this fat calories need to be burned and the fact that the mask would make it HARDER means that there's MORE work being done than for the same action without the mask being on.

I'm done trying to make this coherrent enough so that somehow work, adaptation and variability don't get confused with pure strength.

 

[Viktri]

adversity04, When you do research, perform more than 1 google search. Judge your sources according to what is known and filter out results accordingly. Not every source will be equal in integrity.

When did STRENGTH even come into play?

Read where you quoted me prior to this. You know, when you quoted where I said,

Originally Posted by me

I don't think breathing less = stronger works =P
I didn't misunderstand your initial post at all, you quoted me. I didn't say you do not train harder with less oxygen. Did you read what I wrote before you quoted? I assumed you did, because you quoted me and thus we were talking about strength. Thanks for repeating what I wrote. I don't think you understand the article. Basically, if you have a car and you put 1 litre of gas you can go so far. Having more red blood cells is like having more gas, so you can presumably go further but it doesn't change the engine. I know this isn't a perfect analogy (since the car can go faster at the same distance w/ more gas) but take it in a limited context.

 

[adversity04]

Originally Posted by Viktri

When you do research, perform more than 1 google search.
I took one that agreed most notably with everything else I've ever heard/read on what I was referencing. I read a lot of running stuff during my competitive years.

I didn't misunderstand your initial post at all, you quoted me. I didn't say you do not train harder with less oxygen.

I took what you said as broken english. My reference wasn't in regards to strength, but the amount of and type of work needed to be done changed.

Thanks for repeating what I wrote.

If I repeated what you wrote I would have said "There's no gains in strength and just because he can do 10lb 100 times doesn't mean he can do 1000lb 1time."

I don't think you understand the article.

I was a runner, and still train intensively, I know what your article said. My article did a better job of explaining everything that yours.

Basically, if you have a car and you put 1 litre of gas you can go so far. Having more red blood cells is like having more gas, so you can presumably go further but it doesn't change the engine. I know this isn't a perfect analogy (since the car can go faster at the same distance w/ more gas) but take it in a limited context.

Bad analogy. How about this. You walk up a hill every day. At first it sucks but you eventually get used to walking up the hill and it now requires no effort. Something changes, classes start, water needs to be carried, etc etc, and now you carry a backpack that weighs 20 lbs. You still walk up the same hill everyday except with that backpack. The hill WILL be harder to walk up as you're not used to carrying that weight uphill. You do this enough that you become used to carrying the weight up hill. Will it be easier to walk up this hill with or without the weight? This is much more along the lines of what was being proposed before and what we're arguing now.

 

[Viktri]

adversity04,

Please stop...

Your analogy is not good because walking up the hill with 20 lbs makes you stronger. It's resistance. That's exactly what I mean by you didn't understand what the article proposed. We were talking about altitude training, not resistance training.

edit:
please don't reply with "we weren't talking about altitude training, we were talking about resistance training"

 

[adversity04]

I used strength in my analogy because it's something that most people would understand and my hopes that you wouldn't take it to mean "omg he's using strength directly."

My analogy translated so that you can understand:
He was used to climbing without the mask: walking up the hill without weight
He adds the mask, which changes what is happening: Adding the weighted backpack
He gets used to wearing the mask and now feels good wearing it: becoming used to wearing the backpack

from Dictionary.com

1.\ta similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.\tsimilarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.\tBiology. an analogous relationship.
4.\tLinguistics.
a.\tthe process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.\ta form resulting from such a process.
5.\tLogic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects

It was showing the adaptive response by the body to a new stimulus, not a direct relationship between strength. Why would I use resistance training as the main principal when I've already said that there weren't gains in strength?

P.s I love how this has turned into our argument thread.

 

[Viktri]

It's not much of an argument if you don't understand how people build strength (muscle) versus high altitude training, which is about restricting air-flow, which is about breathing and not muscle.

The reason your example doesn't work is because climbing a hill with a heavier weight is completely different than putting on a mask.
A mask restricts airflow which doesn't make your muscles stronger but works by making your body use the oxygen more effectively. Putting on a weight actually adds resistance to your body and your body says "hey, I need to build muscle/strengthen bones or tendons because I'm not strong enough"

Refer to my car example

 

[Chadley]

Originally Posted by knucks

well that may be the biggest crock of **** i've ever heard, but whatever.

Hah, perhaps. But, you never know--at least the results are there.

 

[adversity04]

Originally Posted by Viktri

The reason your example doesn't work is because climbing a hill with a heavier weight is completely different than putting on a mask.

It was showing the adaptive response by the body to a new stimulus

Seriously, are you this dense. You for sure didn't read

most people would understand and my hopes that you wouldn't take it to mean "omg he's using strength directly."

I never said that they were the same thing. Answer these two questions:
1) Does adding weight/increasing resistance cause a response by the body over time?
2) Does restricting airflow via the mask or lower oxygen levels cause a response by the body over time?

The answer to both is yes. The body must do something extra to accomodate for these new stimuli which is MORE WORK.

Refer to my car example

And as for your car example, you do a poor job of explaining so instead of pointing blindly at a mere 2 sentences refine your argument which you haven't done. You keep on repeating yourself instead of responding to my posts in an intelligent manner.
Your car example as it supports me: You start at a point and can drive X amount of miles @ Y miles an hour. Where X and Y are positive integer values, Y is constant. You add more gas and can now go (this is depending on the amount of gas, but I'll use a simple number as opposed to a variable) 1.5X miles @ Y miles an hour, which, IIRC, 1.5X > X (We're not going negative miles). Does it burn more or less by going a farther distance? More for sure, and what fuels our body? Calories. Does Calories in < calories out cause weight loss? Yes.

You will obviously ignore the beginning portion of my post because who reads entire posts and comment on how this analogy is wrong. You will also ignore the fact that I keep on speaking of bodily adaption in general and not specificly building strength.