uh...so i heard like running helps u gets abs? i dont know but you see i'm one of those lazy ppl who just spends time on the computer all the time .. and the weather in vancouver is getting really cold...so can any1 have any good but not really hard to do excercises that i can flatten my tummy? my tummy's getting bigger and bigger cuz of the lack of excercise i get and all that junk food i eat ...and it'd be cool if some1 can suggest a way for me to stop eating food other then breakfast lunch afterschool snack and dinner

sorry if there's one like this already

You do realize that there is no scientific reasoning to the links you posted. Did you even read the links I posted? They state that there are no such things as lower abs and how your rectus abdominis is ONE MUSCLE, YOU CANT CONTRACT PART OF THE MUSCLE WITHOUT CONTRACTING THE WHOLE THING. And to the EMG thing, the rectus abdominus can contract differently depending on the movement. It can contract from top to bottom or from bottom to top; the whole muscle is still contracting though.

REMEBER THIS QUOTE:

"Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works? If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle. Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs. So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole. You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other."

Here it is again just in case you missed it.

"Do you know anything about physiology and how the human body works? If you did, then you would know that you can not shape a muscle. Rectus abdominus has an insertion point at the crest of the pubis, and three portions of unequal size into the cartilages of the fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs. So when the muscle contracts, it contracts as a whole. You cant contract the lower or upper more than the other."

What is the source to your quote? I mean, "can't" is spelled "cant", unless that's a mistake on your part, it doesn't seem credible.

Hmm, it's nice of you to say there's no scientific reasoning behind all those articles. Why don't you go challenge them? And for the last time, the lower abs is simply an everday term to describe the lower rectus abdominus is what I'm saying. If you want to say that mouthful when you talk to people, be my guest. The only thing I thought you really screwed up on was saying "the abs are one muscle", otherwise, you can call the lower abs anything you'd like.

crunches. they're better than sit ups because situps can make you strain your neck and they can negatively effect other parts of the body. crunches focus only on the abs.

wow i'll check those out...but crunches once again...is going HALF WAY right? and does doing crunches like work for the lower part of the tummy? like wen i stand up and poke above the navel i can kind of feel something hard but wen i poke below navel, its like nothing hard oO so yea...cuz i know crunches work really well for the part above the navel but for the bottom part...as the previous posts that diff ppl have diff theories but yea ahaha i call it the above navel and below navel part ^^' but they are still very good i feel so good cuz im learning! and its not from skool

that's funny, cause you spell kinesiologist "kinesthislogists"... so maybe I shouldn't believe anything you posted. And it came from a well educated person that posts on another message board I visit. I didn't know you had to have a degree in english to know about physiology .



I did challenge them with all the information I posted, why don't you challenge my posts and links?





And I'm saying there's no such thing as "lower abs" it's all the rectus abdominis. Once again look at the anatomy chart. Look at where it's pointing at, why is there no arrow pointed at the lower midsection, because it's all one muscle.



Alright I'll call it the rectus abdominis cause that's what it is.

Oh, and I didn't screw up when I said the abs are one muscle, usually when people speak about the abs they are talking about the rectus abdominis, and that's what I was talking about. People understood what I meant hopefully. When people say they need to work on their "abs" chances are their talking about the rectus abdomins and not the obliques.

Well, that's coming from me, someone who's been called a fob more than once on the forum. I take full responsibility. As for your source, he/she can't say the same, I don't think, unless you mean to say the same about your source. Hmm, I do not doubt that he/she is educated, but in what, may I ask? My sources are well educated, fully certified in their professions. No, you certainly do not need an English degree and you missed the point. I had not known that you quoted from someone who wrote in another forum and thought that you quoted from a site. That's why I originally asked for the source that you quoted.


What information? You posted links. I posted links. Information indeed. I simply disagree that you rule out calling the lower rectus abdominus lower abs. They're one and the same to me and so many others. You're the one taking this vernacular term as an insult. Actually, which forum did you say your source posted in? I should like to bring this to his/her attention and see what he/she has to say.


I'm saying that it's just a colloquial term coined by professionals in their trade. Don't take it seriously. I know the anatomy chart, having taken college A and P before, and I know exactly what you mean by the rectus abdominus, but that alone does not define "abdominal muscles". Look at the anatomy chart yourself. Obliques count. Since you're so in tuned with using the full scientific names, it's rather lame to accuse me of wrongness for using 'lower abs' when you're in the wrong for limitting abdominal muscles to the 'rectus abdominus'. After all, people would understand what I mean by 'lower abs' just as well.

Ah, I'll leave the controversy of 'lower abs' to the professionals. You and your source can make peace with other well-educated folks who do use the term 'lower abs' on your own time. But one thing is sure, obliques are part of the abdominal muscles.

it is wrong for you to use the term lower abs though, since there is no such thing . I'm not forgetting the obliques, I 'm just not talking about them...

Oh and the website is www.ironmagazine.com/forums a member called PreMier, and also you might want to PM CowPimp, P-funk, and Robert DiMaggio (wrote one of the articles I posted).

There is such a thing as 'lower abs'. It describes the lower part of the rectus abdominus. It's there. You can touch it physically. Touch it yourself. What do you mean you're not talking about the obliques? You said "abs muscles". Obliques are part of the "abs muscles".

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: Nov 5 2005, 12:24 AM

There is no such thing as lower abs. When you touch the part below the navel that is still the same muscle. When I say abs I usually am talking about the rectus abdominis, when I'm talking about the obliques I'll say the obliques. damn, how many times do I have to reapeat my self. lol. Anyways, I edited my post before this one. Check it out.

And God, how many times do I have to tell you, it's a term to for the same thing! People say reverse crunches emphasize the lower abs. It simply means, while the whole rectus abdominus is contracting, the lower parts of it is doing more emphasized in the crunch. Thus, the term simply means the lower rectus abdominus is emphasized. What part of this don't you understand? A term! A term to describe a longer scientific name. A term!

Again, if they want to challenge this, simply post here. I ask that you gain their attention since you quoted them. I'll talk to at least two trainers, post their names and credentials if need be, even pictures for you. How's that?

And even before I resort to that. Men's Health Magazine, I'm sure you've heard of it, does not disagree to use the term 'lower abs'. Check out some of the articles. If you still disagree, take it out with Men's Health Magazine.

"Contracting the lower abs activates muscles that are attached to the spine. This makes your core (your abdominal and spinal structures) more stable. "When the brain senses that the core is stable, it allows for optimal recruitment of the muscles that are most associated with producing the movement," Corn says. So pushups and crunches can be done more effectively to work the targeted muscles while reducing your risk of injury."[1] It's one of many, I assure you.

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: Nov 5 2005, 01:02 AM

How is it a term for the same thing when lower abs dont event exist? Yes, uneducated people say reverse crunches empasize the lower abs. You can't contract the lower abs since it's all part of the rectus abdominis, so IT CONTRACTS AS A WHOLE!



lol, why dont you go over there? You can talk to as many trainers as you want, and I don't care what they look like. What do looks have to do with a educaton?



There is something called proprioception. Look it up, this has to do with the reverse crunch thing you posted to...

I really don't see how you can lable someone whose article gets in Men's Health uneducated. I also don't get how you don't understand something as simple as terminology and then call others uneducated. Since it seems the only thing you have to back you up is this vague 'source' and what I have to back up my terminology are nationally distributed magazines and real life professional trainers. Even though you, who's probably still a senior in high school, may think them uneducated, their credentials and training show otherwise. And once again you missed the obvious. The pictures would prove that they're real, with real names and real credentials.

How about you ask your source this question for me: "is not the 'lower abs' a term to describe the ab muscles that are below the navel line?'. Emphasize 'term to describe, if you must, to get it through his/her/it's head. We'll see what he/she/it has to say. Thank you.

By the way, I don't see how you can even bring the word 'uneducated' into this discussion seeing how the sources I gave all have credentials that can easily be checked. And it's rather an imature way to indirectly call me uneducated. I am a third year college student at the University of Houston-Main working on two bachelors, by the way. That may not mean much to a senior in high school (sarcasm), but it does mean that my education exceeds yours. Please refrain from insults, direct or indirect, that have no bearing.

I was gonna let this thread die........but I decided not to . Anyways, the credentials you gave me have NO SCIENCE BEHIND IT, mine however did. The sources you gave me said "work your abs with these exercises" which mean nothing at all to me. Where is the science behind that? Vauge sources? The sources that I have are also from real life trainers, people who run a website, and also write a magazine. If you point to the portion below the abs that is not known as the lower abs, thats just the abs.

http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/a...runkarmant.html

Tell me why there are two numer 27s and tell me what their pointing at. Then tell me why their not given different names.

It probably helps you stay fit but I doubt it gives you abs. In order to get abs...you would have to do it the old fashion way. Exercise!

From what I hear, it helps in that it helps you lower your total body fat % which helps show your abs. I have also heard that the more you sweat, the more you lose weight...or something like that.

Yeah, but sweat is water weight, and you want to replace that with fluids again.

So you're saying that accredited health magazines, like Men's Health, have no crendentials?

Why are you not getting this through your head? They are not labeled as lower/upper abs because the terms are not scientific. I've NEVER claimed them to be scientific terms, don't be stupid and then hint that I'm the uneducated one. They're simply terms people use instead of scientific ones. How many times do I have to tell you this?

running will help you burn calories but overall just do some damn sit-ups.