Ab's.... Squats? Deads? Confused..

[honda4life]

I saw a thread on toning up ure ab's and everyone said Cardio... and squats and deads... arent deads more for your back, and squats for your legs? how do they tie into abs?

[*Narkissos*]

Abs act as secondary support muscles.. they're activated to stabilise the torso during any compound exercise. This static contraction works the abs intensely.

Thus.. all compound exrcises are technically 'ab exercises'.

Narkissos

[honda4life]

static contraction... english definition please lol sorry im not up to the compound words yet lol. Im still new here...

[*Narkissos*]

static contraction... english definition please lol sorry im not up to the compound words yet lol. Im still new here...

no prob man...

static= 'not moving'

Re: "stabilises torso"

Narkissos

[Squatman51]

the best way to strengthen your abs is to do heavy squats and deads without a belt...make sure you take a breath when you squat(in your belly) and hold your stomach tight....

remeber more tension = more strength

[dboy]

i'm not feelin' the abs engaging either only really the back i know to squeeze but it doesn't feel it's got resistance so how is it working?

[*Narkissos*]

i'm not feelin' the abs engaging either only really the back i know to squeeze but it doesn't feel it's got resistance so how is it working?

As long as you keep your torso upright your abs are 'engaged'

The static hold in the upright position..won't feel like the fully contracted position (like a trunk curl).. so don't look for that feeling

[IronReload04]

on top of this, the hormonal response from your body after deading and squating will make your abb goals a little bit of a more downhill process

[dboy]

cool thx

[Tommy Gunn]

Here's a question I have: Will doing squats and deads help build your abs...when you're wearing a weight belt? I know they do when you're not wearing a belt but what about if you are wearing one?

I wear a belt whenever I do heavy squats and deads, does that mean I'm not working my abs at all?

[Timm1704]

not as much, as the belt offers support in the area the stabilising muscles would otherwise have full responsiilty for. they will still be included, but i have found my strength in those areas, and my core stability, has improved greatly since ive gone beltless. i dont even own a lifting belt anymore. IMO, aslong as your posture is spot on, the risk of injury is no greater going without a belt than it is when wearing one.

[Tommy Gunn]

Thanks Timm.

Another question I have: is it true that when you do a seated leg press (instead of squats) that you are now no longer including the abs, obliques, and lower back and are now just working the quads, hams, calves, and glutes? I feel that when I do seated leg press that I don't really feel like my abs, obliques, and lower back take on any of the load (as compared to squats).

What do you guys think?

[Timm1704]

definately not as much muscle recruitment when legpressing as there is with squats. leg press is a great exercise in its own right, i especially like the angled leg presses, and go real deep, that way i feel it in my glutes, hams and lower back more. but yes, it focuses the stress on the quads alot more, leaving out the slower back, and abs, altho they will still get used alittle bit. for overall strength and stability, squats rule, and preferably free weight squats instead of a smith machine

[Tommy Gunn]

Thanks Timm. I agree with you squats rule.