Thread: freakin' Core...

haha it hits close to home --- despite everything I till my training buddy, he still insists that situps are what will take him from looking 12-15% BF to sub-10% BF and having the visible abs.

I have no need for abs, my bench is better with the stomach I have.

I do think the term "core" is over used and misunderstood. Its use it too general and spans from real training to gimmicky bs. To me, it is mostly a marketing buzz word.

However, I do think that proper "core", "ab" or "torso" training is under utilized and ignored.

Diet, a little cardio, and the other exercises already work all the muscles. The only core I care about working towards/at is inside an apple.

I hate the way some people use the term "stabilizer muscles"
Example, If you use the smith machine for squats instead of free weights you're gains aren't going to be as good because you're not working out your stabilizer muscles.

"Need core? Squat more!"

I want a nickel every time someone says this.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I hate the way some people use the term "stabilizer muscles"
Example, If you use the smith machine for squats instead of free weights you're gains aren't going to be as good because you're not working out your stabilizer muscles.

Yea. And using the smith for squats...the last of your troubles are stabilizers.

Originally Posted by Merkaba

Yea. And using the smith for squats...the last of your troubles are stabilizers.

I got a nasty look when I asked a guy if he was almost done using my towel rack.

Originally Posted by Merkaba

Yea. And using the smith for squats...the last of your troubles are stabilizers.

Why is that? I used the smith for squats a few years ago. Probably for about 3 months at some little community college. They didn't have shit for free weights so i figured that squats on the smith, was better than doing leg curls. Seemed to work pretty well. My point was that stabilizers don't effect mass. At least i've never gotten any gains from them. For example,when I first started doing legs I didn't workout my calves, but I did do squats. I consider my calves as one of the stabilzers for squats. My calves didn't grow any, so where's the added mass? I only brought it up because i was talking to some guy the other day about lifting, and he was saying how he was now only doing free weights because he found out that machine weights don't workout your stabilzer muscles. I've already told the guy to start hitting free weights so I didn't say anything, but I don't agree with the reasoning.

Mens Health magazine always advocates putting a loaded barbell on your back and twisting your torso around for high reps to work the "core". They also advise having a friend throw a medicine ball into your midsection to get you ripped.

To be honest though most of their readers probably only work chest and guns anyway.

Smith squats are bad for the back.

20 rep squat routine hit my core pretty bad, but I find I have to use the crunch machine with added weights or something to build my abs. Like push and pull said, they're like calves; stabilisers but they need further training. Same for forearms I need to throw in some reverse curls every now and then to get them to grow.

Btw does anyone else find lunges work their core more than squats?

I've always had great abs, I rarely do ab exercises. I've had the best abs of my life when I did exclusively pull ups, push ups and dips. Now, when i do abs, I do leg lifts with weight, and crunch at the same time. I also do planks, but i ad weight to my back. Sit ups and crunches are no good in my opinion. I always run out of breathe before I feel burn in my abs. T-Man, I think that dead lifts more than squats work my abs.

Totally get where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

Why is that? I used the smith for squats a few years ago. Probably for about 3 months at some little community college. They didn't have shit for free weights so i figured that squats on the smith, was better than doing leg curls. Seemed to work pretty well. My point was that stabilizers don't effect mass. At least i've never gotten any gains from them. For example,when I first started doing legs I didn't workout my calves, but I did do squats. I consider my calves as one of the stabilzers for squats. My calves didn't grow any, so where's the added mass? I only brought it up because i was talking to some guy the other day about lifting, and he was saying how he was now only doing free weights because he found out that machine weights don't workout your stabilzer muscles. I've already told the guy to start hitting free weights so I didn't say anything, but I don't agree with the reasoning.

You misunderstand the concept. By using free weights, you HAVE to stabilize yourself to do the movement. This means you use more muscle groups and benefit by spreading the load across multiple groups. This reduces your chance of injury and produces better gains. I don't think there is such a thing as a stabilizer muscle.

By using a machine that isolates a muscle, that muscle becomes stronger than the other muscles that would normally assist is the movement. This creates weak links in the chain, and unnatural development. Eventually you will probably hurt yourself.

If you have the option to use free weights, but you choose to use machines instead, you are cheating yourself. Free weights are better than machines. Compound movements are better than isolation.

Originally Posted by KelJu

You misunderstand the concept. By using free weights, you HAVE to stabilize yourself to do the movement. This means you use more muscle groups and benefit by spreading the load across multiple groups. This reduces your chance of injury and produces better gains. I don't think there is such a thing as a stabilizer muscle.

I disagree with bold. What muscles do you use in a free weight squat that you don't use when you squat on a smith machine? How is the weight spread differently among the muscles by using the smith? It is simply taking the balance out of the exercise, not any of the muscles. Same goes for bench. I'd say you lose some gains in your forearms if all you do is lat-pulldowns instead of pull-ups but otherwise the movement is the same, and you could isolate the forearms. So where are the additional gains coming from using these free weight exercises over their machine counterparts? Don't get me wrong all I use is free weights. I use them because of the balance that is involved in the lift. Making it more interesting (machines are boring), and translates better to real life.

Originally Posted by KelJu

By using a machine that isolates a muscle, that muscle becomes stronger than the other muscles that would normally assist is the movement. This creates weak links in the chain, and unnatural development. Eventually you will probably hurt yourself.

If you know what muscle(s) that the machine exercise is missing, you could make it up doing something else for it. The gains would be the same.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Free weights are better than machines.

I agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with muscle gains.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I disagree with bold. What muscles do you use in a free weight squat that you don't use when you squat on a smith machine? How is the weight spread differently among the muscles by using the smith? It is simply taking the balance out of the exercise, not any of the muscles. Same goes for bench. I'd say you lose some gains in your forearms if all you do is lat-pulldowns instead of pull-ups but otherwise the movement is the same, and you could isolate the forearms. So where are the additional gains coming from using these free weight exercises over their machine counterparts? Don't get me wrong all I use is free weights. I use them because of the balance that is involved in the lift. Making it more interesting (machines are boring), and translates better to real life.



If you know what muscle(s) that the machine exercise is missing, you could make it up doing something else for it. The gains would be the same.




I agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with muscle gains.

It IS about "stabilizers" and secondary muscle groups. How many people do you know squat in the smith but can't even do a proper squat with body weight? I see them all the time. For one, I've NEVER seen a person even get into a decent position when squatting. They always put there feet out too far, because the machine lets them! This person will NEVER be able to develop a proper squat pattern. And they will NEVER reach their max potential building muscles from a non optimal stance. Not to mention the chance for injury. Can you get a workout or build muscle yes. But by taking out the natural balance and sequence of the whole system and its support crew firing at all the right moments, the person will never be able to leave the crutch.

Another suckism about the smith is that there really isn't a joint or group on your body that moves in a straight line or path, ESPECIALLY the vertebrae and lower chain. I feel its impossible to do a proper movement in the smith. So why use it? Every time I see a person using it, it's because of fear. Fear that they can't handle the weight they are using and thus need a crutch. This Fear can stem from a myriad of reasons. Usually it is because they want to build muscle/get stronger and want to pack on more weight and don't have a spot. Well if they knew they could work out with 80% max or so with free weights in a specific routine, and still build and grow they probably wouldnt use it then. Or some feel like it's just easier, especially women. Half of them don't even want to touch a free weight cause it's too close to the jocks. Some folks don't know proper form and don't wan't to look goofy and let the machine hold their hand. Or they just never could roll down into that good squat form, so they supplement it with the machine to crutch them, and thus never learn how and just self-perpetuate that cycle. And I bullshit you not EVERY person I've seen using it for squats and bench all suck at it. Young and old, novice to meathead. Benching sucks too because it doesn't let you arc the movement, for an optimal bench, in my book and many others, is not a straight up and down movement.

If you totally had to use a smith, I think it can be pulled off decently, even for squats, if you already have knowledge of proper mechanics. But knowing what I know, I would rather save up money and buy weights than have to use a smith. I use it for Calve raises, and leaning on. That's it.

I'm sorry merk, but how is benching in a straight line not the "optimal movement" path? If you want to press heavy weight, you're going to want to move it over the smallest distance possible, which is a straight line.

I totally agree that the smith is shit though. I wish every gym out there could replace their smiths with another power rack.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

I'm sorry merk, but how is benching in a straight line not the "optimal movement" path? If you want to press heavy weight, you're going to want to move it over the smallest distance possible, which is a straight line.

I totally agree that the smith is shit though. I wish every gym out there could replace their smiths with another power rack.

When you bench, at the bottom of the movement, the bar is around your nipple. At the top it's closer to the shoulders. It curves. This is the body's natural movement pattern and how your joints and muscles have been designed to move.

Going heavy while restricting and forcing the joints through an unnatural range of motion will eventually cause injury. Sure you can probably load more but it's not safe.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I disagree with bold. What muscles do you use in a free weight squat that you don't use when you squat on a smith machine? How is the weight spread differently among the muscles by using the smith? It is simply taking the balance out of the exercise, not any of the muscles. Same goes for bench. I'd say you lose some gains in your forearms if all you do is lat-pulldowns instead of pull-ups but otherwise the movement is the same, and you could isolate the forearms. So where are the additional gains coming from using these free weight exercises over their machine counterparts? Don't get me wrong all I use is free weights. I use them because of the balance that is involved in the lift. Making it more interesting (machines are boring), and translates better to real life.

Jesus Christ! I use the same muscles to jerk off as I do to do dumbbell curls. That doesn't make jerking off good substitution, now does it?

You can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you right. Machines do not produce the same quality gains as free weights. End of story.

It is simply taking the balance out of the exercise, not any of the muscles. Same goes for bench.

stabilizer muscles? no? ok...

Originally Posted by KelJu

Jesus Christ! I use the same muscles to jerk off as I do to do dumbbell curls. That doesn't make jerking off good substitution, now does it?

Bad analogy. It's not even funny.

Originally Posted by KelJu

You can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you right. Machines do not produce the same quality gains as free weights. End of story.

Glad you didn't respond to any of my questions
The "I'm right, your wrong " answer is always a nice cop out.

Originally Posted by dgro

stabilizer muscles? no? ok...

Did you read the whole post and the exercises I was talking about?
I wasn't saying that there wasn't any stabilizer muscles involved. I was saying that those exercises (free and machine) used the same stabilizer muscles, and the only difference was the balance/form necessary to complete the movement.

Pushandpull have you ever done calf raises with a barbell? And done it on the smith? And then done BB standing calf raises on a platform? Are you telling me that there is no element of balance in the standing calf raises that isn't on the smith machine ones?

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

Did you read the whole post and the exercises I was talking about?
I wasn't saying that there wasn't any stabilizer muscles involved. I was saying that those exercises (free and machine) used the same stabilizer muscles, and the only difference was the balance/form necessary to complete the movement.

You are a scared person. You try to defend the things that you do while saying you don't do them. You are a pussy.

Originally Posted by Hoglander

You are a scared person. You try to defend the things that you do while saying you don't do them. You are a pussy.

I'm not defending anything you fucking idiot.
I said the gains would be the same not that machine weights are better than free weights. I like free weights better because of the balance/form aspect, and the fact that you don't need a machine to move weight. Does your dumbass not understand how someone could think the two were equal as far as gaining mass, but not equal on gaining balance and coordination. I'm not being scared just giving my opinion. Still over your little head?

Originally Posted by T_man

Pushandpull have you ever done calf raises with a barbell? And done it on the smith? And then done BB standing calf raises on a platform? Are you telling me that there is no element of balance in the standing calf raises that isn't on the smith machine ones?

No, i'm not saying that at all?
I'm saying that free-weight require far more balance than machines.
I just think that added balance required in doing free weights doesn't effect mass.

I have had 6 pack most of my life and dont even have to workout for it. But my weightlifting teach says people dont train abs right. People always want to do highrep excercises when you in fact can just train them like any other muscle group. i like doing higher weight low rep, but I get my high rep for the Army. Most of it is just dieting!

PushandPull is the same guy who is posting links to some Bruce Lee workout scam not long ago.

Yeah, trying to help him is a waste of time.