Skinny to lean fit/buffy advise

April 4, 2017

i recommend do full bodyworkouts. at least 3 to 4 times a week. muscle growth lasts around 24h to 48h. so its best to hit them again after that period. and your tummy will grow if youre gonna put on weight. thats why you add in cardio before your workout or on days when you dont workout. cardio workout after workouts will affect your muscle growth negatively.and try to stay away from supplements as much as you can. here a coupel of videos on that topic.

Steve5380 · April 9, 2017

On 4/2/2017 at 4:15 AM, speedoluver said:

For skinny people, how to eat without tummy growing?

The growth of the belly is not directly related to the amount of eating, but rather to one's habits.

There is no doubt that one has to exercise AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN LIFE,

and that this exercise needs to include resistance training if possible with weights.

Once a belly starts building up and protruding, it is difficult to reverse this, but not impossible.

It is important to exercise the muscles of the "core", especially the abdominal.

This can start by getting the feeling of how to contract the abdominal muscles

and be conscious of a good posture when sitting, walking, driving a car.

The next step is to start a habit of daily exercises that contract the abdominal,

like crunches in its many variations, cable racks, etc. etc. Crunches are easy to do at home.

The result is a good muscular tone that keeps the abdominal unconsciously contracted.

Then you can eat a lot without the tummy growing but the whole body growing

Steve5380 · April 9, 2017

On 4/4/2017 at 8:56 AM, alistair said:

i recommend do full bodyworkouts. at least 3 to 4 times a week. muscle growth lasts around 24h to 48h. so its best to hit them again after that period. and your tummy will grow if youre gonna put on weight. thats why you add in cardio before your workout or on days when you dont workout. cardio workout after workouts will affect your muscle growth negatively.and try to stay away from supplements as much as you can. here a coupel of videos on that topic.

LOL! I have to agree with your monster Rich Piana in his comment about powders vs. real food. We should eat food we buy at grocery stores, the most simple the better, and never step into a GNC.

Hopefully people don't look up to his deformed body! Such extremes are freaky and those tattoos practically ruin a body.

We should work out to be healthy and strong (in that order) to stay young as long as possible, and not to become a muscle monster.

xydboy · April 9, 2017

11 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

The growth of the belly is not directly related to the amount of eating, but rather to one's habits.

There is no doubt that one has to exercise AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN LIFE,

and that this exercise needs to include resistance training if possible with weights.

Once a belly starts building up and protruding, it is difficult to reverse this, but not impossible.

It is important to exercise the muscles of the "core", especially the abdominal.

This can start by getting the feeling of how to contract the abdominal muscles

and be conscious of a good posture when sitting, walking, driving a car.

The next step is to start a habit of daily exercises that contract the abdominal,

like crunches in its many variations, cable racks, etc. etc. Crunches are easy to do at home.

The result is a good muscular tone that keeps the abdominal unconsciously contracted.

Then you can eat a lot without the tummy growing but the whole body growing

I think the emphasis should be on whole body exercise and not just the core. No doubt the core is important, but the contraction of the abdominals is just one aspect. Particularly, the definition of core doesn't just span within the rectus abdominis, but also the global muscles like the lats, thighs, etc.

Steve5380 · April 9, 2017

24 minutes ago, xydboy said:

I think the emphasis should be on whole body exercise and not just the core. No doubt the core is important, but the contraction of the abdominals is just one aspect. Particularly, the definition of core doesn't just span within the rectus abdominis, but also the global muscles like the lats, thighs, etc.

Yes indeed it is good to exercise the whole body. But a pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles.

We can all show a belly if we consciously relax the abdominal muscles to the point of looking like we are pregnant!

xydboy · April 9, 2017

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

Yes indeed it is good to exercise the whole body. But a pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles.

We can all show a belly if we consciously relax the abdominal muscles to the point of looking like we are pregnant!

Pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles? correlation is not causation. Central obesity is a result of poor lifestyle, and as such a relationship exist in core muscle inactivity and obesity. But it does not mean that a causative relationship is found. Refer to reference for more information on studies conducted on spot reduction. Just to give a glimpse of one of the study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427), the employment of core exercises (curl ups) provided an improvement in core exercise performance, but did nothing in reducing abdominal fat. This clearly shows that core exercises cannot do anything to improve the appearance of pot belly (https://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NSCA/Resources/PDF/Education/Tools_and_Resources/TrainerTips_Spot Reduction.pdf).

Secondly, purposeful relaxation of muscles cannot be compared to lack of muscle tone. The electrical signalling and cascade of events that occur within an active vs inactive muscle is different to begin with.

Extra reading on core training: http://shreddedbyscience.com/4-popular-beliefs-core-training-fitness-professionals-think-true/

Edited April 9, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

6 hours ago, xydboy said:

Pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles? correlation is not causation. Central obesity is a result of poor lifestyle, and as such a relationship exist in core muscle inactivity and obesity. But it does not mean that a causative relationship is found. Refer to reference for more information on studies conducted on spot reduction. Just to give a glimpse of one of the study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427), the employment of core exercises (curl ups) provided an improvement in core exercise performance, but did nothing in reducing abdominal fat. This clearly shows that core exercises cannot do anything to improve the appearance of pot belly (https://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NSCA/Resources/PDF/Education/Tools_and_Resources/TrainerTips_Spot Reduction.pdf).

Secondly, purposeful relaxation of muscles cannot be compared to lack of muscle tone. The electrical signalling and cascade of events that occur within an active vs inactive muscle is different to begin with.

Extra reading on core training: http://shreddedbyscience.com/4-popular-beliefs-core-training-fitness-professionals-think-true/

Thank you for the interesting references, although they don't contradict what we have been saying here.

Nobody claims that crunches or other exercises for the abdominal muscles do a spot reduction of fat. And nobody claims that fat cannot be a big contributor to a pot belly.

If you examine the subject of this thread, it is intended for skinny people who want to gain weight. And I responded to the inquire: "For skinny people, how to eat without tummy growing?". This means a skinny person wants to know how to put on weight without getting a pot belly, instead of a fat person wants to know how to get rid of a pot belly.

We see all the time slim guys who in their 30s and 40s start displaying a belly. This belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone. Therefore I think it is good advice to tell young skinny gays who want to get bigger: don't worry about getting fat, this takes a long time and is an ABUSE of eating plus sedentary life. Eat plenty and work out, and don't disregard the core muscles and in particular the abdominal. Do plenty of exercises of crunches or other similar types and KEEP IN YOUR MIND the image of an imaginary corset that compresses your core muscles and gives you a good posture and good looks

.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Steve5380

Hemnes · April 10, 2017

how much does food matter in terms of your transformation? Does eating clean and steering clear of fast food help your transformation? Does it only apply to people who are readily fat and have some underlying muscles? Or skinny guys Yoo? Someone with the experience please answer haha. >< the information may be helpful to ts

justintime · April 10, 2017

4 minutes ago, Hemnes said:

how much does food matter in terms of your transformation? Does eating clean and steering clear of fast food help your transformation? Does it only apply to people who are readily fat and have some underlying muscles? Or skinny guys Yoo? Someone with the experience please answer haha. >< the information may be helpful to ts

If you mean transformation from skinny to buff... then food matters like 60%? Clean eating is good, but counting your macros is even better brah.

April 10, 2017

10 minutes ago, Hemnes said:

how much does food matter in terms of your transformation? Does eating clean and steering clear of fast food help your transformation? Does it only apply to people who are readily fat and have some underlying muscles? Or skinny guys Yoo? Someone with the experience please answer haha. >< the information may be helpful to ts

i think diet is very underrated. It should be more important than training. I guess the importance of diet is around 80%. You can train how hard you want but if you do not feed your body what it needs it will never grow. For example if your body needs 160g of protein and you only consume 140g. You are not going to make much changes to your body. Of cause consuming a clean diet goes hand in hand in hitting your macros.

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

2 hours ago, alistair said:

i think diet is very underrated. It should be more important than training. I guess the importance of diet is around 80%. You can train how hard you want but if you do not feed your body what it needs it will never grow. For example if your body needs 160g of protein and you only consume 140g. You are not going to make much changes to your body. Of cause consuming a clean diet goes hand in hand in hitting your macros.

The science of nutrition is not so clear cut as you paint it. The body does not treat food like the stock in a warehouse, and this ideal of calories-in vs. calories-out is only a gross approximation. You have no way to know if your body needs 160.0 g of protein and anything less will be insufficient.

The importance of diet can reach 100% in a famine with no food around, but in normal situations it is hard to put a number to it. You can gain much weight and get fat by only eating and having a sedentary life. So... why not FOLLOW YOUR APPETITE ??

Work out as much as you can, and be smart to make available to your body all the good foods it wants, as many times a day as possible.

Here "good" means natural foods instead of processed stuff, with a selection of the best proteins (eggs, chicken, whey protein, etc) and the best carbohydrates (leguminous like lentils and beans, green vegetables, squash, sweet potatoes, etc)

April 10, 2017

1 minute ago, Steve5380 said:

The science of nutrition is not so clear cut as you paint it. The body does not treat food like the stock in a warehouse, and this ideal of calories-in vs. calories-out is only a gross approximation. You have no way to know if your body needs 160.0 g of protein and anything less will be insufficient.

The importance of diet can reach 100% in a famine with no food around, but in normal situations it is hard to put a number to it. You can gain much weight and get fat by only eating and having a sedentary life. So... why not FOLLOW YOUR APPETITE ??

Work out as much as you can, and be smart to make available to your body all the good foods it wants, as many times a day as possible.

Here "good" means natural foods instead of processed stuff, with a selection of the best proteins (eggs, chicken, whey protein, etc) and the best carbohydrates (leguminous like lentils and beans, green vegetables, squash, sweet potatoes, etc)

Sorry i got to disagree with you. for a person who is 80kg to maintain your muscles IF youre working out you need 160g. anything more adds to the growth. following appetite isnt a good solution. If I need to put on more muscle mass, I have to eat more than what my body requires. So even you have hit what your body needs for the day, you have to eat more if you want to grow

xydboy · April 10, 2017

14 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Thank you for the interesting references, although they don't contradict what we have been saying here.

Nobody claims that crunches or other exercises for the abdominal muscles do a spot reduction of fat. And nobody claims that fat cannot be a big contributor to a pot belly.

If you examine the subject of this thread, it is intended for skinny people who want to gain weight. And I responded to the inquire: "For skinny people, how to eat without tummy growing?". This means a skinny person wants to know how to put on weight without getting a pot belly, instead of a fat person wants to know how to get rid of a pot belly.

We see all the time slim guys who in their 30s and 40s start displaying a belly. This belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone. Therefore I think it is good advice to tell young skinny gays who want to get bigger: don't worry about getting fat, this takes a long time and is an ABUSE of eating plus sedentary life. Eat plenty and work out, and don't disregard the core muscles and in particular the abdominal. Do plenty of exercises of crunches or other similar types and KEEP IN YOUR MIND the image of an imaginary corset that compresses your core muscles and gives you a good posture and good looks

.

You sure when you said "belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone"? But the thing is that crunches doesn't tone up the core muscles. If it does, it would have reflected a change in the muscle tone. It didn't report this as per literature cited. Do bear in mind that these exercises you mentioned were not able to change body composition (body fat and muscle mass) reported in literature cited previously (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427). Explain how the powerlifters who have a belly and are able to lift heavy weight? Like i mentioned before, it is critical to know a difference between correlation and causation. What you mentioned is a causative effect and not a correlation effect. To support what I mentioned and word for word taken from the article,"Obesity as measured by increased BMI and body fat percentage is associated with decreased back and core muscular endurance". Reference: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2012/729283/

It is not a result but rather and associative relationship. You cannot establish a cause and effect relationship in such a manner, as it flouts the basic criteria of temporal precedence. Its also too narrow sighted to just look at the rectus abdominis when there are many other core muscles that influence posture. Without considering that skinny people have their own individual structural deficiencies, an over emphasis of crunches would make the matter worst, particularly if they have issues on pelvic displacement. Other muscles such as the back extensors are also important in terms of posture (http://content.iospress.com/download/journal-of-back-and-musculoskeletal-rehabilitation/bmr00062?id=journal-of-back-and-musculoskeletal-rehabilitation%2Fbmr00062), and thus it is important to look at core as a whole rather than individual muscles.

I have no issues with the comments you give, just more particular on the usage of causative and correlational terms and also the idea of core training. Those you gave, aren't really core training, it's just 'rectus abdominis' training. If the person has a anterior pelvic tilt, perhaps 'abdominials' crunches might help, but lean people with an posterior tilt, the rectus abdominis is already so strong. Further training the rectus abdominis, is just going to make the hip displacement worst. Side line, crunches are also not the best in activating the rectus abdominis, its the towel pike or the V up. Reference: https://journals.tdl.org/jhp/index.php/JHP/article/view/81 Other works have also examine a variety of exercises to provide a more holistic core training program, and this is of a proposed approach if you want to talk about core training (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d327/4587c01925e6b83cbc89cbf9e9eca554f82c.pdf)

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

7 hours ago, alistair said:

Sorry i got to disagree with you. for a person who is 80kg to maintain your muscles IF youre working out you need 160g. anything more adds to the growth. following appetite isnt a good solution. If I need to put on more muscle mass, I have to eat more than what my body requires. So even you have hit what your body needs for the day, you have to eat more if you want to grow

Sorry I got to disagree with you. You NEVER need to eat one gram more than what your body requires.

Instead, work out hard and your body WILL REQUIRE more food in response to the spur of growth.

Your appetite will take care of telling you: "hey, the muscles need to grow, gimme more food!"

You can also add a bunch of food before the body needs it, thinking that it will store it. But this is not a given: if your body is healthy and within certain limits it will simply not absorb but eliminate the food it does not need. Why fatten the body before it needs it? What is the rush?

.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Steve5380

xydboy · April 10, 2017

41 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

Sorry I got to disagree with you. You NEVER need to eat one gram more than what your body requires.

Instead, work out hard and your body WILL REQUIRE more food in response of the spur of growth.

Your appetite will take care of telling you: "hey, the muscles need to grow, gimme more food!"

You can also add a bunch of food before the body needs it, thinking that it will store it. But this is not a given: if your body is healthy and within certain limits it will simply not absorb but eliminate the food it does not need. Why fatten the body before it needs it? What is the rush?

3 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

The science of nutrition is not so clear cut as you paint it. The body does not treat food like the stock in a warehouse, and this ideal of calories-in vs. calories-out is only a gross approximation. You have no way to know if your body needs 160.0 g of protein and anything less will be insufficient.

The importance of diet can reach 100% in a famine with no food around, but in normal situations it is hard to put a number to it. You can gain much weight and get fat by only eating and having a sedentary life. So... why not FOLLOW YOUR APPETITE ??

Work out as much as you can, and be smart to make available to your body all the good foods it wants, as many times a day as possible.

Here "good" means natural foods instead of processed stuff, with a selection of the best proteins (eggs, chicken, whey protein, etc) and the best carbohydrates (leguminous like lentils and beans, green vegetables, squash, sweet potatoes, etc)

Appetite is a poor indicator. One of the key hormones produced that regulates appeitite is ghrelin (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Murphy16/publication/11618015_Ghrelin_Enhances_Appetite_and_Increases_Food_Intake_in_Humans/links/543bb1660cf2d6698be312a6/Ghrelin-Enhances-Appetite-and-Increases-Food-Intake-in-Humans.pdf). This hormone has been found to increase food intake in both obese and lean individuals (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n9/full/0803001a.html) and can be easily altered after a bout of resistance or aerobic exercise (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/296/1/R29.short). If you are looking to lose weight, then yes it would be alright. But if you are looking to gain weight, then this could be an issue.

In accordance to the International Society of Sports Nutrition position stands (authored by leading researchers in the field of sports nutrition), extra calories are required in conjunction to exercise. Even in the maintenance of body weight, many athletes are unable to hit the basic nutritional needs. Similarly, issues such as travel, training schedules, intense training and its suppression effect on appetite is also observed. Hence, tips such as frequent meals and even supplementation has been proposed (https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-7-7#Sec10)

Edited April 10, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

3 hours ago, xydboy said:

You sure when you said "belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone"? But the thing is that crunches doesn't tone up the core muscles. If it does, it would have reflected a change in the muscle tone. It didn't report this as per literature cited. Do bear in mind that these exercises you mentioned were not able to change body composition (body fat and muscle mass) reported in literature cited previously (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427). Explain how the powerlifters who have a belly and are able to lift heavy weight? Like i mentioned before, it is critical to know a difference between correlation and causation. What you mentioned is a causative effect and not a correlation effect. To support what I mentioned and word for word taken from the article,"Obesity as measured by increased BMI and body fat percentage is associated with decreased back and core muscular endurance". Reference: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2012/729283/ ...

After all we have written, it seems that still we are not on the same wavelength!

I wrote that "belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone" IN SOME SLIM INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR 30s and 40s WHO ARE STARTING TO SHOW A BELLY. Please don't quote me OUT OF CONTEXT!

Crunches don't tone the core muscles? Everything I write here is result of my experience, and not just something I read here and there.

Years ago I read that Madonna and other dancers maintained their amazing bodies... doing 1000 crunches daily among other exercises. Amazing! Not wanting to be less, I put the effort and I was able to do the same for a while, yes, 1000 crunches at once, 500 straight and 500 crossed (elbow touching the opposite knee). To this I added isometric exercises on my back holding the extended legs just clear of the floor for ... up to 5 minutes! As a result of all this, while over half the people of my age have a pot belly, mine is as flat as it gets and displays a good six-pack. I know very well that crunches tone up the core muscles. Top professional artists have the best trainers, and they would not do 1000 crunches for nothing!

None of your articles say that crunches are ineffective. What they argue is that other core exercises like towel-pikes and v-ups are more effective. Well, this is not important for us. If we do more crunches we will be as effective as doing fewer of the others. And in any case, I only mention crunches as an example of core exercise, since it is the most popular.

3 hours ago, xydboy said:

Explain how the powerlifters who have a belly and are able to lift heavy weight? Like i mentioned before, it is critical to know a difference between correlation and causation.

What is here to explain? Having a pot belly and lifting heavy weights are two separate things. NO necessary correlation, and NO necessary causation.

BTW, after many decades of professional work in engineering and data processing I know the difference between correlation and causation, and I don't see how this enters this conversation. Of course any advice has a purpose of causation: do THIS to attain THAT.

3 hours ago, xydboy said:

I have no issues with the comments you give, just more particular on the usage of causative and correlational terms and also the idea of core training. Those you gave, aren't really core training, it's just 'rectus abdominis' training. If the person has a anterior pelvic tilt, perhaps 'abdominials' crunches might help, but lean people with an posterior tilt, the rectus abdominis is already so strong.

I don't remember seeing a lean person with a belly having a POSTERIOR pelvic tilt. Instead, it is the ANTERIOR the one that increases the appearance of a belly, the typical "lazy" posture. And, as you yourself wrote, what helps here are the abdominal exercises like the crunches, and they are part of the training of the core. I will say without reservations that:

If a young skinny guy starts working out and eating more to build muscles and he is diligent doing many crunches or equivalent abdominal exercises, he will NOT put on an ugly pot belly in his 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s but will retain an unchanged good posture. And once he learns to work out, he will find other exercises for the core like stiff-legged deadlifts and he will know how to avoid any pelvic tilts. This assumes of course that he will not get carried away eating too much trying to become a muscle man and then starts putting on layers over layers of tummy fat, and by then be so addicted to food that he won't be able to change.

.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Steve5380

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

2 hours ago, xydboy said:

Appetite is a poor indicator. One of the key hormones produced that regulates appeitite is ghrelin (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin_Murphy16/publication/11618015_Ghrelin_Enhances_Appetite_and_Increases_Food_Intake_in_Humans/links/543bb1660cf2d6698be312a6/Ghrelin-Enhances-Appetite-and-Increases-Food-Intake-in-Humans.pdf). This hormone has been found to increase food intake in both obese and lean individuals (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n9/full/0803001a.html) and can be easily altered after a bout of resistance or aerobic exercise (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/296/1/R29.short). If you are looking to lose weight, then yes it would be alright. But if you are looking to gain weight, then this could be an issue.

Appetite is our natural guide in our job to feed the body. Lack of appetite or too much of it is a clear indicator of illness.

So, if we are healthy, we should TRUST our appetite.

There are so many differences among bodies that mathematical formulas mostly help the professionals of "Sport and Human Performance" to make a living.

For us common people there is ONE golden rule: eat mostly healthy food, with few exceptions.

We don't need to concern ourselves with ANY of these scientific dissertations you like to quote. Those may help the Olympic gold medalists.

When we do sufficient exercising, it is easy for us to keep a regular feedback using a scale, or better, the mirror:

If we are too thin, weight too little -> eat MORE.

If we are to fat, weight too much -> eat LESS

Steve5380 · April 10, 2017

3 hours ago, xydboy said:

Appetite is a poor indicator. One of the key hormones produced that regulates appeitite is ghrelin and can be easily altered after a bout of resistance or aerobic exercise . If you are looking to lose weight, then yes it would be alright. But if you are looking to gain weight, then this could be an issue.

Here I quote your article (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/296/1/R29.short):

"Abstract

Resistance (muscle strengthening) exercise is a key component of exercise recommendations for weight control, yet very little is known about the effects of resistance exercise on appetite. We investigated the effects of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger and circulating levels of the gut hormones acylated ghrelin and peptide YY (PYY). Eleven healthy male students: age 21.1 ± 0.3 yr, body mass index 23.1 ± 0.4 kg/m², maximum oxygen uptake 62.1 ± 1.8 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹(means ± SE) undertook three, 8-h trials, 1) resistance exercise: a 90-min free weight lifting session followed by a 6.5-h rest period, 2) aerobic exercise: a 60-min run followed by a 7-h rest period, 3) control: an 8-h rest, in a randomized crossover design. Meals were provided 2 and 5 h into each trial. Hunger ratings and plasma concentrations of acylated ghrelin and PYY were measured throughout. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects for hunger, acylated ghrelin, and PYY, indicating suppressed hunger and acylated ghrelin during aerobic and resistance exercise and increased PYY during aerobic exercise. A significant trial effect was observed for PYY, indicating higher concentrations on the aerobic exercise trial than the other trials (8 h area under the curve: control 1,411 ± 110, resistance 1,381 ± 97, aerobic 1,750 ± 170 pg/ml 8 h). These findings suggest ghrelin and PYY may regulate appetite during and after exercise, but further research is required to establish whether exercise-induced changes in ghrelin and PYY influence subsequent food intake."

Very interesting. These results were obtained DURING THE EXERCISE, "but further research is required to establish whether exercise-induced changes in ghrelin and PYY influence subsequent food intake." In other words, they don't know without "further research" if these changes stick in normal life.

Since on average we spend like 23 of the 24 hours of the day without doing those kind of exercises, the above results may have an insignificant effect in the way our appetite guides our food intake. All we need to do is NOT EAT during the exercise, and our appetite should be a fine and good indicator.

xydboy · April 11, 2017

21 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

After all we have written, it seems that still we are not on the same wavelength!

I wrote that "belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone" IN SOME SLIM INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR 30s and 40s WHO ARE STARTING TO SHOW A BELLY. Please don't quote me OUT OF CONTEXT!

Crunches don't tone the core muscles? Everything I write here is result of my experience, and not just something I read here and there.

Years ago I read that Madonna and other dancers maintained their amazing bodies... doing 1000 crunches daily among other exercises. Amazing! Not wanting to be less, I put the effort and I was able to do the same for a while, yes, 1000 crunches at once, 500 straight and 500 crossed (elbow touching the opposite knee). To this I added isometric exercises on my back holding the extended legs just clear of the floor for ... up to 5 minutes! As a result of all this, while over half the people of my age have a pot belly, mine is as flat as it gets and displays a good six-pack. I know very well that crunches tone up the core muscles. Top professional artists have the best trainers, and they would not do 1000 crunches for nothing!

None of your articles say that crunches are ineffective. What they argue is that other core exercises like towel-pikes and v-ups are more effective. Well, this is not important for us. If we do more crunches we will be as effective as doing fewer of the others. And in any case, I only mention crunches as an example of core exercise, since it is the most popular.

What is here to explain? Having a pot belly and lifting heavy weights are two separate things. NO necessary correlation, and NO necessary causation.

BTW, after many decades of professional work in engineering and data processing I know the difference between correlation and causation, and I don't see how this enters this conversation. Of course any advice has a purpose of causation: do THIS to attain THAT.

I don't remember seeing a lean person with a belly having a POSTERIOR pelvic tilt. Instead, it is the ANTERIOR the one that increases the appearance of a belly, the typical "lazy" posture. And, as you yourself wrote, what helps here are the abdominal exercises like the crunches, and they are part of the training of the core. I will say without reservations that:

If a young skinny guy starts working out and eating more to build muscles and he is diligent doing many crunches or equivalent abdominal exercises, he will NOT put on an ugly pot belly in his 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s but will retain an unchanged good posture. And once he learns to work out, he will find other exercises for the core like stiff-legged deadlifts and he will know how to avoid any pelvic tilts. This assumes of course that he will not get carried away eating too much trying to become a muscle man and then starts putting on layers over layers of tummy fat, and by then be so addicted to food that he won't be able to change.

.

If experience is key, then we don't need to educate people to become personal trainers! Your sample size of n=1 and unsupported "celebrity fitness regime" is similar to what others have done and its the very reason how the industry is driven to doom. So do tell me how then do you examine a posterior or anterior tilt? What did you do, since you sound so professionally trained through experience. :whistle: And oh please...they get top trainers? Who tells you that? Madonna trains 6 days a week, and you attribute to the crunches to getting the abs? Given the variety of variables exposed, you attribute the toned body to just this? are you serious? or is it because these people said so and you take it whole sale without giving some thoughts about it. As a professional well versed in science (or since you have claimed to have lots of experience in exercise), you should know about controlling of variables and how to attribute a cause to and effect.

And yes, one articles I mentioned about crunches being ineffective in altering body composition was cited here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427). The exercise protocol was also mentioned in the article. If you read the original full article, The results section clearly written,"There was no significant main effect in total body fat percent between groups assessed by DXA, F(1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.992 and in android fat percent between groups, F(1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.971." Furthermore, the conclusion wrote, "In conclusion, abdominal exercise training was effective to increase abdominal strength but was not effective to decrease various measures of abdominal fat. Some individuals attempt to reduce their waistline by solely performing abdominal exercises possibly because of claims made by various abdominal equipment advertisements. The information obtained from this study can help people to understand that abdominal exercise alone is not sufficient to reduce waistline or subcutaneous abdominal fat. It is likely necessary to include aerobic exercise along with reducing energy intake to have more favorable changes in body fat percentage."

Do have a read at the original full article. Just science-hub the article for free full access.

Its obvious that the general population would have a mixture of anterior and posterior pelvic tilt. This is also evident in a population of people who suffered form lower back pain (http://medicine.tums.ac.ir:803/Users/reza_mazaheri/Journal club/Journal 88-05-12/The role of an integrated back stability program in patients with chronic low back pain.pdf). People can come in with hypolordotic or lyperlordotic posture, so we cannot make a general assumptions just by mere observations with your naked eye without proper analysis (if you have done any analysis or measurements, please do voice out). Most sedentary people who spend a lot of time sitting all exhibit posterior pelvic tilt (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_OSullivan2/publication/7788564_The_relationship_beween_posture_and_back_muscle_endurance_in_industrial_workers_with_flexion-related_low_back_pain/links/0deec51618922b6dde000000.pdf), particularly in males (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpts/27/5/27_jpts-2014-772/_pdf). Results also show that the posterior pelvic tilt persisted, even after returning to the upright standing posture following 30 min of sitting (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/indhealth/49/4/49_MS1230/_pdf).

21 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Here I quote your article (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/296/1/R29.short):

"Abstract

Resistance (muscle strengthening) exercise is a key component of exercise recommendations for weight control, yet very little is known about the effects of resistance exercise on appetite. We investigated the effects of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger and circulating levels of the gut hormones acylated ghrelin and peptide YY (PYY). Eleven healthy male students: age 21.1 ± 0.3 yr, body mass index 23.1 ± 0.4 kg/m², maximum oxygen uptake 62.1 ± 1.8 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹(means ± SE) undertook three, 8-h trials, 1) resistance exercise: a 90-min free weight lifting session followed by a 6.5-h rest period, 2) aerobic exercise: a 60-min run followed by a 7-h rest period, 3) control: an 8-h rest, in a randomized crossover design. Meals were provided 2 and 5 h into each trial. Hunger ratings and plasma concentrations of acylated ghrelin and PYY were measured throughout. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects for hunger, acylated ghrelin, and PYY, indicating suppressed hunger and acylated ghrelin during aerobic and resistance exercise and increased PYY during aerobic exercise. A significant trial effect was observed for PYY, indicating higher concentrations on the aerobic exercise trial than the other trials (8 h area under the curve: control 1,411 ± 110, resistance 1,381 ± 97, aerobic 1,750 ± 170 pg/ml 8 h). These findings suggest ghrelin and PYY may regulate appetite during and after exercise, but further research is required to establish whether exercise-induced changes in ghrelin and PYY influence subsequent food intake."

Very interesting. These results were obtained DURING THE EXERCISE, "but further research is required to establish whether exercise-induced changes in ghrelin and PYY influence subsequent food intake." In other words, they don't know without "further research" if these changes stick in normal life.

Since on average we spend like 23 of the 24 hours of the day without doing those kind of exercises, the above results may have an insignificant effect in the way our appetite guides our food intake. All we need to do is NOT EAT during the exercise, and our appetite should be a fine and good indicator.

Please have a read at the original article. The motivation or objective in the main paper clearly showed,"we evaluated the effects of resistance exercise and aerobic exercise on meal-stimulated changes in hunger, acylated ghrelin, and total PYY at two time points (2 h and 5 h postexercise) to gain insights into the longer-term effects of exercise on these parameters." Using your own words, "the decades of professional work in engineering and data processing" should have groomed you to read articles in full right? If you need more articles on appetite and these hormones please let me know. I was just speaking to the PI of the lab conducting these related research recently actually..

Edited April 11, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 11, 2017

5 hours ago, xydboy said:

If experience is key, then we don't need to educate people to become personal trainers! Your sample size of n=1 and unsupported "celebrity fitness regime" is similar to what others have done and its the very reason how the industry is driven to doom. So do tell me how then do you examine a posterior or anterior tilt? What did you do, since you sound so professionally trained through experience. And oh please...they get top trainers? Who tells you that? Madonna trains 6 days a week, and you attribute to the crunches to getting the abs? Given the variety of variables exposed, you attribute the toned body to just this? are you serious? or is it because these people said so and you take it whole sale without giving some thoughts about it. As a professional well versed in science (or since you have claimed to have lots of experience in exercise), you should know about controlling of variables and how to attribute a cause to and effect.

----

In any field, the best teachings are carefully weighted by the personal experience of the teachers, and the experience on themselves is a sample of n=1. They have also the experience of what they observe in others, but at least they have FELT what they claim. This is why in athletics, art, science, the best coaches are former outstanding champions or professionals of their skill, not individuals who have simply read some books and articles. When I say that abdominal exercises have helped me to improve the muscular tone and keep a good posture without letting my belly stick out, so it is! I have personally verified that there is cause -> effect, and it is not bullshit. It may not work for everybody, and this is why I have expressly reserved by advice to relatively slim people who are concerned about developing a belly, and I have correctly identified in their case that this can happen by a lack of muscle tone rather than accumulation of belly fat, and that this lack of muscle tone can be avoided by doing crunches or equivalent abdominal exercises.

I have read several times testimonials of professionals who need to have perfect bodies, doing these exercises, the "1000 crunches", both from them and their fancy trainers. I don't think this is pure fantasy and I don't go around "controlling variables", even when anybody can fall for a myth. If the crunches are not so effective as they think they are, this still does not render them useless. I don't go around measuring people's pelvic tilts, but I know well what this means and I can make valid judgments about where they come from and how to influence them.

And what industry is driven to doom? What we see in the fitness industry is boom, not doom. The public is bombarded with "science" that wants to discredit the traditional ways and push new "scientific discoveries" about the superiority of this-and-that, a superiority that may be real but not significant enough to discredit the traditional ways. The same is true about nutrition, were new scientific formulas and diets try to divert the public towards commercial products. This may be good for champions, but not very relevant for the general public. There is a treasure of new protein products, but I still boil the eggs like my grandmother used to do.

.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Steve5380

Steve5380 · April 11, 2017

5 hours ago, xydboy said:

And yes, one articles I mentioned about crunches being ineffective in altering body composition was cited here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427). The exercise protocol was also mentioned in the article. If you read the original full article, The results section clearly written,"There was no significant main effect in total body fat percent between groups assessed by DXA, F(1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.992 and in android fat percent between groups, F(1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.971." Furthermore, the conclusion wrote, "In conclusion, abdominal exercise training was effective to increase abdominal strength but was not effective to decrease various measures of abdominal fat. Some individuals attempt to reduce their waistline by solely performing abdominal exercises possibly because of claims made by various abdominal equipment advertisements. The information obtained from this study can help people to understand that abdominal exercise alone is not sufficient to reduce waistline or subcutaneous abdominal fat. It is likely necessary to include aerobic exercise along with reducing energy intake to have more favorable changes in body fat percentage."

Do have a read at the original full article. Just science-hub the article for free full access.

I tried to science-hub the article but it gave no results. But it does not matter, it is not relevant to this matter. This topic is about skinny people who want to change to lean/buff, not fat people who want to lose weight. Crunches are not a way to reduce body fat, not even around the belly. Instead they strengthen the abdominal muscles and give them tone.(how many times do I have to write this?) And this is not a push by the equipment manufacturers, but a traditional practice of exercising.

speedoluver · April 12, 2017

i am trying to summarise the discussion so far -> whole body workout to build muscles and burn calories with strong core for good standing and sitting posture will have an effect on the belly.

for skinny fat belly people, is it better to start eating clean or eat as much as we can?

xydboy · April 12, 2017

18 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

I tried to science-hub the article but it gave no results. But it does not matter, it is not relevant to this matter. This topic is about skinny people who want to change to lean/buff, not fat people who want to lose weight. Crunches are not a way to reduce body fat, not even around the belly. Instead they strengthen the abdominal muscles and give them tone.(how many times do I have to write this?) And this is not a push by the equipment manufacturers, but a traditional practice of exercising.

The idea is this, if it tones then why isn't there a change in muscle mass for the torso as reflected by DXA the gold standard in body composition measurement? Explain why? Its the same regardless fat or lean people who do the "core exercises" as you claim.

xydboy · April 12, 2017

19 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

In any field, the best teachings are carefully weighted by the personal experience of the teachers, and the experience on themselves is a sample of n=1. They have also the experience of what they observe in others, but at least they have FELT what they claim. This is why in athletics, art, science, the best coaches are former outstanding champions or professionals of their skill, not individuals who have simply read some books and articles. When I say that abdominal exercises have helped me to improve the muscular tone and keep a good posture without letting my belly stick out, so it is! I have personally verified that there is cause -> effect, and it is not bullshit. It may not work for everybody, and this is why I have expressly reserved by advice to relatively slim people who are concerned about developing a belly, and I have correctly identified in their case that this can happen by a lack of muscle tone rather than accumulation of belly fat, and that this lack of muscle tone can be avoided by doing crunches or equivalent abdominal exercises.

I have read several times testimonials of professionals who need to have perfect bodies, doing these exercises, the "1000 crunches", both from them and their fancy trainers. I don't think this is pure fantasy and I don't go around "controlling variables", even when anybody can fall for a myth. If the crunches are not so effective as they think they are, this still does not render them useless. I don't go around measuring people's pelvic tilts, but I know well what this means and I can make valid judgments about where they come from and how to influence them.

And what industry is driven to doom? What we see in the fitness industry is boom, not doom. The public is bombarded with "science" that wants to discredit the traditional ways and push new "scientific discoveries" about the superiority of this-and-that, a superiority that may be real but not significant enough to discredit the traditional ways. The same is true about nutrition, were new scientific formulas and diets try to divert the public towards commercial products. This may be good for champions, but not very relevant for the general public. There is a treasure of new protein products, but I still boil the eggs like my grandmother used to do.

.

If you don't measure them, then on what basis can your judgment be right? I question the validity of your observation/judgment. Everyone can have their own reason or rationale to say anything, but the move towards evidence-based practice is the way to go. This practice is widely observed in both the realms of medicine, but also in exercise prescription. And this is what we should be preaching. Fitness professionals are looking at evidence to support our rationale. Hence we always talk about the highest level of evidence: strong meta analysis or reviews. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, everyone has one. So what makes yours more valid than others? What makes my prof's words more valid than others? What makes mine more valid than yours too? Hence we always rely on structured findings based on published research to guide our actions. Hence I didn't make any claims. I barely state what was found in research to guide and give instructions a sense of "direction and purpose". We don't do things just because we see something observed in one or few people, and we just apply it across the board. More so, just because many people are doing something or some exercise is "popular" due to its claims, it doesn't make that rationale right. If i'm not wrong, its bandwagon fallacy, where the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

So to top things up, even reviews that examined the bunch of literature on core muscle activity clearly wrote,"The available evidence suggests that strength and conditioning specialists should focus on implementing multijoint free weight exercises, rather than core-specific exercises, to adequately train the core muscles in their athletes and clients." (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Martuscello/publication/236094217_Systematic_Review_of_Core_Muscle_Activity_During_Physical_Fitness_Exercises/links/569c0b4008aeeea985a5ad52.pdf)

Just FYI on the appetite (didn't see you comment anything on it), I have also chatted with a post doctoral research fellow from A*STAR about it and his views were no different with what I have posted earlier.

xydboy · April 12, 2017

2 hours ago, speedoluver said:

i am trying to summarise the discussion so far -> whole body workout to build muscles and burn calories with strong core for good standing and sitting posture will have an effect on the belly.

for skinny fat belly people, is it better to start eating clean or eat as much as we can?

Better in what sense? If you are looking at increasing muscle mass, then you would need to eat more together with resistance exercise. Most people do not eat enough. I have examined sufficient amount of lean people (even for at least 1 person in the forum who claims he eats a lot, but in reality he doesn't) to make that bold statement. If you are talking about cutting, then don't bother. You don't have enough calories to begin with. Most people are so worried about nutrition when it comes to gaining weight but when it comes to working out in the gym, the standard doesn't translate.

Steve5380 · April 12, 2017

40 minutes ago, xydboy said:

The idea is this, if it tones then why isn't there a change in muscle mass for the torso as reflected by DXA the gold standard in body composition measurement? Explain why? Its the same regardless fat or lean people who do the "core exercises" as you claim.

Muscle tone is not an effect of more muscle mass. It is simply the state of the muscle in the interval between completely relaxed and completely contracted. When a muscle gains tone (that is a higher resting contraction) you may not measure an increase of mass.

From Wikipedia:

"In physiology, medicine, and anatomy, muscle tone (residual muscle tension or tonus) is the continuous and passive partial contraction of the muscles, or the muscle's resistance to passive stretch during resting state.^[1] It helps maintain posture and declines during REM sleep.^[c

Resting muscle tone varies along a bell shaped curve. Low tone is experienced as "floppy, mushy, dead weight" and high tone is experienced as "light, tight, and strong". Muscles with high tone are not necessarily strong and muscles with low tone are not necessarily weak."

Even children can have "hipotomia", but there is a tendency as we age to lose muscle tone. This can explain why slim uncles may start showing a belly. The solution can be simple: abdominal exercises. Even being conscious of a belly and keeping the tummy tucked in will help. But it is even better to cultivate a good muscle tone of the core by doing the appropriate exercises, and all the varieties of crunches are some of these.

xydboy · April 12, 2017

29 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

Muscle tone is not an effect of more muscle mass. It is simply the state of the muscle in the interval between completely relaxed and completely contracted. When a muscle gains tone (that is a higher resting contraction) you may not measure an increase of mass.

From Wikipedia:

"In physiology, medicine, and anatomy, muscle tone (residual muscle tension or tonus) is the continuous and passive partial contraction of the muscles, or the muscle's resistance to passive stretch during resting state.^[1] It helps maintain posture and declines during REM sleep.^[c

Resting muscle tone varies along a bell shaped curve. Low tone is experienced as "floppy, mushy, dead weight" and high tone is experienced as "light, tight, and strong". Muscles with high tone are not necessarily strong and muscles with low tone are not necessarily weak."

Even children can have "hipotomia", but there is a tendency as we age to lose muscle tone. This can explain why slim uncles may start showing a belly. The solution can be simple: abdominal exercises. Even being conscious of a belly and keeping the tummy tucked in will help. But it is even better to cultivate a good muscle tone of the core by doing the appropriate exercises, and all the varieties of crunches are some of these.

So you mean after performing 1000 repetitions for such a long duration of time there is no substantial hypertrophy response? That's unlike a response of a muscle right? Given typical hypertrophy-oriented exercises can be done in stability/core exercises (http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/articles/mechanisms_of_muscle_hypertrophy.pdf), and how low load high volume exercises are able to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012033); muscle hypertrophy can still occur even in the mentioned repetitions you mentioned. Comparison between trained and untrained individuals demonstrate a marked difference in hypertrophy of the rectus abdominis in males (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015858) and also in females (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221853950_Marked_Effects_of_Pilates_on_the_Abdominal_Muscles_A_Longitudinal_Magnetic_Resonance_Imaging_Study).

Edited April 12, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 12, 2017

41 minutes ago, xydboy said:

So you mean after performing 1000 repetitions for such a long duration of time there is no substantial hypertrophy response? That's unlike a response of a muscle right? Given typical hypertrophy-oriented exercises can be done in stability/core exercises ......etc. etc......

No. I never meant that. I was talking about adequate muscle tone, not 1000 crunches. You can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches. Do isometric exercises, hold your tummy tucked in for long periods, and your nervous system will adapt to keep the muscles more contracted. Or do the 1000 crunches and your abdominal muscle will get stronger. What is the issue with hypertrophy?

xydboy · April 12, 2017

42 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

No. I never meant that. I was talking about adequate muscle tone, not 1000 crunches. You can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches. Do isometric exercises, hold your tummy tucked in for long periods, and your nervous system will adapt to keep the muscles more contracted. Or do the 1000 crunches and your abdominal muscle will get stronger. What is the issue with hypertrophy?

Makes me wonder if you really know how muscle physiology is like..hmm...Isometric exercises, concentric exercises, its still a form of voluntary stimulation of muscle through the action potential mechanism, triggering the calcium ions release (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395997001024). This mechanism still would result in adaptive response in the muscle triggering muscle protein synthesis.

Steve5380 · April 12, 2017

2 hours ago, xydboy said:

Makes me wonder if you really know how muscle physiology is like..hmm...Isometric exercises, concentric exercises, its still a form of voluntary stimulation of muscle through the action potential mechanism, triggering the calcium ions release (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395997001024). This mechanism still would result in adaptive response in the muscle triggering muscle protein synthesis.

LOL! It looks like you want to prevail with a flooding of "scientific" articles and complicated terminology! But I'm not impressed.

Isometric exercises can tone muscles. I don't know why you have a problem with this. Here is one of many SIMPLE articles about this:

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/toning/how-isometrics-tightens-and-tones.html

"Using isometrics is a great way to tighten and tone the muscles in your body. Rather than working hard to pump a ton of iron or implementing cardio to work your muscles hard, isometrics is a way to work your muscles slowly and efficiently in order to make them tighter and more toned. Though there is still some pain associated with isometrics, you may prefer to do these workouts if you do not want to go to the gym or you simply don't have a lot of time to work off your fat and tone your muscles. When used alongside a healthy diet and plenty of rest, isometrics can help you to tighten and tone everything from your abdominal muscles to your biceps."

Is this too plain and simple for you? Too much of a beginner's blabber? Not enough science and cause-effect with tightly controlled metrics?

I do plenty of core training that includes isometrics in my Aikido classes, and the teacher is not a naive in body training.

Steve5380 · April 13, 2017

10 hours ago, speedoluver said:

i am trying to summarise the discussion so far -> whole body workout to build muscles and burn calories with strong core for good standing and sitting posture will have an effect on the belly.

for skinny fat belly people, is it better to start eating clean or eat as much as we can?

Yes, you can summarize like that.

For skinny people with a big belly the solution is not to eat less. After all, skinny is skinny and for this food is good. But it is important to look into the reason for the belly. Some people have genetic predisposition to build up fat around the belly, but this is when they have plenty of fat. Especially unhealthy is to have "visceral fat", that is, fat around the organs in the abdomen. A "fatty liver" is a dangerous condition that needs to be treated. But assuming a healthy skinny person with a belly, the first step to take is to get familiar with exercises for the abdomen reading plenty about them, analyze one's posture, and doing those that can be done at home without special equipment. And then see the result.

xydboy · April 13, 2017

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

LOL! It looks like you want to prevail with a flooding of "scientific" articles and complicated terminology! But I'm not impressed.

Isometric exercises can tone muscles. I don't know why you have a problem with this. Here is one of many SIMPLE articles about this:

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/toning/how-isometrics-tightens-and-tones.html

"Using isometrics is a great way to tighten and tone the muscles in your body. Rather than working hard to pump a ton of iron or implementing cardio to work your muscles hard, isometrics is a way to work your muscles slowly and efficiently in order to make them tighter and more toned. Though there is still some pain associated with isometrics, you may prefer to do these workouts if you do not want to go to the gym or you simply don't have a lot of time to work off your fat and tone your muscles. When used alongside a healthy diet and plenty of rest, isometrics can help you to tighten and tone everything from your abdominal muscles to your biceps."

Is this too plain and simple for you? Too much of a beginner's blabber? Not enough science and cause-effect with tightly controlled metrics?

I do plenty of core training that includes isometrics in my Aikido classes, and the teacher is not a naive in body training.

Rather it shows your ignorance in muscle physiology and the idea of tone. If you want to talk about tone, you at least should know the factors that influence muscle tone. Your website versus published definition..my goodness. I really hope you didn't cite websites or wikipedia for your dissertation. Anyone off the road can write in a website and say anything. Validated or not remains a question (No author's name, no date, no cited data, no citations of definitions. A reference book is even better than this!). Guidelines across the globe in exercise science and medicine have always advocated the usage of published findings. Its a life you are handling, and the amount of consideration one place demonstrates the amount of respect and the dedication in improving the lives of others.

Just to enlighten you, muscle tone (tonus or general tone) can be broken down further into viscoelastic tone and contractile activity. Within viscoelastic tone, factors such as elastic and viscoelastic stiffness forms a relationship to muscle tone. Contractile activity factors include contracture (no EMG activity), as well as pathological and normal healthy electrogenic contraction. Definition of tone as defined by Simons & Mense (1998) in their own words,"Resting muscle tone (in the specific sense) is the elastic and/or viscoelastic stiffness in the absence of contractile activity (motor unit activity and/or contracture)." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395997001024) or even in classic definition by Foster (1892), in which, muscle tone is defined as the resistance of a limb to passive movement, where the resistance arises from passive and involuntary active forces (http://jn.physiology.org/content/96/5/2678#ref-50)

If you want to talk about contraction, then contraction would still involve the interaction between the calcium ions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130183) and the involvement in muscle development (http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/356667). And regardless of the type of muscle contraction (isometric, or isotonic exercises), skeletal muscle growth is still taking place, both in remodeling and also growth itself (http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/5/1613.short). This refutes your earlier statement when you said,"you can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches. Do isometric exercises, hold your tummy tucked in for long periods, and your nervous system will adapt to keep the muscles more contracted. Or do the 1000 crunches and your abdominal muscle will get stronger."

In recent works investigating postural muscle tone, it was mentioned,"The postural muscle tone plays an important role in maintaining body balance and viscoelastic properties of muscles are important during active movements (dynamic behaviour of viscoelastic materials) (Fung, 1981). In the latter case, resistance to the stretch of antagonist muscles is proportional to the speed of the stretch, the characteristics of the natural oscillation of the muscle (frequency), the dissipative loss of mechanical energy in the muscle, and the mass of the muscle (Remington, 1955; Athanasiou and Natoli, 2008)." So in other words, the characteristics of the muscle itself, contraction speed, rate coding, muscle fibre inherent properties, mass of the muscle belly, do play a role in developing tone itself. Hence you cannot just simply say to tone, do these exercise, to strengthen, do these exercises. It just doesn't work that way. A contraction is a contraction.

I do not blame you for tone is one of the widely misunderstood terms. However, if you want to talk about something, make sure you have solid proof and also be sure you know what you are saying. Showing how much training you do, how good your teacher is, has nothing to do with the explanation and understanding of the right terminology. Just FYI, coaching pedagogy research have demonstrated that experience doesn't relate to the coach having the right knowledge. Tests were conducted and experience coaches didn't even get those simple questions right. If you are interested I can cite you that article. Regardless, if you want to put forth a discussion, at least have a thorough understanding of the topic first. Do not attempt to smoke.

Edited April 13, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 13, 2017

12 hours ago, xydboy said:

Rather it shows your ignorance in muscle physiology and the idea of tone. If you want to talk about tone, you at least should know the factors that influence muscle tone. Your website versus published definition..my goodness. I really hope you didn't cite websites or wikipedia for your dissertation. Anyone off the road can write in a website and say anything. Validated or not remains a question (No author's name, no date, no cited data, no citations of definitions. A reference book is even better than this!). Guidelines across the globe in exercise science and medicine have always advocated the usage of published findings. Its a life you are handling, and the amount of consideration one place demonstrates the amount of respect and the dedication in improving the lives of others.

Just to enlighten you, muscle tone (tonus or general tone) can be broken down further into viscoelastic tone and contractile activity. Within viscoelastic tone, factors such as elastic and viscoelastic stiffness forms a relationship to muscle tone. Contractile activity factors include contracture (no EMG activity), as well as pathological and normal healthy electrogenic contraction. Definition of tone as defined by Simons & Mense (1998) in their own words,"Resting muscle tone (in the specific sense) is the elastic and/or viscoelastic stiffness in the absence of contractile activity (motor unit activity and/or contracture)." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304395997001024) or even in classic definition by Foster (1892), in which, muscle tone is defined as the resistance of a limb to passive movement, where the resistance arises from passive and involuntary active forces (http://jn.physiology.org/content/96/5/2678#ref-50)

---

I do not blame you for tone is one of the widely misunderstood terms. However, if you want to talk about something, make sure you have solid proof and also be sure you know what you are saying. ...

I don't mind your condescending and patronizing writing. I understand that you are upset by me not buying into your "scientific dissertations". But this is your misunderstanding. I don't invalidate the research into muscle anatomy, I just find it out of place here. This is not a forum for dissertations and articles that are so "special" to be reserved with only an abstract been given. They should not be the material to answer simple general questions. Here we try to help other members with guidance that has some minimum of expertise, without having to be expert scientists in the subject.

We don't need to know the different types of muscle tone to understand what it is and apply it intelligently. You don't need to know the physics of solid state to use your electronics. There is a saying about much incomplete knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge, and this can be the case of all the scientific names you mention without knowing why muscles behave the way they do, a knowledge that has always a limit that needs to be explored further.

Muscle tone is the amount of muscle contraction at rest (meaning the muscle left alone, not its relaxation during sleep). We can elicit change in this tone, either increasing or decreasing it, and this is very, very important in gaining physical skills. We aim to adjust the tone of muscles like we change up or down the tension of strings in a string instrument to tune it. For example, I am working for years in relaxing the muscles of the upper body (reducing their tone) for the martial art Aikido. Aikido requires good relaxation and steady breathing to make the opponent lose equilibrium and throw him down using the lower body (the "hara") with strong hip movements. Working out with weights my shoulders and arms are strong and I wrongly use them to make force, to fight. But to fight is not the goal of Aikido like it is in wrestling. So I am learning to CHANGE THE TONE of my muscles to be relaxed. I don't care if I relax the "viscoelastic" or the "contractile" tone, but I care to better walk with shoulders completely down, shoulder blades more close and chest out. And this progressively becomes involuntary by the adaptation of the TONE.

Going back to the topic: how should a skinny person increase his body size without concern about showing a belly, or what should a slim person with a belly do to get rid of it.

I repeat:

For the former, work out with weights and eat much good food to fuel the body's growth, being diligent to include exercises for the core muscles, especially the abdominal.

For the latter: find out WHY you have this belly sticking out to make sure it is not a health problem. Contract your abdominal muscles and see if it goes away. If so, try to keep them contracted as much as you can, while walking, sitting, driving, and increase their tone through these ISOMETRIC contractions and also with dynamic exercises like crunches.

BTW, isometric exercises don't deserve to be put down. They can be very convenient to do in situations where we cannot exercise with weights, like at home, in the office, on vacation during long flights and in an hotel.

xydboy · April 15, 2017

On 4/14/2017 at 3:45 AM, Steve5380 said:

I don't mind your condescending and patronizing writing. I understand that you are upset by me not buying into your "scientific dissertations". But this is your misunderstanding. I don't invalidate the research into muscle anatomy, I just find it out of place here. This is not a forum for dissertations and articles that are so "special" to be reserved with only an abstract been given. They should not be the material to answer simple general questions. Here we try to help other members with guidance that has some minimum of expertise, without having to be expert scientists in the subject.

We don't need to know the different types of muscle tone to understand what it is and apply it intelligently. You don't need to know the physics of solid state to use your electronics. There is a saying about much incomplete knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge, and this can be the case of all the scientific names you mention without knowing why muscles behave the way they do, a knowledge that has always a limit that needs to be explored further.

Muscle tone is the amount of muscle contraction at rest (meaning the muscle left alone, not its relaxation during sleep). We can elicit change in this tone, either increasing or decreasing it, and this is very, very important in gaining physical skills. We aim to adjust the tone of muscles like we change up or down the tension of strings in a string instrument to tune it. For example, I am working for years in relaxing the muscles of the upper body (reducing their tone) for the martial art Aikido. Aikido requires good relaxation and steady breathing to make the opponent lose equilibrium and throw him down using the lower body (the "hara") with strong hip movements. Working out with weights my shoulders and arms are strong and I wrongly use them to make force, to fight. But to fight is not the goal of Aikido like it is in wrestling. So I am learning to CHANGE THE TONE of my muscles to be relaxed. I don't care if I relax the "viscoelastic" or the "contractile" tone, but I care to better walk with shoulders completely down, shoulder blades more close and chest out. And this progressively becomes involuntary by the adaptation of the TONE.

Going back to the topic: how should a skinny person increase his body size without concern about showing a belly, or what should a slim person with a belly do to get rid of it.

I repeat:

For the former, work out with weights and eat much good food to fuel the body's growth, being diligent to include exercises for the core muscles, especially the abdominal.

For the latter: find out WHY you have this belly sticking out to make sure it is not a health problem. Contract your abdominal muscles and see if it goes away. If so, try to keep them contracted as much as you can, while walking, sitting, driving, and increase their tone through these ISOMETRIC contractions and also with dynamic exercises like crunches.

BTW, isometric exercises don't deserve to be put down. They can be very convenient to do in situations where we cannot exercise with weights, like at home, in the office, on vacation during long flights and in an hotel.

In terms of the statement in bold, its not tone, but neural control. Poor posture caused by synergistic dominance and inhibited neural patterns is what you observed. Nothing about muscle tone. The statement should be corrected as "I am learning to change the neural patterns of the muscles of my posture....And this progressively becomes involuntary in nature." Yes you don't need to know the terms, I don't expect you to know them as well. You are limited by the amount of information you have. But its about acknowledging your limitations and learning from others who have (slightly) greater knowledge than you. I'm not someone who is expert in this aspect, but muscle metabolism has been my area of research for the past few years. Hence, I am correcting the misconceptions you have.

From "But a pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles." to the mentioned statement in underlined. Goes a long way to clarify statements made. Good to be wary on how we say certain things. I recognise your help and like I said before, everyone is open to helping others. But when in doubt, its good to make referrals rather than posting information that one does not know much about. Yes, we can never be experts in everything, but its about posting responsibly. Its a life that matters and as a responsible "forumer", we should really think twice before saying anything, especially in something which we are not familiar about. And my philosophy is to give the utmost respect to the topic on hand and to answer to the best of my knowledge. If you haven't realised, I do not usually post such references. Its usually for the lay. I only do that for people like you when I get into debates/discussions because I don't say things without proper proof. Its my field of expertise, and its to do justice to the topic and to support my claims. Simultaneously I'm also showing that I don't pluck things from any tom dick and harry sources, but backed by scientific data and research. As mentioned before, its a move to evidence-based practice globally and its my duty to practice as I preach as an exercise physiologist/researcher/master trainer.

Steve5380 · April 15, 2017

5 hours ago, xydboy said:

From "But a pot belly commonly starts by the loss of tone in the abdominal muscles." to the mentioned statement in underlined. Goes a long way to clarify statements made. Good to be wary on how we say certain things. I recognise your help and like I said before, everyone is open to helping others. But when in doubt, its good to make referrals rather than posting information that one does not know much about. Yes, we can never be experts in everything, but its about posting responsibly. Its a life that matters and as a responsible "forumer", we should really think twice before saying anything, especially in something which we are not familiar about. And my philosophy is to give the utmost respect to the topic on hand and to answer to the best of my knowledge. If you haven't realised, I do not usually post such references. Its usually for the lay. I only do that for people like you when I get into debates/discussions because I don't say things without proper proof. Its my field of expertise, and its to do justice to the topic and to support my claims. Simultaneously I'm also showing that I don't pluck things from any tom dick and harry sources, but backed by scientific data and research. As mentioned before, its a move to evidence-based practice globally and its my duty to practice as I preach as an exercise physiologist/researcher/master trainer.

I want to say first that I enjoy our discussions and I see much positive in them, both for myself and for others who may be interested in them.

I seldom have doubts when I give some information, which I consider I give responsibly. We cannot know a priori what a reader may interpret, how rigorous he wants us to be, so this has to wait until some feedback comes along. In your case, you like much rigor in what I write, but I feel that there is a limitation here in the amount of writing it takes to be comprehensive and in the scope of the thread. We don't want to scare the guy who just wants some guidance, and complicated words can do that. Also, we don't need to give the best and more up to date information, but be sufficiently positive and with sufficient credibility to motivate someone to action. Once we get started in some activity of self improvement we have plenty of opportunities to expand our knowledge, find better ways to try and worse ways to give up. The important thing is to get started and find reassurance in the good results. This is why I don't mind giving a reference that is not scientific but rather popular.

I think we both preach what we practice and not something pulled out of thin air. You as a exercise physiologist/researcher/master trainer, and I as a guy with plenty of experience on myself and others, who is pragmatic about something that I assign practical value.

Steve5380 · April 15, 2017

6 hours ago, xydboy said:

In terms of the statement in bold, its not tone, but neural control. Poor posture caused by synergistic dominance and inhibited neural patterns is what you observed. Nothing about muscle tone. The statement should be corrected as "I am learning to change the neural patterns of the muscles of my posture....And this progressively becomes involuntary in nature." Yes you don't need to know the terms, I don't expect you to know them as well. You are limited by the amount of information you have. But its about acknowledging your limitations and learning from others who have (slightly) greater knowledge than you. I'm not someone who is expert in this aspect, but muscle metabolism has been my area of research for the past few years. Hence, I am correcting the misconceptions you have.

In the literature for a general public about workout and physical training I don't find the terms "neural control", "synergistic dominance", "inhibited neural patterns". These terms are more suited for a biologist, researcher. I am glad to learn, but I don't need to be so specific. If I have a stomach ache I want to read simple recommendations in lay terms rather than a treatise intended for gastroenterologists. I am perfectly capable to understand the latter, but I have other things to do.

I don't think that "Muscle tone is the amount of muscle contraction at rest" is a misconception. It sounds quite clear to me. And that consciously working on some muscles to change their tone to a more relaxed or more firm state is a misconception either. Neither statements involve muscle metabolism, they might as well be rubber bands controlled by an electrical mechanism. The goal is not to understand how the muscles work but to attain a better posture, a better feeling of the body, better looks of the body, better capacity to act like situations may require. This does not mean that I disregard a deeper knowledge of muscle psychology and metabolism, I am always willing to expand my horizons.

.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Steve5380

xydboy · April 17, 2017

On 4/16/2017 at 7:42 AM, Steve5380 said:

In the literature for a general public about workout and physical training I don't find the terms "neural control", "synergistic dominance", "inhibited neural patterns". These terms are more suited for a biologist, researcher. I am glad to learn, but I don't need to be so specific. If I have a stomach ache I want to read simple recommendations in lay terms rather than a treatise intended for gastroenterologists. I am perfectly capable to understand the latter, but I have other things to do.

I don't think that "Muscle tone is the amount of muscle contraction at rest" is a misconception. It sounds quite clear to me. And that consciously working on some muscles to change their tone to a more relaxed or more firm state is a misconception either. Neither statements involve muscle metabolism, they might as well be rubber bands controlled by an electrical mechanism. The goal is not to understand how the muscles work but to attain a better posture, a better feeling of the body, better looks of the body, better capacity to act like situations may require. This does not mean that I disregard a deeper knowledge of muscle psychology and metabolism, I am always willing to expand my horizons.

.

Its not true. Other "lay (sometimes dubious) websites" have also mentioned about this, such as T-nation, bodybuilding.com. In addition, those words are part of the personal trainer curriculum (meant for people with no foundation in sports science). And I thought given your vast experience, you would have come across those terms when you read through some other websites.

Edited April 17, 2017 by xydboy

xydboy · April 17, 2017

On 4/16/2017 at 7:25 AM, Steve5380 said:

I want to say first that I enjoy our discussions and I see much positive in them, both for myself and for others who may be interested in them.

I seldom have doubts when I give some information, which I consider I give responsibly. We cannot know a priori what a reader may interpret, how rigorous he wants us to be, so this has to wait until some feedback comes along. In your case, you like much rigor in what I write, but I feel that there is a limitation here in the amount of writing it takes to be comprehensive and in the scope of the thread. We don't want to scare the guy who just wants some guidance, and complicated words can do that. Also, we don't need to give the best and more up to date information, but be sufficiently positive and with sufficient credibility to motivate someone to action. Once we get started in some activity of self improvement we have plenty of opportunities to expand our knowledge, find better ways to try and worse ways to give up. The important thing is to get started and find reassurance in the good results. This is why I don't mind giving a reference that is not scientific but rather popular.

I think we both preach what we practice and not something pulled out of thin air. You as a exercise physiologist/researcher/master trainer, and I as a guy with plenty of experience on myself and others, who is pragmatic about something that I assign practical value.

I think the credibility issue comes in. Given that fitness is written by any people offline with most from dubious sources, it is important to be able to differentiate the right and wrong sources to cite. And I think the problem is that you tend to be non-critical about the sources which you cite. It is acknowledged that there are limitations given the platform and the audience, and to simply brush off and over simplify issues would result in one missing out critical information. Its not like I write jargons over jargons. I do communicate it in simple text first, then i cite the evidence that supports my claim. If you do realise I support my statements with proper sources, not a website that can be written by anyone with anonymous identity. Same thing with medicine, doctors used evidence based medicine to guide their prescription, similar to what exercise physiologist do when it comes to exercise prescription. I'm sure one doesn't go look for someone who has taken many medications or diseases to ask for medical advice. Neither does one question a doctor's practice just because he or she reads a lot of websites. You get the drift.

Particularly in the area of fitness and social media, anyone can write anything and its been found that many misinformation has occurred in the process. And who knows, you might be a victim of them unknowingly. Information can be obtained anywhere and everywhere, and more often than not, especially in the area of fitness and nutrition, it is no surprise such misinformation is widely observed (http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE|A132241657&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=1548419X&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true). Well, if your experience is valid, then it should be able to withstand the grill and test in multiple scenarios in controlled settings. If the debate/discussions ends up with "i am right because I have done this before," its just fallacy and your argument don't hold water. Like I mentioned before, experience tells little about the knowledge one has. If that were true, everyone would be a personal trainer without going through rigorous testing.

I do however acknowledge your vast amount of experience, but do consider that you don't do this for a living and your "trade secrets" have limitations and might not be valid across wider span of population. Nevertheless, your inputs are still welcome. I've said this before and will just reiterate: the author reserves the right to take on any suggestions. Life goes on regardless on what he does with either of our suggestions.

Steve5380 · April 18, 2017

8 hours ago, xydboy said:

Its not true. Other "lay (sometimes dubious) websites" have also mentioned about this, such as T-nation, bodybuilding.com. In addition, those words are part of the personal trainer curriculum (meant for people with no foundation in sports science). And I thought given your vast experience, you would have come across those terms when you read through some other websites.

WHAT IS NOT TRUE ??? I wrote: In the literature for a general public about workout and physical training I don't find the terms "neural control", "synergistic dominance", "inhibited neural patterns". How can you know what I find in the literature or not ??? You are showing here a clear lack of factual rigor.

Just to make sure I looked in the index of some of my respected books about fitness, and these terms are nowhere to be found. My most respected old book the one that opened my interest in bodybuilding, is "Bodybuilding, a Scientific Approach", by Frederic Hatfield. More recently, I liked the collection of "Brawn" books by McRobert. In between I read books by Clarence Bass like "ripped", "lean for life". In these books you get the feeling that the authors know what they are talking about. They don't try to impress by their science. They teach the arts of workout that are classical and don't change much with fashion. And in my experience, what they teach WORKS.

By the way, today I learned about a new book: "Ballerina Body: Dancing and Eating Your Way to a Leaner, Stronger, and More Graceful You" by a famous principal ballerina Misty Copeland. You may think: What??? a tough man reading this populist blabber by... a ballerina? But from what I read in the excerpt she makes a lot of sense, and touches many items disregarded by the die-hard bodybuilders. But don't be mislead: many gays we would rather have the body of a champion classical dancer than the body of a champion bodybuilder. It might not be the smartest to work blindly to build as much muscle as it is possible.

Steve5380 · April 18, 2017

10 hours ago, xydboy said:

I think the credibility issue comes in. Given that fitness is written by any people offline with most from dubious sources, it is important to be able to differentiate the right and wrong sources to cite. And I think the problem is that you tend to be non-critical about the sources which you cite. It is acknowledged that there are limitations given the platform and the audience, and to simply brush off and over simplify issues would result in one missing out critical information. Its not like I write jargons over jargons. I do communicate it in simple text first, then i cite the evidence that supports my claim. If you do realise I support my statements with proper sources, not a website that can be written by anyone with anonymous identity.

The credibility issue can always be brought in, and you are not exempt from this at all. This is the case when in a discussion about a practical issue you bring in a scientific experiment that has little bearing on the issue. Trying to establish a superiority, you reveal a certain misunderstanding of the relevance of the reference you bring in.

For example, when we discussed abdominal exercises you made a reference that left me scratching my head: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015858: Large Asymmetric Hypertrophy of Rectus Abdominis Muscle in Professional Tennis Players, that stated under other:

"Results: Tennis players had 58% greater RA volume than controls (P = 0.01), due to hypertrophy of both the dominant (34% greater volume, P = 0.02) and non-dominant (82% greater volume, P = 0.01) sides, after accounting for age, the length of the RA muscle and body mass index (BMI) as covariates. In tennis players, there was a marked asymmetry in the development of the RA, which volume was 35% greater in the non-dominant compared to the dominant side (P<0.001). In contrast, no side-to-side difference in RA volume was observed in the controls (P = 0.75). The degree of side-to-side asymmetry increased linearly from the first lumbar disc to the pubic symphysis (r = 0.97, P<0.001)."

WHAT HAS THIS TO DO with keeping slim people from building a big belly? You really expect someone reading this topic to analyze the P<0.001, P=0.02 and other odd numbers? You think that such references make your position more CREDIBLE? You think that it is worth for me to a) investigate who the authors of the paper are and their qualifications, b) read the article and see if it has any relevance and c) analyze the results and verify that they confirm what you say?

When I quoted a simple article from Wikipedia and another from www.fitday.com about muscle tone I first read the articles and determined that they made sense in accordance with common knowledge about muscle tone. They were properly cited here, not as a scientific proof but to show sources that also explain what muscle tone is. And for this there is no need to explain what calcium ions have to do here. If one wants to know about calcium ions, there are numerous sources on the web that explain this.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Steve5380

xydboy · April 18, 2017

16 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

WHAT IS NOT TRUE ??? I wrote: In the literature for a general public about workout and physical training I don't find the terms "neural control", "synergistic dominance", "inhibited neural patterns". How can you know what I find in the literature or not ??? You are showing here a clear lack of factual rigor.

Just to make sure I looked in the index of some of my respected books about fitness, and these terms are nowhere to be found. My most respected old book the one that opened my interest in bodybuilding, is "Bodybuilding, a Scientific Approach", by Frederic Hatfield. More recently, I liked the collection of "Brawn" books by McRobert. In between I read books by Clarence Bass like "ripped", "lean for life". In these books you get the feeling that the authors know what they are talking about. They don't try to impress by their science. They teach the arts of workout that are classical and don't change much with fashion. And in my experience, what they teach WORKS.

By the way, today I learned about a new book: "Ballerina Body: Dancing and Eating Your Way to a Leaner, Stronger, and More Graceful You" by a famous principal ballerina Misty Copeland. You may think: What??? a tough man reading this populist blabber by... a ballerina? But from what I read in the excerpt she makes a lot of sense, and touches many items disregarded by the die-hard bodybuilders. But don't be mislead: many gays we would rather have the body of a champion classical dancer than the body of a champion bodybuilder. It might not be the smartest to work blindly to build as much muscle as it is possible.

Erm..I think you don't read enough? I know what can or cannot be found in "reknown lay texts" because I've been teaching personal training courses for quite a while..LOL. Typical mediocre lay text like what you can find in typical "Borders" or "MPH" kind of bookstore such as "PR race: strength and performance training" by Chris Johnson, "the complete guide to core stability" by Matt Lawrence have written about what I have mentioned. Other text written by distinguished authors such as the famous strength coach Bret Contreras in "Bodyweight strength training anaytomy" talks about the mentioned terms too. If you want to talk about recommended text that are essentials for strength coaches or people keen in developing foundation knowledge, the National Strength and Conditioning Association's text on "developing the core" also talked about neural integration in core training. The last 2 texts are well established. In fact even if you google these terms, people do write such stuff on the net. And its open access for anyone to read.Examples are: https://uprighthealth.com/what-is-synergistic-dominance/ and http://www.ptonthenet.com/blog/the-inner-unit/synergistic-dominance-of-hamstrings-and-low-back-pain-287. Even bodybuilding forums talk about them: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=167151731. Not to mentioned the typical blog post that is written by any tom dick and harry. Respected sources, non-respected sources talks about them. Same issue as before, what you observed, need not always necessary be what it actually seem.

15 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

The credibility issue can always be brought in, and you are not exempt from this at all. This is the case when in a discussion about a practical issue you bring in a scientific experiment that has little bearing on the issue. Trying to establish a superiority, you reveal a certain misunderstanding of the relevance of the reference you bring in.

For example, when we discussed abdominal exercises you made a reference that left me scratching my head: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015858: Large Asymmetric Hypertrophy of Rectus Abdominis Muscle in Professional Tennis Players, that stated under other:

"Results: Tennis players had 58% greater RA volume than controls (P = 0.01), due to hypertrophy of both the dominant (34% greater volume, P = 0.02) and non-dominant (82% greater volume, P = 0.01) sides, after accounting for age, the length of the RA muscle and body mass index (BMI) as covariates. In tennis players, there was a marked asymmetry in the development of the RA, which volume was 35% greater in the non-dominant compared to the dominant side (P<0.001). In contrast, no side-to-side difference in RA volume was observed in the controls (P = 0.75). The degree of side-to-side asymmetry increased linearly from the first lumbar disc to the pubic symphysis (r = 0.97, P<0.001)."

WHAT HAS THIS TO DO with keeping slim people from building a big belly? You really expect someone reading this topic to analyze the P<0.001, P=0.02 and other odd numbers? You think that such references make your position more CREDIBLE? You think that it is worth for me to a) investigate who the authors of the paper are and their qualifications, b) read the article and see if it has any relevance and c) analyze the results and verify that they confirm what you say?

When I quoted a simple article from Wikipedia and another from www.fitday.com about muscle tone I first read the articles and determined that they made sense in accordance with common knowledge about muscle tone. They were properly cited here, not as a scientific proof but to show sources that also explain what muscle tone is. And for this there is no need to explain what calcium ions have to do here. If one wants to know about calcium ions, there are numerous sources on the web that explain this.

You should be asking if you yourself know what you are talking about.You said the following items. I copied the entire paragraph for you based on what you have posted:

1) Crunches don't tone the core muscles? Everything I write here is result of my experience, and not just something I read here and there.

Years ago I read that Madonna and other dancers maintained their amazing bodies... doing 1000 crunches daily among other exercises. Amazing! Not wanting to be less, I put the effort and I was able to do the same for a while, yes, 1000 crunches at once, 500 straight and 500 crossed (elbow touching the opposite knee). To this I added isometric exercises on my back holding the extended legs just clear of the floor for ... up to 5 minutes! As a result of all this, while over half the people of my age have a pot belly, mine is as flat as it gets and displays a good six-pack. I know very well that crunches tone up the core muscles. Top professional artists have the best trainers, and they would not do 1000 crunches for nothing!

2) I was talking about adequate muscle tone, not 1000 crunches. You can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches. Do isometric exercises, hold your tummy tucked in for long periods, and your nervous system will adapt to keep the muscles more contracted. Or do the 1000 crunches and your abdominal muscle will get stronger. What is the issue with hypertrophy?

3) I repeat:

For the former, work out with weights and eat much good food to fuel the body's growth, being diligent to include exercises for the core muscles, especially the abdominal.

For the latter: find out WHY you have this belly sticking out to make sure it is not a health problem. Contract your abdominal muscles and see if it goes away. If so, try to keep them contracted as much as you can, while walking, sitting, driving, and increase their tone through these ISOMETRIC contractions and also with dynamic exercises like crunches

So...you said that crunches tone the core muscles, celebrities have been doing them. Then later you said that you can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches, just do isometric exercises. And later you mentioned that tone can be increased through these isometric contractions and also with dynamic exercises like crunches. So....which is which? I cite the entire paragraph, so don't tell me that i misquoted you. I cite the entire text for both point 1 and 2. In any case, you do 1000 crunches, by the literature cited, the muscles would have grown bigger (hypertrophy), but you said it has nothing to do with it. So I just cite a reference to state that there is a difference in terms of muscle size between trained and untrained individuals. It is the article which you cited above, as per conclusion of the abstract: "Professional tennis is associated with marked hypertrophy of the musculus rectus abdominis, which achieves a volume that is 58% greater than in non-active controls". AKA trained individuals have greater hypertrophied abs than untrained individuals. This is in contrast which you mentioned that there is nothing to do with hypertrophy.

On a side note, you said you can gain muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches right? So what happened to modelling after celebrities with "professional trainers"? You said they have experienced right, so why not follow their instructions and do 1000 crunches? So to do or not to do? hypertrophy or no hypertrophy? :huh:

And then I talked earlier about shedding of fat, and you said the following,

4) "Nobody claims that crunches or other exercises for the abdominal muscles do a spot reduction of fat. And nobody claims that fat cannot be a big contributor to a pot belly. If you examine the subject of this thread, it is intended for skinny people who want to gain weight. And I responded to the inquire: "For skinny people, how to eat without tummy growing?". This means a skinny person wants to know how to put on weight without getting a pot belly, instead of a fat person wants to know how to get rid of a pot belly. We see all the time slim guys who in their 30s and 40s start displaying a belly. This belly is not the result of obesity but of lack of muscle tone. Therefore I think it is good advice to tell young skinny gays who want to get bigger: don't worry about getting fat, this takes a long time and is an ABUSE of eating plus sedentary life. Eat plenty and work out, and don't disregard the core muscles and in particular the abdominal. Do plenty of exercises of crunches or other similar types and KEEP IN YOUR MIND the image of an imaginary corset that compresses your core muscles and gives you a good posture and good looks"

But yea, in your own argument: no hypertrophy involved, nothing to do with shedding of fat/spot reduction. And abs just appear...hmm...and the reason: lack of muscle tone. Seriously.....

My argument is that crunches do not tone abs. Core exercises are supposed to be done as a whole, and done over a long period of time would result in hypertrophy regardless of any form of stimulation (isometric/isotonic). Core exercises are not just about crunches, but also inclusive of other forms of exercises that targets not just the local core muscles, but also global core muscles (lats, quads, etc). Posture is improved through the activation of the muscles; where we strengthen the weak and stretched the tight (regardless anterior or posterior pelvic tilt). This activation is improved through the proper conditioning of the muscles (not just the abs) and the adaptation that occurs in the neural firing patterns (reduction of synergistic dominance). Belly in the skinny individual is treated as a whole similar to obese individuals. Packing on fats in the belly is typical as this is where excess calories are stored in males. So work and burn those calories by doing more exercises and increasing physical activity to at least 30 min a day. For skinny individuals, instead of focusing on the abs, heavy lifts is recommended to stimulate more muscle growth. Doing 1000 crunches will not get you the abs that commercial models or celebrities have, despite them having "professional trainers".

I'm not going to comment any further, I think its apparent how much one knows about their own stuff. Nevertheless, have a pleasant day ahead. Hope you enjoyed the readings that I recommended as above. More information on core training can be found there if it entice you.

Edited April 18, 2017 by xydboy

Steve5380 · April 18, 2017

On 4/18/2017 at 0:02 PM, xydboy said:

Erm..I think you don't read enough? I know what can or cannot be found in "reknown lay texts" because I've been teaching personal training courses for quite a while..LOL. Typical mediocre lay text like what you can find in typical "Borders" or "MPH" kind of bookstore such as "PR race: strength and performance training" by Chris Johnson, "the complete guide to core stability" by Matt Lawrence have written about what I have mentioned. Other text written by distinguished authors such as the famous strength coach Bret Contreras in "Bodyweight strength training anaytomy" talks about the mentioned terms too. If you want to talk about recommended text that are essentials for strength coaches or people keen in developing foundation knowledge, the National Strength and Conditioning Association's text on "developing the core" also talked about neural integration in core training. The last 2 texts are well established. In fact even if you google these terms, people do write such stuff on the net. And its open access for anyone to read.Examples are: .....

If you think so, you think wrongly. I read enough for the purpose at hand. The books I mentioned gave me a good understanding of bodybuilding, exercising. No need for the terms you mentioned, even if they are mentioned in hundreds of places. (you came up with a new one, "neural integration", which one does not need to know to exercise the core). Not only I don't need them, so neither the readers of this thread who want some guidance about starting with exercises. Neither me nor they need here the "essentials for strength coaches or people keen in developing foundation knowledge". You may need them if such is your profession, but it is not ours, and here is your questionable judgment about applicability. You should not contradict me because I don't use the terminology or elaborate to a level of detail you like. I don't contradict any basic knowledge of the subject.

On 4/18/2017 at 0:02 PM, xydboy said:

You should be asking if you yourself know what you are talking about.You said the following items. I copied the entire paragraph for you based on what you have posted:

1) Crunches don't tone the core muscles? Everything I write here is result of my experience, and not just something I read here and there. Years ago I read that Madonna and other dancers maintained their amazing bodies... doing 1000 crunches daily among other exercises....

2) I was talking about adequate muscle tone, not 1000 crunches. You can gain abdominal muscle tone without doing 1000 crunches. Do isometric exercises, hold your tummy tucked in for long periods, and your nervous system will adapt to keep the muscles more contracted. Or do the 1000 crunches and your abdominal muscle will get stronger. What is the issue with hypertrophy?

3) I repeat:

For the former, work out with weights and eat much good food to fuel the body's growth, being diligent to include exercises for the core muscles, especially the abdominal.

For the latter: find out WHY you have this belly sticking out to make sure it is not a health problem. Contract your abdominal muscles and see if it goes away. If so, try to keep them contracted as much as you can, while walking, sitting, driving, and increase their tone through these ISOMETRIC contractions and also with dynamic exercises like crunches

...

I know what I am talking about. But from your high horse, you are looking down out of focus. My three paragraphs are from three different posts with three different contexts. You have already quoted me out of context before.

I stand by what I wrote: crunches tone the abdominal muscles, and you don't need to do 1000 crunches to tone the abdominal muscles.

(We can also say that running marathons develops the cardiovascular system. And to this we can add: you don't need to run a marathon to have a good cardiovascular system.) And the tone of the abdominal muscles can be increased with crunches AND with isometric exercises. One method does not rule out the other.

So what is the basis of your criticism? You may not like it, but what is wrong with what I wrote?

In one of the first posts in this thread i wrote about abdominal muscles and crunches, and you promptly made the critical comment: "I think the emphasis should be on whole body exercise and not just the core. No doubt the core is important, but the contraction of the abdominals is just one aspect. Particularly, the definition of core doesn't just span within the rectus abdominis, but also the global muscles like the lats, thighs, etc."

Here I was right that to fight a belly the core muscles and especially the abdominal are important ones to consider, regardless of other goals you want to bring in. You can do this without contradicting that what others write.

Soon thereafter, when I commented that we can all show a belly if we relax the abdominal muscles, you countered against this and added a recommendation:

"Extra reading on core training: http://shreddedbyscience.com/4-popular-beliefs-core-training-fitness-professionals-think-true/ "

Please look at your article and consider what it says:

False Belief #1 – Clients and athletes don’t need to do exercises that focus on strengthening the abs and obliques because squats and deadlifts do the job more effectively.

False Belief #2 – Anti-spinal movement core training exercises are superior to dynamic core exercises for strength and performance.

False Belief #3: Core strength plays a major role in performance, therefore core training exercises should be prioritized in programming.

False Belief #4: An anterior pelvic tilt posture indicates abdominal muscle weakness or under-activity.

Of course belief 1 and 2 are false, and i never contradicted that. Belief 3 does not apply in this issue of the belly of a slim individual, and belief 4 has to do with pelvic posture, which may not be relevant in the issue of a belly. So when you throw in some article, don't automatically expect that it is a contribution to the discussion.

On 4/18/2017 at 0:02 PM, xydboy said:

But yea, in your own argument: no hypertrophy involved, nothing to do with shedding of fat/spot reduction. And abs just appear...hmm...and the reason: lack of muscle tone. Seriously.....

My argument is that crunches do not tone abs. Core exercises are supposed to be done as a whole, and done over a long period of time would result in hypertrophy regardless of any form of stimulation (isometric/isotonic). Core exercises are not just about crunches, but also inclusive of other forms of exercises that targets not just the local core muscles, but also global core muscles (lats, quads, etc). Posture is improved through the activation of the muscles; where we strengthen the weak and stretched the tight (regardless anterior or posterior pelvic tilt). This activation is improved through the proper conditioning of the muscles (not just the abs) and the adaptation that occurs in the neural firing patterns (reduction of synergistic dominance). Belly in the skinny individual is treated as a whole similar to obese individuals. Packing on fats in the belly is typical as this is where excess calories are stored in males. So work and burn those calories by doing more exercises and increasing physical activity to at least 30 min a day. For skinny individuals, instead of focusing on the abs, heavy lifts is recommended to stimulate more muscle growth. Doing 1000 crunches will not get you the abs that commercial models or celebrities have, despite them having "professional trainers".

I'm not going to comment any further, I think its apparent how much one knows about their own stuff. Nevertheless, have a pleasant day ahead. Hope you enjoyed the readings that I recommended as above. More information on core training can be found there if it entice you.

I commented on the lack of muscular tone and not on hypertrophy or spot fat reduction. Why you want to "muddy the waters"?

I insist: crunches tone abs, and one can exercise a muscle of the core like the abdominal without having to exercise them all. Are you high on something?

Have you ever done 1000 crunches to know what they get you or not? I doubt it.

I think that you know a bunch of stuff, but In your eagerness to dump it, it gets tangled up and lacks the uniformity of a helpful exposure.

I will always read new information to increase my knowledge, even if i don't like to have some pushed down my throat, haha!

.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Steve5380

Sign In

Skinny to lean fit/buffy advise

Recommended Posts

Guest alistair

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest alistair

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest alistair

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment