[quote]Spriggs wrote:
Hey all…
I have read Chek’s Abs-in argument and now want to explore the opposing point of view.
It does seem that the 2 schools of thought often argue at cross purposes. Chek says abs-in is best, beacuse it is anatomically based, and will prevent injuries. Tate say abs-out is “best” cos it produces bigger lifts, but I cant find a good explanation as to why this works and whether it is safe to always train like this.
Can anyone help?
cheers[/quote]
I noticed my post found its way onto the Westside site, here is the response:
"Chek started to lecture and write about the abs using the research based on Richardson, Hodges and Hides work. They have two published books on the topic. Can be purchased at OPTP have read them both.
The science behind Cheks statements was that the problem with low back patients. Oh yea did I mention that all this info is based on symptomatic chronic low back pain patients. It is not based on healthy subjects.
Anyway is was determiined with EMG studies and most recenlty Ultrasound studies that the TrA and multifidus had firing disruptions in CHRONIC LOW BACK SUBJECTS when compared to asymptomatic subjects.
To correct this motor program flaw the subject was asked to draw the abdominal wall in before an exercise was performed. This would stiffen the abdominal wall. The key was to prevent the the global muscles from doing the work. This is when you started to hear the terms global and local muscular system.
Richardson Hodges and Hides(RHH) and McGIll use the term stiffening of the spine for support. RHH make reference not the overdraw the abdominal wall in… this in overactive external oblique and not TrA. Probable the mistake made from RHH’s work
I beleive the most importnt thing to understnd with the info is that pretensing the system is a good thing. In normal subjects this is a normal action. Punching, foot contact with running, pitching, golf swing all go from a relaxed state to a stiff spine state, without you having to think about it.
Now to defend Dave Tate. No one has ever studied the spine with 800 lbs on the back
You must remember once a stimulus like this is applied the global system is your friend If you had poor local system with abberant firing patterns i.e and unstable spine increased neutral zone you would not be attempting this type of activity.
I posed the question of the in and out to Paul Hodges. Hodges could only make a guess because he has never studied this but with this type of load on the spine pushing the abdominal wall out may not be a bad thing. The abdomen would drop down acting like a piston giving support. Drawing the abdominal wall in would probable buckle the spine.
Hope this gives you a better picture.
What you sometimes find as per Dave TAte yoda’s read the book and lecture the info without ever understandig the weaknesses of the information that they are presenting.
,
Michael Hope (12/4/2005)" [SIC]
Therefore my own intepretation/conclusion in my mind is this: If your inner unit is working good, you can stabalise your spine and you can squat without pain etc without a belt, THEN throw on a belt and get the external abs involved as well.
Just make sure you are able to stabalise your spine with correct TVA/multifidus firing patterns properly before loading up the weight and using the belt.
Personally, I will mainly squat beltless to ensure this happens, but will have no problem in throwing on a belt and using abs-out for my heavier lifts and maxs.
Hope this has helped some others sort this out in their minds as much as it has me…