Why Abs-Out Squatting ?

[quote]fahd wrote:
What I actually meant was that non of the 800 pound squatters I know can give a highly scientific reasoning for what they do; in fact a lesson I learn from them is to simply find out what works for you. The only way to do that is to find out which is better through actually training.

Scientific studies are useful for one to explain what he does and why he does it that way; however, for every research, there are always other researches that proves the opposite. For example, effectiveness of ZMA, Vitamin C dose, whether good morning is a good exercise etc etc

[/quote]

I see what your getting at and I agree, but many of these strong guys have done a lot of research too. Louie Simmons has read a lot of stuff by scientists such as Zatsiorsky and Siff. I’m sure if you asked him, Louie would give you a very well thought out and detailed explanation on the whole abs in/out issue. I’m sure he wouldn’t consider it a waste of time to discuss the issue.

Also Chek is very inconsistant with his advises, he used to believe that you don’t need a belt to create a strong set of abs, despite studies showing greater abs activation when using a belt.

And then he came up with the idea that the best way to stabalise the spine was to suck in abs; during arguments, he also called powerlifter dumbtrucks.

And then he later changed his opinion to creat intra-abdominal pressure for spine stablisation.

Look at his website now, hes clearly lost it, it looks like a cult website.

I believe if you want to get strong, obviously you should not listen to Chek (as its not his interest), if you wanna be healthy, go squat on a swiss ball like Chek advocates.

Fahd

Just to clear things up, there is really no debate at all between abs in and abs out, but rather a misunderstanding. Paul Chek teaches that one should be activating the TVA under light loads and normal everyday movements to stabilize the lumbar spine (huge generalization). What he has a problem with is when people are using the rectus abdominis as a stabilizer in the same situations. He states clearly in his seminar tapes that the rectus is to be a gross stabilize of the spine. In other words using / flexing your abs or pushing your belly out while lifting heavy loads is O.K. What he does not like is using this mechanism all the time, therefore creating a faulty recruitment pattern in everyday situations. If the TVA becomes weak or is not activating at all you will become much more susceptible to lower back injury.

[quote]bamit wrote:
Just to clear things up, there is really no debate at all between abs in and abs out, but rather a misunderstanding. Paul Chek teaches that one should be activating the TVA under light loads and normal everyday movements to stabilize the lumbar spine (huge generalization). What he has a problem with is when people are using the rectus abdominis as a stabilizer in the same situations. He states clearly in his seminar tapes that the rectus is to be a gross stabilize of the spine. In other words using / flexing your abs or pushing your belly out while lifting heavy loads is O.K. What he does not like is using this mechanism all the time, therefore creating a faulty recruitment pattern in everyday situations. If the TVA becomes weak or is not activating at all you will become much more susceptible to lower back injury. [/quote]

Dear bamit,
I sense a kernal of truth in your reasoning. Can you direct me to other resources so I can further understand what you’re explaining? Sometimes reading articles can confuse a beginner. thank you.

[quote]gold’s wrote:
bamit wrote:
Dear bamit,
I sense a kernal of truth in your reasoning. Can you direct me to other resources so I can further understand what you’re explaining? Sometimes reading articles can confuse a beginner. thank you.

[/quote]

Do an article search for “Abs in abs, out or both?” You’ll find Cheks article which tries to clear up some of the confusion.

But I still don’t think this quite covers it all…

[quote]bamit wrote:
Just to clear things up, there is really no debate at all between abs in and abs out, but rather a misunderstanding. Paul Chek teaches that one should be activating the TVA under light loads and normal everyday movements to stabilize the lumbar spine (huge generalization). What he has a problem with is when people are using the rectus abdominis as a stabilizer in the same situations. He states clearly in his seminar tapes that the rectus is to be a gross stabilize of the spine. In other words using / flexing your abs or pushing your belly out while lifting heavy loads is O.K. What he does not like is using this mechanism all the time, therefore creating a faulty recruitment pattern in everyday situations. If the TVA becomes weak or is not activating at all you will become much more susceptible to lower back injury. [/quote]

That’s not what he says in his article here titled “abs in, abs out, or both” Maybe it’s just poorly written, but he seems to be advocating abs in all the time. He brings up lifting heavy several times, and not once does he say there should be an exception there.

[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 forget who researched this, but the abs in is an extrapolation of his work that he doesn’t agree with.

Bracing or pushing out works so much better. your TA does not work in isolation.

What about squatting oly style, ass-to-grass and upright?

I’m really interested in anecdotal arguments here, along the lines of ‘I oly squat a huge amount of weight and I do x.’

I just go fast and stay tight, but don’t suck my abs in or push them out. But then my squat is too small for this to mean anything.

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
What about squatting oly style, ass-to-grass and upright?

I’m really interested in anecdotal arguments here, along the lines of ‘I oly squat a huge amount of weight and I do x.’

I just go fast and stay tight, but don’t suck my abs in or push them out. But then my squat is too small for this to mean anything.[/quote]

I think we have to remember here, when discussing “abs-in” I dont think Chek is advocating a vacume pose he is just referreing to a slight inwards movement due to contraction of the inner unit.

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Looks like everyone has it almost right. The two main points of using the “abs out” style are a) increased intrabdominal volume and then b) compressing this increased volume to create more pressure (which provides the greatest spinal stability).

Just sucking in your abs without filling your belly with air doesn’t create much pressure. I’m not sure if this is exactly how Chek prescribes this method, but if he does, it’s wrong. [/quote]

He advocates, as you say - filling your lungs with air, then contracting them and drawing them in slightly.

[quote]
Just filling your torso with as much air as possible (merely pushing your abs out) doesn’t create much more pressure either - you need something there to limit the volume of the container to increase pressure.

Thus, the best way is to fill the torso with as much air as possible and either wear a very tight belt (which will artifically limit volume of the container) or powerfully contract all the muscles of the abdomen to limit the size of the container. This is both the safest and will allow for the most weight to be used.

Just as a point of note, the abs can be trained well enough so that a belt doesn’t help this process at all. Just ask Dr. Hatfield about that one :slight_smile:

-Dan[/quote]

Yeah thanks for that, seems to be a consistnat summary covering techniques for belt, and non-belt use.

[quote]dave1980 wrote:
the valsava manoeuvre increases intra-abdominal presure as noted, this helps to stabilize and support the lumbar musculature during maximal effort. The Abs and obliques provide a corset. Spinal stress has been shown to be significantly reduced with the valsave and increased with exhalation upon effort.[/quote]

I think the valsava manuoever is a good case-in-point, on something we all agree increases IAP therefore increasing strength - yet it is still something with health risks that would mean it shouldnt be used all the time - Im trying to unravel if abs-out with a belt also falls into this same category.

[quote]
By forcing the abdominals out and filling yourself with air you essentially create ‘fluid balls’ (lower torso) and air balls (in the upper torso) that supports the spine, the bigger the ball the bigger the support I suppose. Think of It biomechanically too, the role of the abs is to provide support for the spine, the further the abs are away from the pivot point, the less effort the abs would have to produce to provide support, as the muscle force acts through a longer moment arm . The closer the abs are to the pivot the greater the effort it would take to provide a stable base.

The Abs in debate is based on the premise of creating your own lifting belt with your abs, if during a max exertion you wear a belt you push against it increasing Intra ab pressure, providing a more stable base etc etc. The abs in argument is to create your own natural belt by activating the TVA and increasing Core stability, as an over reliance on belts decreases it. [/quote]

This is interesting point, because in my reading of “Backstrong and Beltless…” Chek seems to make a distinction between SPINAL stabalisation and GROSS/CORE/TORSO stabalisation. (I think) he would aruge that although using a belt and abs-out WILL increase your CORE stabalisation, it reduces SPINAL stabality, therefore risking injury due to adopting faulty muscle recruitment patterns.

SO, does anyone know if Siff/Tate etc also make this distinction? And if not, I’d like to hear/read a counter-argument from them as to their reasons.

I think this is actually the crux of what my post set out to investigate, if anyone can answer this or direct me to further articles…? :slight_smile:

Dear Spriggs,

Your topic interests me and I asked one of our coaches at T-Nation. Below is what he advises:

Abdominal bracing is by far the most effective available. An excellent read is "Ultimate Back and Fitness and Performance " by Stuart McGill.
The parallel to this in the powerlifting community is pushing out against the belt. Since the belt is generally kept tight, the fundamental effect is the same ( brace against the belt.)
Hope this helps. I plan to buy the book.

[quote]gold’s wrote:
Dear Spriggs,

Your topic interests me and I asked one of our coaches at T-Nation. Below is what he advises:

Abdominal bracing is by far the most effective available. An excellent read is "Ultimate Back and Fitness and Performance " by Stuart McGill.
The parallel to this in the powerlifting community is pushing out against the belt. Since the belt is generally kept tight, the fundamental effect is the same ( brace against the belt.)
Hope this helps. I plan to buy the book. [/quote]

Hey cheers for that. Ill try and get hold of a copy to see what they have to say on the topic.

Yeah its an interesting subject!

Actually, I read somewhere article (“beltless squats” or something along these lines) by P.Chek himself about squats and abs/use of belts

After reading this you’ll realise that he’s not telling simply “abs in” - but “TVA in” to brace the spine but external abs out
from what I remember

[quote]FairDo wrote:
Actually, I read somewhere article (“beltless squats” or something along these lines) by P.Chek himself about squats and abs/use of belts

After reading this you’ll realise that he’s not telling simply “abs in” - but “TVA in” to brace the spine but external abs out
from what I remember
[/quote]

Yeah thats my understanding too. The point where he discusses belts is in relation to my the point I make in my post above - where he talks about torso and spinal stabalisation.

It seems no-one knows whether the belt & abs-out school of thought draws the same distinction…

[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…

From personal experiences how do the two argued pieces of advice (check n Tate) fair for you?

“what works for you”

EXACTLY.

This is a pretty informative thread but not so great of a “how to, for you” :wink:

Go try both and see how they work for you. I doubt sucking in your gut is going to do much of anything for anyone moving maximal wts around…

I feel bracing (as if you were going to get punched in the gut) is the best all-around thing to do.

If you are using a belt in a meet or in prep for a meet, then pushing out is probably THE way to go. Just go put on a belt and do a heavy dead or squat–suck in , push out, brace… and see what makes you stronger!

Also notice that when you “brace” all of the musculature in your core “moves in” a bit. this isnt the same as drawing your gut in.

I think their are two important variables here (besides the ones already being discussed):
BELT OR NO BELT!!

I dont use a belt (for any of my lifting).

Many strong guys i have lifted with do.

All of the strong guys using belts say “push out against the belt”.

Almost every person who uses a belt answered my question of “what do you do when you arent using a belt” with “hmmm… i dont really think about it”

All of these guys throw a belt on when they are going heavy. this gets their maxes up, so why not.

From my experience anyone who ditches the belt will get stronger when going back to it.

I would also like to point out that it was very difficult for me to “use the belt like i should” when i tried to use it. the whole “pushing against the belt” thing felt very wierd and lowered my max. im sure if i were to practice more with the belt i could use it to my advantage.

right now im not training for powerlifting so im going to continue to do it without a belt. for me , bracing is key.
we often punch eachother in the gut (no knockout punches but a bunch of good sharp little jabs)to give us a quick reminder of what it feels like to brace. try this on any lift. it really helps!

train hard,
ryan b.

Hi Guys
Sorry but this is the first oppertunity to look for this article that I’ve had in the last few days. I took it of another forum.

Subject: Abs In, or Abs Out?
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:05:58 -0700

Dave Tate’s reply to Chek’s article was posted to other groups and to T-mag:

To T-mag readers

I was going to approach this question in a very professional manor. Letting
the readers know that while Paul and myself my disagree on 5 or 10% of each
others training theories, we still will probably agree on the other 95%.
The readers always want to try to pit one writer against another and this
is the very reason why I have chosen to write for only a couple of
magazines. I have seen most of Paul’s videos and agree with most of what he
says. I have even recommended many of them to several clients and coaches.
Paul and Myself do two entirely different things. I train people for
Maximal Strength Development and Paul seems to train people for
rehabilation. I may be wrong on this but that is my take.

This was how many response was going to continue, until I received Paul’s
response in my inbox. I thank who ever forwarded it to me. Paul posted the
response on the weights mailing list last Friday. In the course of his
response he lead the reader to believe I had no idea what I was doing and
called me a “Dump Truck” This was the confrontation I was trying to avoid.
I have seen Paul and Mel Siff debate this subject on several lists and Paul
has always resorted to this type of name calling and setting him self up a
the supreme expert. He also could never answer Mels questions. My first
reaction was to forward this on to Mel to be answered. Mel has had a great
influence on our training and is by far the best source to go to for
detailed information. He is what I would call an EXPERT. The debates
between Mel and Paul would end with Paul sitting his results, this would
happened after he could not answer Mel questions. Well Paul that is what
you are going to get from me. While I will be the first to admit I by no
means am an expert I have learned everything I know form other people in
the form of personal communication, videos, tapes, books, journals, and as
stated before even from Paul’s stuff. I now know all I will ever have to
know about Paul C.H.E.K.

This dump truck has been in the sport of power lifting for over 20 years
and have worked my self up to a very high level with moderate genetics. I
have achieved this by seeking out those who were lifting the weights I
wanted to lift. Other Dump Trucks! During my studies in college, I ran into
a five year sticking point on all lifts. At this point I went away from the
“dump trucks” and started reading all the studies I could find on training
and talking to some of the highest ranking professors I could find. After
five years of listening to the “mechanics” I went nowhere. So much for the
“mechanics”. I went back to the good old “dump trucks”, Louie took my
total up 300 pounds after being stuck for five years. Now the question I
ask to Paul is Who do you train in my sport? I speak with Elites in the
sport of Power lifting every day who would tell you pulling in the
abdominal is a bunch of crap. Now I guess you would say every Elite
powerlifter is wrong. If this is the case why don’t you train a few and
get them on a national platform! Think of how many minds you could change
if you also had twenty three 800 pounds squatter, nine 900 pound squatters,
and one 1000 pound squatter. We don’t even have a list for 700 pound
squatters because this is expected of everyone. You say you worked with a
600 pound squatter, well this is a good bench in our gym. A 600 squat in
our gym is a total joke! But hey that’s pretty good for you guys. Try
teaching him how to squat and it may go up to 700.

I have read all your articles on abdominal training and see all the studies
you site. How many of these studies involve triple body weight squats under
maximal tension? For every study you site could I possibly find one to
show the opposite, or do ALL studies show the same thing? How many does it
take to form a study? We have had over 50 Elite lifters through the door
(Do you even know what a Elite total is?), And not one of them has had the
problems you say we should have. Wonder why? Maybe we haven’t do it long
enough? Most of our current members have been in the gym for 8 to 10 years
and Louie is 54 and still squatting 900. What do you squat? Maybe in the
next couple years we will begin to see these problems or maybe will have
produced more 900 pound squats. Since I do not see the problems you write
about, could you have a biased opinion because all you see is the bad and
broken down. Much like the police officer who only sees the bad things in
life begins to view the world as bad.

This will be the last I will comment on Paul and this subject. This “dump
truck” has lost all respect for him! He can earn it back when either
himself or his certified CHEK group start producing the lifts we do. This
should not be hard to do since the mechanics" have all the answers. I await
their presence on the platform. He has not only insulated me but over
100,000 other power lifters “dump trucks” and I am sure they are just as
upset as I am. He better keep his " Beetle" off the road because the dump
trucks are coming through and they are pissed.

Now, I have to get back to the gym. I am presently training for the IPA
national and am in the gym twice a day training. I do not have time for
this crap! I have to learn how to better push out my abs because I have
records to break. I wonder if Paul will better there lifting or coaching?
Oh I forgot, there is a qualifying total. Maybe I will see them in the
local YMCA contest!

If the readers want to know my reasons for pushing the abs out reread the
squat article.

Dave “Dump Truck” Tate

I hope this helps.

Regards Chris

[quote]fahd wrote:
What I actually meant was that non of the 800 pound squatters I know can give a highly scientific reasoning for what they do; in fact a lesson I learn from them is to simply find out what works for you. The only way to do that is to find out which is better through actually training.

Scientific studies are useful for one to explain what he does and why he does it that way; however, for every research, there are always other researches that proves the opposite. For example, effectiveness of ZMA, Vitamin C dose, whether good morning is a good exercise etc etc

[/quote]

okay that was a lot better than your first one :slight_smile: