how to get a bigger stomach??

[jabber]

i don't mean bigger gut in the stomach but more of a wider body, if you know what i mean

i know the exercises for the upper chest but how bout the stomach area, how do you get it wider?

[Dan C]

Heavy side bends and weighted sit ups. Don't neglect the lower back either. As with everything else, be sure to squat and deadlift.

[TomG]

I've heard of heavy squats named as the cause for a thick waist, in a negative way. It sounded like a good reason to have a thick waist to me. It seemed to indicate that it takes a strong, thick waist to be strong. You don't see waspy-waisted squatters.

[F_Mac]

Dan is right on the money (like andy..........i feel dirty just saying that)

Most people train abs with bodyweight exercises for high reps (15-20) which works primarily muscular endurance but doesn't affect size to any great extent. Heavier weight and lower reps (8-12) will help.

My favourites are weighted incline crunches and kneeling cable crunches.

My waist measures just shy of 40" unflexed and I am just shy of having a full 6 pack..........

[etothepii]

Heavy side bends, yes. Also try weighted Russian Twists.

[trainerty]

What is the reason for a big "core"?

I have to say most people want the opposite. Big powerlifter types get the big waistline from squats, deads and serious power movements (as already mentioned) and sometimes from horrible diets. I doubt if any of them work on more core mass directly. Simply a side effect of training.

Interesting idea

[.V.]

Originally Posted by trainerty

What is the reason for a big "core"?

Probably because a "big core" is more likely to be a strong core. Yeah squats and deads work it all quite well. But there are likely some folks that can use the direct oblique specific work to thicken up the physique. And someday...I'm gonna have lats so big I have to do it too.

[trainerty]

Interesting point Welch:

I see the interest for having a bigger thoracic area. These muscles are made to handle the enormous weight lifted by o-lifters and powerlifters.

The big lumbar area is pretty debatable. Since these muscles are by nature made to stabilize and neutralize movement of the lumbar spine, they do not need excessive hypertophy. I think hitting the heavy primal lifts will give them enough hypertophy. I would imagine an excess would hinder the mobility of the hip/pelvic area.

Just a theory

[.V.]

Thicker erectors may interfere with hip mobility or not, I honestly have no clue about that. But I tend to think along the lines of real life lifting instead of gym lifting. And I've noticed that the big guys who have big, thick lower backs and big obliques are less likely to get injured when they pick something heavy from the ground.

Think about it, out there in the real world when we have to move something heavy we don't always have the luxury of belting up, taking a nice breath first, watching our form...sometimes we just have to grab it and go.

Thick obliques and thick erectors make this kind of thing safer. I probably should do direct oblique work but the little bit of bodybuilder in me just won't let me do it because wide obliques with tiny little lats just don't look right (yeah, my obliques respond too easily).

And we really never know out there in the real world when we will have to lift something heavy in an awkward position. I never know when I'm going to have to lift the fat guy who's in the tub not breathing. (why are they always 250lbs minimum and there is never room for two of in there to get him out?) Or when we are going to be loading someone so big that they + the stretcher exceeds 700lbs and the other 4 people supposed to be helping bail in midlift.

So yeah, I really WISH for thicker spinal erectors and surrounding structures. Wishing isn't gonna get them though so I keep on squatting and deadlifting.

[thatoneguy]

I started doing weight sit ups this week, no one told me to, I just had a weight and was getting bored of the normal sit up so I got a 5 lb weight on my chest and it feels like a better work out. However, I'm not actually trying to get a bigger waist or anything, so should I stop doing these? I like the work out it gives me, and if there's more benefits than downsides (Which only seems to be that I get a bigger waist) then I'll keep doing it.

Thanks.

[trainerty]

Welch: Excellent point-- I would still lean towards the less hypertophy around the lumbar. First erector spinae-- runs the course of the entire back and is stimulated through any "closed chained" exercise. Obliques-- I know Ronnie Coleman is an ex-powerlifter who has monstrous size obliques. I would almost say he is naturally prone to gaining bigger obliques. I personally have read and dealt with many back strength articles/books and "back disorder" clients. Loading the "lumbar" spine out of its strong position is a bad idea. Movements like loaded side bends and situps are not considered good choices for a healthy back.

Also, I heard a pretty troubling story about Dave Tate (900+ squatter). His little boy was running for a body of water (I think a lake). Tate couldn't catch him to stop him. A wake up call of the necessity of mobility over brute strength. Raw strength is nothing without the ability to use it properly. Hypertrophy does not mean strength. I know bodybuilders that cant bench 315lb, but they are huge. Simply because they hold "useless" hypertophy. May be looking good on stage, but a waste in functional value.

Thatoneguy: Remember your caloric intake will be the major factor in putting on muscle. Weighted situps are something I personally don't like....but each to their own.

[.V.]

Hey thatone guy. No you shouldn't stop them. They will make your abdomen stronger, not that much bigger. We were discussing abdominal width and bigger/wider obliques. The abdomen is part of your "core" the primary supporting part of your body. A weak abdomen leads to a weak, injured back.

[Dan C]

Good thread here.

I have to agree with Welch here on the point of safety through strength & stability in regards to the lumbar area.

Whether or not thicker musculature would limit hip mobility is a good question. I don't think it would, just like big shoulders doesn't NOT allow you to lift your arms overhead. It's that old argument of weight training making you "muscle bound."

Trainerty, I don't think the Dave Tate example you cited is a good one. Tate was a super heavyweight powerlifter, and though he probably was tight in the hips with limited mobility or whatever (I don't know), him being 300lbs probably had more to do with him not being able to catch his son. Of course, he has since lost a lot of weight, and I'm not familiar with this story, so maybe he couldn't catch his son as a 200lb'er, I don't know, but I don't think it's fair to conclude that a kid can run faster than a man because he has limited mobility. I'm also scratching my head as to how your thought process of Dave Tate lead to bodybuilders with "useless hypertrophy" all in the same paragraph?

I do however, agree with your case for balanced abilities; be it strength, mobility, endurance or whatever. I just don't see these lumbar exercises in question as potentially limiting mobility, or contributing to an unhealthy back. Quite the contrary...

You say that loading the lumbar spine out of its "strong position" is a bad idea. But the strong position of the lumbar spine is a neutral position, is it not? When you bend over or move laterally is when forces are exerted onto the vertebra, and it is at this point when injuries usually occur, at the weak point. That's why I think you should train these positions. I believe that a strong "abdominal belt" is key to having a healthy back. I always say that if you can get up out of a chair, then you can squat. Well my thinking is along the same lines in regards to a side bend - if you can bend laterally, safely and without pain, then you could do it with a small dumbbell in one hand. And if you can do it with a small dumbbell, you can do it with a bigger one too.

I never understood why people are so afraid to train their abs heavy (and I'm not referring to Trainerty, just people in general). The fear of getting "big abs" is an irrational one. Pretty much anybody that works out can hit the deck and do 20 sit ups no problem. Well, when you can do 20 curls, presses or rows with no problem, what do you do? You add weight! And for as hard as people work on making their arms bigger, why do they think that muscles of the abdomen are just going to grow uncontrollably with the slightest bit of added resistance? It reminds me of all the women in the world who lift baby weights in fear of "bulking up".

[trainerty]

I see your point Dan:

I put the hypertophy comment in their to keep the idea of "functional hypertophy" over simple getting bigger for no functional reason. This would kind of tie my comments back to the original question.

Actually the Dave Tate issue comes from many factors. One of his major issues is low hip mobility. He simply doesn't use much glute power at all to get the lifts done (paraphrasing Alwyn Cosgrove interview).

Now as foar as defining core area, I believe you brough up good points on strength, but is mass ...strength? I would say no. I would say that is a big misconception.

Strong lumbar posture is in the neutral position for most healthy people (people with lumbar injuries the neutral position is sometimes not strong).

I think it is wise to ask ourselves what is the lumbar spine doing during this motion and what is the primary function of the surrounding muscles. In this side bend position your spine moves away from its strong position unless you truly "brace" tha abdominals and preserve the lumbar spine. If this is so, the true function of the obliques is to "neutralize" the movement you are attempting to inflict on it. I have seen too many people side bend with heavy weight and hiher speeds just to recruit the wrong muscles....its impossible not to. Remember the body seeks the point of least resistants.

Re-defining the core for big guy such as yourself and other power lifting guys: This gets a bit off topic:
The core for you begins between the scapulas and continues through into the knee extensors. Meaning your forms must preserve neutral spine. Heavy weigh lifting starts with good shoulder position and continues all the way into the adductors/rectus femoris/bicep femoris and the surrounding tissue.
So core development (strenght and mass) would be better trained when keeping the focus in this general perspective (IMO).

Good topic...excuse the rant folks

[.V.]

Originally Posted by trainerty

Good topic...excuse the rant folks

Don't see any rants here, just good discussion.

I think the problem with Tate's admitted mobility problems came from the abuse he put on his joints, not from his size. He did discuss how lifting heavier than his joints could handle, training through injuries, and the other ways he abused his body took it's toll.

In my case, before the MS started limiting my legs when I was between 250 and 300lbs there were very few I couldn't run into the ground in a sprint. I didn't train other than to put in a lot of miles walking in the woods over rough terrain (and that was because I liked it, not for training), and occasional, very slow bouts with the heavy bag - working on technique and power, not speed or endurance. And to be perfectly honest, I was fat. Sure there was muscle underneath from carrying the weight of my body around, but basically, I was a fatbastard (we become that when over 30% bodyfat...it's a rule).

I'm digressing, but the history helps make sense of what I'm saying. My huge, untrained legs were muscular from carrying my bodyweight but I was very capable, very quick for short distances, and well, to be perfectly honest...had much younger joints. The size or bulk didn't limit me in any way other than endurance.