Abs, Belt, Tension

[Gary Gibson]

Your post in one of the new training logs made me realize you're the one who wrote the article on training myths with number one about belt usage.

That article got me thinking about a lot of things and culminated in my own article on just what "gear" is and the appropriate use of it. So thanks!

Kenny K. added that some study showed that though the rectus abdominis worked harder when a belt was employed, the obliques or TA (I forget which) showed significantly less activation. Any opinion on this?

Personally, I believe if that's true, it's only because the other midsection muscles have to work harder when the RA can't do its job.

[Charles Staley]

Not familiar with that study, but this is intuitively obvious- no studies necessary- the belt gives the abdominal wall an anchor to push against


Your post in one of the new training logs made me realize you're the one who wrote the article on training myths with number one about belt usage.

That article got me thinking about a lot of things and culminated in my own article on just what "gear" is and the appropriate use of it. So thanks!

Kenny K. added that some study showed that though the rectus abdominis worked harder when a belt was employed, the obliques or TA (I forget which) showed significantly less activation. Any opinion on this?

Personally, I believe if that's true, it's only because the other midsection muscles have to work harder when the RA can't do its job.

[Gary Gibson]

Not familiar with that study, but this is intuitively obvious- no studies necessary- the belt gives the abdominal wall an anchor to push against



You'd think... (http://stronglifts.com/forum/should-i-use-a-weight-belt-while-squatting-t21242-30.html)


I am not saying I know the answer, but i have to wonder, does Gary Gibson rely on actual science, like hooking up the abs to an electro-whatever machine, to test what the abs are actually doing, or is he relying on anectodal belief? Also maybe his abs looked more "bulged out" because they actually got weaker, and thus lost their "tightness"!

Unless you use "science" involving an electro-whatever, it doesn't count.

[Tor]

Holy mother of god... I had no idea the intensity of the debate over belts out there on the internet. You guys are all familiar with Paul Chek's stance which seems to have set off so much of this uproar (if you aren't, google 'chek belt incontinence')?

There's a 'great belt scare' going on out there right now, saying if you wear a belt your abs will deteriorate and your intestines will bulge out of your weakened abdominal cavity while you lose control over your bowels and helplessly piss and shit yourself. I exaggerate not...

Tor

[Gary Gibson]

Ah yes, Paul "Pull Your Belly Button In While Lifting" Chek.

I took a look a Youtube clip in which he has a picture of a female Olympic weightlifter peeing in the catch position of a full squat clean. He uses this picture as evidence that belts and pushing the abs out lead to incontinence. Or something.

The late and great Dr. Mel Siff had lots of fun deconstructing Paul. Google is your friend.

I'm not too worried if Paul convinces an entire segment of the population not to wear belts and to suck in their guts while squatting. Competitors will continue to do what has worked for decades.

[Haggis]

Here is an interesting piece on the use of weightbelts published by the NSCA.
It is written by Dr Stuart McGill, a Dr. a professor of spine biomechanics at the University of Waterloo. It has a lot of good info on the effects of belt usage, though gives no stance on whether they are good or bad.

Personally I feel that there are pluses and minuses to both using a belt and not using one. It all depends on the outcome that you are looking for.

I have instances that I both do and don't use belts with my athletes. My volleyball, basketball, and football players don't use belts. Some due to the time restraints of the athletic period, and things need to be streamlined. The other is that I want the core to do the job it was meant to do, as it will on the court, and field. Be it true or or whatever of the abs pressing against the belt, my players won't be using a belt on the field, and it creates a weak link in that instance. It has not hurt our squat numbers at all. I have had a player front squat over 400 for the past three years, and a kid do a double with 505 sans belts. I feel that athletes that train with a belt will sometimes see a disconnect of power production from the hips to the shoulder.

Now my powerlifters will lift both with and without belts depending on the phase of the season that we are in. I do see a brief drop in production when we add belts back in due to the slight changes in form, and biomechanics of the lift, but this is short lived. In their sport, squat numbers are the number one goal so the belt will raise these numbers.

Personally I train without a belt, but for no other reason that I got used to doing it. I am satisfied with the numbers I am hitting (450 raw for a double) and not fear of incontinence I assure you. So I guess what I am getting to, in a long winded boring way, is that there is no right or wrong on belt use, it just depends on the goal you are looking for.

[Gary Gibson]

All addressed at length in my article (http://startingstrength.com/articles/baby_bathwater_gear_gibson.pdf).

Let me make clear: I do hear what you're saying.

[JLascek]

The thing that a lot of belt naysayers don't understand is that it is the training adaptation from wearing the belt over time that is useful, not just wearing the belt acutely in a training session. It doesn't really matter what muscles are doing what when a belt is worn, because the long-term adaptation is that the muscles that strengthen and stabilize the trunk are strengthened.

Thinking of it in terms of "how much lbs/kg are added to your squat" (as someone asked in the thread Gary linked) means that they interpret wearing a belt as a short fix instead of a training adaptation.

[blowdpanis]

In my experience, wearing a belt consistently transfers much better to not wearing a belt than vice versa.

I.e. if I were to do all my work sets in a belt for a long period of time, then test an unbelted max, it would have increased proportionately to my belted max, with the absolute number simply being less.

If I were to do all my work sets without a belt, then my belted #'s upon random testing will not be awesome, and I will have to get reused to wearing a belt.

I know both of these scenarios are accurate in my case because I've experienced them both multiple times. In fact, after the last time (a few months back after yet another experiment), I'm pretty much just convinced that belts = gets you stronger faster, in every sense of the idea.

This, in effect, mirrors what Justin said above - you adapt to using a belt in an extremely "functional" way, and not wearing a belt seems to not accomplish much other than avoiding that very useful adaptation.