Member
No nothing like that Hanley
Aren't you saying that compressing a muscle increases muscle tension on its attachments? Shouldn't compressive clothing like briefs or a suit increase muscle tension in the hips and legs the same way you're saying a belt helps the abs contract harder? I'm quite sure I am the dull one. Please correct my errors.Originally Posted by John Hanley
Member
The belt helps the abs (and erectors) contract isometrically.
So you believe geared lifters only contract their hips and legs isometrically too? Unrack the bar. Hold it a bit. Re-rack it. Well, given their sometimes laughable range of motion, I guess you just might be on to something!
Member
Ah, back to trolling. Because clearly, 10-13mm thick 4" leather belts are directly comparable to stretchy-if-snug polyester fabric. Get the fuck out of here with that garbage.
Member
I've been thinking about the other thread for awhile, wanted to see how my understanding played out. My understanding of the function of the belt is:
When we contract our abs, the muscle fibers shorten, and this shortening causes expansion in both directions perpendicular to the direction of contraction (inward and outward). A portion of this expansion (inward) contributes to creating a stabilizing force on the spine. Another portion of this expansion (outward) doesn't do a whole lot for spine stabilization.
So when we put a belt on, we are limiting the amount of outward expansion possible, forcing the abs to direct most of the expansion inward, allowing more of our contraction to affect and stabilize the spine.
Basically, we have a fixed amount of motor units being recruited during contraction. Without a belt, some of these MU are being wasted expanding outward, while belted all of the MU are being used to stabilize the spine.
I feel like I'm pretty much in line with your quote above so far. Am I wrong up to this point?
I then have a disconnect in how the belt allows for more MU to be recruited. I can understand a redirection and optimization of spinal stability for the contraction, but I'm having trouble with the "more MU" "harder contraction" result.
That's not really the question though. If I lift my leg up off the ground right now, I can contract my quads pretty damn hard (against air). The question is, if I were to put some compression around my quad, would I be able to contract my quads harder, or would I just be re-directing the same amount of contraction inward toward my femur.
I feel like someone has had to have used an EMG to test this exact scenario.
cwd
The belt & abs is the same thing ultimately, but it's not quite as direct as pressing a weight vs. air. I had to work through it a bit to really see this. Maybe I'm just slow.
✓ Member
With regards to squatting, my observations; without a belt, my lower back rounds at the bottom of the squat, even at lighter weights.
I can consciously try to tighten up at the bottom, have my back fight my hamstrings, but no matter what, there will be uncontrollable rounding.
With the belt on, magically, and without much conscious effort, at the bottom of the squat, my lower back holds straight.
The belt actually feels tighter at the bottom of the squat, as without it my belly seems to expand more, with the belt it's tightly contained.
The tightening of abdominal muscles against the belt are responsible for increased abdominal pressure and hence rigidity of the back, as has been taught here forever.
The process feels much more reflexive than conscious, your body kind of knows how to respond with a heavy ass weight on the back, muscles tighten, and the breath is held almost instinctively.
Member
And then of course there's the MSN take on belts...
Wearing braces or weight belts at the gym
Based on even my own novice work, I'm pretty sure Mr. Tuthill is woefully underqualified for the CSCS after his name. Oh wait, he's an editor with Muscle and Fitness, I stand corrected!If you have an injury that requires an ankle or knee brace and the doctor has prescribed one, then it should be worn. However, do not wear it at the gym on a regular basis. “On all but the heaviest lifts, meaning at or near one-rep max, weight belts should not be worn," explains Matt Tuthill, C.S.C.S. "By giving continuous external support to the muscles of the core, you weaken these muscles over time. Heavy squats, overhead presses, deadlifts, etc., all train the abs when performed without any lifting gear; a belt eliminates this benefit.”
Member
Thanks, this actually makes things much clearer in my own head (assuming that you're on the right track here).
See this is where I think a bit of nuanced discussion is useful:
There are seemingly three "types" of isometric contractions
A: Isometric contraction caused by attempting to concentrically contract a muscle against an immovable resistance, where the resisting force is opposing movement in the direction that would occur if concentric contraction were successful (trying to flex torso while something is preventing that movement from occuring).
B: Isometric contraction without any external resistance at all (flexing your abs hard without any resistance or a belt).
C: Same as B, but with resistance against the expansion of the muscle itself (flexing abs hard with a belt).
I think a lot of the confusion lies in that A and C are rather different physical scenarios, yet they are both often described as "flexing against resistance", and are thus conceptually conflated.
Member
To be fair, Mr. Hanley did say "an increase in P" was the mechanism and stretchy-if-snug polyester would seem to me to increase P. The increase would be clearly less than an non-elastic belt (but still more than nothing) and in different locations, but non-zero if the theory is right. I suspect Mr. Diebold is not thinking primarily of the main function of a squat suit though - just the overall compression.
Member
No. The increase in cross-sectional area of a muscle during isometric contraction is trivial, especially in the context of a belt which can reduce the intraabdominal space by a large amount with the simple process of tightening one hole. This restraining or redirecting of muscle belly expansion has been brought up before in this context, and on close analysis made no sense last time either. Let's not rehash it here.
Posting Permissions
