"The truth about six pack abs"

[DrFaustus]

I would suspect nearly everyone can have them. However, some people MUST eat ridiculously clean, and be doing a lot of cardio. Its possible... but would it be sensible? I guess that depends on the person.

 

[JLibourel]

Even when I was training like a madman, eating sparingly and running about 10 miles a day (often as much as 16 when I went to the beach) and lost about 50 pounds, I still didn't get a six-pack. I had a very trim waist, down to 29 inches at a height of 6'3" and a lean, shapely physique, but I never got really chiseled definition, which would include the classic six-pack.

 

[Lone Wolf]

IMO abs are like calves - you either have them or you don't. I've been measured as low as 11% BF and my abs didn't seem any more pronounced that when I was heavier. I can get a four pack when I flex and slight definition when I'm relaxed.

They're vanity muscles. I'm more interested in getting my waist as small as possible than in a six pack.

 

[rjmaiorano]

^^^ They are for sure vanity muscles, but they also serve a pretty important purpose. In most any sport I know, you don't have a strong core, you don't have much.

 

[rjmaiorano]

Originally Posted by JoeWoah

ie: My roommate Kristen. She's not thin (not fat either, but about a size 10) and she's a marathon runner that trains every morning. She doesn't eat anything all that bad, the usual bar food here and there because that's life, but there is no budge in her weight. She'd have to starve herself and maybe get a parasite!

I know dozens of girls like this.

Women tend to be a tad delusional, more so than guys, in their attempts and failures at weight loss. If she wanted to, she could. She trains the same way day in and day out most likely and has little differentiation in her workouts. It's pretty common for recreational distance runners to be skinny fat. They do too much cardio to have that much muscle mass and are not diligent enough with their diet to remain lean enough to see the relatively low amount of muscle they do have.

 

[98Percent]

Anybody can get them, it just requires a different level of effort for each individual. Some are born with low body fat, others have to diet extremely hard.

Also, abdominal are actually just a thin sheet of muscle. Crunches and all that fancy ab work will strengthen them, but it's not really necessary to have a 6-pack showing. Your diet is the most important factor in acquiring see-able abs. Cardio is also important to a certain extent.

Edit: Starving yourself isn't the way to go, either. Starving your body and not getting enough calories simply slows your metabolism after a while (i.e. before your abs start showing). Losing the fat gradually while keeping the calories as high as your body will allow you and still lose weight is key.

 

[lynchpatrickj]

Doesn't your body respond differently in terms of storing fat depending on the exercise you do all the time? I know when I ran and ate lean I still retained fat, but when I lifted I looked leaner.

 

[Nomad_K]

Originally Posted by lynchpatrickj

Doesn't your body respond differently in terms of storing fat depending on the exercise you do all the time? I know when I ran and ate lean I still retained fat, but when I lifted I looked leaner.

That might not be the norm BUT stranger things have happened. Train with a sport (s) that you enjoy, stay healthy, and don't worry about how you're abs look so long as they are in good shape.

Back to the OP - most people can get a six pack but would it be worth it? I'm naturally lean so I can box, work out, eat well and get to 6% body fat with some reasonably well cut abs but I have friends who are just not built that way. Could they rearrange their workouts, diet, and training to get a 6 pack? Yes. Can you? Yes. Would you like to? Only you can answer that question.

For what it is worth - one of the best mixed martial artists in the world, Fedor Emelianenko, carries nothing close to a six pack but he is probably one of the most impressive athletes I have ever watched in action.

 

[who8mahrice]

Originally Posted by lynchpatrickj

Doesn't your body respond differently in terms of storing fat depending on the exercise you do all the time? I know when I ran and ate lean I still retained fat, but when I lifted I looked leaner.

Likely due to running not being a muscle building activity (at least comparing to lifting). Lifting increases muscle mass = higher basal metabolic rate.

 

[Taxler]

Why is a slower metabolism bad? Regardless of what it is, you still have to balance calories in/out, and isn't there reputable research that shows long-term low-calorie diets can extend life, lower disease, and increase stamina? Unless you just refuse to eat less than you need, I don't see why a lower metabolism is bad.

 

[Fat-Elvis]

Originally Posted by Nomad_K

That might not be the norm BUT stranger things have happened. Train with a sport (s) that you enjoy, stay healthy, and don't worry about how you're abs look so long as they are in good shape.

Back to the OP - most people can get a six pack but would it be worth it? I'm naturally lean so I can box, work out, eat well and get to 6% body fat with some reasonably well cut abs but I have friends who are just not built that way. Could they rearrange their workouts, diet, and training to get a 6 pack? Yes. Can you? Yes. Would you like to? Only you can answer that question.

For what it is worth - one of the best mixed martial artists in the world, Fedor Emelianenko, carries nothing close to a six pack but he is probably one of the most impressive athletes I have ever watched in action.
Exactly. Almost anyone could probably theoretically get a six-pack with the right diet and work-out regimen, it's just that regimen for one person would need to be a lot more intense and strict than for another person. And for many, it's just not worth the immense effort and sacrifice. Again, I've put in real effort before, and I cannot imagine how much more I would need to give to have a six-pack.

 

[West24]

playing basketball competitively i never got a really good body. it was good but never as good as i wanted it. when i started to box seriously my body instantly started getting toned and looking really good. different things just do different things to your body.

 

[whiskeylaureate]

Originally Posted by Taxler

Why is a slower metabolism bad? Regardless of what it is, you still have to balance calories in/out, and isn't there reputable research that shows long-term low-calorie diets can extend life, lower disease, and increase stamina? Unless you just refuse to eat less than you need, I don't see why a lower metabolism is bad.

Are you confusing a slow metabolism with a slow pulse? The slower you metabolize food, the more calories you store and turn into fat.

Also, I've heard that most bodybuilders recommend doing low reps with higher weight for abs because of the type of muscle tissue responds better to that. Although, I agree that you aren't going to get a six pack without getting your pulse up during your workouts.

 

[theom-]

a six pack is all about body fat percentage. Doing crunches doesn't do ****, you need cardio to burn the fat layer over your abs.

 

[suited]

Originally Posted by tigerFormula

you need cardio to burn the fat layer over your abs.

Completely wrong.

Cardio just burns calories. There's nothing magical about cardio, it's just another way of burning calories, and it's actually an incredibly inefficient way of burning calories compared to heavy weight training.