Is A Visible Six-Pack Obtainable Regardless Of Genetic Predisposition?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small 😎

❝Is it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder) and how much does it matter for health e.g. waist size etc?❞

Let’s break it down into two parts:

Is it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder)?

Short answer: no

First, a quick anatomy lesson: while “abs” (abdominal muscles) are considered in the plural and indeed they are, what we see as a six-pack is actually only one muscle, the rectus abdominis, which is nestled in between other abdominal muscles that are beyond the scope of our answer here.

The reason that the rectus abdominis looks like six muscles is because there are bands of fascia (connective tissue) lying over it, so we see where it bulges between those bands.

The main difference genes make are as follows:

  • Number of fascia bands (and thus the reason that some people get a four-, six-, eight-, or rarely, even ten-pack). Obviously, no amount of training can change this number, any more than doing extra bicep curls will grow you additional arms.
  • Density of muscle fibers. Some people have what has been called “superathlete muscle type”, which, while prized by Olympians and other athletes, is on bodybuilding forums less glamorously called being a “hard gainer”. What this means is that muscle fibers are denser, so while training will make muscles stronger, you won’t see as much difference in size. This means that size for size, the person with this muscle type will always be stronger than someone the same size without it, but that may be annoying if you’re trying to build visible definition.
  • Twitch type of muscle fibers. Some people have more fast-twitch fibers, some have more slow-twitch fibers. Fast-twitch fibers are better suited for visible abs (and, as the name suggests, quick changes between contracting and relaxing). Slow-twitch fibers are better for endurance, but yield less bulky muscles.
  • Inclination to subcutaneous fat storage. This is by no means purely genetic; hormones make the biggest difference, followed by diet. But, genes are an influencing factor, and if your body fat percentage is inclined to be higher than someone else’s, then it’ll take more work to see muscle definition under that fat.

The first of those items is why our simple answer is “no”; because some people are destined to, if muscle is visible, have a four-, eight, or (rarely) ten-pack, making a six-pack unobtainable.

It’s worth noting here that while a bigger number is more highly prized aesthetically, there is literally zero difference healthwise or in terms of performance, because it’s nothing to do with the muscle, and is only about the fascia layout.

The density of muscle fibers is again purely genetic, but it only makes things easier or harder; this part’s not impossible for anyone.

The inclination to subcutaneous fat storage is by far the most modifiable factor, and the thus most readily overcome, if you feel so inclined. That doesn’t mean it will necessarily be easy! But it does mean that it’s relatively less difficult than the others.

How much does it matter for health, e.g. waist size etc?

As you may have gathered from the above, having a six-pack (or indeed a differently-numbered “pack”, if that be your genetic lot) makes no important difference to health:

  • The fascia layout is completely irrelevant to health
  • The muscle fiber types do make a difference to athletic performance, but not general health when at rest
  • The subcutaneous fat storage is a health factor, but probably not how most people think

Healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.

For most people, having clearly visible abs requires going below those healthy levels. For most people, that’s not optimally healthy. And those you see on magazine covers or in bodybuilding competitions are usually acutely dehydrated for the photo, which is of course not good. They will rehydrate after the shoot.

However, waist size (especially as a ratio, compared to hip size) is very important to health. This has less to do with subcutaneous fat, though, and is more to do with visceral belly fat, which goes under the muscles and thus does not obscure them:

Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It

One final note: fat notwithstanding, and aesthetics notwithstanding, having a strong core is very good for general health; it helps keeps one’s internal organs in place and well-protected, and improves stability, making falls less likely as we get older. Additionally, having muscle improves our metabolic base rate, which is good for our heart. Abs are just one part of core strength (the back being important too, for example), but should not be neglected.

Top-tier exercises to do include planks, and hanging leg raises (i.e. hang from some support, such as a chin-up bar, and raise your legs, which counterintuitively works your abs a lot more than your legs).

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Marathons in Mid- and Later-Life
  • L-Theanine: What’s The Tea?
    L-Theanine: The Tea’s Secret Ingredient. L-theanine, an amino acid found in tea, offers numerous benefits including increased mental focus, relaxation without drowsiness, stress relief, and other potential health advantages.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Understanding Cellulitis: Skin And Soft Tissue Infections

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What’s the difference between a minor passing skin complaint, and a skin condition that’s indicative of something more serious? Dr. Thomas Watchman explains:

    More than skin-deep

    Cellulitis sounds benign enough, like having a little cellulite perhaps, but in fact it means an infection of the skin and—critically—the underlying soft tissues.

    Normally, the skin acts as a barrier against infections, but this barrier can be breached by physical trauma (i.e. an injury that broke the skin), eczema, fungal nail infections, skin ulcers, and other similar things that disrupt the skin’s ability to protect us.

    Things to watch out for: Dr. Watchman advises we keep an eye out for warm, reddened skin, swelling, and blisters. Specifically, a golden-yellow crust to these likely indicates a Staphylococcus aureus infection (hence the name).

    There’s a scale of degrees of severity:

    • Class 1: No systemic toxicity or comorbidities
    • Class 2: Systemic toxicity or comorbidities present
    • Class 3: Significant systemic toxicity or comorbidities with risk of significant deterioration
    • Class 4: Sepsis or life-threatening infection

    …with antibiotics being recommended in the latter two cases there, or in other cases for frail, young, old, or immunocompromised patients. Given the rather “scorched earth” results of antibiotics (they cause a lot of collateral iatrogenic damage), this can be taken as a sign of how seriously such infections should be taken.

    For more about all this, including visual guides, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Protein: How Much Do We Need, Really?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Mythbusting Protein!

    Yesterday, we asked you for your policy on protein consumption. The distribution of responses was as follows:

    • A marginal majority (about 55%) voted for “Protein is very important, but we can eat too much of it”
    • A large minority (about 35%) voted for “We need lots of protein; the more, the better!”
    • A handful (about 4%) voted for “We should go as light on protein as possible”
    • A handful (6%) voted for “If we don’t eat protein, our body will create it from other foods”

    So, what does the science say?

    If we don’t eat protein, our body will create it from other foods: True or False?

    Contingently True on an absurd technicality, but for all practical purposes False.

    Our body requires 20 amino acids (the building blocks of protein), 9 of which it can’t synthesize and absolutely must get from food. Normally, we get those amino acids from protein in our diet, and we can also supplement them by buying amino acid supplements.

    Specifically, we require (per kg of bodyweight) a daily average of:

    1. Histidine: 10 mg
    2. Isoleucine: 20 mg
    3. Leucine: 39 mg
    4. Lysine: 30 mg
    5. Methionine: 10.4 mg
    6. Phenylalanine*: 25 mg
    7. Threonine: 15 mg
    8. Tryptophan: 4 mg
    9. Valine: 26 mg

    *combined with the non-essential amino acid tyrosine

    Source: Protein and Amino Acid Requirements In Human Nutrition: WHO Technical Report

    However, to get the requisite amino acid amounts, without consuming actual protein, would require gargantuan amounts of supplementation (bearing in mind bioavailability will never be 100%, so you’ll always need to take more than it seems), using supplements that will have been made by breaking down proteins anyway.

    So unless you live in a laboratory and have access to endless amounts of all of the required amino acids (you can’t miss even one; you will die), and are willing to do that for the sake of proving a point, then you do really need to eat protein.

    Your body cannot, for example, simply break down sugar and use it to make the protein you need.

    On another technical note… Do bear in mind that many foods that we don’t necessarily think of as being sources of protein, are sources of protein.

    Grains and grain products, for example, all contain protein; we just don’t think of them as that because their macronutritional profile is heavily weighted towards carbohydrates.

    For that matter, even celery contains protein. How much, you may ask? Almost none! But if something has DNA, it has protein. Which means all plants and animals (at least in their unrefined forms).

    So again, to even try to live without protein would very much require living in a laboratory.

    We can eat too much protein: True or False?

    True. First on an easy technicality; anything in excess is toxic. Even water, or oxygen. But also, in practical terms, there is such a thing as too much protein. The bar is quite high, though:

    ❝Based on short-term nitrogen balance studies, the Recommended Dietary Allowance of protein for a healthy adult with minimal physical activity is currently 0.8 g protein per kg bodyweight per day❞

    ❝To meet the functional needs such as promoting skeletal-muscle protein accretion and physical strength, dietary intake of 1.0, 1.3, and 1.6 g protein per kg bodyweight per day is recommended for individuals with minimal, moderate, and intense physical activity, respectively❞

    ❝Long-term consumption of protein at 2 g per kg bodyweight per day is safe for healthy adults, and the tolerable upper limit is 3.5 g per kg bodyweight per day for well-adapted subjects❞

    ❝Chronic high protein intake (>2 g per kg bodyweight per day for adults) may result in digestive, renal, and vascular abnormalities and should be avoided❞

    Source: Dietary protein intake and human health

    To put this into perspective, if you weigh about 160lbs (about 72kg), this would mean eating more than 144g protein per day, which grabbing a calculator means about 560g of lean beef, or 20oz, or 1¼lb.

    If you’re eating quarter-pounder burgers though, that’s not usually so lean, so you’d need to eat more than nine quarter-pounder burgers per day to get too much protein.

    High protein intake damages the kidneys: True or False?

    True if you have kidney damage already; False if you are healthy. See for example:

    High protein intake increases cancer risk: True or False?

    True or False depending on the source of the protein, so functionally false:

    • Eating protein from red meat sources has been associated with higher risk for many cancers
    • Eating protein from other sources has been associated with lower risk for many cancers

    Source: Red Meat Consumption and Mortality Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

    High protein intake increase risk of heart disease: True or False?

    True or False depending on the source of the protein, so, functionally false:

    • Eating protein from red meat sources has been associated with higher risk of heart disease
    • Eating protein from other sources has been associated with lower risk of heart disease

    Source: Major Dietary Protein Sources and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women

    In summary…

    Getting a good amount of good quality protein is important to health.

    One can get too much, but one would have to go to extremes to do so.

    The source of protein matters:

    • Red meat is associated with many health risks, but that’s not necessarily the protein’s fault.
    • Getting plenty of protein from (ideally: unprocessed) sources such as poultry, fish, and/or plants, is critical to good health.
    • Consuming “whole proteins” (that contain all 9 amino acids that we can’t synthesize) are best.

    Learn more: Complete proteins vs. incomplete proteins (explanation and examples)

    Share This Post

  • When supplies resume, should governments subsidise drugs like Ozempic for weight loss? We asked 5 experts

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide are taking drugs like Ozempic to lose weight. But what do we actually know about them? This month, The Conversation’s experts explore their rise, impact and potential consequences.

    You’ve no doubt heard of Ozempic but have you heard of Wegovy? They’re both brand names of the drug semaglutide, which is currently in short supply worldwide.

    Ozempic is a lower dose of semaglutide, and is approved and used to treat diabetes in Australia. Wegovovy is approved to treat obesity but is not yet available in Australia. Shortages of both drugs are expected to last throughout 2024.

    Both drugs are expensive. But Ozempic is listed on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS), so people with diabetes can get a three-week supply for A$31.60 ($7.70 for concession card holders) rather than the full price ($133.80).

    Wegovy isn’t listed on the PBS to treat obesity, meaning when it becomes available, users will need to pay the full price. But should the government subsidise it?

    Wegovy’s manufacturer will need to make the case for it to be added to the PBS to an independent advisory committee. The company will need to show Wegovy is a safe, clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for obesity compared to existing alternatives.

    In the meantime, we asked five experts: when supplies resume, should governments subsidise drugs like Ozempic for weight loss?

    Four out of five said yes

    This is the last article in The Conversation’s Ozempic series. Read the other articles here.

    Disclosure statements: Clare Collins is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), the Hunter Medical Research Institute, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, the Western Australian Department of Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk (for weight management resources and an obesity advisory group), Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and current co-chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity; Emma Beckett has received funding for research or consulting from Mars Foods, Nutrition Research Australia, NHMRC, ARC, AMP Foundation, Kellogg and the University of Newcastle. She works for FOODiQ Global and is a fat woman. She is/has been a member of committees/working groups related to nutrition or food, including for the Australian Academy of Science, the NHMRC and the Nutrition Society of Australia; Jonathan Karnon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment; Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing; Priya Sumithran has received grant funding from external organisations, including the NHMRC and MRFF. She is in the leadership group of the Obesity Collective and co-authored manuscripts with a medical writer provided by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.

    Fron Jackson-Webb, Deputy Editor and Senior Health Editor, The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Marathons in Mid- and Later-Life
  • Good Energy – by Dr. Casey Means

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    For a book with a title like “Good Energy” and chapters such as “Bad Energy Is the Root of Disease”, this is actually a very science-based book (and there are a flock of well-known doctors saying so in the “praise for” section, too).

    The premise is simple: most of our health is a matter of what our metabolism is (or isn’t) doing, and it’s not just a case of “doing more” or “doing less”. Indeed, a lot of “our” energy is expended doing bad things (such as chronic inflammation, to give an obvious example).

    Dr. Means outlines about a dozen things many people do wrong, and about a dozen things we can do right, to get our body’s energy system working for us, rather than against us.

    The style here is pop-science throughout, and in the category of criticism, the bibliography is offloaded to her website (we prefer to have things in our hands). However, the information here is good, clearly-presented, and usefully actionable.

    Bottom line: if you ever find yourself feeling run-down and like your body is using your resources against you rather than for you, this is the book to get you out of that slump!

    Click here to check out Good Energy, and get your metabolism working for you!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Kidney Beans or Black Beans – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing kidney beans to black beans, we picked the black beans.

    Why?

    First, do note that black beans are also known as turtle beans, or if one wants to hedge one’s bets, black turtle beans. It’s all the same bean. As a small linguistic note, kidney beans are known as “red beans” in many languages, so we could have called this “red beans vs black beans”, but that wouldn’t have landed so well with our largely anglophone readership. So, kidney beans vs black beans it is!

    They’re certainly both great, and this is a close one today…

    In terms of macros, they’re equal on protein and black beans have more carbs and/but also more fiber. So far, so equal—or rather, if one pulls ahead of the other here, it’s a matter of subjective priorities.

    In the category of vitamins, they’re equal on vitamins B2, B3, and choline, while kidney beans have more of vitamins B6, B9, C, and K, and black beans have more of vitamins A, B1, B5, and E. In other words, the two beans are still tied with a 4:4 split, unless we want to take into account that that vitamin E difference is that black beans have 29x more vitamin E, in which case, black beans move ahead.

    When it comes to minerals, finally the winner becomes apparent; while kidney beans have a little more manganese and zinc, on the other hand black beans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium. However, it should be noted that honestly, the margins aren’t huge here and kidney beans are almost as good for all of these minerals.

    In short, black beans win the day, but kidney beans are very close behind, so enjoy whichever you prefer, or better yet, both! They go great together in tacos, burritos, or similar, by the way.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Can We Side-Step Age-Related Alienation?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    When The World Moves Without Us…

    We’ve written before about how reduced social engagement can strike people of all ages, and what can be done about it:

    How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation

    …but today we’re going to talk more about a specific aspect of it, namely, the alienation that can come with old age—and other life transitions too, but getting older is something that (unless accident or incident befall us first) all of us will definitely do.

    What’s the difference?

    Loneliness is a status, alienation is more of a process. It can be the alienation in the sense of an implicit “you don’t belong here” message from the world that’s geared around the average person and thus alienates those who are not that (a lack of accessibility to people with disabilities can be an important and very active example of this), and it can also be an alienation from what we’ve previously considered our “niche” in the world—the loss of purpose many people feel upon retirement fits this bill. It can even be a more generalized alienation from our younger selves; it’s easy to have a self-image that doesn’t match one’s current reality, for instance.

    Read more: Estranged by Time: Alienation in the Aging Process

    So, how to “un-alienate”?

    To “un-alienate”, that is to say, to integrate/reintegrate, can be hard. Some things may even be outright impossible, but most will not be!

    Consider how, for example, former athletes become coaches—or for that matter, how former party-goers might become party-hosts (even if the kind of “party” might change with time, give or take the pace at which we like to live our lives).

    What’s important is that we take what matters the most to us, and examine how we can realistically still engage with that thing.

    This is different from trying to hold on grimly to something that’s no longer our speed.

    Letting go of the only thing we’ve known will always be scary; sometimes it’s for the best, and sometimes what we really need is just more of a pivot, like the examples above. The crux lies in knowing which:

    • Is our relationship with the thing (whatever it may be) still working for us, or is it just bringing strife now?
    • If it’s not working for us, is it because of a specific aspect that could be side-stepped while keeping the rest?
    • If we’re going to drop that thing entirely (or be dropped by it, which, while cruel, also happens in life), then where are we going to land?

    This latter is one where foresight is a gift, because if we bury our heads in the sand we’re going to land wherever we’re dropped, whereas if we acknowledge the process, we can make a strategic move and land on our feet.

    Here’s a good pop-science article about this—it’s aimed at people around retirement age, but honestly the advice is relevant for people of all ages, and facing all manner of life transitions, e.g. career transitions (of which retirement is of course the career transition to end all career transitions), relationship transitions (including B/B/B/B: births, betrothals/break-ups, and bereavements) health transitions (usually: life-changing illnesses and/or disabilities—which again, happens to most of us if something doesn’t get us first), etc. So with all that in mind, this becomes more of a “how to reassess your life at those times when it needs reassessing”:

    How to Reassess Your Life in Retirement

    But that doesn’t mean that letting go is always necessary

    Sometimes, the opposite! Sometimes, the age-old advice to “lean in” really is all the situation calls for, which means:

    • Be ready to say “yes” to things, and if nobody’s asking, be ready to “hey, do you wanna…?” and take a “build it and they will come” approach. This includes with people of different ages, too! Intergenerational friendships can be very rewarding for all concerned, if done right. Communities that span age-ranges can be great for this—they might be about special interests (this writer has friends ranging through four generations from playing chess, for instance), they could be religious communities if we be religious, LGBT groups if that fits for us, even mutual support groups such as for specific disabilities or chronic illness if we have such—notice how the very things that might isolate us can also bring us together!
    • Be open-minded to new experiences; it’s easy to get stuck in a rut of “I’ve never done that” and mistake that self-assessment for an uncritical assumption of “I’m not the kind of person who does that”. Sometimes, you really won’t be! But at least think about it and entertain the possibility, before dismissing it out of hand. And, here’s a life tip: it can be really good to (within the realms of safety, and one’s personal moral principles, of course) take an approach of “try anything once”. Even if we’re almost certain we won’t like it, and even if we then turn out to indeed not like it, it can be a refreshing experience—and now we can say “Yep, tried that, not doing that again” from a position of informed knowledge. That’s the only way we get to look back on a richly lived life of broad experiences, after all, and it is never too late for such.
    • Be comfortable prioritizing quality over quantity. This goes for friends, it goes for activities, it goes for experiences. The topic of “what’s the best number of friends to have?” has been a matter of discussion since at least ancient Greek times (Plato and Aristotle examined this extensively), but whatever number we might arrive at, it’s clear that quality is the critical factor, and quantity after that is just a matter of optimizing.

    In short: make sure you’re investing—in your relationships, in your areas of interest, in your community (whatever that may mean for you personally), and most of all, and never forget this: in yourself.

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: