關於 superficial back muscle ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Posted @withregram • @alex_cwy 《Two variations of an wheel roll out 兩種腹輪的訓練方法》

第四波疫情下大家都會選擇家中健身， 市面上有不同種類的健身器材使用， 而腹輪是相對便宜和慳位的工具訓練腹肌， 是家中鍛練腹工具不二之選，而其中腹輪的訓練變化能偏向不同肌肉能參與動作 ，以下會同大家介紹兩個腹輪訓練的變化

📍脊椎帶動
屈曲脊椎 （脊椎前彎)帶動腹輪， 令腰部呈拱形弧度，脊椎屈曲動作能令腹直肌 俗稱六舊腹肌 的參與度上升， 但同時也需要脊椎需要一定的柔軟度才能掌握動作 ，以及腰背有傷患的學生不是太理想動作

📍肩膊帶動
此變化目的是把腹輪帶出及收入的時候， 下背腰保持中立位置， 當收回腹輪的時候，避免使屈曲脊椎帶動動作， 並感覺肩膊下壓（肩伸) 帶動動作， 腹部和臀部保持收緊 ，避免拗腰動作出現, 由於此變化中不需脊椎有任何屈曲動作，所以較為適合有腰背傷患的學員。另外，由於主導動作是肩伸， 所以背闊肌參與度也會增加

如果大家覺得以上資料有用的話 ，不妨like share 同埋follow 我個page啦 ， 黎緊都會擺多d不同的健身資訊！

Hoping everyone stay safe under the fourth wave of COVID-19 !! I would like to share two variations of abs wheel roll-out that everyone can try out at home , since abs rollout is a fairly advanced exercise, if you don’t have much experience in abs training , master some basics exercise such as plank , cat-cow to strengthen the mind-muscle connection prior to working on ab wheel

📍Driven by spine
Meaning that “curl the spine” in order to bring the wheel back to your body , this will involve in spinal flexion, which means superficial layer of abs will be engaged (rectus abdominis). However, for some trainee who have lower back injury such as flexion intolerance lower back pain , this maybe not be an ideal abs exercise, Also, it require some degree of motor control and mobility on lumber spine flexion in order to master the exercises

📍Driven by shoulder
The purpose of this variation is to keep the spine neutral through out the exercises and none of the spinal movement will be involved
, rather than “curl the spine”, this cueing of this exercise is to “bring the elbow to your back pocket “ while the spine and pelvic stays neutral . By bringing the elbow back , this will result in more back muscle engagement ( latissimus dorsi). Although this variation doesn’t’t work the superficial layer of abs like the former variation, but it’s a good modification for those who trains around with back pain

Thank you for your time !! If you feel it’s useful please like and share the post and follow my page for more posts !! @markys_strength_performance

我問美國友人Mark，他要我做做功課，就會知道為什麼是這個結論了「Trump, Clinton and the Culture of Deference」
By。Shelby Steele。Nov. 7, 2016 7:23 p.m. ET

The current election—regardless of its outcome—reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in American life. As an ideology—and certainly as a political identity—conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality—this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.
In the broader American culture—the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education—conservatism suffers a decided ill repute. Why?
The answer begins in a certain fact of American life. As the late writer William Styron once put it, slavery was “the great transforming circumstance of American history.” Slavery, and also the diminishment of women and all minorities, was especially tragic because America was otherwise the most enlightened nation in the world. Here, in this instance of profound hypocrisy, began the idea of America as a victimizing nation. And then came the inevitable corollary: the nation’s moral indebtedness to its former victims: blacks especially but all other put-upon peoples as well.

This indebtedness became a cultural imperative, what Styron might call a “transforming circumstance.” Today America must honor this indebtedness or lose much of its moral authority and legitimacy as a democracy. America must show itself redeemed of its oppressive past.

How to do this? In a word: deference. Since the 1960s, when America finally became fully accountable for its past, deference toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization became mandatory. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were some of the first truly deferential policies. Since then deference has become an almost universal marker of simple human decency that asserts one’s innocence of the American past. Deference is, above all else, an apology.
One thing this means is that deference toward victimization has evolved into a means to power. As deference acknowledges America’s indebtedness, it seems to redeem the nation and to validate its exceptional status in the world. This brings real power—the kind of power that puts people into office and that gives a special shine to commercial ventures it attaches to.

Since the ’60s the Democratic Party, and liberalism generally, have thrived on the power of deference. When Hillary Clinton speaks of a “basket of deplorables,“ she follows with a basket of isms and phobias—racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia. Each ism and phobia is an opportunity for her to show deference toward a victimized group and to cast herself as America’s redeemer. And, by implication, conservatism is bereft of deference. Donald Trump supporters are cast as small grudging people, as haters who blindly love America and long for its exclusionary past. Against this she is the very archetype of American redemption. The term “progressive” is code for redemption from a hate-driven America.
So deference is a power to muscle with. And it works by stigmatization, by threatening to label people as regressive bigots. Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma. And they have been fairly successful in this so that many conservatives are at least a little embarrassed to “come out” as it were. Conservatism is an insurgent point of view, while liberalism is mainstream. And this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe.

Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don’t really believe in. It means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal.

And into all this steps Mr. Trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma, a man impossible to ignore. The moment he entered the presidential contest America’s long simmering culture war rose to full boil. Mr. Trump was a non-deferential candidate. He seemed at odds with every code of decency. He invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all. He did much of the dirty work that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do.

Thus Mr. Trump’s extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he might actually do as the president. He stands to alter the culture of deference itself. After all, the problem with deference is that it is never more than superficial. We are polite. We don’t offend. But we don’t ever transform people either. Out of deference we refuse to ask those we seek to help to be primarily responsible for their own advancement. Yet only this level of responsibility transforms people, no matter past or even present injustice. Some 3,000 shootings in Chicago this year alone is the result of deference camouflaging a lapse of personal responsibility with empty claims of systemic racism.

As a society we are so captive to our historical shame that we thoughtlessly rush to deference simply to relieve the pressure. And yet every deferential gesture—the war on poverty, affirmative action, ObamaCare, every kind of “diversity” scheme—only weakens those who still suffer the legacy of our shameful history. Deference is now the great enemy of those toward whom it gushes compassion.

Societies, like individuals, have intuitions. Donald Trump is an intuition. At least on the level of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference—if not as a liberator then possibly as a reformer. Possibly he could lift the word responsibility out of its somnambulant stigmatization as a judgmental and bigoted request to make of people. This, added to a fundamental respect for the capacity of people to lift themselves up, could go a long way toward a fairer and better America.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).