Muscle Science :: Science Beyond Bodybuilding - View Single Post

J-Range Training

I know this thread is old, but I came across it from a google search. I do not personally believe that Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training are the most efficient training methods, but I have only ever used partial repetitions (further than they believe is prudent) my entire lifting career. I was able to put on about 100 pounds of muscle in two years without the use of pharmaceutical aid.

I have also helped numerous people whose goal was hypertrophy to gain much faster using a shorter ROM.

D-Massey did his study that made it into the Journal of Strength and Conditioning in 2004 specifically testing the top 2-4 inches of a bench versus full range. Although the results were found to be the same, one could argue that the methods that were used did not have a fair comparison. For instance, Dwayne believes that due to the short range of motion the speed of movement for the short range would not make a difference compared to the 4 second eccentric and 2 second concentric repetitions that the full range participants were made to do.

This alone would beg to question why he didn't find the average mean of timing under tension for partial, then mimic that timing for full range repetitions. Since this wasn't factored in one could argue that there would be at least a 4 second discrepancy each repetition, for all 15 reps, 3 sets, twice per week for 10 weeks. This would create a 3600 second difference after the 10 weeks (1 full hour) time under tension in favor of full range.

Since a type II muscle fiber contracts 60-120 times per second, irregardless of range, this would cause a difference of 216,000-432,000 contractions less for shorter range than the full. So even in a range that isn't as efficient as one could achieve, the shorter range seems more efficient than the full given the same results.

This was only one of the issues that I found with the method which this experiment was done. Even if it showed full more efficient, which in my opinion it didn't, it would not mean it was more efficient than every partial range; just what was tested.

Thanks for reading. Any discussions are welcome.

Sean

	#3 (permalink)
J-Range Training New Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 0	Re: gym debate I know this thread is old, but I came across it from a google search. I do not personally believe that Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training are the most efficient training methods, but I have only ever used partial repetitions (further than they believe is prudent) my entire lifting career. I was able to put on about 100 pounds of muscle in two years without the use of pharmaceutical aid. I have also helped numerous people whose goal was hypertrophy to gain much faster using a shorter ROM. D-Massey did his study that made it into the Journal of Strength and Conditioning in 2004 specifically testing the top 2-4 inches of a bench versus full range. Although the results were found to be the same, one could argue that the methods that were used did not have a fair comparison. For instance, Dwayne believes that due to the short range of motion the speed of movement for the short range would not make a difference compared to the 4 second eccentric and 2 second concentric repetitions that the full range participants were made to do. This alone would beg to question why he didn't find the average mean of timing under tension for partial, then mimic that timing for full range repetitions. Since this wasn't factored in one could argue that there would be at least a 4 second discrepancy each repetition, for all 15 reps, 3 sets, twice per week for 10 weeks. This would create a 3600 second difference after the 10 weeks (1 full hour) time under tension in favor of full range. Since a type II muscle fiber contracts 60-120 times per second, irregardless of range, this would cause a difference of 216,000-432,000 contractions less for shorter range than the full. So even in a range that isn't as efficient as one could achieve, the shorter range seems more efficient than the full given the same results. This was only one of the issues that I found with the method which this experiment was done. Even if it showed full more efficient, which in my opinion it didn't, it would not mean it was more efficient than every partial range; just what was tested. Thanks for reading. Any discussions are welcome. Sean