gym debate

[IBBAdmin]

How To Win Every Gym Debate Part 1

One of my biggest pet peeves is the the awful strength training information that gets freely passed around in gyms and especially online. Because PFT and SCT are new, innovative and unconventional they are often magnets for the purveyors of this useless and even harmful advice. What follows is a series of e-mails that will help give every reader the critical thinking skills and pertinent arguments that can win every gym debate and allow you to continue your productive training uninterrupted by the Luddites who fear new technology.

Debate: “You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.”

Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. It’s often from some person who thinks he’s helping you out by passing on some physiology ‘knowledge’ he once heard. Sometimes it’s just a know-it-all jerk who critiques everyone’s workouts.

In any event, ask him this simple question, “Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?”

Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single study supporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, are you saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What I’m saying is that there are billions of cases over thousands of years of humans building muscle without using a full range of motion. So if a future study concludes that can’t happen the study will be wrong.

The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial studios, humans just don’t use a full range of motion when performing high intensity exercise. For example:

a) When you try to push a car you don’t place your hands near your chest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from you

B) Likewise, you also don’t squat down on you haunches, you barely bend your knees when you push a car

c) When you climb a ladder you don’t go three rungs at a time even though you could

d) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongest and most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use our full range of motion

There are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers and others who have very muscular physiques without ever using a full range of motion in their daily jobs.

And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth, yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all the bodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with maximum range of motion to develop flexibility.

Sometimes you’ll hear this variation: “If you don’t use a full range of motion, you’ll develop a short muscle.” Again, there is not a single study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of your muscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, your muscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter. Won’t happen.

And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work of the maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leads to maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the “short muscle” remark is ridiculous.

For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static Contraction Training have been showing people how to limit range of motion in favor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate that over 200,000 people have used these methods to build new muscle. Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitness equipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.

So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of muscle building, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. The overwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts. It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6 inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics is concerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxes your limits, not the greater distance.

“You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.” It never was true and never will be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training to lift the maximum amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safest possible range of motion…and watch your progress take off.

Have a great workout!

[tmeoe]

Wow, where to start with this one.....If this post seems unorganized i'm sorry.
I'll try to present this in bullet points to make this easier to read through.


First i'll comment on what i think of the writers opinions:

* Yes, there have been studies done to test the benefits of partial ROM and full ROM, end result was partial may have some advatanges but more research necessary. (Masey, et al "An analysis of partial ROM vs. full ROM in the development of strength in men")

* Moving a car, and construction jobs aren't strength training and should not be compared to strength training

*Maximum fast twitch fibers do result in hypertrophy, but completely exhausting a muscle during every training session will guarantee overtraining and increased risk of injury.

* No research has been done to say that full ROM is worthless

Now for my opinions on the issue:

* Full ROM is essential, especially for begginers who are much more susceptible to injury

* Full ROM also teaches good form so that the athlete can actually work the muscle they intend to. Leaning back so much on standing curls is not going to efficiently hit your biceps

* Using partial ROM will fatigue your muscle much faster and not allow the athlete to train with full intensity

* I believe partial ROM has its place, but only for athletes who are experienced, are in a plateau, and whose goals are strength not hypertrophy

* I would love to see and individual who has never worked out before just use partial ROM and see what the results are like

* I for one will continue to use periodization and full ROM as it has worked best for me

[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

[Colossus]

Im a lifter who doesnt get too scientific. I just lift (include all compound movements) and try and increase the weights every week. Eat clean and get a 1g per pound of bodyweight of protein. And jump rope for my cardio......

	protein

[chrismortimer66]

Nice one IBBAdmin, I train in a fuckin backwards gym, they all squat narrow with thier heels on wood, they can't squat shit[under250lbs] and all were knee wraps. They have no idea of strength training or even proper bodybuilding, always looking at me with judgement in thier eyes, they used to say shit, but after a while they got onto the fact I would just ignore em.

I went from a 250lbs squat for 7 reps, to a 500lbs squat for 10 in the space of 2 years.
Using Sumo box squats, yer you bet the critisms came out thick and fast, I would use heavy encentrics from fixed pins on the power rack, lowering the pins every so couple of weeks, only to hear "that weight is to much" "the equipment want be able to handle it" "you won't get strong from it" and my fucking FAVOURITE "ahh he's just ego lifting", all the while I would stare deep into thier eyes when thier chatting shit, and just see fear, fear of me being so much more stronger then them.
I was right and they were wrong, do any of the fucking assholes train anything like me now, NO, why? Cause THIER pathetic ego can't handle I was right.

I found it natural to use half and quarter reps to up weight and FORCE the body to adapt to heavy weight, then I red on the internet the first guy to squat 800lbs in the 1960's used the same technique I used, then I read stuff on Louie Cyrr and Paul Anderson and knew I was onto something.
Strict form for any athlete [bodybuilder, Powerlifter, weightlifter, strongman]is your worst enemy and your best friend, once your mind is matured enough to realise to encompase other training styles [loose form, partial reps etc] then the poundage is upto your imagination and self disipline.

Just to add I trained I 140lbs 21year old to parallel squat 300lbs for 8 reps in 6 months using the above method, who moved upto 165lbs in bodyweight, staying at 7%BF.

[J-Range Training]

The two training methods that IBBAdmin was talking about does not include quarter or half reps. They are solely at the very top of the lift, like the top two inches of a bench press. That's the other problem when using DC Massey with his study is that he measured a partial range that is rarely ever used or promoted by believers in partial reps.

I do still hold the position that his research was not equally done, with the bias towards full range of motion. To me, since he noticed equal results, yet allowed 4 seconds or more less time under tension each repetition for the partial reps, that the partials actually showed more efficiency than full range. Basically, the participants doing only partial range (once again only top couple of inches) would have contracted their muscles 1 hour less after the entire 10 week program than the participants using full range. Since they both increased the same amount, that's more efficiency for the partials if you ask me.

It may also be important to note that only lifting at the very top of each movement is not the best partial range someone could use. So imagine how much more efficient the partial repetitions would be when actually comparing it along with the absolute hardest range for the muscles (which differs for everyone, and never is full range).

[Aurora]

I will comment on this later when I have more time. Suffice to say I find the post short sighted and a little ridiculous.

[Aurora]

ok, so basically on the most simple level if you exercise a muscle it will adapt and grow, no matter what you do. You could potentially cheat the whole way thru and still achieve some results from it because it is still stimulation. So if you just want to gain muscle and you dont care where you gain it, then all the power to you. But if you are a bodybuilder who is trying to bring up specific body parts then you need to be concious of form or opposing muscle groups will take over and negate your work. Another VERY imortant point to training in single plain movements without full ROM is that you are teaching your muscles to lose elasticity. Now lets get past the get big right now mentality and think about it over time, in terms of years. What kind of mobility are you going to have when your 50 years old? I have seen it many many times, where older bodybuilders are so freakin tight they can barely wipe their ass. From that point it will also take years to undo the damage. So the best scenerio is just to train properly from the get go, youll still have the same results only you will actually FEEL like an athlete, not just look like one.

[J-Range Training]

I can appreciate your position as someone that may not have done a lot of research on a shorter range of motion. It's easy to hear misnomers in the gyms about how someone is cheating with a shorter range, and how full range is always the best since it's allegedly tried and true, but realize that the very reason that you gave about doing anything working may be the very reason why full range has never been properly challenged.

Let's dissect the bench: Starting from the fully concentric position of the pectorals, triceps and deltoids, if locked pressure shifts onto the elbow. While the individual lowers it, the pectorals, triceps and deltoids all begin to move towards a stretch, reducing the total number of muscle fibers actually able to produce force. This is why most people "feel" more mid-way down than up all the way, since less fibers are contracting against the same weight. After a certain point the type II fibers of the pectorals cannot fire optimally (at a different point for everyone), thus shifting the load to the synergists (helping muscles). At this point the triceps and deltoids are also more towards a stretch as well, decreasing the number of fibers they can actually contract, making it impossible for them to take all of the pressure. Obviously the serratus anterior can produce the movement with protraction, and the corocobrachialis can produce some of the adduction of the humerous (movement of the upper bone in towards the midline of the body), but nothing can take over the load that the pectorals can past that point (after they can only contract 30% we'll say).

Because of this we end up with two things while going full range of motion. First our rotator cuffs end up contracting in an attempt to hold the massive amounts of stress that is now on the actual shoulder ligament, which has time and time again caused numerous shoulder injuries for body builders, power lifters, etc. Secondly we now will not be able to actually stress the muscles to their highest (safest) level since we would only be overloading the weakest point; the bottom of the movement or slightly higher with a cheat.

By paying attention to when the muscle cannot handle the load anymore (when the synergists take over more), then we are able to optimally work the muscles together without having to worry about causing synergistic dominance, leading to muscle imbalances.

Elasticity is not lost from using a shorter range of motion. I have been lifting that way for over 10 years with arms that still go to my side or any other invisible lat syndrome visual. I also have trained numerous clients with only a shorter range of motion that never actually paid attention to my advice towards them stretching more, while still increasing their flexibility. Shorter range has been proven to actually increase the amount of blood going into the muscle, which allows for more oxygen exchange with toxins, decreasing the possibility towards neurological inhibitions (nerve blocks), which is a leading reason for losing flexibility.

Most body builders are super tight from overuse injuries, such as doing 80 million sets of ego lift (bench press). Since they care more about working their pecs than their lats, they end up with an overactive pectoralis major / minor, and anterior deltiod, which causes the shoulders to roll forwards (based on Davie's Law). Add that to invisible lat syndrome (trying to look bigger than one is by flaring out the arms more) and you have an overly tight looking individual.

The fact is that there are far too many injuries from exercise (1.85 million / year) to say that what most people are doing (full range of motion) is correct. Since over 60% of people are going to hurt themselves that start an exercise program within the first 3 months, I'd say that it's safe to say we aren't doing something right. The fact that orthopods are convinced that working out shortens the life of our joints makes me wonder why it hasn't been associated with the load shifting off of the muscles onto the joints. The fact that I've personally helped numerous people wishing to grow gain 30-50 pounds of muscle within anywhere from 4 months to a year without the use of pharmaceutical aid or the like, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's more efficient to use a shorter range. I would also argue that it's safer on the joints, better for flexibility, safer for the muscles, offers a better neurological benefit, burns more calories, and causes less muscle imbalances that lead to later injuries.

[chrismortimer66]

Aurora, you where probably having to retrain and help trainees whom where using half and quater reps to ego lift, and not respecting the muscle as a whole, if you train using halfs and quarters, you should also use a full rom with a same or similar exercise and half the weight you where using for rep range 12-15, this will make sure no week links will develope.

A good example would be half sumo squats with 500lbs for 6+reps for heavy partial rom for 2-3 sets,then 2-3 sets of 12-15 reps of sissy squats with 220lbs.

The reason why some of your trainees may have that tight feeling maybe because allot of people I have trained and just people I have talked too feel that they are not affectivley stimulating thier muscles [having a good workout] unless they pump thier muscles, they like that pumped feeling after a workout. This the real reason why your trainees will be have a tight feeling and possibly bad flexibility.

I knew a guy who was an amazing trainer,who had trained 2 or 3 Mr universes back in the 70's, he go into training others after he tore both biceps tendons of his arms after having his arms pumps all the time, one day he does heavy deadlifts and ping,ping ended his career early, I think he did this in the late 60's and they couldn't doing anything for him.

That pumped feeling can be very dangerous, can also give the illusion of development, and retrain your brain from acknowledging true muscle stimulation in replace of muscle pump, especially in people who are uneducated in the field of physical development, thats probably around 80% of people who walk into a gym.