MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Concentrating On Hard Portion Of Rep
Author
Rating
Options

NeuroMass

Dr Darden,

What do you think about the idea of just performing PARTIAL reps in the WEAKEST range which is the HARDEST portion of the range of motion such as bench pressing only at the LOWER range(first 30%-40% of the way up) of the bench press or squats, etc. I mean if EFFECTIVE exercise is all about providing optimum stimulation to the muscular system then why not just eliminate the range which are easier to do and just stick with the hard part of the exercise?

Furthermore, it is clear in the laws of muscle fiber recruitment that the primary factor involve in muscle recruitment is FORCE REQUIREMENT and not range of motion or position of flexion therefore we should not be concerned about not doing full range reps and just concentrate of effective stimulation. What do you think? PEACE.
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

NeuroMass,

Jones found in his MedX strength testing, with thousands of subjects, that approximately 20% had the capacity to build full-range strength from partial-range exercise. He called these people Type G (G for general). The other 80% built strength only in the area they exercised, and they were labeled Type S (S for specific).

Most of these Type G people were significantly bigger and stronger than the Type S individuals. So it appears that if a person is in the Type G category, any type of exercise supplies a much better overall effect.

But still, I can't see any major advantage to performing partial-range exercise (unless it involves rehabilitation), compared to full-range exercise. Both Type G and Type S people achieve more benefits from full-range exercise.

On another thread, Drew Baye noted that MedX had a few of Jones's book on the lumbar spine still available for FREE. This book contains several chapters describing how-to evaluate for Type G and Type S trainees.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

NeuroMass

Dr.Darden,
I have read about tht experiment Arthur Jones conducted but what does that have to do with OPTIMUM MUSCLE STIMULATION? The goal should only be about stimulating the muscles to contract as INTENSELY as possible. Why then perform full range of motion when a significant portion of the range of motion (mid-upper range/ strongest range)is so mechanically advantageous (easy to perform) and is therefore just WASTED movement. Moreover the study you mentioned earlier was just an experiment to prove that most people are S types(specific adaptation to specific stimulation/ adaptation is angle specific)in strength and skill (performance of exercise)and as we know strength has many more componenents than just muscle SIZE (neuro-muscular efficiency, etc.). A good example here is how POWERLIFTERS are far Stronger than bodybuilders but rarely do they have BIGGER and more developed muscles than bodybuilders. Even Sergio Oliva admitted in one interview that he only gained significantly in muscle size when he switched from WEIGHTLIFTING to BODYBUILDING. PEACE.
Open User Options Menu

Widsith

Wisconsin, USA

On the powerlifter vs body builder strength and muscle size question: I had always heard that doing lower reps builds your tendons more than your muscles. Most powerlifters I know rarely do more than 3 reps at a time, then they take a 5-10 minute break and do another three reps. If you look at some of the old time strong men, they all look tiny compared to most bodybuilders today. However, they were all very strong. The way they trained was low reps and holds. They must have had tendons like steel cables.

On partial vs full reps: Didn't Mentzer state in one or most of his books that a muscle is only fully stimulated at full contraction? Doing reps in the bottom third of the range would not fully stimulate the muscle, if that is true. Although, building strength in that portion of the range could have a cascading effect through the rest of the range. That is, if you could bench 200 through the whole range, then spent a month working on the bottom 1/3 so that you could lift 240 there, you should be able to now move 240 through the full range.
Open User Options Menu

Ferrari

Quebec, CAN


On partial vs full reps: Didn't Mentzer state in one or most of his books that a muscle is only fully stimulated at full contraction? Doing reps in the bottom third of the range would not fully stimulate the muscle, if that is true.


This was a belief that Mike had which he inherited from Arthur Jones. At the time Arthur was speculating. It turns out that experimentation has revealed that this is incorrect. In fact it is the opposite. The muscle has the ability to stimulate more in the extended position compared to the contracted.

Analyzer has quoted many of these studies on another website.
Open User Options Menu

Widsith

Wisconsin, USA

Ferrari wrote:
This was a belief that Mike had which he inherited from Arthur Jones. At the time Arthur was speculating. It turns out that experimentation has revealed that this is incorrect. In fact it is the opposite. The muscle has the ability to stimulate more in the extended position compared to the contracted.

Analyzer has quoted many of these studies on another website.


You wouldn't want to provide a link would you? I am not finding much useful information using a google search. For me, partials were always a way to break past a plateau. I'd like to see more on how they work to stimulate growth.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA


About PARTIALS, although it might be a situation of TYPE-G versus TYPE-S trainees, one reason why some people have success with PARTIALS is for the simple reason the trainee lucks into not repeating certain RANGES-OF-MOTION; hence, they avoid over-training and, in effect, they avoid violating the one-set rule, so strategically determining what R.O.M.s do not overlap is essential in some cases.

I wanted to revisit this thread, because of my new posting entitled, "Nautilus Behind-Neck with Dumbbells?" In that post, although I do not state it outright until my fourth or fifth posting, I discuss how certain exercises overlap in that they repeat ranges-of-motion already performed.

For example, the pull-down and most types of rows share the same range, but not near the end of the row, as the upper-arms pass being flush with the torso that travel somewhat backwards and even many PULLOVER MACHINES do not address this range.

About PARTIALS, although it might be a situation of TYPE-G versus TYPE-S trainees, one reason why some people have success with PARTIALS is for the simple reason the trainee lucks into not repeating certain RANGES-OF-MOTION; hence, they avoid over-training and, in effect, they avoid violating the one-set rule, so strategically determining what R.O.M.s do not overlap is essential in some cases.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Last year I performed partial rep training in the strongest range for many months to see what the effect would be. From what I had read, this would provide the greatest contraction and overload and therefor the greatest gains.
I got super strong in a limited range but it carried little strength gains over to a full ROM. I did look more muscular but the extra load on my joints was not worth it.
I am definitely a type S not G.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Dr. Darden said....
But still, I can't see any major advantage to performing partial-range exercise (unless it involves rehabilitation), compared to full-range exercise. Both Type G and Type S people achieve more benefits from full-range exercise.
==Scott==
So Dr. Darden or anyone else, by this do you mean partial reps, like a Jrep exercise might not be as advantageous as a full-range exercise or does the Jrep exercise qualify as full range in that the seperate segments eventually equal the whole full range rep?
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

***** SCOTT *****

I think that Jreps almost always result in A COMPLETE R.O.M., as a Jrep-per simply performs the ranges at different times, yet still within the same session of a workout. Hence, Jreps do qualify as having a complete range-of-motion, as partials (as practiced by some) are only part of the R.O.M.; however, it would appear to me that if someone verified that a certain group of muscles within their body are, in fact, TYPE-G, then why not partials?

Personally, I want a complete range-of-motion, but maybe there is some yet discovered benefit for TYPE-G TRAINEES using partials, like the prevention of over-training, which I am only guessing.
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

NeuroMass wrote:
Dr.Darden,
I have read about tht experiment Arthur Jones conducted but what does that have to do with OPTIMUM MUSCLE STIMULATION? The goal should only be about stimulating the muscles to contract as INTENSELY as possible. Why then perform full range of motion when a significant portion of the range of motion (mid-upper range/ strongest range)is so mechanically advantageous (easy to perform) and is therefore just WASTED movement. Moreover the study you mentioned earlier was just an experiment to prove that most people are S types(specific adaptation to specific stimulation/ adaptation is angle specific)in strength and skill (performance of exercise)and as we know strength has many more componenents than just muscle SIZE (neuro-muscular efficiency, etc.). A good example here is how POWERLIFTERS are far Stronger than bodybuilders but rarely do they have BIGGER and more developed muscles than bodybuilders. Even Sergio Oliva admitted in one interview that he only gained significantly in muscle size when he switched from WEIGHTLIFTING to BODYBUILDING. PEACE.


I think he answered your question...
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

How about the balance of joint strength and mobility through a full range of motion? And, what about the strength balance or curve while at or moving through different positions of contraction? And, what about real life natural body mechanics and movements, how often are you in a flexed contracted position of full strength (or "Optimum" as you say or "Force Requirement") potential while doing daily activities?

It seems strange to me and not very practical to the human body to practice lifting weights ONLY in the strongest contracted (or "weakest as you say")positions - IMO. So why would this be the most productive manner for building strength or the most beneficial?
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

summa wrote:
Last year I performed partial rep training in the strongest range for many months to see what the effect would be. From what I had read, this would provide the greatest contraction and overload and therefor the greatest gains.
I got super strong in a limited range but it carried little strength gains over to a full ROM. I did look more muscular but the extra load on my joints was not worth it.
I am definitely a type S not G.

summa,
If you were more muscular then it sounds like it was effective; did you experience any joint problems or are you theorizing that it was damaging?

Scott,
I think Ellingtons stage reps may be similar to jreps; both are described as partials.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Hitit wrote:
How about the balance of joint strength and mobility through a full range of motion? And, what about the strength balance or curve while at or moving through different positions of contraction? And, what about real life natural body mechanics and movements, how often are you in a flexed contracted position of full strength potential while doing daily activities?

It seems strange to me and not very practical to the human body to practice lifting weights ONLY in the strongest contracted positions - IMO. So why would this be the most productive manner for building strength or the most beneficial?


Possibly because we're designed that way. The natural strength curve accounted for with the nautilus CAM (particularly the more aggressive earlier CAMs) puts a lot more resistance in the strongest positions than in the weak positions of leveraged disadvantage. Normal daily activities bear this out and particularly power sports, where the explosive strength curves are even more heavily weighted.
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

Tomislav wrote:
Hitit wrote:
How about the balance of joint strength and mobility through a full range of motion? And, what about the strength balance or curve while at or moving through different positions of contraction? And, what about real life natural body mechanics and movements, how often are you in a flexed contracted position of full strength potential while doing daily activities?

It seems strange to me and not very practical to the human body to practice lifting weights ONLY in the strongest contracted positions - IMO. So why would this be the most productive manner for building strength or the most beneficial?

Possibly because we're designed that way. The natural strength curve accounted for with the nautilus CAM (particularly the more aggressive earlier CAMs) puts a lot more resistance in the strongest positions than in the weak positions of leveraged disadvantage. Normal daily activities bear this out and particularly power sports, where the explosive strength curves are even more heavily weighted.


I can understand that concept while moving through still a FULL range of motion. Thus, completing the mobility of the joint and other positions of force contraction. But I don't understand the concept of isolate that position alone just by itself. Except in re-hab situations where the mobility is limited due to injury.

Again....just IMO.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Tomislav wrote:
summa wrote:
Last year I performed partial rep training in the strongest range for many months to see what the effect would be. From what I had read, this would provide the greatest contraction and overload and therefor the greatest gains.
I got super strong in a limited range but it carried little strength gains over to a full ROM. I did look more muscular but the extra load on my joints was not worth it.
I am definitely a type S not G.
summa,
If you were more muscular then it sounds like it was effective; did you experience any joint problems or are you theorizing that it was damaging?

Scott,
I think Ellingtons stage reps may be similar to jreps; both are described as partials.


I know what you are saying but it did not seem to be ENOUGH growth considering the massive strength increases in the ranges I used.

As well, yes my joints were sore as the weights were very heavy. My wrists still hurt so it no theory. I did have pre-existing joint issues from sports so the protocol at the very least will aggravate a less than perfect joint.

Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

why not just eliminate the range which are easier to do and just stick with the hard part of the exercise?


Don't eliminate any part of the movement, just perform the rep in zones ( JREP ). Do the hardest to easiest parts, either in halves or thirds. Done right, there isn't any part of the rep that is 'easy'.

The way guys react to and dismiss Johnson's ideas reminds me of Jone's story of the old prospector who rejected the idea of using a shovel to dig a hole and continued to use his bare hands.
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy