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
Limited vs. Full Range Exercise
Author
Rating
Options

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

The October issue of JEP Online (The official research journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists ? ASEP) contains an interesting study I was lucky enough to be part of. In it an interesting approach to analyzing the effects of full ROM training vs. partial was used. You can find it at the following link, second article from the top under the title "Fitness and Training": http://www.unm.edu/...5/October05.htm

That is me in the MedX Leg Extension looking like I am slacking off.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Thanks for posting this. The Graves study referenced is the one I was refering to on the neurological effeciency thread, it was entitled, " Muscle " and it can be downloaded at the MedX site.

Bill
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

I would like to add that I learned a valuable lesson during that study which speaks to the neurological efficiency issue in a roundabout way. I doubt anyone will pay attention here but this is for you Bill more than anyone. I am just sharing it out loud because it speaks directly to the training issue I can't seem to get through to folks about.

So here is my little story, possibly it will shed some light on the issue of ?non muscle growth based adaptations?.

During my participation in the test I was required to make repeated static contractions at a rate of 5 seconds on 5 seconds off. While this was being done, my force output was measured at an extremely high rate (some 6 or 12 times per second). When a dramatic decrease in force output was noted I was then tested fro strength in a different portion of the possible ROM of the movement. The result was compared against an initial "fresh" test.

So there I am straining away with all my might. I had to make every attempt a maximal one for the results to be useful. Here is what stood out to me in big bright lights, something I already knew but had never witnessed under a microscopic view before. Though my leg cramped and burned at an excruciatingly high level my force gauge numbers proved I was not isolating my quad all that well. Had I not seen the numbers and pushed through to the end of the experience I would not have believed it. Fact was my output would descend then bounce back up and it did this many times. Let me tell you after having to work at that high level for some 3 times as long as expected I took note. Nothing like blistering pain to offer a wake up call.

Regardless of the fact that my body was placed in a position that made the involvement of other muscle groups difficult the numbers rose and fell. I made a concerted effort to relax all aspects of my body while placing all my focus and concentration on contracting my quad. I was belted in, hands on head, opposite leg raised and seat at a decline. The motion was single joint and I am an experienced lifter. Suffice to say I was surprised.

From this I learned 2 things:

- As I had already noted from fatigue testing in years past, my quad has a reasonably high level of endurance. That is I can make many repeated high-level contractions provided metabolic waste is given time to flush through my quads.
- My ability to "cheat" during a display of strength is far higher than I previously had thought it to be.

We can blab on about neurological efficiency, inter-muscular coordination but that is simply food for thought. Those are complex specifics and truth be told are the realm of scientists in very controlled environments. When it comes to bodybuilding and fitness in general suffice to say that strength as it represents itself in a specific lift is not a great gauge of the "stimulus/response" except in a very specific way. That is as one nears the end of the intermediate phase of experience strength gains become increasingly more difficult to use as a gauge for progress.

The body adapts and will always make its best attempt to adapt in the most efficient manner possible. Growing muscle is far more costly in rest and resources than that required to build skill. Thus, it is no surprise to find that though you continue to lift greater poundages as you move through the advanced stage of training, your muscle growth may become totally stagnant.

Why is this so important?

Consider:

- The amount of muscle to be gained at an advanced level is far less (percentage wise relative to your total body mass) than that of a novice and intermediate level.
- The speed at which said muscle can be built is dramatically reduced by comparison to that of the early stages of your lifting career.
- Years of repeated bouts of anaerobic exercise will condition your body to become tolerant to that type of stress. This means a big reduction in the quality of the stimulus as though it is still stressful the nature of that stress is far more cumulative in nature than alarming.


This all adds up to a situation that on the surface looks to be a genetic limit. While it is a way for the body to limit itself, it is not an impassible boundary. Add steroids and bye-bye limit. The enjoyment for me is to push those limits drug free. Why? The implications and experience gained are directly applicable to training the novice and intermediate in a far more efficient manner. Furthermore, the applications in rehab are countless. There is a line where rehab and fitness blend, where it is all about health and individuality. Where a persons shortcomings and physical weaknesses (or less gifted points) need to be addressed if we are to truly raise exercise above the level of a curiosity, hobby or vain athletic endeavor.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

AShortt wrote:
The October issue of JEP Online (The official research journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists ? ASEP) contains an interesting study I was lucky enough to be part of. In it an interesting approach to analyzing the effects of full ROM training vs. partial was used. You can find it at the following link, second article from the top under the title "Fitness and Training": http://www.unm.edu/...5/October05.htm

That is me in the MedX Leg Extension looking like I am slacking off.

Regards,
Andrew


Hi Andrew,

Have been looking at the results of the study, and while the method seems strange, I was wondering what yuo felt the results demonstrated.

I gather it was to explore the phenomena Jones tried to explore relating to specific force abilty in the complete ROM without training in the complete range.

What was your impression from the results and why?

Thanks

Open User Options Menu

DSears

Andrew,

Interesting observations. You may have just made a good case for microloading. If your ability to cheat was greater than you anticipated then perhaps it might be that you could control your form better with small increments. I've always suspected that with large weight jumps we find ways to lift it and don't even realize that we're cheating. It's interesting that you observed this using static contractions.

David
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Hey David,

Some time ago you wrote an article for Mentze's Web site and you were performing the "one set" workout. Are you still training that way and have you arrived at new conclusions?
Open User Options Menu

NeuroMass

AShortt wrote:
The October issue of JEP Online (The official research journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists ? ASEP) contains an interesting study I was lucky enough to be part of. In it an interesting approach to analyzing the effects of full ROM training vs. partial was used. You can find it at the following link, second article from the top under the title "Fitness and Training": http://www.unm.edu/...5/October05.htm

That is me in the MedX Leg Extension looking like I am slacking off.

Regards,
Andrew



I think their's nothing new to that study. In fact Arthur Jones had conducted the same study long ago where he found that thier are G type and S type as with regards to how people respond to partial training. Also the study did not conclude in anyway that Partial range training produced better results than Full range reps, it simply showed that partial training can produce the same stress to the muscle as with full range training provided you generate the same training intensity.

Anyway what I'm trying to say here is that Partial training (especially the strongest range partials) is a very inefficient way to train your muscles because you need to load a lot more weight on the bar just to produce the same stress on the muscles as with full range reps. It's all about leverage and BIO-MENCHANICS.

PEACE.
Open User Options Menu

pumpster

Agreed, the article was inconclusive. My own experience is that partials in the 50%-90% range are very effective, often moreso than full reps.

I don't agree that they achieve the same effect, and secondly, partials are a better way to get through plateaus, IMO.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

We were not trying to find something new, but to determine the IMMEDIATE effects of partial ROM activity on full ROM ability. Most studies perform long-term investigations on this, whereas we wanted to show the short-term effects. Jones certainly was the first to confirm this with his work, but failed to publish anything in a journal (and as you may have noted if read thoroughly, we spoke of Jones' work). It was our intention of supporting his work.

In regard to the benefit of partial ROM training... yes, good for breaking plateaus, just as full ROM would be for those who did nothing but partial ROM. It's called variety and keeping the muscles from adapting to the stimulus.

Also, some people tend to confuse the issues of optimizing strength (type s and g issues) and optimizing muscular mass. I've seen plenty of evidence that to achieve full ROM strength and to optimize (to develop it equally along a ROM) it requires full ROM training (or at least to target the ROM in which you want the greatest effect). However, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that full ROM training is required to produce muscle mass equally throughout the entire length of a muscle.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

I'll try to cover all comments in a general manner, the reason I posted this was that as a participant I can offer unique point of view though it may be sort of one sided. That is Johnston is very reluctant to speculate and though I have discussed it with him and I could see and sense his wheels turning he avoided making any wild assumptions.

I was initially taken a back when seeing my results first hand and further shocked when seeing another subjects results and how different they were. I mean the test was kept elegantly simple to help eliminate variables. That was the genius of it to me, using fatigue to gauge results. Why do I find that fascinating? If you can understand my interest and point of view on strength testing and how it is often a poor measure of muscular growth you may see where I'm at.

The main thrust behind The IART "Performance and Testing Center" is to analyze exercise effects from the point of view of the individual. Large group studies provide needed insight but have gross inherent problems because of the size of the test group. Besides, out of say a possible 5 billion the difference accuracy wise between 5 and 5 thousand is minimal at best.

We need research designed around the individual for a host of reasons and to eliminate the side effects of working with large groups- Ex. Get a thousand people to train with 1 set to failure vs. 3 sets NTF and compare the results. Those of us who know anything about training to failure know that there will be a large divergence in individual ability to train to failure and how many things can combine to skew results.

By using small groups and individuals you can control far more and know far more about each subject, thus eliminating extraneous influences while factoring individual traits thus genetic abilities and learned skills can be taken in to account.

By using fatigue to gauge whether there seemed to be a good growth stimulus or not the results were nice and clear. Individuals react differently to the same exact stimulus. This was not to make a case for or against partial range training. As Johnston stated: "It was established to determine whether partial ROM training could affect full ROM results, and for no other purpose.

Again, this has been done in long-term studies, but not observed from an immediate point of view. If the immediate effect of exercise is fatigue, and there was little fatigue at a far removed point of the exercised area, then that indicates that there is little exercise effect on the muscles at that far away point (at least no where near where the person exercised)."

Of even greater importance to me was using a test that was results relative to the individual tested. Information that is directly applicable to the individual tested rather than some supposed mean average that we can all utilize. My results were not the same as others and this has a direct bearing on my training. With time and diligence we can develop groups of tests to use on a subject and thus provide them with immediate and high level of health care via exercise based stress/response stimuli.

This as opposed to having them muck about straining with all their might for years just to build 15-20 lbs of muscle. The extension of this to rehab and dealing with genetic abnormalities is obvious and of deep importance.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

logicbdj wrote:
We were not trying to find something new, but to determine the IMMEDIATE effects of partial ROM activity on full ROM ability. Most studies perform long-term investigations on this, whereas we wanted to show the short-term effects. Jones certainly was the first to confirm this with his work, but failed to publish anything in a journal (and as you may have noted if read thoroughly, we spoke of Jones' work). It was our intention of supporting his work.

In regard to the benefit of partial ROM training... yes, good for breaking plateaus, just as full ROM would be for those who did nothing but partial ROM. It's called variety and keeping the muscles from adapting to the stimulus.

Also, some people tend to confuse the issues of optimizing strength (type s and g issues) and optimizing muscular mass. I've seen plenty of evidence that to achieve full ROM strength and to optimize (to develop it equally along a ROM) it requires full ROM training (or at least to target the ROM in which you want the greatest effect). However, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that full ROM training is required to produce muscle mass equally throughout the entire length of a muscle.


Thanks for the info, and Andrew also thanks for your input.

I always "wondered" about Arthur's insistence of "full range" training and still do. I appreciate the difficulty in even attempting such a study, and have a few questions as to what "mechanism" either of you feel is being "studied".

Let me set up my questions.

In general there are three main factors that determine the force output of a muscle joint.

1) The mechanical efficiency of the joint at any point in the ROM
2) The force length relationship of the muscle itself at any point in the ROM
3) The intensity of the motor impulse at any point in the ROM

It must be understood that the combined sum of these elements equal the force output potential of any muscle joint at any point in the ROM during any rep or activation/action.

Certainly fatigue will affect both #2 and #3 to varying degrees, however only #3 the motor impulse is adjustable or controllable by the trainee.

Only #3 can be learned or programmed, and only #3 can be called into action to create a greater force through voluntary effort.

I might add that #2 "can" be changed with training, the force output "relationship" in the full ROM would likely not be changed, since force/length would still be proportionalty the same.

Just what element of the three do you see being demonstrated by your study and why?

Open User Options Menu

NeuroMass

Guys,

More than anything else I think the most significant advantage of full range training as compared to partials (strong range partials) is EFFICIENCY.
I think that their are 2 factors to consider here, the RESISTANCE (load/weight) and LEVERAGE. I think the intensity of stress on the muscle produced by the resistance is also dependent on the leverage or how you perform the exercise. Case in point, when doing bench presses the lower the bar goes the harder the stress while on the otherhand the straighter the arm the earier it gets. As we can see without any change in the resistance we can clearly observe variations in the intensity of stress throughout the rep due to the variation of LEVERAGE.
A 300 lbs. full range bench press for 6 reps is definitely more stressful to the muscles that a 350 lbs. for 6 reps strong range partial set.

PEACE.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

BIO-FORCE wrote:
logicbdj wrote:
We were not trying to find something new, but to determine the IMMEDIATE effects of partial ROM activity on full ROM ability.


Just what element of the three do you see being demonstrated by your study and why?


Andrew or Brian,

Maybe my question (see the longer post above) got lost in my "question" set up.

Just what element of the three "force variables" I listed do you see being demonstrated by your study and why?

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

BioForce,

I would say to some extent all 3 simply because all would have an effect on the outcome. A different position would have an effect on how much force could be generated and ones ability to retest after mini max efforts was challenged big time.

I tend to think that it is the totality of things that forms the out come. That is muscle length, shape, neuromuscular efficiency, experience level, amount of muscle mass stimulated and worked relative to the individual (more muscle used causes greater overall fatigue). The point observed was that it IS an individual thing as well as supporting the notion of type S and G strength curves.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

AShortt wrote:
BioForce,

I would say to some extent all 3 simply because all would have an effect on the outcome. A different position would have an effect on how much force could be generated and ones ability to retest after mini max efforts was challenged big time.

I tend to think that it is the totality of things that forms the out come. That is muscle length, shape, neuromuscular efficiency, experience level, amount of muscle mass stimulated and worked relative to the individual (more muscle used causes greater overall fatigue). The point observed was that it IS an individual thing as well as supporting the notion of type S and G strength curves.

Regards,
Andrew


Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the response. I agree that all three sum on every degree of every rep to provide the available force possible at that point.

But, training full range or short range will not change the mechanical efficiency of the joint, agreed?

Or if so, how so?

And training full range or short range will not change the "invitro" ability of the force to length relationship correct?

Again, if so, how so?

So, don't you think that the only thing that can truly be "conditioned" or trained here is the motor impulse in the "untrained" ROM's?

And would the seeming difference between those who exhibit the differences, be solely or at least mostly related to motor abilities?

That is, one group seems to develop motor ability through the full range without specific training to the "full range" pattern, while the other group must train the "full range" pattern to get the same activation?

That seems to be the only force adjustable element that could cause this from what I see.

Your thoughts.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

BioForce,

"And would the seeming difference between those who exhibit the differences, be solely or at least mostly related to motor abilities?"

No I dont so, it is a mistake to disconnect elements of influence in a permanent fashion. That is looking at separate elements/variables on their own is fine for closer examination but conclusions or directional markers need to remain a part of the whole. We can make assumptions about individual elements but only if we are concurrently weighing the interaction of the whole. All aspects of muscle action influence others directly and indirectly.

Johnston has many hypotheses in this regard but writes only about the strongest most plausible. One that I particularly like is the fact that as a muscle shortens (contracts) muscle fibers that are shorter in length and connected closer to the ends will activate first then relax as other fibers nearer the center take over. Hence a discrepancy in fatigue when testing with partial range. Furthermore, peoples muscle shapes and size differ and angle of pull etc. can vary widely between subjects tested. Those with longer muscle bellies will exhibit greater strength near the point of stretch (all other aspects being equal , which they never are...which IS the point).

As well, the size of the tested muscles relative to the individual will have a strong bearing for different reasons. First taxing a smaller muscle affects less systematic drain and thus leaves the subject fresher for the retest. However, a larger muscle will have the ability to drain ones system more but if its ROM is limited the opposite could be noticed. That is the muscle still stores plenty of resources, which cannot be burnt off during the static contraction, and/or the muscle can suck up new resources quicker because size dictates greater blood flow. The fiber distribution will also have a huge bearing in that a quad with a high level of ST will sustain contractions longer and recover quicker. In this case, recovery time was practically nil and thus the opposite effect may have happened. Those with more ST would have taken longer to create the initial and proper level of fatigue and thus drained the subject systematically. Thus, they would have little left mentally and physically for the retest, which as a maximal effort would require great concentration and the maintaining of focus not to mention ignoring the pain. As you can see experience levels would also affect the results of the individual. One who can tolerate more pain would influence their results as would one who can better isolate the muscle group and burn it out quicker (without as much systematic drain).

Take my test for example, I displayed a piss poor ability to isolate the quad in that position yet could tolerate a very high level of pain. Thus during my retest I was spent even though my quads have a lot of endurance (when fatigue tested in full ROM)

Also, consider that people have different lever lengths and can be more or less efficient at different angles when compared to each other.

As far as the neurological issues to consider, one that most over look is the effect of muscle work on the pathways. That is inflammation and heat can impede the nervous signal to the muscle. If one swells and/or heats up faster than another, it could affect results. As well, folk's muscles are not all innervated at the exact same point or to the same quality. A different leg position may enhance (open up) or impede (constrict) the motor unit function.

I could go on for pages but suffice to say individuality is an important variable to consider, IMO it is at the top of the hierarchy. The multitude of possible influences and the wide variance of results indicates a strong need to treat trainees as individuals first and foremost. Sadly the exercise science community looks only for shared generalities and because of what I have just stated mixed with poor testing procedures (and a bit of bias thrown in) it fails to provide much in the way of practical effective information.

This site alone is full of folks who aren't making gains yet refuse to deal with the details (of individuality) or are enjoying good genetics at the expense of their fellows.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

AShortt wrote:
BioForce,

"And would the seeming difference between those who exhibit the differences, be solely or at least mostly related to motor abilities?"

No I dont, it is a mistake to disconnect elements of influence in a permanent fashion. That is looking at separate elements/variables on their own is fine for closer examination but conclusions or directional markers need to remain a part of the whole. We can make assumptions about individual elements but only if we are concurrently weighing the interaction of the whole. All aspects of muscle action influence others directly and indirectly.

Johnston has many hypotheses in this regard but writes only about the strongest most plausible. One that I particularly like is the fact that as a muscle shortens (contracts) muscle fibers that are shorter in length and connected closer to the ends will activate first then relax as other fibers nearer the center take over. Hence a discrepancy in fatigue when testing with partial range. Furthermore, peoples muscle shapes and size differ and angle of pull etc. can vary widely between subjects tested. Those with longer muscle bellies will exhibit greater strength near the point of stretch (all other aspects being equal , which they never are...which IS the point.

As well, the size of the tested muscles relative to the individual will have a strong bearing for different reasons. First taxing a small muscle affects less systematic drain and thus leaves the subect fresher for the retest. However, a larger muscle will have the ability to drain ones system more but if its ROM is limited the opposite could be noticed. That is the muscle still stores plenty of resources, which cannot be burnt off during the static contraction, and/or the muscle can suck up new resources quicker because size dictates greater blood flow. The fiber distribution will also have a huge bearing in that a quad with a high level of ST will sustain contractions longer and recover quicker. In this case, recovery time was practically nil and thus the opposite effect may have happened. Those with more ST would have taken longer to create the initial and proper level of fatigue and thus drained the subject systematically. Thus, they would have little left mentally and physically for the retest, which as a maximal effort would require great concentration and the maintaining of focus not to mention ignoring the pain. As you can see experience levels would also affect the results of the individual. One who can tolerate more pain would influence their results as would one who can better isolate the muscle group and burn it out quicker (without as much systematic drain).

Take my test for example, I displayed a piss poor ability to isolate the quad in that position yet could tolerate a very high level of pain. Thus during my retest I was spent even though my quads have a lot of endurance (when fatigue tested in full ROM)

Also, consider that people have different lever lengths and can be more or less efficient at different angles when compared to each other.

As far as the neurological issues to consider, one that most over look is the effect of muscle work on the pathways. That is inflammation and heat can impede the nervous signal to the muscle. If one swells and/or heats up faster than another, it could affect results. As well, folk's muscles are not all innervated at the exact same point or to the same quality. A different leg position may enhance (open up) or impede (constrict) the motor unit function.

I could go on for pages but suffice to say individuality is an important variable to consider, IMO it is at the top of the hierarchy. The multitude of possible influences and the wide variance of results indicates a strong need to treat trainees as individuals first and foremost. Sadly the exercise science community looks only for shared generalities and because of what I have just stated mixed with poor testing procedures (and a bit of bias thrown in) it fails to provide much in the way of practical effective information.

This site alone is full of folks who aren't making gains yet refuse to deal with the details (of individuality) or are enjoying good genetics at the expense of their fellows.

Regards,
Andrew



Hi Andrew,

Again thanks for the lengthy response, but I am looking for a more "targeted" analysis.

Please know I am not "disconnecting the elements".

However in order to understand what is causing the "difference" you have to see that it is the results of the 3 elements that produce the "trained" end force.

I am analyzing the contribution of each toward the research.

If we have three elements that combine to produce the force variation, then we should be able to look at the contribution of each and develop an idea of what is happening between the three to cause this.

There is little doubt that this is a complex task, but not extremely so.

I am looking at which of those three elements "can" or have the potential to produce a change in the force output of the muscle joint complex, within the framework of "training full range", or "not training full range".

Arthur's finding was that there are two types of people (in general), those who require Full Range exercise to exhibit full range ability, and those who do not.

Again the three elements are:

1)Mechanical efficiency of the joint
2) Force/Length relationship of the muscle
3) Motor impulse strength

We can eliminate #1 immediatly since it is a constant. The mechanical efficiency of the joint does not improve with training to any degree

We can look at the "force length" relationship and I am not aware of any research, or have any expereince that can suggest that as a muscle gets stronger that the "force/length" relatiosnhip changes except in a gross increase.

All your comments about individuals and their variations in strength and Johnson's theory don't change that the "force/length" relationship will stay close to the same (only greater force as condition improves)

So that leaves the most likely culprit of "motor impulse strength".

I am not questioning the results of the study, or even Arthurs original results, but of the three elements, I know it isn't #1, have no evidence of #2, and can only see how a variance in #3 is the likely candidate, that causes there to be two general classes of differing results.

If the "biomechanical joint leverage" is a fixed (and it is), and the "force/length" relationship of a muscle is also fixed (to the degree that even when trained it maintains a very similar force profile invitro), then the only variable to the equation is the "motor impulse".

It seems to demonstrate that some individuals have a more effective motor control system that can apply consistant impulse strength, even if that ROM was not specifically trained.

I can't see how joint leverage, or force/length could enter the equation to a meaningful degree.


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

BioForce,

Certainly motor control may have a huge bearing but why? Moreover, more importantly as a result of what? It was a test that used "fatigue" to quantify the results and "fatigue" can be the result of many things. More to the point, the demonstration of fatigue is usually caused by a combination of things. By demonstration, I mean there are different reasons one exhibits fatigue ? loss of resources, loss of concentration, pain, degradation of the motor impulse etc. If a muscles connective tissue becomes swollen (more than another's) during the repeated max contractions then possibly they may exhibit less joint function in the retest. An individual could have a strength "imbalance" relative to a joint (strong on one side than the other) then in a different position this imbalance is less severe. A particular joint position may impinge nerve function to some extent while another releases said issue. However, it is the "sum" of things that will dictate the final outcome.

You are attempting to separate elements in order to make better and logical sense of things. However, you are pushing interaction and influence too far to the side. In the end, those principles (interaction and influence) are paramount to conclusions.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

pumpster

The mind wanders from the sheer volume of pedantry on this board. Come on guys, brief and to the point vs. self-indulgence is much easier to understand!

A 300 lbs. full range bench press for 6 reps is definitely more stressful to the muscles that a 350 lbs. for 6 reps strong range partial set.

You're making assumptions using arbitrary numbers. I don't agree with them. Partials are definitely as or more stressful if sufficient weight is used. IMO they are MORE stressful, because of the focus on the "sweet spot".
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

AShortt wrote:
BioForce,

Certainly motor control may have a huge bearing but why? Moreover, more importantly as a result of what?


Exactly what I was getting at. Of the three variable elements, only motor control has the potential to be the one that affects the outcome.

I, was looking as an overview between what AJ said and what you recently tried. I was not looking specifically at you recent study only.


It was a test that used "fatigue" to quantify the results and "fatigue" can be the result of many things. More to the point, the demonstration of fatigue is usually caused by a combination of things. By demonstration, I mean there are different reasons one exhibits fatigue ? loss of resources, loss of concentration, pain, degradation of the motor impulse etc. If a muscles connective tissue becomes swollen (more than another's) during the repeated max contractions then possibly they may exhibit less joint function in the retest. An individual could have a strength "imbalance" relative to a joint (strong on one side than the other) then in a different position this imbalance is less severe. A particular joint position may impinge nerve function to some extent while another releases said issue. However, it is the "sum" of things that will dictate the final outcome.


You are correct, but all of those things are not "major elements", and would likely be smoothed out over large samplings.


You are attempting to separate elements in order to make better and logical sense of things. However, you are pushing interaction and influence too far to the side. In the end, those principles (interaction and influence) are paramount to conclusions.

Regards,
Andrew


I am only separating them to the extent that they "are" separate. And they each have distinct contributions.

Not recognizing that they each have specific properties of contribution, would make understanding what is happening impossible.

But I am under the impression that the "goal" of your recent research, and that which AJ performed years ago, was to look for "why" some people were G and some S.

In a nutshell, I can only see that the reason must be primarily located in the "motor" since that is the only one that can be specifically adjusted in the full ROM via training. It would seem that G's have a more open motor impulse architecture and bleed to ROM's not specifically trained. It would then also seem that S's have a more confined motor impulse, which can only be broadened through "full range" training.

Thanks for your feedback.
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy