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
Good Reason for Non-Full Range Exercise?
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
I've been mulling over some stuff I've seen and read lately and am putting forth a few possibilities. I watched again Bill De Simone's bicep video where he is talking about peak force in an exercise and how (if I understand him correctly) the peak force of a muscle is generated in the middle of the rep and not nessesarily in the beginning or contracted position.

I also have noted how many big pro bodybuilders don't always use full range exercises. Ronnie Colman's video's are a good example. He doesn't go all the way into the contracted position nor the extended position of his exercises and he relaxes his form on many exercises from what I would call strict form.

I'm thinking some good reasons for this might be that going to the extended or fully contracted position might be the most dangerous part of the exercise? Also, if the muscle is strongest in the middle of the range, why bother to go all the way from fully extended to fully contracted position if the muscle can be worked in it's strongest position by only doing the middle range? Why not avoid those dangerous outer range parts of the movement?

This also brings to mind the idea of cheating or more relaxed form as some like to call it. Putting aside the possibility of injury from sloppy form and talking specifically about what might build muscle better,if the muscle is strongest in the peak area which is in the middle of the rep, why not cheat to allow the muscle to be forced to use as much weight as possible in that important middle zone that it wouldn't get if you did your reps strictly?

Cheating would allow for the middle zone to be bombed with more weight than a strict rep and the extended or contracted position may not get strained as much as it would during a strict rep???
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
No thoughts huh?? At least I thought Bio might have an opinion on this?? I guess maybe I should have thrown in a bunch of math equations to make it more interesting like Waynes thread which for some reason stays at the top all the time, ha ha.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Scott,

Read up on Dr. John Ziegler; the father of steroids.

He believed in heavy weights. He practiced a form of lifting called isometronics. This was not full range motion lifting.

I wouldn't put much value in what top bb's do in terms of exercise performance. I think most of them (perhaps all of them) are addicted to exercise. They like the "feel" of lifting weights in the middle range. On the other hand, full range exercise is not fun. Isometronics are not fun either.

Is there a way to measure peak force in a muscle's range of movement. I doubt anyone has accomplished this to any degree of precision yet!
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

First of all Scott I could care less what Ronnie C. does in the gym. I knew a guy that was huge from waist up..me and my buddy were amazed because he never ever broke a sweat or ever out of breath. But his biceps were at least 2 inchs larger. all we ever saw him do was a few sets of benches and curls..mostly he looked at himself in the mirrors.

we asked him you juicing or what? he'd always deny it. later, much later he admitted it. (ps his legs were so skinny bird legs never worked them)like a caricature.

true story.

Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

Scott - I believe you may be on to something. Of course Bill discusses the reality of "active & passive insufficiency" in his excellent video tutorials, and many BB do indeed believe in "training the belly of a muscle."

Here's some good info on active & passive insufficiency.

http://www.exrx.net/...nfo/Muscle.html

You might enjoy some of Casey Butt's stuff. He's a proponent of abbreviated training on free weights. He's also very knowledgeable about how the old school guys trained before steroids entered the picture.

I highly recommend his article, The Rules of Productive Weight Training
for The Drug-Free Trainee. In it he specifically addresses the fallacy of training a muscle in the extremes of elongation or contraction.

Here's a good quote from him on this issue. "Machine manufacturers try to convince you with all kinds of so-called "scientific" arguments why the machines are better. They typically use misapplied logic and inadequate knowledge of muscle physiology to argue that machines better stress the muscles over a fuller range of motion - the contention being that the non-variable linear loading of free-weight exercises is inferior to the purposely tailored resistance curves of some exercise machines. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that at the ends of the range of motion (the stretched and contracted positions) muscle fibers are capable of exerting only a fraction of the force that they can generate over the mid-range anyway (although demonstratable strength will vary because of mechanical leverage) - there isn't much, if any, of an additional growth effect to be produced by stressing the muscles at those positions. In fact, one could argue that, theoretically, providing "tailored" resistance over the entire range of motion would likely serve to decrease the overall growth stimulus because it unnecessarily fatigues the fibers in more "ineffective" states of elongation so that they cannot produce maximum force over the mid-range, where the maximum growth stimulus can actually be delivered (the old-timers would refer to this as the basic, free-weight exercises training the "belly" of the muscle)."

You can read the entire article at...

http://www.weightrainer.net/...ning/rules.html
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
I've been mulling over some stuff I've seen and read lately and am putting forth a few possibilities. I watched again Bill De Simone's bicep video where he is talking about peak force in an exercise and how (if I understand him correctly) the peak force of a muscle is generated in the middle of the rep and not necessarily in the beginning or contracted position.

I also have noted how many big pro bodybuilders don't always use full range exercises. Ronnie Colman's video's are a good example. He doesn't go all the way into the contracted position nor the extended position of his exercises and he relaxes his form on many exercises from what I would call strict form.

I'm thinking some good reasons for this might be that going to the extended or fully contracted position might be the most dangerous part of the exercise?


ROM on an exercise will (or should be) determined by the goal of the exercise. Years ago Jones asserted that one of the primary principles of training should be FROM. Many glommed on to that as an edict. In reality seldom if ever does anyone EVER take a muscle joint through its FROM.

The lack of FROM from BB's like Coleman and such is often to reduce "joint stresses" in multiple cycles (reps) with heavy loads, as you suggest.


entsminger wrote:
Also, if the muscle is strongest in the middle of the range, why bother to go all the way from fully extended to fully contracted position if the muscle can be worked in it's strongest position by only doing the middle range? Why not avoid those dangerous outer range parts of the movement?


Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.

entsminger wrote:
This also brings to mind the idea of cheating or more relaxed form as some like to call it. Putting aside the possibility of injury from sloppy form and talking specifically about what might build muscle better,if the muscle is strongest in the peak area which is in the middle of the rep, why not cheat to allow the muscle to be forced to use as much weight as possible in that important middle zone that it wouldn't get if you did your reps strictly?


No one should EVER use a form or load that they have not progressively conditioned themselves for, and have the ability to employ safely. However if they have done so, then the heavier the load the better the resulting stimulus.

entsminger wrote:
Cheating would allow for the middle zone to be bombed with more weight than a strict rep and the extended or contracted position may not get strained as much as it would during a strict rep???


While that is true, I would again stress that such a program be employed with caution and long term slow and small progressions. While many think I must have IRON JOINTS or some GENETIC favorability to train with some of my moves, I do not. I have just carefully and progressively CONDITIONED my body to those stresses in a way that allows FORCE APPLICATIONS of that level and type.

Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.

Hi BIOFORCE,
All good points in your post, but regarding the powerlifters I think here we see even more evidence that partial movements have clear potential for greater growth stimulus. The athletes setting records in the FROM bench press rely heavily on partials to build greater strength across a full range of motion than can be obtained from FROM benching, often board pressing exclusively in their training for long periods of time.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Tomislav wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.

Hi BIOFORCE,
All good points in your post, but regarding the powerlifters I think here we see even more evidence that partial movements have clear potential for greater growth stimulus. The athletes setting records in the FROM bench press rely heavily on partials to build greater strength across a full range of motion than can be obtained from FROM benching, often board pressing exclusively in their training for long periods of time.


Good Point.

If examined however you will see that the reason for "board presses" is the fact that a BENCH SHIRT has little to no force contribution in the upper ROM, so they need to focus on that specific ROM to improve it so they can finish the lifts.

Board Presses are "less effective" for RAW lifters as far as 1RM attempts go.

Years ago the RAW benchers like Mike McDonald who held WR's in at least 3 weight classes used a "bench bar" that was bent to produce an exaggerated (more full) ROM.

Today with SHIRTS it is just the opposite.

But in the end they are still training the MOTION where BB's train the MUSCLE.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
First of all Scott I could care less what Ronnie C. does in the gym. I knew a guy that was huge from waist up..me and my buddy were amazed because he never ever broke a sweat or ever out of breath. But his biceps were at least 2 inchs larger. all we ever saw him do was a few sets of benches and curls..mostly he looked at himself in the mirrors.

we asked him you juicing or what? he'd always deny it. later, much later he admitted it. (ps his legs were so skinny bird legs never worked them)like a caricature.

true story.



===Scott==
Ronnie Colman was just an example I used because I had seen his video's lately. If you watch many of the big guys train it seems very few use a full range of motion in most of their exercises. When I say full range I mean as full a range of motion as one can typically get on an exercise.

With or without steroids it seems only logical that they would eventually use what works the muscle best for them for building size. I'm just guessing that through years of experiance they have found that going all the way into the extended position or tight contracted position of many exercises puts certain joints and tendons,muscles in a position that could lead to injury and wasn't really nesesarily needed to build muscle size?

I know many times I have done standing tricep extensions and later my elbows have ached from the stretch and stress on the elbow. Going down to far in a dip can put a lot of stress on the shoulder and chest muscles and elbows. I would think it would make sense to stop just short of full extension or contraction to help prevent injury and because it might not really be needed to build muscle??
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

entsminger wrote:
Also, if the muscle is strongest in the middle of the range, why bother to go all the way from fully extended to fully contracted position if the muscle can be worked in it's strongest position by only doing the middle range? Why not avoid those dangerous outer range parts of the movement?

Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.


==Scott==
I'm always talking in terms of bodybuilding with building size #1 and strength coming second. Either way though I would think that for training purposes going to the fully extended or contracted position could put joints and muscles in a more likely position to be injured are not really needed to build strength or muscle.

Of course if you are a powerlifter or do olympic type lifts you would have to do the full range of the lift at some point in your training but not always??
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Tomislav wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.

Hi BIOFORCE,
All good points in your post, but regarding the powerlifters I think here we see even more evidence that partial movements have clear potential for greater growth stimulus. The athletes setting records in the FROM bench press rely heavily on partials to build greater strength across a full range of motion than can be obtained from FROM benching, often board pressing exclusively in their training for long periods of time.


Good Point.

If examined however you will see that the reason for "board presses" is the fact that a BENCH SHIRT has little to no force contribution in the upper ROM, so they need to focus on that specific ROM to improve it so they can finish the lifts.

Board Presses are "less effective" for RAW lifters as far as 1RM attempts go.

Years ago the RAW benchers like Mike McDonald who held WR's in at least 3 weight classes used a "bench bar" that was bent to produce an exaggerated (more full) ROM.

Today with SHIRTS it is just the opposite.

But in the end they are still training the MOTION where BB's train the MUSCLE.



Interesting perspective on the bench shirts but I think McDonalds bent bar was a bit extreme; unless the athlete is using a really wide grip the device would be almost unapplicable. I wonder if McDonald also did lockouts?

There is no such thing as a pressing shirt and heavy pressers from Grimek onwards utilized lockout partials to increase their FROM press poundages.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==

What the heck is a bench shirt??
Open User Options Menu

physcult

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==

What the heck is a bench shirt??


Its a supportive shirt that supposedly makes the exercise safer.

Its a thick, springy material that more or less has the shoulder holes, or sleeves, at the front of the shirt (rather than the sides).

You have to push down against the shirt to get the bar to your chest, and of course the shirt helps push your arms back up again to the finish position.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

physcult wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==

What the heck is a bench shirt??

Its a supportive shirt that supposedly makes the exercise safer.

Its a thick, springy material that more or less has the shoulder holes, or sleeves, at the front of the shirt (rather than the sides).

You have to push down against the shirt to get the bar to your chest, and of course the shirt helps push your arms back up again to the finish position.


==Scott==
Well heck, why not get a outfit like Robo Cop where the uniform does all the work, ha ha..
That shirt must be made of some really tough material??
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

I'm really beginning to see the point about not going to the fully extended part of the rep and the fully contracted position because it could be dangerous and it may not even be nessesary? I guess my question is do any of you feel it's nessesarily bad to go to the fully contracted position as it could be with the fully extended position? I can clearly see why the fully extended position can be dangerous as the muscle is stretched out and vunerable but is the fully contracted position one we should also avoid to keep injury to a minimum?

For example, if you were trying to go to the actual fully contracted position on a pec deck you might need to get the elbows to almost touch each other or even go past that plane which could put unwanted stress on shoulder joint? It seems like certain exercises like rowing or pulldowns and pushdowns it really helps to get the feel in the lats or triceps when you pause and tense the muscles in the fully contracted position but can that be a dangerous practice we should avoid. Do you think that feel of hard contraction really helps with actually building the muscle or does it just feel good but not nessesarily help with building muscle ?



Thanks
Scott


Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

It is not dangerous to use the full range of motion. Full range of motion is superior to partial range of motion.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

ima amazed that "robocop" shirts and suits are allowed in competitive lifting?

what's the point?

i think everyone should wear only a g-string during powerlifting competition.

is the point to see what the "suit" can lift or the lifter's muscles?

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

southbeach wrote:
ima amazed that "robocop" shirts and suits are allowed in competitive lifting?

what's the point?

i think everyone should wear only a g-string during powerlifting competition.
It's amazing what a warped mind thinks about. How about "pink tights?" I'm sure you have a couple of pairs!
is the point to see what the "suit" can lift or the lifter's muscles?



Open User Options Menu

southbeach

marcrph wrote:
southbeach wrote:
ima amazed that "robocop" shirts and suits are allowed in competitive lifting?

what's the point?

i think everyone should wear only a g-string during powerlifting competition.
It's amazing what a warped mind thinks about. How about "pink tights?" I'm sure you have a couple of pairs!
is the point to see what the "suit" can lift or the lifter's muscles?





i ACTUALLY wear a pair of pink speedos i sport on the beach (why do they call it a "pair").

nothing wrong with advertising a great product when you can deliver the goods :-}}}
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

entsminger wrote:
I'm really beginning to see the point about not going to the fully extended part of the rep and the fully contracted position because it could be dangerous and it may not even be nessesary? I guess my question is do any of you feel it's nessesarily bad to go to the fully contracted position as it could be with the fully extended position? I can clearly see why the fully extended position can be dangerous as the muscle is stretched out and vunerable but is the fully contracted position one we should also avoid to keep injury to a minimum?

For example, if you were trying to go to the actual fully contracted position on a pec deck you might need to get the elbows to almost touch each other or even go past that plane which could put unwanted stress on shoulder joint? It seems like certain exercises like rowing or pulldowns and pushdowns it really helps to get the feel in the lats or triceps when you pause and tense the muscles in the fully contracted position but can that be a dangerous practice we should avoid. Do you think that feel of hard contraction really helps with actually building the muscle or does it just feel good but not nessesarily help with building muscle ?



Thanks
Scott




I'm not really sure how important the "fully contracted" position of a muscle is. Some claim it is, some say no. I've never proved it out for myself. Some have said it appears the extended position might be more important for growth stimulation.

I can tell you this: training exclusively in the "strong range" of compound movements (ala Power Factor Training) is a waste of time unless you have no choice but to train in that area (because of an injury, for example). This is just based on my personal experience.

I also think it depends on the particular exercise or machine at which you're using - in addition to the trainee's makeup. In other words, certain pec decs could possibly place strain on a certain individual compared to other pec dec machines, etc.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Tomislav wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
Tomislav wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
Often that is the case. It depends on if you are training the "MUSCLE" or the "MOTION". Obviously if you are a PowerLifter, you need to train in the ROM used in your lifts in general. A BB need not have those same concerns.

Hi BIOFORCE,
All good points in your post, but regarding the powerlifters I think here we see even more evidence that partial movements have clear potential for greater growth stimulus. The athletes setting records in the FROM bench press rely heavily on partials to build greater strength across a full range of motion than can be obtained from FROM benching, often board pressing exclusively in their training for long periods of time.


Good Point.

If examined however you will see that the reason for "board presses" is the fact that a BENCH SHIRT has little to no force contribution in the upper ROM, so they need to focus on that specific ROM to improve it so they can finish the lifts.

Board Presses are "less effective" for RAW lifters as far as 1RM attempts go.

Years ago the RAW benchers like Mike McDonald who held WR's in at least 3 weight classes used a "bench bar" that was bent to produce an exaggerated (more full) ROM.

Today with SHIRTS it is just the opposite.

But in the end they are still training the MOTION where BB's train the MUSCLE.



Interesting perspective on the bench shirts but I think McDonalds bent bar was a bit extreme; unless the athlete is using a really wide grip the device would be almost unapplicable. I wonder if McDonald also did lockouts?

There is no such thing as a pressing shirt and heavy pressers from Grimek onwards utilized lockout partials to increase their FROM press poundages.


Correct, as soon as Power Rack began to be popular proponents began perfroming "partials" and "stops".

Mostly popularized by Bill Star and others.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Mr. Strong wrote:
It is not dangerous to use the full range of motion. Full range of motion is superior to partial range of motion.


===Scott===
I've been doing as full a range of motion in all my exercises since I started in the early 70's and I've not really been injured by them but I can see the logic that these positions can pose a hazard so why go there if it's not absolutely nessesary? Maybe it is?? I'm not sure either way yet.

Just for a moment forget about all what Arthur Jones or anyone else may have said and just think about this logically. Considering that the fully stretched portion of say a curl might put the bicep in a vunerable position and going to far into the contracted position on an exercise like a chest cross over might put the shoulder in a position where one could easily get injured, wouldn't it make sense to not go to the limits of an exercises range for the purpose of building muscle if there is significant risk of injury?

Do you feel that it's important to go to these extended and contracted positions to build muscle size and or strength?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

entsminger wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
It is not dangerous to use the full range of motion. Full range of motion is superior to partial range of motion.

===Scott===
I've been doing as full a range of motion in all my exercises since I started in the early 70's and I've not really been injured by them but I can see the logic that these positions can pose a hazard so why go there if it's not absolutely nessesary? Maybe it is?? I'm not sure either way yet.

Just for a moment forget about all what Arthur Jones or anyone else may have said and just think about this logically. Considering that the fully stretched portion of say a curl might put the bicep in a vunerable position and going to far into the contracted position on an exercise like a chest cross over might put the shoulder in a position where one could easily get injured, wouldn't it make sense to not go to the limits of an exercises range for the purpose of building muscle if there is significant risk of injury?

Do you feel that it's important to go to these extended and contracted positions to build muscle size and or strength?



The risk of injury is not increased by using a full ROM.
Open User Options Menu

progress62

This whole range of motion thing is a part of muscle building I have thought quite a bit about.

Open User Options Menu

hdled

Scott,

I have trained FROM and have also used partial ROM. With regard to muscle strength and growth, I've not seen a significant difference in the results as long as every set was taken to failure while using progressive overload.

A good example of this is the seated barbell curl. I find this to be one of the most effective biceps exercises I've used, yet, it stops far short of full range of motion into extension. The ROM is short of 90 degrees. I don't want to reopen the "S and G" response can of worms. I can just tell you that I've not found full ROM to be a requirement for muscle
strength/growth.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy