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
Opinion of Peter Sisco and 'Static Contractions'
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

DrFist

hey guys, i've been an avid reader and follower of Mentzer's training methods and was looking into static contractions as a new method to try and gain some mass as i'll be bulking for a few weeks.

i know Peter Sisco and john little have done projects in the past and as mike did a lot of work with little, i figure Peter Sisco is a legitimate person to research and try out his static contraction principles.

i just bought a few of his books, but i have no idea where to start, should i begin with his oldest books or the newest?


i have the following on hand:

Pete Sisco - Train Smart, Weight training Version 1.2

Pete Sisco - 3 Things You Must Know For Gain A Mass Size

Pete Sisco - CNS Workout

Power Factor Training - Peter Sisco

i have another book by Doug McGuff and Little called 'Body By Science'. has anyone read this?

thanks all
Open User Options Menu

dhitquinn

DrFist wrote:
hey guys, i've been an avid reader and follower of Mentzer's training methods and was looking into static contractions as a new method to try and gain some mass as i'll be bulking for a few weeks.

i know Peter Sisco and john little have done projects in the past and as mike did a lot of work with little, i figure Peter Sisco is a legitimate person to research and try out his static contraction principles.

i just bought a few of his books, but i have no idea where to start, should i begin with his oldest books or the newest?


i have the following on hand:

Pete Sisco - Train Smart, Weight training Version 1.2

Pete Sisco - 3 Things You Must Know For Gain A Mass Size

Pete Sisco - CNS Workout

Power Factor Training - Peter Sisco

i have another book by Doug McGuff and Little called 'Body By Science'. has anyone read this?

thanks all


Thats a coincidence ive just printed this off to read, ive scanned through it i think some of it may have some worth and may be worth a try though there are some rather outlandish poundage claims in it

Dave
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

how does training triceps work?

i know you're supposed to keep the load on the muscle, but you have to be locked out to have the full load on the triceps?

with biceps it's great because chin ups are available, but with triceps?
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

DrFist wrote:
how does training triceps work?

i know you're supposed to keep the load on the muscle, but you have to be locked out to have the full load on the triceps?

with biceps it's great because chin ups are available, but with triceps?


Try the press down or close grip presses on a smith, but don't lock out on the close grip. Make sure you fight all of these on the negative portion unless there is not really one.
Open User Options Menu

markh

I tried the method for a while when it first came out during the mid-nineties (although John Little first wrote about it in the mid/late eighties in the UK magazine "Bodybuilding Monthly"). I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength". As with Negative only i am not against static contractions/reps but have found them only effective when used as variable in a set or routine and not as a complete training system

Mark H
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

In my opinion, Sisco makes many claims that are dubious at best.

Much better training programs exist than SCT as a complete weight-training protocol.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Did nothing for me.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=YprX680X0VA

Dick Conner using Max Contraction. Seems he uses single joint movements exclusively for that protocol.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

And this is how he hits the tri's..

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=w7E2Og54ma8
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

markh wrote:
I tried the method for a while when it first came out during the mid-nineties (although John Little first wrote about it in the mid/late eighties in the UK magazine "Bodybuilding Monthly"). I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength". As with Negative only i am not against static contractions/reps but have found them only effective when used as variable in a set or routine and not as a complete training system

Mark H


DITTO
Open User Options Menu

Lioncourt

All I had to do was see a picture of Pete Sisco and I knew his system would be complete crap. I'm not saying that anyone with valid training advice has to be a bodybuilder, but they should look like they are in shape and workout. Sisco just looks obese and like his main workout is ordering from the $1 menu at Burger King.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

I've talked to Sisco a few times back when he first came out with the static stuff and Power Factor training (mid 90s) and he seemed liked a decent guy. However, I just could never get any of his or Little's stuff to work.
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

how long should the holds be? i remember mike said 15 seconds for the upper body and 20-30 seconds on the lower body.
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

DrFist wrote:
how long should the holds be? i remember mike said 15 seconds for the upper body and 20-30 seconds on the lower body.


I think his current recommendation is like ~5 seconds??

One of the problems I encountered with this method was a huge amount of stress (especially on the joints). Part of the issue was hold positions that are not the best, from a muscular effort perspective. Sisco wants you to hold weight in positions that allow the greatest resistance to be used (almost lockout). . . not where the greatest effort of the target musculature can be safely achieved (mid-range ish). Another issue is the use of free weight 'holds' as opposed to resisting isometrically against immovable resistance. I believe he tried to solve that problem with some machine that measured the force applied to it . . . don't think it worked well (never used it). I don't think it is available any longer though?

Joe
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

DrFist wrote:
how long should the holds be? i remember mike said 15 seconds for the upper body and 20-30 seconds on the lower body.


Several Ideas/Thoughts:

Looks like Conner has his guys doing SHs for 45-60 seconds. If I remember correctly, Sisco called for max weights that only allowed 6-10 seconds.

Much of their stuff called for end-of-ROM partial-range stuff [i.e. Tomi-Training ;-)]. Cut to an older Mentzer talking about how he f'd-up his back doing 1,000-lb 1/4 Squats.

Fat Anthony Hopkins. Fat Pete Sisco and his fat son Leg Pressing Toyotas. Nuff Said.

Scott

P.S. (something positive after the bashing)
The CNS Workout had an interesting exercise:
You start with a Rack DL movement, seg into a Power Shrug, and finish by using your calves to go up on your toes --- maybe some of you CR types could use this one or something like it.

You'll definitely need wraps or one-ton hooks to get the most out of it though.
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

I found a copy of an old Dr. Darden book called 'Bigger Muscles in 42 Days - Ellington Darden'.

are the static holds in that book worth following?

i really like the idea of static holds and negatives as mike pointed out they're much harder than positives, but it just seems hard to find the best exercises and how many reps/how long each hold needs to be?

what if i did all the exercises i regularly do and just did a really slow negative of 5 reps?

thanks
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

simon-hecubus wrote:
The CNS Workout had an interesting exercise:
You start with a Rack DL movement, seg into a Power Shrug, and finish by using your calves to go up on your toes --- maybe some of you CR types could use this one or something like it.

You'll definitely need wraps or one-ton hooks to get the most out of it though.



I agree . . . this was a nice combo exercise. Still occasionally do this one (though not as a strong-range partial). It will definitely wear you out!

Joe
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

markh wrote:
I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength".
Mark H

Hi Mark,
If partials or static contractions don't yield an increase in size I would agree you shouldn't expect to see a carry over to full range strength as you haven't gotten any stronger. But I think the type G and type S breakdown is inherently misleading (direction you're going):
Muscle is functional, so larger muscles are necessarily capable of exerting more force in a full ROM than smaller muscles. What can change is the relative strengthp in positions of extreme leveraged disadvantage.
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

i'm re-thinking this static/negative only training and it seems like it's necessary to go to positive failure AS WELL AS static/negative failure.

i've been trying to build up my arms so i've started doing close grip bench press to positive failure and then move onto the tricep press down machine (similar to lat pull down) and do that to failure.

so far, ive found the 'chin up' to be the best exercise for statics.
Open User Options Menu

markh

Hi Tom,
just to clarify my point. The resistance i was using on all the exercises increased significantly (eg:on the 2nd generation nautilus leg extension i was using the stack plus somebody standing on the weight stack,whereas before i would perhaps pin an additional 10/15 pound to the machine) but once i returned to full rep training my performance on those exercises was either the same or slightly worse.

I`m certainly not interested in starting another debate about type S and G responses but was merely reporting my results with this type of training

Mark H

Tomislav wrote:
markh wrote:
I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength".
Mark H
Hi Mark,
If partials or static contractions don't yield an increase in size I would agree you shouldn't expect to see a carry over to full range strength as you haven't gotten any stronger. But I think the type G and type S breakdown is inherently misleading (direction you're going):
Muscle is functional, so larger muscles are necessarily capable of exerting more force in a full ROM than smaller muscles. What can change is the relative strengthp in positions of extreme leveraged disadvantage.


Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Mark,
In discussing your results training with partials and static holds you emphasize being a type S responder; since this is a training forum you invite discussion.

markh wrote:
Hi Tom,
just to clarify my point. The resistance i was using on all the exercises increased significantly (eg:on the 2nd generation nautilus leg extension i was using the stack plus somebody standing on the weight stack,whereas before i would perhaps pin an additional 10/15 pound to the machine) but once i returned to full rep training my performance on those exercises was either the same or slightly worse.

I`m certainly not interested in starting another debate about type S and G responses but was merely reporting my results with this type of training

Mark H

Tomislav wrote:
markh wrote:
I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength".
Mark H
Hi Mark,
If partials or static contractions don't yield an increase in size I would agree you shouldn't expect to see a carry over to full range strength as you haven't gotten any stronger. But I think the type G and type S breakdown is inherently misleading (direction you're going):
Muscle is functional, so larger muscles are necessarily capable of exerting more force in a full ROM than smaller muscles. What can change is the relative strengthp in positions of extreme leveraged disadvantage.




Open User Options Menu

markh

Tom,

My comment about no improvement in full range strength was nothing to do with "Jones`s" type S and G theories (hence my reason for not wanting to get involved in a discussion about it). The reason i mentioned it is that Little and Sisco in the book "Static Contraction Training" said that during a their 10 week "Static Contraction Research Study" the average increase in full range dynamic strength was 27.6 % (i rep max) and 34.3 (10 rep max). My own experience differed greatly from theirs which was why i mentioned it .

Mark H



Tomislav wrote:
Mark,
In discussing your results training with partials and static holds you emphasize being a type S responder; since this is a training forum you invite discussion.

markh wrote:
Hi Tom,
just to clarify my point. The resistance i was using on all the exercises increased significantly (eg:on the 2nd generation nautilus leg extension i was using the stack plus somebody standing on the weight stack,whereas before i would perhaps pin an additional 10/15 pound to the machine) but once i returned to full rep training my performance on those exercises was either the same or slightly worse.

I`m certainly not interested in starting another debate about type S and G responses but was merely reporting my results with this type of training

Mark H

Tomislav wrote:
markh wrote:
I did not see anything in the way of results in regard to gains in lean muscle mass or in carry over to "full range strength".
Mark H
Hi Mark,
If partials or static contractions don't yield an increase in size I would agree you shouldn't expect to see a carry over to full range strength as you haven't gotten any stronger. But I think the type G and type S breakdown is inherently misleading (direction you're going):
Muscle is functional, so larger muscles are necessarily capable of exerting more force in a full ROM than smaller muscles. What can change is the relative strengthp in positions of extreme leveraged disadvantage.






Open User Options Menu

johnbhoy

Armed Forces - Europe

markh wrote:
Hi Tom,
just to clarify my point. The resistance i was using on all the exercises increased significantly (eg:on the 2nd generation nautilus leg extension i was using the stack plus somebody standing on the weight stack,whereas before i would perhaps pin an additional 10/15 pound to the machine) but once i returned to full rep training my performance on those exercises was either the same or slightly worse.

I`m certainly not interested in starting another debate about type S and G responses but was merely reporting my results with this type of training

Mark H


This is very similar to my own experience with static only training. I also noticed on returning to full range movements a severe muscle soreness, as if a large part of the muscle had lost condition.
John.

Open User Options Menu

DrFist

yeah, i'm not so sure on the static holds for most exercises. the best compound lift for static holds would be chin ups right? because it's at the peak contraction without the lock out?

i just don't see how bicep curls can be used in static contractions only because the biceps aren't being taxed at all in the peak contraction phase?

what do you guys think?

is 'body by science' a good book btw?
Open User Options Menu

DrFist

i'd appreciate insight into static holds for the bicep curl and hammer curl.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy