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
Isometrics: Yielding vs Overcoming
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Equity

Iso's,

I'm thinking 'Overcoming' isometrics are a skill/neuroefficieny thing and bad for your joints, no matter how you do them.
They do however increase 'strength'.

Yielding isometrics however are a different animal. Resisting the negative without ill effects (joint pain). Have said this before. More muscle building less neuro/skill proficiency.

I've stated this before on another thread but I truly believe Jones was right about negative work potential. Isokinetic resistance is dangerous as it is a form of 'Overcoming' isometrics.

Sorry if this is repetition. But the difference is the 'realisation' (if I'm right) that 'Overcoming' isometrics are isolated to skill proficiency.

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Equity wrote:
Iso's,

I'm thinking 'Overcoming' isometrics are a skill/neuroefficieny thing and bad for your joints, no matter how you do them.
They do however increase 'strength'.

Yielding isometrics however are a different animal. Resisting the negative without ill effects (joint pain). Have said this before. More muscle building less neuro/skill proficiency.

I've stated this before on another thread but I truly believe Jones was right about negative work potential. Isokinetic resistance is dangerous as it is a form of 'Overcoming' isometrics.

Sorry if this is repetition. But the difference is the 'realisation' (if I'm right) that 'Overcoming' isometrics are isolated to skill proficiency.

Regards.


Interesting, never thought of it like that. I tried OC isometrics on deadlifts a few years back, building into it then sustaining a max effort for several seconds. Always made me light headed, so after a set one day, I had a trainer at the gym test my BP immediately after, BP was through the roof. Needless to say Ive never used OC iso's again.

Cheers.

Open User Options Menu

Chris H

So for being dumb here but whats the difference - Y to OC.

I know here different, but they sound the same.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Yielding Isometrics (YI) will certainly feel different than Overcoming Isometrics (OI): with YI, you will sense or feel the presence of an inertial mass, because small variations in force output will produce movement, however subtle. With OI, there will be little movement (aside from stretching or flexing of parts of your body and/or the apparatus); you will know you are pushing against an immovable object. But does that mean you will get different results?

Conventional thinking is that the mechanical tension applied to the muscle is the primary driver for strength and hypertrophy. So if you put a load cell on a OI device, and exerted the same force level as required to hold a weight in a YI exercise, how different are the conditions within the muscle? The mechanical tension on the muscle should be the same, and there will be little or no movement in either exercise. So why would the results be different? Is that difference in neuromuscular feedback and feel really going to be that decisive?

Another thought experiment: suppose you took a typical OI exercise, and inserted a very strong (stiff) spring between you and the immovably object. I'm thinking of a spring sufficiently strong that you are only going to get a few mm or cm of movement no matter how hard you push or pull. Just enough movement that you will get some subtle feedback when you modulate the level of effort that you are providing. By introducing just a small amount of give or sponginess into the exercise, it should feel a little bit more like a YI exercise. Will this make the results of OI dramatically better?

I believe these are questions where trying to reason your way to a conclusion is unlikely to provide a satisfactory or convincing answer. Someone just needs to do the experiment (which hasn't happened, as far as I know). If I was going to place a bet on the outcome of such an experiment, I'd bet that the results would not be statistically different.


Open User Options Menu

Equity

Just come across this:

thibarmy.com/isometrics-underrated-training-tool/

The neurological issue in reference to the OC's seems to tally with what I was saying about skill proficiency.

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:
Just come across this:

thibarmy.com/isometrics-underrated-training-tool/

The neurological issue in reference to the OC's seems to tally with what I was saying about skill proficiency.



My understanding was that overcoming isometrics are particularly good for developing neurological proficiency when they are done with near maximum effort for a short period of time. It is analogous to doing a 1 RM lift with a barbell. Maximum effort, which cannot be sustained very long, produces maximum neurological engagement. But just like with barbell lifts, you don't get much hypertrophy from doing a few singles with heavy weight.

Yielding isometrics, on the other hand, are much easier to employ for long duration holds (because the load is self-regulating), where the greater time under tension will facilitate hypertrophy. This is analogous to performing a multiple rep set with a fixed weight.

So, the two methods seem to be used differently, for different purposes.

But is the difference in results between the two methods because of the type of isometric being used, or from the differences in the load and duration that are typically employed?



Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Another way to summarize these points is the "dampening affect" which results in the muscles ALWAYS being under tension ... which is not possible (or likely) with the folly we commonly refer to as electro-machinas and/or OI. Muscles need to overcome mechanical forces via weight affected by that force we know as Gravity

Cheers for Health and Progress
Grant

Average Al wrote:
Yielding Isometrics (YI) will certainly feel different than Overcoming Isometrics (OI): with YI, you will sense or feel the presence of an inertial mass, because small variations in force output will produce movement, however subtle. With OI, there will be little movement (aside from stretching or flexing of parts of your body and/or the apparatus); you will know you are pushing against an immovable object. But does that mean you will get different results?

Conventional thinking is that the mechanical tension applied to the muscle is the primary driver for strength and hypertrophy. So if you put a load cell on a OI device, and exerted the same force level as required to hold a weight in a YI exercise, how different are the conditions within the muscle? The mechanical tension on the muscle should be the same, and there will be little or no movement in either exercise. So why would the results be different? Is that difference in neuromuscular feedback and feel really going to be that decisive?

Another thought experiment: suppose you took a typical OI exercise, and inserted a very strong (stiff) spring between you and the immovably object. I'm thinking of a spring sufficiently strong that you are only going to get a few mm or cm of movement no matter how hard you push or pull. Just enough movement that you will get some subtle feedback when you modulate the level of effort that you are providing. By introducing just a small amount of give or sponginess into the exercise, it should feel a little bit more like a YI exercise. Will this make the results of OI dramatically better?

I believe these are questions where trying to reason your way to a conclusion is unlikely to provide a satisfactory or convincing answer. Someone just needs to do the experiment (which hasn't happened, as far as I know). If I was going to place a bet on the outcome of such an experiment, I'd bet that the results would not be statistically different.




Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Skill is a mostly inadvertent handicap of of progressive resistance exercise.
Most trainees are unable or unwilling to devote the time to understand these points. Thus, they are best to be students of those that promote proper progress strength training; especially with the dis-information that exists.

Cheers
Grant

Equity wrote:
Just come across this:

thibarmy.com/isometrics-underrated-training-tool/

The neurological issue in reference to the OC's seems to tally with what I was saying about skill proficiency.



Open User Options Menu

Chris H

no still don't get the difference.

Whats a static hold, say with a barbell.

Y or OC - anyone
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

Chris H wrote:
no still don't get the difference.

Whats a static hold, say with a barbell.

Y or OC - anyone


All = Please ignore, googled it
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Chris H wrote:
no still don't get the difference.

Whats a static hold, say with a barbell.

Y or OC - anyone


https://youtu.be/RLsKDfCt3Lw

Its well explained here Chris
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Equity wrote:

I've stated this before on another thread but I truly believe Jones was right about negative work potential. Isokinetic resistance is dangerous as it is a form of 'Overcoming' isometrics.





I got mixed up. 'Unlimited Speed of Movement' not negative work potential for safety reasons, (although I believe Y's are better for other reasons because of the resisting of the eccentric phase).

Open User Options Menu

ptcrusader

So here is the secret... do both in one rep. The easiest example is as follows: Curl a bar with 50 lbs upwards into a fixed stop. Press as hard as you can into the fixed stop. When you can press no more, the weight will start to fall. Resist the falling weight.

Voila both yielding isometric and overcoming isometric in one rep.
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

sirloin wrote:
Chris H wrote:
no still don't get the difference.

Whats a static hold, say with a barbell.

Y or OC - anyone

https://youtu.be/RLsKDfCt3Lw

Its well explained here Chris


Cheers Mate
Open User Options Menu

iflyboats

I have serious joint problems and rely on isometrics because in my experience, it is at least ostensibly easier on the joints. By ?overcoming? isometrics, I assume you?re referring to exercises that call for you to contact against an absolutely immovable source of resistance. IMO how hard the exercise is on the joints depend on the exercise choice, joint position, and force of your contraction, not the choice of ?yielding? vs. ?overcoming.? I regularly employ TSC exercises with long contraction times (90 seconds)?the point is to manage the contraction such that I achieve failure/exhaustion at joint-friendly level of force. If I was using 60-second time frames, I would expect it to hurt more.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

I wish OC's were safer because all you'd need is a piece of chain or rope and a handle and you could have the least expensive equipment reliant workout (bodyweight is even cheaper again lol!).

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity (isometrics)
Open User Options Menu

Equity

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity (isometrics)


I don't quite grasp what you're saying. Please elaborate.

Thanks.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Equity wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity (isometrics)

I don't quite grasp what you're saying. Please elaborate.

Thanks.


Why?

No one here would understand!

Worse yet!

Make perverted replies!
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
Yes, we are all to dumb to understand his Einstenian answers! Perverted is the word of the day!!
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Equity wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity (isometrics)

I don't quite grasp what you're saying. Please elaborate.

Thanks.

Why?

No one here would understand!

Worse yet!

Make perverted replies!


Why? Because the statement seems nonsensical.

How can one have a zero velocity eccentric? It is a contradiction of definitions.

Then there is the question of how one measures power output in the absence of movement. With a concentric or eccentric movement, power is easily determined by the product of force used x velocity of movement. Zero velocity implies zero power output, at least as long as you are talking about the power the trainee applies to an external object.

Of course, even in an isometric, the body is expending energy and performing work in a biological sense. So one can probably come up with various measures of metabolic power based on the rate of energy expenditure. I'd be surprised if rate of energy expenditure was maximized during an isometric. (It is well established that eccentrics require lower levels of energy expenditure than concentrics, despite using higher levels of force. It seems likely that an isometric would fall on a point in between the two.)

The best way to avoid unwanted responses is not to post. Otherwise, it is a risk that comes with the activity.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Equity wrote:


Why? Because the statement seems nonsensical.


Only nonsensical to small minds!



How can one have a zero velocity eccentric? It is a contradiction of definitions.


Not zero velocity, eccentrics have negative velocity or minus (-) velocity.


Then there is the question of how one measures power output in the absence of movement. With a concentric or eccentric movement, power is easily determined by the product of force used x velocity of movement. Zero velocity implies zero power output, at least as long as you are talking about the power the trainee applies to an external object.

Of course, even in an isometric, the body is expending energy and performing work in a biological sense. So one can probably come up with various measures of metabolic power based on the rate of energy expenditure. I'd be surprised if rate of energy expenditure was maximized during an isometric. (It is well established that eccentrics require lower levels of energy expenditure than concentrics, despite using higher levels of force. It seems likely that an isometric would fall on a point in between the two.)

The best way to avoid unwanted responses is not to post. Otherwise, it is a risk that comes with the activity.


I make an exception with a reply to you, but power, which is what I originally wrote, has the ability to exert a maximal force in as short a time as possible. Negative velocity increases to zero velocity during Plyometrics , when maximum power is exerted to positive velocity suddenly utilizing stretch shortening phenomenon. Hello! I am again correct! Nonsense, hardly. Plyometrics have been a standard training protocol for decades, as only foolish HITers called this nonsense! Post activation potential and Plyometrics are great!
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Equity wrote:


Why? Because the statement seems nonsensical.


Only nonsensical to small minds!



Perhaps you are not as clever as you think.



How can one have a zero velocity eccentric? It is a contradiction of definitions.


Not zero velocity, eccentrics have negative velocity or minus (-) velocity.



Agreed!

But you said: "Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity"

At zero velocity, it is no longer an eccentric.

You also need to clarify your definition of power, because your claim that maximum power occurs at zero velocity doesn't fit with standard physics terminology. After consulting again with my college physics textbook, I conclude that when you apply force to reverse the direction of a moving body, you initially perform negative work on the body since the force opposes the direction of movement. Then, after motion has reversed, you are performing positive work on the body as it accelerates in the same direction as the applied force. At the point where reversal of direction occurs, power goes to zero, momentarily, because velocity has gone through zero (or the work being done passes through zero because of the change in sign).

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Nonsense, hardly. Plyometrics have been a standard training protocol for decades, as only foolish HITers called this nonsense!


No one else in this thread was discussing plyometrics. I didn't say that plyometrics were nonsense. I said that your intentionally cryptic single line post (which didn't explicitly mention plyometrics) seemed nonsensical.

Why you would choose to insert a rant about HIT practitioners not promoting plyometrics in a thread about various kinds of static holds is beyond me.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Equity wrote:


Why? Because the statement seems nonsensical.


Only nonsensical to small minds!



Perhaps you are not as clever as you think.



How can one have a zero velocity eccentric? It is a contradiction of definitions.


Not zero velocity, eccentrics have negative velocity or minus (-) velocity.



Agreed!

But you said: "Maximum power for eccentrics occurs at 0 velocity"

At zero velocity, it is no longer an eccentric.

You also need to clarify your definition of power, because your claim that maximum power occurs at zero velocity doesn't fit with standard physics terminology. After consulting again with my college physics textbook, I conclude that when you apply force to reverse the direction of a moving body, you initially perform negative work on the body since the force opposes the direction of movement. Then, after motion has reversed, you are performing positive work on the body as it accelerates in the same direction as the applied force. At the point where reversal of direction occurs, power goes to zero, momentarily, because velocity has gone through zero (or the work being done passes through zero because of the change in sign).



Facts, logic!

Where?

Did your textbook talk about stored elastic energy?
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy