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
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
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy