Pete Sisco told me to ask

[MANWHORE]

So i just wanted to see what everyone thought ..... “Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?”

[Bob Smith]

Not that Im aware of.

[J DUB]

Here are a couple I found with a very quick search. I didn't do a PubMed search, but there might be more there. These results are somewhat confounding, but keep in mind the subjects were previously untrained so it is hard to extrapolate such results onto people who have been lifting for years. Beginners tend to respond well to any sort of exercise.

However, I do not think you will find a strength coach or anyone else knowledgable in the field who will say that partial reps are just as effective as full ROM reps for strength or hypertrophy. Partials might have their place, such as board presses with the Westside lifters, but for hypertrophy a full ROM is certainly best.

Also, these studies examined strength instead of hypertrophy...I don't see this being a big deal as if you get stronger then you will almost certainly get bigger.

__________________________________________________
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 409–411.

Influence of Range of Motion in Resistance Training in Women: Early Phase Adaptations
C. Dwayne Massey


Department of Human Performance and Recreation, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406

John Vincent and Mark Maneval


Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

J. T. Johnson


Department of Human Performance and Recreation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

ABSTRACT

Massey, C.D., J. Vincent, M. Maneval, and J.T. Johnson. Influence of range of motion in resistance training in women: Early phase adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(2): 409–411. 2005.—The purpose of this investigation was to compare partial range-of-motion versus full range-of-motion training in the development of maximal upper-body strength in women. A 1 repetition maximum bench press was used as the criterion measurement. A 10-week, 2 days per week training regimen was used. Subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 13) trained with 3 full range-of-motion sets on the bench press. Group 2 (n = 8) trained with 3 partial range-of-motion sets. Group 3 (n = 8), serving as a quasi-control, trained with an equal combination of partial and full range-of-motion sets. Findings indicated that each of the 3 groups experienced an increase in bench-press strength from pre- to posttest. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found between the full range-of-motion group and the partial and mixed groups (p < 0.5). This finding suggests that lifting through a full range of motion was superior to the other training regimens used in this study. However, this investigation also indicated that the partial technique had a positive effect on strength across time within the parameters of this study.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© 2005, National Strength and Conditioning Association

__________________________________________________ ______-





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




doi: 10.1519/13263.1
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 518–521.

An Analysis of Full Range of Motion vs. Partial Range of Motion Training in the Development of Strength in Untrained Men
C. Dwayne Massey, Mark Maneval, Melissa Moore, and J.T. Johnson


University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406

John Vincent


University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

ABSTRACT

Massey, C.D., J. Vincent, M. Maneval, M. Moore, and J.T. Johnson. An analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development of strength in untrained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):518–521. 2004.—The purpose of this investigation was to compare partial range of motion versus full range of motion training in the development of maximal strength. The bench press was used as the criterion measurement. The study was conducted over a 10-week period with training sessions occurring twice per week. Subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (N = 11) trained with 3 full range of motion sets on the bench press. Group 2 (N = 15) trained with 3 partial range of motion sets. A partial repetition was defined as one that is beyond the sticking point 2 to 5 inches from full extension of the elbows. Group 3 (N = 30) trained with a combination of partial and full range of motion sets. All subjects were pre- and posttested on the bench press through a full range of motion using a 1 repetition maximum. Each of the 3 groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in strength from pre- to posttest. No differences were found between groups. These findings appear to suggest that partial range of motion training can positively influence the development of maximal strength. Therefore, those involved in the strength and conditioning profession can confidently including this method as an adjunct to their normal training protocols when working with individuals similar to those found in this investigation. It is suggested that additional research be conducted to further establish the effectiveness of partial range of motion training in developing maximal strength.

Key Words: range of motion, maximal strength, partial repetitions




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© 2004, National Strength and Conditioning Association

[MANWHORE]

Alrighty then

[Desibaba]

How come almost always these types of studies are done on untrained subjects? They should use experienced lifters who have a considerable amount of muscle mass.Newbies get gains no matter how they train for a few months.

[J DUB]

There are a number of reasons, but a couple are:

1) they are easy to find...usually grad or undergrad students in the department or just normal students who the researchers might pay to allow themselves to be subjected to fun experiences like muscle biopsies and blood drawing.

2) untrained subjects provide a common baseline, because trained subjects can all vary with their respective training histories. For example, there is a big difference between a guy who has been bb'ing for 10 years and a guy who has been pl'ing for 10 years. This could make the results very confusing, as their past training will highly influence their response to different programs, etc.

3) It is much easier to get results from untrained subjects, because let's say you have 8 weeks to do a study. Trained subjects will likely not respond to anything over 8 weeks, so it will be hard to really quantify any measurable change in hypertrophy, VJ, etc. However, put some untrained sloths on a HIT program for 8 weeks and you can say "Hooray! HIT works and this is just the result I was looking for!" This looks much better than getting funding for a study and finding no measurable difference between your control and experimental groups, as would likely be the case with trained subjects over a short period of time.

Scientists are fully aware of the problems with using untrained subjects, but trained subjects present a host of problems as mentioned. This is a good reason why (amongst others) that people pay attention to a lot of the old Soviet studies, because they were usually conducted on elite athletes. How many studies in the US are done on pro sport athletes, or even Olympic athletes? Not that many, although the OTC in Colorado has turned out a couple interesting things.

It is always wise to pay attention to the research, but also don't just brush off anecdotal evidence as each time we step in the weightroom we are basically guinea pigs trying to find what works. Some of the best stuff for weightlifting was not found with research but rather with people just messing around and seeing what works and what doesn't. However, WRT to partial vs. full ROM, I can say with confidence that full ROM is almost always better, i.e. a full DB curl is absolutely superior to stopping half way any way you look at it for hypertrophy.

I apologize for the sloppiness of this post, but hope the info was good.

[Madcow2]

Originally Posted by J DUB

Some of the best stuff for weightlifting was not found with research but rather with people just messing around and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Just an interesting aside, I think there are two really cool things that many people take for granted.

1) The barbell - add standard combinations of plates to configure it for virtually any load desired. Round plates make it sit nice on the ground too (damn the morons who made the "fancy" hex plates).

2) The whole general idea of doing multiple submaximal reps as a set. A really neat organization that's very practical and quantifiable.

Just some random stuff that is taken for granted to the point that most people don't even give it a thought.

[bigtrevm]

From personal experience I really struggled to see gains in my chest with a Full Range of Motion, then from watching guys I knew and from watching the movie Pumping iron I noticed that alot of guys with great Chests didn't do a Full Range. I have only switched to a lesser range for about four months and my gains have been much better. I now stop between 1 and 2in above my chest and stop just ever so slighty short of lockout. This method seems easier on my shoulders too.

Perhaps you should try it and see what works for you

bigtrevm

[MANWHORE]

Originally Posted by bigtrevm

From personal experience I really struggled to see gains in my chest with a Full Range of Motion, then from watching guys I knew and from watching the movie Pumping iron I noticed that alot of guys with great Chests didn't do a Full Range. I have only switched to a lesser range for about four months and my gains have been much better. I now stop between 1 and 2in above my chest and stop just ever so slighty short of lockout. This method seems easier on my shoulders too.

Perhaps you should try it and see what works for you

bigtrevm

Some guys only use full range for a stretch and to test strength but use only partial when training for size/strength ...

[J DUB]

Where did Pete Sisco ask this? You are referring to the one who has written a few books, right?

[MANWHORE]

Originally Posted by J DUB

Where did Pete Sisco ask this? You are referring to the one who has written a few books, right?

Yes,that's him ... i get e-mails from Power Factor all the time at my Zip account. ... I check that account every now and then .... Here is the latest email ...............How To Win Every Gym Debate Part 1

One of my biggest pet peeves is the the awful strength training information that gets freely passed around in gyms and especially online. Because PFT and SCT are new, innovative and unconventional they are often magnets for the purveyors of this useless and even harmful advice. What follows is a series of e-mails that will help give every reader the critical thinking skills and pertinent arguments that can win every gym debate and allow you to continue your productive training uninterrupted by the Luddites who fear new technology.

Debate: “You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.”

Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. It’s often from some person who thinks he’s helping you out by passing on some physiology ‘knowledge’ he once heard. Sometimes it’s just a know-it-all jerk who critiques everyone’s workouts.

In any event, ask him this simple question, “Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?”

Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single study supporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, are you saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What I’m saying is that there are billions of cases over thousands of years of humans building muscle without using a full range of motion. So if a future study concludes that can’t happen the study will be wrong.

The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial studios, humans just don’t use a full range of motion when performing high intensity exercise. For example:

a) When you try to push a car you don’t place your hands near your chest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from you

b) Likewise, you also don’t squat down on you haunches, you barely bend your knees when you push a car

c) When you climb a ladder you don’t go three rungs at a time even though you could

d) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongest and most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use our full range of motion

There are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers and others who have very muscular physiques without ever using a full range of motion in their daily jobs.

And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth, yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all the bodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with maximum range of motion to develop flexibility.

Sometimes you’ll hear this variation: “If you don’t use a full range of motion, you’ll develop a short muscle.” Again, there is not a single study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of your muscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, your muscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter. Won’t happen.

And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work of the maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leads to maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the “short muscle” remark is ridiculous.

For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static Contraction Training have been showing people how to limit range of motion in favor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate that over 200,000 people have used these methods to build new muscle. Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitness equipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.

So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of muscle building, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. The overwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts. It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6 inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics is concerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxes your limits, not the greater distance.

“You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.” It never was true and never will be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training to lift the maximum amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safest possible range of motion…and watch your progress take off.

Have a great workout!

Pete

[MANWHORE]

You know what i like? Well i'll tell you ... I like super slow reps because i get such a good pump and the burn hurts like hell. I will even get sick if i push too hard. When i train with super slow reps,i like to get a very deep stretch.

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by MANWHORE

You know what i like? Well i'll tell you ... I like super slow reps because i get such a good pump and the burn hurts like hell. I will even get sick if i push too hard. When i train with super slow reps,i like to get a very deep stretch.

Are you being serious? Super slow reps is probably the absolute worst way to try to build muscle.

[CyniQ]

Originally Posted by MANWHORE

If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter.

That's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

A PT told me this same thing one time. She said that I should only come down til my elbows were at 90 degrees when I bench. At 90 the bar was nowhere near my chest. I was young and gave it a shot for 8 weeks. I did get stronger. But I don't think I progressed much faster than I would have with a full ROM. What I did find is that my muscles were shorter. Sort of. When I went back to benching at a full range of motion, I couldn't do it. IIRC it took me about 2 weeks of stretching to get my full ROM back.

If I tried those kinds of partial reps now. I would only incorporate them into a program that included full reps. Kind of like a speed strength system where you lift really heavy one workout and really fast the next.

[J DUB]

Let me just begin by saying that this is pure idiocy. Anytime you see a program with a label like HIT, PFT, SCT, SS, even HST, and it claims (in any way) to be the best way to train, look elsewhere, preferably at a good sportscience book. These uneducated gurus who spew this crap out do nothing but confuse people and make themselves look stupid at the same time.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the the awful strength training information that gets freely passed around in gyms and especially online. Because PFT and SCT are new, innovative and unconventional they are often magnets for the purveyors of this useless and even harmful advice. What follows is a series of e-mails that will help give every reader the critical thinking skills and pertinent arguments that can win every gym debate and allow you to continue your productive training uninterrupted by the Luddites who fear new technology.

I am not sure what PFT and SCT are, but I really doubt they are new. It has been a while since anything extraordinarily "new" has happened in training. SCT sounds like isometrics...if so, this is one of the oldest forms of exercise, hardly new! If someone can tell me what is so new and technologically advanced about this method I would appreciate it. It's kinda like Pilates...it recently became marketed well but is by no means new. Also, please do not consult this man for critical thinking skills...he apparently has none.

Debate: “You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.”

Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. It’s often from some person who thinks he’s helping you out by passing on some physiology ‘knowledge’ he once heard. Sometimes it’s just a know-it-all jerk who critiques everyone’s workouts.

I guess I'm the guy he's talking about. Oh well.

In any event, ask him this simple question, “Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?”

Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single study supporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, are you saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What I’m saying is that there are billions of cases over thousands of years of humans building muscle without using a full range of motion. So if a future study concludes that can’t happen the study will be wrong.

Oh boy, this is a gem. I found and posted on here, within 5 minutes, two studies showing that a full ROM is superior to partial ROM. I can probably find more, as I did not even touch PubMed. Pete is also dismissing the results of thousands of weightlifters, powerlifters, and bodybuilders whose physiques and strength were gained through full ROM exercise. He is correct in stating that it is possible to build muscle without using a full ROM, but in assuming this is the optimal way to train he is simply wrong. WHY would one want to train with a partial ROM anyway? I guess he is the final authority, however, when it comes to scientific evidence...anytime researchers find conclusions now they should just ask Pete Sisco to see if what they found is correct or not.

The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial studios, humans just don’t use a full range of motion when performing high intensity exercise. For example:

a) When you try to push a car you don’t place your hands near your chest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from you

b) Likewise, you also don’t squat down on you haunches, you barely bend your knees when you push a car

c) When you climb a ladder you don’t go three rungs at a time even though you could

d) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongest and most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use our full range of motion

Is he kidding? How many times a year do we push a car or climb a ladder? Anyway, I think I'll put my money on Louie Simmons (who squats 1,000 with a full ROM) pushing a car further and faster over some guy squatting 315 with a partial ROM any day of the week. This is nonsense, and I have nothing else to say in response to this.

There are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers and others who have very muscular physiques without ever using a full range of motion in their daily jobs.

Hell, I guess all lifters should take up these professions then. I guess we are all wasting our time doing those heavy, full ROM benches and squats. Silly us. I bet a landscaper who squats down to plant some fucking 1/8 lb. flowers will outsquat me anyday...yeah right.

And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth, yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all the bodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with maximum range of motion to develop flexibility.

Here, he is eliminating a crucial element to hypertrophy and strength: LOAD. Last time I checked, yoga practicioners and martial artists don't perform movements with 300lb on their back. But, bodybuilders, weightlifters, and powerlifters use full ROM movements with heavy pounds and guess what? They are the biggest, strongers mofos on earth. Enough said. Is it becoming clear that Pete is an idiot?

Sometimes you’ll hear this variation: “If you don’t use a full range of motion, you’ll develop a short muscle.” Again, there is not a single study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of your muscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, your muscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter. Won’t happen.

Your muscles are not attached to your bones? Jesus Christ, how do we move then? It is obvious that this guy has never taken any sort of a basic Anatomy and Physiology class. The last sentence doesn't even make sense, I don't even know what to say about it.

And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work of the maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leads to maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the “short muscle” remark is ridiculous.

OK, he might have a point here (which is nothing new), but I fail to see how this fits in with his argument.

For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static Contraction Training have been showing people how to limit range of motion in favor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate that over 200,000 people have used these methods to build new muscle. Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitness equipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.

Since when was it shown that partial ROM training was safer? There are studies, in fact, showing that partial ROM squats place more stress on the knees than full ROM squats!!! Would he like to debate with biomechanists on this issue??? It is clear as well that he is using this flawed method of training to push some exercise equipment....a common tactic amongst these non-educated gurus.

So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of muscle building, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. The overwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts. It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6 inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics is concerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxes your limits, not the greater distance.

Work in simple terms is force x distance. Force, in turn, is mass x acceleration. It is impossible to know if these exercise regimes are equivalent in work production as we do not know the acceleration of the lifts. Lifting 100 lbs 6 inches can certainly produce more work than lifting 200 lbs 3 inches if the acceleration of the 100lb. load is higher. This is basic physics but I guess Pete will say the laws of physics are wrong, too.

“You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.” It never was true and never will be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training to lift the maximum amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safest possible range of motion…and watch your progress take off.

Have a great workout!

As one can see from my quick criticism of this junk, one should be careful when reading such nonsense on the internet, or anywhere for that matter. There are no qualifications necessary to write something on the internet, and often people take advantage of this and spew forth such garbage. If anyone would like to disagree with me here I am open to debate. To anyone who comes across other such gems of knowledge, please post them here as I had a good time destroying this article.

Pete