Range of Motion question

S

spartan74

New Member
All, I have a question about range of motion. I really like the analysis that Bryan has done of the current science available. One thing that I haven't seen in any of the HST literature is how range of motion affects HST. I did see a few blurbs that full range of motion was needed, but I didn't see the science behind it.

Why does HST suggest certain reps when what it seems we are trying to do is have a fair amount of TUL. For example, why not say 40 seconds under load rather than 10 reps? I know that reps are the way we've always considered things, but there are several theories out there that don't involve repetitions. Max Contraction and Static Contraction are two systems (which I don't employ by the way) that suggest full range of motion is not optimal. That it is either better to maintain a full contraction in max contracted position or in a stretch position. They suggest that the motor units will all still fire if the load is great enough. They seem to have some science behind their claim as well. Now, I don't know that I fully agree with those systems as they suggest going to failure. The HST principals that Bryan laid out clearly suggest that this shouldn't happen so as to avoid CNS fatigue. They do suggest progressive load increases, but I'm skeptical that they will work as eventually the CNS will raise its ugly head if going to failure regularly. OK, I'm straying from my point.

Is a full range of motion needed? If so, where is the science? If it proves to be more beneficial to keep a static contraction (where more load can be used than a full contraction), wouldn't it make sense to apply it to the known science of HST and remove reps entirely?
Perhaps have a 2 week period where single static contractions are held for 60 seconds and build up to 60 second max load? Then a 2 week for 45 seconds and build up to a 45 second max load? etc. Thoughts?
 
good post,i think full range of motion takes  advantage of the load,in that the muscle is in a state of tension throughout while getting the benifits of stretching,also breathing is more natural with full movement.and also i would imagine that failure would come much sooner using these systems,while the full movement spreads the load to different areas of the muscle and momentarily avoiding failure and taxing the cns.
 
quote from bryan about negs

During negatives you should lower the weight in about 2-3 seconds. This may seem too quick to most traditionalists. Research has shown that if you go too slow during negatives you don't get the same growth stimulus. it begins to resemble the effect of isometrics if you go too slow. This is one reason why the old principle of "time under tension" isn't so simple as just time. The action of the muscle while under load is very important when trying to produce a specific effect.

- Bryan
 
thanks for the quick replies. I'm not sure I totally understand though. The comments says that too slow of a negative seems to be more of an isometric movement. Why is that such a bad thing? Not to split hairs, but isn't an isometric the pushing of an immovable object? It doesn't feel the same to me. Anyhow, this is straying from my point. What is the actual science behind this comment?

I haven't paid for the article, but the Max Contraction people claim that the Nautilus North Study has scientific evidence that a fully contracted static contraction was far superior to a full range of motion as it keeps the muscle contracted and removes the inefficiencies inherent in a full ROM repetition. If anyone has read the article, I'd love to hear about it. I've heard from other sources that a fully stretched, static contraction (or pulsing if you read about x-reps) is superior. Also, there is a pretty good discussion either here or in Dan's hypertrophy-research site about occlusion. The ACIT guy suggests that a static contraction can cause occlusion. It seems like a static contraction would enable occlusion more easily than a slow, peak contraction repetition as it should be easier to concentrate.

If (and this is an IF since this is the basis of my question) we can determine that a static contraction that meets the load component and reduces the ROM inefficiencies (such as secondary lockout or machine ROM errors), can't we further optimize HST. I hope I'm not muddying the waters by throwing in occlusion studies, fully stretched, fully contracted, etc. items.
 
LCARS, by the way, I don't think failure happens faster in a static contraction. Actually, it is the opposite. If you do a full set to failure, you will spend less time than a static contraction of the same weight. The reason that the static contraction is raising my eyebrows is because we can increase the load under tension for the same amount of time that a normal set would take. And, we could do it in a portion of the contraction that doesn't suffer from full ROM inefficiencies.
 
Seems to me that when talking of ROM inefficiencies, you should take into account what your goal is. If you want to have a big squat, you don't train with a leg sled, you squat, for example.
If only hypertrophy is your goal, then I suppose any road that works is creditable, but my body works for a living in all kinds of positions, so for me, the full ROM develops strengths in all the ranges, making me more capable of working. And less capable of injury IMHO.
Nonetheless, I bet those studies would make some good reading.
 
I've tried the static contraction routine. No size at all. You will get stronger on the static hold though with absolutely no increase of strength through the full range of motion. I also did the routine using just partials in the strongest part of the range of motion - total waste of time and energy

In my opinion, from experience, static contraction training, as a routine, is a total waste of time for hypertrophy.

What gave me the best (only?) size increases has been full range of motion deadlifts, squats, rows, OH presses, dips and chins.
 
<div>
(spartan74 @ Jul. 25 2006,13:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For example, why not say 40 seconds under load rather than 10 reps?  I know that reps are the way we've always considered things, but there are several theories out there that don't involve repetitions.</div>
Count to FORTY while you're under a heavy bar ?  Not me.  When I get tired my brain turns to mush.  Counting to 12 is about my limit, and I'm only able to do that because they're reps.  
tounge.gif
 
Besides which, time has a tendency to become extremely subjective when you are under a loaded bar. You'd be done counting 40 seconds within 15 seconds.
 
Thank you all for your input. I haven't received any scientific suggestions as to why full range of motion is better, but rather anecdotes or what folks &quot;think&quot;. Not that there is anything wrong with that as there is merit to it. Its just that HST is built on firm science, so I was hoping to get some on the ROM subject.

Liegelord,
When you tried the static contraction program, did you do it through HST principals or was it more like the HIT principals that those authors suggest. If HIT, could this be why you didn't gain size? That whole correlation doesn't imply causation argument perhaps? I'm really interested in the static contraction theory as they seem to back it up with science. If we don't have any scientific evidence that full ROM is better than static contractions and if they do in fact have such evidence, shouldn't we apply it to HST? I've already mentioned the full ROM inefficiencies, but something else has come to my mind since I first posted this. Wouldn't it be easier to remove the TUT variable if we really did only use time rather than repetions? It is very difficult to do 10 reps or 2 sets of 5 reps in the same amount of time under load.
 
I have seen 2 studies that looked at range of motion (I think they are on Pubmed still). One showed no difference between partials and full range reps, the other showed full range was superior. I'm not sure there is all that much &quot;scientific&quot; evidence that static contractions have value, but even the claims I've seen relate to strength and not hypertrophy. I've done static contraction also and got much stronger, but no bigger. I do think partials can have a place in a routine since they can allow you to increase the load in specific parts of the range of motion where it is beneficial.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It is very difficult to do 10 reps or 2 sets of 5 reps in the same amount of time under load.</div> Yes it is, esp. if the weights are not the same. Which is why 3 sets of 5s is probably about the same TUT as 2 x 10s esp. towards 5RM loads.

Have you checked Dan's site for info on this? I would have thought that there would be some studies there to provide the info you seek. I haven't looked myself but I feel pretty sure that I remember reading something that shows that static contractions are less effective in eliciting a hypertrophic response. Perhaps one of the reasons is that in order to stretch the muscle fibres as much as possible you need to contract the muscle fully first before allowing an eccentric contraction (under load). Best to check Dan's site though.

hypertrophy-research.com
 
spartan74: I had been wasting my time with HIT, so the static contraction made sense at the time, so I did it that way.

I'm sorry I have no scientific studies to cite, however, the results posted on this forum were good enough for me to dump the HIT crap and start to get gains. My own gains over 6 cycles were great, could have been better had I started charting calories much sooner. I pulled 500 in the deadlift, something I never did with HIT because I would always burn out.

One example, anecdotal of course, is my legs. I have gotten much better results, even with a lighter load, with full olympic squats as opposed to the powerlifter half squat I was doing. I gained a half inch on my calves the first month I did them. My calves were 17 before that (when I deadlifted 500; also I went from 15 to 17 in six cycles) and I do not do direct calf work.

I would say that although I did get good gains in my calves from the half squat and deadlift, there was a big difference when I did full ROM squats.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps one of the reasons is that in order to stretch the muscle fibres as much as possible you need to contract the muscle fully first before allowing an eccentric contraction (under load).</div>
That's what I would think, too. The problem with static contractions, as I see it, is that they throw the idea of actively stretching the muscle (while under load) completely out of the window.

Besides, we all know that the human body is an extremely adaptive system. It will just get better at whatever you ask of it. I don't know if you are after any strength gains at all, but static contractions will primarily increase your strength when you are statically supporting a given weight. What I'm trying to say is that this strength increase will not necessarily carry over to a fuller ROM (ok, there is some overlap of course, but there is also the principle of specificity). I don't know how many of the guys who want some strength gains (along with hypertrophy) would be satisfied by something like that.

Anyway, if you want to try it, go ahead and then come back and tell us what you think.

Regards,
Dimitris
 
Thank you all for the input. I'll see if I can find anything in Dan's site as someone suggested I should do. After I finish my current cycle, I just may try it and report the findings to the board. Not sure how much my reporting will help the overall HST community since the sample size is n=1, but I'll report it nevertheless. Again, thank you all for the great input. This forum is by far the best I've ever come upon.
 
<div>
(spartan74 @ Jul. 25 2006,14:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">LCARS, by the way, I don't think failure happens faster in a static contraction.  Actually, it is the opposite.  If you do a full set to failure, you will spend less time than a static contraction of the same weight.  The reason that the static contraction is raising my eyebrows is because we can increase the load under tension for the same amount of time that a normal set would take.  And, we could do it in a portion of the contraction that doesn't suffer from full ROM inefficiencies.</div>
i dont agree,it is the static contraction that suffers from inefficiencies,like utilising the entire muscle from all positions which rom does rather than just one single position.i agree with an earlier post which stated that static contractions become too much like isometrics,negs are better.
 
<div>
(spartan74 @ Jul. 27 2006,08:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thank you all for the input.  I'll see if I can find anything in Dan's site as someone suggested I should do.  After I finish my current cycle, I just may try it and report the findings to the board.  Not sure how much my reporting will help the overall HST community since the sample size is n=1, but I'll report it nevertheless.  Again, thank you all for the great input.  This forum is by far the best I've ever come upon.</div>
Well I really don't have a lot there on ROM, because most studies show little to no difference in strength, few have really looked at hypertrophy.

What we do know, from the studies done, is there are specific changes based on angle with isometric training. Strength changes are greater in the angle worked. Yet comparing to full range dynamic contractions the difference is small at best.

Folland JP, Hawker K, Leach B, Little T, Jones DA.
Strength training: isometric training at a range of joint angles versus dynamic training.
J Sports Sci. 2005 Aug;23(8):817-24.


Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon B.
Generality versus specificity: a comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speed-strength.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1994;68(4):350-5.

Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Johnson JT.
Influence of range of motion in resistance training in women: early phase adaptations.
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):409-11.


Massey CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Moore M, Johnson JT.
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. 2004 Aug;18(3):518-21.


Barak Y, Ayalon M, Dvir Z.
Transferability of strength gains from limited to full range of motion.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Aug;36(8):1413-20.

Graves JE, Pollock ML, Jones AE, Colvin AB, Leggett SH.
Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989 Feb;21(1):84-9.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">After I finish my current cycle, I just may try it and report the findings to the board.</div>
Just remember to follow HST principles as you would do with any routine (frequency, progressive load etc.). The only thing that should change is that instead of reps, you'll have static contractions.

Good luck,
Dimitris
 
so, i'd like to report some findings...promissed that i would. anyhow, i did a static contraction HST cycle and another traditional full rom cycle. I took some of the advice of posters to this thread, albeit indirectly, to alter my routine. I had to change some of my excercises...squats were out of the question...not sure why, but i just didn't like the idea of holding all of that weight in the stretched position. Anyhow, this is what I did...
Instead of determining 15, 10, and 5 rep maxes, I determined weight maxes for a 60 second, 40 second, and 20 second holds. I determined these values for holds in the fully contracted position as well as almost fully stretched position (fully stretched didn't seem like i was doing anything). Every workout was alternated between stretch and contracted holds.
After 2 weeks of SD, i did another traditional HST routine.
My weight increases were a bit higher for the static routines...11 pounds versus 6. Since i didn't measure bodyfat, i can't be certain that it was all muscle, but it sure feels like it. I can say with absolute certainty that my pumps were greater with the static holds...not that it means anything, just an observation.
if anyone else is curious about mixing things up and wants to try this routine and report back, i'd sure be interested in seeing your results.
later...time for some flax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top