Range of Motion question

I used to train according to many of the principles outlined in that article but I don't anymore due to the following:

'the metabolic cost of exercise probably plays a crucial role in muscle growth'

Well Dan's max stim is actually trying to reduce the fatigue encountered during exercise so that you can get more reps at heavier weights = more load = more growth.

Keeping the muscle under constant tension will result in higher TUT but again less reps and lower weights - max stim actually completes removes this idea by resting between each rep.

I'm also fairly sure Dan (apologies if it wasn't you Dan but I think it was) stated in a post that studies didn't show longer concentric or eccentric timings resulted in anymore growth. In fact, as long as the weight is lowered in controlled fashion, performing reps more quickly would appear to be more benficial as again it allows higher loads. Although this reduces TUT you could potentially do more reps which would eliminate this disadvantage.

The first time I started thinking about this sort of stuff was when I started deadlifting. I couldn't understand why the weight was put down between reps as I thought you had to keep constant tension throughout the set. However, how much less weight would you have to use with a deadlift if you couldn't put it down between reps? The reduction in load would be have a far greater effect than any benefits of continuous tension on the muscles.

The above is also why max stim immediately made sense to me. However, I don't use max stim exclusively but when performing conventional sets/reps I still lift explosively with FROM without worrying about whether I'm locking out etc.

Not sure what everyone else thinks about these points, it's just where my beliefs are at the moment so they are open to change!!

Cheers

Rob
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jul. 27 2006,16:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
I recently bought Rosss Enamait's Infinite Intensity and he advocates isometric work at different angles to increase strength.

However this is not as a replacement to other strength/hypertrophy work but to complement it. Seems to make sense to me.

I was thinking of performing the following exercises on off days:

attempted planche
attempted front level
attempt to press a weight 'that's too heavy' on smith machine or chest &amp; shoulder press machines
attempt to chin with 'too much' weight on my dip belt

The last two can be done at different angles i.e. with bar just above chest, with bar half way up etc. The first 2 are my subsitutes for holding a bar at full extension and hanging from a bar - they're more interesting and involve the core plus will look cool when I can do them!

Also I've read a lot of gymnastics coaches attribute the amazing bicep hypertrophy in gymnasts to the strain biceps are put under during ring work - specifically the iron cross which involves holding your bodyweight still with your arms at 90 degrees to the body. Obviously your biceps are not flexing in this position so it's like an isometric contraction at full strength.

I'm going to simulate this using the cable cross machine.

Just some things to play around with!

Cheers

Rob
 
Good call. It was just something I was sent. I do agree from a bodybuilding standpoint though, on the continuous tension principle, but I think that's better used with the lighter weights, on iso's like arms. I've always done them that way. I also limit ROM on certain things, like curls. Hyperextension is an injury, to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top