Range of Movement sacrifice for increased weight...how bad is that?

[nikp7]

Ive noticed as i get into my heavier weeks, my squats dont go as deep as they do when light, and my bench press doesnt completly touch my chest towards the end of the set.

Now quick answer i know is im going too heavy in my increments, and should complete the full range of movement for each rep. But ive read a year ago about Static Contraction Training (SCT), which pretty much said at the end of the set, put as much weight as you can and say bench it up 8cm, and hold it for 10seconds, (same with leg press) and i was amazed at how much weight i could do, and continually increase over weeks, so i was getting stronger.

The idea is that "full range of movement" is just some buzz word, and can been seen in heavy laborours who get big thru there work but every time they lift something, say a bricky lifting bricks, they dont do a full range of movement.

Ive recently read another article on time under tension, which kind of ties in with it.

So anyway, my question is, is it better to sacrifice a little bit of range of movement, and add a good 50kgs to my squats/bench, for progression? Ive heard ppl claim of un even muscle building if a full range isnt completed, but i think its crap, if form is still spot on, and your lifting more, and contracting the muscle (at least 50% of its full range of movement), it will still build, as long as the Time under tension remains the same, and the weight keeps increasing, and the more, the better? Right?

 

[Lateralus]

You might want to ask yourself. This "method" being as simple as any other, why is it not the recommended approach in HST?
HST is based on research, after all. Not hype or buzz words.

As for the Squats in your example:
Stopping a heavy weight above parallel is to hard on your knees. In addition you exclude your hams from the lift, to a significant degree.

When the weight gets (to) heavy, don't sacrifice form. Take a 20 sec. break and complete the set with proper form.

If you want to utilize Static Contraction and similar methods. Use them as they where ment to be used.

 

[grunt11]

IMO doing only heavy partials is like doing only heavy isolation exercises in that it’s a great way to set yourself up for injury. The reason you can do heavier partials is mechanical advantage based on joint angles and which muscles are being most targeted in that part of the ROM. By over strengthening in the strongest part of your ROM you risk the other muscles not getting equal work not being able to keep up which could easily result in injuring one of those muscles when you convert back to Full-ROM.

OTOH if you are doing partials to supplement your Full-ROM exercises then they certainly do have a place in many training programs.

I do heavy partial Squats (walkouts in conjunction with my BB Calf Raises) and Deadlifts (Rack Pulls in conjunctions with my BB Shrugs). The reason is that in both cases the partials help me to adapt to just using a heavier weight than I’m use to using in order to improve both my Squats and Deadlifts. As far as partial Squats not being safe they are IMO if done from the bottom up off the safety bars. That way when you stop on the way down it’s the safety bars not your legs doing the stopping. The same thing goes for Rack Pulls (i.e. you’re not doing them like partial Top Down Deadlifts you’re starting the lift and stopping it from the safety bars).

Also once my Deadlift, Squat and Bench start lagging because of a particular sticking point I may add partials (though with lighter weights) to train through those sticking points. However, right now I’m using other methods like Platform (for the Deadlift) and Elastic Bands (for Bench Press).

To put it another way, if doing heavy partials was the “best” way to gain strength and size then everyone would have realized that by now and switched over to doing them instead of Full-ROM exercises.