- This topic has 5 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
Your theory sounds good Ibo, but so does mine.All I can say is I do better when using partials. I know because I log it all. And why do they require more recovery if they are not stimulating the CNS, hormones and muscles more?When I started partials there were days when I could barely walk out of the gym and literally could not swing a golf club properly for days. Then I'd get growth spurts I'd never gotten from full range training. I've adapted so I don't get badly sore now, but they still give me more stimulation and results than any other heavy resistance training.These are the reasons I believe in the partials theory over other ones.It's be great if there was a study done on this and regular training to see what the effects were.
There has been many studies on partial ROM exercises and full ROM. I can't tell you how many times I've read about half squats vs full squats.
What did they say? And what was the context?There are other factors as well, like the way injuries with weights nearly always happen in the weaker ranges because that is where the leverage is inefficient, the muscle is stretched, not nearly as contracted, weaker and it puts great pressure on the tendons and ligaments to step in.I'm not against full range training, I think it is excellent and necessary as well, but I think my results tell me regular training can be bettered with partials in some regards as well.I mean instinctively when you flex a muscle you squeeze it up, that's where you get the best contraction and full use of the muscle, no?
Here's one on squat depth and how it effects jumping performance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22344055Deep back and front squats resulted in better performance than 1/4 back squats. Keep in mind front squats use less than 50% of the weight one would use for a quarter back squat.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662234This one showed that partial squats can help peak a lifter in 1RM for the squat (remember what I said about how I think they are useful for competitive lifters)Keep in mind that while most muscle tears occur at the weakest range of motion (because that is wear the most tension is on the muscle), partial ROM exercises are associated with inflammation of the joints due to the heavier loads being used on the joints. Poor squat depth is associated with patellar tendonitis for example. Here's a story from Supertraining (a book I highly recommend if you are interested in this stuff) where Yuri Verkoshanky (the father of modern strength and conditioning) explains his experience with half squats
At one time I decided that the half squat with much more barbell weight would give better trainingresults. We tried this and my athletes were happy because they could easily execute a half squat with 140-160 kg. I thought that the problem of improving their training was solved.But...the next day none of them came to train. They phoned me and told me about pain in thesmall of the back. I understood that that I had made a serious error in my strength training system.
As you can see, his athletes were in pain do to the increased weight that were used on the half squats.
I think the tests kind of confirm some things I had found, in that partials are the best for max contractions due to the heavier weight. They tax cns and muscle fibers more and lead to more muscular adaptations.However, you have to do full range as well so that you can translate it to the functional movements, because although not as powerful on the muscle are more powerful in terms of the development of the skill of strength usage.So you develop more of the structure with partials but more of how to use it with full range. The study that used both had the best results.Full range develops both the structure and the ability to use it effectively.So I'd also say that overall full range is a far more complete and better modality if you have to choose one. But why not do partials and full range?Like, the more cns, more strength and more fibres (or fibre size) you have the more you can lift, all thing being equal. The more resistance in any rep range the better it is for what ever your goals are, whether powerlifting, strength, hypertrophy or strength endurance. Partials therefore enhance other methods.I've found my training to largely revolve around using partials to get more size and to progress faster at progressive bodyweight movements (getting to one arm push ups with feet together, one arm pull ups and so on).One confusing part of the first study was less isometric force from partials. That seems to contradict the other study and results I've experienced.Have you come across studies on partials v full range and their effect on hypertrophy?Also, I'd like to have known if the partials are being done with enough recovery time because that could be a factor on the negatives for the partial group, they may be burned out.It's very hard to quantify all the variables because I can think of many that impact the effectiveness of a partials program differently.If you start partials you need to get used to them and understand how it effects your volume (you will have to lower it somehow, sets or frequency of sessions). You also have to be really careful about how you load the exercise. For example, I never do full range squats with weights, only bodyweight, not to mind with double the weight on partials. It's puts enormous pressure on the lumbar back. I do leg partials with resistance bands or on a leg press and hamstring curls. Then I do bodyweight exercises like one leg squats and I'll maybe add a bit of weight to that when I get better, but not enough to hurt my back. I know you might get away with regular squats but I'd rather not take the risk if you don't have to. Lifters often end up injured if they start loading themselves in unusual and compromising positions.If you do partials once or twice like the super training author (without finding a way to use them correctly) and then just throw them out... I don't think that proves you shouldn't use them.My views are not set in stone though. I'm always learning and you've made some great arguments. You are impressive and very well versed.Don't be surprised if I've ditched the partials at some point, I'm not afraid of a u-turn. I made a big change with diet after previously coming to some pretty strong conclusions about what works and what doesn't on that (change from low calorie with refeeds to carb nite and carb backloading). Every other diet aside from Keifer's ones seemed to be simply cutting out a food group and therefore cutting calories or just eating less (when they worked, or semi worked). He brought along strategy, efficiency and it adds up to more effectiveness.
This is a study of partials only training over 60 days with only 8-10 workouts:http://www.precisiontraining.com/results-of-the-mass-gain-study/It is a paid study but the jist of it is on that page. Male participants mean age of 50 each gained several pounds of muscle over the study.
I think the tests kind of confirm some things I had found, in that partials are the best for max contractions due to the heavier weight. They tax cns and muscle fibers more and lead to more muscular adaptations.This isn't true at all. For instance, doing the top ROM of the bench press would result in a stronger contraction for the triceps, but a lesser contraction for the pecs. Different muscles activate during different ROMs during multipoint exercises.However, you have to do full range as well so that you can translate it to the functional movements, because although not as powerful on the muscle are more powerful in terms of the development of the skill of strength usage.So you develop more of the structure with partials but more of how to use it with full range. The study that used both had the best results.No, actually you can overtrain much more easily with partials because the heavier weights can lead to inflammation of the connective tissues.Full range develops both the structure and the ability to use it effectively.Correct I would agree with thisSo I'd also say that overall full range is a far more complete and better modality if you have to choose one. But why not do partials and full range?Like, the more cns, more strength and more fibres (or fibre size) you have the more you can lift, all thing being equal. The more resistance in any rep range the better it is for what ever your goals are, whether powerlifting, strength, hypertrophy or strength endurance. Partials therefore enhance other methods.Partials are very CNS intensive, it can lead to overtraining very quickly because of it. While not exactly like working up to a one rep max every workout, partials can easily lead to burnoutI've found my training to largely revolve around using partials to get more size and to progress faster at progressive bodyweight movements (getting to one arm push ups with feet together, one arm pull ups and so on).One confusing part of the first study was less isometric force from partials. That seems to contradict the other study and results I've experienced.Have you come across studies on partials v full range and their effect on hypertrophy?Here is an article that references several: http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2013/11/11/rom-hypertrophy/Also, I'd like to have known if the partials are being done with enough recovery time because that could be a factor on the negatives for the partial group, they may be burned out.Exactly what I mentioned before. Volume is very important when it comes to gaining size, if you are doing partials all the time, you can't do as much volume.It's very hard to quantify all the variables because I can think of many that impact the effectiveness of a partials program differently.If you start partials you need to get used to them and understand how it effects your volume (you will have to lower it somehow, sets or frequency of sessions). You also have to be really careful about how you load the exercise. For example, I never do full range squats with weights, only bodyweight, not to mind with double the weight on partials. It's puts enormous pressure on the lumbar back. I do leg partials with resistance bands or on a leg press and hamstring curls. Then I do bodyweight exercises like one leg squats and I'll maybe add a bit of weight to that when I get better, but not enough to hurt my back. I know you might get away with regular squats but I'd rather not take the risk if you don't have to. Lifters often end up injured if they start loading themselves in unusual and compromising positions. You are more likely to injure yourself with partial squats.If you do partials once or twice like the super training author (without finding a way to use them correctly) and then just throw them out... I don't think that proves you shouldn't use them. I was hoping you'd have respect for Yuri Verkoshanky, but it sounds like you don't know who he is, so you can't put the story in the context I was hoping.My views are not set in stone though. I'm always learning and you've made some great arguments. You are impressive and very well versed.Don't be surprised if I've ditched the partials at some point, I'm not afraid of a u-turn. I made a big change with diet after previously coming to some pretty strong conclusions about what works and what doesn't on that (change from low calorie with refeeds to carb nite and carb backloading). Every other diet aside from Keifer's ones seemed to be simply cutting out a food group and therefore cutting calories or just eating less (when they worked, or semi worked). He brought along strategy, efficiency and it adds up to more effectiveness.
Personally I could care less about studies. I think experience and theoretical knowledge biomechanics is a better guide. I think I've made my case enough. Believe what you want to believe.
You've made some excellent points and explained them very well Ibo.Maybe my success with partials was due to a good recovery rate and that it gives me more cns and hormone stimulation with my preference for low sets.I also find with partial reps in the strongest range with very heavy weight I can really feel the muscle, and I sort of dial into it mentally. It's like it is creating a stronger mind muscle link, and I hear a lot of guys saying that makes a significant difference to gains. I guess you can do that with full range as well if you tune into it.I'll try a new routine with full range only, but with more sets and see what kind of difference that makes.
As Kiefer has said… “Everybody and every body is different” – what is ideal (or even acceptable) for some, might not be for others.HIT methods vary greatly, with time under load from a few seconds (Max Contraction) to a few minutes for others, and from static holds to partial-movement to full-range of motion. I would agree the chance of injury is greater when attempting a load you can only hold for a couple of seconds in the max contraction state, and also that HIT results may differ somewhat from full range training. But full-range training results also vary from person to person (even when using the same protocol).Many studies are indeed less than worthless (look hard enough and you can find one to support almost any viewpoint), but that's no reason to discount HIT altogether. There's just too much info that suggests it works well for some.Again... my two cents.
As Kiefer has said... "Everybody and every body is different" - what is ideal (or even acceptable) for some, might not be for others.HIT methods vary greatly, with time under load from a few seconds (Max Contraction) to a few minutes for others, and from static holds to partial-movement to full-range of motion. I would agree the chance of injury is greater when attempting a load you can only hold for a couple of seconds in the max contraction state, and also that HIT results may differ somewhat from full range training. But full-range training results also vary from person to person (even when using the same protocol).Many studies are indeed less than worthless (look hard enough and you can find one to support almost any viewpoint), but that's no reason to discount HIT altogether. There's just too much info that suggests it works well for some.Again... my two cents.
I appreciate what you are saying Mac, but at the same time we are all built pretty similarly too (in general terms).I don't think anyone is saying either type doesn't work, they all do, just that one might be optimal over another. I mean if you progress your weights and/or reps continually, no matter what program it is, there are changes going on in the muscle, no matter what. A lot of the failed routines I've seen are due to guys not understanding they have to do something if not progressing, lift more weight, do more sets or back off when they are overtrained, to let the body recover.But one type of training will suit one person's goals or life better than another.I've just been particularly wary of full range weight training because I've seen so many guys get injuries from long term lifting; shoulder cuffs, lumbar back problems etc.I try to stick to progressive bodyweight work in the full ranges and have used partials for more cns stimulation and volume. But I'm going to try some full range stuff only with more sets now and see how it goes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.