] Another criticism of Static Contraction... Sisco

[Guest guest]

: ----------------------------------------------------------Another Criticism of Static Contraction TrainingEver since I began experimenting with more rational and efficientmethods of strength training in 1992 I've run into people who want todefend the status quo. Basically their defense consists of insistingthat any method of training other than what they do and believe mustbe wrong, otherwise they'd be doing it. One thing I've learned is a certain percentage of people basicallyrefuse to

understand anything that challenges their current beliefsand seem to have unlimited time and energy to debate with those of uswho see things differently.Consequently, I've stopped responding to these folks other than tooccasionally reply with very short e-mails that say things like; "Inever said conventional training won't work; my point is that StaticContraction Training delivers equal benefits in 2% of the time." Today's e-mail deals with a criticism I've heard many times. "You needto lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle."Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Trainingor Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. It'soften from some person who thinks he's helping you out by passing onsome physiology 'knowledge' he once heard. Sometimes it's just aknow-it-all jerk who critiques everyone's workouts. Either way, it'sno help to

you.In any event, ask him this simple question, "Has there ever been aclinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion tobuild muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays abigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?"Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single studysupporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, areyou saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What I'msaying is that there are literally billions of individual cases overthousands of years of humans building muscle while rarely using a fullrange of motion. So if a future study concludes that is impossible thestudy will obviously be mistaken.The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial production studios,humans just don't use a full range of motion when performing highintensity exercise. For example:a) When you try to push a car you

don't place your hands near yourchest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from youb) Likewise, when you push a car you also don't squat down on youhaunches, you barely bend your kneesc) When you climb a ladder you don't go three rungs at a time eventhough you couldd) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongestand most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use ourfull range of motionThere are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers andothers who have very muscular physiques without ever using a fullrange of motion in their daily jobs or lifting weights.And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth,yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all thebodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with absolutemaximum range of motion in order to develop flexibility.Sometimes you'll hear

this variation: "If you don't use a full rangeof motion, you'll develop a short muscle." Again, there is not asingle study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of yourmuscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, yourmuscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partialreps, your muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the boneand reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter.It won't happen.And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work ofthe maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leadsto maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the"short muscle" remark is ridiculous.For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static ContractionTraining have been showing people how to limit range of motion infavor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate thatover 200,000 people

have used these methods to build new muscle.Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitnessequipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of musclebuilding, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. Theoverwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts.It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three ofthose lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics isconcerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxesyour limits, not the greater distance. That's a clear argument tolimit distance in favor of more weight, not the opposite.This criticism of Static Contraction training never was true and neverwill be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training tolift the maximum

amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safestpossible range of motion...and watch your progress take off.Test it yourself.In future e-mails I'll address more criticisms. As Always....train with your brains,Pete----------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.

Try it free.

[Guest guest]

I have to hand it to Sisco, the guy is slick!

He indicates that there is no research that suggests that you need a

full range of exercise to gain strength and muscle mass. However in

fact, there is much research that suggests exactly that.

Moreover, he does not then go on to show any research that suggests

that static contraction as he practices it DOES produce comparable

gains of strength and muscle mass.

Lasty, I have never seen any competitive weightlifter of any note

proclaim that the infact use his methods.

To be clear, strong man have used supplemental training at specific

sticking points for decades. However, Sisco claims that holding

large amounts of weight at the end of the muscle range is superior

to all other methods of building strength.

BUNK.

In fact, he even goes against all of the solid research on isometric

strength training.

In short, his method is BUNK!

PS- I tried this method for about 5 weeks once. I did not gain any

strength or muscle mass. I did tear a tendon in my wrist.

>

>

>

> :

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

> Another Criticism of Static Contraction Training

>

> Ever since I began experimenting with more rational and efficient

> methods of strength training in 1992 I've run into people who want

to

> defend the status quo. Basically their defense consists of

insisting

> that any method of training other than what they do and believe

must

> be wrong, otherwise they'd be doing it.

>

> One thing I've learned is a certain percentage of people basically

> refuse to understand anything that challenges their current beliefs

> and seem to have unlimited time and energy to debate with those of

us

> who see things differently.

>

> Consequently, I've stopped responding to these folks other than to

> occasionally reply with very short e-mails that say things like; " I

> never said conventional training won't work; my point is that

Static

> Contraction Training delivers equal benefits in 2% of the time. "

>

> Today's e-mail deals with a criticism I've heard many times. " 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. Either way,

it's

> no help to you.

>

> 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 literally billions of individual cases

over

> thousands of years of humans building muscle while rarely using a

full

> range of motion. So if a future study concludes that is impossible

the

> study will obviously be mistaken.

>

> The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial production 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

>

> Likewise, when you push a car you also don't squat down on you

> haunches, you barely bend your knees

>

> 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 or lifting weights.

>

> 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

absolute

> maximum range of motion in order 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, your muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the

bone

> and reattach themselves during the night in order to become

shorter.

> It 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 of

> those 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. That's a clear argument to

> limit distance in favor of more weight, not the opposite.

>

> This criticism of Static Contraction training 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.

>

> Test it yourself.

>

> In future e-mails I'll address more criticisms.

>

> As Always....train with your brains,

>

> Pete

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

>