As promised, my latest interpretation of mixing the concepts between MAE and Body by Science.
Also, be sure to check this interview out from Conditioning Research.
It’s a great follow up to my recent interview with Bill about Moment Arm Exercise. New videos from Bill are included at the bottom of the interview as well (regarding congruent exercise for the chest).
Armi Legge: I'll assume you understand which statements I'm ad...
michael: 1. True wisdom and insight is always free- I reall...
michael: it could be interpreted as read more- increase you...
Shawn: ARMI:
"A parent, if they have a basic understandi...
Armi Legge: Shawn,
It should also be pointed out that taxes a...
Fat is the Regulating Nutrient for Body Composition, Not Protein
High Intensity Training Across the Globe
That’s the crappiest workout I have ever seen. It’s like your trying to suck – quarter rep squats on a smith machine? Are you serious?
“That’s the crappiest workout I have ever seen.”
Frey, after looking at your blog for 2 minutes, I’m not even sure how to respond to this comment.
Please come back when you are ready to learn something about exercise (and nutrition) with an open mind.
thanks for commenting
-Anthony
Nah, thanks for the invitation, but I don’t think I’ll be coming back. I honestly just ended up at your site by mistake. A friend of mine sent me that youtube video, saying, “you won’t believe this”. We both got a good laugh out of your training.
I will prefer to stick with learning from coaches such as Eric Cressey, or Dan John. You know, guys who actually compete in sports and train athletes – instead of reading guys like you… the guys who sit around and talk about training.
Anthony, the more I am thinking about all this stuff I think I am coming to see that theoretically there seems to be an argument for isometric contractions at the point of maximum muscle torque or at least very short ranges of motion around that position.
It is really interesting stuff.
Thanks for the link too, and thanks for the video – it really demonstrates how you are training.
Hey thanks so much for posting this man, I love everytime you post stuff like this, ive had your blog set as my homepage for a while now xP, keep it up!
Hey dream,
I have been doing the big 5 workout for a while now, but I think it is time for a change/modification.
In the video’s Bill posted on youtube, he does al lot of exercises, doesn’t that sort of contradict doing minimal exercises to failure?
Does the big 5 wourkout cover all the muscle groupes that I need to train?
Thanks
Cloud
@Chris
I agree, it makes sense, and I have seen “results” from shifting to this style of training – however I have no “proof” that the results were directly from the shift in training. My diet also changed rather dramatically alongside the shift in training…so yeah, it’s tough to say. My body does feel better than ever though, and while I still get DOMS, my joints never hurt in line with the DOMS and I am used to experiencing….reason enough for me to continue to avoid FROM.
@Enlightenment
Glad to hear it man, will keep at it!
@Cloud
I’m still a massive supporter of BBS, hence my workout (by my estimation) is still very similar to a “big five” workout (and the associated principles). It may not appear so on video to everyone, but for me it is.
I still recommend working your muscles to “failure”, once a week, give or take a few days (usually I allow more than a week to pass though). I will never take a muscle to failure twice in one workout either – although some may be used twice over in a compound movement (bench press), and then later a tricep pressdown to failure.
To answer your question in short, a “big five” workout is fine, just don’t use a “full range of motion”. Your intensity will increase, and more muscles will be called in to failure.
For example, the traps are not usually brought to failure during a Nautlius Lat Pulldown – while the rest of the back (and biceps) usually are.
Using a shorter ROM, from my experience, allows your traps to come into play on the last rep or 2 – very noticeably bringing them to “failure” after the other muscles have quit.
Can you add more exercises for direct work? Sure, I have, but I have cut other compound movements out in the process. For example I now use a hammer strength pull over (isolates my back), and perform dumbbell bicep curls – what the lat pulldown does in one “compound” movement.
I think keep your number of exercises in the single digits is a wise idea though, more than that is just unnecessary – I could probably go without the ab machine myself, and maybe even heel raises as my squat resistance continues to climb.
hope this helps
-Anthony
So the limited range of motion is done for safety? To avoid loading the body in extreme, dangerous positions?
I read your latest interview with Bill DeSimone and watched the videos with it. So the limited range of motion is used for safety of the joints and connective tissue. It is used to avoid ranges where there is no moment arm or no resistance pulling against the muscles. You also avoid sticking points (the resistance is what it needs be.) Using some range of motion is better than none because you get more microtrauma than if you just held the weight statically. Some if this I also got from Body By Science and Drew Baye. Am I understanding this?
Is there any advantage to doing the Moment Arm stuff instead of Max Contraction with a slight range of motion or vice versa?
Donnie,
Since I’m here. close. The range is only “limited” in that it’s not excessive, and safety is part of the reason. The other is to challenge the muscle where it is biomechanically strongest, instead of reducing the weight to try to strengthen the biomechanic weak ranges, which can’t happen.
“microtrauma” isn’t part of the jargon I use. I use some range instead of static so that theoretically you disperse some of the internal forces over a wider range of the articulation of the joint, instead of in one spot (more elaborate explanation in the Conditioning Research piece).
John Little and I spoke at length this summer about Max Contraction and Moment Arm Exercise. I’m not sure if he plans on writing more on it, but he’s the guy to ask about how the two correlate.
Bill DeSimone
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the further explanation. This whole idea of not using the weak and biomechanically disadvantageous range is really starting to make sense to me now. You said something along these lines in the interviewand videos, Pete Sisco and John Little have also: When you look at the way we lift something in everyday life you would never intentionally get into a weak range. From what you’re saying here, trying to strengthen the weak range won’t happen. Am I following?
Lol, this is turning into a health nut blog. Just kidding. Hope you’re doing well, Dream
@Donnie
To add my own thoughts, you can only make muscles stronger/larger. Their shape, fiber profile, and way their work can never change. There is no such thing as “bulky” muscle or “wiry strength”- not in the field of skeletal muscle anyway. These things have to do with body fat % and motor skill, not the way we exercise. By the same token, you can’t work the “weak” part of your muscle, and specifically make that ROM stronger. It may have an effect on the muscle overall (which can translate to more strength overall, including the weak part of the ROM for that muscle), but it will pale in comparison to focusing on the strongest part of the muscle where the most intensity can occur.
That’s my take anyway. Make muscles stronger and bigger in the safest way possible- it’s not only the best thing to be doing, it’s damn near the only thing you can be doing in the first place (most everything else is an error in observation).
-Anthony
@Dream,
Thanks for your response. Do you still use some range of motion to disperse the forces on the joints over a wider range like Bill was talking about? Like Chris had posted here, its seems that you could doing isometric or static contractions in the safest and biomechanically strongest range.
@Dream and Bill or anyone who wishes to respond,
This is going in the other direction, but does know anything about the studies Arthur Jones did some time ago where he found that most people gained more “full range” strength by using a full range of motion than if they just used a partial range. The strength gains of most of the people in the study where greater at the joint angles trained. I read about these studies in the “My First Half Century In the Iron Game” articles that Arthur wrote. I’m not bringing this up to be argumentative. I’m just curious how all this stuff fits together.
Donnie
Donnie,
That stuff doesn’t fit together; both can’t be true. I’m pretty familiar with the Jones stuff, having studied it when it first came out. There were a lot of problems with the testing protocol, for instance, no specified rest periods between attempts, so you could shape the testing curve however you wanted. Plus,as far as the test results for the spine extensors go, you can isolate “spine extension” as a movement, but that doesn’t isolate the dozens of muscles connecting each vertabrae.
Jones’ image has taken on near infallibility, but for all the stuff he was right on, he had his share of misses, too.
Most orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists, as well as Olympic lifting coaches, and biomechanics academics, and manual laborers, think loading the spine in dynamic extension (as opposed to holding the spine statically)is a mistake. “Lift with your legs, not your back”.
Hi Dream
Thanks for the advice. I am changing from leg press to squat since I maxed out the machine’s weight.
Is there a difference between the smith machine and the freeweight squat?
Cloud
@Donnie
As seen in the follow up video, I still do some ROM. I’ve seen Bill write about this before (he can explain why a lot better than I can).
@Cloud
A smith machine is safer to use alone and makes it a lot less difficult to select a certain range of motion.
@Bill
If I’m remembering correctly the testing was done by the participants doing static holds at different points throughout the range of motion. Is this correct? I see what you saying. The level of fatigue of the muscle/muscles would effect the amount of force they could produce. Which ever range was tested last would have a fatigued contraction. Is this kinda what you mean?
You brought up another thing I thought alot about recently. The whole idea of muscle isolation. I was recently looking at a very detailed muscle anatomy chart. The muscles are so numerous and intertwined (and also from my own lifting experience) that whole idea of muscle isolation seems kinda silly. As you were talking about the numerous muscles that just extend the spine. You’ve probably talked about this also, but thinking about all the other muscles that contract statically when doing any dynamic exercise. There is no isolation.
What you have said about your recommedation for using some range of motion makes sense. Your videos are very well done also and I like the bits of humor you put in them.
Donnie
@Dream
Great site. I’ve really got alot from the muscle building and nutrition posts. Train safe, intense, brief, and infrequent.
Donnie
Cloud,
You don’t necessarily have to give up the leg press because you maxed out the weight. In fact, many, including myself, find squats difficult at the upper ranges of intensity because of low back pressure (due to individual bio-mechanics).
I have a client that maxed out the Nautilus Nitro leg press–even after we added an additional 60lbs in 2.5 and 5lb magnetic weights. So I simply had him due a weighted wall squat immediately prior to the leg press. In his case, he held 40lbs for 90seconds, rested 40 seconds, and then did the stack on the leg press (495lbs)to complete failure at around a minute.
Problem solved.
Don’t get too hung up on the exercise. All you really care about is thoroughly exhausting the muscle in the safest manner possible.
@Dream,
You say you feel it is best to perform a resistance exercise in the biomechanically strongest range because this is where the most intensity can occur. I think I understand what you and Bill DeSimone have written regarding range of motion. A muscle simply gets stronger, not in a specific range. A weak part of a range of motion will always be a weak part of a range of motion (or a so called sticking point) because of the way the muscle is pulling on the joint in a biomechanically disadvantageous angle. What i’m not understanding is how can more intensity occur in the biomechanically strongest range? I know you guys are probably tired of me asking about range of motion. I know from experience that you have to give the body a reason to get stronger/bigger, a high intensity stimulus or high intensity contractions, you don’t need alot of volume, or alot of frequency (although i used to train with alot more frequency). Better results from lower frequency.
“What i’m not understanding is how can more intensity occur in the biomechanically strongest range?”
By remaining in the stronger “range of motion”, there is no rest for the working muscle, as occurs during a full range of motion when approaching, or in lock out.
The muscle(s) is always working hard, very hard, and safely. In addition, by avoiding the “weak” part of a range of motion, you don’t “fail” in that range. You hit true failure, where the muscle is strongest.
This is quite a different experience as compared to getting stuck at the bottom of a repetition and failing to tax out whatever strength was left in the stronger range of motion.
As for being tired of answering questions, I can’t speak for Bill, but hell no! haha. Keep asking, it helps everyone, myself and Bill included. Best of luck with your training.
@Dream,
I understand why you want to avoid a lockout position. I understand why you want to avoid any unsafe position or range. I don’t understand why you can’t hit true failure in a weaker range. I do understand why it’s not necessary to work in a weaker range or any unsafe range. I’m glad you like discussing specifics. Best of luck with your training as well.
“I don’t understand why you can’t hit true failure in a weaker range.”
Because we are attempting to bring our muscles to failure. By failing in the “weaker range”, our joints “fail” before our muscles do since they are not working congruently, and together.
Make sense?
I have been trying to wrap my brain around this. I’ll try explain what I’m not grasping. Lets take the bicep curl for example. Lets say you work your biceps using dumbells with your upper arms perpendicluar to the ground. The resistance will be the heaviest to the biceps when the forearms are parallel to the floor, right? Lets say you work your biceps with a rotary machine. Since you have resistance throughout the range of motion why couldn’t you reach true failure near the start of the range of motion? Or in this particular case any where in the range of motion? I can see where loading the biceps in the “stretched” range may not be the safest.
I understand that during a bicep curl the point where the angle between the upper arm and forearm is 90 degrees the muscle and forearm bone are moving in the same direction. Is this what you mean by congruent?
I’m racking my brain trying to understand this. lol.
Is it because you will always have more gas left in the tank so to speak in the stronger range if you fail in the weaker range?
Here’s where my thinking is at so maybe you can see where my error in understanding this is at. To me the following seem like they are very intense ranges of motion. They seem to me like they would be superior for growth stimulation:
The top of a dumbell lateral raise.
Forearms parallel to the floor during a standing or seated dumbell curl.
The lower, midrange of a dumbell flye or bench press.
The lower to mid range of a squat or leg press.
The mid to top of a dumbell row.
@Bill
So with regards to the lower back would you recommend say performing isometric contractions over dynamic such as was performed in the Graves et al. (1990) study?
I am currently writing up a dissertation in the area and also putting together a PhD proposal. It seems to me from my research that alot of the opinion against performing dynamic resistance training for the lumbar extensors is anecdotal, or based on misapplied research. For example in McGills text low back disorders he clearly states his position however the research he uses to back it up is based on flexion cycles conducted on a porcine spinal model and consisted of quite literally thousands of flexion cycles before injury occured. With MedX rehab obviously the rep range is kept to roughly 8-12.
I can absolutely see the benefit of using a limited range of motion however and even more so for CLBP patients who frequently experience pain in the extremes of their range of motion. However I am not entirely convinced that dynamic movement should be removed. Some recent research using purely isometric contraction training for NASA astronauts found that the main difference lay in the expression certain contractile proteins and that isometric training resulted over time in a reduction.
Some food for thought and opinions on the area would be appreciated.
p.s. I received MAE for xmas and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I’ll no longer cry in despair if I am ever forced to work out with free weights.
James,
Happy to have prevented an exercise induced breakdown.
I wouldn’t discount McGill so quickly. Every HIT forum is filled with “where’s the science?” as an argument, and here’s a guy-McGill-who studies the spine for a living, yet he is regularly disparaged because he doesn’t parrot HIT.
One of his points is that injury comes not only from excessive load, but also from repeated flexion and twisting of the spine even without load. So the flexion and twisting without load in daily life counts towards using up the capacity to avoid injury.
He does recommend dynamic exercise, the Cat-Cow, for the sake of mobility and the “lubricate” the discs; he’s not a big fan of loading spine motion. Which he distinguishes from loading a static spine, with “static” meaning “maintaining the normal curves”.
This is all, BTW, my interpretation of his work, not verbatim.
Personally, based on my own moment arm influenced research, I suspect he’s right.
One issue I have with ab and back exercises is that the most dramatic feel comes from overworking the active insufficiency position. The way to not work AI? the midrange? would be holding a neutral spine, so McGill’s front-side-rear planks would fit.
I know classic HIT arguments are “train abs like every other muscle” and “all muscles are stabilizers”, but frankly, those are overly simplistic when you delve into the biomechanics.
Good luck with the dissertation, hope this helps.
Bill
Donnie
Re your ranges for “growth stimulation”
No.
Yes.
Mid.
Mid.
No.
“Where the exercise is mechanically hardest” is not the same as “where the muscles are biomechanically strongest”.
Or “weakest” for that matter. They are two separate phenomena.
Two scenarios: a set of 100 reps, can’t do 101; a set of 3 reps, can’t do 4.
Both “fail”, but not from the same physiological source. The first is an overaccumulation of waste, the second from a deficit of strength.
The way to emphasize the second, would be to challenge the strongest biomechanical range. If you stop the set because of “failing” in other than that strongest range, you’ve left some in the tank.
(Which by the way, might still work, but if we’re talking about a model, here it is)
“If you stop the set because of “failing” in other than that strongest range, you’ve left some in the tank.”
Bam!!!!!!!!! =)
@Bill,
I think the light bulb finally turned on in my brain after that description. Thank you!
@Bill,
How do I go about purchasing a copy of your book?
Donnie
Donnie
If the links next to the videos don’t work, search ebay for Moment Arm Exercise should do it. Thanks for your interest.
The goal of limiting ROM on some exercises is to avoid positions where the involved tissues are exposed to a potentially harmful level of force, either from compression or stretching. It isn’t necessary to limit oneself to short-range partial reps, just avoid positions where there is a significant stretch or where the lever increases considerably.
I instruct clients to only go to a position where they BEGIN to feel a SLIGHT stretch, and to turnaround at that point. Bill explains everything in his book very well, and I highly recommend reading it.