Comments on: Follow Up Interview With Bill De Simone

By: Drew Baye

Drew Baye — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:11:54 +0000

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.

By: Bill DeSimone

Bill DeSimone — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:05:12 +0000

Donnie
If the links next to the videos don’t work, search ebay for Moment Arm Exercise should do it. Thanks for your interest.

By: Donnie Hunt

Donnie Hunt — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:51:06 +0000

@Bill,

How do I go about purchasing a copy of your book?

Donnie

By: Dream

Dream — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:40:39 +0000

“If you stop the set because of “failing” in other than that strongest range, you’ve left some in the tank.”

Bam!!!!!!!!! =)

By: Donnie Hunt

Donnie Hunt — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:30:41 +0000

@Bill,

I think the light bulb finally turned on in my brain after that description. Thank you!

By: Bill DeSimone

Bill DeSimone — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:06:37 +0000

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)

By: Bill DeSimone

Bill DeSimone — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:53:59 +0000

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

By: James Steele

James Steele — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:45:45 +0000

@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.

By: Donnie Hunt

Donnie Hunt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:15:30 +0000

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.

By: Donnie Hunt

Donnie Hunt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:48 +0000

I’m racking my brain trying to understand this. lol.