this is actually great for the whole lifting community. maybe sprinkling some lengthened partials here and there + full ROM accentuating the eccentric would make training that much better. great episode, Steve! ✊🏽
Really interesting. I presume with partials it is less fatiguing so potentially we could add more volume. I’m keen to try it out. Great interview as always.
A few things I'd like to clarify. 1) The claim that lengthened partials (or any partial ROM) is inherently more injurious is unsubstantiated. I'm for sure not saying that evidence of absence is absence of evidence, but until we have evidence suggesting that's the case, I'd strongly advise not fear-mongering on this. 2) A lot of claims being made around full ROM in the comments seem to assign a lot of mechanistic superiority (e.g. more motor units recruited, more uniform hypertrophy, greater flexibility improvements) to full ROM over lengthened partials. For many of these claims, we don't have any direct evidence, so I'd tread lightly. Worse, for some of these claims - and how they SHOULD cause more growth if true - are relatively easily to falsify given the evidence showing thus far that lengthened partials lead to similar or better growth than full ROM. 3) As mentioned in the episode, standardization is likely a bit more challenging with partials than a full ROM, but unlikely to be more challenging to an extent that is going to actually influence hypertrophy. Our own research (reliability testing), practical experiences and the relatively modest impact of ROM during training on hypertrophy suggests as much. Even if standardization isn't perfect, you will likely still get results that are near-optimal or optimal. Finally.. if you prefer a given ROM (e.g. full ROM) out of preference or enjoyment, that's absolutely fine. It's worth making a distinction about whether you're being evidence-based/focusing on effectiveness vs training for enjoyment.
On your 2nd note lengthened partials would seem to be less injurious than full ROM. For instance almost no gym bro concerns themselves with eccentric phase at all as they're simply trying to get to the next concentric for the numbers in their logbook. Bros dont train to technical failure as much as they train to concentric absolute failure. Partials at lengthened should emphasize better technical form to safely get that deep stretch while deemphasizing the numerical reward for getting another herky jerky concentric. Eeking out a final rep seems to cause the worst form and highest risk for injury ie bringing the shoulders forward in a bench press.
Being evidence based is not the goal. There’s not going to be a lengthened partial rct for the same reason there won’t be a lung cancer smoking rct, it’s unethical to try to get people hurt. This solipsism reminds me of enhanced lifting. There’s been what, 4 studies on enhanced lifters? Their training is anything but evidence based. A bit ridiculous to call them training for enjoyment.
@@HeyIntegrity of course they do. I'm distinguishing the goal of the method and how that alters the mechanics of a movement. I like lengthened partials for reducing potential for injury over full ROM because emphasis of that lengthened stretch under load shifts the effort away from moving that weight fully locked out pushing rep. It's the opposite for the pull movements but the idea is similar for safety getting the full stretch diminishes the notion of jerking the concentric relying on the stretch shortening cycle to momentum move a weight rather than dead stop acceleration. If the goal is to lock out a bench for example then the deep stretch is de facto deemphasized and injury risk at the connective tissue increased. Lengthened partials seems to take the ego out of the bro and that's a good thing.
i introduced lengthened partials for novelty. even if they are not better than full rom, they should be as good, or very close, and you have a chance to try something different. after a decade plus training its nice to switch things around
@@davthacker first I have to say that I only do 1 lengthened partial exercise per muscle group per workout. I can definitely say my triceps and hamstrings improved noticeably since I started them. I would favour exercises that already fully lengthen the muscle and load heavy there and add the partials on top of that. for me it was overhead triceps extensions and 45 degree hypers. for chest, delts and biceps I didn't notice much difference and for legs and back I didn't use them.
I've been doing lengthened partials at the end of sets occasionally, just as a way of going to complete muscle failure. But maybe it would be nice to track them more. Or not.
I think that's a very common practice, I was unsure of that due to the fatigue associated with failure & therefore beyond, but I don't know how many partials you'd get from movements already hardest in the stretch & so maybe it's only really back where this is happening & maybe that's less concerning, don't know. - Steve
@@ReviveStronger yeah mainly back, for chest supported rows type of stuff. Also for triceps sometimes when it feels safe, rear and side delts, and for chest when doing machine presses, never free weight presses. Also, very very occasional thing only.
I would like to see a study comparing a full rom squat vs a full rom banded squat, in wich you have tension according to the muscle capacity, and also the whole range of motion, not just the bottom. Because in a squat for example , basically we just train the bottom anyway, there is decreasing tension threw they top, up to the lock out. In a banded squat there is adecuatte tension all the way from bottom to top
So how would one include full rom and lengthened partials into a program, could you do a superset or dropset for example where you would do a full rom chest press - rest - then straight into lengthened partials?
I think a good present/future avenue for bodybuilding content creation will be on how to get the most out of the exercises and machines we currently have with regards to the stretched position. RP obviously cover this a fair bit themselves, but i actually don't see it being covered all that much elsewhere. As discussed here, it seems to be the case that while jumping entirely into lengthened partials MIGHT be a little premature, ensuring you have a good "load under stretch" for every muscle group seems like a no brainer.
There were probably a few studies that showed modest increase, but didn't live up to that as more studies came out. I take it cuz I notice better pumps when I take it. Unless that's placebo 🤷♀
Great discussion and the most articulate and intelligent I've heard Mike. Fact check me but i think "Fucks" didn't make an appearance until almost the very end. His wildly exaggerated scenarios to make a point also only materialized at the very end.
It would be nice to understand a set of 10-15 side lateral raises with lengthened partials to failure vs regular lateral raises to failure. The thing is the person using lengthened partials will be using like 2x the weight.
Personally would have loved to see Jared on this podcast! I feel like he's much more leaning towards full rom, more so than dr. Mike. Maybe something for the future, but still grateful this discussion happened!
I don't know what that would accomplish? If he's unwilling to follow the new data coming from these studies and die on the full ROM hill, that just means he's too dogmatic and probably has no place in the discussion anyway
@The0ldeKnight I actually made a post today on the "branding" lol. It was always mostly satirical. A good message, of course, but a satirical concept. It wasn't called "Team always use full range of motion or else you're an idiot". It's called "Team FULL ROM"
As somebody else alluded to in a previous comment, I'd love to see some studies involving a hybrid of full and partial ranges of motion. These studies could involve a variance or percentages i.e. 75% FRM / 25% PRM ... Etc. I feel like there's a sweet spot.
Lengthened partials don't refer to a specific percentage. They are from the bottom, full stretched position, of the movement, to anywhere just passed where you feel the stress on the muscle has been depleted to the point where it's no longer receiving full stimulus. That point is going to differ from movement to movement in person to person.
@@justinian420o be clear, that’s not what the research is saying, the second guy got it more correctly. Its from the stretched position up until 33-50% of the ROM
@@GAPIntoTheGame thank you, Israetel had a video showing some examples that really help. Basically you still do the "hard" part of the ROM into full stretch, and skip the "easy" end range of it. So it's NOT what most people are doing when they have an incomplete ROM, i.e. avoiding the most painful part of the moment, to use more weight.
I have to admit I'm sort of attached to full rom. Partially because of how Mike Israetel has previously recommended - you have a consistent movement if you hit the depth or lock out and you don't have to wonder if your reps were equal. And partially because my body is so imbalanced that I might be uneven let's say in barbell movement or something and wouldn't notice unless I check that I'm all the way to my end of range that doesn't require inconvenient extra pushing. Perhaps there's also one more thing: enjoying the athletic side, I much enjoy the opportunity to improve my mobility through hitting the end range with good technique with heavy weights, I feel like I'm much more safe in moving my body when I have that ability. And it indeed also helps with the imbalanced bias on different sides of the body, if you can keep the technique and line "straight", your mobility should improve on the worse side. At least in my head it is so.
Full ROM works, if you prefer it, then no reason to jump ship but if you wanna experiment to see if you can get better gains with some partials, then maybe try that too. - Steve
I think this concept pertains to certain exercises being better for efficiency and SFR with lengthened partials such as Calf raises any type of rows ... trackability notwithstanding, it makes more sense to partial 5 more reps than you could full ROM than adding another set or 2 to every single exercise to get similar stimulus and potentially more fatigue. My back workouts by the last week of my meso are marathon sessions I can see the viability of partials there.
I do partials for biceps since ever, cause I saw an optical lengthening of the biceps, which is nice. Nice, that "Regional hypertrophy" and "lengthened partials" seem to be a real thing, not my Imagination alone.
Pause always pause. Saves connective tissue. Targets the intended muscle better. Loaded stretch shortening cycle is a great way to pop a pec or bicep tendon. Pausing also removes the impulse to body english a rep which is of course a horribly useless way to train unless you're a crossfit pro.
I think not enough people talk about strength when it comes it lengthened partials vs full ROM. While most of us are in the gym for primarily aesthetic reasons, I also would wager that a majority of lifters would enjoy gaining some functional strength along the way. Let's look at a common example - the pull up. Why does the military place so much important on pull up performance? Because it translates to real world useful strength. "I would like to pull myself up and over this object, maybe carrying a heavy backpack." We tend to improve strength in the ranges of motion we train. If we only ever train the stretched portion of the pull up we might get jacked, but we'll never excel at the hardest and most pivotal part of the pull up as far as translating to real world functional strength adaptations. So I think it's still very important to train through a full range of motion. On my final set I'll go to failure and then eek out as many partials as I can, but I do think it's silly to train only in the lengthened partial range of motion, unless you truly don't care at all about gaining useful strength adaptations
That's been a great discussion and I'm even more assured now that incorporating more lengthened partials is a good idea. The last episode with Kassem was very thought-provoking in this regard as well. Would love a follow-up on this roundtable.
(Apologies if this was addressed) Could it be that the primary (or singular) benefit seen with a focus on lengthened partials is that it avoids the possibility of sacrificing the good for the perfect - i.e. stopping a set because you can no longer get another rep with perfect (full RoM) form whereas if you were doing only lengthened partials you would be able to perform significantly more reps therefore more stimulus? So the optimal approach would be to do a sort of mechanical drop set (like Mike Israetel often uses) - performing full RoM until you can't get full RoM, thereafter doing as many lengthened partials as possible until secondary failure...?
@@soonahero thanks for replying altho i'm not sure you understood what i was asking. Ofc SFR features in the calculus on whether the technique is optimal and indeed better than full RoM. But the question i was positing is whether the potential superiority of doing partials observed in the studies mentioned is due to the fact that adherence to fulll RoM reps will result in a set being stopped sooner leaving untapped stimulus in the tank, that doing lengthened partials will exhaust...
This is unlikely. For a good number of exercises examined in these studies, using lengthened partials resulted in similar or sometimes lower weight/reps being done than for a full ROM. The more likely explanation is that there is something very stimulating about the lengthened positions while training and that full ROM “dilutes” the stimulus by spending some amount of the set at shorter-muscle lengths.
maybe I am being too simplistic but is there any downside of doing a full ROM set that exaggerates the lengthened position? Such as doing all your rows as flexion rows as opposed to doing either just full ROM rows or just partial rows? Mike touched on that at the end but I am not sure whether they reached a conclusion
You need to think about the resistance profile of the exercise. Even if you exaggerate the lengthened position with pauses / flexion, the exercise will likely still be the most challenging in the shortened position (if done with free-weights or cables). Meaning if you stop the set when you cant do full ROM anymore, you could likely still do many partial reps in the lengthened range.
On a practical level, you can sometimes feel a better mind muscle connection or pump when you up the tempo a bit, and you may not have strength to get out of the paused, maximally stretched bottom of a chest supported row or dumbbell row. But you still have some strength in the rest of rep range that could be squeezed out. Full ROM and pausing at the lengthened range is great, but don't OVERLY chase technique and sacrifice intensity and old school effort
God the way my man speaks grinds me but love the podcast and information and I very well may need to go get a degree in this myself. It just doesn’t feel right, it FEELS like this may be beneficial in certain lifts or adding it additionally but I feel like there’s too many unknown variables to bet on this being better than a full range of motion on majority? Of lifts. Just a feel. It’ll be interesting to see this research grow
Yeah man I don't think you're alone in how you feel, but actually we have more evidence showing LP beat FR than the other way around, so as scientific evidence stands there's for sure something worth exploring - Steve
@revive stronger...My thoughts are.... Whenever people do full ROM they stop when they reach muscular failure at concentric portion, at this point Actually muscle fiber capable of performing contraction at lower lengthened portion... So actually muscle fibres haven't reached muscular failure...... On other hand when people do only Lengthened partial they reach actual all out muscular failure.... Because of this Some researches favouring Lengthened partials.........
20:50 People are already making drastic changes in their trainings based on those small number of studies. Research which is "controversial" work better, faster and on much larger scale than mucle mags did way back.
I'd like to understand how volume (and load) were controlled for across the two sides of the meta analysis. In general, doing partials only should allow higher reps or loads or both. Also, given the small effect size, I do think standardization is a valid point. Being in a lab where someone monitors joint angles or machine benchmarks is different from an average gym goer autoregulating ROM. It could just lead to a race to the bottom where fatigue or chasing numbers for overload may lead to reduced ROMs over time which may be large enough to overcome the 3% improvements from lengthened partials.
Actually, the first assertion is partially wrong because it depends on the muscle group where lengthened partials will allow more volume etc in, for example,back exercises, but the opposite in, for example, legs.
That isn't the TLDR. He specifically said train for specificity meaning if you're a strong man power lifter Olympic weight lifter use the rep range specific for the performance outcome which is precisely never a full ROM
@@baronmeduse their full ROM approach is to LIMIT the tension and time under tension during the eccentric phase as much as possible.... all factors that correlate to hypertrophy. Their sport is anti hypertrophy lol the eccentric loaded tension is limited as much as possible so the concentric phase can occur with as much power and velocity as humanly possible. Same with sprinters and other other athletes where they want to achieve as much power and velocity as possible without gaining size.
@@vicvin64 It's of no import whatsoever whether or not they are going for time under tension or hypertrophy. What I said is that it is full range of motion. You are taking hypertrophy full ROM as the yardstick by which to measure it. Olympic weightlifting uses full ROM, you are wrong.
Given the way the evidence stands at the moment, I feel like a decent approach is to use full ROM as your main method for measuring progression, and lengthened partials as a secondary volume tool (and even then not exclusively, of course).
No reason you couldn't use lengthened partials as a way to measure progression. But yeah the way I have been using them ATM is start full ROM and then have separate partial sets. - Steve
.. Why can't they figure out that every application has some value and that as soon as you try to fit a particular system in a box as to state that one is better than the other, is the moment it escapes you .. The 'secret' of bodybuilding is to know how and when to apply the right kind or 'dose' of intensity, volume and resistance at the right time to yield the optimum result .. As Bruce Lee said; 'way is no way'
Dr Mike talks about reducing injury as much as possible, but why do he & others never talk about tempo during the concentric phase? There is plenty of research demonstrating the efficacy of concentric reps as slow as 5 seconds that show they can be equally as productive for hypertrophy as lifting explosively (with one I read even demonstrating a greater hypertrophic advantage for slower reps). If the priority is muscular hypertrophy & reducing the chance of injury as much as practically possible, it's got to be worth a thought. Personally, I think the only reason people don't do slower reps is that it's tougher, not as fun & you have to reduce the weight, but these are pretty poor reasons. The only other issue is it can make standardising reps more difficult unless you have a partner to count tempo or a rep/tempo counter app. But then again, what does that matter, if hypertrophy is the priority, pushing through difficult reps is more important than incremental overload. Hence why research has also demonstrated that sets performed to failure with anything from 30-90% of one's max yield similar hypertrophic outcomes (providing one is training to fatigue).
"There is plenty of research demonstrating the efficacy of concentric reps as slow as 5 seconds that show they can be equally as productive for hypertrophy as lifting explosively" - I would disagree, I would say research is actually limited on this front. - Steve
Although I'm mostly convinced about lengthened partials, I think I'll be sticking to full ROM for now because it has a proven track record. I'll let other people be guinea pigs before I switch over :)
.. If you ask ANY jacked bodybuilder who's been training for a long time, what they did to build they're physique; If they gave you an answer they would be lying to you .. At this point they have tried everything there is at one time or the other and in reality have no idea what it was they did that gave them the best results .. Good genetic seem to be the common denominator though
It's basically full stretch to a 90 degree arm angle for all upper pushing pulling lifts. Leg lifts ive been standardizing to a little more than 90 maybe 110 degree but it's an estimate and not exact but also my quads burn so much I'm not paying that much attention to keeping reps standard ya know?
Lengthened partials are just another intensity technique in the toolbox, and a valuable one. I include both full range of motion and lengthened partials. I think lengthened partials make sense for bodybuilding.
Not sold on lengthened partials. They do not work on most exercises. Mainly work on push exercises and you lose a lot of specificity. I’m more of a team hardest part of the movement.
Oh man I have to say just doing something hard for the sake of it isn't wise, especially when it comes to this subject. As probably stated on this episode in particular pulling movements are hardest as we come short, where our muscles are weakest. Thus we leave lots of reps on table at longer muscle lengths where we have a growing body of evidence to suggest is the most hypertrophic range. - Steve
@@ReviveStronger lengthened partials seem to be the most hypertrophic (hardest part of the movement for the muscle) for a small subset of excercises where the load is on top. For instance you can do shoulder raises with lengthened partials and enjoy a supraspinatus tear with barely any hipertrophy. Pull ups? Just levator scapulae and less absolute hypertrophy over all. Lengthened partials come with a lot of caveats. If specificity is out the window and ranges for isotonic lengthened partials are close to “have fun with it” (50%? 25%?) then Why not go full lengthened isometrics? Who knew twerking was the real gym all along.
I personally think people are missing a few things with this lengthened partial thing. First, I would be willing to bet that you recruit more muscle fibers going through a full range of motion with a forceful concentric phase. Second, if you’re super advanced it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to put hundreds and hundreds of pounds on the hack squat for example and do lengthened partials and potentially have a much higher injury risk. All this research shows to me is to not skip out on the lengthened phase, and maybe even hang out there a bit in the stretched position with a pause. I think switching from full rom to lengthened partials right now is a bit extreme. There’s still value in the contraction and a full range of motion.
Not sure about your first point. But regarding your second, you actually can't load up more weight on a hack squat when doing lengthened partials, because the bottom is hardest anyway and top easiest. Definitely agree don't skip out on the lengthened phase. - Steve
There's research showing concentrics aren't what grow muscle. It's the eccentric phase. Almost all speed athletes are coached to avoid eccentrics specifically because they add muscle and body weight when they're trying to improve speed power rather than bulk up. Food for thought.
I would say mike did loose most of the back and forths but still had the best argument in the beginning - there is not alot of studies to draw a conclusion...it might just ended there, the debate is very interesting but just theoretical imo... Its interesting to watch different mikes discussions, he says he like to dispute people but: Greg: mike was so arrogant that nobody liked him and didnt care if he was right or not Lyle: mike ended up making videos with saying "fck you lyle" in the camera...like really? Seedman: mike was so polite that he had to make a video explaining his arguments afterwards because nobody could tell from the podcast And in this one he was digging into Pak for one little note for like 10 minutes On the other hand the one with Jordan Peters or Scott Stevenson were great despite the different opinions...its weird... P.S. why does he allways dig into harry potter hahah...is he an archetype of a skinny dude or what? It allways crack me up
There are also no studies showing that the ridiculous periodization he suggests being any better for hypertrophy but, that does not stop him from pushing that.
@@oboy9090 Loads of study on it and from years ago. Periodization training has been around since the 1950s and has been a standard method in the USSR originally and then the west from about 1980.. Have you read Vladimir Issurin's book?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Team BIG STRETCH
When I read this I just thought about my dog stretching - Steve
Team Squeeze currently on suicide watch
@@bobjenkins4925 😂😂😂
this is actually great for the whole lifting community. maybe sprinkling some lengthened partials here and there + full ROM accentuating the eccentric would make training that much better. great episode, Steve! ✊🏽
Thanks for tuning in! - Steve
What an episode. Perfect lineup of science Kings.
Thanks for tuning in dude - Steve
Kudos to Mike I honestly thought he would die on the hill for full ROM 😂
Mike's open minded, wouldn't have expected any less :) - Steve
11:40 Calf Raises Partials
There is quite convincing literature on the calves now in particular - Steve
I can confidently "like" this video without even having watched it. This is going to be good.
This gets an instant like. Thanks for arranging a great discussion.
One of greatest scientific discussion I've ever experienced. It's was amazing hearing you all.
Glad you enjoyed it - Steve
Really interesting. I presume with partials it is less fatiguing so potentially we could add more volume. I’m keen to try it out. Great interview as always.
I’ve found it easy to standardize rom for lengthened partials.
Yeah it's not been very hard tbh. - Steve
Just started the video. I KNOW this is gonna be incredible.
A few things I'd like to clarify.
1) The claim that lengthened partials (or any partial ROM) is inherently more injurious is unsubstantiated. I'm for sure not saying that evidence of absence is absence of evidence, but until we have evidence suggesting that's the case, I'd strongly advise not fear-mongering on this.
2) A lot of claims being made around full ROM in the comments seem to assign a lot of mechanistic superiority (e.g. more motor units recruited, more uniform hypertrophy, greater flexibility improvements) to full ROM over lengthened partials. For many of these claims, we don't have any direct evidence, so I'd tread lightly. Worse, for some of these claims - and how they SHOULD cause more growth if true - are relatively easily to falsify given the evidence showing thus far that lengthened partials lead to similar or better growth than full ROM.
3) As mentioned in the episode, standardization is likely a bit more challenging with partials than a full ROM, but unlikely to be more challenging to an extent that is going to actually influence hypertrophy. Our own research (reliability testing), practical experiences and the relatively modest impact of ROM during training on hypertrophy suggests as much. Even if standardization isn't perfect, you will likely still get results that are near-optimal or optimal.
Finally.. if you prefer a given ROM (e.g. full ROM) out of preference or enjoyment, that's absolutely fine. It's worth making a distinction about whether you're being evidence-based/focusing on effectiveness vs training for enjoyment.
Lovely summary Milo, thanks again for coming on. - Steve
On your 2nd note lengthened partials would seem to be less injurious than full ROM. For instance almost no gym bro concerns themselves with eccentric phase at all as they're simply trying to get to the next concentric for the numbers in their logbook. Bros dont train to technical failure as much as they train to concentric absolute failure. Partials at lengthened should emphasize better technical form to safely get that deep stretch while deemphasizing the numerical reward for getting another herky jerky concentric. Eeking out a final rep seems to cause the worst form and highest risk for injury ie bringing the shoulders forward in a bench press.
Being evidence based is not the goal. There’s not going to be a lengthened partial rct for the same reason there won’t be a lung cancer smoking rct, it’s unethical to try to get people hurt.
This solipsism reminds me of enhanced lifting. There’s been what, 4 studies on enhanced lifters? Their training is anything but evidence based. A bit ridiculous to call them training for enjoyment.
@@vicvin64but lengthened partials refer to the concentric not only the eccentric
@@HeyIntegrity of course they do. I'm distinguishing the goal of the method and how that alters the mechanics of a movement. I like lengthened partials for reducing potential for injury over full ROM because emphasis of that lengthened stretch under load shifts the effort away from moving that weight fully locked out pushing rep. It's the opposite for the pull movements but the idea is similar for safety getting the full stretch diminishes the notion of jerking the concentric relying on the stretch shortening cycle to momentum move a weight rather than dead stop acceleration. If the goal is to lock out a bench for example then the deep stretch is de facto deemphasized and injury risk at the connective tissue increased. Lengthened partials seems to take the ego out of the bro and that's a good thing.
Massive podcast. Massive.
Very mild beef...i hope there will be episode 2 containing swearing, rap battle and an actual fist fight
I am sure there will be future episodes! - Steve
i introduced lengthened partials for novelty. even if they are not better than full rom, they should be as good, or very close, and you have a chance to try something different. after a decade plus training its nice to switch things around
Hey how did lengthened partials work out for you?
@@davthacker first I have to say that I only do 1 lengthened partial exercise per muscle group per workout.
I can definitely say my triceps and hamstrings improved noticeably since I started them. I would favour exercises that already fully lengthen the muscle and load heavy there and add the partials on top of that. for me it was overhead triceps extensions and 45 degree hypers. for chest, delts and biceps I didn't notice much difference and for legs and back I didn't use them.
Ouuu yeeeah. Excited to watch this. 🙂
I've been doing lengthened partials at the end of sets occasionally, just as a way of going to complete muscle failure. But maybe it would be nice to track them more. Or not.
I think that's a very common practice, I was unsure of that due to the fatigue associated with failure & therefore beyond, but I don't know how many partials you'd get from movements already hardest in the stretch & so maybe it's only really back where this is happening & maybe that's less concerning, don't know. - Steve
@@ReviveStronger yeah mainly back, for chest supported rows type of stuff. Also for triceps sometimes when it feels safe, rear and side delts, and for chest when doing machine presses, never free weight presses. Also, very very occasional thing only.
Great debate, thanks for hosting Steve!
You got it! - Steve
🔥❤️🔥 beautiful discussion
lovely way to start the day, thanks ay.
I'm suddenly feeling pretty self-conscious about my beard genetics.
You and me both - Steve
Very insightful video. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it! - Steve
word is dr mike still got hundreds of full rom t-shirts that he is not giving up just yet
This is the best thing that could've happened to me
Was looking forward to this one! Curious how this goes.
Hope it didn't disappoint - Steve
Dr Mike, sublime !
Fantastic episode. It is wonderful that there are such brilliant people dedicated to the science of getting jacked.
Thanks Shawn - Steve
This is gonna be juicy
This is going to be lit 🔥 thank you, Steve, for bringing such bright minds together over this topic 🎉
What about power gain??does lengthened partial is still better than Full ROM??
Excellent discussion.. next time with Seedman.. somebody needs to crack Milo’s stoicism.
LOL - Steve
I would like to see a study comparing a full rom squat vs a full rom banded squat, in wich you have tension according to the muscle capacity, and also the whole range of motion, not just the bottom. Because in a squat for example , basically we just train the bottom anyway, there is decreasing tension threw they top, up to the lock out. In a banded squat there is adecuatte tension all the way from bottom to top
Team full rom will soon be Team Full ROM - ish
Most people never spend time in that stretched position. I believe this is why people are seeing good results with it. It’s the novelty.
Novelty could play a role somewhere - Steve
So how would one include full rom and lengthened partials into a program, could you do a superset or dropset for example where you would do a full rom chest press - rest - then straight into lengthened partials?
I released a video on my channel going exactly into this. Check it out!
I just do them as their own stand alone sets. - Steve
This is CLASSIC Revive Stronger
I love it 3,000
Hell yea - Steve
I think a good present/future avenue for bodybuilding content creation will be on how to get the most out of the exercises and machines we currently have with regards to the stretched position. RP obviously cover this a fair bit themselves, but i actually don't see it being covered all that much elsewhere. As discussed here, it seems to be the case that while jumping entirely into lengthened partials MIGHT be a little premature, ensuring you have a good "load under stretch" for every muscle group seems like a no brainer.
Like using padding to increase the ROM, or standing back from some machine to improve the resistance profile? - Steve
I thought citrulline malate was relatively effective for muscular endurance in high volume training? Did the research change on that?
There were probably a few studies that showed modest increase, but didn't live up to that as more studies came out. I take it cuz I notice better pumps when I take it. Unless that's placebo 🤷♀
I think it's just it's a bit mixed, it at first seemed much more promising. I'd still consider it something that could help. - Steve
Great discussion and the most articulate and intelligent I've heard Mike. Fact check me but i think "Fucks" didn't make an appearance until almost the very end. His wildly exaggerated scenarios to make a point also only materialized at the very end.
It would be nice to understand a set of 10-15 side lateral raises with lengthened partials to failure vs regular lateral raises to failure. The thing is the person using lengthened partials will be using like 2x the weight.
You can't really do lateral raises in a lengthened position at all. Unless you're using cables
I'd be interested in that - Steve
You could lie sideways on a bench & do a single arm, or even a bit of an incline & let the dbs come behind your body - Steve
Personally would have loved to see Jared on this podcast! I feel like he's much more leaning towards full rom, more so than dr. Mike. Maybe something for the future, but still grateful this discussion happened!
I don't know what that would accomplish? If he's unwilling to follow the new data coming from these studies and die on the full ROM hill, that just means he's too dogmatic and probably has no place in the discussion anyway
Always up for a podcast with Jared - Steve
@@The0ldeKnightcan assure you that isn't the case lol
@@JAREDFEATHERRP I assumed as much. Glad you guys are willing to adapt to the new data even when it kind of goes against your branding lol
@The0ldeKnight I actually made a post today on the "branding" lol. It was always mostly satirical. A good message, of course, but a satirical concept. It wasn't called "Team always use full range of motion or else you're an idiot". It's called "Team FULL ROM"
20:10 dr pak reactions 😮😅
He's a joker - Steve
As somebody else alluded to in a previous comment, I'd love to see some studies involving a hybrid of full and partial ranges of motion. These studies could involve a variance or percentages i.e. 75% FRM / 25% PRM ... Etc. I feel like there's a sweet spot.
Totally, maybe we will just be doing stretches at some point :D - Steve
@@ReviveStronger I laughed way too hard at this 😂
Can someone define what a lengthened partial is for me? Is it 90% of full ROM? 80%?
Lengthened partials don't refer to a specific percentage. They are from the bottom, full stretched position, of the movement, to anywhere just passed where you feel the stress on the muscle has been depleted to the point where it's no longer receiving full stimulus. That point is going to differ from movement to movement in person to person.
Likely anywhere from the bottom third of the lengthened range of a movement, all the way to the half way point.
@@Gargarks thank you, that's very clear
@@justinian420o be clear, that’s not what the research is saying, the second guy got it more correctly. Its from the stretched position up until 33-50% of the ROM
@@GAPIntoTheGame thank you, Israetel had a video showing some examples that really help. Basically you still do the "hard" part of the ROM into full stretch, and skip the "easy" end range of it. So it's NOT what most people are doing when they have an incomplete ROM, i.e. avoiding the most painful part of the moment, to use more weight.
Great discussion, and I really enjoyed this one. Having been using partials it gave some additional insight
Cheers Pete - Steve
I have to admit I'm sort of attached to full rom. Partially because of how Mike Israetel has previously recommended - you have a consistent movement if you hit the depth or lock out and you don't have to wonder if your reps were equal. And partially because my body is so imbalanced that I might be uneven let's say in barbell movement or something and wouldn't notice unless I check that I'm all the way to my end of range that doesn't require inconvenient extra pushing. Perhaps there's also one more thing: enjoying the athletic side, I much enjoy the opportunity to improve my mobility through hitting the end range with good technique with heavy weights, I feel like I'm much more safe in moving my body when I have that ability. And it indeed also helps with the imbalanced bias on different sides of the body, if you can keep the technique and line "straight", your mobility should improve on the worse side. At least in my head it is so.
Full ROM works, if you prefer it, then no reason to jump ship but if you wanna experiment to see if you can get better gains with some partials, then maybe try that too. - Steve
I think this concept pertains to certain exercises being better for efficiency and SFR with lengthened partials such as Calf raises any type of rows ... trackability notwithstanding, it makes more sense to partial 5 more reps than you could full ROM than adding another set or 2 to every single exercise to get similar stimulus and potentially more fatigue. My back workouts by the last week of my meso are marathon sessions I can see the viability of partials there.
Dr. Mike's head to body ratio needs investigating.
It's like he's super jacked or something making his head appear small...😆 - Steve
@@ReviveStronger he is skipping that head day
I do partials for biceps since ever, cause I saw an optical lengthening of the biceps, which is nice. Nice, that "Regional hypertrophy" and "lengthened partials" seem to be a real thing, not my Imagination alone.
No matter which side you're on, it's all about that deep stretch. Now the question remains, pause in the lengthened position or no?
Right now we can't say for certain, but seems like a good tool - Steve
Pause always pause. Saves connective tissue. Targets the intended muscle better. Loaded stretch shortening cycle is a great way to pop a pec or bicep tendon. Pausing also removes the impulse to body english a rep which is of course a horribly useless way to train unless you're a crossfit pro.
What is the refund policy for full ROM merch?
Trevor has sent me this:
"Have them email info@teamfullrom.com and I can take care of it"
- Pascal
I think not enough people talk about strength when it comes it lengthened partials vs full ROM. While most of us are in the gym for primarily aesthetic reasons, I also would wager that a majority of lifters would enjoy gaining some functional strength along the way.
Let's look at a common example - the pull up. Why does the military place so much important on pull up performance? Because it translates to real world useful strength. "I would like to pull myself up and over this object, maybe carrying a heavy backpack."
We tend to improve strength in the ranges of motion we train. If we only ever train the stretched portion of the pull up we might get jacked, but we'll never excel at the hardest and most pivotal part of the pull up as far as translating to real world functional strength adaptations.
So I think it's still very important to train through a full range of motion. On my final set I'll go to failure and then eek out as many partials as I can, but I do think it's silly to train only in the lengthened partial range of motion, unless you truly don't care at all about gaining useful strength adaptations
That's been a great discussion and I'm even more assured now that incorporating more lengthened partials is a good idea. The last episode with Kassem was very thought-provoking in this regard as well. Would love a follow-up on this roundtable.
Thanks for tuning in, I've really enjoyed digging into lengthened partial chat with various guests. - Steve
Team do the hard part. Do it more.
Sometimes the short is the hard part tho :D - Steve
Mikes head is the smallest here so clearly knows how to grow muscles the best
LOL! - Steve
(Apologies if this was addressed) Could it be that the primary (or singular) benefit seen with a focus on lengthened partials is that it avoids the possibility of sacrificing the good for the perfect - i.e. stopping a set because you can no longer get another rep with perfect (full RoM) form whereas if you were doing only lengthened partials you would be able to perform significantly more reps therefore more stimulus?
So the optimal approach would be to do a sort of mechanical drop set (like Mike Israetel often uses) - performing full RoM until you can't get full RoM, thereafter doing as many lengthened partials as possible until secondary failure...?
You can always add intensity, go to eccentric failure drop sets etc. the question is the stimulus to fatigue ratio.
@@soonahero thanks for replying altho i'm not sure you understood what i was asking. Ofc SFR features in the calculus on whether the technique is optimal and indeed better than full RoM. But the question i was positing is whether the potential superiority of doing partials observed in the studies mentioned is due to the fact that adherence to fulll RoM reps will result in a set being stopped sooner leaving untapped stimulus in the tank, that doing lengthened partials will exhaust...
This is unlikely. For a good number of exercises examined in these studies, using lengthened partials resulted in similar or sometimes lower weight/reps being done than for a full ROM. The more likely explanation is that there is something very stimulating about the lengthened positions while training and that full ROM “dilutes” the stimulus by spending some amount of the set at shorter-muscle lengths.
@@WolfCoaching interesting. Thanks Milo. Waiting with bated breath for the follow up studies!
maybe I am being too simplistic but is there any downside of doing a full ROM set that exaggerates the lengthened position? Such as doing all your rows as flexion rows as opposed to doing either just full ROM rows or just partial rows? Mike touched on that at the end but I am not sure whether they reached a conclusion
You need to think about the resistance profile of the exercise. Even if you exaggerate the lengthened position with pauses / flexion, the exercise will likely still be the most challenging in the shortened position (if done with free-weights or cables). Meaning if you stop the set when you cant do full ROM anymore, you could likely still do many partial reps in the lengthened range.
On a practical level, you can sometimes feel a better mind muscle connection or pump when you up the tempo a bit, and you may not have strength to get out of the paused, maximally stretched bottom of a chest supported row or dumbbell row. But you still have some strength in the rest of rep range that could be squeezed out. Full ROM and pausing at the lengthened range is great, but don't OVERLY chase technique and sacrifice intensity and old school effort
@@gladiator7652not to mention the extra fatigue induced by repping in the most difficult least stimulative ranges
God the way my man speaks grinds me but love the podcast and information and I very well may need to go get a degree in this myself. It just doesn’t feel right, it FEELS like this may be beneficial in certain lifts or adding it additionally but I feel like there’s too many unknown variables to bet on this being better than a full range of motion on majority? Of lifts. Just a feel. It’ll be interesting to see this research grow
Yeah man I don't think you're alone in how you feel, but actually we have more evidence showing LP beat FR than the other way around, so as scientific evidence stands there's for sure something worth exploring - Steve
@revive stronger...My thoughts are.... Whenever people do full ROM they stop when they reach muscular failure at concentric portion, at this point Actually muscle fiber capable of performing contraction at lower lengthened portion... So actually muscle fibres haven't reached muscular failure......
On other hand when people do only Lengthened partial they reach actual all out muscular failure....
Because of this Some researches favouring Lengthened partials.........
Dr Pak just vapping midway through the podcast😆😆😆😆
Too cool for school - Steve
20:50
People are already making drastic changes in their trainings based on those small number of studies.
Research which is "controversial" work better, faster and on much larger scale than mucle mags did way back.
Why wouldn’t they make drastic changes? Very few people are plateaud
I'd like to understand how volume (and load) were controlled for across the two sides of the meta analysis. In general, doing partials only should allow higher reps or loads or both.
Also, given the small effect size, I do think standardization is a valid point. Being in a lab where someone monitors joint angles or machine benchmarks is different from an average gym goer autoregulating ROM. It could just lead to a race to the bottom where fatigue or chasing numbers for overload may lead to reduced ROMs over time which may be large enough to overcome the 3% improvements from lengthened partials.
Actually, the first assertion is partially wrong because it depends on the muscle group where lengthened partials will allow more volume etc in, for example,back exercises, but the opposite in, for example, legs.
TLDR
Strength - Full ROM
Hypertrophy - Lengthened partial ROM as burner or last set/reps
We need more research studies for Bro science practices!!!!
That isn't the TLDR. He specifically said train for specificity meaning if you're a strong man power lifter Olympic weight lifter use the rep range specific for the performance outcome which is precisely never a full ROM
@@vicvin64 Olympic weightlifting uses full ROM.
@@baronmeduse their full ROM approach is to LIMIT the tension and time under tension during the eccentric phase as much as possible.... all factors that correlate to hypertrophy. Their sport is anti hypertrophy lol the eccentric loaded tension is limited as much as possible so the concentric phase can occur with as much power and velocity as humanly possible. Same with sprinters and other other athletes where they want to achieve as much power and velocity as possible without gaining size.
@@vicvin64 It's of no import whatsoever whether or not they are going for time under tension or hypertrophy. What I said is that it is full range of motion. You are taking hypertrophy full ROM as the yardstick by which to measure it. Olympic weightlifting uses full ROM, you are wrong.
Given the way the evidence stands at the moment, I feel like a decent approach is to use full ROM as your main method for measuring progression, and lengthened partials as a secondary volume tool (and even then not exclusively, of course).
This is the way!
No reason you couldn't use lengthened partials as a way to measure progression. But yeah the way I have been using them ATM is start full ROM and then have separate partial sets. - Steve
.. Why can't they figure out that every application has some value and that as soon as you try to fit a particular system in a box as to state that one is better than the other, is the moment it escapes you .. The 'secret' of bodybuilding is to know how and when to apply the right kind or 'dose' of intensity, volume and resistance at the right time to yield the optimum result .. As Bruce Lee said; 'way is no way'
Train as hard as you can, as often as you can - bodybuilding made easy... - Steve
Dr Mike talks about reducing injury as much as possible, but why do he & others never talk about tempo during the concentric phase?
There is plenty of research demonstrating the efficacy of concentric reps as slow as 5 seconds that show they can be equally as productive for hypertrophy as lifting explosively (with one I read even demonstrating a greater hypertrophic advantage for slower reps).
If the priority is muscular hypertrophy & reducing the chance of injury as much as practically possible, it's got to be worth a thought.
Personally, I think the only reason people don't do slower reps is that it's tougher, not as fun & you have to reduce the weight, but these are pretty poor reasons.
The only other issue is it can make standardising reps more difficult unless you have a partner to count tempo or a rep/tempo counter app.
But then again, what does that matter, if hypertrophy is the priority, pushing through difficult reps is more important than incremental overload.
Hence why research has also demonstrated that sets performed to failure with anything from 30-90% of one's max yield similar hypertrophic outcomes (providing one is training to fatigue).
"There is plenty of research demonstrating the efficacy of concentric reps as slow as 5 seconds that show they can be equally as productive for hypertrophy as lifting explosively" - I would disagree, I would say research is actually limited on this front. - Steve
Idk John meadows was a full rom guy and then using partials for challenge sets.
Fair enough! - Steve
I’d go with mike here
Full stretch with a full rom
Don't know if that was his concluding thoughts, but not a bad way to go - Steve
What about lengthened partials Vs weighted stretching? It works for the penis.. I’ve been told 😊
Could you try and let me know please?
- pascal
Although I'm mostly convinced about lengthened partials, I think I'll be sticking to full ROM for now because it has a proven track record. I'll let other people be guinea pigs before I switch over :)
.. If you ask ANY jacked bodybuilder who's been training for a long time, what they did to build they're physique; If they gave you an answer they would be lying to you .. At this point they have tried everything there is at one time or the other and in reality have no idea what it was they did that gave them the best results .. Good genetic seem to be the common denominator though
Haha I think there is quite a bit of truth to that - Steve
Team Lengthened Partials
I hope Milo paid you well - Steve
The issue I have with partials is the standardization. On top of full rom training sure, but as a single training style? I don't know
Standardisation was covered, I think it's a much smaller issue than many make it out to be. - Steve
It's basically full stretch to a 90 degree arm angle for all upper pushing pulling lifts. Leg lifts ive been standardizing to a little more than 90 maybe 110 degree but it's an estimate and not exact but also my quads burn so much I'm not paying that much attention to keeping reps standard ya know?
Lengthened partials are just another intensity technique in the toolbox, and a valuable one.
I include both full range of motion and lengthened partials. I think lengthened partials make sense for bodybuilding.
Not sold on lengthened partials. They do not work on most exercises. Mainly work on push exercises and you lose a lot of specificity. I’m more of a team hardest part of the movement.
Oh man I have to say just doing something hard for the sake of it isn't wise, especially when it comes to this subject. As probably stated on this episode in particular pulling movements are hardest as we come short, where our muscles are weakest. Thus we leave lots of reps on table at longer muscle lengths where we have a growing body of evidence to suggest is the most hypertrophic range. - Steve
@@ReviveStronger lengthened partials seem to be the most hypertrophic (hardest part of the movement for the muscle) for a small subset of excercises where the load is on top. For instance you can do shoulder raises with lengthened partials and enjoy a supraspinatus tear with barely any hipertrophy. Pull ups? Just levator scapulae and less absolute hypertrophy over all. Lengthened partials come with a lot of caveats.
If specificity is out the window and ranges for isotonic lengthened partials are close to “have fun with it” (50%? 25%?) then Why not go full lengthened isometrics? Who knew twerking was the real gym all along.
I personally think people are missing a few things with this lengthened partial thing. First, I would be willing to bet that you recruit more muscle fibers going through a full range of motion with a forceful concentric phase. Second, if you’re super advanced it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to put hundreds and hundreds of pounds on the hack squat for example and do lengthened partials and potentially have a much higher injury risk. All this research shows to me is to not skip out on the lengthened phase, and maybe even hang out there a bit in the stretched position with a pause. I think switching from full rom to lengthened partials right now is a bit extreme. There’s still value in the contraction and a full range of motion.
Not sure about your first point. But regarding your second, you actually can't load up more weight on a hack squat when doing lengthened partials, because the bottom is hardest anyway and top easiest. Definitely agree don't skip out on the lengthened phase. - Steve
There's research showing concentrics aren't what grow muscle. It's the eccentric phase. Almost all speed athletes are coached to avoid eccentrics specifically because they add muscle and body weight when they're trying to improve speed power rather than bulk up. Food for thought.
'Range of motion, at length'
"Please give me criticism!"
- Dr. Mike
- Chairman Mao
🤣
Jokes aside this was a fantastic roundtable and I want MOAR
Moar to come! - Steve
Team Full ROM to failure then Lengthtened partials ❤
That's one way to do it - Steve
Team TITIN 😂😂 iykyk
hadnt dogg crap had those big stretches in its cluster?
Quite possibly, a number of older programmes used some sort of stretching. - Steve
I would say mike did loose most of the back and forths but still had the best argument in the beginning - there is not alot of studies to draw a conclusion...it might just ended there, the debate is very interesting but just theoretical imo...
Its interesting to watch different mikes discussions, he says he like to dispute people but:
Greg: mike was so arrogant that nobody liked him and didnt care if he was right or not
Lyle: mike ended up making videos with saying "fck you lyle" in the camera...like really?
Seedman: mike was so polite that he had to make a video explaining his arguments afterwards because nobody could tell from the podcast
And in this one he was digging into Pak for one little note for like 10 minutes
On the other hand the one with Jordan Peters or Scott Stevenson were great despite the different opinions...its weird...
P.S. why does he allways dig into harry potter hahah...is he an archetype of a skinny dude or what? It allways crack me up
There are also no studies showing that the ridiculous periodization he suggests being any better for hypertrophy but, that does not stop him from pushing that.
@@oboy9090 Loads of study on it and from years ago. Periodization training has been around since the 1950s and has been a standard method in the USSR originally and then the west from about 1980.. Have you read Vladimir Issurin's book?