wish recovery was a subject of a paper. People report having longer recovery times in stretched positions, which is an extremely relevant aspect of lifting.
I like fullrom better on most exercises just because it's easier to measure. Hit the chest or clavicles on back exercises, fully extend elbows on push exercises, etc, etc
Same, but now I'm not going to stress about fully extending on presses since it takes tons of fatigue and barely any stimulus. So I do full RoM mostly, but when fatigue is active, I might go shy from fully contracting a muscle.
Brilliant piece of work and conclusive evidence in my opinion. The takeaway of this for me is: train to failure in ROM and go beyond failure in lengthed partials. Or simply, just do lengthed partials if you want to save time.
I love this so much. You guys go through the immense effort of rigorously testing the idea, find something unexpected, and then are totally upfront about it. Lengthened partials are way more fun on some exercises. Glad it's a good option. Also kind of nice that full ROM is equally great. I'm confused about why the length of the study would affect the advantage that lengthened partials would give. I understand why it affects statistical significance, but why would lengthened partials show a greater benefit compared to full ROM with a longer study?
Though I know that each set was taken to failure, did failure result in more reps performed on the side training at lengthened partial ROM vs full ROM? For example, did the side training lengthened position get on average 2-3 more reps when taken to failure more than the side training full ROM? Or were reps equated?
Lengthened partials has just redefined what I class as failure in my sets. In pull-ups for example, when i can't get my chin over the bar, I keep going until I can't get half way. I only count the full ROM reps, partials are like the bonus round.
lengthen partials causing equal to or more gain makes sense. Like isometric as the shortened muscle length I wouldn't be surprised to have the same effect. It is at those points in ROM that muscle adaptation in required, because it is at those points you are asking the body to overcome inertia or prevent over-extension
Lengthen partial are completely underrated for rehab purposes. Few years ago i had a serious knee injury. Knee cap dislocation that broke a part of my cartilage. After months of immobility and crutches my leg muscles were in atrophy and it was very important to train them. But due to my cartilage issue i had a crucial pain in 30 degrees angle knee bent (assuming that 0 degrees is locked knee and 180 degrees is fully bent knee) Due to that pain i had to lift very light weights and the results with those weights were dissapointing. If i had the lengthen partials information back then i could train my quads with leg extention in the 180 to 30 range with heavy weights and build my quads properly. That's groundbreaking tool for rehab in my opinion. Orthopedics and physios should take notice.
Isnt it a thing that if you break an arm and keep training the other one the muscles loss will be less as the stimulus of one side of the body somehow translates to the other following suit somewhat? Doesnt the train one side per style kinda get ruined if thats true hence ruin the results
"We take a few steps to make sure there's no bias" - wearing Raskol Apparel's Big Iron shirts. Seriously though, this is the kind of reporting I like to see in studies. Like a documentary. Obviously it's not feasible for majority of things, but it's really cool to get to see a peek to the people behind the studies and so on. Also laughing at the effort you two put to create narratives and emotion around the whole hypertrophy science business. Like I truly believe this is the way to make people of all trades and ages interested, because it's fun and engaging. The amount of completely unnecessary but cool B-Rolls you two film on your channels for every video is respectable.
Would like to see more studies on strength curve as well. I know there was one comparing preacher curls (peak tension at long muscle length) to incline curls (peak tension at mid to upper range) and from what I remember hearing, preacher curls edged out incline curls despite putting the biceps in a more shortened position overall. I feel like there's a lot to this idea, that having a lot of tension at long muscle length matters a lot and is helpful in comparing exercises. I would also like to see a comparison of full ROM to past-failure lengthened partials (set to failure with full ROM+LPs to failure). I know this is a common intensity technique and seems like it should be more effective given that you're taking the muscle to a long-muscle length failure rather than full ROM "failure."
in jeffs vid, he mentioned that they were aiming for certain rep ranges per exercise (per side), so im assuming they raised the weight on partials to not overshoot the rep range
What sort of follow-up study would you be most interested in seeing? The one thing that stands out most to me about this study is that the full ROM had such a heavy emphasis on the stretch, which I think most people who do typical full ROM don't emphasize so hard in their workouts. So I would want to see a similar study but no emphasis in the stretched/lengthed portion for the full ROM. I suspect the difference in such a case would match up more to previous studies that showed a greater impact from lengthened partials.
Hard to design though. How do you define a full ROM with no emphasis on the stretch and still go to true failure? You pretty much have to seperate shortened and lengthened ROM at that point. Which has already been done
@@psycholars1 The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
@@BuJammy It was measured with ultrasound yes, which is considered very precise. It's not a distraction from doing progressive overload & training to failure, because you can do all those things and also incorporate lengthened partials. In fact, I'm willing to bet most people would train their muscles *even harder* by incorporating lengthened partials
Were the changes in circuits were similar to those in studies that were compare low volume to high volume? In your study you used 8 set per week. I'm curious if people in the group had similar increase in low or high volume?
Full rom and extreme stretch reps are not the same, a barbell to the chest can be full rom, a dumbbell that goes lower that the chest can be extremely stretched and I believe that’s where the fun in a study can be had
@@younggotti8195 what if the size of the was big it will touch ur chest before it reaches ur desired stretch level so no one technique that provide growth but one thing does is mechanical tension just lift progressively heavy challenge ur muscle cells for a long period like old school lifters with only history based exercise like squat,bench,dead,rows,pulldowns,curls,extensions,side raises,ohp etc
8 weeks with 30 participants, two treatment conditions and reasonable expectation is a 5-10% edge for lengthened partials based on existing literature.... Variance in response to most lifting interventions are usually quite high... so power analysis will tell you before even performing this study that a significant finding will not be found based on the above parameters, you would need more participants or perform the study for a longer period. You could say the study gives confidence that the expected effect of the intervention is likely not massive, but based on the literature something like the 30% greater in 8 weeks was just a totally baseless expectation anyway.
Finally. So train to or near failure, Full ROM with stretch, or save time and do lengthened work, or do both. And eat eat 1.6g protein/kg body weight.... Can't wait for the next revelation.
I think lengthened partial will benefit for beginners for a faster gains. Maybe for trained lifters I think lengthened partials are also beneficial giving you a faster gains even though muscle growth takes time. But I think that stretch part really matters the most whether it is a full rom or lengthened partials, still best if combine both.
I actually think muscle length has very little to do with the growth difference and that itas proximity to true failure that actually makes the difference. A full rep often is limited by the lockout and partial reps can better target a muscle (e.g. the pecs vs triceps in a chest press) or tax thr target muscle. I would be interested to see partial reps vs partial reps with shortened reps done after failure to see if there was a difference in muscle growth (e.g. testing beyond failure throughout a muacles length, not just the local musculature that fails at in the lengthened state). For instance, on biceps curls you can often get a lot of short length partials after long length partials and it may preferentially target a different muscle head.
This is the 3rd video on this I watched now Nippard>Wolf>Pak. I haven't seen it called out but even though it is statistically insignificant, one of the Nippard graphs showed a slightly higher amount of measured hypertrophy in the full rom group. What if that is just due to cumulative stimulus because over a given amount of time because carrying out that extra range of motion adds maybe 1 second per rep to each exercise so carries a higher cumulative affect. To control that specifically maybe add 1 extra rep for each full length partial and see if you then get a statistical bump in hypertrophy from the time component?
I know it's counterintuitive, but it's very important to withhold making conclusions on differences in values that are statistically insignificant. We can't let ourselves start interpreting those differences just because we have a hypothesis for why they could have occurred, since we haven't shown that they occurred from the treatment itself and not some other random differences between groups/sides. Hope that makes sense!
The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
Pak and Menno are the only two real doctors for me in the hypetrophy space that I've seen, they dont hop on any bandwagon easily and lenghtened partials are just too weird and take the fun out of lifting, doing them on the last set of each exercise after full ROM is the only logical implementation for me in my routine. I record each rep and set and the partials just blur the data for my training progress.
The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
The stretch is a novel stimulus for even trained individuals. Most people don’t train that way. So, how can we know it’s actually better, or better than even the contracted position. I’m gonna stick to hitting different ranges of each muscle. Got more gains that way than I have been doing lengthened partials. Good luck, Science!
Just lift heavy to failure progressively and consistently natural rom is always better and injuryfree dont neglect the stretch as well as dont overexaggerate the stretch
@@rhl2903 i understand but i was looking for a YES or NO answer to a curiosity for going above & beyond If you are in the gym and you are in the science backed efficient approach niche why not go even further by using a calm tempo + full range of motion and exaggerated stretches and squeezes
@@high-captain-BaLrog 1st thing to follow have your own technique bro for eg take curl u are curl after reaching a point u gotta make some alterations like bending back on concentric leaning forward on eccentric it allows you to feel comfortable and natural if u stand still u with no torso movement u messed up u cant load the biceps effectively its like the deadlift if the weight is heavier atheletes show little bit if back bending to lockout the weight and maintain center of balance its the mandatory one if they try to be vertical they ragdoll forward listen to your body not goofy people
Partials can suck all the fun out of even your most beloved exercise. To me that's where it all begins. If it's not fun you won't do it anyway. I tried lengthened partial bicep curls for a while and was pretty quick to conclude that Fxxx this Sxxxx
But if you leave out the lengthened position, that's most of the muscle growth eliminated. It's why momentum reps are so bad (except during cheat reps).
This 100%. I think the take away for me is to just make sure you don’t skip the lengthened position. But as far as doing exclusively lengthened work I wouldn’t want to recommend it. Also, I find it’s easier to standardize your form when doing a full rep as opposed to a partial lengthened rep.
My issue with this kind of literature is that I think it confuses a lot of people. I talked to a guy who was arguing you'd get the same strength gains by doing squat long length partials as you would full ROM. Using this study. And I don't think the evidence supports that. The practical solution seems to be tacking on long length partials to enhance workouts like lying leg curls then eek out more. Or full squats (for strength) then follow up with long length partial smith or hack squats.
Yeah adding the partials on exercises that make sense is a good idea. Strength is joint angle specific so if you are wanting to train for that then you’re going to be better off doing the full range.
basically the result isn't strong enough to say conclusively (>95% probability) that it wasn't just random chance that led to the difference. this is what it means to say that a study doesn't find statistically significant results in science. basically they'd need to see the same result in the same study but with more participants to say conclusively that there's a difference.
I think there can still be naunce to the topic. Because in mivements that are hardest in the lenghtened position (ex: leg press, smith squats, bench, db pullover, preacher curls, etc) doing lenghtened partials can allow you to use less weight and generate less fatigue but still get the same muscle growth as a full rom, also keeping constant tension on the muscle which (like in a lenghtened partial in lenghtened bias excercises) will generare more lactic acid and metabolites in that muscle and those metabolites actually do have a slight hyperteophic effect
Exactly. It's gonna take forever for studies to be able to demonstrate these nuances though. Therefore I think getting the most bang from your buck with lengthened partials these days, one basically has to just experiment and see what optimizes stimulus to fatigue. Which is probably where the most value from lengthened partials lie (i.e. reducing fatigue while maintaining high tension/stimulus)
@@psycholars1 yes. naunce is always a thing, even practices/ excercises/ protocols that are on paper sub optimal can be the best ones for a certain individual at a certain time, as well as those that on paper are optimal can not be for a certain individual at a certain time. Studies are good to get a general base of knowledge and understanding on the time to allow you to make informed decisions on your own training, diet, supplementation, PED use for those who use them, but at the end of the day you have to go by trial and error to find what actually works best for you at that time
If they are the same I dont see why You shouldn’t do full ROM for the strength gains and ability to move weight? These hypertrophy geeks who Will never get close to a PRO card is a weird trend, why wouldn’t a man want to be strong?🤦🏻♂️
Bottom line is that most muscle building -- maybe 99% of it -- is coming from the lengthened position, while only about 1% is coming from the shortened position. This is why momentum reps are so bad for hypertrophy, because they are skipping the best part of the lift, the lengthened part.
Yeah, if you go to failure, with a good exercise, you’ll get similar results. What a discovery, huh? The problem is that you (not you specifically, but you researchers) have been a pain in the ass with lengthened partials, lengthened position, stretching, and all this crap, contributing to the degeneration of people's training. We've seen embarrassing things like Israetel’s curl (ridiculous, tbh) and other absurd stuff. In my opinion, a balanced approach, with exercises that have different resistance profiles, both in lengthened and shortened bias, is the best way to achieve the best results (also considering the concept of regional hypertrophy). You also can’t take for granted that X result is due to the stretch itself, but rather that certain muscles have more activation in specific parts of the ROM. Different exercises have different resistance profiles, and some muscles have functions that get activated in what seems like a ‘stretch,’ but in reality, it’s just biomechanics allowing it (like the rectus femoris in the sissy squat).
@@esembee7717 I can follow someone because i generally like them but still think they are a pain in the ass regarding a certain topic. Doesn't seem hard to understand to me.
And even if there's a difference, it's not very significant. Fitness is a decade long journey for most people they shouldn't feel the need to optimize and fret over 2-3% more gainzz. Just pick the exercises one enjoys the most, do them consistently and hard within a reasonable range of motion, and in 5 years anyone could build an impressive physique relative to the rest of the population.
arm wrestlers have massive arm with concentric focused training since there is no one single way one technique etc etc just lift heavy to failure dont think too much like my previous weak beginner version just load reps weights and give give everything u have that day sametime dont overtrain 3-4sets per muscle im a day is enough just take it to failure for a long long timr
Looking at sport participants with great physique doesnt necessary gives you the optimal exercises for achieving their physique. The same as doing swimming is not the best way to achieve advanced swimmer body.
@@Flahtort people are searching for shortcut i too then but now i accepted the truth building muscle requires more years more reps with heavy weights and consitent visit to the weightroom,moreover these b.s men will comeout and promote their shit apps,form,research and paid coaching until people are ready to accept the truth just a business bro
The problemqith science Is that you guys ich don't really know how science work. One postiv study is enough and the Science team will claim that this is the new testament. Also about the topic of partials. That id something that Gym bros do for ages. Btw: I am not talking about you hete.
Am I gaslit here or what? I don't think there was click bait here at all. They have a new study and didn't want to spoil the result in the title. This isn't Associated Press. You don't have to give away everything in the title
wish recovery was a subject of a paper. People report having longer recovery times in stretched positions, which is an extremely relevant aspect of lifting.
Longer recovery because the muscle is doing more growing after the session 😉
So happy you guys did this cannot thank you and everyone involved enough . 🙏🏽
I like fullrom better on most exercises just because it's easier to measure. Hit the chest or clavicles on back exercises, fully extend elbows on push exercises, etc, etc
Very good insight actually
Same, but now I'm not going to stress about fully extending on presses since it takes tons of fatigue and barely any stimulus. So I do full RoM mostly, but when fatigue is active, I might go shy from fully contracting a muscle.
Brilliant piece of work and conclusive evidence in my opinion. The takeaway of this for me is: train to failure in ROM and go beyond failure in lengthed partials. Or simply, just do lengthed partials if you want to save time.
Why the matching t-shirts??? uwu
Best couple ❤
When is the wedding?
oh no not another weeb!
They just got back from their date
@@EliWebb-y7x now may I introduce your newly weds Mr. And Mr. Dr. Wolf-Pak 🎉
I love this so much. You guys go through the immense effort of rigorously testing the idea, find something unexpected, and then are totally upfront about it.
Lengthened partials are way more fun on some exercises. Glad it's a good option. Also kind of nice that full ROM is equally great.
I'm confused about why the length of the study would affect the advantage that lengthened partials would give. I understand why it affects statistical significance, but why would lengthened partials show a greater benefit compared to full ROM with a longer study?
Thank you king, it means a lot
Good job guys. Thanks for your research!
Though I know that each set was taken to failure, did failure result in more reps performed on the side training at lengthened partial ROM vs full ROM? For example, did the side training lengthened position get on average 2-3 more reps when taken to failure more than the side training full ROM? Or were reps equated?
Lengthened partials has just redefined what I class as failure in my sets. In pull-ups for example, when i can't get my chin over the bar, I keep going until I can't get half way. I only count the full ROM reps, partials are like the bonus round.
Was there any time efficiency benefit for either ways of training in the study ? Maybe the lengthened partials took less time ?
lengthen partials causing equal to or more gain makes sense. Like isometric as the shortened muscle length I wouldn't be surprised to have the same effect. It is at those points in ROM that muscle adaptation in required, because it is at those points you are asking the body to overcome inertia or prevent over-extension
Lengthen partial are completely underrated for rehab purposes.
Few years ago i had a serious knee injury. Knee cap dislocation that broke a part of my cartilage.
After months of immobility and crutches my leg muscles were in atrophy and it was very important to train them. But due to my cartilage issue i had a crucial pain in 30 degrees angle knee bent (assuming that 0 degrees is locked knee and 180 degrees is fully bent knee)
Due to that pain i had to lift very light weights and the results with those weights were dissapointing.
If i had the lengthen partials information back then i could train my quads with leg extention in the 180 to 30 range with heavy weights and build my quads properly.
That's groundbreaking tool for rehab in my opinion.
Orthopedics and physios should take notice.
Isnt it a thing that if you break an arm and keep training the other one the muscles loss will be less as the stimulus of one side of the body somehow translates to the other following suit somewhat? Doesnt the train one side per style kinda get ruined if thats true hence ruin the results
I thought this. At least there’s two of us.
"We take a few steps to make sure there's no bias" - wearing Raskol Apparel's Big Iron shirts.
Seriously though, this is the kind of reporting I like to see in studies. Like a documentary. Obviously it's not feasible for majority of things, but it's really cool to get to see a peek to the people behind the studies and so on. Also laughing at the effort you two put to create narratives and emotion around the whole hypertrophy science business. Like I truly believe this is the way to make people of all trades and ages interested, because it's fun and engaging. The amount of completely unnecessary but cool B-Rolls you two film on your channels for every video is respectable.
Would like to see more studies on strength curve as well. I know there was one comparing preacher curls (peak tension at long muscle length) to incline curls (peak tension at mid to upper range) and from what I remember hearing, preacher curls edged out incline curls despite putting the biceps in a more shortened position overall. I feel like there's a lot to this idea, that having a lot of tension at long muscle length matters a lot and is helpful in comparing exercises.
I would also like to see a comparison of full ROM to past-failure lengthened partials (set to failure with full ROM+LPs to failure). I know this is a common intensity technique and seems like it should be more effective given that you're taking the muscle to a long-muscle length failure rather than full ROM "failure."
The Pokemon battle theme went hard. Editor-kun does a great job on Dr Pak's channel
Jeff looks MASSIVE in that thumbnail.
we are and me personally thankful a lot for your information and the hard work ❤❤❤❤ u r changing our gym life to the better 😊
Did they do the same weights and reps for full ROM and lengthened partial exercises?
in jeffs vid, he mentioned that they were aiming for certain rep ranges per exercise (per side), so im assuming they raised the weight on partials to not overshoot the rep range
They was training to failure on any given set and aiming for the rep range, thus they should've been using more weight on lengthened movements.
What sort of follow-up study would you be most interested in seeing? The one thing that stands out most to me about this study is that the full ROM had such a heavy emphasis on the stretch, which I think most people who do typical full ROM don't emphasize so hard in their workouts. So I would want to see a similar study but no emphasis in the stretched/lengthed portion for the full ROM. I suspect the difference in such a case would match up more to previous studies that showed a greater impact from lengthened partials.
Hard to design though. How do you define a full ROM with no emphasis on the stretch and still go to true failure? You pretty much have to seperate shortened and lengthened ROM at that point. Which has already been done
@psycholars1 what's was the result bro ?
@@MaksudRahat the studies that tested short vs lengthened partials found that you consistently 10-20% superior results with lengthened partials.
@@psycholars1 The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
@@BuJammy It was measured with ultrasound yes, which is considered very precise.
It's not a distraction from doing progressive overload & training to failure, because you can do all those things and also incorporate lengthened partials.
In fact, I'm willing to bet most people would train their muscles *even harder* by incorporating lengthened partials
Love the vid! Congrats on the pre print. How you feeling?
I figured…. I’ll stick to the basics 👌🏻
That T shirt with Kaneda is fabulous.
But what about full rom then finish with partials
Lengthened partials have really saved my joints
Were the changes in circuits were similar to those in studies that were compare low volume to high volume? In your study you used 8 set per week. I'm curious if people in the group had similar increase in low or high volume?
Full rom and extreme stretch reps are not the same, a barbell to the chest can be full rom, a dumbbell that goes lower that the chest can be extremely stretched and I believe that’s where the fun in a study can be had
@@younggotti8195 just lift heavy progressively for a long period u see some visible satisfiable changes on yourself if u continue to lift naturally
@@younggotti8195 what if the size of the was big it will touch ur chest before it reaches ur desired stretch level so no one technique that provide growth but one thing does is mechanical tension just lift progressively heavy challenge ur muscle cells for a long period like old school lifters with only history based exercise like squat,bench,dead,rows,pulldowns,curls,extensions,side raises,ohp etc
8 weeks with 30 participants, two treatment conditions and reasonable expectation is a 5-10% edge for lengthened partials based on existing literature....
Variance in response to most lifting interventions are usually quite high... so power analysis will tell you before even performing this study that a significant finding will not be found based on the above parameters, you would need more participants or perform the study for a longer period.
You could say the study gives confidence that the expected effect of the intervention is likely not massive, but based on the literature something like the 30% greater in 8 weeks was just a totally baseless expectation anyway.
52 sets / week + lenghtened partials=170% more gains..
Finally. So train to or near failure, Full ROM with stretch, or save time and do lengthened work, or do both. And eat eat 1.6g protein/kg body weight.... Can't wait for the next revelation.
I think lengthened partial will benefit for beginners for a faster gains. Maybe for trained lifters I think lengthened partials are also beneficial giving you a faster gains even though muscle growth takes time. But I think that stretch part really matters the most whether it is a full rom or lengthened partials, still best if combine both.
I actually think muscle length has very little to do with the growth difference and that itas proximity to true failure that actually makes the difference. A full rep often is limited by the lockout and partial reps can better target a muscle (e.g. the pecs vs triceps in a chest press) or tax thr target muscle. I would be interested to see partial reps vs partial reps with shortened reps done after failure to see if there was a difference in muscle growth (e.g. testing beyond failure throughout a muacles length, not just the local musculature that fails at in the lengthened state). For instance, on biceps curls you can often get a lot of short length partials after long length partials and it may preferentially target a different muscle head.
Full ROM and Lengthened partials are brothers.
This is the 3rd video on this I watched now Nippard>Wolf>Pak. I haven't seen it called out but even though it is statistically insignificant, one of the Nippard graphs showed a slightly higher amount of measured hypertrophy in the full rom group. What if that is just due to cumulative stimulus because over a given amount of time because carrying out that extra range of motion adds maybe 1 second per rep to each exercise so carries a higher cumulative affect. To control that specifically maybe add 1 extra rep for each full length partial and see if you then get a statistical bump in hypertrophy from the time component?
I know it's counterintuitive, but it's very important to withhold making conclusions on differences in values that are statistically insignificant. We can't let ourselves start interpreting those differences just because we have a hypothesis for why they could have occurred, since we haven't shown that they occurred from the treatment itself and not some other random differences between groups/sides. Hope that makes sense!
The study participants went to failure or beyond. They literally could not add a rep.
The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
How many exercise ans physiology studies have this kind of rock video style coverage?
Pak and Menno are the only two real doctors for me in the hypetrophy space that I've seen, they dont hop on any bandwagon easily and lenghtened partials are just too weird and take the fun out of lifting, doing them on the last set of each exercise after full ROM is the only logical implementation for me in my routine. I record each rep and set and the partials just blur the data for my training progress.
The differences were measured in MMs, sometimes fractions of MM, via ultrasound, not visible inches or pounds or kilos. Therefore, this is all a distraction from training with increasing weights, in moderate rep ranges, across time. This has very little to do with training, it's mostly about what youtubers you like to watch.
Totally how it works
New York City is nothing without lengthened partials.
The stretch is a novel stimulus for even trained individuals. Most people don’t train that way. So, how can we know it’s actually better, or better than even the contracted position. I’m gonna stick to hitting different ranges of each muscle. Got more gains that way than I have been doing lengthened partials. Good luck, Science!
Is full stretch, depending of the load,more injurious to the older lifter, say 60 and over?
Please win partials 🙏 It's so much easier and faster to do😅
do exercises using FuLL ROM with added emphasis on "big-squeezes" & "big-stretches" work better than just full rom or lengthened partials?
Just lift heavy to failure progressively and consistently natural rom is always better and injuryfree dont neglect the stretch as well as dont overexaggerate the stretch
@@rhl2903 i understand but i was looking for a YES or NO answer to a curiosity for going above & beyond
If you are in the gym and you are in the science backed efficient approach niche why not go even further by using a calm tempo + full range of motion and exaggerated stretches and squeezes
Yes, I think that's the way Jay Cutler does it.
Yes!!
@@high-captain-BaLrog 1st thing to follow have your own technique bro for eg take curl u are curl after reaching a point u gotta make some alterations like bending back on concentric leaning forward on eccentric it allows you to feel comfortable and natural if u stand still u with no torso movement u messed up u cant load the biceps effectively its like the deadlift if the weight is heavier atheletes show little bit if back bending to lockout the weight and maintain center of balance its the mandatory one if they try to be vertical they ragdoll forward listen to your body not goofy people
Very nice...ill stick to juice
Alright
The best thing to come out of this study is that Wolf, Pak and Mike will finally stop milking this subject. Hopefully.
Partials can suck all the fun out of even your most beloved exercise. To me that's where it all begins. If it's not fun you won't do it anyway. I tried lengthened partial bicep curls for a while and was pretty quick to conclude that Fxxx this Sxxxx
Yeah there’s just something lame about doing them, I’ll do a few at the end of lay raises or maybe pulling exercises, but much prefer full rom
Yup that's why I do full rom and then after "failure" squeeze out as much lengthened-biased partials as I can. Particularly great for lateral raises.
But if you leave out the lengthened position, that's most of the muscle growth eliminated. It's why momentum reps are so bad (except during cheat reps).
This 100%. I think the take away for me is to just make sure you don’t skip the lengthened position. But as far as doing exclusively lengthened work I wouldn’t want to recommend it. Also, I find it’s easier to standardize your form when doing a full rep as opposed to a partial lengthened rep.
Agree. But also they can add fun or allow your to be opened to other opportunities which are not full ROM, but still great.
Milos Lenghten Partial Crusade ended finaly.
Thank you for that Dr. Milo Wolf.
My issue with this kind of literature is that I think it confuses a lot of people. I talked to a guy who was arguing you'd get the same strength gains by doing squat long length partials as you would full ROM. Using this study. And I don't think the evidence supports that.
The practical solution seems to be tacking on long length partials to enhance workouts like lying leg curls then eek out more.
Or full squats (for strength) then follow up with long length partial smith or hack squats.
Yeah adding the partials on exercises that make sense is a good idea. Strength is joint angle specific so if you are wanting to train for that then you’re going to be better off doing the full range.
💪💪💪
good job. including actual footage is great. you said there was no difference, but it actually was - full rom was superior, no?
basically the result isn't strong enough to say conclusively (>95% probability) that it wasn't just random chance that led to the difference. this is what it means to say that a study doesn't find statistically significant results in science. basically they'd need to see the same result in the same study but with more participants to say conclusively that there's a difference.
Golden Era wins again
For the algorithm
its all such an anti climax bros
great
🎉🎉
Every study has the SAME results 😔
I think there can still be naunce to the topic. Because in mivements that are hardest in the lenghtened position (ex: leg press, smith squats, bench, db pullover, preacher curls, etc) doing lenghtened partials can allow you to use less weight and generate less fatigue but still get the same muscle growth as a full rom, also keeping constant tension on the muscle which (like in a lenghtened partial in lenghtened bias excercises) will generare more lactic acid and metabolites in that muscle and those metabolites actually do have a slight hyperteophic effect
Exactly. It's gonna take forever for studies to be able to demonstrate these nuances though. Therefore I think getting the most bang from your buck with lengthened partials these days, one basically has to just experiment and see what optimizes stimulus to fatigue. Which is probably where the most value from lengthened partials lie (i.e. reducing fatigue while maintaining high tension/stimulus)
@@psycholars1 yes. naunce is always a thing, even practices/ excercises/ protocols that are on paper sub optimal can be the best ones for a certain individual at a certain time, as well as those that on paper are optimal can not be for a certain individual at a certain time.
Studies are good to get a general base of knowledge and understanding on the time to allow you to make informed decisions on your own training, diet, supplementation, PED use for those who use them, but at the end of the day you have to go by trial and error to find what actually works best for you at that time
If they are the same I dont see why You shouldn’t do full ROM for the strength gains and ability to move weight? These hypertrophy geeks who Will never get close to a PRO card is a weird trend, why wouldn’t a man want to be strong?🤦🏻♂️
we are pretty strong king 😆
I become convinced more and more that studies are useless
Anybody with half a brain saw this coming?
Bottom line is that most muscle building -- maybe 99% of it -- is coming from the lengthened position, while only about 1% is coming from the shortened position. This is why momentum reps are so bad for hypertrophy, because they are skipping the best part of the lift, the lengthened part.
Quit beating around the bush and tell us how to grow massive tibbies like yours already.
Yeah, if you go to failure, with a good exercise, you’ll get similar results. What a discovery, huh? The problem is that you (not you specifically, but you researchers) have been a pain in the ass with lengthened partials, lengthened position, stretching, and all this crap, contributing to the degeneration of people's training. We've seen embarrassing things like Israetel’s curl (ridiculous, tbh) and other absurd stuff. In my opinion, a balanced approach, with exercises that have different resistance profiles, both in lengthened and shortened bias, is the best way to achieve the best results (also considering the concept of regional hypertrophy). You also can’t take for granted that X result is due to the stretch itself, but rather that certain muscles have more activation in specific parts of the ROM. Different exercises have different resistance profiles, and some muscles have functions that get activated in what seems like a ‘stretch,’ but in reality, it’s just biomechanics allowing it (like the rectus femoris in the sissy squat).
Why follow and watch videos by people who you think are a pain in the ass? Life's too short.
@@esembee7717 I can follow someone because i generally like them but still think they are a pain in the ass regarding a certain topic. Doesn't seem hard to understand to me.
And even if there's a difference, it's not very significant. Fitness is a decade long journey for most people they shouldn't feel the need to optimize and fret over 2-3% more gainzz. Just pick the exercises one enjoys the most, do them consistently and hard within a reasonable range of motion, and in 5 years anyone could build an impressive physique relative to the rest of the population.
Amen
Yeah buddy
arm wrestlers have massive arm with concentric focused training since there is no one single way one technique etc etc just lift heavy to failure dont think too much like my previous weak beginner version just load reps weights and give give everything u have that day sametime dont overtrain 3-4sets per muscle im a day is enough just take it to failure for a long long timr
Arm wrestling has a significant ECCENTRIC aspect to it, which is likely the larger contribution but I also think your answer is correct😂
Looking at sport participants with great physique doesnt necessary gives you the optimal exercises for achieving their physique. The same as doing swimming is not the best way to achieve advanced swimmer body.
@@Flahtort people are searching for shortcut i too then but now i accepted the truth building muscle requires more years more reps with heavy weights and consitent visit to the weightroom,moreover these b.s men will comeout and promote their shit apps,form,research and paid coaching until people are ready to accept the truth just a business bro
ah a new study!! imagine if these guys studied cancer instead
5 percent isnt even measereble, 5 percent from the absolut growth is maybe 0.2mm or whatever
Well, a bit less than 20 times that period of time would give you a difference of 100%
@@joelsombroek that's not how percentages work
They are all quite advanced trainees, which makes super large difference in growth harder to measure.
@@excalibro8365 That's how small percentages approximately work (I'm a math teacher 8-) )
If you still take science seriously take a cold shower 🙃
Just do HIT according to Mike Mentzer and stop all this garbage content/studies.
This whole industry is an absolute joke.
Mike Mentzer was wrong so no.
The problemqith science Is that you guys ich don't really know how science work. One postiv study is enough and the Science team will claim that this is the new testament.
Also about the topic of partials. That id something that Gym bros do for ages.
Btw: I am not talking about you hete.
It's always the same. It depends and you are repeating yourself for click bait. Last time I watched you
Am I gaslit here or what? I don't think there was click bait here at all. They have a new study and didn't want to spoil the result in the title. This isn't Associated Press. You don't have to give away everything in the title
Milo is an idiot who knows 1 concept and keeps repeating it in every video. Sad to see Dr Pak starting to do the same
As far as I've seen this is the first time an actual study wasn't just talked about after the fact but was documented on site. And it's sick.
Clearly funded by Big Muscle™.
Good Shit as always
2:52 , this was brutal lol