# Opinions on Max Contraction Philosophy



## camarosuper6 (Nov 30, 2004)

I've posted a thread on this awhile back.  Went to Borders today and read through John Little's book again on Max Contraction.

For those of you who don't know, it basically gives a full body routine, where he suggests doing one set of an exercise and holding it in the fully contracted position for 1-6 seconds.  No more than 6 sec for maximum growth.

You use more weight than normal because you arent doing repetitions, and the greater the weight, the greater the overload, the greater the growth.

I know Ive used static holds and other similar things at the end of my workouts, and his theory behind this is ..... understandable ( all the fibers fire in the fully contracted position).

I wanted to know your thoughts...


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 30, 2004)

That sounds interesting, but it does go against other principles out there.  Namely, I read about one in a book by Zatsiorsky which he based on the notion of contractile protein degradation.  Basically, the greater the intensity (As in percentage of your 1RM), the greater the level of contractile protein degradation.  The greater the number of reps, the greater the level of contractile protein degradation.  The greater the level of degradation, the greater the level of super-compensation.  He determined that the range that optimizes this protein degradation is 4-12 repetitions (I believe; it may have been 5-12).

However, this doesn't mean Little's theory is incorrect.  I'm merely presenting an alternative theory from the think tank of a respected physiologist.  It's all hypothesis and theory.  I believe it's worth trying at some point.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 30, 2004)

It seems logical.  I would not use it as a stand alone training program though.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Nov 30, 2004)

Max Contraction theory is built on the idea of using more weight than you can during your 1-RM.

Simply put, the weakest range of motion is eliminated and the weight is held exclusively in the strongest range of motion and then controlled in a negative fashion.


----------



## ponyboy (Dec 1, 2004)

So this is basically doing one long negative rep with more than 100% of your 1RM?  Sounds like it would do something but I also would not use it as a stand alone.  Plus the risk of injury is very high.


----------



## LAM (Dec 1, 2004)

I would have to see a study performed with athletes before I could really comment since I haven't read the book.  but the theroy behind it is surely nothing new.  study has already shown that heavy eccentric training is optimum for hypertrophy...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Dec 2, 2004)

bump


----------



## chris mason (Dec 2, 2004)

Don't get me started on this idiot!!!

His theories suck cock and are complete crap.  He is a Mike Mentzer/Art Jones wannabe who tries to use the basic ideas behind HIT style training and then tweak them in order to sell a book/system.

He is the same goof who promoted _Power Factor_ training which involved using a very small ROM and very heavy loads.

These programs sound good on paper but fall terribly short in practice.  The primary reason they fall short is that they utilize virtually no ROM (Range Of Motion).  

His ideas might be useful as an *adjunct* to one's more traditional training but will result in a *loss of size and strength *if practiced solely.  

Heck, heavy partials have been used for years as a valuable adjunct to training but they should never be used alone without standard ROM movements.

Why am I so vehement about this?  Well, I was a fool who bought his _Power Factor_ book several years ago and gave it a try for a couple of months.  When finished I had lost size and my full ROM strength was in the toilet.  My partial ROM strength went up but a 2-3" ROM increase in strength will in NO WAY translate to full ROM movements unless both movements are practiced concurrently.

The old S.A.I.D. (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand) bit me on the as on this one...


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 2, 2004)

the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones.  the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course.  thats my opinion         simple but effective.  haste makes waste.  no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 2, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones.  the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course.  thats my opinion         simple but effective.  haste makes waste.  no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle



To a certain degree I agree with you.  However, working with weights that heavy all the time does increase the chance of injury.  As well, if you care at all about functional strength, then you are going to want to strenghten your lifts throughout their entire ranges of motion.


----------



## chris mason (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones. the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course. thats my opinion simple but effective. haste makes waste. no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle


Ok, no.

Well, sort of.  As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM.  Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).

The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.


----------



## CowPimp (Dec 3, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Ok, no.
> 
> Well, sort of.  As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM.  Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).
> 
> The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.



That is why isometric and isokinetic exercises aren't the greatest.  You are certainly pushing your hardest if they are setup properly, but they don't elicit the greatest strength and hypertrophy gains.  However, they do make a great addition to an already solid routine if incorporated properly.


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Ok, no.
> 
> Well, sort of. As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM. Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).
> 
> The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.


if you are going to correct me than make a point


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

as far as partials, your wrong they do work, and they do give optimal strength and growth.  I think people are getting things all wrong.  All movements when pushed to the max or maximal effort will lead to growth.


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> and they do give optimal strength and growth.



with out using a full ROM, hypertrohy can not be optimum...


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

LAM said:
			
		

> with out using a full ROM, hypertrohy can not be optimum...


Ironman's Ultimate BodyBuilding Encyclopedia:
The article is called The Importance of Range of Motion: 

"Here's another bit of institutionalized mythology: you need a full range of motion in the muscle in order to stimulate growth. Guess what? The importance of range of motion falls somewhere between little and none. Every gain in mass, strength, and size achieved by every one on the scrs was acquired with no range of motion whatsoever. Look at Joaquin M., who gained 28.9 pounds of new muscle with zero range of motion. The fact is, you can make substantial gains with no movement (static contraction), some movement (partials, as proved by power factor trainees) , and full movement (conventional training). Therefore, the range of motion has no significance. "

That is verbatim bro, you can argue with me is one thing, but arguing with the book is something else.

that came straight from Ironman's Ultimate Bodybuilding Encyclopedia


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> Ironman's Ultimate BodyBuilding Encyclopedia:
> The article is called The Importance of Range of Motion:
> 
> "Here's another bit of institutionalized mythology: you need a full range of motion in the muscle in order to stimulate growth. Guess what? The importance of range of motion falls somewhere between little and none. Every gain in mass, strength, and size achieved by every one on the scrs was acquired with no range of motion whatsoever. Look at Joaquin M., who gained 28.9 pounds of new muscle with zero range of motion. The fact is, you can make substantial gains with no movement (static contraction), some movement (partials, as proved by power factor trainees) , and full movement (conventional training). Therefore, the range of motion has no significance. "
> ...



what medical study is given as reference ?


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

so why are you posting at ironman magazine forums if you feel that they aren't writing legit articles? They aren't going to have pictures and diagrams showing the muscle being extended, and all that. Quit squirming your pinned, lol

I at least have some resource.


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2004)

Max Contraction, Static Contraction, etc. techniques only work to stimulate hypertrophy on the untrained individual....


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Dec 3, 2004)

LAM said:
			
		

> Max Contraction, Static Contraction, etc. techniques only work to stimulate hypertrophy on the untrained individual....



I don't completely agree with that...

I think they can be effective, but not optimally so.  I think the maximum contraction theory is flawed in it's narrow frame of guidelines.  I think incorporating the theory as an alternative method for a limited time as a means of adjusting the workout intensity is perfectly fine, but to be used exclusively does not allow one to benefit optimally...


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2004)

IMO...those techniques are definetly effective at increasing muscle, tendon and ligament tensile strength.  which can ultimately enable the person to use heavier working loads in future training sessions...

I have not seen one once of proof where the techniques have been benefical for stimulating hypertrophy in the highly trained individual...


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

LAM said:
			
		

> IMO...those techniques are definetly effective at increasing muscle, tendon and ligament tensile strength. which can ultimately enable the person to use heavier working loads in future training sessions...
> 
> I have not seen one once of proof where the techniques have been benefical for stimulating hypertrophy in the highly trained individual...


You haven't seen heard or talked......... to everyone either. Most people only try conventional things, because they only have faith in things that have been seen or touched or used. Those that have faith or try other things may have gotten huge gains from it and you may not have seen it. You workout in one gym out of Millions upon. So going by your word is no better than not having any medical reference. 

If we are going by anything factual or the least bit somewhat factual. I think I would go by the book. 

I do partials, I have done them, but I haven't done them all the time. I don't believe one exercise or method is an answer to all. I believe none of us have the puzzle completely put together, just someone of us have half and others have the other half. We are all missing a few peices. I'm going to continue to do partials and I'm going to continue to have 21 inch arms and I'm going to continue to do 500 plus on a 3 board for 3 reps on the benchpress. plain and simple. The equation seems kind of right


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> I'm going to continue to do partials and I'm going to continue to have 21 inch arms and I'm going to continue to do 500 plus on a 3 board for 3 reps on the benchpress. plain and simple. The equation seems kind of right



Nice to listen to someone so modest


----------



## Robboe (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> So going by your word is no better than not having any medical reference.
> 
> If we are going by anything factual or the least bit somewhat factual. I think I would go by the book.



Technically, unless there are references in that encyclopedia of yours about this style of training, you're just going off someone else's word.


----------



## chris mason (Dec 3, 2004)

Well, who am _I_ to argue with Ironman's book... 

How is this, I can speak from direct experience.  I can also speak from having been around the iron game a long time and having read more, trained more, and spoken to more people about training than 90% of the people out there. 

Oh, did I mention I sponsor some of the top strength athletes in the world?  If you like, I can see if they ever used the bullshit techniques espoused by Mr. Little.

Partials with 3" or less ROM border on worthless for normal ROM strength and for size *IF *they are the sole source of your resistance training.  As I already said, they CAN be incorporated into a well rounded routine and be beneficial.  Unfortunately that is *NOT* what Mr. Little recommends in his books and that IS the topic of this thread.


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

Duncans Donuts said:
			
		

> Nice to listen to someone so modest


you might want a band aid for that bruise you got there buddy


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

TCD said:
			
		

> Technically, unless there are references in that encyclopedia of yours about this style of training, you're just going off someone else's word.


whose word are you going by? lol someone on a forum


----------



## Dmwrss (Dec 3, 2004)

chris mason said:
			
		

> Well, who am _I_ to argue with Ironman's book...
> 
> How is this, I can speak from direct experience. I can also speak from having been around the iron game a long time and having read more, trained more, and spoken to more people about training than 90% of the people out there.
> 
> ...


whose mr little?  doing partials with a 3 board is more than 3" its more like over a foot bro.  A muscle overloaded is a muscle overloaded.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> you might want a band aid for that bruise you got there buddy



Yeah, how can I ever recover


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> whose mr little?



the author of the book Max Contraction...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Dec 3, 2004)

And the author of the Ironman Encyclopedia


----------



## camarosuper6 (Dec 4, 2004)

> I'm going to continue to do partials and I'm going to continue to have 21 inch arms and I'm going to continue to do 500 plus on a 3 board for 3 reps on the benchpress. plain and simple. The equation seems kind of right



And Im going to pretend like I care.


----------



## chris mason (Dec 4, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> whose mr little? doing partials with a 3 board is more than 3" its more like over a foot bro. A muscle overloaded is a muscle overloaded.


Lol, therein lies the problem, you didn't read the posts in the thread prior to commenting.

Board presses can be a very effective ADJUNCT to your training.  I have never stated any differently.  

That said, if you used them solely and did not use a bench shirt for your full ROM bench press they would be a worthless movement.  Powerlifters (some, not all use board presses) use full range and board presses in their training. 

This thread is about Mr. Little's advocation of 2-3" ROM movements and zero ROM movements as a sole method of training.  He is wrong, he is an idiot for advocating it and obviously has never tried his own methods or is a liar who is only after your dollars.


----------



## Robboe (Dec 4, 2004)

Dmwrss said:
			
		

> whose word are you going by? lol someone on a forum



No, i go by my own word, but i am open to trying techniques and tips outlined by other people if i see that their theories and practice hold some water.

I was just pointing out the irony of you saying that LAM going off his _own_ word is no better than any medical reference, when you seem to be going off someone _else's_ word just because they've written a book (with no clear medical references in that abstract you posted).

What makes you think LAM isn't capable of writing a book? Would you listen to him then?


----------

