# full range vs. partial range(aka power factor training)



## tai (Nov 2, 2003)

hey guys, i am new here. I started working out just a month ago. I bought this book called "power factor training" by pete sisco and it talks about weight lift in your trongest range of motion(aka power factor training) is better in stimulate muscles grow compare to full range.

After reading this book, I am darn confused wether i should do full range of motion(like everyone else in the gym) or do it in my strongest range where i only move about  4-5 inches.

I would appreciate all of your advices/opinions.


----------



## Mudge (Nov 2, 2003)

For obtaining power in that range sure, powerlifters use that technique. But I would never say that doing 5" lifts is a full workout, for a couple lifts sure, not your whole routine.


----------



## tai (Nov 2, 2003)

thanks mudge, i've been doing search on this forum alone on that topic, and you are sure a quite active responder to this topic. hehe. 
but yet i couldnt find anyone here who has give the  power factor training a try say....for a month?


----------



## Mudge (Nov 2, 2003)

I look at it like a box squat or a board press, only effective for weakness in that range for breaking out of a weak spot, not as a bodybuilders complete workout...

There could be argument that you would be overloading your system similar to doing forced reps, other than that, its not a bodybuilders thing IMO.


----------



## UGMeth (May 25, 2007)

How does ur body know the diff btween a full range rep, a rep w/ a cambered bar or a 1/4 rep....it doesn't.  Ever notice how sprinters have really muscular large quads.  Do they do full range reps?  No.  To each his own.


----------



## Pianomahnn (May 25, 2007)

Pretty much think you're wrong.

Pullups are a great proof of how wrong you are.  Full range pullups are loads more difficult than partial range.  Yea, no difference there at all.


----------



## UGMeth (May 25, 2007)

An EMG test shows conclusively just how "intense" an individual exercise is.  The higher the intensity an exercise the more growth stimulus.  Which exercise can U reach a higher EMG w/ 1/4 chins w/ 100lbs or bodyweight chins?  The weighted ones of course.  All ur doing w/ PFT or 1/4 reps ends up being alot more reps w/ alot more weight....end result is alot more growth stimulus.  Ur nervous system has NO clue whether its doing a full range rep or 1/4 rep...all it knows is how intense the exercise is.


----------



## UGMeth (May 25, 2007)

Try doing 1/4 squats w/ 600lbs for 40 reps as compared to 20 reps w/ 300lbs.


----------



## Phred (May 25, 2007)

UGMeth said:


> How does ur body know the diff btween a full range rep, a rep w/ a cambered bar or a 1/4 rep....it doesn't.  Ever notice how sprinters have really muscular large quads.  Do they do full range reps?  No.  To each his own.


Are you impying that sprinters take 1/4 length strides? I'm thinking they take pretty much full length strides.  They use explosivity out of the box and their quads to help get up to speed.  Once they hit full speed it is a hamstrings and glutes, not the quads propelling them down the tarmac.


----------



## P-funk (May 25, 2007)

he isn't implying that they take 1/4 length strides.  He stating that if you look at the joint angles taking place at the hip and knee during a sprint, they are more specific to a 1/4 squat than a full squat.  A number of strength coaches do target ROM squatting to help overload the athlete in the ROM that is specific to sprinting and jumping.


----------



## PWGriffin (May 25, 2007)

P-funk said:


> he isn't implying that they take 1/4 length strides.  He stating that if you look at the joint angles taking place at the hip and knee during a sprint, they are more specific to a 1/4 squat than a full squat.  A number of strength coaches do target ROM squatting to help overload the athlete in the ROM that is specific to sprinting and jumping.



that makes sense....



Do whatever it takes to get better at what you want to get better at.


----------



## Phred (May 25, 2007)

P-funk said:


> he isn't implying that they take 1/4 length strides.  He stating that if you look at the joint angles taking place at the hip and knee during a sprint, they are more specific to a 1/4 squat than a full squat.  A number of strength coaches do target ROM squatting to help overload the athlete in the ROM that is specific to sprinting and jumping.


  That make more sense than what was posted.  But how does it (the less than full ROM) relate to larger quads in a sprinter?


----------



## UGMeth (May 25, 2007)

The sprinter example point was full range reps are NOT necessary and often dangerous.  Sprinters usually have large quads yet they don't do full range reps.  This disproves the notion that full range reps are required for full muscle development.  If full range reps were necessary then use of a cambered bar would certainly provide greater development....they don't.


----------



## UGMeth (May 25, 2007)

Another example is pushing a car out of a ditch.  Do u lower urself till ur heels touch ur butt then begin pushing?  Of course not.  U barely break the plane then begin pushing.  This is becuz MUCH more power is developed.  More power = a higher EMG which = greater growth stimulation.  

Not trying to start some punk internet argument.  I just am 100% convinced PFT is more productive/safer and SCT is even better.


----------



## CowPimp (May 26, 2007)

UGMeth said:


> How does ur body know the diff btween a full range rep, a rep w/ a cambered bar or a 1/4 rep....it doesn't.  Ever notice how sprinters have really muscular large quads.  Do they do full range reps?  No.  To each his own.



There is something called the length tension relationship that exists within a muscle.  At a certain length, there is an optimal alignment between the actin docking sites and the myosin heavy chain heads within the sarcomere of the muscle.  This is the fundamental contractile unit of the muscle.  The more of these connections that can be made, the more powerful the stroke.  Therefore, a greater amount of tension can be generated.


----------



## UGMeth (May 26, 2007)

I think it all boils down to what generates a higher EMG.  As I posted earlier the higher EMG the more growth stimulus has been delivered.  Its physically impossible regardless of secondary factors (actin,myosin, ATP, nuerologic efficiency, etc.) to move as much weight in the bottom position of, for example, the squat as the last 3-4 inches before lockout.  I think most people just can't accept its that simple.  They need to complicate the matter, to bring in extraneous, amost superfluous, biological factors that just don't really matter.  The bottom line is lbs./min (as w/ any "engine").  A "scientist" will then say Work = force x distance.  But they fail to take into acctt. that human movement is an arc like pattern > ) which would need Pi 3.14 to effectively measure the amt. of work performed but this would again needlessly complicate the matter.  A person's arms/legs are not gonna change in length so measuring those distances would only cancel each other out (arm/leg length vs distance the bar is moved).  The Power Factor unit of meaure is somewhat relative tho.  Some people move the bar faster, some further.  NOTHING in exercise physiology as it relates to bodybuilding is exact.


----------



## UGMeth (May 26, 2007)

Few things in life are as pointless/sad as an internet based argument.  I just got tired of herniated discs, near torn patella tendons and slow, almost none existence progress and took a leap of faith in science.  I very glad I did.  I also realize Power Factor / Static Contraction Training will NEVER be accepted as the best way to train.  Same as limiting my anabolic use to a sole (Methandrostenolone or Winstrol) steroid and that use to medical therapeutic levels.  I always laugh when I hear of 50mg/day dosages and complaints of headaches.  Ahnold even said in an article re: Dianabol > " U gotta take 'em till ur head pounds"...< now that is intelligent use of a wonderful drug......NOT.


----------



## CowPimp (May 26, 2007)

UGMeth said:


> I think it all boils down to what generates a higher EMG.  As I posted earlier the higher EMG the more growth stimulus has been delivered.  Its physically impossible regardless of secondary factors (actin,myosin, ATP, nuerologic efficiency, etc.) to move as much weight in the bottom position of, for example, the squat as the last 3-4 inches before lockout.  I think most people just can't accept its that simple.  They need to complicate the matter, to bring in extraneous, amost superfluous, biological factors that just don't really matter.  The bottom line is lbs./min (as w/ any "engine").  A "scientist" will then say Work = force x distance.  But they fail to take into acctt. that human movement is an arc like pattern > ) which would need Pi 3.14 to effectively measure the amt. of work performed but this would again needlessly complicate the matter.  A person's arms/legs are not gonna change in length so measuring those distances would only cancel each other out (arm/leg length vs distance the bar is moved).  The Power Factor unit of meaure is somewhat relative tho.  Some people move the bar faster, some further.  NOTHING in exercise physiology as it relates to bodybuilding is exact.



What makes you say a higher EMG rating is what means more growth stimulus?  There is simply zero evidence to back that up in all the literature that I've come across.


----------



## Witchblade (May 27, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> What makes you say a higher EMG rating is what means more growth stimulus?  There is simply zero evidence to back that up in all the literature that I've come across.


I have a book 'Power!' that claims 'higher EMG => more hyperthrophy' too. They say a lot of studies have been done to prove that, but they don't list any. There's a lot of (other) crap in the book anyway.


----------



## Brachiisaurus (May 27, 2007)

I bought the E-book for PFT and SCT years ago. I tried using it for a while, but didn't notice any massive strength gains or any of that.

Since you are not training for the full ROM, when you go back to say, a full bench, you will be weaker since you have not brought the bar all the way down in a long time.


----------



## CowPimp (May 27, 2007)

My problem with the suggestion put forth by UGMeth is that simple electrical stimulation would therefore be optimal for hypertrophy.  As we all know, those electrical stimulus gadgets are total failures.  There has to be more to hypertrophy than that.  I would think that mechanical work, tension, enzyme levels and changes to those levels, hormonal response, and others would also be contributing factors.


----------

