# Full range of motion overrated?



## minimal (Jun 9, 2011)

Just finished watching Jason Huh's arm workout video..

Jason Huh Week Part 5: Arm Workout

A lot of criticism and hate about his range of motion.  He's probably only doing 1/4-1/2 of full ROM on all his lifts.

He keeps saying constant tension with partial ROM is better than doing full ROM since partial ROM will give longer time under tension compared to full ROM movements.

Shit looks retarded but it's working for him.  I've seen some hyooge guys that workout like that too.  Any thoughts?  I might give it a try.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 9, 2011)

By that logic static holds would be just as good as full ROM. You can do a full range of motion without relaxing the muscle anyways.


----------



## minimal (Jun 9, 2011)

Well, partial ROM would give you constant tension... but full ROM won't give you as much time under tension when you're locking out briefly at the end of eccentric and concentric movements.


----------



## Anabolic5150 (Jun 9, 2011)

Weight used is sometimes the controlling factor in range of motion. I know that in say, bench press, you will see many guys using a great range of motion on their warm ups and first few sets until they get to really heavy weights. I know this is true with me as well, when I get to my heavy work sets, mt ROM is compromised in a sense. But I still try to keep constant tension on the muscle being worked and use as a complete a ROM as I can regardless of weight.


----------



## Darkcity (Jun 9, 2011)

Arnold used full range i have never seen the point of loading 600lbs putting on the squat bar then the squat suit and barely even move half an inch down ...lol


----------



## Anabolic5150 (Jun 9, 2011)

Darkcity said:


> Arnold used full range i have never seen the point of loading 600lbs putting on the squat bar then the squat suit and barely even move half an inch down ...lol


 

I respect Arnold as a bodybuilder and know that this is blasphemy, but I hate that he is by many considered the benchmark for bodybuilding. Just because Arnold did it does not make it gospel. I've seen many big guys train and not use a full ROM, but you will also find big guys that do. I have with my own eyes seen Jay Cutler train, he uses full ROM about 60% of the time, but keeps tension on the muscle throughout that short range.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 9, 2011)

Anabolic5150 said:


> I respect Arnold as a bodybuilder and know that this is blasphemy, but I hate that he is by many considered the benchmark for bodybuilding.


Ya Arnold really didn't know anymore than any other bodybuilder or good weight lifter. I read an article about how there is not much point in making any set last longer than 15 seconds on T-nation by some athletic trainer and that doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean you won't make gains keeping sets less than 15 seconds. And it wasn't an article about strength either just training in general.


----------



## Anabolic5150 (Jun 9, 2011)

ihateschoolmt said:


> Ya Arnold really didn't know anymore than any other bodybuilder or good weight lifter. I read an article about how there is not much point in making any set last longer than 15 seconds on T-nation by some athletic trainer and that doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean you won't make gains keeping sets less than 15 seconds. And it wasn't an article about strength either just training in general.



So, if my set lasts 19 seconds, were those last 4 seconds wasted? This is where we as bodybuilders/weightlifters overcomplicate this stuff. It ain't rocket science, it's weightlifting. Pick up something heavy this week and next week pick up something a bit heavier or more times. Progressive overload.


----------



## LAM (Jun 9, 2011)

Tudor Bompa and every other expert in the sport and medical study say the opposite.  I think I'll just stick with what they say...

partials are good for breaking past sticking points, what's it.


----------



## usafchris (Jun 9, 2011)

Anabolic5150 said:


> This is where we as bodybuilders/weightlifters overcomplicate this stuff. It ain't rocket science, it's weightlifting. Pick up something heavy this week and next week pick up something a bit heavier or more times. Progressive overload.


I agree tenfold!  There is science to it you can read this and that and it can get confusing
as hell. Ultimately something different will work differently for everyone, but at the end
of the day what Anabolic said is what we all end up doing.


----------



## Gazhole (Jun 10, 2011)

Never heard of this guy but he looks like he's at a pretty advanced level of development compared to the average joe. Never assume that what an advanced lifter says about training applies to anybody but themselves.

If an olympic sprinter gave their training program in an internet video, i guarantee that it wouldn't work as well for any athlete below the olympic level, and the further down the ladder you get the less efficacious this training program would be. For the average joe it wouldn't work at all, and would probably land them in a heap of health problems.

Pro-bodybuilders are no different in this regard. Just because their programs consist of partial ROM isolation exercises doesn't mean they built their entire physique from the ground up with that technique. Everybody starts the same way - compound movements, full ROM. When you have a good 10-12 years base with that, and you look like Jason Huh, then partial ROM time-under-tension shit might work for you.

Until then, train to your current level of development and be smart about it. That's why forums like this - and the journals section in particular - are a godsend. You can see who weighs the same as you, you can see who lifts the same weight as you, you can ask them how long they've been training, and you can see all that stuff in relation to what their training program looks like. Then 3 months down the line, you can see if what they're doing has been working for them.

Following the journals regularly has done more for my own training that any book ever has. I think it's ethically wrong for BB mags to post advanced training routines as used by the pros because people automatically assume that it even remotely applies to them. IT DOESN'T.


----------



## ponyboy (Jun 10, 2011)

Wait until one day his joints need that full ROM for doing something other than looking big.


----------



## Supervette101 (Jun 10, 2011)

I wasn't sure what he was trying to work on the rope pull downs, triceps or shoulders? LOL... I don't know, I've watched a lot of the big guys training videos, Jay, Branch, and Lee, they all def work out different then me. Maybe that's why they are so BIG? It's always been preached to me "good form" but you watch any of them doing DB curls and the are swinging and swaying and everything else.... ????? And they pretty much do that on all their exercises. Something I might have to try or look into, especially since they have 22-24 inch arms and I only have 18.5 inch.. The only thing I think you cant 1/4 or 1/2 rep is legs, everyone uses full ROM on those for best growth.


----------



## trapzilla (Jun 10, 2011)

minimal said:


> Just finished watching Jason Huh's arm workout video..
> 
> Jason Huh Week Part 5: Arm Workout
> 
> ...


 
Jason Huh is a big guy he hits over 300lbs off season but he ahs only recently started with the partial range of motion and sys he receiving better growth, this also conincides with the time he signed a sponsorship deal. 

Jason believes in a severly reduced range of motion, that does not even fit in with most other reduced ROMs most pro's use.



minimal said:


> Well, partial ROM would give you constant tension... but full ROM won't give you as much time under tension when you're locking out briefly at the end of eccentric and concentric movements.


 
This is correct at the point of lcokout most if not all tension is lost from the muscle. On pressing movement the closer to lockoout one becomes the more the triceps are involved, it is this reason why i rarely lockout presses unless to catch my breath mid set, if i want to train tri's i'l do some skull crusher or what have you not incline dumbbell benches.



Anabolic5150 said:


> I respect Arnold as a bodybuilder and know that this is blasphemy, but I hate that he is by many considered the benchmark for bodybuilding. Just because Arnold did it does not make it gospel. I've seen many big guys train and not use a full ROM, but you will also find big guys that do. I have with my own eyes seen Jay Cutler train, he uses full ROM about 60% of the time, but keeps tension on the muscle throughout that short range.


 
Here Here Anabolic5150 agree 100% on this. From what I gather most pro's Jay Cutler and Ronnie Coleman included operate in a reduced range of motion known as an X-rep, which is from the stretched or semi-stretched postion to short of full contraction, with the idea being this is the point at which the muscle is placed in a more powerful position and so it can then lift more and grow more. 



ponyboy said:


> Wait until one day his joints need that full ROM for doing something other than looking big.


 
I feel this is a somewhat inane comment ponyboy. Granted as  PT you are probably more concerned with fucntional strength and a person being fit for purpose. But I doubt Jason Huh plans on running a marathon or sprinting or doing the shot putt anytime soon so in that case i reckon his joints are fit for purpose. 


But my opinion on partial ROM is that it is very useful on some bodyparts such as chest, back, delts and to an extent legs but for other it is not required, as the muscle can be placed in a position where it is permanently undertension, such as scott curls and dips etc.


----------



## fraseram (Jun 10, 2011)

this is a good thread with lots to think about....... 
I LOVED what you had to say about how a training program is NOT going to give the same results for everyone and may even in fact be very harmful!!! 
I hate going to the gym and hearing about people that want to do what everyone else is doing when it is not right for their goals or body. 
we are all different and you cant compare apples to oranges 
my goal for my body would not suit iso short motion moves
I like keeping things long and limber and focus on slow controlled movement
flying fast and short is not the way I roll bc its not going to yeild me what I want for me... that being said it may be very helpful to someone with diff goals and body type


----------



## rayb (Jun 10, 2011)

good discussion


----------



## ponyboy (Jun 10, 2011)

trapzilla said:


> I feel this is a somewhat inane comment ponyboy. Granted as  PT you are probably more concerned with fucntional strength and a person being fit for purpose. But I doubt Jason Huh plans on running a marathon or sprinting or doing the shot putt anytime soon so in that case i reckon his joints are fit for purpose.



I agree - if his purpose has him moving in a restricted fashion.  What if he falls down?  Or suddenly has to catch something someone throws at him?  A sudden change in his knee ROM like dropping down quickly could destroy his joint.  I'm sure he's not worried about that now, but in ten years that will be a different story.


----------



## Diesel618 (Jun 10, 2011)

He's said that he was just trolling in that video. You can tell by his attitude that he's not really being serious. I highly doubt he actually trains like that.


----------



## mryar (Jun 10, 2011)

I think it depends on what one's goals are. If someone has the goal of lifting the most weight possible (powerlifter), the easiest way to get there is with a reduced range of motion. There are sweet spots in most movements where angles between joints are conducive to producing the most power.

If a person has the goal of growing large muscles, they're going to want as long of ROM as possible to get the longest concentric muscle contraction. The angles at the beginning of many movements makes it difficult to achieve 90% of one-rep-max for hypertrophy, so as a poster previously said, many bodybuilders use full ROM at lighter weights and go to a shortened ROM for heavier weights.

My guess would be the lighter weights and full ROM is yielding strength gains at the beginning and end of ROM. The heavier weights are giving strength gains in the middle of the ROM where the muscle is able to produce more power.

Great discussion!


----------



## Merkaba (Jun 10, 2011)

Shit if you're gassin it up, try it.  I mean I think the rules bend when you're heavily geared.  And lets face it, like I tell people, people like Jason are specialists in a specialized field. They aren't just trying to get a better body or get in better shape like most of the average people out there.  If you're a super specialist then try it.  I'm not.  So I won't.  Because there's no reason to for me.  



Gazhole said:


> Never heard of this guy but he looks like he's at a pretty advanced level of development compared to the average joe. Never assume that what an advanced lifter says about training applies to anybody but themselves.
> 
> If an olympic sprinter gave their training program in an internet video, i guarantee that it wouldn't work as well for any athlete below the olympic level, and the further down the ladder you get the less efficacious this training program would be. For the average joe it wouldn't work at all, and would probably land them in a heap of health problems.
> 
> ...


....Amen...can we take up offering now?




ponyboy said:


> Wait until one day his joints need that full ROM for doing something other than looking big.


 This is why I'm not a specialist.


----------



## Jaguar (Jun 10, 2011)

*Full range of motion overrated?*

Not in my training philosophy.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Jun 10, 2011)

I don't think his success is about his secret technique of partial ROM, but his secret stash of vials. You can do just about anything when you're juicing and your body will hyper-react to whatever stimulus. The bulk of the efficacy in the time under tension principle deals primarily in the eccentric portion of the lift and partial ROM halves the eccentric portion....  He'd look better if he performed full ROM.  Partials are most effective to strength a particular point of ROM weakness or as forced reps, but in isotonic lifting, full ROM is most effective for maximal hypertrophy.


----------



## MDR (Jun 10, 2011)

mryar said:


> I think it depends on what one's goals are. If someone has the goal of lifting the most weight possible (powerlifter), the easiest way to get there is with a reduced range of motion. There are sweet spots in most movements where angles between joints are conducive to producing the most power.
> 
> If a person has the goal of growing large muscles, they're going to want as long of ROM as possible to get the longest concentric muscle contraction. The angles at the beginning of many movements makes it difficult to achieve 90% of one-rep-max for hypertrophy, so as a poster previously said, many bodybuilders use full ROM at lighter weights and go to a shortened ROM for heavier weights.
> 
> ...


 
As a powerlifter, I've got to say that I think this is pure crap. You do not develop an 800+ pound squat or deadlift by training with reduced range of motion. if you want to compete, you have to be able to complete the lift with a full ROM, and be strong at the top and bottom portion of the lift. I think Gaz hit this one right on the head. Just because a guy implements advanced techniques does not mean that is how he built his physique. Everyone has to pay their dues. Magazines often do 95% of lifters a great disservice by promoting the training methods of a pro bodybuilder or top-flight powerlifter. You can bet dollars to donuts that he did not build the basic framework by training without basic compound movements, with a full range of movement for many years. Most never even come close to needing to alter this basic framework. Listen to you own body. It has much more to tell you about how to train than Arnold, Dorian or Ed Coan.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 10, 2011)

Anabolic5150 said:


> So, if my set lasts 19 seconds, were those last 4 seconds wasted? This is where we as bodybuilders/weightlifters overcomplicate this stuff. It ain't rocket science, it's weightlifting. Pick up something heavy this week and next week pick up something a bit heavier or more times. Progressive overload.


That's pretty much what the article says lol. Just to be clear, I wasn't agreeing with that article I was just saying that's what some guy said on t-nation and it's not true just because some big guy said it.


----------



## LAM (Jun 10, 2011)

MDR said:


> As a powerlifter, I've got to say that I think this is pure crap. You do not develop an 800+ pound squat or deadlift by training with reduced range of motion. if you want to compete, you have to be able to complete the lift with a full ROM, and be strong at the top and bottom portion of the lift. I think Gaz hit this one right on the head. Just because a guy implements advanced techniques does not mean that is how he built his physique. Everyone has to pay their dues. Magazines often do 95% of lifters a great disservice by promoting the training methods of a pro bodybuilder or top-flight powerlifter. You can bet dollars to donuts that he did not build the basic framework by training without basic compound movements, with a full range of movement for many years. Most never even come close to needing to alter this basic framework. Listen to you own body. It has much more to tell you about how to train than Arnold, Dorian or Ed Coan.



of course it's crap...every single study on maximizing strength and/or increasing hypertrophy shows that using a full ROM is necessary for "maximum" results and real world results.

using a full ROM is the only way maximum power is produced on a given plane, the bio-mechanics of jumping vertical tells us this.

it's guy's that write articles in magazines like that which caused me to stop reading fitness mags in 1987 after reading muscle and fiction for a year.


----------



## trapzilla (Jun 10, 2011)

LAM said:


> of course it's crap...every single study on maximizing strength and/or increasing hypertrophy shows that using a full ROM is necessary for "maximum" results and real world results.
> 
> using a full ROM is the only way maximum power is produced on a given plane, the bio-mechanics of jumping vertical tells us this.
> 
> it's guy's that write articles in magazines like that which caused me to stop reading fitness mags in 1987 after reading muscle and fiction for a year.


 
Have you guys ever actually tried reduced range of motions?


----------



## VolcomX311 (Jun 10, 2011)

I have, sometimes with back training and it has elicited DOMS, but a new form of stimulus will more often then not create DOMS just because it's a foreign stimulus, but I wouldn't use partials as my primary mode of training.

As someone mentioned earlier, the way this guy practices TUT, you might as well just hold the weight in a static contraction until failure, why bother with the isotonic motions. TUT is primarily about the eccentric portion of the lift, half ROMS makes it half the TUT relative to full ROM.  Partials has its place, but not as your primary, universal mode of lifting


----------



## MDR (Jun 10, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> Never heard of this guy but he looks like he's at a pretty advanced level of development compared to the average joe. Never assume that what an advanced lifter says about training applies to anybody but themselves.
> 
> If an olympic sprinter gave their training program in an internet video, i guarantee that it wouldn't work as well for any athlete below the olympic level, and the further down the ladder you get the less efficacious this training program would be. For the average joe it wouldn't work at all, and would probably land them in a heap of health problems.
> 
> ...


 
Try reading this again.  Slowly.


----------



## MDR (Jun 10, 2011)

VolcomX311 said:


> I have, sometimes with back training and it has elicited DOMS, but a new form of stimulus will more often then not create DOMS just because it's a foreign stimulus, but I wouldn't use partials as my primary mode of training.
> 
> As someone mentioned earlier, the way this guy practices TUT, you might as well just hold the weight in a static contraction until failure, why bother with the isotonic motions. TUT is primarily about the eccentric portion of the lift, half ROMS makes it half the TUT relative to full ROM. Partials has its place, but not as your primary, universal mode of lifting


 
Exactly.


----------



## trapzilla (Jun 10, 2011)

I've got to say, that saying partials should not be your mainstay seems like it may be flawed, I think you will fail to see many Pro bodybuilders who don't use anything but partials.


----------



## LAM (Jun 10, 2011)

trapzilla said:


> Have you guys ever actually tried reduced range of motions?



sure, partials are useful to break fast sticking points.  we used to use them all the time on the PL team at my old gym in PA.  power lifters use them all the time.

maximum force can not be generated across the joint unless a full rom is used to create maximum tension on both ends of the muscle.  it's one of the basic principles learned in exercise physiology and the physics of muscle contraction.


----------



## DaBeast25 (Jun 10, 2011)

I lift things up and put them down


----------



## MDR (Jun 10, 2011)

LAM said:


> sure, partials are useful to break fast sticking points. we used to use them all the time on the PL team at my old gym in PA. power lifters use them all the time.
> 
> maximum force can not be generated across the joint unless a full rom is used to create maximum tension on both ends of the muscle. it's one of the basic principles learned in exercise physiology and the physics of muscle contraction.


 
Very nice explanation.  Anyone who has spent any time studying Exercise Physiology or Kinesiology should understand this fairly simple idea.  A useful tool, but hardly the mainstay of any training philosophy.  We often deadlifted off blocks and such, but not at the expense of or as a replacement to pulling off the floor.  I had a low sticking point at the bottom of my bench during my career, and I used partials to work on pushing off the chest.  But again, I was already a very accomplished lifter, and had over 10 years of lifting experience behind me.  Partials don't build the foundation, they are finishing work on a highly developed physique.


----------



## trapzilla (Jun 10, 2011)

LAM said:


> sure, partials are useful to break fast sticking points. we used to use them all the time on the PL team at my old gym in PA. power lifters use them all the time.
> 
> maximum force can not be generated across the joint unless a full rom is used to create maximum tension on both ends of the muscle. it's one of the basic principles learned in exercise physiology and the physics of muscle contraction.


 
I see what your saying but it seems like your coming from a PL not BB angle. 
your talking about force across a joint, but what about force at the muscle itself? 
I may be sounding dense here but i've never read up on exercise physiology, so humour me.


----------



## LAM (Jun 10, 2011)

MDR said:


> Very nice explanation.  Anyone who has spent any time studying Exercise Physiology or Kinesiology should understand this fairly simple idea.  A useful tool, but hardly the mainstay of any training philosophy.  We often deadlifted off blocks and such, but not at the expense of or as a replacement to pulling off the floor.  I had a low sticking point at the bottom of my bench during my career, and I used partials to work on pushing off the chest.  But again, I was already a very accomplished lifter, and had over 10 years of lifting experience behind me.  Partials don't build the foundation, they are finishing work on a highly developed physique.



yep, very common in the PL world to use blocks like that.  I have data dumped most of what I learned in college from studying EP but I'm pretty sure the effect that blocks have has something to do with the way bi-articulate muscles like the hamstring are loaded from a bio-mechanically inefficient position which effects the force velocity relationship.  it forces you to increase velocity from the disadvantaged position which increases power.


----------



## ponyboy (Jun 11, 2011)

trapzilla said:


> I see what your saying but it seems like your coming from a PL not BB angle.
> your talking about force across a joint, but what about force at the muscle itself?
> I may be sounding dense here but i've never read up on exercise physiology, so humour me.



Muscles move and control joints.  Therefore force across a joint means that muscles are contracting (although not necessarily moving).  You really can't have one without the other.


----------



## trapzilla (Jun 11, 2011)

OK I see. So in that case the partial range of motion being utlised in Jason Huh's video whilst placing the muscle under tension does not generate a full contraction across the muscle?


----------



## ponyboy (Jun 11, 2011)

The muscle contracts, but the joint does not fully move through it's full potential range of motion.  You're just thinking that muscles move - they really don't.  It's the joints that move.  

For example, if I do a leg curl, my hamstring muscles contract and move my knee joint closer to my hip joint.  If I do half a curl, then the joint doesn't move as far.  Does that make sense?


----------



## Darkcity (Jun 11, 2011)

LAM said:


> sure, partials are useful to break fast sticking points.  we used to use them all the time on the PL team at my old gym in PA.  power lifters use them all the time.
> 
> maximum force can not be generated across the joint unless a full rom is used to create maximum tension on both ends of the muscle.  it's one of the basic principles learned in exercise physiology and the physics of muscle contraction.


excellent!!


----------

