Im trying to figure out how beneficial partial reps are to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, anyone have any info/ articles on this.
I figure if someone can activate their biceps for instance by curling 50 pounds for 6 partial reps on the lower level of the excercise, and then 6 on the upper end, could that be better then 12 continueous reps at a lower weight?
there’s a program called the matrix principle that uses these sort of principles, the beginning rep scheme is 5 full reps, 5 upper half, 5 lower half, and another 5 full reps. there are 48 different rep schemes in this program, and it uses light weight(30-40%1rm). it seems to work pretty well, for strength and size. type it into google and see what you find.
I’ve never really liked partials in the way you described at all.
I like them for certain compound movements where a certain range can put emphasis on certain muscle groups-like lockouts for tri’s etc.
The whole breaking up of a full range into parts seems like a waste to me - like 21’s for curls etc- never really saw or knew anyone that got big from it.
Barring prevention of injury or when one is more advanced and knows how to activate the most fibres, full range of motion is usually most productive. I don’t believe the whole compartmentalization theory that certain parts of a muscle fibre can contract seperately-like working ‘inner’ chest or lower bicep etc. I believe the entire fibre either fires or not. Like when one pulls a rope, the tension is more or less equal throughout the rope and not biggest in a certain part of it.
I think in the method you describe, maybe the time under tension contributes to the ‘training effect’ that one feels rather than the partials…? Just a guess…
The whole sarcoplasmic vs this and vs that thing is also OCD IMO-just concentrate on a program focused on progresson and everything will take care of itself…
And I wouldn’t even take a glance at that ‘matrix’ thing - a program working with 30-40% 1rm can only lead to zero progress for almost everyone…some freaks exist, but let’s leave that out of the discussion…
[quote]grinder001 wrote:
And I wouldn’t even take a glance at that ‘matrix’ thing - a program working with 30-40% 1rm can only lead to zero progress for almost everyone…some freaks exist, but let’s leave that out of the discussion…
[/quote]
funny that, he asked about partials, and the matrix system includes them. do you claim to know everything about weights, physiology, and bodybuilding in general? it actually works if you make an effort, my cousin is in his mid 30’s and made good progress with it, and many others have too, check out morningmountain’s log, he’s done quite well on it. please pull your head out of your arse in the future, thank you.
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
I actually never said anything about different types of hypertrophy, I was just giving the OP some information about programs with partial reps, which is what he asked for.
[quote]Bigfoot833 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
I actually never said anything about different types of hypertrophy, I was just giving the OP some information about programs with partial reps, which is what he asked for. [/quote]
Read the OP’s original post
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
…well maybe you should point him in the right direction instead of jumping down his throat. Your seriously have an attitude problem X and I think you should sort it the fuck out.
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
…well maybe you should point him in the right direction instead of jumping down his throat. Your seriously have an attitude problem X and I think you should sort it the fuck out.[/quote]
Or the OP could read the “best of T-Nation” sticky and thus learn what matters and what doesn’t?
Or use the search function?
Some people, believe it or not, get fed up with spoon-feeding others after having done just that for years prior.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
…well maybe you should point him in the right direction instead of jumping down his throat. Your seriously have an attitude problem X and I think you should sort it the fuck out.[/quote]
Or the OP could read the “best of T-Nation” sticky and thus learn what matters and what doesn’t?
Or use the search function?
Some people, believe it or not, get fed up with spoon-feeding others after having done just that for years prior.
[/quote]
For real. I mean, we just fucking had this discussion…AGAIN. So, we can post a link to all threads about the subject…but if we don’t literally hold their hand and repost the same info another 5,000 times, that means WE have an attitude problem.
LOL.
HEY, look what I found by simply typing “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” into the search engine…as the FIRST entry that pops up:
Wow, check the date on that one!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
HEY, look what I found by simply typing “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” into the search engine…as the FIRST entry that pops up:
Wow, check the date on that one![/quote]
Why can’t people respond without sarcasm? What does that prove? How does it help? Just curious.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
HEY, look what I found by simply typing “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” into the search engine…as the FIRST entry that pops up:
Wow, check the date on that one![/quote]
We probably have one such thread for every other month… Of the past 8 years.
But OP forgive me, of course this thread is unique. You added “partial reps” to the topic. I have no idea why ANYONE would come up with such a ridiculous and overly specialized topic (unless for trolling purposes?), but whatever. Some 120lb kid is going to chime in with what he’s read in “impractical programming (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy edition)” or whatever on the subject and teach the old dogs a lesson in syllable-abuse…
[quote]younggully wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
HEY, look what I found by simply typing “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” into the search engine…as the FIRST entry that pops up:
Wow, check the date on that one![/quote]
Why can’t people respond without sarcasm? What does that prove? How does it help? Just curious.[/quote]
11th Rule Of The Universe:
-The more often the same question has been asked, the more sarcastic the replies must become.
The whole point of the post wasnt geared to the type of musclegrowth, but whether partial reps would help in that type of program
[quote]TheGatekeeper wrote:
The whole point of the post wasnt geared to the type of musclegrowth, but whether partial reps would help in that type of program[/quote]
See, I know what your post was geared towards…but if you build a foundation of knowledge on bullshit, don’t be surprised when it all topples like a house of cards years down the road.
By even thinking that somehow muscle is “altered” because you did “12 reps” instead of “3 reps” could even affect how much intensity some newbs put into their training.
We have seen this here before. People are so caught up in what they read somewhere (despite their lack of a formal education in that area), that some even began thinking that their results lay in exactly how many reps were performed instead of whether the weight they were using was truly outside their comfort zone.
Gatekeeper, you caught a bad case of overthinkingitis.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gatekeeper, you caught a bad case of overthinkingitis.
[/quote]
The only thing that gets me…is the idea that we are two steps behind them when we respond to posts.
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
…well maybe you should point him in the right direction instead of jumping down his throat. Your seriously have an attitude problem X and I think you should sort it the fuck out.[/quote]
Yes, Mr. Has No Fucking Pictures or Proof of Training, please call out one of the most respected members of the T-Nation community.
Thank you.
[quote]Wiskonstantin wrote:
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone still using “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” in a sentence as if it has been proven that humans somehow gain “different” muscle through a specific rep range clearly do not have much of a scientific background.
Until one of you shows proof of this occurring in nature in humans, how about we quit making shit up?[/quote]
…well maybe you should point him in the right direction instead of jumping down his throat. Your seriously have an attitude problem X and I think you should sort it the fuck out.[/quote]
Yes, Mr. Has No Fucking Pictures or Proof of Training, please call out one of the most respected members of the T-Nation community.
Thank you.[/quote]
You really don’t get it do you. This is not an episode of Jerry Springer, there is no ‘calling out,’ mere observation. Some of X’s posts are simply down right rude and often stiffles discussion - this is a discussion forum right?
This seems to be a recent thing on X’s part because in his older posts there is alot less attitude. He’s obviously is a very intelligent guy with regards to weight lifting and I for one, when scrolling, used to stop and read his post because more often than not they were worth the read. It pisses me off when someone like X who has so much to offer to this community is all to willing to shoot someone down because they are not quite as knowledgable as he is. He really should drop attitude and return to the X that I learned so much from.
BTW I don’t need pictures to know that I lift weights, and I don’t need you to believe me that I lift weights either. I’m here to learn what I can and perhaps share some advice from my own training if the opportunity arises - which you can take or leave.