How Do I Interpret This Study About ROM?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n1/4/v8n1-4pdf.pdf

This results of this study suggest that the bottom third of the preacher curl ROM, the middle third of the incline dumbbell curl , and the top third of the standing curl activate the biceps better than the other variations at other angles (Figure 2).

They used 40%1RM. They measured electrical activity in the long head (Abstract).

Now we go full range of motion in multi-joint lifts because many muscles are involved and each work more or less at different angles of the lift.

Curls however pretty much emphasize the biceps only (if you do them right). Can I look at this study and infer that I’ll hit my biceps harder by doing the highest-activating ROM for each exercise?

Or would be I short-changing myself?

2

You’d be short changing yourself.

3

You bringing this issue and that study up shows you’re lost.

4

Possibly… Dave Tate has a video talking about Ronnie, and how people say so much shit about full ROM but he’s stayed injury free and lifts heavy weight with steady gains with his ROM. While you may want to throw in full ROM occasionally to make sure you can still work through it, who knows you may be able to cut some gym time by sticking to the ROM’s listed.

5

Do it.

Train like that exclusively for one year on one arm, and use exlusively full ROM for the other, then report back with your findings.

Please don’t post again until then-- I’ll be waiting eagerly for the results.

6

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Possibly… Dave Tate has a video talking about Ronnie, and how people say so much shit about full ROM but he’s stayed injury free and lifts heavy weight with steady gains with his ROM. While you may want to throw in full ROM occasionally to make sure you can still work through it, who knows you may be able to cut some gym time by sticking to the ROM’s listed.
[/quote]

Exactly. Pete Sisco nailed this concept years ago.

7

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Do it.

Train like that exclusively for one year on one arm, and use exlusively full ROM for the other, then report back with your findings.

Please don’t post again until then-- I’ll be waiting eagerly for the results.[/quote]

No, seriously, full and partial ROM has its place. Each individual will respond differently to different stimuli different ways at different points in their lifting ‘career’.

Ronnie Coleman’s training exceptions at his level probably isn’t the best place for newish or even intermediate lifters to start with or create ‘rules-of-thumb’ from.

The problem I have with studies like this is it takes a small population, in this case 22 people with at least 1 year of training, none of whom are over 200 lbs. People will see some ‘conclusion’, which is really just a ‘suggestion from the data’ and apply it to everyone. Those people are likely to be Men’s Health readers and Personal Trainers.

Soon, it becomes “The best way to train biceps for everyone is partial ROM curls-- be in and out of the gym in 10 minutes and get HUGE!”

That’s the slippery slope (IMO)

8

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The problem I have with studies like this is it takes a small population, in this case 22 people with at least 1 year of training, none of whom are over 200 lbs. People will see some ‘conclusion’, which is really just a ‘suggestion from the data’ and apply it to everyone. Those people are likely to be Men’s Health readers and Personal Trainers.

Soon, it becomes “The best way to train biceps for everyone is partial ROM curls-- be in and out of the gym in 10 minutes and get HUGE!”

That’s the slippery slope (IMO)[/quote]

I agree with that; I can see how the results can be misused. It’s important to think outside the box though. You might hit on something.

I’m intrigued by the idea that, at least in isolation movements, a whole portion of the movement could be replaced with a portion that works.

I actually didn’t know Ronnie trained like that.However, I do want to know what Louie Simmons says about it. Anyone have a link?

Thanks Guys

PS. Shutup Bricknyce. Unhelpful prick. Use the few minutes it takes to post something mean and unhelpful by mulling over why you feel like you need to overcompensate for your ( insert something mean and unhelpful here).

9

[quote]anonym wrote:

Pete Sisco nailed this concept years ago.[/quote]

No, he didn’t. It sounded good on paper, but there are several members on this site that’ll back me up when I say that Sisco’s theories do not work in practice. At least, not on their own.

10

I think there is nothing wrong with partial ROM workouts.
The problem comes is with WHICH PARTIALs you do.
People tend to stick to easier range, for example the upper 50% for bench press and squat.

11

[quote]akram.mohamed wrote:

PS. Shutup Bricknyce. Unhelpful prick. Use the few minutes it takes to post something mean and unhelpful by mulling over why you feel like you need to overcompensate for your ( insert something mean and unhelpful here).
[/quote]

He was being helpful. You just didn’t realize it. Here’s the deal: you started a thread asking for advice on how to make sense of a study you don’t quite understand on your own. If you are trying to force some kind of revelation out of a study that doesn’t quite add up to you, then you are lost.

Bricknyce actually paid you a compliment. He could’ve treated you like a complete idiot and told you exactly where you were going wrong. Instead, he gave you credit by dropping a hint and letting you figure it out for yourself. You responded by calling him an unhelpful prick.

Maybe you need to go to your room and think about what you’ve done.

Check your ego at the door and use your brain. I could’ve taken that study to its logical conclusion and devised some fucked-up hybrid exercise. If you take that study as gospel, it’s quite easy to come up with a “theoretically perfect” exercise, that makes no sense in practice. Let me demonstrate how I created the “perfect” curl: you start the exercise by doing a preacher curl, but as you move out of the optimal ROM, you drop the barbell, move to an incline bench set up behind you, pick up a pair of dumbbells, and move gracefully into the second phase of the exercise by executing the middle third of an incline curl. As you reach the top of the movement, you stand up, lose the dumbbells, grab the barbell, and pull it to full contraction for the final phase. Congratulations! You have now completed the “perfect” curl.

You might not get any growth out of it, and random gymgoers might even point and laugh at you, but at least you’ll have a study to justify training like a complete clown.

12

This study can be ignored for the following reasons.

Unsufficient data about the population (level of training)
Low relative load used for poor practical relevance (40% MVC)
Normalized dynamic movement to isometric contraction is irrelevant for data interpretation
Poor analysis outlined
Flawed methodology - uniaxial accelerometer for joint position data is invalid, therefore the weak description of how analysis was performed is irrelevant.

This study was done by MSc students, apparently supervised by a PhD candidate.
Ignore this study, flawed methods and invalid conclusions.

This is published in a low quality journal and has serious flaws.

13

Hello, and thanks, Roybot. How are you? You ever get my PM?

Akram, I don’t think I’m an unhelpful prick. But I understand if you took my post the wrong way. So I apologize.

Here’s why I think you, and a whole slew of people running around this forum ARE lost. Successful bodybuilders and strength athletes, unless they actually work in an academic and/or clinical setting in nutrition and exercise physiology (eg, Lonnie Lowery), seldom, if ever, look at studies like this. Although some top bodybuilders are cerebral (eg, Dorian Yates), I doubt they ever bother with this stuff. You’d be far better off with referring to CT’s articles on program design for bodybuilders than looking at studies like this. I think his articles series titled “How to Design a Damn Good Program” and an article titled “Your Training Roadmap” (I think that’s the name) are all that one needs to design their own routine for bodybuilding.

Most bodybuilders do the same shit as one another with little differences suited to their needs. It’s all the same shit:

Days per week: 4 to 5
Number of exercises for large muscle groups: 2 compound, 1 to 2 isolation
Number of exercises for small muscle groups: 1 to 2 compound, 1 to 2 isolation
Sets: 1 to 4 main sets, depending on how they train
Reps: 6 to 15
Type of split: up to the individual

THAT’S IT!

Granted, more competent guys use exercises that “agree” with their bodies or give them the best results. But I’ve never ever seen a successful bodybuilder do anything different than this. That’s why quibbling over the interpretation of academic exercise physiology studies is ALMOST useless. If you want to do it because you just like reading that stuff, that’s fine. Go ahead.

I have a pending MS (one more course to go) in nutrition with an exercise physiology concentration. The courses on exercise deal more with sports nutrition and weight control rather than the sort of academic stuff you’ve pointed us to here. However, I still have never bothered looking at an exercise study for reassurance that a particular exercise will be effective for me. I think it’s safe to say that the bigger guys on here haven’t either.

14

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

Pete Sisco nailed this concept years ago.[/quote]

No, he didn’t. It sounded good on paper, but there are several members on this site that’ll back me up when I say that Sisco’s theories do not work in practice. At least, not on their own.[/quote]

yup

15

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Hello, and thanks, Roybot. How are you? You ever get my PM?

Akram, I don’t think I’m an unhelpful prick. But I understand if you took my post the wrong way. So I apologize.

Here’s why I think you, and a whole slew of people running around this forum ARE lost. Successful bodybuilders and strength athletes, unless they actually work in an academic and/or clinical setting in nutrition and exercise physiology (eg, Lonnie Lowery), seldom, if ever, look at studies like this. Although some top bodybuilders are cerebral (eg, Dorian Yates), I doubt they ever bother with this stuff. You’d be far better off with referring to CT’s articles on program design for bodybuilders than looking at studies like this. I think his articles series titled “How to Design a Damn Good Program” and an article titled “Your Training Roadmap” (I think that’s the name) are all that one needs to design their own routine for bodybuilding.

Most bodybuilders do the same shit as one another with little differences suited to their needs. It’s all the same shit:

Days per week: 4 to 5
Number of exercises for large muscle groups: 2 compound, 1 to 2 isolation
Number of exercises for small muscle groups: 1 to 2 compound, 1 to 2 isolation
Sets: 1 to 4 main sets, depending on how they train
Reps: 6 to 15
Type of split: up to the individual

THAT’S IT!

Granted, more competent guys use exercises that “agree” with their bodies or give them the best results. But I’ve never ever seen a successful bodybuilder do anything different than this. That’s why quibbling over the interpretation of academic exercise physiology studies is ALMOST useless. If you want to do it because you just like reading that stuff, that’s fine. Go ahead.

I have a pending MS (one more course to go) in nutrition with an exercise physiology concentration. The courses on exercise deal more with sports nutrition and weight control rather than the sort of academic stuff you’ve pointed us to here. However, I still have never bothered looking at an exercise study for reassurance that a particular exercise will be effective for me. I think it’s safe to say that the bigger guys on here haven’t either.
[/quote]

Well. I know when I’m wrong, and I’ll be man enough to admit it. I apologize for responding rashly without fully thinking over what you meant and for calling you a prick.

I actually DO like reading that kind of stuff. IDK why. That particular study was hard for me to grasp so I felt like I could get some good opinions here. I’m just a freshman in the exercise science program so any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Just lay it out though, I’m not great at picking up hints. Especially online.

So studies like that are worthless huh? Damn…

16

look up the Jerre Telle articles, called Telekinetics, he goes through some of the same ideas with movements like leaning lateral raises. Also look at the mechanical drop sets that utilize the weaker range of motion first then progress to the stronger one all as one set - they would be applications of the study you provided.

17

If you’re an exercise physiology student and like being one, of course you like reading that stuff.

I DON’T believe studies are entirely worthless, considering I’ve read hundreds - mostly in nutrition. They are useful, but I believe only in some aspects for a bodybuilder.

18

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
If you’re an exercise physiology student and like being one, of course you like reading that stuff.

I DON’T believe studies are entirely worthless, considering I’ve read hundreds - mostly in nutrition. They are useful, but I believe only in some aspects for a bodybuilder. [/quote]

Where do you get your sources? I’m limited to various free online journals and pubmed.org

Honestly, I’m no bodybuilder. My main goal is better athletic performance for rugby. I just like reading and interpreting research so I can apply it to my major and get an edge on the other students.

Thanks

19

If you want to have fun with your idea, rather than go to the extreme you suggested, you could split the difference and do 1 1/3’rds on each exercise.

So don’t throw out the full ROM of the preacher curl, but try doubling up on the bottom third of the motion. I.e., come up a third, back down, up all the way: that is one rep. Etc.

If on the last set at some point you feel like you won’t be able to do any more reps doing them that way but could continue with full reps, I’d suggest finishing out with regular full reps.

Or when doing the incline DB curl, come up 2/3, lower down to 1/3, then all the way up and then back down, as one rep. Ditto on switching to regular full reps if need be to finish out the last set.

On the standing curl I wouldn’t bother with such a technique: just do full reps. A conclusion that it particularly loads the biceps at the top is nuts. A machine will give you more tension at the top.

I am not saying that this is the new, better way to train. Regular reps work just fine. But if you want to utilize this idea for fun, I think this would be a better approach to doing that than just doing partials in each exercise, and won’t be a setback compared to regular full reps, at least not if used for only a relatively brief period of time such as a couple of months or something.

20

[quote]akram.mohamed wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
If you’re an exercise physiology student and like being one, of course you like reading that stuff.

I DON’T believe studies are entirely worthless, considering I’ve read hundreds - mostly in nutrition. They are useful, but I believe only in some aspects for a bodybuilder. [/quote]

Where do you get your sources? I’m limited to various free online journals and pubmed.org

Honestly, I’m no bodybuilder. My main goal is better athletic performance for rugby. I just like reading and interpreting research so I can apply it to my major and get an edge on the other students.

Thanks[/quote]

Why not just go to your college’s library?