hey im in the middle of the book Power Factor training by Little and Sisco. the nutrition section is just a joke (it has to be ) but does their outloook on training make any sense? the way they use science to explain their style of training kinda makes sense. can anyone whos also read it tell me if they think their style of training works or what?
I’ve read both their Power Factor book and their Static Contraction training book. I did both styles of training for an extended period.
It doesn’t work. I think it is a terrible method to base your entire training system around. Partials have their place in a training routine, but they’ve based the entire system on only doing partials.
Learn from my mistakes and don’t bother with this, or Static Contraction training, for that matter.
There are plenty of good training routines that incorporate either technique into a better overall balanced training routine. Check out Coach Thib’s Beast Building Routine instead. Chad Waterbury also had a good routine in his Muscle Revolution book that uses partials. Either routine is superior to Power Factor training.
I read and used it several years ago. I thought the same thing. It looks really really cool…on paper.
I won’t go into details of why it sucks (ReallyAngryVader and Modok put forth some good reasons), but keep in mind that book is pretty old. Haven’t heard about anyone growing huge because of that kind of training. And while the authors themselves note the success they had with it, notice how they talk in terms of a couple weeks or months. No long term success stories.
They talk about how your muscles get this much bigger super awesome stimulation with partials because of the heavier weight. It’s just better leverage. Your muscles aren’t going to “notice” the weight is superheavy because they have an easier time moving it.
EDIT: And you see how laughable the nutrition section is? Well they’re using the same flawed logic in math in the rest of the book.
Let me put it to you this way…if you write a book on partial training and then decide that repetition range in ANY form is just wasted movement (they went on to write “static contraction training”) you know you’re a loon. Yes they wrote an entire book on working out in which you never even do a rep, much less a partial rep. You just held static contractions and tried to beat your last time.
Or how’s this example: Mike Mentzer wrote a vague praise of one of the author’s and it was put in the opening intro to the book.
Mike went out of his way later to demote the intro as taken out of context and he in no way supported partial or static training all alone (as opposed to an intensifier) and that you still needed to do full rep sets.
He said that it wouldn’t cause sufficient stress and that you wouldn’t get enough stimulus from it.
So if the one set Jedi Windu says your routine doesn’t have enough volume (TUL) in it, you know you’re the suck.
[quote]medevac wrote:
Let me put it to you this way…if you write a book on partial training and then decide that repetition range in ANY form is just wasted movement (they went on to write “static contraction training”) you know you’re a loon. Yes they wrote an entire book on working out in which you never even do a rep, much less a partial rep. You just held static contractions and tried to beat your last time.
Or how’s this example: Mike Mentzer wrote a vague praise of one of the author’s and it was put in the opening intro to the book.
Mike went out of his way later to demote the intro as taken out of context and he in no way supported partial or static training all alone (as opposed to an intensifier) and that you still needed to do full rep sets.
He said that it wouldn’t cause sufficient stress and that you wouldn’t get enough stimulus from it.
So if the one set Jedi Windu says your routine doesn’t have enough volume (TUL) in it, you know you’re the suck.[/quote]
Not only that, one of the authors went on to write a THIRD book saying that you should only do static contractions at the point that the muscle is in total flexion. Which contradicts about half the exercises given in the previous two books.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Not only that, one of the authors went on to write a THIRD book saying that you should only do static contractions at the point that the muscle is in total flexion. Which contradicts about half the exercises given in the previous two books.
[/quote]
I want some of that Jesus Juice he’s on.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
medevac wrote:
Let me put it to you this way…if you write a book on partial training and then decide that repetition range in ANY form is just wasted movement (they went on to write “static contraction training”) you know you’re a loon. Yes they wrote an entire book on working out in which you never even do a rep, much less a partial rep. You just held static contractions and tried to beat your last time.
Or how’s this example: Mike Mentzer wrote a vague praise of one of the author’s and it was put in the opening intro to the book.
Mike went out of his way later to demote the intro as taken out of context and he in no way supported partial or static training all alone (as opposed to an intensifier) and that you still needed to do full rep sets.
He said that it wouldn’t cause sufficient stress and that you wouldn’t get enough stimulus from it.
So if the one set Jedi Windu says your routine doesn’t have enough volume (TUL) in it, you know you’re the suck.
Not only that, one of the authors went on to write a THIRD book saying that you should only do static contractions at the point that the muscle is in total flexion. Which contradicts about half the exercises given in the previous two books.
[/quote]
Oh man, I didn’t realize they had wrote a third, but I guess after the first two, I don’t think I would have read it if I had known about it anyway.
Alright, any guesses as to what the NEXT book will be?
I’m thinking they’ll abandon the idea of lifting weights with your hands. Instead you’ll support the weights with your shoulders or biceps or knees!
“Lifting weights with your mind”, but inside they explain how you should support the weight either on or against your head.
You know it’s funny, the first time I heard of EDT, I immediately thought of Power Factor Training. Except that EDT is like a bazillion times better and actually works.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
I’ve read both their Power Factor book and their Static Contraction training book. I did both styles of training for an extended period.
It doesn’t work. I think it is a terrible method to base your entire training system around. Partials have their place in a training routine, but they’ve based the entire system on only doing partials.
Learn from my mistakes and don’t bother with this, or Static Contraction training, for that matter.
There are plenty of good training routines that incorporate either technique into a better overall balanced training routine. Check out Coach Thib’s Beast Building Routine instead. Chad Waterbury also had a good routine in his Muscle Revolution book that uses partials. Either routine is superior to Power Factor training.[/quote]
Agreed, it was a huge waste of time when I tried it.
thanks guys, just needed some reassurance.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Its probably the worst training program ever put on the market.[/quote]
Quoted because it HAD to be said again…
It really does look good on paper at first.