There is a book called "Static Contraction Training" by Peter Sisco and John Little which I'm interested in. Seems like most either love it or hate it. It looks to me like a well researched method promising better results with less time by means of a more efficient, better optimised workout. I want to get to the bottom of it! (or at least work out if it's worth buying and using as a beginner)
I did a search on the forum and was surprised that it turned up nothing!
1. Who has tried it and what were your results?
2. Who thinks it's a better way to train and why?
3. Is it fundamentally flawed?
4. Should it be combined with other training?
PS I'm also interested in some of their other books on "Power Factor" etc.
I'm looking foward to hearing what you guys have to say about it, thanks [img]smile.gif[/img]
Maybe if you stated your goals, then we could help you a bit more. I haven't read either book, but maybe after hearing your goals myself or others could suggest other books.
I have not read the book - if it is entirely on static contraction training, I would look elsewhere. Static contraction training is a very specialized form of training that should be used minimally in ones training cycle - certainly not as the sole method.
I know the authors, and I'm familiar with their books. They're good guys, but the basic premise -- holding heavy weights with your muscles fully contracted (Static Contraction Training) or moving them through a very limited range of motion (Power Factor Training) will build humongous muscles -- is just not supported by any research.
And there's really no practical reason to believe either technique will work for you, either.
Think about it: Everyone who has lifted successfully, since the beginning of time, has figured out that moving heavy objects through a full range of motion is best for building strength and size.
So now we're supposed to believe that these two guys, neither of whom has any training in exercise physiology (John Little was an editor at Flex magazine when I worked for Weider), have figured out a way to get better results that no one else has discovered? In the entire history of exercise training?
Like I said, John and Pete are nice guys. I really enjoyed working with John for the several years we intersected at Weider.
But these ideas make no sense. Isometrics may have a benefit for certain high-level bodybuilders at certain phases of their training cycles. Powerlifters have successfully used short-range-of-motion exercises to supplement their traditional lifts.
Beginners and intermediates have no reason to use either technique.
Originally posted by Keith: Maybe if you stated your goals, then we could help you a bit more. I haven't read either book, but maybe after hearing your goals myself or others could suggest other books.
My main weight training goal is increase lean muscle mass. I've picked up a few books from the local library, but would consider buying a good book if it seemed like a good book to keep for reference.
Quote:
Static contraction training is a very specialized form of training that should be used minimally in ones training cycle - certainly not as the sole method.
So what is static contraction actually useful for?
Lou you say it's not supported by research? I thought they conducted considerable research. I've heard as a criticism that they showed too much of it! Hmmm ... (not that I've read it)
Quote:
So now we're supposed to believe that these two guys, neither of whom has any training in exercise physiology (John Little was an editor at Flex magazine when I worked for Weider), have figured out a way to get better results that no one else has discovered? In the entire history of exercise training?
I first heard of their book on a Tony Robbins video, although seeing them didn't help much, since neither of them looks like they work out at all. However, I don't know about their education or background. What I have seen from them, via the video and websites, makes sense to me so far.
I'm puzzled ... have they found a way to train more efficiently? Do people seem to disregard it merely because they are resistant to new ideas? Some seem to say it has a place, but a very small place but from what I've seen, this is not how they are promoting it.
I'm not trying to be controversial or provocative, I want to figure out if this is worth looking into further ...
If you want to look into it, look into it. No one's stopping you. I've given you advice from an industry insider's perspective. Believe me, if there were any reason to believe these techniques work the way the authors say they do, researchers would be studying them.
The best analogy is SuperSlow training. For years, this one cranky guy in Florida claimed all these magical benefits of lifting light weights slowly, with special machines, and in rooms set at exactly one temperature, with no music, and with lighting arranged a special way.
The researchers who knew about it just shook their heads -- nobody could take stuff like that seriously.
But when people did begin to take it seriously, when legions of trainers were promoting it and books about SuperSlow were becoming bestsellers, researchers studied it ... and found that the reality was actually worse than anyone expected.
Now only was SuperSlow not remotely comparable to conventional strength training, it didn't do anything. It didn't build any muscle or real-world strength, or increase metabolism, or confer any cardiovascular benefits.
But that's what you get when someone with no training in exercise science sets out to prove that everyone with that training is wrong.
You say that people like me are perhaps "resistant to new ideas."
Let me flip it around: You're an architect, right?
Let's say someone with absolutely no background in architecture came to you with new ideas about how to construct buildings.
This person said that buildings don't really need foundations, and that anyone who insisted they did was simply resistant to new ideas. And as proof that his ideas were sound, this person offered you studies he'd conducted himself, and success stories from people -- not one of whom was involved in construction professionally --who'd constructed buildings successfully without foundations.
Would your first reaction be, "Hey, this guy must be right!"
Or would it be, "Why would anyone believe that a building could be safely constructed without a foundation?"
oravita,
Static contraction training is not a 'new' idea - it came to the forefront in American 50 years ago. A well known weightlifting club used it as an auxiliary to their main training.
Other clubs thought this training was a secret to success - they specialized, making it their sole focus - they grunted and strained until muscles tore and hernias popped yet no progress...This is a story I recall from Milo magazine (now there is money worth spending).
I believe research has found that it has a very limited carryover to a specific range of motion and joint angle. Thus, a few powerlifters will use it occasionally in their training - but even within that population static contraction training has practically been eliminated.
Firstly I want to say I don't see why this discussion should turn into an argument or heated debate. I'm asking questions to learn, not to aggravate anyone here.
Quote:
Believe me, if there were any reason to believe these techniques work the way the authors say they do, researchers would be studying them.
Lou, my understanding of history and of human nature leads me to believe that SOMETIMES valid and improved ideas are often overlooked.
Quote:
But that's what you get when someone with no training in exercise science sets out to prove that everyone with that training is wrong.
I've had another look at the interview with the two authors and I don't believe they are saying everyone is wrong. Most of what they are saying seems to agree with what everyone else is saying.
The main point of difference seems to be that they claim full range of motion is not required to increase strength or gain mass, that the intensity of overload is the important thing. They had experienced golfers use their techniques as it has been thought that technique and not strength is important, and the range of motion is extreme. They found a significant increase in the distance achieved with their drives.
They also did research with 40,000 subjects experienced in weight training and achieved a significant increase in strength.
Maybe their research was not conducted correctly, but at the moment I can't say.
Quote:
You say that people like me are perhaps "resistant to new ideas."
No, I did not say that. This is what I said:
"Do people seem to disregard it merely because they are resistant to new ideas?"
I asked a question, and this is not a rhetorical question!
Quote:
Let me flip it around: You're an architect, right?
Let's say someone with absolutely no background in architecture came to you with new ideas about how to construct buildings.
This person said that buildings don't really need foundations, and that anyone who insisted they did was simply resistant to new ideas. And as proof that his ideas were sound, this person offered you studies he'd conducted himself, and success stories from people -- not one of whom was involved in construction professionally --who'd constructed buildings successfully without foundations.
Would your first reaction be, "Hey, this guy must be right!"
Or would it be, "Why would anyone believe that a building could be safely constructed without a foundation?"
That buildings require a foundation is fundamental to the definition of "building" - otherwise you have a boat, a plane, a cave or something else that is not a building. And that you need a footing to transfer the load to the earth (foundation) is a matter of common sense and the law of gravity. This is easily established by anyone without any special qualification.
However ...
Is there a law of physiology that states beyond question that complete range of motion is needed to achieve overload?
Current practice and theory seems to be predominantly based on the idea that full range of motion is the best way. But have the two approaches really been properly researched?
These two guys come along and research it, and I don't know if they did it right. They may have biased their methodology or results in some way. Or they might have marketed their results in a way that makes their method seem the "be all and end all."
But who has actually done proper and independant research on this?
Another possibility is that maybe their system is great for those who don't really like weight training, who would otherwise do nothing ...
What puts me off:
1. very heavy weights are needed, almost to the point of being impractical and ridiculously expensive
2. special equipment needed (I want to work out at home) - however, I could possibly build something myself
3. the authors don't look like people who work out despite following their own system
Obviously it's not a practical way to start weight training. I'm starting weight training this week with a more conventional approach and a basic bench and free weights. Down the track if I can find a practical way to try out their system, I might do that and decide if it's worth doing based on my own results. Thanks to everyone who posted so far
IMO a little trust in the knowedge of lou and jerry might be in order. They're both obviously knowedgible and it sounds like they've had experiance with this kind of training at one time or another.
I don't think anyone is actually going to bust out with a refute for this kind of training...which seems basicly what you're looking for.
I actually occaisionally use a static contraction for some exercises, periodically. Not on all muscles though. For example, static lateral holds seem to be a nice change for my shoulders every now and then.
I don't think that it would be effective to do for one's entire workout regemin. Particularly because it almost exclusively requires a single joint exercise (with no movement), which means using machines as opposed to free weight movements.
Also, siting some of what I learned from Chad this weekend, muscle growth does not result from merely holding a muscle in a contracted position, but actually contracting the muscle, which means from a stretched position to its shorest position in a range of motion. Hypertrophy, which is the primary goal of a lifter looking to increase mass, occurs when you more-or-less "damage" the muscle cell so it can rebuild itself ideally a little bigger and stronger.
Same with powerfactor training. Some aspects of it may be good for adding to a program, but not as an exclusive means for training. I remember back in the early 90's when that was really big... Personally I think the bodybuilders flocked to it because it allowed them to load their bars with lots of ego-building plates, which they would always rack in the most noisy manner to get people to all turn their heads.
That being said though, I believe there is a place for that kind of training. I had good results in my early heavy squatting days by loading my bar with 500-600 pounds, which in a million years I would not be able to squat, but I would hold it for a minute, then rack it, strip down to 400, and - psychologically at least - it felt so much lighter that I felt more confident attempting a full squat with it. As it turns out (according to something I read by Bill Hartman) it was also helping me to develop my trunk stability, which is crucial for doing heavy squats. That doesn't mean that the static hold by itself, or really heavy partial training by itself, would be effective or beneficial to my training. Its in conjunction with the other exercises that they make good supplemental exercises from time to time.
I need to re-index my search function though, because static training has been discussed quite a bit in here. Try a search on dynamic tension to see if that turns up anything. I know that over a year ago we discussed the hell out of this topic. Hope that was helpful
oravita if you're looking for more reading to improve your knowledge base I started a thread for people to post their favorite fitness reading and there are some good options here http://forums.jpfitness.com/noncgi/u.../t/003332.html
I can empathize with you in that you have come across a different approach that seems to fit the kind of training you want to do and will fit your schedule, etc. You try and check into it and find little info available and this forum tells you that it is not supported by research. That there is no rersearch does not necessarily make the technique invalid.
However, I think that in our own fields we recognize that the "gut feeling" or what makes sense actually doesn't work all of the time. If you spend sometime looking at the "research" that has been done by many in the fitness BUSINESS I think that you will find a great deal of runs between sloppy and unscientific to misleading and self serving to fabrications. If you want to trace the reasearch for this particular method you should contact the authors. If you ask on a forum, I think it would be in order to consider the qualifications and expertise of the people responding to your questions.
My experience in tracking down the research behind many techinques is that real research simple does not exist. Even with the "proven" and "accepted" methods, most information is anecedotal. There is not a lot of information out there, especially in comparison to some other activities such as jogging. Money is not there to fund this because the interest is yet there. No offense to those doing informal studies and to those trying to "make do" with what research is out there, but REAL studies ultimately have to come out of the the universities. This is not going to happen in the near future because of funding for studies and ressistance training is currently low on the list.
So where does that leave us, the beginners looking for the ideal program in a sea of misinformation, poor information and shysters?
I think that at first, it is a bit of a blind leap of faith, because it is difficult to get your hands on the actual studies that people refer to. Since they are so few and far between the bulk of "bad methods" are refuted by anecdotal experience, and the lack of funding means that they will never be tested unless they become a big phenomena and then it will probably be an 8 - 12 week study...
So that is why I made the comment that you have to go back to looking at who is answering your posts and what they have done in the industry/field.
I think if you google Lou, you will find he is a leader in fitness, and what he has written is as much as possible backed up by the sparse research that is available, and more importantly when it is not he tells you that the inof is based on an inofrmal study (but what the hell that is all we have to go - His book the Testostorone Advantage Plan is a good example of that.) He references the real studies and tells you what is anecdotal.
(There are many others who are very qualified on this forum both by experience, academic training, research, etc., but I cannot give partial CV of everyone because I am not qualified and it would be anecdotal, LOL)
My point being that if there is only anecdotal evidence to go on it would make sense to go with a proven winner, who has shown winning results. Many of the short cut techniques have been taken out of context. They are a "clipping out of a body builder' routine". Whay are they not effective for you or me the beginner/intermediate? Off the top of my head...
• Like anything taken out of context, they do not work out of context, they might be effective for a short period in part of a routine for an advanced lifter as Lou hints ("beginners and intermediates have no reason to use either technique.")and JP says ("That being said though, I believe there is a place for that kind of training")
• We cannot train the way these guys do, No roids, so we do not get the growth that they do from isolation and specialized exercises.
You said
"What puts me off:
1. very heavy weights are needed, almost to the point of being impractical and ridiculously expensive
2. special equipment needed (I want to work out at home) - however, I could possibly build something myself
3. the authors don't look like people who work out despite following their own system"
1. You do not need to buy everything at once, I styarted with a barbell, dumbells and a bench.
2. Special equipment... There is a fantastic book that is called Men's Health Home Workout Bible
You can do a FULL work out with only Dumbbells (though Dumbbells, a barbell and a bench is better)
3. the authors don't look like people who work out despite following their own system"
Have a look at Lou. Unless you are a sprinter (and a fast one at that) you would not want to kick any sand in his face.
All that being said, I am also somewhat new to the fitness lifestyle and I did have similar inclinations when I started but the more I learned, the I realized that there are some very informed and informative people on this forum. when in doubt, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sincerely,
Peter
__________________
Peter
After all, diamonds are a girl's best friend…
Linear Mode
