Lengthened Partials

[MajorDomo]

Maybe Lou Ferrigno was ahead of his time

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/stretch-mediated-hypertrophy/

"Until only a couple of years ago, full range of motion (ROM) was widely accepted as the best approach for trainees seeking to gain muscle. It wasn’t uncommon for ROM to be treated as an open-and-shut case. The only plausible reason to use a partial ROM was to use more weight and stroke your ego.

However, more recently, the concept of “long-length partials” or “lengthened partials” has been gaining steam."

[IroNat]

Guys have been doing partial reps for 60+ years.

Sergio Oliva did them all the time back in the 1960s.

Nothing new here.

[MajorDomo]

Guys have been doing partial reps for 60+ years.

Sergio Oliva did them all the time back in the 1960s.

Nothing new here.

I agree with you except where research is now showing it can lead to 10%-15% greater growth than full ROM.

[IroNat]

I agree with you except where research is now showing it can lead to 10%-15% greater growth than full ROM.

Give it a shot and report back.
I'm just pointing out guys did it way back because they had good results.
I do partial reps all the time on some exercises.
On the topic of studies, a new one found that steroids really do work.

[MajorDomo]

Give it a shot and report back.
I'm just pointing out guys did it way back because they had good results.
I do partial reps all the time on some exercises.
On the topic of studies, a new one found that steroids really do work.

I actually am trying it on a few exercises.  The real problem with full ROM is the lockout on a number of exercises.

And yes, you know everything, lol.

[IroNat]

I actually am trying it on a few exercises.  The real problem with full ROM is the lockout on a number of exercises.

And yes, you know everything, lol.

I know a lot...mostly useless shit.
 

[robcguns]

I’ve been doing parties at the end of certain movements for 34 years now. I definitely believe it adds more growth.

[ESFitness]

I agree with you except where research is now showing it can lead to 10%-15% greater growth than full ROM.

amazes me when people quote studies not realizing there are studies that completely contradict the studies they quote, proving nothing more than the persons desire to elevate himself above those he's feigning to "educate".

[Phantom Spunker]

I’ve been doing parties at the end of certain movements for 34 years now. I definitely believe it adds more growth.

Would love to do a lengthy party with you, Rob. Still waiting on my invite.

[youandme]

Best to do partials once you’ve locked out.

[Van_Bilderass]

It's been mentioned here before but yes it's something that's been getting attention more recently. Though I don't know how many are doing sets of just lengthened partials; I did see one coach saying he didn't care to do the shortened part at all on standing calves for example.

It's not just partials, the lengthened part is key

[Dave D]

amazes me when people quote studies not realizing there are studies that completely contradict the studies they quote, proving nothing more than the persons desire to elevate himself above those he's feigning to "educate".

So who’s the expert?

[joswift]

we pick things up we put them down

[SweetDaddySiki]

I do partials when the weight is too heavy to lift. Then I put the weight down and take out my phone and see if the Hurricanes are playing tonight.

[Van_Bilderass]

I did see one coach saying he didn't care to do the shortened part at all on standing calves for example.

Many full range fanatics may have thought partials are cheating, for ego lifters or just lazy fuckers. But in the lengthened position it's not a junk rep. Of course, it probably doesn't matter what you do on calves, it's all genetics

just 30 seconds

[Zillotch]

I like the idea of getting more.. for less.

oftentimes, partials just feel right.

explosive reps r fun, too

[Humble Narcissist]

we pick things up we put them down

Partially or complete?

[snx]

I think the debate is neat. I think it's also novel that there's something new to talk about in hypertrophy training. But the effect size is disproportionately small in terms of hypertrophy.

The sheer number of videos on it would have you believe otherwise, but I digress.

There's some nice research showing where it has a place. For example (using Van's example), one can easily take of calf raises further using long lengthened partial reps, as opposed to stopping the set when a fully shortened concentric rep is no longer possible. I think we can all agree you're more likely to grow a muscle more if you do more reps with a given weight (well, I hope we can agree on this). How much total growth, though, needs to be kept in mind. It's not a huge unlock. It's a "why not do it"...but the effect size is subtle.

There are some conflicting evidenciary bits too, though. Lest we get all frothy about lengthened partials.

Evidence: a recent study showed that dumbell lateral raises are as effective for hypertrophy as cable side delt laterals. Side delt laterals (with dumbell) put maximum tension on the muscle in the shortened position (you can't do lengthened partials with them, because there's no appreciable tension on the muscle when you arms are at your sides). You would think if lengthened partial training were undeniable, then the side cable lateral (which does put the muscle under more tension at the lengthened portion of the movement) would be superior. But it's not demonstrably so...apparently we might have both movements as being rather fungible. I found that interesting, and the evidence-based gang doesn't talk about this that much. Should we believe that delts behave differently than calves, or biceps, or triceps (where we have evidence)? Or, is it a study error? Or just random data noise? I'm not sure. But if pressed, I would say "the effect size of long lengthened partial training is small, so don't get your hopes up. Do it, if you like it. Don't do it thinking you'll lose the Olympia if you don't".

I'll posit a problem I have in my brain, if we take this debate to it's logical extremes.

If lengthened partial training is to be revered, then one has to abandon the wide grip lat pulldown for lat size. No more should adduction for lats...just extension with a close grip. After all, close grip pulldowns truly put the lat at longest lengths, whilst the wide grip variety partially shortens the lats (by way of comparison) at the beginning of the movement. Taken to logical extremes, I guess there's no more room for wide grip pulldowns or pullups in my training, because why waste time with a movement that doesn't provide for maximum tension at the far nadir of a range of motion? And here's where I can't get there...I just have a hard time believing that we abandon one of the functions of the muscle (adduction) because of a focus on maximizing the other function (extension) due to a maniacal focus on range of motion and maximal moment arms at maximal muscle lengths.

If you have time to kill, and love a rather meandering debate (meandering in that it likely won't make you any bigger or stronger), check out Kassem's content on the pullover, or Lyle McDonald's content on the same. The sheer amount of time spent arguing over moment arms at long muscle lengths will make your eyes water.

The truth? It's just like someone above said. Pick something heavy up. Put it down. Repeat until you can't. Rest. Do it again. Then go eat something good. Whatever you get left with, is the result of your genetics and there's no fighting that city hall.

[Donny]

I think the debate is neat. I think it's also novel that there's something new to talk about in hypertrophy training. But the effect size is disproportionately small in terms of hypertrophy.

The sheer number of videos on it would have you believe otherwise, but I digress.

There's some nice research showing where it has a place. For example (using Van's example), one can easily take of calf raises further using long lengthened partial reps, as opposed to stopping the set when a fully shortened concentric rep is no longer possible. I think we can all agree you're more likely to grow a muscle more if you do more reps with a given weight (well, I hope we can agree on this). How much total growth, though, needs to be kept in mind. It's not a huge unlock. It's a "why not do it"...but the effect size is subtle.

There are some conflicting evidenciary bits too, though. Lest we get all frothy about lengthened partials.

Evidence: a recent study showed that dumbell lateral raises are as effective for hypertrophy as cable side delt laterals. Side delt laterals (with dumbell) put maximum tension on the muscle in the shortened position (you can't do lengthened partials with them, because there's no appreciable tension on the muscle when you arms are at your sides). You would think if lengthened partial training were undeniable, then the side cable lateral (which does put the muscle under more tension at the lengthened portion of the movement) would be superior. But it's not demonstrably so...apparently we might have both movements as being rather fungible. I found that interesting, and the evidence-based gang doesn't talk about this that much. Should we believe that delts behave differently than calves, or biceps, or triceps (where we have evidence)? Or, is it a study error? Or just random data noise? I'm not sure. But if pressed, I would say "the effect size of long lengthened partial training is small, so don't get your hopes up. Do it, if you like it. Don't do it thinking you'll lose the Olympia if you don't".

I'll posit a problem I have in my brain, if we take this debate to it's logical extremes.

If lengthened partial training is to be revered, then one has to abandon the wide grip lat pulldown for lat size. No more should adduction for lats...just extension with a close grip. After all, close grip pulldowns truly put the lat at longest lengths, whilst the wide grip variety partially shortens the lats (by way of comparison) at the beginning of the movement. Taken to logical extremes, I guess there's no more room for wide grip pulldowns or pullups in my training, because why waste time with a movement that doesn't provide for maximum tension at the far nadir of a range of motion? And here's where I can't get there...I just have a hard time believing that we abandon one of the functions of the muscle (adduction) because of a focus on maximizing the other function (extension) due to a maniacal focus on range of motion and maximal moment arms at maximal muscle lengths.

If you have time to kill, and love a rather meandering debate (meandering in that it likely won't make you any bigger or stronger), check out Kassem's content on the pullover, or Lyle McDonald's content on the same. The sheer amount of time spent arguing over moment arms at long muscle lengths will make your eyes water.

The truth? It's just like someone above said. Pick something heavy up. Put it down. Repeat until you can't. Rest. Do it again. Then go eat something good. Whatever you get left with, is the result of your genetics and there's no fighting that city hall.

P.O.F.  Training

[snx]

P.O.F.  Training

Bingo Donny.

I like how POF was exploring the topic ages ago. I will say, they did get it a bit backwards, but the intent is well intended.

It's likely best (if one believes in training a muscle in a shortened, then mid, then lengthened position), to start with a movement that trains the muscle in a fully shortened position, then a mid position, then a lengthened position. POF asks to train mid, then lengthened, then shortened, I believe.

If you do as POF instructs, you'll find it's quite hard to put a real good set forward in a contracted position if you've sufficiently challenged yourself with a lengthened position exercise first.

So, here's one way I might structure exercise selection, using the lats as an example:

First exercise: close grip cable rows
Second exercise: close grip lat pulldowns done with arms coming up about 120 degrees of flexion
Third exercise: close grip lat pulldowns done with arms coming up to 180 degrees of flexion

in the above, you go from training the lats in a shortened position, to gradually getting to a more lengthened position. Muscles are generally able to perform better when active tension is high at full moment arms.

But again...I think the effect is rather small.

Know how talked about this years ago, in very well thought out ways? Jordan Peters. Dude had some interesting videos out there.

But yes; the POF style of training definitely had an interesting idea on targeting a muscle with different exercise selection that targeted shortened, mid-, and long-length moment arms. I think there's wisdom to it, for what all that's worth.

[Van_Bilderass]

For example (using Van's example), one can easily take of calf raises further using long lengthened partial reps, as opposed to stopping the set when a fully shortened concentric rep is no longer possible. I think we can all agree you're more likely to grow a muscle more if you do more reps with a given weight (well, I hope we can agree on this). How much total growth, though, needs to be kept in mind. It's not a huge unlock. It's a "why not do it"...but the effect size is subtle.

I agree with everything you say. I kick myself for even reading about training at all as there's almost zero real world return for the investment

That said, I just trained calves doing donkey raises. 8 full reps, about 8 half range and then standing in the stretch as long as I could endure the pain. The research says straight leg calves are much more effective for size than bent leg, so that's another thing to keep in mind

Mentzer used to emphasize the importance of the fully shortened position, saying most or all fibers were activated there only IIRC. In the real world many large pro bodybuilders did neither fully lengthened nor shortened reps, like ever. One extreme example was Jason Huh from what I remember, 2 inch movements on everything but he was large

[Grape Ape]

Lots of experts on "lengthened parsh-als" in this thread

[Rambone]

I entered this thread with a partial (nh)

[POB]

Partials def work but only when the muscle fully stretched, so if u were gonna do this on a bench press the partial is from the chest to half way up, the guy who loads the bar and goes from start to half way down isn’t getting anything out of it

[snx]

I agree with everything you say. I kick myself for even reading about training at all as there's almost zero real world return for the investment

That said, I just trained calves doing donkey raises. 8 full reps, about 8 half range and then standing in the stretch as long as I could endure the pain. The research says straight leg calves are much more effective for size than bent leg, so that's another thing to keep in mind

Mentzer used to emphasize the importance of the fully shortened position, saying most or all fibers were activated there only IIRC. In the real world many large pro bodybuilders did neither fully lengthened nor shortened reps, like ever. One extreme example was Jason Huh from what I remember, 2 inch movements on everything but he was large

You're right about the "straight leg" calf training. This was something I found absolutely interesting from recent research. Namely, that straight leg calf training recruited the soleus just as efficiently as the seated calf raise. Or, put another way, given that both exercises are fungible for soleus growth, whilst the straight leg variety also recruits gastrocs...then simple posit becomes "why waste time with seated calf raises?".

Indeed...

There aren't a lot of bodybuilders who can point at their lower legs and say "you know what, my gastrocs are far too big to keep training, but I'm getting marked down for my crummy soleus development". Well...at least I like to think there aren't a lot of bodybuilders staying up at night thinking this. Hell....maybe there are.

In which case, go ahead and keep doing seated calf raises. Don't let me stand in the way of your dreams of expanding your soleus and ignoring your gastrocs. My god....that sentence hurts to read (and type). :-)