A very worthwhile read.
Partial & Variable Range of Motion (ROM) movements are "superior" to full ROMs
MYTHS:
1. Jay Cutler & Ronnie Coleman use bad form but hey if it works for them (gentetic freaks)... for everyone else its just cheating;
2. You must touch the bar to your chest when you bench press...ass to grass or you're legs will be twigs...etc.;
3. Partial ROMs will weaken your full ROM strength;
4. Full ROMs are superior to partial ROMs if overall strength is the goal and if hypertrophy is the goal.
The truth is that if you use heavy weight, over a partial range of movement, such that you keep constant tension on THE target muscle for a sufficient duration AND lift with an explosive concentric such that maximium force is generated your muscles will grow*.
* - as long as you eat sufficiently for recovey & growth, don't overly tax the CNS, lift with enough frequency that anabolism outpaces catabolism, etc.
Relevant studies:
An Examination of Strength and Concentric Work Ratios During Variable Range of Motion Training, Ross A Clark, Adam L Bryant, and Brendan Humphries, J Strength Cond Res, August 14, 2008
Variable range of motion (ROM) training consists of partial ROM resistance training with the countermovement being performed at a different phase of the movement for each set. In this study, we assessed the effect of this method of training on peak force, load lifted, and concentric work performed.
Six male subjects with resistance training backgrounds (age 20.2 +/- 1.3 years, height 179.4 +/- 4.6 cm, weight 89.6 +/- 9.9 kg, 6-repetition maximum [6RM] bench press 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg) participated in this study.
Testing consisted of 6RM bench press strength tests during full (FULL), three quarter ((3/4)), one half ((1/2)), and one quarter ((1/4)) ROM from full elbow extension bench press performed on a Smith machine. The 6RM load, peak force (PF), and concentric work (W) performed during each ROM was examined using a one-way analysis of variance performed at an alpha level of p < 0.05.
The 6RM load increased significantly as the ROM was decreased for all tests (FULL = 92.5 +/- 14.3 kg, (3/4) = 102.1 +/- 14.3 kg, (1/2) = 123.3 +/- 23.6 kg, (1/4) = 160.9 +/- 26.2 kg). PF during each test was significantly higher during the (1/4) (1924.8 +/- 557.9 N) and (1/2) (1859.4 +/- 317.1 N) ROM from full elbow extension bench press when compared with the (3/4) (1242.2 +/- 254.6 N) and FULL (1200.5 +/- 252.5 N) ROM exercise. Although higher force levels were evident, the restriction in barbell displacement resulted in a subsequent reduction in W as the lifting ROM was reduced. These results suggest that variable ROM resistance training results in increased force production as the ROM diminishes.
So Load and Peak Force go up as ROM goes down. But as you reduce the bar displacement the Work goes down...so you would need to do more work (i.e. reps) to equal the full ROM's concentric work level.
Resistance training modes: specificity and effectiveness, MC Morrissey, EA Harman, and MJ Johnson, Med Sci Sports Exerc, May 1, 1995; 27(5): 648-60.
Abstract:
There is considerable demand for information on the effectiveness of various resistance exercises for improving physical performance, and on how exercise programs must match functional activities to produce the greatest performance gains (training specificity). Evidence supports exercise-type specificity; the greatest training effects occur when the same exercise type is used for both testing and training.
Range-of-motion (ROM) specificity is supported; strength improvements are greatest at the exercised joint angles, with enough carryover to strengthen ROMs precluded from direct training due to injury. Velocity specificity is supported; strength gains are consistently greatest at the training velocity, with some carryover.
Some studies have produced a training effect only for velocities at and below the training velocity while others have produced effects around the training velocity. The little, mainly isokinetic, evidence comparing different exercise velocities for improving functional performance suggests that faster exercise best improves fast athletic movements. Yet isometric exercise can improve actions like the vertical jump, which begin slowly.
The rate of force application may be more important in training than actual movement speed. More research is needed into the specificity and efficacy of resistance exercise. Test populations should include both males and females of various ages and rehabilitation patients.
Spectral EMG changes in vastus medialis muscle following short range of motion isokinetic training, Y Barak, M Ayalon, and Z Dvir, J Electromyogr Kinesiol, Oct 2006; 16(5): 403-12
Abstract:
This study was aimed at exploring the carryover effect of short range of motion (RoM) isokinetic conditioning on vastus medialis (VM) motor unit recruitment (MUR) across the full RoM. Fifty-five women were randomly assigned to one of four groups: G1 (n = 14) and G2 (n = 14) trained concentrically at 30 and 90°/s, respectively whereas G3 (n = 13) and G4 (n = 14) trained similarly but using the eccentric mode. All 4 groups trained within 30–60° of knee flexion.
The training protocol consisted of 4 sets of 10 maximal repetitions, 3 times a week for 6 weeks. sEMG was recorded from the VM for analysis of mean frequency of the EMG power spectrum prior to the training period and 2 days after its termination. The EMG assessments took place during dynamic contractions within 3 angular RoM’s: 85–60° (R1), 60–30° (R2) and 30–5° (R3). In addition MUR was evaluated during isometric contractions at 10°, 45° and 80°.
Significant increases were observed in the MUR at R1, R2, and R3 during dynamic contractions as well as in all 3 angles during isometric contractions. These findings applied equally regardless of the mode of contraction and motion speed during training.
The fact that MUR increased significantly within untrained RoM’s may point out to the potential benefits of short RoM conditioning, particularly in those cases where, during specific phases of rehabilitation, a wider RoM may be contraindicative.
So there is a carryover effect of increasing strength in the untrained upper and lower ROMs.
Overcoming the limitations of full ROM resistance training: The effects of variable ROM training on performance, activation, stiffness and muscle architecture, R. Clark, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Volume 9, Supplement 1, December 2006, Page 24
ABSTRACT:
Traditional full ROM resistance training has a number of limitations when used for training athletes. These include terminal deceleration, limited eccentric overload and a non-specific countermovement position. This study examined the effect of a variable ROM training program, consisting of partial ROM training with countermovements performed at a different ROM for each set, on upper body ballistic, isokinetic and isometric strength as well as musculotendinous stiffness, neuromuscular activation and muscle architecture using ultrasound.
Twenty-two semi-professional rugby league players were assigned to either a variable ROM (VROM) or full ROM (CON) 5 week training program, with both protocols equalised for concentric work. Testing consisted of isokinetic bench press throughout both the full ROM and half ROM from full extension, isometric strength and EMG at one quarter intervals throughout the bench press ROM, bench throws performed both with and without elastic energy contribution, upper body musculotendinous stiffness and pennation angles and muscle thickness of the long and medial head of the triceps brachii using ultrasound.
Testing revealed that the VROM group significantly improved a number of performance factors such as bench throw height and isokinetic peak force in comparison with the CON group. The results also suggest that VROM training also produces beneficial adaptations to the force/ROM curve. Therefore, this method of training appears to provide beneficial performance adaptations in athletes with extensive resistance training backgrounds, and may provide superior sports specific performance gains when used intermittently in an athletes training program.
There is value in varying the band of partial range movement...within a training session or between training sessions.
The load & force generated is higher when you do partials of say 1/2 ROM. The tension stays on the muscle targeted unlike full ROMs which take tension off/or shift the target muscle at the extremes of full ROMs. Strength is increased along the full range. There is less strain on connective tissue.
The only caveat is that overall work will decrease which may be restored simply by adding a rep or three.
Here is an elaboration:
Name: ovidweb.jpeg Views: 50 Size: 29.6 KB
An Examination of Strength and Concentric Work Ratios During Variable Range of Motion Training, Ross A Clark, Adam L Bryant, and Brendan Humphries, J Strength Cond Res, August 14, 2008
From the Intro:
A resistance training program utilizing the full range of motion (ROM) may not be optimal for enhancing muscle force levels. In this respect, previous studies have shown that full ROM exercises consist of a large deceleration phase (2,5,9), resulting in a substantial proportion of the movement being performed at force levels far below maximal. What makes this submaximal performance during the exercise so detrimental from an athlete’s point of view is that it occurs toward the terminal range of the movement (ROM), which is often the critical phase for athletic performance.
From the Discussion:
The results of this study reveal that both the load lifted and peak force output increase as the ROM of the bench press exercise is decreased toward terminal elbow extension. These findings are somewhat supported by the study of Mookerjee and Ratamess (8), who reported that concentric velocity did not decrease dramatically during partial ROM exercises despite an increase in the load lifted.
These findings suggest that VROM training may help to overcome one of the major limitations of full ROM resistance training, terminal deceleration toward the end range of the movement....
Notes:
2 - Elliott, BC, Wilson, GJ, and Kerr, GK, A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press, Med Sci Sports Exerc 21:450–462, 1989.
"A possible mechanism which envisages the sticking region as a force-reduced transition phase between a strain energy-assisted acceleration phase and a mechanically advantageous maximum strength region is postulated."
5 - Lander, JE, Bates, BT, Sawhill, JA, and Hamill, J. A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 17: 344–353, 1985.
"A "sticking region" was defined as the portion of the free-weight activity when the subjects' force application was less than the weight of the bar."
8 - Mookerjee, S and Ratamess, N. Comparison of strength differences and joint action durations between full and partial range-of-motion bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 13: 76–81, 1999.
9 - Newton, RU, Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, K, Humphries, BJ, and Murphy, AJ. Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 12: 31–43, 1996
A very good study:
Comparison of Strength Differences and Joint Action Durations Between Full and Partial Range-of-Motion Bench Press Exercise, Mookerjee, S and Ratamess, N., J Strength Cond Res 13: 76–81, 1999
Intro:
Muscular strength has been shown to vary throughout the range of motion (ROM) of a given joint (2, 4, 17, 24, 25, 26). Possible mechanisms for this phenomenon may be due to the muscle length–tension relationship (17, 24), moment arm length (17), and muscle activation and mass (25). Variations in strength can be depicted as strength curves (17), which permit the identification of areas of highest force output. Most of the literature focuses on isometric strength for single- joint movements, and limited data are available for dynamic, multijoint resistance exercises.
Dynamic partial range of motion (partial ROM) training is an advanced strength-training technique frequently utilized by athletes in many sports. Zatsiorsky (33) has described the accentuation principle, where the intent is to train in the range of motion where there is demand for maximal force production. One form of this type of training is designed to overload the musculoskeletal system with supramaximal loads (greater than 100% of one repetition maximum [1RM]) in the area of the ROM where maximal force is produced. It is believed that adaptations occur in response to the extreme overload via a decline in neural inhibition (28).
Studies on the bench press show an area of the ROM where maximal force production occurs (5, 18). For a dynamic lift, this ROM is beyond the "sticking point" near full elbow extension (5, 18). Wilson et al. (30) found that this area for an isometric bench press was at an elbow angle of 120 degrees.
Most studies on dynamic partial ROM training were performed on clinical population samples in which subjects had limited ROM (9, 10). These studies showed that partial ROM training increased isometric strength at the specifically trained ROM and in full ROM (9, 10). Similarly, other studies using isometric training have demonstrated angular specificity of strength improvements and a spillover of strength of 6208 from the trained joint angle (14, 15, 24).
Sullivan and colleagues (23) studied moderately experienced, weight-trained subjects during the barbell curl exercise. They found partial ROM exercise produced greater torque compared to full ROM exercise. However, data on dynamic, partial ROM traininginduced differences in muscular strength in advanced subjects is limited and needs to be addressed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (a) investigate strength differences following an acute exposure to full and partial ROM bench press exercise using 1RM and 5RM (five repetition maximum) and (b) describe elbow joint action durations during full and partial ROM bench press exercise at 1RM and 5RM.
Discussion:
The initial finding in this study was the occurrence of a statistically significant difference in partial ROM bench press performance in advanced subjects who performed both full ROM and partial ROM bench press exercises. Following two testing sessions with 4 days during which subjects continued to train (only avoiding use of the bench press and any supplemental exercise), subjects’ partial ROM bench press increased by 4.8 and 4.1% for the 1RM and 5 RM, respectively (see Figure 1). Individuals who train exclusively in a full ROM may fail to optimally train in the area of the ROM where maximal force developement occurs. This is possibly due to the load requirement for the full ROM bench press being limited by the "sticking point" (5).
...
Loads used for the partial ROM bench press exceeded that of the full ROM bench press. During the second testing session, loads were 10.7 and 17.6% greater in the partial ROM for the 1RM and 5RM tests, respectively. These results corroborate previous work (5, 18, 31) on the bench press where this ROM was described as the area of maximal strength. The results also support the findings of Sullivan et al. (23), who reported greater torque production during performance of partial range of motion barbell curls.
...
The partial ROM technique facilitates training with higher loads than is possible with full ROM movements.
Notes:
1. CALLAWAY, C.W., W.C. CHUMLEA, C. BOUCHARD, J.H. HIMES, T.G. LOHMAN, A.D. MARTIN, C.D. MITCHELL, W.H. MUELLER, A.F. ROCHE, AND V.D. SEEFELDT. Circumferences. In: Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R.M. Martorell, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1988. pp. 39–54.
2. CAMPNEY, H.K. AND R.W. WEHR. Significance of strength variation through a range of joint motion. Phys. Ther. 45:773–779. 1965.
3. CARPENTER, D.M., J.E. GRAVES, M.L. POLLOCK, S.H. LEGGETT, D. FOSTER, B. HOLMES, AND M.N. FULTON. Effect of 12 and 20 weeks of resistance training on lumbar extension torque production. Phys. Ther. 71:580–588. 1991.
4. CLARKE, H.H., E.C. ELKINS, G.M. MARTIN, AND K.G. WAKIM. Relationship between body position and the application of muscle power to movements of the joints. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 31: 81–89. 1950.
5. ELLIOTT, B.C., G.J. WILSON, AND G.K. KERR. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21:450–462. 1989.
6. ELORANTA, V., AND P.V. KOMI. Function of the quadriceps femoris muscle under the full range of forces and differing contraction velocities of concentric work. EMG Clin. Neurophysiol. 20:159–174. 1980.
7. ELORANTA, V., AND P.V. KOMI. Function of the quadriceps femoris muscle under the full range of forces and differing contraction velocities of concentric work. EMG Clin. Neurophysiol. 21:419–431. 1981.
8. FLECK, S.J., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1987.
9. GRAVES, J.E., M.L. POLLOCK, A.E. JONES, A.B. COLVIN, AND S.H. LEGGETT. Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 21:84–89. 1989.
10. GRAVES, J.E., M.L. POLLOCK, S.H. LEGGETT, D.M. CARPENTER, C.K. FIX, AND M.N. FULTON. Limited range-of-motion lumbar extension strength training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 24:128–133. 1992.
11. HORTOBAGYI, T., AND F.I. KATCH. Role of concentric force in limiting improvement in muscular strength. J. Appl. Physiol. 68:650– 658. 1990.
12. JACKSON, A., T. JACKSON, J. HNATEK, AND J. WEST. Strength development: Using functional isometrics in an isotonic strength training program. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 56:234–237. 1985.
13. KITAI, T.A., AND D.G. SALE. Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 58:744–748. 1989.
14. KNAPIK, J.J., R.H. MAWDSLEY, AND N.V. RAMOS. Angular specificity and test mode specificity of isometric and isokinetic strength training. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 5:58–65. 1983.
15. KNAPIK, J.J., J.E. WRIGHT, R.H. MAWDSLEY, AND J. BRAUN. Isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic torque variations in four muscle groups through a range of joint motion. Phys. Ther. 63:938–947. 1983.
16. KOMI, P.V. Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int. J. Sports Med. 7:10–15. 1986.
17. KULIG, K., J.G.ANDREWS, AND J.G. HAY. Human strength curves. Exerc. Sports Sci. Rev. 12:417–466. 1984.
18. LANDER, J.E., B.T. BATES, J.A. SAWHILL, AND J. HAMILL. A comparison between free-weight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 17:344–353. 1985.
19. MADSEN, N., AND T. MCLAUGHLIN. Kinematic factors influencing performance and injury risk in the bench press exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16:376–381. 1984.
20. POLLOCK, M.L., S.H. LEGGETT, J.E. GRAVES, A. JONES, M. FULTON, AND J. CIRULLI. Effect of resistance training on lumbar extension strength. Am. J. Sports Med. 17:624–629. 1989.
21. RUTHERFORD, G.M., AND D.A. JONES. The role of learning and coordination in strength training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 55:100– 105. 1986.
22. SALE, D.G. Testing strength and power. In: Physiological Testing of the High-Performance Athlete. J.D. MacDougall, H.A. Wenger, and H.J. Green, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1991. pp. 76–77.
23. SULLIVAN, J.J., R.G. KNOWLTON, P. DEVITA, AND D.D. BROWN. Cardiovascular response to restricted range of motion resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:3–7. 1996.
24. THEPAUT-MATHIEU, C., J. VANHOECKE, AND B. MATON. Myoelectrical and mechanical changes linked to length specificity during isometric training. J. Appl. Physiol. 64:1500–1505. 1988.
25. TSUNODA, N., F. O’HAGAN, D.G. SALE, AND J.D. MACDOUGALL. Elbow flexion strength curves in untrained men and women and male bodybuilders. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 66:235–239. 1993.
26. WEIR, J.P., L.L. WAGNER, AND T.J. HOUSH. The effect of rest interval length on repeated maximal bench presses. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:58–60. 1994.
27. WILLIAMS, M., AND L. STUTZMAN. Strength variation through the range of joint motion. Phys. Ther. Rev. 39:145–152. 1959.
28. WILSON, G. Strength and power in sport. In: Applied Anatomy and Biomechanics in Sport. J. Bloomfield, T. Ackland, and B. Elliott, eds. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994. pp. 110–208.
29. WILSON, G.J., B.C. ELLIOTT, AND G.A. WOODS. The effect on performance of imposing a delay during a stretch–shorten cycle movement. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23:364–370. 1991.
30. WILSON, G.J., B.C. ELLIOTT, AND G.K. KERR. Bar path and force profile characteristics for maximal and submaximal loads in the bench press. Int. J. Sport Biomech. 5:390–402. 1989.
31. WILSON, G.J., A.J. MURPHY, AND J.F. PRYOR. Musculotendinous stiffness: Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:2714–2719. 1994.
32. WILSON, G.J., G.A. WOOD, AND B.C. ELLIOTT. Optimal stiffness of series elastic component in a stretch–shorten cycle activity. J. Appl. Physiol. 70:825–833. 191.
33. ZATSIORSKY, V. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.
