Barbell Partial ROM better than Full ROM for hypertrophy

[LukeV]

This study was reported on another website as evidencing greater hypertrophy from partial ROM skull-crushers (49% tricep growth after eight weeks @ 3 sets, 8 reps, 8RM) compared to full ROM (28%). Full ROM as superior to partial for hypertrophy seems such an established 'fact' (at least in bro science) that I still find this result hard to believe. Anyone have an explanation for this result or wider implications for hypertrophy training?

1. Goto, M., Hamaoka, T., Maeda, C., Hirayama, T., Nirengi, S., Kurosawa, Y., Nagano, A., & Terada, S. (2017). Partial range of motion exercise is effective for facilitating muscle hypertrophy and function via sustained intramuscular hypoxia in young trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002051

 

[jca17]

That reminds me of Pavels slow twitch fiber protocol. Partials can be very good for hypertrophy. Just look at all the guys at commercial gyms with big upper bodies who dont seem to have ever seen a full rom lift of any kind
Every pullup or bench press seems to leave out the starting and ending third of the movement, which is exactly what Pavel (yes, Pavel) recommends for a certain hypertrophy protocol.

Should You Train Your Slow Twitch Fibers? | StrongFirst
(3 more articles follow in the series)

 

[North Coast Miller]

I wonder if there was any difference in max 1RM in that range as well. Did PRE elicit greater hypertrophy and strength in that 45-90° ROM.

To me this is not only evidence of the metabolic stress aspect of hypertrophy but maybe (almost certainly) of specificity as well.

Of late I have been incorporating a lot of static hold at the elbow - 70 - 110° approx with most of the dynamic movement at the shoulder. I am not surprised that this has increased my bicep size, but my triceps have gotten larger as well, and a lot more defined. Have also gotten a lot stronger at...static exertion in that ROM.

 

[Incoqnito]

Myo-reps in English

Cut’n paste from the article:

1. By keeping constant tension on the muscle, i.e. shorten the ROM by 10% on top (avoid locking out the weight) and 10% in the bottom (resting the weight or overstretching the muscle), you will mimic the occlusion effect and reach higher fiber recruitment faster.

 

[Kettlebelephant]

(49% tricep growth after eight weeks @ 3 sets, 8 reps, 8RM) compared to full ROM (28%)

I didn't even looked into the study, but what kind of stick-armed total newbies did they use that could increase their tricep size by 50% (!!!!) in just 8 weeks
Seems fishy and not representative...

Regarding partials I do think that they can yield better local hypertrophy, if you use the right circumstances.
For example half-squats and full-squats with the same weight. Nobody would argue that the full squats are better for hypertrophy in that case, but what if you significantly increase the weight for the half-squats (which you'll be able to)?
Your will probably experience more hypertrophy in your quads. On the downside your hammies and glutes won't grow that much, because by using the limited ROM you mostly take them out of the movement.

 

[Chrisdavisjr]

stick-armed total newbies

As a stick-armed newbie, I resent that.

But you're totally right; it does sound like we're not getting the whole picture here: I must admit I did open this thread half expecting it to be an April Fool's joke, but there you go.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

...keeping constant tension on the muscle, ... (avoid locking out the weight) and 10% in the bottom (resting the weight...) you ... mimic the occlusion effect and reach higher fiber recruitment faster.

The Occlusion (KAATSU) Training Effect

This produces Metabolic Stress (aka, The Pump).

Arterial Blood flows from the heart to the muscles.

However, blood flow from the muscle back to the heart (Venous Blood Flow) is restricted/occluded. The contraction of the muscles during exercise restricts/occludes blood flow back the heart.

The muscles becoming balloons being blow up/pumped up with blood instead of air producing "The Pump".

Venous Blood flow restriction/occlusion increased Lactate. Lactate triggers anabolic growth hormones, elicits hypertrophy.

With that said, the Metabolic Stress/The Pump is one of the key factors for hypertrophy.

Mechanical Tension

This is another factor that enhances hypertrophy. This is triggered with Limit Strength Training (1 Repetition Max) Training.

Muscle Damage

This is the third contributory factor for eliciting hypertrophy. It is produced by...

1) Training To Or Near To Failure: Pushing the muscle at at the end of your training cycle to failure or near to it.

2) Loaded Full Range Of Motion Movements:

a) Ensure all of the muscle fiber are elicited and developed; ensuring greater muscle size.

b) Stretching the muscle in a Full Range Of Motion Movement stresses the muscle eliciting greater muscle growth.

Performing Loaded Full Range Stretching at the end of an exercise for 30 seconds has shown to increase muscle mass. The full loaded stretch for 30 seconds restrict/occludes Venous Blood Flow, magnifying Metabolic Stress/The Pump.

Bench Press Pec Example

After each set of the Bench Press, get a pair of heavy Dumbbells. Allow them to drop to the bottom part of a Dumbbell Bench Position and perform a 30 second Loaded Stretch.

Maximizing Muscle Growth

Partial Rep "Occlustion" is definitely a key to increasing muscle mass.

However, a greater effect will occur when all three factors are incorporated: Metabolic Stress, Mechanical Tension and Muscle Damage.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

I didn't even looked into the study, ...

It is impossible to comment on something you haven't read.

It amount to judging the book by it cover.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[jca17]

He read 49% triceps growth in 8 weeks and commented on that. Looking at the article, they say its in TRAINED men, and this isn't even mass or volume (although that sounds hard to measure in a live body), this is cross sectional area. If you want your study to get read, you can really shoot yourself in the foot with the results you claim. Some may read it because its the click bait era, others may choose not to read it for the same exact reason. With the high percentage of studies that are never reproduced (or even attempted to be reproduced), there's certainly not time or even wisdom in reading everything, and you've got to use some sort of filter (unless of course your profession is to be aware of all the current research).

All that being said, blood occlusion is known to be effective for hypertrophy, so I don't have reason to doubt that the results were representative, but this was also an isolation exercise. What about total body hypertrophy? If someone has trained but never bulked specifically, I can imagine that increase being possible in a specific muscle. What if we're looking for hypertrophy of the entire upper body and use a compound movement instead of a laboratory triceps isolation exercise? What if we look for upper arm circumference rather than an individual muscle cross section? Do we still say partials are more effective? Kenny, your reasoning looks more convincing than the article's abstract, plus it has decades of experience in actual gyms with actual athletes.

 

[North Coast Miller]

What if we look for upper arm circumference rather than an individual muscle cross section? Do we still say partials are more effective? Kenny, your reasoning looks more convincing than the article's abstract, plus it has decades of experience in actual gyms with actual athletes.

From what I have read, max muscle tension is developed at the midpoint of a ROM in most cases, spending more training time in that zone might be warranted - in some cases. I'd imagine if you did partials tri and bi, you'd get the entire upper arm larger than the controls.

Here's the point that is never explored in partial tests - is the 1RM for the partial group any higher in that ROM than the control doing a full ROM?

And to your question, is it possible to replicate this with other muscle groups to cover the entire body or is it dependent on individual muscle pennation angles, open/closed chain etc? I suspect this works best in isolation and on open chain movements. Compound movements not so much.

Not to hijack the thread, but this entire topic is very interesting to me because currently I've been tinkering with "work functional" lifting for my upper body, combining push/pull at the chest, shoulder, upper back/lats with arms kept at approx 90°.

I arrived at this by taking a look at where I was getting fatigued doing manual labor. Noticed I have a surplus in the legs and lower back (good), big pushing and pulling muscles seldom get challenged to their max either, but fatigue sets in decisively in the holding muscles grip and small ROM bi/tri/chest/shoulder.

Picture using a chain saw, standing at a vice using a large mill file or hacksaw, assembling heavy parts, picking up and moving heavy objects. In almost every case the elbow angle does not move dynamically, only 10-20° max either side of 90 (at 90° they are not only at their strongest in the ROM muscle fiber-wise, but mechanically have the most resistance to being extended or flexed (respectively) by external forces). If forced by circumstance initially to extend or flex to an extreme end of the ROM, they will seemingly on their own fight to get to that mid point range. You can prove this yourself next time doing odd object lifting or hard manual labor.

So I am not intentionally doing partial ROM as most of the arm exertion is static, but is far closer to partials than iso or full ROM.

My bis, tris and forearms are not getting 40% larger, but they are definitely getting bigger than they have in recent years doing compound movements with no isolation or assistance exercises. And no surprise, they are all getting a lot stronger in the stabilizing role I'm aiming for.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

...there's certainly not time or even wisdom in reading everything, and you've got to use some sort of filter...

"No one got dumbber by reading a book (research article, etc)"
Alwyn Cosgrove/ Strength Coach

My point is that one of the biggest keys to knowledge is to read the research, Commenting on something you haven't read is senseless.

It like this...

Analogy

Alien visit a basketball game. They report back to their leader that playing basketball makes you taller and sitting in the bleacher make you shorter.

In other word, "Snap Shot" of information never give you the whole picture.

That leaves you with three options.

1) Read the research article. If it makes some sense. Read the references to ascertain it's credibility: do you own home work.

2) Don't read the article. Don't comment.

3) Don't read the article. Then comment on something that you have read, know nothing about.

Wisdom

Greater wisdom is gain in a subject by reading the research; the more you read the more you know.

The amount of effort and time you want to spend in gaining that knowledge is an individual matter.

The common excuse for not doing more research is...

Don't Have Time

This is a poor excuse. It not that individual don't have time, it that they don't Make Time.

We Make Time for things we like to do or want to do. We Don't Have Time for things we Don't Like To Do.

In other word, we "Filter Out" thing that are not important to us.

(unless of course your profession is to be aware of all the current research).

My Profession

Researching information helps me in my profession as a Commercial Fitness Equipment Sale Rep. It help me in the organizations and group that I belong.

All that being said, blood occlusion is known to be effective for hypertrophy...

Your Knowledge Base

The majority of individual don't know what Occlustion Training or how it works.

The fact that you are familiar with Occlusion Training tell me that you do more research that most.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[jca17]

Kenny, Ill keep it short so as not to waste your time. Read about “opportunity cost”.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Read about “opportunity cost”.

That was too short. I have no idea about what you are eluding to.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[krg]

That reminds me of Pavels slow twitch fiber protocol. Partials can be very good for hypertrophy. Just look at all the guys at commercial gyms with big upper bodies who dont seem to have ever seen a full rom lift of any kind
Every pullup or bench press seems to leave out the starting and ending third of the movement, which is exactly what Pavel (yes, Pavel) recommends for a certain hypertrophy protocol.

Should You Train Your Slow Twitch Fibers? | StrongFirst
(3 more articles follow in the series)

What's interesting about this protocol is the deliberately slower speed used to particularly target a different muscle fibre type.

It would be interesting to know if this is a general feature of partial RoM training - I imagine it might be - I don't think I could do partial skullcrushers, squats or deadlifts at the same pace as a full lift - you'd just overshoot.

 

[Im out]

lol.

I have nothing positive to say on the topic.

 

[North Coast Miller]

What's interesting about this protocol is the deliberately slower speed used to particularly target a different muscle fibre type.

It would be interesting to know if this is a general feature of partial RoM training - I imagine it might be - I don't think I could do partial skullcrushers, squats or deadlifts at the same pace as a full lift - you'd just overshoot.

With the size of the hypertrophy the study reported, I'd assume it must hit all fiber types. Slow twitch alone just isn't going to get you anywhere near a 40% increase.

It is also probably not possible to do compound lifts like this without leaving a lot of muscle groups behind. Open chain isolation movements best candidates.

As mentioned already, I'm finding this a very interesting topic. Is very seldom I train my bis or tris specifically, and when I do is just rudimentary stuff at the end of a regular routine - full ROM curls and extensions. In my current routine they still aren't being specifically trained but are being used held in mostly static exertion at midpoint while the entire arm is moved from the shoulder. Also fairly low rep ranges - 4 to 6 mostly with some as high as 8 - not really "Pump You Up" range.

The other morning straight out of bed I had to do a double take at the visible veins on my biceps in the sink mirror. Not just the cephalic vein (lengthwise one on the outside of the bicep) which is always visible, but a bunch of the secondary ones also in evidence - this is not very normal when I'm pumped up, let alone flopped out of bed.

It may be some muscle groups are more geared by design to respond to specific stimulus. I cannot imagine someone increasing their quads 40% using the same study methods.

 

[jca17]

I think that its the wild proliferation of partial reps in commercial gyms that has resulted in a reaction of disdain. This is like when Pavel used to mock the bench press (laying down while training?) to make a point, rather than to say its actually a bad exercise.

Partials themselves have specific purposes. Partial DL's to get acclimated to higher weight, improve lockout, improve grip.
Pavel details a brutal looking biceps program in "Beyond Bodybuilding" making use of partials.
You do full reps from a rack and increase weight between sets until you reach your 3 rep max. Then raise the safety pins a level and do it again. As you acclimate, you're supposed to work that progression until you're doing 3 inch partials.

Can you imagine waiting at a packed gym to get your back squats in?
"Sorry, Pavel told me to use the power rack for bicep curl partials."

 

[Kettlebelephant]

^ +1

There's a difference between only using partials and maybe even calling them full reps (e.g. the guy doing quarter squats who's running around claiming to do 10rep sets with 400lbs) or having them in a well thought out plan that also uses full ROM lifts.
For example I know that top GS athletes like Denisov or Vasilev go for high rep (up to 100) quarter/half squats, because it translates well to their KB jerk.