Thread: Short R.O.M. vs. Full Extension

To me, honestly, I dont see the point. However, from a bodybuilder standpoint, perhaps its used to sculpt? Bah.

I know that during bench pressing, the sticking points can differ for anyone, so theyd deliberately work only in the difficult range of motion to improve the flow. Examples, putting a block on the chest to work the middle portion of the lift or going down a quarter to half way down just to use triceps. The thing is, when they are done practicing that area, they go right back into full rom anyway..

Its one of those methods that would be used if it has to be, but Id say it usually isnt necessary.

I think it provides benifit to a certain type of training. Doing so on the higher rep ranges (10+), fatigues the muscles more as you do not "lock out" and the muscles are in a constant state of tension and as fast twitch muscles begin to drop out, more and more slow twitch muscles are recruited and the cns efficiency/adaptation has to increase as well. Hell, I could be way off.

That doesnt explain the specific deduction in ROM. You can do what you are describing by doing a full ROM.

when you full lock out it takes tension off the muscle, you want to have as much time under tension on the muscle as you can.

Originally Posted by rockhardly

I think it provides benifit to a certain type of training. Doing so on the higher rep ranges (10+), fatigues the muscles more as you do not "lock out" and the muscles are in a constant state of tension and as fast twitch muscles begin to drop out, more and more slow twitch muscles are recruited and the cns efficiency/adaptation has to increase as well. Hell, I could be way off.

I agree with this.
I think the idea is by stopping just short of lockout, you keep the load off the bones and on the muscles. But I don't think that's considered a shorter ROM, you're still going down to the chest and just an inch from straight arms. I think this kind of ROM can be beneficial. The other kind of short ROM's I know of is similar to not going past parallel in a squat. Going down to the chest in a press or near straight armed with a curl is like going into the hole on a squat. It's so much harder to get out once you get in so stopping short of that is a way of cheating out a few more reps. Otherwise, you may not get it back up and the set is over.

This is what brought this to mind.....Jump to 1:04 or so..



Of course, at his stage of training, considering that this was being done as a warm-up, and that he was focusing primarily on chest work, the benefits may not be the same for the average lifter.....although I'm sure there is a specific reason behind it all.

Originally Posted by FMJ

I agree with this.
I think the idea is by stopping just short of lockout, you keep the load off the bones and on the muscles. But I don't think that's considered a shorter ROM, you're still going down to the chest and just an inch from straight arms. I think this kind of ROM can be beneficial. The other kind of short ROM's I know of is similar to not going past parallel in a squat. Going down to the chest in a press or near straight armed with a curl is like going into the hole on a squat. It's so much harder to get out once you get in so stopping short of that is a way of cheating out a few more reps. Otherwise, you may not get it back up and the set is over.

Well sure. Now you got tempo into play.

To be honest though, I think most people who shorten their ROMs are too weak to do full ROMs.

Again, there are specifics. 10 years ago I wanted to make fun of someone going crazy fast while benching, never hearing about Speed Benching. Just goes to show, there are reasons for some lifts other than stupidity.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

To be honest though, I think most people who shorten their ROMs are too weak to do full ROMs.

Exactly my feeling too. I'd rather get into the hole, struggle for my life and fail than get two more cheat reps, just my preference.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

Well sure. Now you got tempo into play.

To be honest though, I think most people who shorten their ROMs are too weak to do full ROMs.

True and not true. Depends on their intent. If your loaded to 90% 1rm and you're not locking out, you're being a sissy and affraid of the weight. On the other hand, if you're using 60% of 1rm and you're at a 1/0/1 tempo and not locking out thru the entire set, I would not say you're to weak but just trying what you feel (right or wrong) is helping you reach your goal.

I must say that I alternate this into my workouts from time to time:

3 excercises of 3 sets of 4x6 heavy compounds (full lockout) followed by 3 excercises of 1 set of 1x20-30 light isolation (just short of lock out). I like the way it tops off a good heavy workout and gives a good pumped feeling. Right or wrong, me and my mirror like it.

Originally Posted by rockhardly

True and not true. Depends on their intent. If your loaded to 90% 1rm and you're not locking out, you're being a sissy and affraid of the weight. On the other hand, if you're using 60% of 1rm and you're at a 1/0/1 tempo and not locking out thru the entire set, I would not say you're to weak but just trying what you feel (right or wrong) is helping you reach your goal.

I must say that I alternate this into my workouts from time to time:

3 excercises of 3 sets of 4x6 heavy compounds (full lockout) followed by 3 excercises of 1 set of 1x20-30 light isolation (just short of lock out). I like the way it tops off a good heavy workout and gives a good pumped feeling. Right or wrong, me and my mirror like it.

But again, I don't think not locking out is a range restriction.. I think it's more of not lowering the weight enough in a press or staying about parallel in a squat, etc.

I do not believe that you gain anything by locking out in an exercise such as the flat bench. That last inch or half inch is not a challenge and I feel that you are better off not completely locking out. This keeps the force on the muscles rather than the bones and prevents the work muscles from taking a break at the top. Even in a bench contest you are not completely locking out at the top. I am also concerned with hyper extension if I lock out with a heavy weight, the last thing I want is for my elbow to try to go in the wrong direction. This is really a factor in the leg press, if you lock your legs out you risk hyper extending your knees.
ROM is really apparent in the leg press. How many guys do you see loading 10 plates on each side and doing a quarter rep? The leg is incredibly strong in the first quarter, after that it gets difficult.

Nothing wrong with going just short of locking out, whenever I do a set on the bench that is greater than 10 reps I will go just short of locking out with a fast pace. I feel like locking out each and every time puts unnecessary stress on the joints in your arm.

I do full extension, but I try not to pause when fully extended. I do have some pauses though, when i'm trying to get one or two extra reps, right after I take it off the rack and right before I rack it.

Originally Posted by rockhardly

True and not true. Depends on their intent. If your loaded to 90% 1rm and you're not locking out, you're being a sissy and affraid of the weight. On the other hand, if you're using 60% of 1rm and you're at a 1/0/1 tempo and not locking out thru the entire set, I would not say you're to weak but just trying what you feel (right or wrong) is helping you reach your goal.

I must say that I alternate this into my workouts from time to time:

3 excercises of 3 sets of 4x6 heavy compounds (full lockout) followed by 3 excercises of 1 set of 1x20-30 light isolation (just short of lock out). I like the way it tops off a good heavy workout and gives a good pumped feeling. Right or wrong, me and my mirror like it.

What do you mean true and not true.. Are you a mind reader? Who knows why people are doing what they are doing.. I am only offering suggestions, as you are, so in the long run you agree 100%.

Ill accept rep points now.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

Who knows why people are doing what they are doing..

I thought you did. "To be honest though, I think most people who shorten their ROMs are too weak to do full ROMs"

I just don't agree that just because someone is not locking out at the top, means they can't fully execute the excercise and I am saying that they may be doing it deliberately. Also, the original post was not about cheating at the bottom of the concentric but not fully locking out at the top of the eccentric.


Your points are in the mail.

3 things:
1.) I got the eccentric and concentric in the above statement reversed.
2.) When I said True but not true, I should have said Agree but disagree.
3.) And I don't know what people are thinking, that is why I said "it depends on their intent".

Originally Posted by rockhardly

I thought you did. "To be honest though, I think most people who shorten their ROMs are too weak to do full ROMs"

I just don't agree that just because someone is not locking out at the top, means they can't fully execute the excercise and I am saying that they may be doing it deliberately. Also, the original post was not about cheating at the bottom of the concentric but not fully locking out at the top of the eccentric.


Your points are in the mail.

I used the word think didnt I? I do not know why. But I can bet that most of them are just plain pussies, ok?

How many times must we go over this?