Opinions on Max Contraction Philosophy

camarosuper6 · 11-30-2004, 11:36 PM

I've posted a thread on this awhile back. Went to Borders today and read through John Little's book again on Max Contraction.

For those of you who don't know, it basically gives a full body routine, where he suggests doing one set of an exercise and holding it in the fully contracted position for 1-6 seconds. No more than 6 sec for maximum growth.

You use more weight than normal because you arent doing repetitions, and the greater the weight, the greater the overload, the greater the growth.

I know Ive used static holds and other similar things at the end of my workouts, and his theory behind this is ..... understandable ( all the fibers fire in the fully contracted position).

I wanted to know your thoughts...

**CowPimp** · 11-30-2004, 11:44 PM

That sounds interesting, but it does go against other principles out there. Namely, I read about one in a book by Zatsiorsky which he based on the notion of contractile protein degradation. Basically, the greater the intensity (As in percentage of your 1RM), the greater the level of contractile protein degradation. The greater the number of reps, the greater the level of contractile protein degradation. The greater the level of degradation, the greater the level of super-compensation. He determined that the range that optimizes this protein degradation is 4-12 repetitions (I believe; it may have been 5-12).

However, this doesn't mean Little's theory is incorrect. I'm merely presenting an alternative theory from the think tank of a respected physiologist. It's all hypothesis and theory. I believe it's worth trying at some point.

camarosuper6 · 11-30-2004, 11:47 PM

It seems logical. I would not use it as a stand alone training program though.

Duncans Donuts · 11-30-2004, 11:49 PM

Max Contraction theory is built on the idea of using more weight than you can during your 1-RM.

Simply put, the weakest range of motion is eliminated and the weight is held exclusively in the strongest range of motion and then controlled in a negative fashion.

ponyboy · 12-01-2004, 09:31 AM

So this is basically doing one long negative rep with more than 100% of your 1RM? Sounds like it would do something but I also would not use it as a stand alone. Plus the risk of injury is very high.

LAM · 12-01-2004, 10:16 AM

I would have to see a study performed with athletes before I could really comment since I haven't read the book. but the theroy behind it is surely nothing new. study has already shown that heavy eccentric training is optimum for hypertrophy...

Duncans Donuts · 12-02-2004, 06:21 PM

chris mason · 12-02-2004, 07:19 PM

Don't get me started on this idiot!!!

His theories suck cock and are complete crap. He is a Mike Mentzer/Art Jones wannabe who tries to use the basic ideas behind HIT style training and then tweak them in order to sell a book/system.

He is the same goof who promoted Power Factor training which involved using a very small ROM and very heavy loads.

These programs sound good on paper but fall terribly short in practice. The primary reason they fall short is that they utilize virtually no ROM (Range Of Motion).

His ideas might be useful as an adjunct to one's more traditional training but will result in a loss of size and strength if practiced solely.

Heck, heavy partials have been used for years as a valuable adjunct to training but they should never be used alone without standard ROM movements.

Why am I so vehement about this? Well, I was a fool who bought his Power Factor book several years ago and gave it a try for a couple of months. When finished I had lost size and my full ROM strength was in the toilet. My partial ROM strength went up but a 2-3" ROM increase in strength will in NO WAY translate to full ROM movements unless both movements are practiced concurrently.

The old S.A.I.D. (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand) bit me on the as on this one...

Dmwrss · 12-02-2004, 10:38 PM

the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones. the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course. thats my opinion simple but effective. haste makes waste. no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle

**CowPimp** · 12-03-2004, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones. the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course. thats my opinion simple but effective. haste makes waste. no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle

To a certain degree I agree with you. However, working with weights that heavy all the time does increase the chance of injury. As well, if you care at all about functional strength, then you are going to want to strenghten your lifts throughout their entire ranges of motion.

chris mason · 12-03-2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones. the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course. thats my opinion simple but effective. haste makes waste. no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle

Ok, no.

Well, sort of. As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM. Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).

The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.

**CowPimp** · 12-03-2004, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris mason

Ok, no.

Well, sort of. As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM. Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).

The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.

That is why isometric and isokinetic exercises aren't the greatest. You are certainly pushing your hardest if they are setup properly, but they don't elicit the greatest strength and hypertrophy gains. However, they do make a great addition to an already solid routine if incorporated properly.

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris mason

Ok, no.

Well, sort of. As I already outlined maximal growth is only stimulated with exercise which takes the joints through a significant portion of its ROM. Extreme partial movements will elicit very little growth if any (very little beyond a completely undeveloped body).

The whole growth hormone thing is much too complex to go into right now, but it doesn't work as you have outlined.

if you are going to correct me than make a point

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 10:42 AM

as far as partials, your wrong they do work, and they do give optimal strength and growth. I think people are getting things all wrong. All movements when pushed to the max or maximal effort will lead to growth.

LAM · 12-03-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

and they do give optimal strength and growth.

with out using a full ROM, hypertrohy can not be optimum...

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

with out using a full ROM, hypertrohy can not be optimum...

Ironman's Ultimate BodyBuilding Encyclopedia:
The article is called The Importance of Range of Motion:

"Here's another bit of institutionalized mythology: you need a full range of motion in the muscle in order to stimulate growth. Guess what? The importance of range of motion falls somewhere between little and none. Every gain in mass, strength, and size achieved by every one on the scrs was acquired with no range of motion whatsoever. Look at Joaquin M., who gained 28.9 pounds of new muscle with zero range of motion. The fact is, you can make substantial gains with no movement (static contraction), some movement (partials, as proved by power factor trainees) , and full movement (conventional training). Therefore, the range of motion has no significance. "

That is verbatim bro, you can argue with me is one thing, but arguing with the book is something else.

that came straight from Ironman's Ultimate Bodybuilding Encyclopedia

LAM · 12-03-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

Ironman's Ultimate BodyBuilding Encyclopedia:
The article is called The Importance of Range of Motion:

"Here's another bit of institutionalized mythology: you need a full range of motion in the muscle in order to stimulate growth. Guess what? The importance of range of motion falls somewhere between little and none. Every gain in mass, strength, and size achieved by every one on the scrs was acquired with no range of motion whatsoever. Look at Joaquin M., who gained 28.9 pounds of new muscle with zero range of motion. The fact is, you can make substantial gains with no movement (static contraction), some movement (partials, as proved by power factor trainees) , and full movement (conventional training). Therefore, the range of motion has no significance. "

That is verbatim bro, you can argue with me is one thing, but arguing with the book is something else.

that came straight from Ironman's Ultimate Bodybuilding Encyclopedia

what medical study is given as reference ?

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 02:47 PM

so why are you posting at ironman magazine forums if you feel that they aren't writing legit articles? They aren't going to have pictures and diagrams showing the muscle being extended, and all that. Quit squirming your pinned, lol

I at least have some resource.

LAM · 12-03-2004, 03:09 PM

Max Contraction, Static Contraction, etc. techniques only work to stimulate hypertrophy on the untrained individual....

Duncans Donuts · 12-03-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

Max Contraction, Static Contraction, etc. techniques only work to stimulate hypertrophy on the untrained individual....

I don't completely agree with that...

I think they can be effective, but not optimally so. I think the maximum contraction theory is flawed in it's narrow frame of guidelines. I think incorporating the theory as an alternative method for a limited time as a means of adjusting the workout intensity is perfectly fine, but to be used exclusively does not allow one to benefit optimally...

LAM · 12-03-2004, 03:55 PM

IMO...those techniques are definetly effective at increasing muscle, tendon and ligament tensile strength. which can ultimately enable the person to use heavier working loads in future training sessions...

I have not seen one once of proof where the techniques have been benefical for stimulating hypertrophy in the highly trained individual...

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

IMO...those techniques are definetly effective at increasing muscle, tendon and ligament tensile strength. which can ultimately enable the person to use heavier working loads in future training sessions...

I have not seen one once of proof where the techniques have been benefical for stimulating hypertrophy in the highly trained individual...

You haven't seen heard or talked......... to everyone either. Most people only try conventional things, because they only have faith in things that have been seen or touched or used. Those that have faith or try other things may have gotten huge gains from it and you may not have seen it. You workout in one gym out of Millions upon. So going by your word is no better than not having any medical reference.

If we are going by anything factual or the least bit somewhat factual. I think I would go by the book.

I do partials, I have done them, but I haven't done them all the time. I don't believe one exercise or method is an answer to all. I believe none of us have the puzzle completely put together, just someone of us have half and others have the other half. We are all missing a few peices. I'm going to continue to do partials and I'm going to continue to have 21 inch arms and I'm going to continue to do 500 plus on a 3 board for 3 reps on the benchpress. plain and simple. The equation seems kind of right

Duncans Donuts · 12-03-2004, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

I'm going to continue to do partials and I'm going to continue to have 21 inch arms and I'm going to continue to do 500 plus on a 3 board for 3 reps on the benchpress. plain and simple. The equation seems kind of right

Nice to listen to someone so modest

Robboe · 12-03-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmwrss

So going by your word is no better than not having any medical reference.

If we are going by anything factual or the least bit somewhat factual. I think I would go by the book.

Technically, unless there are references in that encyclopedia of yours about this style of training, you're just going off someone else's word.

chris mason · 12-03-2004, 07:34 PM

Well, who am I to argue with Ironman's book...

How is this, I can speak from direct experience. I can also speak from having been around the iron game a long time and having read more, trained more, and spoken to more people about training than 90% of the people out there.

Oh, did I mention I sponsor some of the top strength athletes in the world? If you like, I can see if they ever used the bullshit techniques espoused by Mr. Little.

Partials with 3" or less ROM border on worthless for normal ROM strength and for size IF they are the sole source of your resistance training. As I already said, they CAN be incorporated into a well rounded routine and be beneficial. Unfortunately that is NOT what Mr. Little recommends in his books and that IS the topic of this thread.

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Nice to listen to someone so modest

you might want a band aid for that bruise you got there buddy

Dmwrss · 12-03-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD

Technically, unless there are references in that encyclopedia of yours about this style of training, you're just going off someone else's word.

whose word are you going by? lol someone on a forum

11-30-2004, 11:36 PM	#1
camarosuper6 Back Home In SOCAL Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: California Posts: 3,350	Opinions on Max Contraction Philosophy I've posted a thread on this awhile back. Went to Borders today and read through John Little's book again on Max Contraction. For those of you who don't know, it basically gives a full body routine, where he suggests doing one set of an exercise and holding it in the fully contracted position for 1-6 seconds. No more than 6 sec for maximum growth. You use more weight than normal because you arent doing repetitions, and the greater the weight, the greater the overload, the greater the growth. I know Ive used static holds and other similar things at the end of my workouts, and his theory behind this is ..... understandable ( all the fibers fire in the fully contracted position). I wanted to know your thoughts...
	"TOLERANCE is the virtue of a man without convictions" G.K.Chesterton Boot Shine and Polish $15. New Uniforms: $250 New gun and holster: $450 Looking like a stud in uniform: Priceless Girl: Me and this new guy are getting kinda chummy. Me: Good chummy? Like friends forever? Girl: Ya Me: Or Chummy like, spank my ass chummy?

11-30-2004, 11:44 PM	#2
CowPimp Fueled by Testosterone Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 15,428	That sounds interesting, but it does go against other principles out there. Namely, I read about one in a book by Zatsiorsky which he based on the notion of contractile protein degradation. Basically, the greater the intensity (As in percentage of your 1RM), the greater the level of contractile protein degradation. The greater the number of reps, the greater the level of contractile protein degradation. The greater the level of degradation, the greater the level of super-compensation. He determined that the range that optimizes this protein degradation is 4-12 repetitions (I believe; it may have been 5-12). However, this doesn't mean Little's theory is incorrect. I'm merely presenting an alternative theory from the think tank of a respected physiologist. It's all hypothesis and theory. I believe it's worth trying at some point.
	The only time it's bad to feel the burn is when you're peeing... CowPimp Picks Up Heavy Shit MySpace YouTube Videos

11-30-2004, 11:47 PM	#3
camarosuper6 Back Home In SOCAL Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: California Posts: 3,350	It seems logical. I would not use it as a stand alone training program though.
	"TOLERANCE is the virtue of a man without convictions" G.K.Chesterton Boot Shine and Polish $15. New Uniforms: $250 New gun and holster: $450 Looking like a stud in uniform: Priceless Girl: Me and this new guy are getting kinda chummy. Me: Good chummy? Like friends forever? Girl: Ya Me: Or Chummy like, spank my ass chummy?

11-30-2004, 11:49 PM	#4
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	Max Contraction theory is built on the idea of using more weight than you can during your 1-RM. Simply put, the weakest range of motion is eliminated and the weight is held exclusively in the strongest range of motion and then controlled in a negative fashion.
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

12-01-2004, 09:31 AM	#5
ponyboy Training Trainer Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Running around somewhere Posts: 2,608 Photos: 1	So this is basically doing one long negative rep with more than 100% of your 1RM? Sounds like it would do something but I also would not use it as a stand alone. Plus the risk of injury is very high.
	Today I can do what others will not so that tomorrow I will do what others cannot. The difference between winners and losers is that winners do things that losers don't want to do.

12-01-2004, 10:16 AM	#6
LAM Gym ratt/Part-time pimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 7,384 Photos: 2	I would have to see a study performed with athletes before I could really comment since I haven't read the book. but the theroy behind it is surely nothing new. study has already shown that heavy eccentric training is optimum for hypertrophy...
	Dumbest statement made in the Anabolic Zone for Nov TBD ----------------------------------------------------- What you talking about Willis ?

12-02-2004, 06:21 PM	#7
Duncans Donuts Stay puffed, baby. Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: CA Posts: 2,774 Photos: 2	bump
	"in the howling bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure."

12-02-2004, 07:19 PM	#8
chris mason Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 407	Don't get me started on this idiot!!! His theories suck cock and are complete crap. He is a Mike Mentzer/Art Jones wannabe who tries to use the basic ideas behind HIT style training and then tweak them in order to sell a book/system. He is the same goof who promoted Power Factor training which involved using a very small ROM and very heavy loads. These programs sound good on paper but fall terribly short in practice. The primary reason they fall short is that they utilize virtually no ROM (Range Of Motion). His ideas might be useful as an adjunct to one's more traditional training but will result in a loss of size and strength if practiced solely. Heck, heavy partials have been used for years as a valuable adjunct to training but they should never be used alone without standard ROM movements. Why am I so vehement about this? Well, I was a fool who bought his Power Factor book several years ago and gave it a try for a couple of months. When finished I had lost size and my full ROM strength was in the toilet. My partial ROM strength went up but a 2-3" ROM increase in strength will in NO WAY translate to full ROM movements unless both movements are practiced concurrently. The old S.A.I.D. (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand) bit me on the as on this one...

12-02-2004, 10:38 PM	#9
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31	the heavier the weight being used for any amount of reps the more forceful the contractions, the more forceful the contractions are the more the body is compeled to releasing growth hormones. the more protein being consumed the more growth hormone can take its course. thats my opinion simple but effective. haste makes waste. no more than 4 sets an exercise one exercise a muscle
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31

12-03-2004, 10:42 AM	#14
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31	as far as partials, your wrong they do work, and they do give optimal strength and growth. I think people are getting things all wrong. All movements when pushed to the max or maximal effort will lead to growth.
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31

12-03-2004, 02:47 PM	#18
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31	so why are you posting at ironman magazine forums if you feel that they aren't writing legit articles? They aren't going to have pictures and diagrams showing the muscle being extended, and all that. Quit squirming your pinned, lol I at least have some resource.
Dmwrss Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31

12-03-2004, 03:09 PM	#19
LAM Gym ratt/Part-time pimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 7,384 Photos: 2	Max Contraction, Static Contraction, etc. techniques only work to stimulate hypertrophy on the untrained individual....
	Dumbest statement made in the Anabolic Zone for Nov TBD ----------------------------------------------------- What you talking about Willis ?

12-03-2004, 03:55 PM	#21
LAM Gym ratt/Part-time pimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 7,384 Photos: 2	IMO...those techniques are definetly effective at increasing muscle, tendon and ligament tensile strength. which can ultimately enable the person to use heavier working loads in future training sessions... I have not seen one once of proof where the techniques have been benefical for stimulating hypertrophy in the highly trained individual...
	Dumbest statement made in the Anabolic Zone for Nov TBD ----------------------------------------------------- What you talking about Willis ?

12-03-2004, 07:34 PM	#25
chris mason Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 407	Well, who am I to argue with Ironman's book... How is this, I can speak from direct experience. I can also speak from having been around the iron game a long time and having read more, trained more, and spoken to more people about training than 90% of the people out there. Oh, did I mention I sponsor some of the top strength athletes in the world? If you like, I can see if they ever used the bullshit techniques espoused by Mr. Little. Partials with 3" or less ROM border on worthless for normal ROM strength and for size IF they are the sole source of your resistance training. As I already said, they CAN be incorporated into a well rounded routine and be beneficial. Unfortunately that is NOT what Mr. Little recommends in his books and that IS the topic of this thread.