Thread: Usable strength

Also, what are your thoughts on calisthenics, isometrics, and plyometrics in comparison to weight training? This site has a few exercises that are supposed to build you up overall: http://www.cbass.com/Furey.htm. Ignoring the fact that it's selling you something, would you say it's valid that you can get just as strong using calisthenics, isometrics, or plyometrics as you can using weights?

I've also read that isometrics are bad for you because they elevate your blood pressure and put unneeded stress on your heart. If that were true, wouldn't the same go for weight training? Could you get stronger by just pressing your hands our in front of your body for a certain period of time (such as in the position of praying, but using about 90% of your strength to press)?

If you go ahead and do the exercise I just described, you can feel your chest, arms, and shoulders all tighten up. This causes growth and strength gains in these muscles, but supposedly only within 20 degrees of the position held. Couldn't you, theoretically, hold that position for ten seconds with your hands touching your chest, then five inches away, then ten inches away, etc., until your arms are fully stretched, and thus increase your strength for that entire range of motion? Wouldn't this develop an overall stronger chest, overall stronger shoulders, and overall stronger arms, which would then carry into everyday activities? If you did that exercise in just one position with the correct technique and frequence, why wouldn't that translate into an increased bench over time, rather than just affecting a very small range of motion?

Another page on isometrics: http://www.runquicker.com/isometrictraining.htm.

Yet another interesting page I've stumbled upon with yet another interesting concept: http://www.choosefitness.com/staticc...ontraining.php.

A very quick read with something interesting to say: http://forum.dragondoor.com/training/message/307507%5C.

Actually, I'd like to see some opinions on this site alone: it has self-resistance exercises for your whole body, and seems quite promising (and it's not trying to sell you anything either, which is always a plus). Perhaps I should just give this a try for a few weeks and put my weight training on hold for a while.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/OBB/OBB.html

The last page himself says he duplicated movements from weight training, and yet you are fooling yourself into only being able to use as much resistance as you can yourself provide - where weights can be more than you can handle.

I'll stick to weights, primarily barbell. However in real life, sometimes you use one arm, sometimes you use two, so why only use one method if you somehow think this is going to translate into some real life importance?

If you have stronger muscles then you have stronger "real life muscles," I wonder if you mean are they USEFULL because if you have them you do, if you dont you dont.

In Pumping Iron you get to see Franco pull a car sideways with his own strength, obviously we dont do this in our every day lives but that is an example of muscles being used outside the gym. If you have them, yes you can use them.

If you can deadlift, you can improve your furniture moving capabilities. Or like myself, I carried a straight 6 shortblock up 4 flights of stairs once, this was a late 70s shortblock so it was definitely not aluminum and it was not small. Do most people need to do this in their every day lives? Hell no. But if you stick to basic movements, then you will have "real world strength."

Muscles are not rocket science. As long as you have some balance between your bodyparts and are not leaving out leg training and so on, you should have fully useable increased strength.

Well one of the whole ideas of isometrics is to press against an immovable object. When you press against a dumbbell, for example, you're moving it, meaning your muscles aren't using ALL of their power because they can obviously move the weight, (which also means that it's possible for them to press harder), and the power they do use isn't constant throughout the exercise, thus rendering about 2/3 of it useless. Providing resistance against yourself, or a wall or the floor, ensures that you're pressing as hard as you possibly can, thus recruiting the maximum amount of fibers at all times, which makes up the principles of isometrics. The reason most of them are described as pressing against yourself (for example, arm against arm) is because it has a two-fold effect, thus improving strength in both arms in both ways at the same time. As long as your arms aren't moving and you're pressing as hard as you can, it's the same thing as pressing against a wall.

I mean no disrespect in explaining this (I know you have much more knowledge than I do as far as weights go), but it seems as though you overlooked the basic ideas behind this type of training, so I thought I'd remind you.

If you go deep enough into that page (looking through the forum, going through links you can find there, and links from those pages, etc.), you'll also see a man who wins bodybuilding competitions using purely isometrics; no actual weights are involved. He's also placing a bet with another bodybuilder who uses weights to see who can grow the fastest, and I'm interested in what the results will be. That, plus the early 'strongmen' who used isometrics, and let's not forget Charlie Atlas, all provide solid evidence that isometrics may be much more effective than weight training.

Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin

I mean no disrespect in explaining this (I know you have much more knowledge than I do as far as weights go), but it seems as though you overlooked the basic ideas behind this type of training, so I thought I'd remind you.

None felt, and no I did not forget any of that. I do not believe in isometrics as a superior form of exercise. I do not believe in self resistance as a superior form of exercise either. Not even remotely close to being equal.

But that is just my opinion. My rough guess is, if you want to hear raving reviews of isometrics then you should find an isometrics forum. If you really prefer that kind of training then you should pursue it, and I would see nothing wrong with that at all. I just do not feel it is as good, or better. I could see utilizing occasional isometrics perhaps, but real world weights are what I believe is the truest to life. Not pushing up against trees ala Charles Atlas.

Since range of motion is an issue, because for example during one portion of a bench press versus another, different muscles are favored - finding immovable objects for every position of every movement sounds semi improbable.

Again, just opinions. I dont see either training form as an equal.

How did Atlas provide any information of isometrics being superior? Isometric strength is not real world strength. Isometrics does not perform work, work is moving an object. That is work. I do not recall any fantastical physical feats from Mr. Atlas, proving a carryover to real world strength. I do not recall him bending bars of steel in competition or any such feats, as performed by Lou Ferrigno or other people who practiced real world strength by using real world resistance.

I would have put Steve Reeves against Atlas any day of the week, in real world strength.

http://www.sandowplus2.co.uk/Zass/IMW/imw.htm

About 60-70% of the way down the page: "Zass devised a unique series of exercises while in prison to maintain and improve his strength. The exercises were basically isometric in type. He practised religiously, attempting to bend or break the bars or chains which held him captive. Eventually, he could snap strong chains and bend three iron bars into decorative scrolls."

Surely those examples would translate into having amazing power and strength, and surely that power and strength would carry over to real world applications. I realize that bending bars and snapping chains isn't part of the everyday lives of most people, but there still must be a carry over. After all, how often do you really curl an object? I hardly ever do. Hammer curls, but not regular barbell curls - they don't have much of a carry over, yet people do those all the time, and they can still improve functional strength to other areas.

You are making this far far too complicated, a bicep still contracts the arm in both styles of curls.

"Or like myself, I carried a straight 6 shortblock up 4 flights of stairs once"

Damn dude, how much did it weigh?

Originally Posted by Mudge

You are making this far far too complicated

You're probably right. I do have that unfortunate habit. I usually try to keep discussions interesting by bringing up just about anything that applies, but I tend to drag it on a bit too far. Sorry about that.

I'll probably just end up complementing my current routine with some isometrics (one warm up set, two working sets, one set heavy, and then isometrics at three places in the exercise with the heavy weight). That would be extremely difficult to do with squats, but hey, gains don't come easily. I just need to make sure I don't put too much strain on myself and/or do something stupid I'll regret later.

Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin

Well one of the whole ideas of isometrics is to press against an immovable object. When you press against a dumbbell, for example, you're moving it, meaning your muscles aren't using ALL of their power because they can obviously move the weight, (which also means that it's possible for them to press harder), and the power they do use isn't constant throughout the exercise, thus rendering about 2/3 of it useless.

This is totally wrong. Physics dictates that the sum of the forces in a plane equals the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration the object experiences. You can generate the maximum amount of force with your muscles with relatively light weights if you accelerate them as fast as possible. This is why plyometrics are great.