Have you heard of static contraction strength training? (1 Viewer)

[Lary Larson]

I just learned of this technique and was wondering if anyone here has any experience and/or opinions about it.
To summarize the theory: You strength train by holding the maximum possible weight for 10-20 seconds in the strongest possible position - just short of lockout. No motion (just enough to get the weight into position), no sets, no reps.
You initially start by trying 50% more weight than you normally use for the full-range exercise - if you can hold that for more than 20 seconds, add more weight. There are 2 workouts of 6 exercises each and you start out doing each workout 1x/week (and at 20 seconds per exercise, if you didn't have to do set up, you'd be done in 2 minutes!). During each successive workout, you should be able to lift more weight or hold the same weight longer. If you can't do that, you're overtraining and you should wait longer between workouts. Then, as you increase the weight, you decrease the frequency of the workouts because your recovery time is increased.
The theory behind this method is that by holding the weight in the strongest possible position you're maxing out every fiber of your muscles. You're supposedly getting maximum intensity in your workout by doing more work (i.e. lifting more weight) over less time. Range of motion isn't necessary and is actually eliminated due to the potential for injury. In the studies, after 6 weeks of static contraction training people reported an average 30% increase in the amount they were able to lift using full-range exercises.
This method is for strength training only. You still need to work on flexibility and cardio separately.
Here is a link to one book on Amazon. If you go to www.precisiontraining.com you'll see that these guys have a new e-book out.
I'm curious to hear what you guys think. I'm pretty leery myself, but I like to keep an open mind.
Lary

 

[Clinton McClure]

Put this one in the file with the electronic AB-belts. :rolleyes

 

[Coressel]

I tried it once, but had to give up after I began forming a third testicle.

 

[Adil M]

This is a really bad way to workout. I only do stuff like that when I want my veins to show, I don't know it's kind fo cool. Static workouts will never make you any better in sports and you'll probably get hurt pulling something. I suggest changing your workput orders and excercises for 2 weeks. Trust me you are only going to hurt yourself.

 

[NickSo]

You get more muscle/strength because of microscopic tears in the muscle fibre. Overloading your muscles by working out tears the muscle, so it has to repair itself by building more muscle fibres.

When u use staic, it dosent work the musces enough to tear them, so no muscle tears, no muscle building

 

[Jon_B]

Doesn't sound like the safest way to work out. I have tried the opposite side of the spectrum, "burnouts". This is where you start with the bar, lift for 20 reps, rest for 30sec to 1 min, keep adding weight and resting until you reach 50% of your max. Then you do it in reverse. Ending with just the bar again. Man your muscles will sure burn after that.

It's a good exercise to get yourself out of a rut.

Jon

 

[Lary Larson]

I probably should have taken a cue from the fact that one of the inventor dudes on the video was fat! Of course, he was touted as the "physics expert." They claim to have developed this system by ignoring conventional physiology wisdom and going at it from a pure physics standpoint.
I'll point out that I haven't tried this and now I'm not going to. I've been getting good results using a system based on Bill Phillips Body for Life (very similar to what Jon_B describes - I like the burn). I was just trying to see what you guys thought - obviously nothing good.
Thanks for the replies,
Lary

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I probably should have taken a cue from the fact that one of the inventor dudes on the video was fat!

Of course fat guys can't be strong :rolleyes
Some of the strongest powerlifters I've ever seen had a serious a gut. There is certainly a difference between strength training, and lifting to make yourself pretty.
-Vince

 

[Lary Larson]

Once again, I imply something I didn't mean and Vince calls me on it! That was a thoughtless comment on my part and I apologize if I offended anyone. I know there are plenty of big guys who could break me in half with less effort than it takes me to breathe. That said...

Let me put it another way. The claimed results of their system (bigger muscles) were not visibly apparent on either of the inventors. Neither of them demonstrated the system or substantiated their own claims about how it worked for them. This is enough to put doubt in my mind.

Vince makes another good point. I should have realized from the start that this is a pure strength training system. I'm not working out to gain strength, I'm doing it to tone and feel better. I like to feel the burn and working out this way won't give me that, so, even if the system works, it isn't for me.

Lary