One of the books I have recently read was “Power Factor Training”. It was
really well written book and it really shocked me when it said that you must
use partials. And after reading few power factor books I realised that
partials ARE a way to go and full range movements are bad. Now you need
to realise that I am a big fan of full raNge movements. I always try to watch
my form and make sure I always use the longest range of motion possible… but now.
Lets see what makes partials the best according to the book.
1)You can use much more weight and thus stimulate bigger growth response.
It is unquestioanble fact that stronger muscle is bigger muscle, and the more
weight the better (within reason and as long as its not 1 rep maximums).
For example, a person can full range bench press 200 pounds for 10 reps. That
is what he is able to do in his weakest range of motion (when bar is down at his chest)
Howeever if he did PARTIALS, he would easily be able to lift 300 pounds for 10 times,
FIRST DAY. Obviously guess what, only after partials his chest would grow!
Why should his chest grow when he is using artificial full range of motion?
The weight that he is lifting BARELY makes ANY impression on his chest, so
your body will not and shouldn’t grow!
It recruits more muscle fibers. The weight, not the exercise, or range of motion
determines the recruitment of muscle. More recruitment means more growth,
and fuller muscle.
Partial reps are safer. Most injuries are caused when heavy weight is
placed in weak range of motion and the muscle is unable to work up to the
stress. Whiled doing partials you are only working in your strongest,safest
Partials are natural. Sprinters and runners develop great legs, yet they
do the partial range of motion. They obviously dont make a habit of touching
their but to the heels. Also football linemen, before blitzing through the enemy
lines, they dont squat down and neither do they pull their hands as far back
as possible - that would scarifice speed and strenth. Also when you fall down,
you dont pull your hands all the way back, no you keep them slightly bent!
It seems that “FULL-RANGE OF MOTION” is used only ARTIFICIAL man made, nature
un approved, games (powerlifting comps, and olympic lifting comps)
Full Range movements , DONT MAKE MUSCLE LONGER! Muscle length is a function of genetics,
if you are born with short biceps - NOTHING (other than surgery) would make
them longer! And full range of motion stretch doenst “stretch muscle”, atleast not
to any appreciatable degree. Hanging from something wont make you gain 6 inches,
and riding on a horse wont make you 6 inches shorter.
No study has ever been about that full range of motion is required. Howeever there are
studies that the weight builds muscle.
Some of the greatest bodies used partials with success. John Grimek a legend,
used partial overhead presses with 1000+ pounds at bodyweight of 185, natural.
Obviously juiced ronnie’s 315 overhead presses looked like childs play and didnt cause
as much growth as 1000+ pounds. Steroids did…
Partials cant build part of a muscle. Muscle is a shape of genetics. just like
preacher curls cant make your muscles longer, or concentration curls make biceps higher,
so does partials cant make your muscles be partial in size.
And finally… Think about it… After you finish doing a set, you need to
realize that you can still make movement - partials in particular. Which
leads us to conclussion that partials involve more muscle fibers than normal
“full range” motions, since it uses fibers that were not involved in full range
Any comments? rebuttals? I really need to know!