T Nation

Power Factor Training


#1

I've just bought and read both books by Little- Power Factor and the book on static reps- has anyone here tried training this way exclusivley?

I've done heavy partials before- but usually only 4-6 weeks before pl competition (which i haven't done in a few years now). I need a jolt to my strenght and I'm giving this some though- any words [experience] from the wise?
thanks!


#2

I haven't tried it either, but I would be interested in hearing from someone who has.


#3

I believe this has been addressed in the past. I don't recommend it. You can't train only using limited range of motion and expect to get bigger and stronger. Yes, you will get stronger in that range, but you will severly limit yourself and your progress by not going through the full range of motion in all your lifts. Partials have there purpose, but not as the only way to lift.


#4

Maybe its a bit unfair to say that power factor's only contribution is the use of partials. It also stresses volume of work against in a given time period...a sound theory to explore.

With that said, I gave power factor a serious go for about 8 or 10 weeks once in my life. My strength in the partial ranges shot through the roof. When I went back to full range raw bench and squat work, I was much weaker, especially in the bottom(which should be a no-brainer).

I don't think it is a very effective way to train for almost anyone, but throwing in partials and working volume against time are good ideas.


#5

Yet again I have to disagree 180 degrees from the moral majority here. PFT is with-out a doubt THE best training system there is for practical use w/ barbells/plates. It may not B perfect but no system is. Jones' own experimentation w/ negative only bears this out demonstrating what is already known but largely ignored for numerous personal reasons. The use of HEAVIER wgts in the SAFEST rom, that being partials.

One way of analyzing a system of exercise is not the success ratio but the injury. Full range reps have an exponentially higher injury rate than PFT. Why u ask?? I'd glad U did. Strong Range Partials.

I've put more muscle on my body using PFT than HIT, volume,drugs all combined ever have. Again, why? The exclusive use of MUCH heavier wgts than normally could B used AND within that use it's very organized which can be critically examined which makes successes/failures easier to identify and correct.

I urge everyone to go to Amazon, buy a $3 used copy of the book, load the bar w/ 1.4 X ur one rep max and get ready for growth!

Sure it's easy to pick it apart and make bullshit allegations which have NO validity (like alot of things:) but in the end results are all that matter.

Ur choice, throw off the chains of tradition, take a leap of faith and try PFT OR remain producing AT BEST a fraction of the growth at a MUCH lower rate.

Any chick who has to guts to deviate from the media driven norm is HOT....isn't that right Mod w/ Bod?

Mark


#6

i have a friend that did power factor for a few months. His results were the exact same as jd430s.


#7

IF someone applied PFT rules exactly as they are in the book the first thing I would suspect is overtraining. It's VERY easy to OT w/ PFT, it's that intense and it humanely impossible to consistently gauge the inroads one's training is making. I'm growing like a weed.


#8

Take what's useful, discard the rest.

Their idea of the Power Factor and Power Index (tm . . . lol) I actually like a lot. (It's like EDT but with a bunch of math.)

Their opinion on frequency sucks balls and partials aren't the answer to your prayers. They say that when they used partials their strength went through the roof. Well no shit when you're moving the weight an inch of course it's easy to pile on the plates. And I messed up my shoulder using these methods so I wouldn't go bragging about how much safer they are.

The nutrition section is good for a laugh or a good cry. It is the worst piece of vomitshit I have ever seen.

And I've heard that the authors don't even look like they train and Cainus Darius even made fun of them in a recent Ghost Dog.


#9

I did SCT (static contraction training) training for a 10 week period as a routine, much like doing any other routine. Pesonally I experienced growth the entire time, both in terms of increase in weights used (as my training log demonstrates) as well as in weight gain (I believe I put on 3 lbs during those 10 weeks, haven't checked in a while, maintaing my body fat.) I know it goes against the grain according to alot of posters here (although I know one of the Authors (TC or someone here mentioned the fact that SCT / PFT DO have their place in a training regime.)but honestly, I don't know how anyone could even argue that holding a weight at optimal load would not increase strength.

Is it the best workout? Of course not, what is? Is there an over-training fear for your CNS? I guess, if you fear those things, but why fear over training? Train hard and if you hit a wall due to over training, back off. Holds true for any program.

Loss of full range strength? I don't know. I think alot of people say yes, but my opinion is that is not the case. Instead, what is the case is that since you haven't done a full ROM in say 8 weeks or whatever, you have lost some technique, some memory of the movement etc. I know for me that is more the case as my next routine pushed me past previous held maxes. Just took a week or so to get back in the groove.

Anyway, to each their own, don't go into it thinking this is the cure all, but no reason to discount it either.

I know I will probably cycle in an SCT program once a year or so, help bust through plateaus etcetra.


#10

im going to go out on a limb and say your a mentzer fan, aren't you? You talk about getting better gains on this program than on HIT, well yea... You could get better gains on almost ANY program other than HIT.
And then you start talking about how easy it is to overtrain using full motions??? Are you serious?


#11

I NEVER said it's easy to overtrain using full range reps. I said it's easy to overtrain using PFT becuz it's so intense. One point of PFT's exclusive use of strong range partials being an short term alternative to full range reps has NO validity. Ur muscles don't know whether they're doing full range reps OR partials. All they know is intensity of contraction and that intensity is MUCH higher using 700lbs for 4-6 inches than 315lbs for 18. IF that was the case then the use of cambered bars wouls produce a proportionate amt of increased results over the use of a flat bar.....guess what THEY DON'T.

Use whatever method U want. I'll use PFT and add weight to the bar EVERY time I lift day in day out, month after month yr after yr.


#12

Really? Even though at the end of the ROM the movement is much more mechanically advantageous (at least with the PFT exercises)? And the reason the muscle can move so much more weight is because of this advantage?
I suspect that if you applied the PF and the PI to full range training you'd be experiencing the same results, physique wise, that you do now. Or better.


#13

I still believe in training the full ROM


#14

Just one note here: "strong range partials" are just that--partial reps where you are the strongest.

As a PLer you of all people should understand that to get stronger you have to train your WEAK area. Besides, partial reps, if over used, are great for a loss of ROM and flexibility.

If you just want to get swole, then I suppose there may be some truth to PFT, but I don't care about all show syndrome.

Carry on.


#15

Also of note is the fact that in doing partials, you end up doing much less work than you would doing full range of motion. Doing more weight, maybe, but less overall work.

Oh, and part of the training effect is due to the stretching of muscles under tension. You lose that doing PFT. The effective tension on a muscle is generally greater when the muscle is stretched.


#16

The bottom line is, and I think most will agree w/ me on this, it's not whether a system is better its whether or not U beleive it's better.


#17

I'm going to try a modified "garage" version of PFT, particularly the inital use of partials. I got it from Bud Jeffries Progressive Movement article on Strongerman.com. I do agree in that full range reps must be done but the opposite of most people in that I feel full range should be the reps done the most infrequent.

What does everybody think? Any tried the Progressive Distance Movement?

Thanks again everyone who responded. THIS is THE best bodybuilding board on the net.


#18

I wouldn't waste my time.


#19

How about partial reps in the weakest range of motion?

You just might get stronger everywhere else :slightly_smiling:


#20

CT has adressed this and is a big fan. He prefers to use a full-range of motion for the same movement structure as the partial (example: partial back squat, full front squat).