T Nation

Static Contraction Workout?

Has anyone tried the Static Concentration workout ? I have just ordered a book by Pete Sisco-don’t know if his stuff is legit but thought I would give it a start.

www.precisiontraining.com/

i had the old book train smart, and i didn’t use it my friend did he gained 4 lbs in a 3 week period with 2 workouts a week and he loves it but personally i can’t go to the gym lift weights 2 -3 mins and go home the set is like 5 seconds of holding a heavy weight.

It’s complete junk.

I daresay that his Power Factor Training book had absolutely no redeemable feature to it, at all.

I only browsed the SCT book years ago, but I would feel confident saying the same thing about it.

More info about isometric contracts.

They are joint angle specific: meaning the angle of the joint you push against or hold the weight is where you become strong. So for you to become strong in all angles of your joint you need to train all angles or at least the start middle and end points.

Bought the book years ago when I was full bore into my meathead stage. All it did was create more aches and pains in my joints. No noticable mass gains despite a very good gaining diet. PErsonally, I feel static holds are great to burn out at the end of an occasional set of exercises, but not in place of any appreciable ROM.

S

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]AlteredState wrote:
I guess you could argue that static holds at the end of a training session are much like practicing your posing (which I don’t do).

This is said to be a good way of improving muscle density or the appearance of muscle density.[/quote]

Uh, no,… static holds are a way to extend the intensity of stress on your muscles. As your static strength levels (as opposed to concentric, or eccentirc) are typically the highest.

ie. You do positives until failure, upon which you proceed to do negatives until failure, upon which you attempt a static hold to fully fatigue your muscle.

(You need some ROM in order for growth to occur, don’t ask me why, I’ve read too many pieces on it to recall the scientific mumbo jumbo)

S

This has come up before. I’ve also done this workout for a while and it didn’t do anything for me. I didn’t get stronger, nor did I gain any size.

Static holds and isometrics have their place, but it’s a terrible idea to base your entire workout routine on them. It doesn’t work.

Look it up on amazon.
You will see reviews like this…

I started the static contraction program 1 year ago. Despite being able to “hold” more weight workout after workout I didn’t feel stronger at all. Then my rotator cuff tore… I had to get surgery but it never fully healed.

I continued to train my lower body… until my kneecaps exploded. Finally, as a direct result of following the ST method, my wife died and my children were taken by the state.

In short, this is not a healthy program by any means. If trainers could court martial each other Sisco would be hung, drawn and quartered by now.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Look it up on amazon.
You will see reviews like this…

I started the static contraction program 1 year ago. Despite being able to “hold” more weight workout after workout I didn’t feel stronger at all. Then my rotator cuff tore… I had to get surgery but it never fully healed.

I continued to train my lower body… until my kneecaps exploded. Finally, as a direct result of following the ST method, my wife died and my children were taken by the state.

In short, this is not a healthy program by any means. If trainers could court martial each other Sisco would be hung, drawn and quartered by now.[/quote]

And there you have it; don’t do isometrics our your wife will die and the State will take your children. LOL!

The cool thing is that not a lot of people understand the different types of strength a muscle has. You can really increase the intensity by focusing on what you’ve got left after you can’t raise the weight anymore (within reason of course, otherwise you’ll overtrain in no time flat)

S

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
I guess you could argue that static holds at the end of a training session are much like practicing your posing (which I don’t do).

This is said to be a good way of improving muscle density or the appearance of muscle density.

Uh, no,… static holds are a way to extend the intensity of stress on your muscles. As your static strength levels (as opposed to concentric, or eccentirc) are typically the highest.

ie. You do positives until failure, upon which you proceed to do negatives until failure, upon which you attempt a static hold to fully fatigue your muscle.

(You need some ROM in order for growth to occur, don’t ask me why, I’ve read too many pieces on it to recall the scientific mumbo jumbo)

S[/quote]

Stu, not to nitpick, but the order of strength is actually concentric, then isometric, then eccentric (from weakest to strongest). If you can’t even lower a weight in control, then there’s no way that you’ll be able to hold it in place.

I agree though, SCT and Power Factor Training are pretty much worthless from a muscle building perspective. The concepts behind them (statics and partials) can have their place in a good training program, but not the way that Sisco and Little suggest using them.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
I guess you could argue that static holds at the end of a training session are much like practicing your posing (which I don’t do).

This is said to be a good way of improving muscle density or the appearance of muscle density.

Uh, no,… static holds are a way to extend the intensity of stress on your muscles. As your static strength levels (as opposed to concentric, or eccentirc) are typically the highest.

ie. You do positives until failure, upon which you proceed to do negatives until failure, upon which you attempt a static hold to fully fatigue your muscle.

(You need some ROM in order for growth to occur, don’t ask me why, I’ve read too many pieces on it to recall the scientific mumbo jumbo)

S

Stu, not to nitpick, but the order of strength is actually concentric, then isometric, then eccentric (from weakest to strongest). If you can’t even lower a weight in control, then there’s no way that you’ll be able to hold it in place.

I agree though, SCT and Power Factor Training are pretty much worthless from a muscle building perspective. The concepts behind them (statics and partials) can have their place in a good training program, but not the way that Sisco and Little suggest using them.[/quote]

I read some article by Little (the worst name to have in bodybuilding, but it fits him…) about that…
He probably just tried to garner some interest by presenting a “new” and hip idea…

There’s a reason why successful bodybuilders don’t train that way :wink:

No movement, no work done, no maximal force produced.

Enough said.

Although it can be used for neural adaptations for say, shoulders and biceps, respectively.

The only time I think it may prove beneficial, in some sense, might be if you have a limb in a cast, or are incapacitated in some way. In such an instance, it may help stave off some of the atrophy one might typically experience.

S

What you really need is the Vibraslim:

http://www.myvibraslim.com/

Seriously though, Chritian Thibaudeau has some very nice isometric routines that integrate iso/dynamic movements that gave good results when I’ve tried them.

I have seen new article from CT. Implementation in biceps training.
Thib claims even 10% more motor recruitment, I didn’t now that exact number.
The whole saga about statics was renowed with Pavel’s books five to ten years ago.