I dont have any issues with lengthened partials, I just prefer to use them as an intensity technique. I'd rather do full ROM and then finish with afew partials if I feel the need.
I reckon this is how most people will (and have) implement them, heck, even bodybuilders like John Meadows were recommending them a while ago, not because 'bros were right all along', but because it seems pretty reasonable that 8 reps + some partials is probably superior than 8 reps by themselves, but even Meadows himself adviced to use them sparingly to avoid excessive fatigue
Full ROM is just more fun. I couldn't see myself doing lengthened on exercises for the rest of my life. I want to feel the squeeze. Full ROM + LP is the way to go for a balance between being fun and optimal.
Keep hearing “soon”. Even heard last November or December by someone on the comments. Excitement starting to wane the longer we go without even a preview or details. I wanted to see if it lets you account for different types of sets (myorep, drop, etc).
The real gem are not lengthened partials, it's the implications they have that lengthened biased lifts are superior, that's its okay If I don't get 'peak contraction' and that I can shorten the ROM on exercises that I don't like doing full ROM. Thank you Milo for your contributions.
I agree. My arms often hurt when I do rows or pullups all the way up. I can just stop before it hurts and as long as I'm stretching at the bottom, possibly not missing out on anything. It's mainly mental, but confidence is important.
What bums me out about the vitriol directed towards Pak and Wolf, regardless of if they are right or wrong is that it’s very anti-science. Pak and Wolf have theory, they test it, others test it, conclusion reached until more testing done- sick. Seems like whenever new data comes out contradicting Pak and Wolf there’s so much weird gloating as if it was worthless to test their ideas in the first place. With that attitude, surgeons still wouldn’t be washing their hands before operating. I stan wolf pak, even though lengthened partials aren’t used in my training.
@@neophytosdmempirical evidence is evidence. Bodybuilding is a developed, mature activity. More or less in its current form its existed since the 1950’s. There’s nothing new under the sun. Look I’m here the same as you, so I find the minutiae interesting as well. It’s just nowhere near as important as some newbies think it is.
You have been entirely misled about the research. Wolf is not a researcher, he does not conduct research. He writes articles analyzing actual research, and he gets it wrong. "New data" doesn't come out every few weeks dude, people just go in and rip his very poorly written articles to shreds.
Just do as many correct form repetitions while focusing on stretch and when you can't do any more that way then switch to partials until COMPLETE FAILURE. Keep the volume at sane levels and that's it, just combine both if not sure, even though it is an interesting topic that should be looked into a lot more.
I do think this is the best way to go about it. Its simple and added intensity techniques can rarely be a bad thing. The thing that never seems to be mentioned is that lengthened only training is only "better" when you increase weight on exercises that are hardest in the shortened position. Or increasing some combination of weight and volume on exercises where it's more challenging in the stretched position. Which means you really have to alter the exercises you do, all around the lengthened position and the way you do them.
I'm carrying on with full ROM to near failure, and lengthened partials at the end. Also ditched all exercises that don't maximise load in the stretch. Since I adopted this approach at 38 years old my gains have skyrocketed and my awful tendonitis issues have vanished. I'll consider full sets of partials when there's more studies out to support them.
To add a potential criticism: The study talked about at 1:35 shows a 95% CI of [-0.81, 0.16] and is in an article that conducts 20 hypothesis tests, of which only two have CIs that don't include 0. Not to say that partials don't work-maybe they do-but the statistical evidence for this one test seems especially weak given the CI, even setting aside the multiple comparisons problem.
More hypertrophy or not , stretching under load just feels right and people who prioritise stretching and flexibility in general would love to train this way
sure, but lenghten partials are different. Train under massive Strentch is very satisfying. Lenghten Partials are also nice on some excercises or for an Set finisher. But on some they feel very Akward. Lenghtens are good for Isolation`s, but for most Compounts full Rom feels better.
can u maybe do a full breakdown on what the lengthened partial part of all the different muscles is? for most muscles its quite obvious (bicep hamstrings etc etc), but for example: how about the shoulder rotator cuff, or the obliques among others to have an overview of all would be kinda nice imo
My preference is for full ROM not because it necessarily beats out lengthened partials for strict hypertrophy purposes, but because I feel stronger and more athletic in my everyday life. I always make sure to hit a deep stretch and then go full ROM until it's no longer possible, then finish the set with lengthened partials I feel like for most people this hits that butter zone of mobility, strength, hypertrophy, and general athleticism That being said it's entirely likely im proven completely wrong in a year, so
To make a study on advenced lifters, it would need to be done for longer time, like 1 year, or 6 months at least, because the adaptations are slower. That is one of the reasons, it is rare to find such studies. :/ It would be more expensive.
He couldn't ignore it lol, lyle slammed him because lyle actually knows how to read studies and put them into proper context, and lyle isn't dependant on regular youtube content for sustenance
@@NeuronIron it's 2025 and you misspelled "based". The guy may be combative and as petty as Larry David, but can you point to anything he says that isn't correct based on the research? I like all the dudes he's calling out, but he stays making good points with careful and accurate phrasing from what I've seen. It's just always punctuated with personal jabs at mike izzy and Brad boy, many of which are seemingly warranted despite their immature delivery lol
@@rockyevans1584 oh yeah? his cringe insta page says otherwise, old dude is desperate for drama and attention and he is far from an academic researcher, his books are outdated and poorly written
@NeuronIron "last relevant in 2012" doesn't mean he wasn't right. If anything, it proves his point that everyone is catching up to what he's said years ago
If you’re doing a full range of motion, you’re also including the stretch position. I can understand that if you load the lengthened partials more and the stretch position is more hypertrophic, or if you do more reps with the same weight in the lengthened position that you’d get more growth, but it doesn’t make sense that doing full ROM vs lengthened training with the same weight and reps would be better unless there was a difference in form between the two lifts because the full ROM includes 100% of the lengthened training as well as the shortened part of the movement.
I think the idea (oversimplified) is that you get 60% of growth at the bottom half vs 40% at the top (arbitrary numbers). So when you factor fatigue from the 40%, it makes more sense to do more reps in the 60% gain range
@ sure, but if you’re doing the same sets/reps/weight then you’re doing everything you are with the lengthened partials, plus the concentric. Doing more sets/reps/weight in the lengthened position would make sense that you’d potentially make more gains, but otherwise I’m not understanding it.
@glorytoukraine5524 not sure you’re understanding. If you’re doing the same sets/reps/weight you’re doing the lengthened partials. AND the shortened partials. I could buy saying you’re increasing hypertrophy because you do more sets/reps, because you have higher work capacity from less fatigue, or if you do more weight, because you’re able to lift more without locking out the reps. It might make more sense that you’d get more hypertrophy because you recover quicker and can do more work down the line. It doesn’t make sense that you’d get more hypertrophy from less muscle damage, all else being equal.
All the evidence i need is that Milo's back is great doing rows like he is at 15:48 . He isnt even trying but the lengthened partials grew his back. Jokes aside, i think its been like that FOREVER historically. When a field of science is relatively new and challenges beliefs it creates friction. And in fact all excercise science is new
I wonder if hes just really weak now in any short lengths after doing just partials.. to me it doesn't make any sense, its like ignoring the run-up in a long jump because "the jump is where you get the distance". It just makes sense to train your muscles through the full movement potential
How does stretch-mediated hypertrophy "maximise gains" when the latest study said that full ROM and SMH both have the same level of muscle growth? It's better to do full ROM simply because it's easier to track reps with this training modality.
if you can do less work and get the same results, Why not just do that? Not to mention that being just one study pointing to them being the same, we need more data on both sides. In the mean time ima just do full rom and partials at the end.
@@QuestTaker That's the best way to do them, doing normally and partials at the end. That isn't how Milo promotes them. He promotes doing ONLY them for a lift or even an entire muscle group. That is certainly not better than a solid ROM, and is just a gimmick he is using to blow up on youtube.
@@QuestTakerwhile I agree with you…if you’re doing proper technique my advice just do what works best for YOU. It’s good to have science based training but if you’re in the gym too confused about what you should do it’s just not worth it. Do proper technique and if results come keep doing what you’re doing, otherwise just try a different approach.
the goto et al tricep study is imo not a lengthened partial vs full rom comparison its a mid-shortned partial vs full rom comparison and it finds the mid-shortened rom group to grow more. Granted, it’s not within participant design so that sucks but it is direct evidence on the triceps that goes against the norm. Def the study i leave the least amount of stock in
I use lengthened partials but only where it makes certain exercises easier, less painful or more efficient. For example not locking out a bench press gives me more energy to put into the rest of the ROM, not locking out any overhead tricep work feels better on my elbows, and not being afraid to not terminate a back set because I couldn't touch my chest.
is a pronated curl really gonna have more bicep gains than a supinated curl? i find it quite hard to believe and frankly just dumb, which is why i think neuromechanical matching is true to some extent
Just do what you enjoy the most and keep yourself consistent. Some people enjoy partials, I don't, some other people enjoy a mix of both. I believe this debate is getting ridiculous because it is being treated as if this would be a life-changing decision in your fitness programs. The differences seem so irrelevant and the studies are yet to achieve a definitive collective verdict that at this point I honestly couldn't care less, I'll do full ROM bicep curls for the rest of my life for the simple reason that I enjoy them. No amount of lengthed partials will make up for the lack of proper consistency, progressive overload, nutrition and rest/recovery.
As a regular joe, this is my own conclusion of the whole range of motion debate that's been going on: Full ROM makes you more athletic. Better synergy with sports or other disciplines (for example, calisthenics). It's also better for injury prevention. Partials are good as a complimentary hypertrophy technique, rather than a replacement to full ROM. Shortened length also has it's place, for example, making you stronger on the end range of some compound exercises, for example, pull-ups. Fitness scene likes dogmas and camps. It's better to combine and apply multiple different approaches to become a more well-rounded athlete. This will be more beneficial in the long term, especially as we age. Pure hypertrophy should not be the only metric.
I did lengthened partials for like 3 months and saw insane gains during that period. There definitely could’ve been other factors so I’m not saying it was for sure that but the correlation is there.
While solely relying on lengthened partials instead of Full ROM isn't a hill I'm prepared to die on, IF somebody skips the stretch and doesnt prioritize achieving long muscle lengths while doing full ROM, I am indeed prepared to say they're not evidence based
why did quads grow similarly from half squats and full squats? Seems like the only added benefit to squatting deeper is additional hypertrophy for glutes and adductors, this is the part that throws the stretch idea out the window for me. Unless a half squat has the quad fully lengthened.
Great video! Sorry long read ahead I appreciate that you talked about the limitations of the current research as well. I've used aspects of "stretch emphasized" training for ~6 years but only with select exercises that i still feel like properly stimulate my target muscle(s) still. Ex. I can destroy my chest week after week with deep rom pressing and flies. Though if I try to apply that on my rear delts and FULLY reach across my body i can still go to failure, but with a mid rear delt pump because my scapular musculature is compensating to the point of limiting my rear delts. This delema comes up more as I have experienced myself and seen people come up with stretch emphasized exercises. I'm very interested as more research comes out on different muscles and differing joint angles, but with my anecdotal I'm using stretch biased exercises very selectly.
So for NNM, it’s argued that it’s in the literature goes back to the 70s but the terminology has changed. Also it’s never said that only the muscle with the most leverage is used. It determines the prime mover. As in what’s doing most of the work. Also the burden of proof should be in both sides. There is no mechanism that explains why we get more cross sectional are growth from lengthened training it’s all just based on study outcomes not mechanisms. I don’t mind advising emphasizing stretch but not the extent at which it’s being pushed when it’s not definitive. Like some of Dr Mike or Jeff’s exercises sacrifice a good deal stability or practicality. Also this idea of putting pendulum squats or Leg extension in C tier because minor loading in that position (isn’t even true in most cases pendulum squats). I think it’s better to train with multiple profiles and positions as training intensity with good technique is more important anyway.
I agree. I think that some "stretch focused" exercises that are being promoted are going too far. Sometimes you will get less stability (which reduces motor unit recruitment), more stress on the joints and difficulty to progressive overload just for a deeper stretch. Pure gimmicks in my vision
@ yeah you said it MUR. Like half of these exercises will increase tolerable perception of effort. No joke saw Milo put ring dips in S tier because stretch. If these guys cooled off a little they wouldn’t get as much criticism.
my lenghthened go to is usually to have on exercise with full ROM and partials after i cant do full ROM, and one exercise with only partials, usually the last has higher reps.
i definitely agree that the stretch part of the lift is the most important part, but you don't need to have a science degree to know that doing a full range of motion will always be superior to just lengthened partial since full range of motion is literally a lengthened partial + extra , you have to be really sily to argue otherwise. I don't think you should dismiss science but alot of these so called ''studies'' have so many variables and inconsistency and alot of user error based on so many things. to preach on them like gospel is crazy. You can't have perfect accurate studies on these kinds of things with different people because of genetics , effort, form etc. As long as you control the weight , slow negatives go into a full stretch , there is no reason at all to stop and not complete the full range of motion. The only time you should be doing them is to push extra reps at the end of your sets.
All I can see is a stretch causes notably more hypertrophy in my own training. Lying or incline bicep curls? I couldn't believe my results after struggling to grow them.
Neuromechanical matching has been studied with different Names such as functional differentiation, wich has been studied with maximal isometric contractions in larger muscles. This might prove Neuromechanical matching.
Yep. Stretch mediated hypertrophy was coined when they hung a chicken by it's wings, and after some time the muscles resposible for it in chickens grew. Now, that is far from what lenghtened partials are. Stretch mediated hypertrophy has no range of motion, and is done for a much longer time.
Well actually, Milo already adressed this one in one of his videos. The actual reason why everyone keeps using this term is because lengthened-training and stretch became inteerchangeable terms and hence 'stretch-mediated' is a derivative of that.
@@thekickanoragm8559 I am not refering to Milo but to his critics, who use the terms interchangebly because they don't know what are they talking about
You keep saying this, but what does "all else bring equal" mean? Is this reference to control vs variable i.e. reps weight sets rest time under tension?
Just wondering if the same would apply to training with resistance bands. In many exercises with free weights, the tension applied to the muscles decreases dramatically during the concentric phase for reasons of leverage. This drop is more or less counterbalanced by the increasing resistance in the corresponding exercises with bands. So wouldn't full ROM repetitions with bands be more effective than lengthened partials only ? I am talking of course about movements where increasing resistance is an asset (like in curls or tricep extensions), not a drawback (like in pull-downs).
Could you explain how this might impact sports training? Should people use full ROM to still build power throughout the movement or split their training into partial for hypertrophy and separate ROM work?
What about training for strength and power though? Not only powerlifting but also sports and general athleticism. SAID principle says we should train in the ROM we intend to use and very few sports have muscles in a deep stretch position. So going full ROM with an emphasis on the stretch seems like the best of both worlds. While also sprinkling in shortened training like sleds and plyometrics for power development.
I find that doing a lengthed superset is unhelpful. I'm tired and my form is bad. Doing the lengthed partial at the beginning is so much better for me.
Haters love to call a well researched opinion a "bias." They fail to understand how we adapt our opinion to new information nor do they seem to have the ability to consider multiple truths at once, nor do they care about the fine details the researcher points to as possible errors. In this OP, the haters demand one be better than the other, when in truth there are so many varibles being compared and maximum results may not be signifcantly different between the two anyway. These same haters often snooze off when you qualify and quantify so many micro-details in the metadata. Rep counting errors, neurological adaptation and volume from range of motion might be the real reason study data charts out, and not the buzz words used as the study focus.
Its so refreshing to see actual evidence-based strength training education videos again Milo. So disappointed that RP have become so lazy and moved away from this as they became popular.
True. But Milo clearly isn't in the business of responding to good, solid points. He said that the dumbell pullover was the best lat exercise, and when he was called to debate his point alongside Atlaspowershrugged and some others, he completely ignored it. He cherry picks studies to make videos about, even if he knows they suck or don't even say what he says he does. Atlaspowershrugged called him out for lying about a study, in which he pretended that cutting more than 500 calories a day will lead to muscle loss. That isn't even what the study says. The study showed that they lost lean body mass, which isn't necessarily muscle. Milo knew this, yet he still made that video because he doesn't care about the truth, but just clickbaiting for views.
Currently watching the only one on that and I do think there's pretty easy rebuttals to pretty much all of what he says against Milo but I'd like to see him confirm that, and explain it much better than I know I would
Still feel like its not the stretch but having max load when muscles are longest that causes the gains. Stretching is just part of being longest for most muscles. This is why slow eccentric matters. Getting more tut with longer muscles. Again stretch is just part of eccentric training and nothing new to seek specifically.
Regardless if working in the stretch is beneficial or not, what you're saying is straight up bro science. Slow eccentrics does not matter as long as it's controlled, and time under tension is not a thing.
House of hypertrophy just posted a study by Larsen et al showing that lateral raises done with cables and dumbbells produced similar growth even though cables provided lengthened partials and db’s didn’t.
@Wolf Coaching I like using FRoM in my very short list of exercises, but understand the need to emphasize the stretch. I’ve been experimenting with the addition of smith squats as recommended by one of your videos. I use long eccentric tempo to work into the lengthened range. As I approach an inability to go through the FRoM I continue until I reach top of my rep range or on the last set take it to near failure. Is working within a tempo that eventually places you in the lengthened range over a set of reps just as beneficial?
Milo, people don't attack you as a scientist or your research. Keep on doing good job there. They "attack" you as a clickbaity influencer - you are NOT a science communicator: - You make videos with clickbaity titles and engagement farming. - You mix up concepts like lengthened bias, stretch mediated hypertrophy, and a presence of stretch vs tension in the stretched position. - You extrapolate legit research findings to unsubstantiated conclusions ("exercise A is better than the exercise B"). - You speak ex cathedra using your PhD as a proof that you are right. - You present those extrapolations as ultimate proofs, mocking "bros" in the process". - Your best results show you can shred very impressively for a competition, but have an average physique for a natural lifter. So you don't back your claims with personal experience/results. - You don't even seem to love lifting (talking about minimizing time at the gym etc. with ridiculous examples - is doing unilateral biceps that much time consuming? Given that the second arm is done while the first one rests, total sets take me 20 seconds more max) like your target audience. We do it because we love it. Let's focus on the point 2. You have scientific evidence "exercise A when done with a lengthened bias is better than with shortened, but equal as compared to full ROM". This absolutely does not prove "exercise A is better than the exercise B", you don't have this research. Your exercise tiers are your guesses and opinions, not "evidence based". Which is fine, but present it as such.
Yeah, I'll stick with John meadows recommendations over any hyped up new science. Start with something more contraction based to get blood in the muscle, hit your heavy work, close with something focused on the stretch
You're not wrong, but perhaps a little bit obsessed with it. There needs to be a balance between seeking perfect optimization like a machine and "shut up and lift, nerd".
@@LarsRyeJeppesen I thought that, but I watched Mitchell Hooper's video and yeah, when you get anywhere near the top powerlifters you're gonna get people who don't seem legit. Idk, I don't really care either; I got bored of the "skinny guy turns out to be strong" gimmick of his old shorts pretty quickly
Its all about tension. U can use light weight and stretch the muscle to extreme tension or you can use heavy weight and get the same tension with less rom. The only difference is one is pencil neck behavior the other is 🐴🐓
I work in an office. I only workout in the gym and try and do 10000 steps a day. I feel that full rom is better traning for overall athleticism if i can call it that, especially at my age (44). If i throw my daughter in the air i feel that full rom helps me more. It seems to me that in any remotely phisical activity full rom (full stretch, full mobility) helps me move better.
I agree that athleticism can be an issue. Years and years ago i did that super slow training for months. I took a martial arts class in school and was shocked at how slow and sluggish I felt. What especially shocked me was that when wrestled in high school i was super quick. I use lengthened partials to some extent and like them, but because of the specificity principle and my not being solely focused on hypertrophy, i would not use them exclusively.
@@erotzollthats my big problem with that super slow, controlled style Dr Mike uses. You want to teach your body to move quickly; it’s the thing that most declines with age. If you only ever move slow, when you need to move fast, you won’t be able to
You’re definitely wrong in thinking that setting up two cameras at slightly different angles and then cutting back and forth between them during talking head segments even though you’re only looking at one of them the entire time adds anything positive to your video.
I dont have any issues with lengthened partials, I just prefer to use them as an intensity technique. I'd rather do full ROM and then finish with afew partials if I feel the need.
I reckon this is how most people will (and have) implement them, heck, even bodybuilders like John Meadows were recommending them a while ago, not because 'bros were right all along', but because it seems pretty reasonable that 8 reps + some partials is probably superior than 8 reps by themselves, but even Meadows himself adviced to use them sparingly to avoid excessive fatigue
Full ROM is just more fun.
I couldn't see myself doing lengthened on exercises for the rest of my life. I want to feel the squeeze. Full ROM + LP is the way to go for a balance between being fun and optimal.
Dont do that just makes more fatigue and no added stimulus
@@fernandosilva6295Dont do that just makes more fatigue and no added stimulus
@@fernandosilva6295 fatigue kind of. he ment that your other sets will suffer. Should only do it on the last set of every exercise.
Was i wrong about when will myoadapt launch
Wait. Did they cancel it? He almost always mentions it, but didn't this time lol.
@@lennyowens5422 18:09
It's comiiiiiiiiiing and it's nothing like you've ever seen before!
Apparently it's going to launch in 2025.
Keep hearing “soon”. Even heard last November or December by someone on the comments. Excitement starting to wane the longer we go without even a preview or details. I wanted to see if it lets you account for different types of sets (myorep, drop, etc).
The real gem are not lengthened partials, it's the implications they have that lengthened biased lifts are superior, that's its okay If I don't get 'peak contraction' and that I can shorten the ROM on exercises that I don't like doing full ROM. Thank you Milo for your contributions.
I agree. My arms often hurt when I do rows or pullups all the way up. I can just stop before it hurts and as long as I'm stretching at the bottom, possibly not missing out on anything. It's mainly mental, but confidence is important.
What bums me out about the vitriol directed towards Pak and Wolf, regardless of if they are right or wrong is that it’s very anti-science. Pak and Wolf have theory, they test it, others test it, conclusion reached until more testing done- sick. Seems like whenever new data comes out contradicting Pak and Wolf there’s so much weird gloating as if it was worthless to test their ideas in the first place. With that attitude, surgeons still wouldn’t be washing their hands before operating.
I stan wolf pak, even though lengthened partials aren’t used in my training.
That's why you shouldn't listen their advice because their opinion change once a month
@@mrsimpleslowmo And is it better to listen to advice that isn't changing and is consistently the wrong advice?
@@neophytosdmempirical evidence is evidence. Bodybuilding is a developed, mature activity. More or less in its current form its existed since the 1950’s. There’s nothing new under the sun. Look I’m here the same as you, so I find the minutiae interesting as well. It’s just nowhere near as important as some newbies think it is.
Dont do that just makes more fatigue and no added stimulus
You have been entirely misled about the research. Wolf is not a researcher, he does not conduct research. He writes articles analyzing actual research, and he gets it wrong.
"New data" doesn't come out every few weeks dude, people just go in and rip his very poorly written articles to shreds.
Just do as many correct form repetitions while focusing on stretch and when you can't do any more that way then switch to partials until COMPLETE FAILURE. Keep the volume at sane levels and that's it, just combine both if not sure, even though it is an interesting topic that should be looked into a lot more.
I do think this is the best way to go about it. Its simple and added intensity techniques can rarely be a bad thing. The thing that never seems to be mentioned is that lengthened only training is only "better" when you increase weight on exercises that are hardest in the shortened position. Or increasing some combination of weight and volume on exercises where it's more challenging in the stretched position. Which means you really have to alter the exercises you do, all around the lengthened position and the way you do them.
I'm carrying on with full ROM to near failure, and lengthened partials at the end. Also ditched all exercises that don't maximise load in the stretch. Since I adopted this approach at 38 years old my gains have skyrocketed and my awful tendonitis issues have vanished. I'll consider full sets of partials when there's more studies out to support them.
To add a potential criticism: The study talked about at 1:35 shows a 95% CI of [-0.81, 0.16] and is in an article that conducts 20 hypothesis tests, of which only two have CIs that don't include 0. Not to say that partials don't work-maybe they do-but the statistical evidence for this one test seems especially weak given the CI, even setting aside the multiple comparisons problem.
More hypertrophy or not , stretching under load just feels right and people who prioritise stretching and flexibility in general would love to train this way
sure, but lenghten partials are different. Train under massive Strentch is very satisfying. Lenghten Partials are also nice on some excercises or for an Set finisher. But on some they feel very Akward.
Lenghtens are good for Isolation`s, but for most Compounts full Rom feels better.
@@flow1188 lenghtened partials on (most) back exercises feel amazing though
@@fernandosilva6295 I'd like them to do studies for machine rows where ROM can be controlled.
can u maybe do a full breakdown on what the lengthened partial part of all the different muscles is?
for most muscles its quite obvious (bicep hamstrings etc etc), but for example: how about the shoulder rotator cuff, or the obliques among others
to have an overview of all would be kinda nice imo
My preference is for full ROM not because it necessarily beats out lengthened partials for strict hypertrophy purposes, but because I feel stronger and more athletic in my everyday life.
I always make sure to hit a deep stretch and then go full ROM until it's no longer possible, then finish the set with lengthened partials
I feel like for most people this hits that butter zone of mobility, strength, hypertrophy, and general athleticism
That being said it's entirely likely im proven completely wrong in a year, so
To make a study on advenced lifters, it would need to be done for longer time, like 1 year, or 6 months at least, because the adaptations are slower. That is one of the reasons, it is rare to find such studies. :/ It would be more expensive.
Milo is such a legend for leading with the Lyle character assassination 😂
He couldn't ignore it lol, lyle slammed him because lyle actually knows how to read studies and put them into proper context, and lyle isn't dependant on regular youtube content for sustenance
Lyle was last relevant in 2012. dude is cooked
@@NeuronIron it's 2025 and you misspelled "based". The guy may be combative and as petty as Larry David, but can you point to anything he says that isn't correct based on the research? I like all the dudes he's calling out, but he stays making good points with careful and accurate phrasing from what I've seen. It's just always punctuated with personal jabs at mike izzy and Brad boy, many of which are seemingly warranted despite their immature delivery lol
@@rockyevans1584 oh yeah? his cringe insta page says otherwise, old dude is desperate for drama and attention and he is far from an academic researcher, his books are outdated and poorly written
@NeuronIron "last relevant in 2012" doesn't mean he wasn't right. If anything, it proves his point that everyone is catching up to what he's said years ago
If you’re doing a full range of motion, you’re also including the stretch position. I can understand that if you load the lengthened partials more and the stretch position is more hypertrophic, or if you do more reps with the same weight in the lengthened position that you’d get more growth, but it doesn’t make sense that doing full ROM vs lengthened training with the same weight and reps would be better unless there was a difference in form between the two lifts because the full ROM includes 100% of the lengthened training as well as the shortened part of the movement.
I think the idea (oversimplified) is that you get 60% of growth at the bottom half vs 40% at the top (arbitrary numbers). So when you factor fatigue from the 40%, it makes more sense to do more reps in the 60% gain range
@ sure, but if you’re doing the same sets/reps/weight then you’re doing everything you are with the lengthened partials, plus the concentric. Doing more sets/reps/weight in the lengthened position would make sense that you’d potentially make more gains, but otherwise I’m not understanding it.
@@drizzt3117 That's the entire point. Having all the fatigue occur in the most hypertrophic range of motion
@glorytoukraine5524 not sure you’re understanding. If you’re doing the same sets/reps/weight you’re doing the lengthened partials. AND the shortened partials.
I could buy saying you’re increasing hypertrophy because you do more sets/reps, because you have higher work capacity from less fatigue, or if you do more weight, because you’re able to lift more without locking out the reps. It might make more sense that you’d get more hypertrophy because you recover quicker and can do more work down the line.
It doesn’t make sense that you’d get more hypertrophy from less muscle damage, all else being equal.
@@drizzt3117 you just keep repeating the same thing
All the evidence i need is that Milo's back is great doing rows like he is at 15:48 .
He isnt even trying but the lengthened partials grew his back.
Jokes aside, i think its been like that FOREVER historically. When a field of science is relatively new and challenges beliefs it creates friction. And in fact all excercise science is new
I wonder if hes just really weak now in any short lengths after doing just partials.. to me it doesn't make any sense, its like ignoring the run-up in a long jump because "the jump is where you get the distance". It just makes sense to train your muscles through the full movement potential
How does stretch-mediated hypertrophy "maximise gains" when the latest study said that full ROM and SMH both have the same level of muscle growth?
It's better to do full ROM simply because it's easier to track reps with this training modality.
if you can do less work and get the same results, Why not just do that? Not to mention that being just one study pointing to them being the same, we need more data on both sides. In the mean time ima just do full rom and partials at the end.
@@QuestTaker That's the best way to do them, doing normally and partials at the end.
That isn't how Milo promotes them. He promotes doing ONLY them for a lift or even an entire muscle group.
That is certainly not better than a solid ROM, and is just a gimmick he is using to blow up on youtube.
@@QuestTakerwhile I agree with you…if you’re doing proper technique my advice just do what works best for YOU. It’s good to have science based training but if you’re in the gym too confused about what you should do it’s just not worth it. Do proper technique and if results come keep doing what you’re doing, otherwise just try a different approach.
@@QuestTaker how is lengthened partials less work if trained to the same intensity?
@@weakest_serbhe's literally advocated for full rom then partials at the end what are you smoking???
the goto et al tricep study is imo not a lengthened partial vs full rom comparison its a mid-shortned partial vs full rom comparison and it finds the mid-shortened rom group to grow more. Granted, it’s not within participant design so that sucks but it is direct evidence on the triceps that goes against the norm. Def the study i leave the least amount of stock in
Insane Video Milo
I use lengthened partials but only where it makes certain exercises easier, less painful or more efficient. For example not locking out a bench press gives me more energy to put into the rest of the ROM, not locking out any overhead tricep work feels better on my elbows, and not being afraid to not terminate a back set because I couldn't touch my chest.
Dr Milo dude this is a most excellent vid man!!!💪🤓
is a pronated curl really gonna have more bicep gains than a supinated curl? i find it quite hard to believe and frankly just dumb, which is why i think neuromechanical matching is true to some extent
NEXT LEVEL
I have been training rear delts in the most stretched position i can achieve for about 2 months. All i can say is i am very happy with the results.
Just do what you enjoy the most and keep yourself consistent. Some people enjoy partials, I don't, some other people enjoy a mix of both. I believe this debate is getting ridiculous because it is being treated as if this would be a life-changing decision in your fitness programs. The differences seem so irrelevant and the studies are yet to achieve a definitive collective verdict that at this point I honestly couldn't care less, I'll do full ROM bicep curls for the rest of my life for the simple reason that I enjoy them. No amount of lengthed partials will make up for the lack of proper consistency, progressive overload, nutrition and rest/recovery.
“At length” 😂 I see what you did there. Cheers coach
Production on Point Milo! Great vid
My primary issue with strech hypertrophy is tearing a muscle, something that gets in the way of trying to do progressive overloads
Muscle tears happen mainly because of load as opposed to stretch.
As a regular joe, this is my own conclusion of the whole range of motion debate that's been going on: Full ROM makes you more athletic. Better synergy with sports or other disciplines (for example, calisthenics). It's also better for injury prevention. Partials are good as a complimentary hypertrophy technique, rather than a replacement to full ROM. Shortened length also has it's place, for example, making you stronger on the end range of some compound exercises, for example, pull-ups.
Fitness scene likes dogmas and camps. It's better to combine and apply multiple different approaches to become a more well-rounded athlete. This will be more beneficial in the long term, especially as we age. Pure hypertrophy should not be the only metric.
Exactly! Even shortened training has it's benefits. See sled training, plyos and sport-specific training
Nooo but neuromechanical matching is a dogma! You’re not allowed to disagree with Paul Cult-er!
When it comes to fatigue... I find doing lengthened partials easier when doing calf raises.. the lockout at the top is just so painful...
I did lengthened partials for like 3 months and saw insane gains during that period. There definitely could’ve been other factors so I’m not saying it was for sure that but the correlation is there.
While solely relying on lengthened partials instead of Full ROM isn't a hill I'm prepared to die on, IF somebody skips the stretch and doesnt prioritize achieving long muscle lengths while doing full ROM, I am indeed prepared to say they're not evidence based
why did quads grow similarly from half squats and full squats? Seems like the only added benefit to squatting deeper is additional hypertrophy for glutes and adductors, this is the part that throws the stretch idea out the window for me. Unless a half squat has the quad fully lengthened.
What? There are multiple studies that show that squatting deeper leads to more hypertrophy
@@josephmcgreevy9977 look at the pic that he posted in the video, quad growth is similar
Great video! Sorry long read ahead
I appreciate that you talked about the limitations of the current research as well.
I've used aspects of "stretch emphasized" training for ~6 years but only with select exercises that i still feel like properly stimulate my target muscle(s) still.
Ex. I can destroy my chest week after week with deep rom pressing and flies. Though if I try to apply that on my rear delts and FULLY reach across my body i can still go to failure, but with a mid rear delt pump because my scapular musculature is compensating to the point of limiting my rear delts.
This delema comes up more as I have experienced myself and seen people come up with stretch emphasized exercises.
I'm very interested as more research comes out on different muscles and differing joint angles, but with my anecdotal I'm using stretch biased exercises very selectly.
So for NNM, it’s argued that it’s in the literature goes back to the 70s but the terminology has changed. Also it’s never said that only the muscle with the most leverage is used. It determines the prime mover. As in what’s doing most of the work. Also the burden of proof should be in both sides. There is no mechanism that explains why we get more cross sectional are growth from lengthened training it’s all just based on study outcomes not mechanisms.
I don’t mind advising emphasizing stretch but not the extent at which it’s being pushed when it’s not definitive. Like some of Dr Mike or Jeff’s exercises sacrifice a good deal stability or practicality. Also this idea of putting pendulum squats or Leg extension in C tier because minor loading in that position (isn’t even true in most cases pendulum squats). I think it’s better to train with multiple profiles and positions as training intensity with good technique is more important anyway.
I agree. I think that some "stretch focused" exercises that are being promoted are going too far. Sometimes you will get less stability (which reduces motor unit recruitment), more stress on the joints and difficulty to progressive overload just for a deeper stretch. Pure gimmicks in my vision
@ yeah you said it MUR. Like half of these exercises will increase tolerable perception of effort. No joke saw Milo put ring dips in S tier because stretch. If these guys cooled off a little they wouldn’t get as much criticism.
For me it's psychological. I dislike partials for the same reason I dislike rack pulls, it just FEELS like something is missing.
my lenghthened go to is usually to have on exercise with full ROM and partials after i cant do full ROM, and one exercise with only partials, usually the last has higher reps.
i definitely agree that the stretch part of the lift is the most important part, but you don't need to have a science degree to know that doing a full range of motion will always be superior to just lengthened partial since full range of motion is literally a lengthened partial + extra , you have to be really sily to argue otherwise. I don't think you should dismiss science but alot of these so called ''studies'' have so many variables and inconsistency and alot of user error based on so many things. to preach on them like gospel is crazy. You can't have perfect accurate studies on these kinds of things with different people because of genetics , effort, form etc.
As long as you control the weight , slow negatives go into a full stretch , there is no reason at all to stop and not complete the full range of motion. The only time you should be doing them is to push extra reps at the end of your sets.
Where are the links to the studies?
18:06 wait! You get a full stretch in the FULL ROM too.
All I can see is a stretch causes notably more hypertrophy in my own training. Lying or incline bicep curls? I couldn't believe my results after struggling to grow them.
Team full rom, then partials to failure
I like this strategy too.
Who 'struggles' to get their creatine in? It's like... 1 teaspoon a day and you dont have to eat a load of gelatine at the same time.
You've misspelt Ninjutsu buddy 🫡
Neuromechanical matching has been studied with different Names such as functional differentiation, wich has been studied with maximal isometric contractions in larger muscles. This might prove Neuromechanical matching.
Ah good old Athlean-X school of not knowing what you are talking about, lengthed partials and stretch-mediated hypertrophy are just not the same thing
Yep. Stretch mediated hypertrophy was coined when they hung a chicken by it's wings, and after some time the muscles resposible for it in chickens grew.
Now, that is far from what lenghtened partials are.
Stretch mediated hypertrophy has no range of motion, and is done for a much longer time.
Well actually, Milo already adressed this one in one of his videos. The actual reason why everyone keeps using this term is because lengthened-training and stretch became inteerchangeable terms and hence 'stretch-mediated' is a derivative of that.
@@thekickanoragm8559 I am not refering to Milo but to his critics, who use the terms interchangebly because they don't know what are they talking about
You keep saying this, but what does "all else bring equal" mean? Is this reference to control vs variable i.e. reps weight sets rest time under tension?
Just wondering if the same would apply to training with resistance bands. In many exercises with free weights, the tension applied to the muscles decreases dramatically during the concentric phase for reasons of leverage. This drop is more or less counterbalanced by the increasing resistance in the corresponding exercises with bands. So wouldn't full ROM repetitions with bands be more effective than lengthened partials only ? I am talking of course about movements where increasing resistance is an asset (like in curls or tricep extensions), not a drawback (like in pull-downs).
Could you explain how this might impact sports training? Should people use full ROM to still build power throughout the movement or split their training into partial for hypertrophy and separate ROM work?
Ballpark, when might we see myodapt launch?
What about training for strength and power though? Not only powerlifting but also sports and general athleticism. SAID principle says we should train in the ROM we intend to use and very few sports have muscles in a deep stretch position. So going full ROM with an emphasis on the stretch seems like the best of both worlds. While also sprinkling in shortened training like sleds and plyometrics for power development.
for strength you have to train with specificity i.e. you don't need to squat below parallel you need to practice the range that you are competing in.
I find that doing a lengthed superset is unhelpful. I'm tired and my form is bad. Doing the lengthed partial at the beginning is so much better for me.
Killed it 🎉
Haters love to call a well researched opinion a "bias." They fail to understand how we adapt our opinion to new information nor do they seem to have the ability to consider multiple truths at once, nor do they care about the fine details the researcher points to as possible errors. In this OP, the haters demand one be better than the other, when in truth there are so many varibles being compared and maximum results may not be signifcantly different between the two anyway. These same haters often snooze off when you qualify and quantify so many micro-details in the metadata.
Rep counting errors, neurological adaptation and volume from range of motion might be the real reason study data charts out, and not the buzz words used as the study focus.
Eat lots of food lift heavy. Guarantee I’m bigger than you 🤫 go jizz over some research paper I’m out here GRINDING and being a beast
Its so refreshing to see actual evidence-based strength training education videos again Milo. So disappointed that RP have become so lazy and moved away from this as they became popular.
My guts were telling me that you were right about The Stretch cause it makes sense
whats the answer? no way im watching 30 minutes without text or timestamps
Will you/Pak/Mike respond to Jonathan Warren's videos on your poor technique and so on? They're really well made and merit a response.
True. But Milo clearly isn't in the business of responding to good, solid points.
He said that the dumbell pullover was the best lat exercise, and when he was called to debate his point alongside Atlaspowershrugged and some others, he completely ignored it.
He cherry picks studies to make videos about, even if he knows they suck or don't even say what he says he does.
Atlaspowershrugged called him out for lying about a study, in which he pretended that cutting more than 500 calories a day will lead to muscle loss.
That isn't even what the study says. The study showed that they lost lean body mass, which isn't necessarily muscle.
Milo knew this, yet he still made that video because he doesn't care about the truth, but just clickbaiting for views.
Currently watching the only one on that and I do think there's pretty easy rebuttals to pretty much all of what he says against Milo but I'd like to see him confirm that, and explain it much better than I know I would
@@ninjadudeofficialwhat's the rebuttal then?
@@weakest_serb Atlaspowershrugged is a roid-raging fake natty smoothbrain. Why would anyone take what he says seriously?
Still feel like its not the stretch but having max load when muscles are longest that causes the gains. Stretching is just part of being longest for most muscles.
This is why slow eccentric matters. Getting more tut with longer muscles. Again stretch is just part of eccentric training and nothing new to seek specifically.
Regardless if working in the stretch is beneficial or not, what you're saying is straight up bro science. Slow eccentrics does not matter as long as it's controlled, and time under tension is not a thing.
@kottekanin4006 No more broscience than partials at this point.
@@culdeus9559 Partials still has science behind it, time under tension not so much.
WHERE IS THE APP?
All I know is a get a crazier pump with partials.
It still baffles me the hardest part of some movements grow the least amount.
Who “struggles to get creatine in?” One scoop in any drink throughout the day
Ironic that he preaches "science", yet ignores the exact science of creatine gummies being underdosed
@@ilyas5795 i would never buy them but the gummies are dosed at 1g creatine each and they recommend 3-5 which is the correct amount.
House of hypertrophy just posted a study by Larsen et al showing that lateral raises done with cables and dumbbells produced similar growth even though cables provided lengthened partials and db’s didn’t.
Milo is literally a co-author on the paper...
yeah but he had some caveats about this one study
Lmao
Team Full ROM 👇🏻
"The late 1900s" feels personal as an older lifter :(
@Wolf Coaching I like using FRoM in my very short list of exercises, but understand the need to emphasize the stretch. I’ve been experimenting with the addition of smith squats as recommended by one of your videos. I use long eccentric tempo to work into the lengthened range. As I approach an inability to go through the FRoM I continue until I reach top of my rep range or on the last set take it to near failure. Is working within a tempo that eventually places you in the lengthened range over a set of reps just as beneficial?
22:35 Rick the Stick Buggenhagen reference.
Why didnt you mention gvs and his video which is clearly showing you are wrong
MyoAdapt, from the makers of PiedPiper, PiperChat, and NotHotdog!
Please don't block me without warning me first Milo 🙏 😂
Milo, people don't attack you as a scientist or your research. Keep on doing good job there. They "attack" you as a clickbaity influencer - you are NOT a science communicator:
- You make videos with clickbaity titles and engagement farming.
- You mix up concepts like lengthened bias, stretch mediated hypertrophy, and a presence of stretch vs tension in the stretched position.
- You extrapolate legit research findings to unsubstantiated conclusions ("exercise A is better than the exercise B").
- You speak ex cathedra using your PhD as a proof that you are right.
- You present those extrapolations as ultimate proofs, mocking "bros" in the process".
- Your best results show you can shred very impressively for a competition, but have an average physique for a natural lifter. So you don't back your claims with personal experience/results.
- You don't even seem to love lifting (talking about minimizing time at the gym etc. with ridiculous examples - is doing unilateral biceps that much time consuming? Given that the second arm is done while the first one rests, total sets take me 20 seconds more max) like your target audience. We do it because we love it.
Let's focus on the point 2. You have scientific evidence "exercise A when done with a lengthened bias is better than with shortened, but equal as compared to full ROM".
This absolutely does not prove "exercise A is better than the exercise B", you don't have this research. Your exercise tiers are your guesses and opinions, not "evidence based". Which is fine, but present it as such.
what?
But why the research on -ve only training during the 90's not find it a useful technique?
Cant wait for sticky ricky to see this
Thats why prisoners are so jacked. 💪🏾💙
Those half pushups get your chest right.
like the oldschool guys did, its about the “stretch and squeeze”… going full range of motion without locking out
Yeah, I'll stick with John meadows recommendations over any hyped up new science. Start with something more contraction based to get blood in the muscle, hit your heavy work, close with something focused on the stretch
22:25 thats what she said
You're not wrong, but perhaps a little bit obsessed with it. There needs to be a balance between seeking perfect optimization like a machine and "shut up and lift, nerd".
You probably not even know what sacromere addition is. Pls read science.
@@AE_CC_-Tutorials Shut up and lift, nerd 😂
@@AE_CC_-Tutorials yeah I'm sure you've done the reading lol
@@AE_CC_-Tutorials Shut up and lift, nerd 😂
@@AE_CC_-Tutorials Ok nerd, go lift. 😂
Yes
thanks taller Anatoly! like 44!
Minus the fake weights
@@LarsRyeJeppesen I thought that, but I watched Mitchell Hooper's video and yeah, when you get anywhere near the top powerlifters you're gonna get people who don't seem legit. Idk, I don't really care either; I got bored of the "skinny guy turns out to be strong" gimmick of his old shorts pretty quickly
Its all about tension. U can use light weight and stretch the muscle to extreme tension or you can use heavy weight and get the same tension with less rom. The only difference is one is pencil neck behavior the other is 🐴🐓
Team full rom
Have fun with your tendons locking out in triceps down the road
@@OMAR-vq3ybnahhhhhh
@OMAR-vq3yb ok Omar. Lmao
Has the weird doctor that preaches 90 deg been right all this time? Wait, some of his exercises at the lengthen range.
But most of his exercises are not in the lengthened position.
I work in an office. I only workout in the gym and try and do 10000 steps a day. I feel that full rom is better traning for overall athleticism if i can call it that, especially at my age (44). If i throw my daughter in the air i feel that full rom helps me more. It seems to me that in any remotely phisical activity full rom (full stretch, full mobility) helps me move better.
I agree that athleticism can be an issue. Years and years ago i did that super slow training for months. I took a martial arts class in school and was shocked at how slow and sluggish I felt. What especially shocked me was that when wrestled in high school i was super quick. I use lengthened partials to some extent and like them, but because of the specificity principle and my not being solely focused on hypertrophy, i would not use them exclusively.
@@erotzollthats my big problem with that super slow, controlled style Dr Mike uses. You want to teach your body to move quickly; it’s the thing that most declines with age. If you only ever move slow, when you need to move fast, you won’t be able to
What do you work?
yast pump teh muskcles
TLDR? gonna watch later, at work rn
guys fighting over shit that does not really matter.
@@Beholderostfinally someone gets it. At this point it’s just a cesspool of creators trying to make content w/o clear intentions to help
@@Beholderost thank you
Yes you are wrong.
lyle is taking shoots at ppl because he's totally irrelevant nowadays
Bioscience is better. You are all over thinking this. Listen to this dude and stay small.
So many shirts
Is anyone going to comment on how amazing the maturity, production quality, and chill vibes are on this video?
So ? Was he wrong ?
Agian bro? how many times you will be Wrong?
you should lose 3lbs of pure muscle every time you are wrong for punishment
yes
You’re definitely wrong in thinking that setting up two cameras at slightly different angles and then cutting back and forth between them during talking head segments even though you’re only looking at one of them the entire time adds anything positive to your video.
is bigger
It's bigger than you
And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
My only push back is really the snooze fest videos. It’s getting old
✝️💪
Tldr; yes
6 mins in and on 3 add breaks on a 24 min video. Pass.
Lil' Milo would be an awesome rapper name!
Lil Milo is a Norteno rapper from Cen Cal
Hello Milo
Hi dude Milo here
Oops forgot to log out and back in.