I think there was a new study regarding calves training which showed the same thing, that half reps at the bottom are actually better for hypertrophy than full ROM. Jeff Nippard posted about it as far as I remember. Also, Layne, can you talk about your ADHD journey/medication/experience overall? Would be interesting to hear about your experience :)
So training with the muscle in the most disadvantaged position is better, and it also happens to be the hardest part of the movement. Somehow this is entirely unsurprising
I don't think what you are saying is correct. The lengthened muscle position is the MOST advantaged. Your muscle is strongest in first half of the rep as compared to the last half. When the muscle is in the shortened position it's at a disadvantage. It can't pull very hard in the short position. It can pull very hard in the long position. So even though your conclusion is correct. That training in the lengthened position is best. Your explanation is actually the opposite. It's best because it's at an advantage and because it's the EASIEST part of the rep.
@@braedon4358 That may largely be true of the gastrocnemius but not the soleus, the soleus is a pure plantarflexor and generates more force in the concentric. It's active resistance to stretch is minimal, therefore doing lengthened partials will be great for the gastrocs (which are the prime dorsiflexors) but sub-par for the soleus.
@@DraperJake This causes inconsistency in the tracking of progress. You might as well use myoreps or drop sets if you want more volume in shorter amount of time.
My guess for how lengthened partials works, is you are working in the most difficult position, and when stopping before you get to the shortened position, you are effectively using less energy (less energy waste) and spending your energy output in the most difficult position, which increases overall tension. I'm not a doctor nor a research scientists, so I could be 100% wrong, but it's just my guess.
Agree, when you train you can tell what is the part of the movement that requires more work (try doing partial situps stopping halfway up vs going all the way up). Also, I think the stretch position under load elicits more muscle growth because there is more rupture of the fibers than when the muscle shorten.
The most difficult position is only for about half the muscle groups. Lengthened training have the most benefits in the other half where shortened position is harder so you need to give up while having more strength to go in the long muscle lengths. Example of this include most back exercises, biceps and i give up with more examples. :D
The problem with your theory is that there are many exercises that are most difficult in the shortened position, leg extensions, tricep kickbacks, dumbell lateral raises, leg curls come to mind. With leg extensions and leg curls research has shown doing the EASIER part of the movement results in more growth.
@@asprinklingofclouds I'm going to need you to cite your research on that one, because EMG does not always equal more growth. So I would definitely like to read the study(s) you are referring.
I wouldn't say the study was replicated, but rather, the idea was revisited. To replicate, you'd have to actually replicate the study as it was performed.
I think what's missing is the understanding of how a full length partial should be performed. Just as there are incorrect ways of doing a full range of motion exercise, there are many and probably more ways to incorrectly perform a full length partial exercise. I've seen guys attempt full length partials, but they miss out on one of the most important parts of the exercise, that is, the full stretch of the muscle. On top of that, when doing the partial rep, its hard to determine when to stop contracting, and unless someone is visually or verbally coaching that person (until the person know how to do it correctly), the full length partial rep may give the desired results. There are too many variables in my opinion that need to be really controlled before we really can come to a true conclusion.
Short length contraction maybe inferior for actual size however it’s possible that it helps the actual look and oily was of the muscle, resulting in a bigger look. Bodybuilding isn’t just about size measurement it’s about look.
@@DraperJake maybe but has not been looked at and hard to judge from in a study that requires numbers. I know from cuts that when I focus on some short end full contraction/ squeezing the muscle has looked more tensed at rest than other cuts. Not exactly bigger almost like more contracted muscles with more pronounced seperation
Example tricpes: Pushdowns train near the same 2 of the heads of the triceps while overhead extensions train the same or slightly better those 2 and way better the 3rd head. The long head is the one not trained at push exercises so it's the less trained one and have the biggest impact in the triceps. While for example for calves. Seated do the same 1 part of the muscle same while the other 2-3 times worse muscle growth.
@@knockingseeker No. It's been studied plenty. It doesn't TONE or change in shape. It's just genetics that decide those. They grow and shrink the same.
@@DraperJake compartmentalisation exists. That means you can target the upper head of the tricep long head. This has been shown. What you are saying about it just growing or not is false. There is also myofbrillial vs sarcoplasmic hyoertrophy. Someone who only does 5-8 reps vs so done who does 15-20 reps at the same size and genetics will have different looking muscles. The 15-20 will look more fuller and balling vs the harder denser appearance of the heavier lifter.
How do you calculate calories burned during cardio? Is it through heart rate? Watts produced? Amount of time? Or is it only accurate with co2 production and blood samples? I just want a consistent way to calculate the calories I burn during my daily hr of cardio.
if you were to do only long length RoM, could this be detrimental in the long term compared to full RoM? In that, there is a part of the full RoM (shortened) that you're not using and therefore you potentially lose strength or mobility within that specific range?
What happens when you are already injured. Like a past long distance runner who no cartilage on one knee, i cant do full range of motions with my squats. Focus on lunges and hope thats gkod enough.
It's good enough. And there are other alternatives. Use machines and isolation movements. Leg extension, hamstring curls, hip thrusts etc. find what doesn't cause problems for you, and do that.
Long lengths are way superior fs. I believe there was a recent paper that even pointed out that the stretch portion of lifting weights was at least as good as actual "traditional" flexibility work
@@GMDGeek this is why I still do full ROM even if it has the same hypertrophy as lengthened partials. I want to train my body to be capable of using that strength throughout the motion, and have full mobility, and nothing beats full ROM for that.
Yup, just listen to the bros because they know everything. It's not they're outlier genetics. It's the knowledge. Not listening at least to evidence based fitness is being narrow minded.
I use resistance bands. So does that mean I won't build muscle or just less muscle, or once I hit a certain point I won't grow muscle anymore? (I have seen good gains, but I'm not trying to be a body builder either)
From my understanding. Yes. The force of the bands are weakest where you want the muscle to feel the most tension. I’m not a dr. But I’d assume any exercise is better than no exercise. You might be able to get good gains on bands. However, doing exercises where the muscle, at stretch, has more resilience… you’d probably see even more gains. I saw something about the tricep, being stretched, and getting 40% more growth than tricep in another angle. So it could be a big difference! Worth looking into before you do it for years and years.
The main problem with the bands is the lack of progressive overload. What do you do when you can do 30 reps with your strongest band? Use multiple bands? It just gets really hard to increase difficulty, especially in small steps like you can do with weight. Honestly, get at least adjustable dumbbells and an adjustable bench, and you can do soooo many exercises with just that.
@davorzdralo8000 I'm actually a truck driver so it's not ideal to carry adjustable dumbbells and a weight bench. My heaviest band goes up to 300 lbs of resistance (but i dont plan to get that strong) 😅 but my goal isn't to as big as possible, but I'm just confused because his wording makes it sound like the concentric part doesn't build any muscle at all when I'm sure that's not entirely true. Not as good as having weighted stretch on the muscle, but atleast on myself I have seen muscle gains.
@@brownpanda8320 hmmm, no, you must have misheard something, he says that it's near identical, or tiny little bit more on eccentric. Concentric is still at least 45% of the growth.
In light of this video, I would love to know. Your thoughts on Kneesovertoesguy, as he has talked about working through long muscle and long ranges of motion under tension.
@@imthetube44 literally everyone has talked about that since forever. There is nothing special about his stuff, he just found a viral way to advertise himself.
What I’ve been doing recently with this info is after reaching just shy of failure is on the last set is doing a few partial ROM at the lengthened position to possibly get a bit more out of it.
strength is specific to whatever you're doing.. the best way to get stronger at a half squat is to half squat, the best way to get stronger at a full squat is a full squat
The real problem is that people don't care about what is true. It's so weird, but they literally don't. They prefer to believe whatever they like the most, so we get all kinds of weird shit that has been completely debunked yet has millions of followers.
The real question is can you target the muscle you're trying to grow when it's fully lengthened ? Most people can't. Just saying. The more you stretch a muscle the harder it is for the right motor units to fire. That's from a guy that goes deep asf on most exercise. My bicep is a ball around my Shoulder, it's already stretched asf by going half way down.
Annoying that all this research is done on hypertrophy and not much of anything meaningful is researched concerning strength, especially in trained individuals. Is it because the research is catering more to vanity as opposed to function?
Speaking of strength as not a vanity pursuit itself is a bit of a bias in itself. But there’s just more researchers in body building and there’s more people concerned with growing muscle than pure strength. Power lifters are concerned about strength and hypertrophy because a bigger muscle always has a high work capacity. But body builders don’t really care about strength they care about hypertrophy. So there’s more interest and more researcher in hypertrophy than strength
@@tpespos it's not a bias. It's an objective observation. Strength is the fundamental physical pursuit upon which all other physical pursuits rely. From a functional standpoint, you have to be strong enough to be fast, strong enough to hold positions if you're flexibility is the goal, strong enough to be more powerful if power is the goal, and I'm the case of a lot of patients I treat, strong enough to not have back pain or to be able to get up from a toilet, etc. There's nothing biased about it. It's just fact. Strength is functional. Bigger muscles, though they may help increase strength are not necessary in order to be strong. Hence, hypertrophy skews towards the vanity end of the scale while strength is a lot further from it. The multitudes of vanity research skewed towards bodybuilding is just getting to be a bit redundant. How much nuance do we need?
@@tpespos it's not biased, it's fact. Being strong is quite literally more functional than being big. All other physical pursuits ie flexibility, stability, power, etc depend on strength. It is the more functional and less vain of the two attributes we are discussing. How many more research articles do we need on loading in a stretched position for your muscle to look prettier by some miniscule margin? Atp we get it.
@@davorzdralo8000 reading comprehension and logic are fundamental here. I'm not switching anything. While Getting stronger has an aspect that can be vain, getting stronger also serves a function. I don't have to make a muscle big to make it stronger (more functional). Can it help? Sure. So I have to? No. Hypertrophy isn't required to get stronger. It is required to get bigger (vanity), therefore fundamentally has more of a vanity component than strengthening does. Thinking most people who train for strength do it for vanity is your bias. There is a great deal of the population, especially patients I treat, that train for strength so they don't have back pain, or so they can continue to get up from a toilet into old age, or be able to rearrange their furniture, or carry groceries, etc. the previous reply says there's more research done on hypertrophy because bodybuilders care more about hypertrophy than strength. While that's not the entire truth as to why there's a lack of strength research, is the entire sport of bodybuilding not based odd of how someone subjectively looks? Ie vanity?
With all due respect, Lane (and I love your channel) - people over complicate so much of strength and hypertrophy. 1. Train through a full range of motion. It won’t ever do you harm. 2. Train pretty hard to mostly hard most of the time. 3. Recover more than you think. 4. Get enough calories and protein from good quality food. 5. Sleep 6. Follow a plan 7. Progressive overload slowly 8. Learn compounds and master them 9. Avoid too much junk volume. 10. Be consistent. This is coming from a 59 year old with 45 years of training and teaching.
@ 100 percent true. But the basics that I listed above hold true and always will. Like the 5-30 reps being about the same for hypertrophy. While that might be true in theory, in reality it’s way off base. Very few lifters are doing sets of squats for 30 reps to failure. It takes too long, is too fatiguing, and makes doing multiple sets almost impossible. You tell me something that’s really complicated about getting strong or big?
This whole thing is so stupid to me. Never heard about “muscle lengths” until this year. Just train them through the full rom and you have nothing to worry about. Science can be helpful but also too much and easily manipulated.
think you are interpreting this to suggest unique benefits other than for bodybuilding purposes from longer muscle lengths rather than suggesting if you get rid of any range of motion from the exercise do not get rid of the lengthened position. This is a common practice of people not descending far enough in squats, pull ups, bench, and similar. this also has benefits for certain compound movements, especially pulls, where smaller muscles may be too fatigued to overcome a sticking point but larger muscles may still generate force. many people will, as they fatigue, favor not descending past a sticking point, doing shortened partials, but seems would be better to do the lengthened portion. Think one of those is a practical consideration for all athletes, and the latter is a potential tool to add stimulus in a time efficient manner like a drop set or similar.
I think there was a new study regarding calves training which showed the same thing, that half reps at the bottom are actually better for hypertrophy than full ROM. Jeff Nippard posted about it as far as I remember. Also, Layne, can you talk about your ADHD journey/medication/experience overall? Would be interesting to hear about your experience :)
Lengthened partial for biceps is the bottom half of the curl range
long muscle lengths also keep or improve mobility so I that as another plus
I would really enjoy seeing a study on the impact of supersetting full reps with lengthened partials.
Love this video and love the info.
So training with the muscle in the most disadvantaged position is better, and it also happens to be the hardest part of the movement. Somehow this is entirely unsurprising
I don't think what you are saying is correct. The lengthened muscle position is the MOST advantaged. Your muscle is strongest in first half of the rep as compared to the last half. When the muscle is in the shortened position it's at a disadvantage. It can't pull very hard in the short position. It can pull very hard in the long position.
So even though your conclusion is correct. That training in the lengthened position is best. Your explanation is actually the opposite. It's best because it's at an advantage and because it's the EASIEST part of the rep.
interesting. was noticing recently in some videos that lengthened partials were better for hypertrophy on calves than full so make sense
calves are special (we don’t know why) lol they grow almost ONLY in stretch
@@braedon4358 That may largely be true of the gastrocnemius but not the soleus, the soleus is a pure plantarflexor and generates more force in the concentric. It's active resistance to stretch is minimal, therefore doing lengthened partials will be great for the gastrocs (which are the prime dorsiflexors) but sub-par for the soleus.
Layne trains heavy and hard like a normal bodybuilders. Saw him in the background of Derek Lunsford video
i love this channel
Same
Commenting fooooor the algorithm!
Wouldn't that indicate that lockout positions may be super overrated?
Sorta, yeah. But taking a moment at lockout in order to get a few extra reps might be helpful for high volume training.
@@DraperJake This causes inconsistency in the tracking of progress. You might as well use myoreps or drop sets if you want more volume in shorter amount of time.
I'd rather replace 1 full ROM set with 1 negative only set with 3-4 reps with max intensity.
Look at that famous video clip of Arnold doing flys and look at his chest!
Does this also apply to strength training???
My guess for how lengthened partials works, is you are working in the most difficult position, and when stopping before you get to the shortened position, you are effectively using less energy (less energy waste) and spending your energy output in the most difficult position, which increases overall tension.
I'm not a doctor nor a research scientists, so I could be 100% wrong, but it's just my guess.
Agree, when you train you can tell what is the part of the movement that requires more work (try doing partial situps stopping halfway up vs going all the way up). Also, I think the stretch position under load elicits more muscle growth because there is more rupture of the fibers than when the muscle shorten.
Also it doesn't matter, as long as we know what works best.
The most difficult position is only for about half the muscle groups. Lengthened training have the most benefits in the other half where shortened position is harder so you need to give up while having more strength to go in the long muscle lengths. Example of this include most back exercises, biceps and i give up with more examples. :D
The problem with your theory is that there are many exercises that are most difficult in the shortened position, leg extensions, tricep kickbacks, dumbell lateral raises, leg curls come to mind. With leg extensions and leg curls research has shown doing the EASIER part of the movement results in more growth.
@@asprinklingofclouds I'm going to need you to cite your research on that one, because EMG does not always equal more growth. So I would definitely like to read the study(s) you are referring.
I wouldn't say the study was replicated, but rather, the idea was revisited. To replicate, you'd have to actually replicate the study as it was performed.
I think what's missing is the understanding of how a full length partial should be performed. Just as there are incorrect ways of doing a full range of motion exercise, there are many and probably more ways to incorrectly perform a full length partial exercise. I've seen guys attempt full length partials, but they miss out on one of the most important parts of the exercise, that is, the full stretch of the muscle. On top of that, when doing the partial rep, its hard to determine when to stop contracting, and unless someone is visually or verbally coaching that person (until the person know how to do it correctly), the full length partial rep may give the desired results. There are too many variables in my opinion that need to be really controlled before we really can come to a true conclusion.
Typo: may give > may not give
Algo, let's go!
FOOOOAAR THE ALGORITHM!!
Short length contraction maybe inferior for actual size however it’s possible that it helps the actual look and oily was of the muscle, resulting in a bigger look. Bodybuilding isn’t just about size measurement it’s about look.
That's not how muscles work. They grow or shrink. They don't change in any other way.
@@DraperJake maybe but has not been looked at and hard to judge from in a study that requires numbers.
I know from cuts that when I focus on some short end full contraction/ squeezing the muscle has looked more tensed at rest than other cuts. Not exactly bigger almost like more contracted muscles with more pronounced seperation
Example tricpes: Pushdowns train near the same 2 of the heads of the triceps while overhead extensions train the same or slightly better those 2 and way better the 3rd head. The long head is the one not trained at push exercises so it's the less trained one and have the biggest impact in the triceps. While for example for calves. Seated do the same 1 part of the muscle same while the other 2-3 times worse muscle growth.
@@knockingseeker No. It's been studied plenty. It doesn't TONE or change in shape. It's just genetics that decide those. They grow and shrink the same.
@@DraperJake compartmentalisation exists. That means you can target the upper head of the tricep long head. This has been shown. What you are saying about it just growing or not is false. There is also myofbrillial vs sarcoplasmic hyoertrophy. Someone who only does 5-8 reps vs so done who does 15-20 reps at the same size and genetics will have different looking muscles. The 15-20 will look more fuller and balling vs the harder denser appearance of the heavier lifter.
How do you calculate calories burned during cardio? Is it through heart rate? Watts produced? Amount of time? Or is it only accurate with co2 production and blood samples? I just want a consistent way to calculate the calories I burn during my daily hr of cardio.
Am I the only one who mutes the video until after the "For the Algorithm" bit?
Yes.
if you were to do only long length RoM, could this be detrimental in the long term compared to full RoM? In that, there is a part of the full RoM (shortened) that you're not using and therefore you potentially lose strength or mobility within that specific range?
What happens when you are already injured. Like a past long distance runner who no cartilage on one knee, i cant do full range of motions with my squats. Focus on lunges and hope thats gkod enough.
It's good enough. And there are other alternatives. Use machines and isolation movements. Leg extension, hamstring curls, hip thrusts etc. find what doesn't cause problems for you, and do that.
Great video. I'm very curious in regards to mobility/flexibility impacts if one is better than the other
Long lengths are way superior fs. I believe there was a recent paper that even pointed out that the stretch portion of lifting weights was at least as good as actual "traditional" flexibility work
Increases mobility. Massively.
@@GMDGeek this is why I still do full ROM even if it has the same hypertrophy as lengthened partials. I want to train my body to be capable of using that strength throughout the motion, and have full mobility, and nothing beats full ROM for that.
4 algorithym
4 the shmalgorithm
Milo, Pak, Menno, Bret (not as active) are great TH-cam channels to follow for evidence-based fitness, I do recommend them 👌
Dr Mike as well
S-Tier fitness channels
Evidence based fitness is pretty lame though.
@@brandonyoung4910lol
Yup, just listen to the bros because they know everything. It's not they're outlier genetics. It's the knowledge. Not listening at least to evidence based fitness is being narrow minded.
great
Did they account for total volume/tonnage?
Volume is almost always equated, but in terms of tonnage, they showed you can use less weight and get better results.
I use resistance bands. So does that mean I won't build muscle or just less muscle, or once I hit a certain point I won't grow muscle anymore? (I have seen good gains, but I'm not trying to be a body builder either)
From my understanding. Yes. The force of the bands are weakest where you want the muscle to feel the most tension.
I’m not a dr. But I’d assume any exercise is better than no exercise. You might be able to get good gains on bands. However, doing exercises where the muscle, at stretch, has more resilience… you’d probably see even more gains. I saw something about the tricep, being stretched, and getting 40% more growth than tricep in another angle. So it could be a big difference! Worth looking into before you do it for years and years.
The main problem with the bands is the lack of progressive overload. What do you do when you can do 30 reps with your strongest band? Use multiple bands? It just gets really hard to increase difficulty, especially in small steps like you can do with weight. Honestly, get at least adjustable dumbbells and an adjustable bench, and you can do soooo many exercises with just that.
@davorzdralo8000 I'm actually a truck driver so it's not ideal to carry adjustable dumbbells and a weight bench. My heaviest band goes up to 300 lbs of resistance (but i dont plan to get that strong) 😅 but my goal isn't to as big as possible, but I'm just confused because his wording makes it sound like the concentric part doesn't build any muscle at all when I'm sure that's not entirely true. Not as good as having weighted stretch on the muscle, but atleast on myself I have seen muscle gains.
@@brownpanda8320 hmmm, no, you must have misheard something, he says that it's near identical, or tiny little bit more on eccentric. Concentric is still at least 45% of the growth.
@davorzdralo8000 okay thanks for the clarification then appreciate it
In light of this video, I would love to know. Your thoughts on Kneesovertoesguy, as he has talked about working through long muscle and long ranges of motion under tension.
@@imthetube44 literally everyone has talked about that since forever. There is nothing special about his stuff, he just found a viral way to advertise himself.
What I’ve been doing recently with this info is after reaching just shy of failure is on the last set is doing a few partial ROM at the lengthened position to possibly get a bit more out of it.
same for strength?
strength is specific to whatever you're doing.. the best way to get stronger at a half squat is to half squat, the best way to get stronger at a full squat is a full squat
FOR
Joel Seedman is a clown, but that's not the problem, the problem is he makes money from spreading nonsense and misinformation
Never heard of him.
The real problem is that people don't care about what is true. It's so weird, but they literally don't. They prefer to believe whatever they like the most, so we get all kinds of weird shit that has been completely debunked yet has millions of followers.
Foooooor theeeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaalgoooorythm
Layne getting distracted by his own biceps in the demonstration 😅
@2:28 most muscles involved in the pull up are actually not stretched in the bottom position, you probably wanted to say the opposite.
Pretty sure he meant this as a bench press example or shoulder press.
Bump 💪🏼
Full ROM FTW
For the algorithm
👍👍👍👍👍👍🙏
😂 2:09 this audio 😂 who’s voice was that?😂😂
Lane on a 2006 flip phone
Underwater Layne effect
Four thee Al Gore rhythm!!!
The real question is can you target the muscle you're trying to grow when it's fully lengthened ? Most people can't. Just saying. The more you stretch a muscle the harder it is for the right motor units to fire.
That's from a guy that goes deep asf on most exercise.
My bicep is a ball around my Shoulder, it's already stretched asf by going half way down.
@@MonkeyKong38 that's why this stuff is good for isolation movements, but not great for compounds.
Algo Long
Dear Doctor, could You please consider the subject of ultra-processed foods’ effect on health?
Menno & Bret must be loaded 😶
comment :*****
fta
first😀
Annoying that all this research is done on hypertrophy and not much of anything meaningful is researched concerning strength, especially in trained individuals. Is it because the research is catering more to vanity as opposed to function?
Speaking of strength as not a vanity pursuit itself is a bit of a bias in itself. But there’s just more researchers in body building and there’s more people concerned with growing muscle than pure strength. Power lifters are concerned about strength and hypertrophy because a bigger muscle always has a high work capacity. But body builders don’t really care about strength they care about hypertrophy. So there’s more interest and more researcher in hypertrophy than strength
@@tpespos it's not a bias. It's an objective observation. Strength is the fundamental physical pursuit upon which all other physical pursuits rely. From a functional standpoint, you have to be strong enough to be fast, strong enough to hold positions if you're flexibility is the goal, strong enough to be more powerful if power is the goal, and I'm the case of a lot of patients I treat, strong enough to not have back pain or to be able to get up from a toilet, etc. There's nothing biased about it. It's just fact. Strength is functional. Bigger muscles, though they may help increase strength are not necessary in order to be strong. Hence, hypertrophy skews towards the vanity end of the scale while strength is a lot further from it. The multitudes of vanity research skewed towards bodybuilding is just getting to be a bit redundant. How much nuance do we need?
@@tpespos it's not biased, it's fact. Being strong is quite literally more functional than being big. All other physical pursuits ie flexibility, stability, power, etc depend on strength. It is the more functional and less vain of the two attributes we are discussing. How many more research articles do we need on loading in a stretched position for your muscle to look prettier by some miniscule margin? Atp we get it.
@@BigBusiness02 you've switching from "vanity" to "it's more functional". Most people who train for strength also do it for vanity.
@@davorzdralo8000 reading comprehension and logic are fundamental here. I'm not switching anything. While Getting stronger has an aspect that can be vain, getting stronger also serves a function. I don't have to make a muscle big to make it stronger (more functional). Can it help? Sure. So I have to? No. Hypertrophy isn't required to get stronger. It is required to get bigger (vanity), therefore fundamentally has more of a vanity component than strengthening does. Thinking most people who train for strength do it for vanity is your bias. There is a great deal of the population, especially patients I treat, that train for strength so they don't have back pain, or so they can continue to get up from a toilet into old age, or be able to rearrange their furniture, or carry groceries, etc. the previous reply says there's more research done on hypertrophy because bodybuilders care more about hypertrophy than strength. While that's not the entire truth as to why there's a lack of strength research, is the entire sport of bodybuilding not based odd of how someone subjectively looks? Ie vanity?
With all due respect, Lane (and I love your channel) - people over complicate so much of strength and hypertrophy.
1. Train through a full range of motion. It won’t ever do you harm.
2. Train pretty hard to mostly hard most of the time.
3. Recover more than you think.
4. Get enough calories and protein from good quality food.
5. Sleep
6. Follow a plan
7. Progressive overload slowly
8. Learn compounds and master them
9. Avoid too much junk volume.
10. Be consistent.
This is coming from a 59 year old with 45 years of training and teaching.
It's only overcomplicated if you don't understand it.
@ 100 percent true. But the basics that I listed above hold true and always will. Like the 5-30 reps being about the same for hypertrophy. While that might be true in theory, in reality it’s way off base. Very few lifters are doing sets of squats for 30 reps to failure. It takes too long, is too fatiguing, and makes doing multiple sets almost impossible. You tell me something that’s really complicated about getting strong or big?
Algorithm
But shortened range of motion gives you a better pump bro
This is a thorny issue
This whole thing is so stupid to me. Never heard about “muscle lengths” until this year. Just train them through the full rom and you have nothing to worry about.
Science can be helpful but also too much and easily manipulated.
think you are interpreting this to suggest unique benefits other than for bodybuilding purposes from longer muscle lengths rather than suggesting if you get rid of any range of motion from the exercise do not get rid of the lengthened position. This is a common practice of people not descending far enough in squats, pull ups, bench, and similar. this also has benefits for certain compound movements, especially pulls, where smaller muscles may be too fatigued to overcome a sticking point but larger muscles may still generate force. many people will, as they fatigue, favor not descending past a sticking point, doing shortened partials, but seems would be better to do the lengthened portion.
Think one of those is a practical consideration for all athletes, and the latter is a potential tool to add stimulus in a time efficient manner like a drop set or similar.
Is it stupid or have you just done a poor job of keeping upto date on things?!
Jeez get to the point lane
Ha, you must be new around here
Algorithm