Reply
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Registered User ronki23's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Age: 33
    Posts: 1,063
    Rep Power: 2216
    ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000)
    ronki23 is offline

    What is the diference between isometric training and static contraction training?

    What is the difference between the two? Isn't isometric training when one puts maximum effort into pushing/pulling while static contractions are holding an exercise position? These can be put together for a quick workout right? Can you use weights in this type of workout?

    Bruce Lee said that isometric exercise builds strength but not much endurance; I thought holding a position with max tension increases endurance.
    He also said you can do it everyday; is it not a good idea if you add weights though?

    Also,what are the disadvantages of it-I hear it builds strength and endurance much faster than weights.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User Phil2009's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Posts: 4,412
    Rep Power: 6495
    Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000) Phil2009 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    Phil2009 is offline
    They are the same thing... Isometric contraction is a static contraction...

    Disadvantages is that without shortening and lengthening (concentric and eccentric contractions), you dont stand to increase strength too much.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User ronki23's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Age: 33
    Posts: 1,063
    Rep Power: 2216
    ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000) ronki23 is just really nice. (+1000)
    ronki23 is offline
    It's the same as holding a peak contraction?
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Registered User BalexanderK's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Location: Raeford, North Carolina, United States
    Age: 35
    Posts: 1
    Rep Power: 0
    BalexanderK has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    BalexanderK is offline
    Isometric is pressing against an immovable object (i.e. a weight you know you cannot lift), while static contraction is loading more than your max, but a weight you can actually move, and holding the weight in the range maximum contraction for a set amount of time
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User Virucyde's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Posts: 125
    Rep Power: 173
    Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10) Virucyde is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Virucyde is offline
    Originally Posted by ronki23 View Post
    It's the same as holding a peak contraction?
    That's referred to as "max" contraction training. Otherwise, the guy above nailed it on the head.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User jgreystoke's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Age: 71
    Posts: 10,571
    Rep Power: 26813
    jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) jgreystoke has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    jgreystoke is offline
    The problem with the simple isometrics you can do in prison or on the train or in the office, without any equipment:

    You have no measure of the load. Since this is not measurable, you have no way to track progress. Great for rehab after injury etc. So far behind weights, that there is simply no comparison.

    Bob Hoffman and others introduced isometric style training to weights. You loaded the bar heavy and did a partial in different positions of the squat for example, and then held an isometric contraction in a part of the range of motion you wanted to strengthen.

    Advantage: measurable progress.

    "Static Contraction Training" marketed by a Peter Sisco and John Little is an inferior regurgitation of Hoffman and other style isometrics with weights or machines.

    Sisco is seriously obese. Little is the opposite. Neither of them look like they even lift. The eponymous book claims to be for drug free training, but is loaded with pics of notorious juicers.

    The nutrition advice therein is beneath contempt. That is not surprising given the state of the authors.

    The book is aimed at the people who want to pretend they are training. Appeals to those who think they can get awesome in a few minutes a month, not kidding. Since the authors look like ****e, and show no evidence of being muscular and strong, I'd say it is a total scam.

    Isometrics, where they are measurable, are a useful addition to your weight training. Just don't expect them to double your deadlift without some training progressively in the deadlift from the floor.
    Beginners:

    FIERCE 5:

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=159678631

    Beyond novice, 5 3 1 or see above:)

    Unless it is obvious to anyone who isn't blind that you lift weights, you might still benefit from a little more attention to big basic barbell exercises for enough reps:).
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User edcorneyis1's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Posts: 28
    Rep Power: 0
    edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) edcorneyis1 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    edcorneyis1 is offline
    That's actually not true it won't increase power but it recruits more muscle fibers and increases strength faster but it's a different type of strength
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts