Is full ROM as valuable as people say?

[mpatryluk]

mythicalstrength.blogspot.ca/2014/03/why-are-you-using-full-range-of-motion.html
(Sorry, it seems I cant post it as a clickable link until greater post count)

He goes way overboard by saying that full ROM is worthless of course, since full ROM can be important for ensuring you target the widest range of possible involved muscles at all parts of a movement, and developing strength/physique with minimal weakpoints or oversights, but on the fundamental level, the article does raise a valid concern.

In any range of motion, i.e. the full range of shoulder flexion or extension, there will be ranges where the body is significantly weaker than the rest of the ranges of that lift.

So if you were to perform the full range, the body would be limited/bottlenecked by the weakest portion of the lift. Wouldnt that mean that the muscles primarily activated in the stronger parts of the lift wouldnt be getting enough training stimuli, because the weight would be too light, and you would be undertraining what was meant to be the strongest range of the motion?

Also the other thing about "full" range of motion in exercises is that most exercises dont represent the full range of motion possible anyways. In a bench press, the arms dont fully adduct across the chest because theyre constrained by the grip you have on the bar. In pullups, you dont achieve the full RoM of shoulder extension with elbows pointed out behind you.

So what's the basis for "full" rom supposedly alway being best when there are so many factors and variables?

[d2mini]

Also the other thing about "full" range of motion in exercises is that most exercises dont represent the full range of motion possible anyways. In a bench press, the arms dont fully adduct across the chest because theyre constrained by the grip you have on the bar. In pullups, you dont achieve the full RoM of shoulder extension with elbows pointed out behind you.

So what's the basis for "full" rom supposedly alway being best when there are so many factors and variables?

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
In these two examples, full ROM of a bench press is bar on chest to elbows locked out. Full rom on a pull up is dead hang to chin over bar (or even chest to bar).
Both ROM's fully attainable.
On a squat, full ROM is legs straight to thigh below parallel. Again, fully attainable.

[ironwill2008]

mythicalstrength.blogspot.ca/2014/03/why-are-you-using-full-range-of-motion.html
(Sorry, it seems I cant post it as a clickable link until greater post count)

He goes way overboard by saying that full ROM is worthless of course, since full ROM can be important for ensuring you target the widest range of possible involved muscles at all parts of a movement, and developing strength/physique with minimal weakpoints or oversights, but on the fundamental level, the article does raise a valid concern.

In any range of motion, i.e. the full range of shoulder flexion or extension, there will be ranges where the body is significantly weaker than the rest of the ranges of that lift.

So if you were to perform the full range, the body would be limited/bottlenecked by the weakest portion of the lift. Wouldnt that mean that the muscles primarily activated in the stronger parts of the lift wouldnt be getting enough training stimuli, because the weight would be too light, and you would be undertraining what was meant to be the strongest range of the motion?

Also the other thing about "full" range of motion in exercises is that most exercises dont represent the full range of motion possible anyways. In a bench press, the arms dont fully adduct across the chest because theyre constrained by the grip you have on the bar. In pullups, you dont achieve the full RoM of shoulder extension with elbows pointed out behind you.

So what's the basis for "full" rom supposedly alway being best when there are so many factors and variables?

If I were you, I'd be very careful about taking the training advice of random internet bloggers, especially those who post stuff diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of weight training that people have abided to, and progressed from, ever since there have been weights to lift.

[401Delta]

So what's the basis for "full" rom supposedly alway being best when there are so many factors and variables?

You've already made a case for why it isn't always the best.

One example would be why it's important to go below parallel when performing squats. Is it to work the quads through a full range of motion? No, it's so you can produce hip drive (and there's obviously more ROM further below parallel, but that's not necessarily going to improve your performance in the squat or build muscle quicker by going there).

Another example would be performing bicep curls...during the repetition you would likely want to keep tension on the bicep by not completely locking out at the bottom, so you also wouldn't be using a full ROM in that case either.

Full range of motion is just an anatomical pathway...whether you use all of it just depends on the specific exercise and your purpose for performing it .

If I were you, I'd be very careful about taking the training advice of random internet bloggers, especially those who post stuff diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of weight training that people have abided to, and progressed from, ever since there have been weights to lift.

^^And this.

[medjen]

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
In these two examples, full ROM of a bench press is bar on chest to elbows locked out. Full rom on a pull up is dead hang to chin over bar (or even chest to bar).
Both ROM's fully attainable.
On a squat, full ROM is legs straight to thigh below parallel. Again, fully attainable.

This is a good point. OP -- Full ROM is full ROM for that exercise, not full ROM for whatever joint you're working with.

[401Delta]

This is a good point. OP -- Full ROM is full ROM for that exercise, not full ROM for whatever joint you're working with.

That could make things a little muddy, as full ROM is generally accepted as the movement from complete extension to complete flexion. Effective ROM might be a better term when referring to the ROM of the exercise .

[Gwybodaeth]

Not commenting on hypertrophy, but things like strength and power are attributes that are used to aid movements. Squatting to parallel might be enough to produce strength in the quads, but in terms of carryover, they aren't exactly perfect; if you're a weightlifter, you're going to be catching as low as possible, so it makes sense to train the lowest possible position you can achieve from a functional standpoint.

[echambers123]

stop looking for shortcuts and ways to cheat more weight on the bar. Just do the exercise correctly.

[Garage Rat]

Partial reps(continuos tension)and full range have a place as far as bodybuilding goes.
Without getting technical like your post here's my take on it.
A full rep and lets talk full reps that most think of with a full stretch and contraction of the movement your working.
Stretching the working muscle is good and starting from it works a weak area for most people so just that much more muscle stimulation and contracting as far as possible works the muscle harder at the opposite range where people can also be weak.
Also IMO contracting as full as possible helps put more detail in that area and if your lean you will notice the difference if you train that way.
On the other side of the coin not locking out or stretching in the eccentric portion keeps tension on the targeted area working the strongest part of the movement for most people.
Tension is never off until you put down the weight.
They both have a place in your bodybuilding program.
You could say do some regular sets of squats with full range and lockout and finish up a few sets of non lock reps with a bit lighter weight.
Or you could do cycles of each for a month or two.
These are protocol tools that can be used when you want to change things up.

[Junsuiakai]

I think if you can't do full range of motion on an exercise, you shouldn't try and do partials, but if you can achieve full rom on an exercise, then you could implement them into your program. That is my two-cents.

[FallingBridge]

On this article, at the chapter "Range of motion", almost at the end, there is an exhaustive compilation of the available research on the topic:

http://sci-fit.net/2017/scientific-recommendations-1/

Enjoy the read!

[mpatryluk]

on this article, at the chapter "range of motion", almost at the end, there is an exhaustive compilation of the available research on the topic:


Enjoy the read!

!!!!!!!

[mpatryluk]

You've already made a case for why it isn't always the best.

One example would be why it's important to go below parallel when performing squats. Is it to work the quads through a full range of motion? No, it's so you can produce hip drive (and there's obviously more ROM further below parallel, but that's not necessarily going to improve your performance in the squat or build muscle quicker by going there).

Another example would be performing bicep curls...during the repetition you would likely want to keep tension on the bicep by not completely locking out at the bottom, so you also wouldn't be using a full ROM in that case either.

Full range of motion is just an anatomical pathway...whether you use all of it just depends on the specific exercise and your purpose for performing it .




^^And this.

Good point. I guess I should handle RoM on a case by case basis in relation to my clearly defined goals. Thanks.

[supramax]

mpatryluk,


http://archive.is/Zg64T#selection-103.0-395.30

[sooby]

mythicalstrength.blogspot.ca/2014/03/why-are-you-using-full-range-of-motion.html
(Sorry, it seems I cant post it as a clickable link until greater post count)

He goes way overboard by saying that full ROM is worthless of course, since full ROM can be important for ensuring you target the widest range of possible involved muscles at all parts of a movement, and developing strength/physique with minimal weakpoints or oversights, but on the fundamental level, the article does raise a valid concern.

In any range of motion, i.e. the full range of shoulder flexion or extension, there will be ranges where the body is significantly weaker than the rest of the ranges of that lift.

So if you were to perform the full range, the body would be limited/bottlenecked by the weakest portion of the lift. Wouldnt that mean that the muscles primarily activated in the stronger parts of the lift wouldnt be getting enough training stimuli, because the weight would be too light, and you would be undertraining what was meant to be the strongest range of the motion?

Also the other thing about "full" range of motion in exercises is that most exercises dont represent the full range of motion possible anyways. In a bench press, the arms dont fully adduct across the chest because theyre constrained by the grip you have on the bar. In pullups, you dont achieve the full RoM of shoulder extension with elbows pointed out behind you.

So what's the basis for "full" rom supposedly alway being best when there are so many factors and variables?

People have a huge weakness and disparity at a certain part of the lift only if they've been training using half-assed reps or just not doing the exercise properly. Yes people do have sticking points but it shouldn't limit you that hard in terms of how much weight you put on the bar. Going by that logic we might as well just do 2 inch ROM bench presses with 315 lbs instead of rep out solid 225 with the bar touching the chest and locking out. You're really not getting much out of that. Yes you can train partial LIFTS to help with a sticking point but it depends what your goal is. Arm wrestlers may benefit from partial curls. Powerlifters who have weak points may benefit it from as well. But for the average joe just looking to get stronger using the max ROM that the lift and your body allows is the way to go.

I think there was a study where they compared full ROM bicep curls with no resistance with partial bicep curls with resistance and the full ROM group saw better size gains, take what you will from that.

when people talk about full ROM they are talking about full ROM that the lift and your proportions allow. Not everybody can safely do ATG squats