Pete Sisco - Revolutionary Static Contraction Training

[Carnudo]

BTW, the above results were from 2 weeks of performing static lifts.

Bets of luck to all!

Hey Hockey Man, it was very good your results and i wish you can have more and more better results with this method. I intend to do SCT as well but just after PFT... I think I will have better results with SCT... Well, see you later and good workouts!!

[TRDE59]

bump

[TRDE59]

I figure I'll just paste a link here, I'm NOT printing that **** out all over again

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...t=35404&page=2

[Unregistered]

I've just started the program and feel a difference already. I'm working with it once a week, but, as I go up in weight will give my body more recovery time. I don't know if it will work for me, but, nothing else has been consistently working. I feel stronger after just one workout and I am looking forward to working out tonight. I will keep you posted on my results and thanks to the others that have had good results and made me want to do this....

[Unregistered]

I'm 40 never had been a wieght lifter my activity level was declining and wieght suffering (high point over 240lb 3 years ago)

3 years ago I tried body for life lifting schedual and found it very difficult to maintain.

Both the time consistance and making me feel like crap.

After a 2+ month break from neglect. I tried lifting my previous lbs.

It was easy this got me thinking and researching.

I found SCT and first just tried some of the principles (ie RECOVERY)
It worked. So the I started doing Partials. It worked.
When I foung a need for more wieght I made the jump to the STC machine.
I have been using SCT on the specialized equipment for almost 2 years.
I love it I now work out (wieght train) everyother week. Four weeks between the same exersice. Seeing personal bests and being easy to measure sucsess has been very motivating for me.

I have lost 20lb and gained 10lb muscle mass.

My leg press started at 1200lb and is now over 1800lb
I am looking forward to the 1ton mark.

My only frustation is I occatioally would like to work out more. I don't because my results are more important then the high from a great SCT work out.


John

[bigla2004]

I jsut started this program and was wondering a couple things, how long do you guys stay on this for and did you see a full ROM increase in strength? Also, is all you did basically the one set of holds one day a week

[marklloyd]

The great strength one can exhibit in "strong position" is a leverage advantage, -not- a matter of using more muscle; so working in one's "weakest" position will have the same effect, with greater safety. The only time strong or weak position is an issue is when the leverage-advantaged range during -FULL RANGE- exercise doesn't recieve enough resistance because the weight is set for the disadvantaged range. BUT WAIT!: A well-designed Nautilus cam will flatten out the leverage advantages/disadvantages throughout the -FULL ROM-, enabling the effect Sisco and Little claim for statics without sacrificing strength development in any segment of your range . Thank you Arthur Jones; still 40 years ahead.

[marklloyd]

Those who have the time and inclination will find that Arthur Jones, (founder/inventor of Nautilus and MedX), did all of the research that Sisco and Little now misuse: Jones found that a muscle in fully-contracted position could handle the greatest resistance. But he made no assumptions, and kept researching. After many years, hundreds of trainees, and much money spent, Jones concluded that full-range strength development requires full-range exercise. Isn't it amazing how Little can stop paying attention right where it would hurt business? The sad thing for the suckers is that Jones found a superior way around this situation FORTY years ago: The Nautilus Cam, an off-center, (usually bean-shaped), axis, enables -variable resistance-, allowing the full range of a trainee's strength curve to get the correct load throughout the rep. This meets the criteria for Little and Sisco's theories, in addition to being full-range. Unfortunately, Little can't make money off of Jones' invention, so he needed to fudge the research a little.

[TRDE59]

Well, yeah. I discovered this, too. I gained a hell of a lot on this program in my static lifts. However, in my bench and squat, especially, it didn't help at ALL in my full range of motion. However, in some of my other lifts, that I contracted at the bottom of the motion, such as shoulder raises, I DID notice a strength increase. It seems that the strength gained in static lifts only gives strength at that angle and a few degrees in either direction. However, if trained at the bottom, it gives you a boost of strength throughout the range of motion. This strength at, say, the bottom of the bench press or squat, propels the motion upward. I'm doing STRETCHED (aka bottom) position static contrations in my program in my signature if anyone is interested.

But, a bonus of SCT is that it does a real good job of strengthening ligaments and tendons because of the extra weight. This, when combined with full range lifts, will help you become stronger in the full range of motion, and that's how you get bigger.

Statics are, unfortunately, a very poor way of getting good muscle size. I discovered this when I tried the program. That's because, in order to gain size, you need to break down the tissue to activate growth. Statics don't break down the tissue. It isn't just the absolute weight thats key. It's how the weight is moved. Then, and only then, will strength gains = size.

[Unregistered]

Statics are, unfortunately, a very poor way of getting good muscle size. I discovered this when I tried the program. That's because, in order to gain size, you need to break down the tissue to activate growth. Statics don't break down the tissue. It isn't just the absolute weight thats key. It's how the weight is moved. Then, and only then, will strength gains = size.

where is it proven that you must break down tissue to activate growth?
also, if so, at what point is the tissue actually broken down and what causes it to do so? Does the act of the tight contraction break down the tissue? or is it the motion itself that breaks down tissue?

[Danny R]

I have gone through every post on the topic of Pete Sisco and John Little's PFT/SCT etc. I don't believe in judging anyone and will just say that it has worked for me and I will keep using the systems the way I do.

My wife who is all of 105 lbs totally soaked, has seen great gains as I have. We eat right, do our daily walks and using the "Total Gym" for our off days cardio. We cycle through PFT and SCT regularly because the science works. In fact SCT is what we will be doing from here on out because the science works.

There is a process that truth about a given thing goes through; first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed then is accepted as fact.

Kuddos to Pete and John!

[TRDE59]

where is it proven that you must break down tissue to activate growth?
also, if so, at what point is the tissue actually broken down and what causes it to do so? Does the act of the tight contraction break down the tissue? or is it the motion itself that breaks down tissue?

Well, yes and no. Let me explain.

As a beginner, merely the fact that you are adding weight to the bar with every workout will help you see gains. Your muscles have NEVER experienced the stress of a bar over your chest, so they will grow as a response to this new kind of stress. So, naturally, it's a decent (although not nearly the best) program for beginners, since they'll get stronger every workout. GREAT for a beginner with very limited time, though!

However, as you progress and hit that intermediate level, your muscles become used to this stress. They eventually get wise to what you're doing and stop growing. "Well, I'm still getting stronger, though? Why?" Because your ligaments, tendons, bones, and nervous system are getting stronger. This is all cool, but these things in themselves do not make your muscles bigger.

Also, the contracted position in most muscles is actually the WEAKEST part of the movement. Try to do a leg extension with a heavy weight (heavier than your max) or a shoulder raise or tricep extension (strict form, of course, no leaning) and you'll see what I mean. Depending on the exercise, you can actually get the bar down (or up) partially. Try lat pulldowns. Calves work this way, too, as with most other muscles. The only reason why the contracted position is stronger in squats and bench is because of a leverage advantage. Your arms are directly under the bar and perfectly in line. Of course they're gonna be stronger. It's physics. Not because your muscles themselves are stronger in the contracted position. The stress is much more directly placed on the BONES and JOINTS then the actual muscles.

When you hold 500 lbs over your chest in this fasion, the 500 lbs is distributed over your skeleton (specifically your arms and torso) as opposed to your muscles. Your muscles are NOT producing those 500lbs of force on their own. Same works with a leg press. You can press 2000 lbs, but the force is being generated by your bones, tendons, and ligaments MUCH more than your muscles.

When you go all-out to failure doing this, remember what you feel like next time you do a static hold bench. You don't stop because your triceps or chest give out. You stop because your elbows and shoulder tendons can't hold it any more. This doesn't make your actual muscle proteins stronger.

AND IF THE MUSCLES THEMSELVES AREN'T GETTING STRONGER, YOU'RE NOT GETTING BIGGER.

Now, SCT is not without it's benefits, of course. Done right, and not too often, you can DRAMATICALLY increase your bone density and your ligament and tendon strength. This, in turn, leads to some pretty cool gains in your full range of motion later down the road. But notice how I said LATER ON down the road. It won't happen immediately. All I'm saying is that, after a few SCT workouts, gains in your full-range workouts will come easier since your ligaments and bones are MUCH stronger than they were before.

And gains in full-range workouts, where the stress is placed on the MUSCLES rather than the ligaments and tendons, will make you bigger.

I'm 40 never had been a wieght lifter........

I have been using SCT on the specialized equipment for almost 2 years.........

I have lost 20lb and gained 10lb muscle mass.

10lbs in 2 years?? With a good newbie program, you could've gotten that in 2 MONTHS!

Yes, even though you're 40.

[Unregistered]

i would just like to say that SCT has revolutionized the way people train. its quick and the results are amazing! anyone who hasn't tried this needs to. you won't regret it.

[Tyciol]

SCT has added a whole new ball game. It offers things free weights can't, while free weights offer things it can't.

SCT would build the strongest skeleton, if skeletal mass, like muscle, responds to max force rather than force over time.

MCT is better for targetting maximum muscle growth. Since it does not utilize bone-loading for load-bearing, it probably does not strengthen the skeleton as much, which I think is more useful for real-life activities.

Isotonic motions are better for building contractile proteins and training the nervous system to push, especially from a stretched position. With stretch bands and bowflexes, it is safer and allows a pseudo-SCT/MCT level at maximal contraction while retaining a large RoM. Free weights, on the other hand, can be used to put more stress in stretched positions, which might have unique properties, and is more scary and tends to impress people more.

Those who have the time and inclination will find that Arthur Jones, (founder/inventor of Nautilus and MedX), did all of the research that Sisco and Little now misuse: Jones found that a muscle in fully-contracted position could handle the greatest resistance. But he made no assumptions, and kept researching. After many years, hundreds of trainees, and much money spent, Jones concluded that full-range strength development requires full-range exercise. Isn't it amazing how Little can stop paying attention right where it would hurt business? The sad thing for the suckers is that Jones found a superior way around this situation FORTY years ago: The Nautilus Cam, an off-center, (usually bean-shaped), axis, enables -variable resistance-, allowing the full range of a trainee's strength curve to get the correct load throughout the rep. This meets the criteria for Little and Sisco's theories, in addition to being full-range. Unfortunately, Little can't make money off of Jones' invention, so he needed to fudge the research a little.

This is the first I've heard of this Nautilus cam... I guess the main question is, is it used in all Nautilus machines, or just some of them? Specifically, the ones for the isolation exercises in question that John Little uses in Max Contraction Training. Really, the difference between SCT and MCT is that MCT uses isolation exercises which allow you to lock out since you don't risk hyperextension injuries in the joints when pushing against force perpendicular to the bone's support structure.

Nautilus created BowFlex, and I think their rods (and the plates used in BowFlex revolution) are another way of applying this principal of using greater loads in a maximally contracted state while still allowing a full range of motion with force exerted throughout, with less exerted in the weaker states prone to injury.

Well, yeah. I discovered this, too. I gained a hell of a lot on this program in my static lifts. However, in my bench and squat, especially, it didn't help at ALL in my full range of motion. However, in some of my other lifts, that I contracted at the bottom of the motion, such as shoulder raises, I DID notice a strength increase. It seems that the strength gained in static lifts only gives strength at that angle and a few degrees in either direction. However, if trained at the bottom, it gives you a boost of strength throughout the range of motion. This strength at, say, the bottom of the bench press or squat, propels the motion upward. I'm doing STRETCHED (aka bottom) position static contrations in my program in my signature if anyone is interested.

The reason that improving your static strength in the bottom (stretched) position isn't so much that it improves your strength throughout, but that the bottom position is generally where you are weakest. Improving top strength strengthens fibres specific to it which are not even activated in a stretched position of a muscle group (as with one head of the quadriceps) so it wouldn't transfer a great deal to the hole, whereas SCT training for it would directly improve the muscles in the exact overlapping fibrils you would need for pushing in that extended position.

I think using SCT in both strong (max contract) and weak (obviously less weight) is a very good idea. Maybe midway to even it out too. Isometrics have a limited degree of transferability, so doing them throughout is most beneficial for gains in strengths.

As for muscle gains, SCT is beneficial in that it allows super-heavy loads, which allows easier micro-progression (especially with the machine), with zero risk of injury from dropping the weight or jutting out to the side, or grinding joints, or whatever. Due to the bone structure, more weight is needed to stimulate muscle gains, but get high enough, and it works. The idea is, it is superior since it can get much higher, safer.

The contracted position in most muscles is actually the WEAKEST part of the movement. Try to do a leg extension with a heavy weight (heavier than your max) or a shoulder raise or tricep extension (strict form, of course, no leaning) and you'll see what I mean. Depending on the exercise, you can actually get the bar down (or up) partially. Try lat pulldowns. Calves work this way, too, as with most other muscles. The only reason why the contracted position is stronger in squats and bench is because of a leverage advantage. Your arms are directly under the bar and perfectly in line. Of course they're gonna be stronger. It's physics. Not because your muscles themselves are stronger in the contracted position. The stress is much more directly placed on the BONES and JOINTS then the actual muscles.

This is a very good observation, I hadn't really thought of it. I guess I just figure even if it is weaker, getting strong in this position would be beneficial in resisting forces. Even if a force overpowers you in a maximally contracted position, strength there would help to deccelerate that force, bending until your strength is finally enough to stop it. Say, doing a roundhouse kick for example, since proper form is to nearly fully extend the leg. I'm sure it would be ideal to deliver it locked out, but isn't to train for fast retraction after a strike, and to not stress the knee ligament from the momentum in case you miss.

However, as you progress and hit that intermediate level, your muscles become used to this stress. They eventually get wise to what you're doing and stop growing. "Well, I'm still getting stronger, though? Why?" Because your ligaments, tendons, bones, and nervous system are getting stronger. This is all cool, but these things in themselves do not make your muscles bigger.

When you hold 500 lbs over your chest in this fasion, the 500 lbs is distributed over your skeleton (specifically your arms and torso) as opposed to your muscles. Your muscles are NOT producing those 500lbs of force on their own. Same works with a leg press. You can press 2000 lbs, but the force is being generated by your bones, tendons, and ligaments MUCH more than your muscles.

When you go all-out to failure doing this, remember what you feel like next time you do a static hold bench. You don't stop because your triceps or chest give out. You stop because your elbows and shoulder tendons can't hold it any more. This doesn't make your actual muscle proteins stronger.

AND IF THE MUSCLES THEMSELVES AREN'T GETTING STRONGER, YOU'RE NOT GETTING BIGGER.

Now, SCT is not without it's benefits, of course. Done right, and not too often, you can DRAMATICALLY increase your bone density and your ligament and tendon strength. This, in turn, leads to some pretty cool gains in your full range of motion later down the road. But notice how I said LATER ON down the road. It won't happen immediately. All I'm saying is that, after a few SCT workouts, gains in your full-range workouts will come easier since your ligaments and bones are MUCH stronger than they were before.

And gains in full-range workouts, where the stress is placed on the MUSCLES rather than the ligaments and tendons, will make you bigger.

This makes SCT very attractive to those who want to build strong bones and ligaments, tends to be prevalent in martial arts since they strike with bones with ideal fully extended form and stuff.

Although, I have to wonder... once you reach a certain amount of weight, wouldn't you still be able to hypertrophy the muscles and grow? Let me explain...

Say, at a certain bend in the elbow a certain weight requires 50N to support, and at optimal SCT, due to advantages in leverage letting the bones take the load, it only requires 5N exerted by the muscle to support. If one were to increase the weight 10x, then the SCT would build as much muscle as using 1/10 the weight in the disadvantaged position. Besides the superiority in simultaneously building much stronger bones/other connective tissue, there's a key thing here...

The higher a weight is, the much easier it is to microload it. Say you increase the weight using 2.5lb weight plates. Due to leverage, that weight increase is much less, and thus much more managable (but still causing adaptation) when using proper bone leverage. At some point, using disadvantageous leverage for more muscle-load, the muscle simply might not be able to make that jump. So, you can start finding smaller things to load it with, but even then, you could always apply that to SCT, so it always transfers.

Especially now, with that special machine SCT is used with, that has a digital readout, there basically is no microloading issue at all now.

[james_ashby]

For those interested in SCT and particularly in using the purpose built equipment from Explosive Fitness to practice SCT: There is a Yahoo group dedicated to this topic. The name of the group is Explosive_fitness. Tony Reno, the CEO of EF, recently posted there discussing the theory underlying SCT. The post can be found here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...s/message/2277

Best to all,

JPA

[Tyciol]

Damn I hate yahoo, it never works for me, we're enemies.

[james_ashby]

"When you hold 500 lbs over your chest in this fasion, the 500 lbs is distributed over your skeleton (specifically your arms and torso) as opposed to your muscles. Your muscles are NOT producing those 500lbs of force on their own. Same works with a leg press. You can press 2000 lbs, but the force is being generated by your bones, tendons, and ligaments MUCH more than your muscles.

When you go all-out to failure doing this, remember what you feel like next time you do a static hold bench. You don't stop because your triceps or chest give out. You stop because your elbows and shoulder tendons can't hold it any more. This doesn't make your actual muscle proteins stronger."

I'm sorry but this is just silly. Bones ligaments and tendons form a framework but it is the muscles that generate the force. The bones and tendons may provide more or less favorable leverage so the force generated by the muscles is applied more efficiently but it is still the muscles doing the work.

It follows logically that if you place the bones and ligaments in the same position and one day you are able to push harder against a bar than a previous day then it is fair to conclude that your muscles got stronger. In most movements, including static holds, it is not the bones and ligaments that fail first it is the muscles that run out of gas. This is not to say that static holds won't generate denser bones over time. It is to say that it is just silly to attribute increases in strength to increases in bone density when the movement is exactly the same except more force is generated (weight is supported)....

[Tyciol]

I agree james, with constant improvements, the muscles definately get stronger, you get better at exerting maximum force at the prime angles for doing so.

But I think SCT would definately build much stronger bones than other forms since it takes such heavier loads.

[Tyciol]

I've tried statics and I'm not a fan. Due to the poundages you are holding I really felt alot of strain especially on the wrists. Like with bench I felt all the stress go to my forearms and nothing in my chest.

This makes sense I suppose, since the stress on forearms/grip is equal throughout the bench press (assuming they're vertical throughout and the angle doesn't shift) while going deeper would greatly increase the work the chest has to do. This is why larger-RoM exercises would have a place. Although, personally, I wouldn't mind building stronger hands, even if chest development had to be put on hold until I could move up to a high enough weight. Even so, you could always do higher-weight isometrics in less prime positions, which would keep the identical grip weight but still allow higher weights to be used.

What good is training yourself to be strong through a very limited range of motion? This has very little application in sports or powerlifting.

Maybe not powerlifting, but I think it probably has application to a lot of sports, you don't really use full RoM squat knee bending when you're running, after all.

NOTHING will put on muscle faster than PFT !! If you are as "in tune" with your body as I am, you can actually FEEL muscle growing between workouts.

Doesn't everyone feel DOMS?

They overestimate the value of the increased weight because "work," by definition, is a product of force and distance. Didn't we all learn that in high school? You can't base a training system on a mathematical formula that is fundamentally wrong to begin with.

What bugs me about Sisco and Little's system is that the flaws in the program are problems that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics and exercise science should know. But hey, they've sold a lot of books, right?

If 'work' is used as the gauge for being synonymous with muscle gain, then wouldn't negatives, or lowering a weight, make you lose muscle because you're not moving anything? Wouldn't isometrics do absolutely nothing because nothing is being moved through space at all?

That's simply not how it works. Work is not what makes muscles grow. Work is simply one thing that can stimulate them. If we use the less scientific and more generally application of work, that being EXERTION, it makes more sense. Consider that nothing is truly immobile. The net work done by lowering a weight full RoM and then bringing it back up again is ZERO. Yet, it works. SCT, you keep the zero, there's just less lowering and less lifting, but more tension.

Statics are, unfortunately, a very poor way of getting good muscle size. I discovered this when I tried the program. That's because, in order to gain size, you need to break down the tissue to activate growth. Statics don't break down the tissue. It isn't just the absolute weight thats key. It's how the weight is moved. Then, and only then, will strength gains = size.

I must disagree. While certainly, doing a 200lb bench press full range would break down more tissue than doing a static hold with it at the top, this has never been what static advocates. It is, using a much higher weight, that such leverage allows.

If a weight is high enough, even in the most advantageous position, it WILL break down tissue. So, using tissue breakdown as the cause for muscle growth, supposing that is so, as an argument against strong-range isometrics is wrong.

[Unregistered]

I recently purchased the Max Contraction Training book. It kind of explains the differences between it and Static Contraction. Little still admits that Static is effective and even hints that Max Contraction is just a variation that uses more Isolation exercises than Compound exercises.

At any rate, I figure that people would like an example of someone using the system that they can identify with so I've started a blog to outline my experience on Max Contraction.

So for those of you interested in a real life example, I'll be your Guinea Pig and we can decide if this works for me. Keep in mind that I am not a Pro Body Builder and do not already have a ripped physique or anything. I am in good shape, but have not reached my goal nor my max size.

The blog is at http://maxcontraction.blogspot.com.


Victor Prince

[Unregistered]

Hey Guys!
I stubled across the forum today and have enjoyed reading some of the success stories and insights. I started using SCT about 4 years ago. I had phenominal results with it. I was still in college, so my family didn't see me for 2 months after I started and they even noticed a substantial difference in the muscle gains and fat loss. The only reason why I cut back is because I started to lose alot of flexibility. By no means am I an expert! I have always enjoyed weightlifting and I look at it as a sport, hobby, and a great stress relief. Everytime I took time off and got started again the lack of flexibility would creep up in a matter of months. I took the advice of a friend (similar to me in weightlifting) and began to stretch for about 15 mins after the workout. For me, it has made a huge difference and has allowed me to maintain my flexibility while working out. If anybody else has noticed a decrease in their flexibility try the stretching. I hope it works for you to!

[KuJu]

Hi all, I've been reading this thread with interest but I still have a few questions. Well actually i have a lot of questions but i'll try keeping it down!

FYI - I work for a major uk University as a researcher, studying amongst many other things performance enhancing substances and specialised workout programs such as SCT. I also train, mostly weights when in the gym but also cardio and martial arts 3 times a week.

Ok - so my confusion(s) - i'm hoping people here can clear these up but I have to start by saying im extremely skeptical. I am open to have that changed though.

I can see how this type of exercise would elicit muscle growth because it clearly targets Type II muscle fibers, especially the Fast-Glycolytic fibers which of course have the greater growth potential. However after that my understanding of this system falls apart...not becaus I dont see it working - I just dont get it!

Admittedly i havent looked at the books yet, I may well do so but these days im so suspicious of "new" programs I tend to do this first to see if there's sufficient value to pursue it. I have read Pete Sisco's articles though and for starters there are some basic fallacies in there.

In article he states that muscles have the potential to grow 300-400 per cent bigger but that the kidneys and liver do not have the potential to do the same in terms of their efforts and output. This is part of the argument for such long rest times. Sorry but this displays a poor understanding of both the adaptive resopnses of the human body and in particular the hepatic system. The argument is that such massive workouts cause such huge amounts of waste to be delivered into the bloodstream that the kidneys need longer every time you increase it to recover. This is simply not true. The human body will adapt to the stress we deliver given sufficient time to recover, however we recover remarkably quickly given the right conditions. Look at Hypertrophy Specific Training for which there is a substantial body of evidence. The rest periods are 48 hours. Admittedly you wouldnt want to run a marathon every week but you can train for it by running a half marathon every week quite comfortably if your nutrition, sleep and water intake are all properly managed. So I guess my first question relates to the recovery time. Six weeks between workouts strikes me as ludicrous. What happens if you shorten the time?

Equally - the contention that a muscle can grow up to 400% bigger is pointless. In fact human muscle tissue (with certain aids of course) can grow much more than that. However, 4 times bigger is outside the genetically "normal" range of most individuals and even then im only referring to certain muscles. What value is there in the transvers abdominal getting 4 times bigger? None unless you particularly like your bowels squashed. So again - i dont quite get it.

Im not denying some people may get stronger as measured by this system but how about as measured by your old workout? The next time you go to the gym, do your old workout for one day - can you still lift the same weights for the same reps? Can you lift more? For me at least strength means strength throughout the ROM not in a static position. I want to be able to do a full squat with 2-300 lbs on the bar, using a free bar not a frame. Thats strength in my book and even then I would consider that intermediate at best in terms of real weightlifting.

There was a case recently of a 12 year old boy who was watching his dad work under the car. The jack slipped and as the car fell the boy caught and held it long enough for his dad to get out. This is sometimes quoted as an urban myth story but there are sufficient well documents stories of similar events to make it at least highly likely to be true and this case in particular was witnessed by several neighbours. So how did he do it? He did what all human beings can do, he let his body go all out and do what it was actually capable of. Could he lift a car the next day? Or the next week? Or next year? I very much doubt it. But he could hold it, briefly, in one position.

For me, athletic ability of any kind, especially in relation to weightlifting and powerlifting, means working with the body's natural processes and this system does not do that. The examples I have seen in articles of "static strength" in real life (ie holding yourself just off the seat for motorcross) are poor examples. That example in particular refers to something using Type I motor unit, Slow-Oxidative fibers that have great endurance. This is an entirely different type of strength to that in STC and does not recruit the same muscle motor units. That doesnt mean they dont get used at all but the muscle fibers used in STC simply cannot maintain that position for long periods. Its just a physical law. There really is no training that will change that its just the way we're built.

I'm going to stop there because Im aware im ranting!! Ooops...sorry! (I was going to go on about the completely useless graphs I saw on Pete Sisco's site but i'll avoid that for now).

I guess what Im saying here is this; I have no wish to denigrate Pete Sisco (despite how this reads!) but many things stated do not add up at all. The STC system will not help generate power because there is no movement as such in the training (and no matter how big your muscles power has to be trained by movement Power = Force x Velocity and thats how you have to train). It may generate extra muscle growth and indeed for some people here it apparently works. But I have to ask those people the question i posed earlier.....can you better your old workouts using traditional compound movements, large weights and reps?

Sorry for ranting!

ps: I, not sure if it was on this thread but someone stated the extra muscle helped with their Aikido? If thats true you're doing it wrong...O Sensei wasnt exactly Arnie was he?

pps: Lift HUGE , Eat HUGE, Sleep weel and drink lots = Get HUGE. Miss out any part of that equation and something will suffer. Big weights dont make big muscles if theres no building blocks to make new muscle with.

ppps: I'll shut up now.

[TRDE59]

can you better your old workouts using traditional compound movements, large weights and reps?

Nope. I've tried it. It doesn't happen. Maybe it's a little easier to unrack a heavy weight, but you have gained absolutely NOTHING throughout the full range of motion. I did this for about 6 weeks, took a week off, and came back to full squats. I had LOST strength in my full range of motion. Your nervous system adapts specifically to training, not generally. Sure, you get MUCH stronger in that short range. However, since I did not PRACTICE the skill of squatting, sure enough, that specific skill lost strength. That's what it comes down to. Each exercise is a specific skill.

Why do you think there are a lot of people in this world with big benches but weak military presses? Because they don't DO military presses! Their shoulders and tris are big and strong, but since they haven't military pressed often, they can't handle the weight. Their muscles are plenty strong, but their nervous system hasn't learned the exercise.

That's the thing that these people don't understand. Pete Sisco, John Little, Arthur Jones, they never understood that the CNS and muscular system are two separate things and can be TRAINED SEPARATELY. You can get stronger WITHOUT getting bigger. How do you think wrestlers are so strong, but so little at the same time? Because they practice. That's how your nervous system adapts. Practice on specific movements. What are you doing during SCT? Practicing holding a weight. You'll get stronger (in that specific point, not the whole range of motion). But it's also been proven that isometrics don't cause as great of a muscular adaptation as full range workouts.

Sure, maybe a noob can get a little bigger, but ANYTHING works for a noob. Eventually, (and it's sooner than you think) you'll have to resort to something with a little more science to back it up.

[TRDE59]

Recovery of the human biceps electromyogram after heavy eccentric, concentric or isometric exercise.

Kroon GW, Naeije M.
Academic Centre Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, Netherlands.

Five men performed submaximal isometric, concentric or eccentric contractions until exhaustion with the left arm elbow flexors at respectively 50%, 40% and 40% of the prefatigued maximal voluntary contraction force (MVC). Subsequently, and at regular intervals, the surface electromyogram (EMG) during 30-s isometric test contractions at 40% of the prefatigued MVC and the muscle performance parameters (MVC and the endurance time of an isometric endurance test at 40% prefatigued MVC) were recorded. Large differences in the surface EMG response were found after isometric or concentric exercise on the one hand and eccentric exercise on the other. Eccentric exercise evoked in two of the three EMG parameters [the EMG amplitude (root mean square) and the rate of shift of the EMG mean power frequency (MPF)] the greatest (P less than 0.001) and longest lasting (up to 7 days) response. The EMG response after isometric or concentric exercise was smaller and of shorter duration (1-2 days). The third EMG parameter, the initial MPF, had already returned to its prefatigued value at the time of the first measurement, 0.75 h after exercise. The responses of EMG amplitude and of rate of MPF shift were similar to the responses observed in the muscle performance parameters (MVC and the endurance time). Complaints of muscle soreness were most frequent and severe after the eccentric contractions. Thus, eccentric exercise evoked the greatest and longest lasting response both in the surface EMG signal and in the muscle performance parameters.




Take it from a guy who HAS TRIED IT. It is NOT the most efficient means of exercise.

Is it better than doing nothing? HELL YES! By all means, if you're one of those guys that is really pressed for time, with a tough, all day job, and 12 kids, then go ahead and try it. Get the XF equipment, too, to save yourself some money from a gym membership and travelling time. Dood, you can do a workout in 5 minutes! (although I suggest adding some cardio, too, cause this will NOT burn any respectable amount of fat) Please, just do SOMETHING. And if you're a noob, you probably WILL see results for awhile.

However, if you're dissatisfied with the slow progress of your results, or want to take your physique/athleticism to the next level, look no further than your workout program.

[KuJu]

Thank you - that was a great answer. Its exactly what I figured but it's good to hear it from someone who's tried the system. As you rightly say exercise of any kind is a specific skill with specific results. I think it was on this thread I saw someone say "I'm looking forward to the ton" - i think on leg press. I find it difficult to believe a rational human being believes they will get strong eough to lift a ton with just their legs when training so little.

I find especially strange given - for instance - the type of training undertaken by competitors in the Worlds Strongest Man competition. Look at this for Mariusz Pudzianowski, a VERY serious competitor indeed:

Own records:

- Bench Press 275 kg
- Squat 360 kg
- Deadlift 395 kg

Extremely impressive but nowhere near some of the figures i've seen for some people doing SCT. My money is still on Mariusz though.
And his training schedule has to be one of the most punishing I've ever seen - but then this is pretty much all he does for a living so can afford to. However I thin this routine and the results it has brought call into question the idea of needing 6 weeks to recover from exercise, even very intense. Remember this is just two days worth - he does this 5 days a week!

Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Back Squat
Warm-up: 8 sets, pyramiding from 60 to 160kg
Work sets: pyramiding from 160 to 280kg, reps going from 6 down to 2
Mariusz performs squats olympic-style
Leg Curl (for hamstrings)
6 sets of 20 reps
Leg Extension (for quads)
6 sets of 20 reps
Pull Up
6 sets of 15 reps
Chin Up
6 sets of 10 reps
Behind-the-neck Pulldowns
4 sets of 15 reps
Barbell Rows
4 sets of 15 reps
Abs: 6 sets of 30 reps
exercises used (haging leg raise, bends, various)

Afternoon Event Training (19.00) with Strongman Equipment
Sandbag Carry (130kg on back)
3 times 170 meters
Conan's Wheel - 290kg
3 times 2.5 revolutions
Tire Flip
3 sets of 10 flips

Tuesday Morning Gym Session (9.00)
Front Squats
work up to 250
Calf Work
6 sets of 15 reps
Standing Military Press
Warm-up sets - 7 sets of 60 to 100kg
Work sets - 6 sets pyramiding up from 110, 120, 130, 140kg for 5-4 reps
Deadlifts
Warm-up sets - 6 with 200kg
Work sets - work up to 300kg

Good Mornings
8 sets with 100kg
Afternoon Session (19.00)
Bushman's Walk
300 kg 3 x 15 meters
Presses with Machine Used in Competition
3 sets of 10 reps with 120kg
Parallel Crucifix
Hold 40kg weights for 30 seconds

This is extreme even for a genuine Strongman - but he seems to thrive on it.

I think the recovery part of SCT is the idea i have most trouble with, it seems to ignore basic physiology. If you increase your weights in say week 2 of a program by 5% to stress the muscle more than week 1 then your whole body will have to adapt. Fair enough. But the idea that your kidneys will take longer to recover is plain nonsense. The following week you go up 5% (or 10 or whatever you can adapt to) but the kidneys and other organs do NOT have extra work to do. Your body is still only adapting by 5 or 10% because you've already adapeted to the previous weights/routine. Thats why you have to increase it. This is so basic I feel I must be missing something from the explanations of SCT because the idea of 6 weeks between work outs seems ludicrous to me. I take a week off about every 8-10 weeks and only do martial arts. When I go back i feel refreshed and can lift better. But in the previous 8-10 weeks I adapt easily and show no signs of overtraining.

What do other people think of the application of SCT to other training or the issue of adaptation/recovery?


"No point being able to lift a cow if you can't catch one.." Wise words..

[james_ashby]

I can't explain the science but I know from personal experience that as strength increases following an SCT program one must from time to time extend one's recovery period to continue making gains. Several times I have had runs of progress; eventually leveled off or even declined a bit; added days to my recovery period; and resumed making gains. Nor is my experience unusual judging by people posting on the yahoo forum dedicated to this style of training.

[BuffEctomorph]

Well, yes and no. Let me explain.

As a beginner, merely the fact that you are adding weight to the bar with every workout will help you see gains. Your muscles have NEVER experienced the stress of a bar over your chest, so they will grow as a response to this new kind of stress. So, naturally, it's a decent (although not nearly the best) program for beginners, since they'll get stronger every workout. GREAT for a beginner with very limited time, though!

However, as you progress and hit that intermediate level, your muscles become used to this stress. They eventually get wise to what you're doing and stop growing. "Well, I'm still getting stronger, though? Why?" Because your ligaments, tendons, bones, and nervous system are getting stronger. This is all cool, but these things in themselves do not make your muscles bigger.

Also, the contracted position in most muscles is actually the WEAKEST part of the movement. Try to do a leg extension with a heavy weight (heavier than your max) or a shoulder raise or tricep extension (strict form, of course, no leaning) and you'll see what I mean. Depending on the exercise, you can actually get the bar down (or up) partially. Try lat pulldowns. Calves work this way, too, as with most other muscles. The only reason why the contracted position is stronger in squats and bench is because of a leverage advantage. Your arms are directly under the bar and perfectly in line. Of course they're gonna be stronger. It's physics. Not because your muscles themselves are stronger in the contracted position. The stress is much more directly placed on the BONES and JOINTS then the actual muscles.

When you hold 500 lbs over your chest in this fasion, the 500 lbs is distributed over your skeleton (specifically your arms and torso) as opposed to your muscles. Your muscles are NOT producing those 500lbs of force on their own. Same works with a leg press. You can press 2000 lbs, but the force is being generated by your bones, tendons, and ligaments MUCH more than your muscles.

When you go all-out to failure doing this, remember what you feel like next time you do a static hold bench. You don't stop because your triceps or chest give out. You stop because your elbows and shoulder tendons can't hold it any more. This doesn't make your actual muscle proteins stronger.

AND IF THE MUSCLES THEMSELVES AREN'T GETTING STRONGER, YOU'RE NOT GETTING BIGGER.

Now, SCT is not without it's benefits, of course. Done right, and not too often, you can DRAMATICALLY increase your bone density and your ligament and tendon strength. This, in turn, leads to some pretty cool gains in your full range of motion later down the road. But notice how I said LATER ON down the road. It won't happen immediately. All I'm saying is that, after a few SCT workouts, gains in your full-range workouts will come easier since your ligaments and bones are MUCH stronger than they were before.

And gains in full-range workouts, where the stress is placed on the MUSCLES rather than the ligaments and tendons, will make you bigger.


10lbs in 2 years?? With a good newbie program, you could've gotten that in 2 MONTHS!

Yes, even though you're 40.

This makes perfect logical sense to this whole program. Don't STOP weight training for days on end if you do this, you'll end up regretting it. Cool for the newbies, not so good for the experienced lifters.

I have no doubt the program will make you lift heavier weights but like this guy said that doesn't automatically = bigger muscles and more cuts. If that was the case than Pete Sisco and these guys leg pressing cars would look bigger than Ronnie and that's no where near the case.

I just don't like how this program makes it out like conventional lifting is a waste of time and all you have to do is PCT for a couple minutes a week to get big and ripped, give me a break.

[marshiboi]

This is probably the most retarded program I've ever seen. It will work if you are just starting out but that because everything works! Hardcore bodybuilders? Like who? Those results could have came from any beginner. A guy who benches 135lbs now can bench 200lbs! Hey yeah it sure worked great! Guys don't be fooled by this bull****. They just want to sell you overprice supplements.

Omg, i think this is the most retarded post I've ever seen, there is no mention in the SCT book of him advocating any supplements whatsoever. In fact he says there is almost no need for them at all, so check your damn facts next time before talking BS about something you obviously have no idea about!

[james_ashby]

ps: I, not sure if it was on this thread but someone stated the extra muscle helped with their Aikido? If thats true you're doing it wrong...O Sensei wasnt exactly Arnie was he?

Of course a key idea of Aikido is to blend with your opponent's force and manipulate it very efficiently. It is possible for a skilled Aikdoka to effectively deal with a stronger advisary. But all other things being equal (skill, sensitivity, insight, etc,) more muscle is better than less even in Aikido.

[Deterex]

I really question whether this system has merit when I see people posting things like "now I can do 450 pounds on close grip benchpress" I just think "no you can't you can just hold it there" I would like to know what people would do for a real one rep max before and after this program. People get all excited because they get a huge ego boost "lifting" all that weight and they start believing that they are superman and this program is the reason
It seems like this program would require alot of stretching because you are using no range of motion. Also as somone else said I dont know how useful this would be in sports where a full range of motion is required...