static contraction is the best

[Seanner]

YAY static contraction training works so well it's disgusting. (That's really not the right word to use.)

I started last Monday (9 or so days ago), did my one set for each muscle (actually I did about 2 half sets for each muscle first so I could figure out what weight to use). Did every muscle that day (entire body). That thursday, I did it all again with more weight.

This Monday (two days ago) - a MERE ONE WEEK since I started - after doing my whole routine I went back and tested my full range of motion gains:

I did 15 squats at 190 lbs on a smith machine (butt below the knees), when one week ago I could only do 11 - same rep speed too. I guess 4 reps is the magic weekly number because my bench went from 10 at 170 to 14 at 170. IN ONE WEEK!!!!

Do any of you realize how much of a gain that is, especially since I did 3 workouts in 7 days when your only supposed to do 1, maybe 2...

You should all switch over to it.

So far, the only real disadvantage I see is the loss of muscular endurance, and the accompanying loss of glycogen storage. I'll probably cycle two months of SCT with two months of pseudo-HIT to increase endurance and glycogen, helping muscles overall better.

[RetiredMod]

Read the other SCT thread, the "gains" you are getting now are probably mostly you breaking through psychological barriers and they will be fairly diminishing. SCT by itself is crap imo, supplemented with a regular routine it might have merits.

[EAE]

Maybe you should wait longer than 2 weeks before saying how great it is.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by EAE
Maybe you should wait longer than 2 weeks before saying how great it is.

Better yet, wait 5 years and see how great the hurniated discs are. (Although I know SCT can be used properly and minimize risk of injury, seems like most idiots are slinging an extra 100lbs on their shoulders instead of building up slowly which means INJURY)

[Seanner]

Originally posted by McBain
Read the other SCT thread, the "gains" you are getting now are probably mostly you breaking through psychological barriers and they will be fairly diminishing. SCT by itself is crap imo, supplemented with a regular routine it might have merits.

not true. it may or may not have diminishing gains in the future, but I really did do that many more squat reps and bench reps. I've been working out for long enough, supplemented with occasional one rep maxes, to know that a 4 rep gain in 7 days is not psychological. Psychological gains come into play at something like a contest - maybe if you max at 200 you could do 205 for the contest by trying as hard as possible to beat the competition. But you don't get 4 more reps in 7 days just by magic/psychology.

Edit: As for the herniated disc thing, I deadlift 420 (well it's probably more since I started SCT), so my back can handle quite a bit of weight as it is. Also, I've overtrained my back more than once in the past, so I know what mild strains and such feel like and I can assure you I'll stop before anything bad happens. The 500 or 550 pounds for SCT squats (I forgot I'll have to look at my log) I was using put far more strain on my legs (the whole point) than my back.

McBain I've read a lot of your posts. The Arnold Encyclopedia book is the first book I bought on the subject. I know the basic gist of it by heart - not word for word - but all of your posts seem to be more or less quoting an idea right from the book, usually paraphrased, but it sounds like you're using Schwarzenegger as the definitive source on SCT training.

My question is: What do you have against this training? It seems like you get offended by my happiness at how effective it is.

[BiG RED HH]

Since sct's volume is so much less then your previous workouts. I bet what happened was you were overworking your muscle before, and after a week of very little training and much rest, you were fully recovered and able to get more reps. Couple that with the psychological gains of a new program, and it can easily explain your new gains.

Br

edit: Also, im curious to know how you can strengthen an entire range of motion, if you are only putting strain on one part of it?

The benchpress starts out w. the majority of work being done in the shoulders, then as you go up the pecs take over and lastly the triceps finish it off (they all work during the whole movement..but this is where one is being primarily stressed).

[Seanner]

Big Red I understand what you're saying, but I've taken a week off before and when I went back I could do 2 more reps then usual. Besides, SCT in terms of how much weight is uses is similar to the stresses from a one rep max session. So it's not the 3 workouts in 7 days I had when doing this program was "taking it easy". What I mean is, the 4 reps I gained wasn't from rest. I know this because I've rested before, and not gotten anywhere near the same results. Basically, I only gained 2 reps with a week off, but I gained 4 reps with 3 training sessions in a week... Obviously it's not rest then that caused the gain.

As for the new program thing, what you're saying is like if you switch from flat bench to flyes, as you're brain/CNS gets used to the new exercise you gain quickly - more of a pyschological gain. But I've been doing squats and flat bench for a long time now. What happened is I did SCT for a week and then gained 4 reps on things I've been doing forever. So psychology couldn't have been a factor either - I already was optimized for flat bench and squats.

[RetiredMod]

It could easily be psychological I don't you understand what I mean by this. For example say you sit down and bench 300 twice, then your girlfriend calls your cell saying you are a pussy ass bitch and unless you bench 300 8 times your ass is dumped then you better believe you are getting 300 up at least more than 2 times. Your mind is one of the most powerful tools in lifting hence why just the fact of holding 400lbs on your back will make you more comfortable with weight hence you will be more comfortable back down at say 300 and you will do better. But no real "gains" in strength have been achieved, you are simply you pushing yourself harder because you are more confident.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by Seanner


Edit: As for the herniated disc thing, I deadlift 420 (well it's probably more since I started SCT), so my back can handle quite a bit of weight as it is. Also, I've overtrained my back more than once in the past, so I know what mild strains and such feel like and I can assure you I'll stop before anything bad happens. The 500 or 550 pounds for SCT squats (I forgot I'll have to look at my log) I was using put far more strain on my legs (the whole point) than my back.

McBain I've read a lot of your posts. The Arnold Encyclopedia book is the first book I bought on the subject. I know the basic gist of it by heart - not word for word - but all of your posts seem to be more or less quoting an idea right from the book, usually paraphrased, but it sounds like you're using Schwarzenegger as the definitive source on SCT training.

My question is: What do you have against this training? It seems like you get offended by my happiness at how effective it is.

First I love Arnold's book and he is my hero, I agree with a lot of what he says and disagree with a lot of what he says, thats why you will see how I've adopted some of his philosophies but if you read my posts you will also note that I also disagree with a LOT of his stuff. The fact you are implying that I am using this as my only source is a bit insulting and I do not see how you've come about at this conclusion, it is a simple fact that range of motion is key in gaining muscle and strength. I have nothing against SCT training as I have said many times READ MY POSTS. What I do have something against is people throwing too much weight on too fast which it seems a lot of people are doing with SCT and I can see a lot of people taking it this way, that's why I am making a point to note that this can be harmful so no one will hurt themselves no to impede your happiness. I will make sure in the future to not respond to any of your posts as I'm sure you can just get my take on the matter in Arnold's Ency as you have discovered my game plan. Reason I am a bit pissed off is you are obviously not really reading my posts because I have said I have no prob with SCT but I think by itself won't be effective, but supplement I think it has merit. I have mainly argued against it because it is easy for people to hurt themselves unless they read the points I have made and no one else is making them and the main reason I am on this board is to try to prevent kids who don't know any better from hurting themselves and for you to think I am doing this because I have something "against your happiness" is very insulting. If you really have me down so well read some of my posts (really since January), I guarentee at least 75% of them are concerned with someone's safety. But believe what you wish.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by BiG RED HH


edit: Also, im curious to know how you can strengthen an entire range of motion, if you are only putting strain on one part of it?

The benchpress starts out w. the majority of work being done in the shoulders, then as you go up the pecs take over and lastly the triceps finish it off (they all work during the whole movement..but this is where one is being primarily stressed).

I completely agree Big red and thats where my main problem with SCT only training lies. If there is no range of motion then the gains in strength for exercises with range of motion will be minimal and mass will be minimal. Reason one does a full range of motion is it stimulates more muscle fibers, more muscle fibers you stimulate and break down, the more you will grow, holding a weight in one spot will stimulate minimal muscle fibers hence my conclusion.

[user87745477315471972481]

Although I am not going against SCT, I think it has always been common knowledge, that to work EVERY SINGLE muscle fiber in the targeted muscle, this is only possible through the fullest range of motion. This simply means, if you are not allowing the muscle to tightly stretch at the bottom of the movement, so much that it feels as if the muscle is being ripped off, and a hard-tight contraction at the top of the movement which locks the muscle/joint into place, you simply will not recieve the complete and full development.

However, despite this law on full range of motion, I still DO* see merit in Static Contraction Training, and I shall explain it..there are times when a muscle can grow from just being used as a stabilizer muscle which is involved in heavy movements. These kind of situations are only possible if the amount of weight which is being used for the COMPOUND exercise is far greater then the weight that the stabilizer muscle can usually handle if it were to be isolated.

This basically explains why your abs/obliques will grow greatly from doing deadlifts and squats simply because the amount of weight being used is very very heavy and enourmous amount of tension PRODUCED BY heavy weights WILL result in growth, to an extent. I mean, if were to do crunches you definitely could not crunch 250 pounds. Yet, with the deadlift when you stand up your abs are exploding with the tension of the weight being firmly placed on your abs... this is I think what static contraction training emphasis on. I can tell this is evident from the fact that I DO NOT * place any extra training on my ABS or OBLIQUES, yet my obliques are coming out of my side and my abs are thick, and this I believe is a result of pure heavy deadlifting and squatting... I think static contraction training takes this idea to the extreme.

What are your opinions on this??

Gmav

[D&G]

Anyone who claims a type of training is the greatest after only 2 weeks and squats in a smith machine is an idiot.

[seanconnery]

Originally posted by D&G
Anyone who claims a type of training is the greatest after only 2 weeks and squats in a smith machine is an idiot.

A little strong, wasn't that?

It's probably the overtraining thing...

When you do something it's always because you think it's right.

It is, in fact, rarely the case, though.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by D&G
Anyone who claims a type of training is the greatest after only 2 weeks and squats in a smith machine is an idiot.

agreed

[Seanner]

first of all it was just one week, not two... even though that would hurt my case, it's only been one week

McBain - I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying earlier - I'm glad you're concerned about people's safety. Anyhow, if you think about it, there's no reason why static contraction should be any less effective. The speed at which some people perform their ten rep sets actually makes the time under tension about equal. However, when you do full range of motion, there are points where you have less leverage. This equates to lifting more weight at those points. This means you are only getting the best stress on the muscle at your weakest leverage - as soon as you come close to locking out on a bench press, a lot of the strain is taken off the muscles. You're only lifting the maximum amount of weight for a short time. Who cares if the muscle is moving or not. With static contraction, you put yourself in a certain leverage the whole time, so you can lift the most amount of weight for as long as possible. In other words, with equal time under tensions, the muscle is actually doing more work with SCT. And like someone said in the other SCT post (either GetHuge or MuscleTex), EVERY muscle fiber is stimulated because the moment you can't hold the weight up any longer means all your fibers have been too fatigued for that amount of weight, so the eccentric part of the exercise begins.

Who says the muscle has to move around to get bigger - we all know complete failure is key - SCT gets you there pretty easily.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by Seanner
first of all it was just one week, not two... even though that would hurt my case, it's only been one week

McBain - I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying earlier - I'm glad you're concerned about people's safety. Anyhow, if you think about it, there's no reason why static contraction should be any less effective. The speed at which some people perform their ten rep sets actually makes the time under tension about equal. However, when you do full range of motion, there are points where you have less leverage. This equates to lifting more weight at those points. This means you are only getting the best stress on the muscle at your weakest leverage - as soon as you come close to locking out on a bench press, a lot of the strain is taken off the muscles. You're only lifting the maximum amount of weight for a short time. Who cares if the muscle is moving or not. With static contraction, you put yourself in a certain leverage the whole time, so you can lift the most amount of weight for as long as possible. In other words, with equal time under tensions, the muscle is actually doing more work with SCT. And like someone said in the other SCT post (either GetHuge or MuscleTex), EVERY muscle fiber is stimulated because the moment you can't hold the weight up any longer means all your fibers have been too fatigued for that amount of weight, so the eccentric part of the exercise begins.

Who says the muscle has to move around to get bigger - we all know complete failure is key - SCT gets you there pretty easily.

Thank you for the apology. The leverage you talked about contradicted your final statement. In the top of the benchpress movement, hardly any tension is on your pecs, most of the tension is being taken by your joints and bones, if you look at the position you are in and look at it like a physics problem this can easily be seen. Failure is not the most important part. The most important part is stimulation of the specific muscle fibers you are intending to work. By taking yourself through a range of motion more muscles fibers are required to fire and the tension is not on the joints anymore, whereas when you are not moving in most SCT positions (top of the movement) most of the tension will be on the joints (like in a squat of benchpress, look at like a physics problem and one can easily see this is so, your body wants to do as little work as possible so when you just start there with weight on your shoulders most of the tension is on your joints not muscles. However this argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere as neither side is bringing up new information. It is basically a fact that range of motion is a must. I haven NEVER seen anything that indicates otherwise that isn't heresay. And I have tried SCT a bit. To me the only benefits of SCT are similar to the benefits of flexing, it's basically like flexing with weight except imo some of the positions that people seem to be holding SCT are _useless_. If one was to do SCT you should hold the position at which most tension is on your muscles so for squats it would be the bottom of the movement, for bench middle of the movement, curls middle of movemet, rows/pullups when the bar is closest to you. If SCT is done like this then it might have some merit just like flexing does and it will probably produce better results than flexing; however in terms of long term strength gains and mass gains, I just don't see it happening. Range of motion is completely neccessary any experienced bodybuilder will tell you this.

[Seanner]

Well it's like I told Big Red, we'll just have to wait a month to see, maybe two. I guess this is all speculation anyway, so we'll have to wait.

But what you mentioned about the leverage, of course a great deal of it is on your joints. That's why you use so much weight. The muscle gets more or less the same amount of weight as it would normally. Actually the muscle gets more or less the same strain put on it in both training methods - you're right - but the difference with normal training is since the muscle moves, the leverage changes. And since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, you can only train with a weight that you can handle at your weakest leverage point. This means at a position of greater leverage, the muscle isn't working as hard. That's why there's no movement.

If you still don't see what I'm sayin, you could actually just put your muscle in the least leverage position and use less weight - that way your joints aren't supporting it - but then it's more dangerous because there's no way in hell you're going to be able to lift the weight back up without like 3 spotters.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by Seanner
Well it's like I told Big Red, we'll just have to wait a month to see, maybe two. I guess this is all speculation anyway, so we'll have to wait.

But what you mentioned about the leverage, of course a great deal of it is on your joints. That's why you use so much weight. The muscle gets more or less the same amount of weight as it would normally. Actually the muscle gets more or less the same strain put on it in both training methods - you're right - but the difference with normal training is since the muscle moves, the leverage changes. And since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, you can only train with a weight that you can handle at your weakest leverage point. This means at a position of greater leverage, the muscle isn't working as hard. That's why there's no movement.

If you still don't see what I'm sayin, you could actually just put your muscle in the least leverage position and use less weight - that way your joints aren't supporting it - but then it's more dangerous because there's no way in hell you're going to be able to lift the weight back up without like 3 spotters.

But SCT _doesn't_ make you hold it at your weakest point unless I am misunderstanding SCT. Please tell me what exercises you do it for and where in the motion to hold to clarify.

[Seanner]

I know it doesn't that is not my point. What I was saying is there is a set amount of stress a muscle can take anyway. So if at your weakest point you could support 200 lbs, and if you're twice as strong at your strongest point, you just use 400 lbs and its the same thing. But with full ROM, you'd be using 200 in your strongest range, so it'd be 1/2 the work for your muscle. That's why it's not as good.

Basically it doesn't matter if your joint supports the weight because the same load is going to the muscles.

[RetiredMod]

Originally posted by Seanner
I know it doesn't that is not my point. What I was saying is there is a set amount of stress a muscle can take anyway. So if at your weakest point you could support 200 lbs, and if you're twice as strong at your strongest point, you just use 400 lbs and its the same thing. But with full ROM, you'd be using 200 in your strongest range, so it'd be 1/2 the work for your muscle. That's why it's not as good.

Basically it doesn't matter if your joint supports the weight because the same load is going to the muscles.

That post doesn't make any sense, not meant to flame you but if you are going to participate in a debate you have to have some background knowledge, if more weight is displaced through your joints less load will be put on the muscle it is a FACT, hence why at the top of a curl little stress is actually put on the bicep, this is simple physics and can not be argued, it is fact. Your idea of training your strong point to build up your weak point makes no sense, it's like training your legs to bring up your chest. When you train you get stronger specifically in what you do, of course there is some over-lap but if you do barbell bench 1 rep max's all the time you will get stronger in that. There is overall strength which is increased by stimulation of muscle so any chest exercise will bring up the chest's overall strength, however you reasoning is backwards. Let me make this analogy, if you wanted to increase you max bench would you do sets of 100 reps? I don't think so, you keep the reps low. Whatever part of your body you want to specifically strengthen should be trained directly so if you want to get a really strong at doing dumbell flys, you don't just do barbell bench, it makes no sense. Of course your dumbell flys will increase as your barbell bench does; however your goal of having being strong at dumbell flys is best attacked by doing dumbell flys. This is also fact so there is no debate.

[Seanner]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you still don't understand. I'm sayin if in a near locked out position the joint takes up 50% of the load (hypothetically) that would normally go to the muscle, you just double the weight and the muscle gets the original load again.

Anyway I found a much better use for SCT than how they recommend it - very quick strength gains. Since it works a lot better than one rep maxes, I'm just gonna finish out the month with this program. Then I'll go back to my old program, except with a lot more weight - therefore helping to increase size even better.

I guess the way to train is to cycle strength/size. LOL I figured out the secret everyone knew for years...

Edit: McBain I know how to explain that the muscles get the same load - if no stress was going to the muscles then they wouldn't get tired after 10 seconds anyway... Joints don't get tired.

[MuscleTex]

Nice Job on choosing SCT. I believe it is one of the best programs developed in the past years of weighlifting.

[Seanner]

Gee thanks

[MuscleTex]

send me a pm on how much weight you do for static. you probably soon should change over to one day a week. Good luck bro.