.gif "IP Gear")
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,588
Brad Schoenfeld is the most published researcher of weight training in academia, and a social media presence. A few weeks ago he, and many others, ganged up on a guy named Joel Seedman about claims he has made about the advantages of not going past 90 degrees. It was no surprise that they attacked him because the latest trend among these social media weight lifting personalities is the benefits of training in the lengthened position. But Schoenfeld responded on his own page (IG), by actually citing Schoenfeld's own latest meta-analysis on the subject (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6977096/), which indicated that there probably was no additional benefit to going past 90 degrees. Ill provide the quote below.
“In the only study that used free weight exercises and did not observe divergent effects of full versus partial ROM training on quadriceps hypertrophy the ROM was from 0° to 140° and from 0° to 90° of knee flexion for the full and partial ROM training groups, respectively. It can be surmised that these between-study differences in ROM explain the discrepancies in findings, although other covariates cannot be ruled out (e.g. training status, intensity of load, etc). The ROM in the Kubo et al.21 study was the largest as the group training with partial ROM performed the same ROM as the group training with a full ROM in the McMahon et al.19 study. Therefore, the ROM in the group training with partial ROM in the Kubo et al.21 study was already relatively high, which might explain why similar increases in muscle size were observed between training conditions. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that when a certain ROM threshold is achieved, no additional benefit is obtained by further increases in ROM of a given exercise.”
I know some of you guys have probably been following this. I found it interesting that Seedman has essentially shut them all up and no one has made any response since (and everyone - Layne Norton, Mike Israetel, Bret Contreras, etc - all piled on him about this).
Now I'm interested to know what people think.
“In the only study that used free weight exercises and did not observe divergent effects of full versus partial ROM training on quadriceps hypertrophy the ROM was from 0° to 140° and from 0° to 90° of knee flexion for the full and partial ROM training groups, respectively. It can be surmised that these between-study differences in ROM explain the discrepancies in findings, although other covariates cannot be ruled out (e.g. training status, intensity of load, etc). The ROM in the Kubo et al.21 study was the largest as the group training with partial ROM performed the same ROM as the group training with a full ROM in the McMahon et al.19 study. Therefore, the ROM in the group training with partial ROM in the Kubo et al.21 study was already relatively high, which might explain why similar increases in muscle size were observed between training conditions. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that when a certain ROM threshold is achieved, no additional benefit is obtained by further increases in ROM of a given exercise.”
I know some of you guys have probably been following this. I found it interesting that Seedman has essentially shut them all up and no one has made any response since (and everyone - Layne Norton, Mike Israetel, Bret Contreras, etc - all piled on him about this).
Now I'm interested to know what people think.
