Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy Read more for timestamps and further discussion: Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:38 Part I: Regions & Range of Motion 7:58 Part II: Regions & Exercises As mentioned in the video, the idea that training biarticular muscles at longer lengths builds more muscle (with larger differences at the proximal regions) could apply to the triceps long head and gastrocnemius. The triceps long head is trained at a longer length with overhead extensions versus pushdowns, and indeed have been shown to grow better with overhead extensions: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35819335/ However, this study did not assess growth across different regions. But another study did, and actually found that only growth at the distal regions of the triceps long head was greater with overhead extensions versus pushdowns: www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/3/2/28. Yet, this study has a range of limitations which means it's not great evidence (9 subjects, only lasted 6 weeks, large standard deviations, and range of motion at the elbow joint was not equated). As for the gastrocnemius, we have evidence training it at longer lengths with standing/straight leg calf raises built more muscle compared to training it at shorter lengths with seated/bent leg calf raises pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38156065/ + link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42978-024-00299-4. Unfortunately, these studies did not assess growth across different regions of the muscle, so we can't currently comment on whether the differences are larger at the proximal regions. Hopefully we get future research on this!
My question regards the distinction between the origin and insertion of muscles. Unless I'm missing something, isn't this based solely on whether the attachment is further away or closer to the torso? If it were simply based on which end of the muscle results in movement, with the origin being on the stationary part of the body that the insertion causes the other part to move towards, then that sounds a bit arbitrary. For example, contraction of the biceps can either or both make the forearm move towards the body (e.g., a curl) or make the body move towards the forearm (e.g., a chin up). I'm not aware of any biochemical or whatever difference between insertions and origins, so isn't the distinction are bit arbitrary? What i am trying to get at is that shouldn't we expect lengthened partials to promote growth equally more both at the origins and the insertions of muscles rather than only near the "insertions"?
@@TheBirdmon17most probably not and especially in case of forearms the 2 biggest muscles being flexor digitorum superficialis and flexor digitorum profundus also have the role of finger flexion so it makes way more sense fully extended the wrist and fingers. Although no studies on this yet but most likely fully extending the wrists and fingers will lead to more hypertrophy. I personally even add long length partial finger curls after I reach failure! Hope this helps :3
REQUEST: Being a layman, I've been unable to find any proper research on Blood Restriction Training (BRT). Would it be possible for the HoH to cover the science behind BRT and how the method can be used to develop various muscles? It seems at first sight that BRT could only develop arm & leg muscles - but can it be used to develop other muscles such as delts, rotator cuff muscles or any others? I'm sure you already have plenty of plans for future videos but after those it would be interesting to hear whether you think BRT is a viable method for hypertrophy.
Haha, I just wanted to emphasize how this info here helps understand the regional hypertrophy effects of what most people are probably already doing, and not that this information will make you change your training (although for some, depending on what they've been doing, the info could give them food for thought!)
Bro, how much effort you put in every video? That's insane, i never see anything like before. References, perfect anatomy drawings, nice road map, narration etc. Awesome!
I am training since I am 18, I am 37 today, I am 6"3 and 225 lean (about 8 to 10% body fat). I always trained with long length partials because it was more comfortable for me (long arms and legs). Until last year I had no calves, thighs OK, biceps and triceps OK, for my back the lats very developed, the middle part around the spine under developed, shoulders OK, chest very developped from top to bottom on the sides, nothing in the middle. For the entire past year I have been doing full range of motion, my chest is now balanced with a good middle part, my back still lacking in the middle so far, and I finally grew my calves after 18 years. So I would say that if you want a well balanced body, full range of motion is superior to long length partials, that will give you a good body but with weak points in some muscle regions here and there (back spine part, chest middle part and entire calves in my case). That also proves that you can emphasize more on certain regions of a muscle depending on how you train it.
for the middle upper part i just covered by doing a simple thing, any kind of lat pull down but use the closest grip that make you confortable, personally neutral grip with the triangle was the most confy for me, full range, focus to reach your pecs and close your shoulder blades, i add 1 second hold while the triangle is on my pec couse i like it, reps sets you can do whatever you like, the only one thing usefull for sure is make this exercise FIRST, you can prioritize even more by doing only this movement for upper back, hope you get the rusult that i had for my self, enjoy
I love it. There is nothing fancy. In order to build muscle evenly, use a full range of motion, incorporate a variety of exercises for the same muscle, and choose exercises that train muscles at longer lengths. Thank you for keeping it simple! It's one of the many reasons why I love these videos!
If you’re doing a set to failure, the best combination would be to do full range of motion to failure, where you cannot get another full rep. Then, immediately go into lengthened partial reps until you basically can’t move the weight at all; a second failure point, essentially. Obviously not advised for most barbell exercises but for DB’s, cables, machines, it is a killer set.
To be on the safe side, better to just keep doing full ROM. Throw in long length or short length partials as you please if you are advanced. Seems to be minutia to focus on which region on a particular muscle a lift targets for beginner-intermediate lifters. It will probably make more of a difference to experiment it as a late intermediate/advanced trainee since you already have an appreciable amount of muscle already.
Summary: In comparison to partials at short muscle lengths - Partials at long muscle lengths build more muscle with greatest difference at the Distal (Uniarticulate Muscles) or Proximal (Biarticulate Muscles) regions. Great video HoH - cheers 👍.
Hey, great video as always ! I was wondering if you could make a video about all the already established facts about muscle building, I think it would be a great recap of what we are already sure we can do to improve our muscle growth. Thanks again for the amazing content ! :)
I have 3 theories on this. 1. Distal sarcomeres have stronger titin, causing them to extend and exert force only at the longest muscle lengths. 2. Distal sarcomeres tend to be type 1 so they are actually stronger and don't extend until the longest muscle lengths. 3. Distal sarcomeres are connected to different motor units.
8:27 nice new animation 😄 and to have something to comment on so to help the algorithm send new viewers to your great content 📚🎭 P.S. I had to edit the my comment to say thank you for 10:43 😂
wow this quality of videos is so good house of hypertrophy is so underrated! House of hypertrophy how can u have a tiny waist and maybe make a video of having tiny waist?
I have a feeling that long lengthened partials may be the new standard going forward, they theoretically work the muscle more than full rom, I've integrated long length partials into my leg extensions and calf raises and I've definitely felt and seen the difference
Great video, I honestly thought the preacher was better than incline curls because they place more resistance in the stretched position, even though the bicep isn’t stretched more, I thought the resistance profile of the preacher was unmatched. Guess I was very wrong.
I didn`t understood very well the hypertrophy at proximal region in biarticular muscles even at longer lenghts. Doyo have an hipothesis of the reason? Excellent video as usual
Hey there, big fan of your channel! One Q: is it you speaking or are you using a Text to Speach? (Or your sinthesized voice). Not that it matters at all but I'm curious!
Thank you my friend! It is my voice haha, apologies if it's too robotic, I'm working on it. You can check out some of my older videos, and you may see a slight difference, but I know it's still not where I want it to be!
Not neccessarily, perhaphs it's related to the location of the "stretch" - incline curls place the shoulder into an extended position, which may have a larger impact on the stretch of the proximal region compared to the preacher curl (which is shoulder flexed)
It seems proximal and distal nomenclature are flawed. It's a matter of perspective. If the part closer to the stretched articular arm is worked in the stretched length, then it seems that this part will have a better hypertrophic response. That means, for example, that hamstrings on leg curls have better hypertrophy at the proximal, but biceps at the distal.
Another great video. 👍This one got me thinking about combination exercises, e.g., 21's for biceps. Are the extra gains for the partials cumulative or do they just cancel each other out? Don't think that is an easy one to answer.
an interesting topic i'm confused about is if getting into a stretch position is important or if peak tension at the stretch is more important. i remember a study indicating that preacher curls were more hypertrophic than incline curls because despite being more shortened at the shoulder they had peak tension at the stretched position. is there any other evidence for this? if this is true then it stands to reason that pausing in the stretched position would make that the hardest part of the movement and instantly enhance it. idk tho, just think it would be an interesting advanced topic :) great vid as always btw
I'm very curious as to how this impacts pull-ups. Like once I reach the point where I can't finish a rep properly, it sounds like there might be plenty of value in continuing to perform the bottom half of the motion. That should be the "long length partial" portion of the exercise, right?
I'm wondering if, in the comparison of partial and full, the sets were equated on number of reps or on effort. It's certainly easier to do the same number of partials than fulls. That could be another plus of lengthened partials if I can do one more set with the same effort/systemic fatigue.
In my minds eye, it's not that the target muscle is at length that causes these results. It is because the "lengthened partial" eliminates, or greatly reduces, any amount of contribution to the movement that non target muscles would provide. ie for biceps exercises the lengthened partials reduce or eliminate any contribution by the delts or pecs. Your explanation of the differences in resulting growth in different areas according to training lengths would support this. It makes me think that lengthened partials are just a sort of isolation technique.
I think the greater effect is that different sarcomeres are active at different muscle lengths, with proximal ones being primarily active at short lengths and distal ones at long lengths. This also potentially explains why isometrics produce joint angle specific strength increases.
I just realised that "Effects of shoulder extension angle on biceps brachii" study by milo wolf which found no difference in hypertrophy between arms deep in shoulder extension and arms by the side; except they only measured hypertrophy at 50,60 and 70% if muscle lenght similar to the zabaleta korta et al old incline vs preacher curl study. Could this imply shoulder far into extension could lead to more biceps growth in the proximal region if they had taken measurements at that sites? As the recent maeo paper measured hypertrophy across 10-90% of the muscle lenght- I just realised this after watching the video thrice for fun haha. (Even though in the zabaleta korta study they measured the growth of the elbow flexors instead of biceps directly the difference in hypertrophy was way too big which probably solidifies the reason for the difference in hypertrophy between studies to be due to the fact that the maeo study measured growth at all regions) Would love to know your opinion on this :)
Hey dude! Here's my current thoughts: there are a few different options on the table with Milo's biceps paper (at least as far as I can see). 1) Like you said, perhaphs growth at the 20-40% region of the biceps would have been better with the shoulder extended curls. But since they just measured 50-70% regions, we don't know. 2) I somewhat alluded to this in the video with the lying down vs leaning back leg extensions, but perhaps there's a threshold. Thus, maybe curls with the shoulder extended are not any better than curls with a neutral shoulder position, but both are better than shoulder flexed curls (i.e. preacher curls) 3) In Milo's paper, they set up the cable to make the exercise the hardest at the start of the curl for both conditions (the shoulder extended and neutral conditions). Perhaps there's currently an unknown interaction between resistance curve and changing muscle length through joint angles. What I mean is that perhaphs if the study did not do this (and had the cable set up to be harder at the middle portion), the results would be different. Right now, I'm not certain which one is correct, or if all of them are wrong and there's something else that I'm not seeing. Ultimately, when all the papers are officially published (as both Maeo's and Milo's biceps papers aren't properly published yet) I'll have a read of the full text, see what the authors say, and then think about it more!
Great video, could you do a video covering isometric training techniques ( over coming isometrics, quasi isometrics ) etc ; they are quite underrated and lots of strongmen in the past used them
Currently, there's no hard guidelines, so you could just experiement with it how you like! There's also something called lengthened supersets that can be tried too, we've examined this here: ruclips.net/video/vEKLzXDPoeU/видео.html
I was thinking about the order of exercises, when you talked about incline curls as one of the best exercises, is it better for hypertrophy to do this exercise at the beginning or end? Normally when I train my arms I start with preacher curls and lastly incline curls. I noticed that my bicep is more grown on the proximal part (probably because of the preacher curls?) I would love your take on this.
The bro’s knew this ages ago but had no clue of the actual mechanism. They tried to do exercises that favored both stretch and squeeze…and adjusted if they needed to favor lacking areas of the muscles.
I been doing only incline bench for my whole life, i dont to flys anymore but even when i used to, i only did the low to high for the upper chest, i never did any flat or decline work, never. Guess what, the "lower" pec grew, the upper didnt.
i understand you, same issue here, just find another exercise for upper pecs that you can feel, in my incline bench i just see growth in my front delt and triceps, just replace it with a fancy exercise but i find that is the one for me, still not huge gains by doing that but i finally isolate my upper pecs and see some located result without have triceps and front shoulder over pumped and tired
its interesting to consider that pretty much all guys who have reached 60cm+ arm size ever have done a lot of short partials. Eg levan saginashvili with his armwrestling workout
Is the inclined DB curl better than preacher curl then? The persisting idea currently is that preacher curl has the MOST resistance in the lengthened position even though it’s not lengthened as much as the inclined curl
One can emphasize any part of any given muscle. For example you can have the lower sections of your biceps targetted and have more biceps showing from the sleeves of your tshirt. Or have the outer/lateral head, and specifically the lower section of your lateral head of the triceps again to show more from the sleeves of tshirts. Likewise you can do localisations like this to any and every muscle you have. I do, I managed to ''crack the code'' so to speak on how to target each section of each muscle. The down side is when you target a section of a muscle it means you have less ''volume points'' left to spare to other sections of that muscle especially if you targetting ''sections'' on many different muscle groups, because of general fatigue and per session tendon wear down. So you need to make a ''smart and conscience'' plan and ''manage'' what you want and have a proper ''picture'' of what look you want and/or lack and need work on. Many people including experts will disagree with all this, but I am 100 percent sure of what I am talking about and they are ignorant or knowing hide things. Anyways enough ranting, LIIIIFFFFFTTT !!! :)
@@alexandersh86 Different angles, different utensils (dumbells for some, cables for others) etc. Do you really want me to explain each and every one here? :)
@@KenanTurkiye No, just the core principle/s. Like "long length partials for distal, short length partials for proximal" e.g. Or is there really no system at all so you had to have to find out each one with trial and error?
@@alexandersh86 I understand. I don't thing there is a ''cohesive'' on size fits all formula to speak of. All the things I found out are thru trial and error. It's more about the plane of force angle, where it ''peaks'' and how your target muscle is in ''line'' with the force angle peak. When you have the two line up, that is when you have your targetted area line up with where the peak point of force angle is in the exercise you're doing, it favors that point area of that muscle. Sure everything works everything so to speak, but today was my triceps lateral head work but distal sections, closer to the elbow, I already got huge proximal bulging out. If I had asked the gym owner who is a certified PT with a master in kinesiology he would look at me strangely, I don't think formational science is yet there.
@@KenanTurkiye > I don't think formational science is yet there. Oh, anecdotal evidence is sometimes all that's needed for scientists to take a closer look at something. Thanks, I have at least a vague idea what to try now.
Day 164. Feeling nervous, life seems to have less meaning by the day. House of Hypertrophy refuses to release the Abs science video. How long can i manage to keep it together?
😂😂😂 My apologies dude, I will hopefully get to that soon. I do want to do as much research as possible for that video, and make it the best I possibly can, so it might take a while. Ultimately, I hope the wait will be worth it!
id optimize your workout to go with one set of lenghtened partial to failure, full rom to failure and short length partial to failure for a total of 3 sets. over time they must compound
I do not get why people do not put a useful comment and instead put "first". What do you want, a cookie? You ain't getting no damn cookies here. This is fitness science, ya pimp.
sorry but im not gonna do long length partials instead of full ROM, you can implement it at the end of the set but i aint ever gonna replace full rom for full length partials. this defeats the purpose of training and imo its not fun at all, it might be optimal but full ROM is functional strength
@@eutiger4789 yeah but there is also a thing such as technique etc. where you basically never performed a real squat etc. i mean in those situations i just rather do the full rom than the partials (much more fun and you get stronger on technique aswell). is it suboptimal maybe but i find full rom just more functional
@@Tom_CarnivorousDG Its weird what you are saying because absolutely nothing that you will do in real life is full rom, work at warehouse, house building whatever you pick
but also depends on what you do bec if you pick smth of the ground youre gonna do a full rom squat. but for picking things up with your bicep you do lengthend partials
What's your take on this. I've thought about it for a while now. Free weight Preacher is better than free weight incline but if it were cable then Incline cable will be better than both free weight movements because it's not only about the stretch but if there is significant load during the stretch
This basically kills long length partials for competitive bodybuilding. Nobody wants all their muscles to be big in the distal region, it absolutely kills the aesthetic. You want most of your muscles to pump. That is, to be bigger in its peak. If you can manipulate that through training, that's a great win. Doesn't make much sense to do long length partials for many muscles if it's going to ruin that aesthetic and completely hide the peak of the muscles. I've suspected this for quite some time, as long length partials pretty much only let me sore in the distal region. I've said this exact same thing as a personal theory in channels like RP and even told this to Milo Wolf. Now it seems like it's true. Great breakdown of the findings, man
When I squeeze my biceps it is much more "thick" at the distal (or lower) region than at the top. I never trained with lengthened partials, in fact when I started training I trained with more shortened partials.
would be interesting the comparison betwen long length partial and isometric contraction, example: biceps curl starting by full extended arm to 90° elbow flection and static hold at 90°, probably long length still give more hypertrofy in general, isometric could show more growth in the middle part in comparison to long length partial, one day meaby we will know
I predict that the isometrics will have worse growth even in the middle region. Muscles really seem to need to go through lengthening/shortening under load to actually grow. Staying static at one position probably only activates a low number of sarcomeres.
Someone can please explain. I do exercises with big stretch (like bayesian cable curl) and consider all conditions by type of cable up, but don’t feel the stretch as if I was stretching this muscle. Is that how it’s supposed to be?
I think the whole idea is that the flexed region of a muscle (proximal or distal) is not capable of taking part in the movement as much and thus grows less. So maybe preacher curls produce more muscle growth compared to incline dumbbell curl but that might be true for the distal region and preacher curls might not be the best for proximal bicep hypertrophy. Of course on the other hand there “too much stretch” which puts the muscle in a weakened position not allowing it to produce enough force. Maybe the individuals didn’t have a trained enough proximal quad. Maybe training in a leaning position for some time and then slowly switching to lying leg extensions might allow them to produce enough force and thus cause even more hypertrophy. Just some assumptions and food for thought.
Are you neglecting all the other times that incline curls were worse than preachers? This is the first time thus far that incline curls have ever beaten the preacher. Even then, the growth in the new study was proximal, which literally goes against everything studied on long muscle length training (should be distal). To me, this killed any credibility to “train everything at longer lengths”
No, there's only one other study comparing incline to preacher curls (examined in this video: ruclips.net/video/gS-xsC48xTs/видео.html ) - it looked at elbow flexor growth (which is BOTH the biceps and brachialis). I'll expand on this in a future video, but don't think resistance curve itself is always more important than the starting length of a muscle. Also, as alluded to in this very video, I think there are two categories. The first is range of motion (using a partial at long length or full ROM), this results in more distal growth versus short length ROM. The second is exercise selection with biarticular muscles, where training at a longer length builds more muscle overall, but the differences are larger at the proximal regions.
@@HouseofHypertrophy the claim I had always heard on LML is that a more stretched excercise would have growth either at the distal portion or throughout the muscle belly, but this is the first I hear someone claim increase proximal growth over distal growth. The hip flexion study (I think Larsen et al) tested this and did not find more proximal than distal at the 40 angle, unless I read the study incorrectly. Regardless, I’m excited for the video, been a long time follower and enjoy having these discussions
Yeah, that's what most people claim, and I've alluded to this previously. But given the recent emerging data, I am making the hypothesis there's two different categories. The Larsen study you mention did find a larger difference at the proximal region between leaning back and normal leg extensions, this is the study detailed at 8:51 I appreciate the kind words and support!
Longer length without tension is like simple stretching. The preacher curl has more tension in the longer length. Despite the length being longer in incline curls, the tension is way less when the arm is in the lengthened position So it makes sense preacher curl is better
@@batatahigh382 the most recent study claimed incline curl was better, so hopefully that dissonance is addressed by more people soon (I find Chris and Paul show has made the most plausible argument thus far)
![[SFM] Risky Recital](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzNkY1_Nk3o/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy
Read more for timestamps and further discussion:
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:38 Part I: Regions & Range of Motion
7:58 Part II: Regions & Exercises
As mentioned in the video, the idea that training biarticular muscles at longer lengths builds more muscle (with larger differences at the proximal regions) could apply to the triceps long head and gastrocnemius.
The triceps long head is trained at a longer length with overhead extensions versus pushdowns, and indeed have been shown to grow better with overhead extensions: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35819335/
However, this study did not assess growth across different regions. But another study did, and actually found that only growth at the distal regions of the triceps long head was greater with overhead extensions versus pushdowns: www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/3/2/28. Yet, this study has a range of limitations which means it's not great evidence (9 subjects, only lasted 6 weeks, large standard deviations, and range of motion at the elbow joint was not equated).
As for the gastrocnemius, we have evidence training it at longer lengths with standing/straight leg calf raises built more muscle compared to training it at shorter lengths with seated/bent leg calf raises pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38156065/ + link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42978-024-00299-4.
Unfortunately, these studies did not assess growth across different regions of the muscle, so we can't currently comment on whether the differences are larger at the proximal regions.
Hopefully we get future research on this!
My question regards the distinction between the origin and insertion of muscles. Unless I'm missing something, isn't this based solely on whether the attachment is further away or closer to the torso? If it were simply based on which end of the muscle results in movement, with the origin being on the stationary part of the body that the insertion causes the other part to move towards, then that sounds a bit arbitrary. For example, contraction of the biceps can either or both make the forearm move towards the body (e.g., a curl) or make the body move towards the forearm (e.g., a chin up). I'm not aware of any biochemical or whatever difference between insertions and origins, so isn't the distinction are bit arbitrary? What i am trying to get at is that shouldn't we expect lengthened partials to promote growth equally more both at the origins and the insertions of muscles rather than only near the "insertions"?
so the glutes, abs & forearms will grow more with short partial lengths?
I was just about to mention the stasinaki (it has it limitations but ok) paper but you mentioned it anyways! Another reason why HoH is goated 🗿
@@TheBirdmon17most probably not and especially in case of forearms the 2 biggest muscles being flexor digitorum superficialis and flexor digitorum profundus also have the role of finger flexion so it makes way more sense fully extended the wrist and fingers. Although no studies on this yet but most likely fully extending the wrists and fingers will lead to more hypertrophy. I personally even add long length partial finger curls after I reach failure! Hope this helps :3
REQUEST: Being a layman, I've been unable to find any proper research on Blood Restriction Training (BRT).
Would it be possible for the HoH to cover the science behind BRT and how the method can be used to develop various muscles?
It seems at first sight that BRT could only develop arm & leg muscles - but can it be used to develop other muscles such as delts, rotator cuff muscles or any others?
I'm sure you already have plenty of plans for future videos but after those it would be interesting to hear whether you think BRT is a viable method for hypertrophy.
I appreciate how he apologized at the end for this video not being ground-breaking for regular viewers
Haha, I just wanted to emphasize how this info here helps understand the regional hypertrophy effects of what most people are probably already doing, and not that this information will make you change your training (although for some, depending on what they've been doing, the info could give them food for thought!)
@HouseofHypertrophy good info is always needed and wanted. Sometimes a review is in order.
Yes i was almost insulted when i realized this wasnt new info to me
@@HouseofHypertrophyThen why mention "most people don't know this" in the title?
@@TheGameRecovery It's RUclips, you need a click bait title nowadays.
Bro, how much effort you put in every video?
That's insane, i never see anything like before.
References, perfect anatomy drawings, nice road map, narration etc.
Awesome!
Haha, thank you my friend, that's very kind of you!
The effort you put into these videos does not go unnoticed. They're genuinely impressive. Thank you!
Thank you my friend, that's very kind of you!
I agree, they're outstanding.
I am training since I am 18, I am 37 today, I am 6"3 and 225 lean (about 8 to 10% body fat). I always trained with long length partials because it was more comfortable for me (long arms and legs). Until last year I had no calves, thighs OK, biceps and triceps OK, for my back the lats very developed, the middle part around the spine under developed, shoulders OK, chest very developped from top to bottom on the sides, nothing in the middle. For the entire past year I have been doing full range of motion, my chest is now balanced with a good middle part, my back still lacking in the middle so far, and I finally grew my calves after 18 years. So I would say that if you want a well balanced body, full range of motion is superior to long length partials, that will give you a good body but with weak points in some muscle regions here and there (back spine part, chest middle part and entire calves in my case). That also proves that you can emphasize more on certain regions of a muscle depending on how you train it.
for the middle upper part i just covered by doing a simple thing, any kind of lat pull down but use the closest grip that make you confortable, personally neutral grip with the triangle was the most confy for me, full range, focus to reach your pecs and close your shoulder blades, i add 1 second hold while the triangle is on my pec couse i like it, reps sets you can do whatever you like, the only one thing usefull for sure is make this exercise FIRST, you can prioritize even more by doing only this movement for upper back, hope you get the rusult that i had for my self, enjoy
how did u grow your calves
I love it. There is nothing fancy. In order to build muscle evenly, use a full range of motion, incorporate a variety of exercises for the same muscle, and choose exercises that train muscles at longer lengths. Thank you for keeping it simple! It's one of the many reasons why I love these videos!
Thank you my friend, you support is much appreciated!
I've watched a bit of videos about lengthened partials , your actually the first to describe how it happens in particular muscle types
Banger video. Your videos have outstanding quality.
Thank you my friend!
The best thing would be to do full range of motion but slowing tempo or pausing at the long length portion of the exercise at each rep !
I remember some top bodybuilders doing that
So, for example, when you bench press, do you pause when the bar is at the bottom (on the chest)?
@@ridonisk9219 exactly !!
Thank you! that's really good advice.
If you’re doing a set to failure, the best combination would be to do full range of motion to failure, where you cannot get another full rep. Then, immediately go into lengthened partial reps until you basically can’t move the weight at all; a second failure point, essentially. Obviously not advised for most barbell exercises but for DB’s, cables, machines, it is a killer set.
In summary, go full ROM and when you tire out, go lengthened partials on same set.
I want to thank you for teaching me so much! I've learned so much from your video's and can't wait for your future uploads!
Thank you for checking out the content and your support!
To be on the safe side, better to just keep doing full ROM. Throw in long length or short length partials as you please if you are advanced. Seems to be minutia to focus on which region on a particular muscle a lift targets for beginner-intermediate lifters. It will probably make more of a difference to experiment it as a late intermediate/advanced trainee since you already have an appreciable amount of muscle already.
Summary: In comparison to partials at short muscle lengths - Partials at long muscle lengths build more muscle with greatest difference at the Distal (Uniarticulate Muscles) or Proximal (Biarticulate Muscles) regions. Great video HoH - cheers 👍.
Hey, great video as always ! I was wondering if you could make a video about all the already established facts about muscle building, I think it would be a great recap of what we are already sure we can do to improve our muscle growth. Thanks again for the amazing content ! :)
I have 3 theories on this.
1. Distal sarcomeres have stronger titin, causing them to extend and exert force only at the longest muscle lengths.
2. Distal sarcomeres tend to be type 1 so they are actually stronger and don't extend until the longest muscle lengths.
3. Distal sarcomeres are connected to different motor units.
Thank you, excellent content as always!
Your content is always well appreciated! To me you are the most reliable and honest science-based content creator out there!
Thank you my friend!
Great video as always!! Can you bring us something about isometrics? I feel they're very underestimated
8:27 nice new animation 😄 and to have something to comment on so to help the algorithm send new viewers to your great content 📚🎭
P.S. I had to edit the my comment to say thank you for 10:43 😂
Haha, thank you so much my friend!
congrats on 300k subs
Thank you so much!
wow this quality of videos is so good house of hypertrophy is so underrated! House of hypertrophy how can u have a tiny waist and maybe make a video of having tiny waist?
I have a feeling that long lengthened partials may be the new standard going forward, they theoretically work the muscle more than full rom, I've integrated long length partials into my leg extensions and calf raises and I've definitely felt and seen the difference
Super interesting!
My theory is that partials at long lengs allow to use more weight than full rom, that might explain the difference in growth
That might apply to rows or pull-downs but it really doesn't apply to squats or biceps curls.
Great video, I honestly thought the preacher was better than incline curls because they place more resistance in the stretched position, even though the bicep isn’t stretched more, I thought the resistance profile of the preacher was unmatched. Guess I was very wrong.
Congrats on the 300k subs 💪 -still underrated if you ask me-
Thank you! :)
jumpscare at 3:04
I didn`t understood very well the hypertrophy at proximal region in biarticular muscles even at longer lenghts. Doyo have an hipothesis of the reason? Excellent video as usual
arm wrestlers usually curl at the shorter length of the muscle and have huge bicep peaks. It would be really cool to have them studied.
Good point. A lot of heavy short length isometric holds too.
Hey there, big fan of your channel! One Q: is it you speaking or are you using a Text to Speach? (Or your sinthesized voice). Not that it matters at all but I'm curious!
Thank you my friend! It is my voice haha, apologies if it's too robotic, I'm working on it. You can check out some of my older videos, and you may see a slight difference, but I know it's still not where I want it to be!
it's weird that a full length partial curl = more distal growth, but somehow an incline curl with a prestretch = more proximal growth. Confounding.
Not neccessarily, perhaphs it's related to the location of the "stretch" - incline curls place the shoulder into an extended position, which may have a larger impact on the stretch of the proximal region compared to the preacher curl (which is shoulder flexed)
Intresting how hypertrophic respond of muscle seems to corelate closely with Lactic Anaerobic System duration of work.
It seems proximal and distal nomenclature are flawed. It's a matter of perspective. If the part closer to the stretched articular arm is worked in the stretched length, then it seems that this part will have a better hypertrophic response. That means, for example, that hamstrings on leg curls have better hypertrophy at the proximal, but biceps at the distal.
it is a good idea if you make a video the best excercise for each muscle !!!
Another great video. 👍This one got me thinking about combination exercises, e.g., 21's for biceps. Are the extra gains for the partials cumulative or do they just cancel each other out? Don't think that is an easy one to answer.
Thanks!
Thank you for checking it out!
an interesting topic i'm confused about is if getting into a stretch position is important or if peak tension at the stretch is more important. i remember a study indicating that preacher curls were more hypertrophic than incline curls because despite being more shortened at the shoulder they had peak tension at the stretched position. is there any other evidence for this?
if this is true then it stands to reason that pausing in the stretched position would make that the hardest part of the movement and instantly enhance it. idk tho, just think it would be an interesting advanced topic :) great vid as always btw
I'm very curious as to how this impacts pull-ups. Like once I reach the point where I can't finish a rep properly, it sounds like there might be plenty of value in continuing to perform the bottom half of the motion. That should be the "long length partial" portion of the exercise, right?
Combining full range sets with long lenght sets to be sure you don't miss out gain is an option.
Yep. The bros were right about this one as with many other things. Regional hypertrophy is possible.
I'm wondering if, in the comparison of partial and full, the sets were equated on number of reps or on effort. It's certainly easier to do the same number of partials than fulls. That could be another plus of lengthened partials if I can do one more set with the same effort/systemic fatigue.
Always use full rom and save partials once you’ve reached failure if you have a good spotter.
Could you do something about isometrics? Still hard to find complex guide to how and why we should use them.
In my minds eye, it's not that the target muscle is at length that causes these results.
It is because the "lengthened partial" eliminates, or greatly reduces, any amount of contribution to the movement that non target muscles would provide.
ie for biceps exercises the lengthened partials reduce or eliminate any contribution by the delts or pecs.
Your explanation of the differences in resulting growth in different areas according to training lengths would support this.
It makes me think that lengthened partials are just a sort of isolation technique.
I think the greater effect is that different sarcomeres are active at different muscle lengths, with proximal ones being primarily active at short lengths and distal ones at long lengths. This also potentially explains why isometrics produce joint angle specific strength increases.
I just realised that "Effects of shoulder extension angle on biceps brachii" study by milo wolf which found no difference in hypertrophy between arms deep in shoulder extension and arms by the side; except they only measured hypertrophy at 50,60 and 70% if muscle lenght similar to the zabaleta korta et al old incline vs preacher curl study. Could this imply shoulder far into extension could lead to more biceps growth in the proximal region if they had taken measurements at that sites? As the recent maeo paper measured hypertrophy across 10-90% of the muscle lenght-
I just realised this after watching the video thrice for fun haha. (Even though in the zabaleta korta study they measured the growth of the elbow flexors instead of biceps directly the difference in hypertrophy was way too big which probably solidifies the reason for the difference in hypertrophy between studies to be due to the fact that the maeo study measured growth at all regions)
Would love to know your opinion on this :)
Hey dude!
Here's my current thoughts: there are a few different options on the table with Milo's biceps paper (at least as far as I can see).
1) Like you said, perhaphs growth at the 20-40% region of the biceps would have been better with the shoulder extended curls. But since they just measured 50-70% regions, we don't know.
2) I somewhat alluded to this in the video with the lying down vs leaning back leg extensions, but perhaps there's a threshold. Thus, maybe curls with the shoulder extended are not any better than curls with a neutral shoulder position, but both are better than shoulder flexed curls (i.e. preacher curls)
3) In Milo's paper, they set up the cable to make the exercise the hardest at the start of the curl for both conditions (the shoulder extended and neutral conditions). Perhaps there's currently an unknown interaction between resistance curve and changing muscle length through joint angles. What I mean is that perhaphs if the study did not do this (and had the cable set up to be harder at the middle portion), the results would be different.
Right now, I'm not certain which one is correct, or if all of them are wrong and there's something else that I'm not seeing. Ultimately, when all the papers are officially published (as both Maeo's and Milo's biceps papers aren't properly published yet) I'll have a read of the full text, see what the authors say, and then think about it more!
@@HouseofHypertrophymakes sense💪🏻
Great video, could you do a video covering isometric training techniques ( over coming isometrics, quasi isometrics ) etc ; they are quite underrated and lots of strongmen in the past used them
getting a good stretch at the lengthened position is the new meta. yall be careful though i dont wanna see tore biceps pecs or hamstrings
can do video about techniques of applying long length partials in your program
Currently, there's no hard guidelines, so you could just experiement with it how you like! There's also something called lengthened supersets that can be tried too, we've examined this here: ruclips.net/video/vEKLzXDPoeU/видео.html
Full rom to failure plus long length partial reps should be epic
can you make videos on making routines?
I was thinking about the order of exercises, when you talked about incline curls as one of the best exercises, is it better for hypertrophy to do this exercise at the beginning or end?
Normally when I train my arms I start with preacher curls and lastly incline curls. I noticed that my bicep is more grown on the proximal part (probably because of the preacher curls?)
I would love your take on this.
The bro’s knew this ages ago but had no clue of the actual mechanism. They tried to do exercises that favored both stretch and squeeze…and adjusted if they needed to favor lacking areas of the muscles.
So I would take from this that varying range of motion will add another dimension to training, just like varying exercises and rep ranges.
can you do a video on satellite cell activation and the amount of nuclei on muscle growth?
Can you do a training guide about non lat back regions?
excelente
I been doing only incline bench for my whole life, i dont to flys anymore but even when i used to, i only did the low to high for the upper chest, i never did any flat or decline work, never. Guess what, the "lower" pec grew, the upper didnt.
i understand you, same issue here, just find another exercise for upper pecs that you can feel, in my incline bench i just see growth in my front delt and triceps, just replace it with a fancy exercise but i find that is the one for me, still not huge gains by doing that but i finally isolate my upper pecs and see some located result without have triceps and front shoulder over pumped and tired
@@giovannidicarlo9047 oh trust me, i've tried.
Can you do a video on the infraspinatus
its interesting to consider that pretty much all guys who have reached 60cm+ arm size ever have done a lot of short partials. Eg levan saginashvili with his armwrestling workout
The house of hyperthrophy is the house we live
Almost all know that you can't spot reduce fat.
But i didn't know it was possible to spot increase muscle growth to that degree 😮
It is possible to spot reduce fat to some degree. House of Hypertrophy made a video about it.
@ChuckNorris-yr5kk I do not have any videos on fat reduction
@@HouseofHypertrophy oh, my bad. It was Jeremy Ethier who made a video about it.
So that means we can target the inner chest growth ? and those inner chest workouts are valid which were disrespected by science based lifters?
Gymbros will get an Exercise Science Degree if needed, Considering how complicated Bodybuilding is getting day by day with new data.
Can we have a guide on non lat back regions?
well than what would happend if we did full ROM and after we cant do full ROM (hit failure with full ROM) we do partial reps at longer lenght??
Is the inclined DB curl better than preacher curl then? The persisting idea currently is that preacher curl has the MOST resistance in the lengthened position even though it’s not lengthened as much as the inclined curl
I'll expand on this in a future video, but I think there are cases where starting length > resistance curve
Armwrestlers hate this video 😂 So many partial lifts in our training
Lol your comment is phrased like one of those clickbait ads accompanied with a weird picture.
One can emphasize any part of any given muscle.
For example you can have the lower sections of your biceps targetted and have more biceps showing from the sleeves of your tshirt.
Or have the outer/lateral head, and specifically the lower section of your lateral head of the triceps again to show more from the sleeves of tshirts.
Likewise you can do localisations like this to any and every muscle you have.
I do, I managed to ''crack the code'' so to speak on how to target each section of each muscle.
The down side is when you target a section of a muscle it means you have less ''volume points'' left to spare to other sections of that muscle especially if you targetting ''sections'' on many different muscle groups, because of general fatigue and per session tendon wear down.
So you need to make a ''smart and conscience'' plan and ''manage'' what you want and have a proper ''picture'' of what look you want and/or lack and need work on.
Many people including experts will disagree with all this, but I am 100 percent sure of what I am talking about and they are ignorant or knowing hide things.
Anyways enough ranting, LIIIIFFFFFTTT !!! :)
So what's the code?
@@alexandersh86 Different angles, different utensils (dumbells for some, cables for others) etc.
Do you really want me to explain each and every one here? :)
@@KenanTurkiye No, just the core principle/s. Like "long length partials for distal, short length partials for proximal" e.g. Or is there really no system at all so you had to have to find out each one with trial and error?
@@alexandersh86 I understand. I don't thing there is a ''cohesive'' on size fits all formula to speak of. All the things I found out are thru trial and error.
It's more about the plane of force angle, where it ''peaks'' and how your target muscle is in ''line'' with the force angle peak.
When you have the two line up, that is when you have your targetted area line up with where the peak point of force angle is in the exercise you're doing, it favors that point area of that muscle.
Sure everything works everything so to speak, but today was my triceps lateral head work but distal sections, closer to the elbow, I already got huge proximal bulging out. If I had asked the gym owner who is a certified PT with a master in kinesiology he would look at me strangely, I don't think formational science is yet there.
@@KenanTurkiye > I don't think formational science is yet there.
Oh, anecdotal evidence is sometimes all that's needed for scientists to take a closer look at something. Thanks, I have at least a vague idea what to try now.
" Welcome to a Hells of" Hypertroph"
How to maximize glute growth!!
Make the video finally!
We all need it. seriously!
Squats.
@@jimperry4420 this is as superficial and insufficient as it can be
Deep ROM leg press with very high foot placement has always been great for me.
Who's switched to using just long-length partials? How's it going?
GVS made a video about it.
ProphetFear is a bodybuilder doing exclusively long length partials for almost a year now I assume. He did full ROM until a year ago I think.
Lengthened partials = Uneven muscle and strength curve
Day 164.
Feeling nervous, life seems to have less meaning by the day. House of Hypertrophy refuses to release the Abs science video. How long can i manage to keep it together?
😂😂😂 My apologies dude, I will hopefully get to that soon. I do want to do as much research as possible for that video, and make it the best I possibly can, so it might take a while. Ultimately, I hope the wait will be worth it!
@@HouseofHypertrophy i need to build my Ronaldo Nazario tummy, man. I need this.
The human body is not symmetrical not even in nature
id optimize your workout to go with one set of lenghtened partial to failure, full rom to failure and short length partial to failure for a total of 3 sets. over time they must compound
💪💪💪
💪💪💪
Where was inline curl better than preacher curl
9:50
I do not get why people do not put a useful comment and instead put "first". What do you want, a cookie? You ain't getting no damn cookies here. This is fitness science, ya pimp.
First reply
Wah. Did your feelings get hurt?
Of course you say that when you get second 😅
Because there morons ..
Fourth reply, give me my cookie.
❤
💪
sorry but im not gonna do long length partials instead of full ROM, you can implement it at the end of the set but i aint ever gonna replace full rom for full length partials. this defeats the purpose of training and imo its not fun at all, it might be optimal but full ROM is functional strength
functional strength is having bigger stronger arm
@@eutiger4789 yeah but there is also a thing such as technique etc. where you basically never performed a real squat etc. i mean in those situations i just rather do the full rom than the partials (much more fun and you get stronger on technique aswell). is it suboptimal maybe but i find full rom just more functional
@@Tom_CarnivorousDG Its weird what you are saying because absolutely nothing that you will do in real life is full rom, work at warehouse, house building whatever you pick
@@eutiger4789 hmm i guess you have a point there indeed😅
but also depends on what you do bec if you pick smth of the ground youre gonna do a full rom squat. but for picking things up with your bicep you do lengthend partials
So you can actually target the "INNER PECS".
Does bro reply?
Yes :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy thanks for the content it really helps a lot 👍🏻 keep going
Still a fan of this channel, but it sad to see its becoming clickbaity for views.
❤✝ CHRIST IS RISEN ☦❤
❤💪🏋♀🙏✝ GOD GIVES US STRENGTH ☦🙏💯🦾
What's your take on this. I've thought about it for a while now. Free weight Preacher is better than free weight incline but if it were cable then Incline cable will be better than both free weight movements because it's not only about the stretch but if there is significant load during the stretch
are you British Pakistani?
I make music on the side, come criticize
This basically kills long length partials for competitive bodybuilding. Nobody wants all their muscles to be big in the distal region, it absolutely kills the aesthetic. You want most of your muscles to pump. That is, to be bigger in its peak. If you can manipulate that through training, that's a great win. Doesn't make much sense to do long length partials for many muscles if it's going to ruin that aesthetic and completely hide the peak of the muscles.
I've suspected this for quite some time, as long length partials pretty much only let me sore in the distal region. I've said this exact same thing as a personal theory in channels like RP and even told this to Milo Wolf. Now it seems like it's true. Great breakdown of the findings, man
near first
Is this your actual voice?
When I squeeze my biceps it is much more "thick" at the distal (or lower) region than at the top. I never trained with lengthened partials, in fact when I started training I trained with more shortened partials.
would be interesting the comparison betwen long length partial and isometric contraction, example: biceps curl starting by full extended arm to 90° elbow flection and static hold at 90°, probably long length still give more hypertrofy in general, isometric could show more growth in the middle part in comparison to long length partial, one day meaby we will know
I predict that the isometrics will have worse growth even in the middle region. Muscles really seem to need to go through lengthening/shortening under load to actually grow. Staying static at one position probably only activates a low number of sarcomeres.
Someone can please explain. I do exercises with big stretch (like bayesian cable curl) and consider all conditions by type of cable up, but don’t feel the stretch as if I was stretching this muscle. Is that how it’s supposed to be?
I think the whole idea is that the flexed region of a muscle (proximal or distal) is not capable of taking part in the movement as much and thus grows less. So maybe preacher curls produce more muscle growth compared to incline dumbbell curl but that might be true for the distal region and preacher curls might not be the best for proximal bicep hypertrophy. Of course on the other hand there “too much stretch” which puts the muscle in a weakened position not allowing it to produce enough force. Maybe the individuals didn’t have a trained enough proximal quad. Maybe training in a leaning position for some time and then slowly switching to lying leg extensions might allow them to produce enough force and thus cause even more hypertrophy. Just some assumptions and food for thought.
This comment contains nine words consisting of at least three symbols.
Research changes every day every month just stick to some key movements overload caloric surplus rest for a long period of time
Are you neglecting all the other times that incline curls were worse than preachers? This is the first time thus far that incline curls have ever beaten the preacher. Even then, the growth in the new study was proximal, which literally goes against everything studied on long muscle length training (should be distal). To me, this killed any credibility to “train everything at longer lengths”
No, there's only one other study comparing incline to preacher curls (examined in this video: ruclips.net/video/gS-xsC48xTs/видео.html ) - it looked at elbow flexor growth (which is BOTH the biceps and brachialis). I'll expand on this in a future video, but don't think resistance curve itself is always more important than the starting length of a muscle.
Also, as alluded to in this very video, I think there are two categories. The first is range of motion (using a partial at long length or full ROM), this results in more distal growth versus short length ROM. The second is exercise selection with biarticular muscles, where training at a longer length builds more muscle overall, but the differences are larger at the proximal regions.
@@HouseofHypertrophy the claim I had always heard on LML is that a more stretched excercise would have growth either at the distal portion or throughout the muscle belly, but this is the first I hear someone claim increase proximal growth over distal growth. The hip flexion study (I think Larsen et al) tested this and did not find more proximal than distal at the 40 angle, unless I read the study incorrectly. Regardless, I’m excited for the video, been a long time follower and enjoy having these discussions
Yeah, that's what most people claim, and I've alluded to this previously. But given the recent emerging data, I am making the hypothesis there's two different categories. The Larsen study you mention did find a larger difference at the proximal region between leaning back and normal leg extensions, this is the study detailed at 8:51
I appreciate the kind words and support!
Longer length without tension is like simple stretching.
The preacher curl has more tension in the longer length. Despite the length being longer in incline curls, the tension is way less when the arm is in the lengthened position
So it makes sense preacher curl is better
@@batatahigh382 the most recent study claimed incline curl was better, so hopefully that dissonance is addressed by more people soon (I find Chris and Paul show has made the most plausible argument thus far)
I thought all of this was old news.
Lengthened partials have been proven hypertrophic methods for well over a year or two now.
So, team full rom is back?
1