Some ‘science based’ channels emphasise limitations of studies they don’t agree with and dismiss the limitations of those they do agree with. I do like Bens attempts to bring a balanced view.
I agree with the lower fatigue specifically in terms of joints and connective tissues, and it might be that we can do more volume that way and actually outdo long length only training, but in my experience, nobody has the time or energy to reach their maximum recoverable volume with long length only stuff to begin with, in other words for most people fatigue is not the limiting factor, and for the regional hypertrophy argument, I'd look at the leg extension study where in the stretched one both proximal and distal sites grew more, this seems to be a consistent thing and regional hypertrophy favoring short length training just isn't really established, furthermore let's say it was more distal, if we look at where the distal site is in almost all muscle groups, it's the areas people want to grow most, the middle of the pecs, the end of the bicep to get that Arnold like shape (I know it's genetic but think about it on a small scale) etc... so it's just a win win, as for your last argument of function, only people who play sports should even think about that, people can walk and function just fine with skipping short length training it's not that hard, the argument that you didn't mention but I've heard is that this increased growth is temporary and will not be the same for advanced lifters, we don't know that so let's not make that claim, there is a study being done on exactly this so we will see, the ONLY things I'd agree with are that we don't have all the data for all muscles, and that you might get more growth because of less fatigue therefore more volume, but we have a lot of data for other muscles so I'd say it's a safe guess to train all with long length only, and that's that, so I think the most practical position to take here is: do long length training beyond failure, until you reach MRV, then switch to only to failure, until MRV, then switch to RIR, until MRV, THEN and only then if you still want more volume, include short length stuff, hope you read this I'd love a response (joined your circle btw it's good)
I just believe in full range of motion... No emphasis on any certain portion, just uniform movement through a full ROM. Training this way will better prepare you when life throws you into those positions unexpectedly. But I'm not a competitive body builder. There are also some problems with the research, at least the study you pointed out. You can't say for sure what muscles are contributing to the work in the calf raise. It's possible that the soleus is less active as you get deeper into the lengthened position, so the gastroc might be taking more of the load in that position. In other words, tension isn't equated between the lengthened position and shortened position, so the extra growth might be dependent on tension and not the lengthened position. They should have measured soleus and gastroc growth. The more joints that are moving, the more difficult it is to equate tension too, so it would be very difficult to equalize tension on a particular muscle throughout the range of motion in a compound movement. Relative tension is shifting between the pecs and triceps throughout a bench press, for example. Perhaps a machine pec fly could work well for a study, whereas, a bench fly wouldn't... In fact, no free weight exercises could work due to the gravity vector. Machines with rotary cams that can isolate single muscle groups might be the only way to keep tension consistent throughout a movement. Maybe the research has accounted for this, I don't know.
the research is also flawed because hypertrophy is a vacuum it doesnt account for muscle longevity and it’s pretty obvious that full rom strength is better and that in general having stronger muscle than bigger muscle is healthier long term. Bodybuilding is super overated tbh
Training at longer muscle lengths is NOT more fatiguing than full ROM or top range partials. In fact, it's less fatiguing. Put 225 on a bar and do full ROM calf raises. Me, I get about 20 reps this way. 225 in a bar and do bottom half, I get roughly 28 reps, and less fatigue. Can't even tell I trained my calves the next day after five sets of these, but have definitely been experiencing more noticeable growth in the calves over the past few months training this way
I agree, some long length exercises are more fatiguing, some are less, it depends on the exercise, I'm the same with calf raises, the top part is by far the hardest, also leg extensions are easier for me in the botttom half lengthened position, chin ups and pull ups the same. For the most part the video brings up many important points, but the one about fatigue doesn't hit true, at least for me.
how would you do this with counting sets? for example if you're trying to do 10 sets of chest per week how should you count the short and long position movements
Studies have shown short contraction exercises show little to none hypertrophy , and using pro bodybuilders as and example of different ranges when they are all heavy on drugs is wrong, even bad training styles will show growth on steroids.
@@The_Modern_Meatheadthe guy obviously exaggerated, but there's a couple of systematic reviews, one focuses on range of motion and the conclusion is full ROM is superior to partials. The second one talks about training in lengthened position vs short, which proves to first one to be superior with respect to hypertrophy.
Dude. This is incredible! I have been totally falling victim to the LL panacea, and you make some compelling arguments for shortened. As is with most things in life & lifting, the right answer is usually specific to the person and a combination of things!
excellent video & content overall. This leads me to think something else (for another video) but let's say concentric-only type of training, namely sled in an hypertrophy rep/set scheme, would be totally bastardised/demonised by the SMH guys, yet it produces hypertrophic results (again in certain types of populations). Another good example of the efficiency of the concentric part of the ROM is with occlusion/BFR, where you mostly emphasise the concentric portion. I guess indeed there's a time & a place for both long muscle lengths &/or shorter ones.
I've been wondering about this for a while. Your video clarified a lot but it's still not clear to me why hip thrusts are a staple for glutes growth, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they target a specific part of the muscle, so I would appreciate a follow up to this explaining why
@@mhdskryour “question” (there was no question) is based on a faulty premise, so I addressed that. If you have a specific and clear question, I’m happy to try to help explain!
@@mhdskrit is most specific to the lower portions of the glute max. It is a fine exercise option for training the short position of the glutes, much like a flye would be for training the pecs.
When you talk about "fatigue" are you referring (essentially) to ATP usage during muscle contraction? One of the mechanisms I'd like to understand better in these "lengthened partial" studies is whether it's active or passive tension that is driving the increased hypertrophy. If we think about length-tension relationships during an exercise and the overlap of actin and myosin in the sarcomere, are we getting more overlap in the lengthened position or actually less? Same question for the shortened position. These are the biophysical mechanism that to me have not been elucidated yet in vivo. I say this as someone who was trained in biomedical engineering and did many a physiology lab dissecting frog sartorius muscle and doing length-tension relationships. I want to know, for example, when someone does an overhead tricep extension versus a pulldown where on the length-tension curve are they? I don't even know if that's feasible, but I think that's what is missing in all this "lengthened partial" hoopla.
my understanding of it is that its the total tension that's most relevant. i.e, in lengthened partials, we're combining active + passive tension, whereas with short its just the active components primarily.
I always wondered why some people just label an exercise "trash" if it isn't lengthened bias or at least mid bias / constant tension. Is there some studies which suggest that shorted biased movements causes significantly(like 30~40%) less muscle growth compared to the lengthened-biased ones?
Yes bro didn’t you see the study that had participants train the calves through full ROM and then doing only lengthened partials? Full rom had very low hypertrophy while lengthened partials had twice the growth.Its true that training that way causes way more fatigue but the differences in hypertrophy in some cases are Crazy! Nonetheless, when this difference is not that big,it’s smart to add volume through shortened tension exercises since they probably are easier to recover from.
Full rom vs lengthened partials study(untrained participants) favours lengthened partials, another study(trained participants) on the same will be out in some time.
Yeah, systematic reviews, in fact. That's a study of studies. Most reliable source of science. You're a few clicks away from learning about it. Google might help.
Man the whole LLP thing just muddies the water... Intuitively full ROM just makes sense for a trained individual, with exercise selection influencing the strength curve of the movement. Plus adding in some LLP's as a byproduct of fatigue at the end of your sets gives the best of both worlds. Out of interest Ben, can you "speculate" why you think in the calf study, the stretched partial had more hypertrophy than full ROM? You would think full ROM trumps any partial, especially for untrained individuals.
what i dont really like with llp is also the fsct that you basically miss out on the benefits of the full rom. Having partial rom to begin with is hella stupid and bodybuilding as a whole is already sort of a dumb sport with so many people having barely any flexibility and growing old with pretty bad bodies when its been shown that rom is really important in old age. Also generally who else than bodybuilders gives a shit abt 10% more hypertrophy if you lose strength at many parts of the ROM. Calisthenics eith weight is a way better sport. People have a better balanced body, they look more harmonious the tricks they do are more impressive and most girl would pick any day a calisthenic athlete vs a bodybuilder.. This is a harsh truth for many so ill. wait for the salty cope comments
What about exercices that peak at medium muscle lenght ? Neither too stretched, neither too shortened. Doesn't it make sense that it is the best position for the actin-myosin bridges to happen ? One thing i noticed with lengthened partials is that most people use the stretch reflex to perform the reps wich obviously take some tension away
You are not far off, the thing is that we have to look at more variables such as the length-tension relationship of the given muscle and where the muscles has the most internal leverage to produce force. More force = more motor unit recruitment, which increases the number of actin-myosin cross bridges and leads to active mechanical tension, or otherwise hypertrophy. .
If you listen to Milo Wolf he is guilty of a lot of generalization fallacies. It just goes to show a person get a PhD and still never learn logic and critical thinking.
The Stronger by Science crowd is going to have a meltdown. How dare someone without a PHD in exercise science challenge the conclusions of what is optimal. It's not like it's a pseudoscientific term or anything.
Dr. Milo Wolf will be reacting to this for sure :D
Only to make a fool out of himself
A "sort of science-based channel" actually talking about the limitations of scientific study in the field of exercise science is rare thing to see.
Some ‘science based’ channels emphasise limitations of studies they don’t agree with and dismiss the limitations of those they do agree with.
I do like Bens attempts to bring a balanced view.
you’re gonna upset a lot of your viewerbase here
I like this guy. I've been watching some of his videos, and he's is pretty sensible. Keep it up, man!
thank you dude!
Do you like me too?🤭
I agree with the lower fatigue specifically in terms of joints and connective tissues, and it might be that we can do more volume that way and actually outdo long length only training, but in my experience, nobody has the time or energy to reach their maximum recoverable volume with long length only stuff to begin with, in other words for most people fatigue is not the limiting factor, and for the regional hypertrophy argument, I'd look at the leg extension study where in the stretched one both proximal and distal sites grew more, this seems to be a consistent thing and regional hypertrophy favoring short length training just isn't really established, furthermore let's say it was more distal, if we look at where the distal site is in almost all muscle groups, it's the areas people want to grow most, the middle of the pecs, the end of the bicep to get that Arnold like shape (I know it's genetic but think about it on a small scale) etc... so it's just a win win, as for your last argument of function, only people who play sports should even think about that, people can walk and function just fine with skipping short length training it's not that hard, the argument that you didn't mention but I've heard is that this increased growth is temporary and will not be the same for advanced lifters, we don't know that so let's not make that claim, there is a study being done on exactly this so we will see, the ONLY things I'd agree with are that we don't have all the data for all muscles, and that you might get more growth because of less fatigue therefore more volume, but we have a lot of data for other muscles so I'd say it's a safe guess to train all with long length only, and that's that, so I think the most practical position to take here is: do long length training beyond failure, until you reach MRV, then switch to only to failure, until MRV, then switch to RIR, until MRV, THEN and only then if you still want more volume, include short length stuff, hope you read this I'd love a response (joined your circle btw it's good)
You're expecting too much. See any studies cited? Nah, coz they'd go against his theories.
I just believe in full range of motion... No emphasis on any certain portion, just uniform movement through a full ROM. Training this way will better prepare you when life throws you into those positions unexpectedly. But I'm not a competitive body builder.
There are also some problems with the research, at least the study you pointed out. You can't say for sure what muscles are contributing to the work in the calf raise. It's possible that the soleus is less active as you get deeper into the lengthened position, so the gastroc might be taking more of the load in that position. In other words, tension isn't equated between the lengthened position and shortened position, so the extra growth might be dependent on tension and not the lengthened position. They should have measured soleus and gastroc growth.
The more joints that are moving, the more difficult it is to equate tension too, so it would be very difficult to equalize tension on a particular muscle throughout the range of motion in a compound movement. Relative tension is shifting between the pecs and triceps throughout a bench press, for example. Perhaps a machine pec fly could work well for a study, whereas, a bench fly wouldn't... In fact, no free weight exercises could work due to the gravity vector. Machines with rotary cams that can isolate single muscle groups might be the only way to keep tension consistent throughout a movement. Maybe the research has accounted for this, I don't know.
the research is also flawed because hypertrophy is a vacuum it doesnt account for muscle longevity and it’s pretty obvious that full rom strength is better and that in general having stronger muscle than bigger muscle is healthier long term.
Bodybuilding is super overated tbh
@@telkmxyou think body builders are weak?
@@KneeGrowDoingKneeGrowThings yeah they suck ass
would like to know more about the unique properties of shortened training
Training at longer muscle lengths is NOT more fatiguing than full ROM or top range partials. In fact, it's less fatiguing. Put 225 on a bar and do full ROM calf raises. Me, I get about 20 reps this way. 225 in a bar and do bottom half, I get roughly 28 reps, and less fatigue. Can't even tell I trained my calves the next day after five sets of these, but have definitely been experiencing more noticeable growth in the calves over the past few months training this way
Source: Trust me bro I can feel it. You don't have any idea about how physiology and biology works.
I agree, some long length exercises are more fatiguing, some are less, it depends on the exercise, I'm the same with calf raises, the top part is by far the hardest, also leg extensions are easier for me in the botttom half lengthened position, chin ups and pull ups the same. For the most part the video brings up many important points, but the one about fatigue doesn't hit true, at least for me.
Ben what are your thoughts on resistance curve/profile of common machine exercises? Eg hammer strength rows
Thanks for enlightening us!! ❤
Very reasonable and wise advice. Thank you.
how would you do this with counting sets? for example if you're trying to do 10 sets of chest per week how should you count the short and long position movements
Studies need to use IDENTICAL TWINS to have proper results.
results are not something that can be proper.
Studies have shown short contraction exercises show little to none hypertrophy , and using pro bodybuilders as and example of different ranges when they are all heavy on drugs is wrong, even bad training styles will show growth on steroids.
im not aware of any single study that shows no or little hypertrophy from short position exercises. please post links to those studies here :)
this is not true.
@@The_Modern_Meatheadthe guy obviously exaggerated, but there's a couple of systematic reviews, one focuses on range of motion and the conclusion is full ROM is superior to partials. The second one talks about training in lengthened position vs short, which proves to first one to be superior with respect to hypertrophy.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36662126/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34170576/
🤡
RUclips deleted my links, they're systematic reviews posted on ncbi. Easy to find them using Google.
Dude. This is incredible! I have been totally falling victim to the LL panacea, and you make some compelling arguments for shortened. As is with most things in life & lifting, the right answer is usually specific to the person and a combination of things!
Well done.
excellent video & content overall. This leads me to think something else (for another video) but let's say concentric-only type of training, namely sled in an hypertrophy rep/set scheme, would be totally bastardised/demonised by the SMH guys, yet it produces hypertrophic results (again in certain types of populations). Another good example of the efficiency of the concentric part of the ROM is with occlusion/BFR, where you mostly emphasise the concentric portion. I guess indeed there's a time & a place for both long muscle lengths &/or shorter ones.
Oh boy
I've been wondering about this for a while. Your video clarified a lot but it's still not clear to me why hip thrusts are a staple for glutes growth, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they target a specific part of the muscle, so I would appreciate a follow up to this explaining why
i dont think any exercise is a "staple" for growing any muscle!
@@The_Modern_Meathead thanks for completely missing the point.
@@mhdskryour “question” (there was no question) is based on a faulty premise, so I addressed that. If you have a specific and clear question, I’m happy to try to help explain!
@@The_Modern_Meathead do hip thrust target a specific part of glutes? And what do u think of the exercise in general?
@@mhdskrit is most specific to the lower portions of the glute max. It is a fine exercise option for training the short position of the glutes, much like a flye would be for training the pecs.
We should see in a few years, these people traing purely with lengthened partials should be absolutely HUGE compared to everyone else😂
You must have missed all his exercise videos. This guy trains in full ROM with focus on eccentric. Weird to see him go against studies with this one.
When you talk about "fatigue" are you referring (essentially) to ATP usage during muscle contraction? One of the mechanisms I'd like to understand better in these "lengthened partial" studies is whether it's active or passive tension that is driving the increased hypertrophy. If we think about length-tension relationships during an exercise and the overlap of actin and myosin in the sarcomere, are we getting more overlap in the lengthened position or actually less? Same question for the shortened position. These are the biophysical mechanism that to me have not been elucidated yet in vivo. I say this as someone who was trained in biomedical engineering and did many a physiology lab dissecting frog sartorius muscle and doing length-tension relationships. I want to know, for example, when someone does an overhead tricep extension versus a pulldown where on the length-tension curve are they? I don't even know if that's feasible, but I think that's what is missing in all this "lengthened partial" hoopla.
my understanding of it is that its the total tension that's most relevant. i.e, in lengthened partials, we're combining active + passive tension, whereas with short its just the active components primarily.
I always wondered why some people just label an exercise "trash" if it isn't lengthened bias or at least mid bias / constant tension. Is there some studies which suggest that shorted biased movements causes significantly(like 30~40%) less muscle growth compared to the lengthened-biased ones?
Yes bro didn’t you see the study that had participants train the calves through full ROM and then doing only lengthened partials? Full rom had very low hypertrophy while lengthened partials had twice the growth.Its true that training that way causes way more fatigue but the differences in hypertrophy in some cases are Crazy! Nonetheless, when this difference is not that big,it’s smart to add volume through shortened tension exercises since they probably are easier to recover from.
Full rom vs lengthened partials study(untrained participants) favours lengthened partials, another study(trained participants) on the same will be out in some time.
@@maliberrada5480 Isn't that the exact study this guy mentioned in the video? If that's not the case can you give me the reference please?
@@gyeongchankim5423 yes my bad I didnt realize,its the same one bro
Yeah, systematic reviews, in fact. That's a study of studies. Most reliable source of science. You're a few clicks away from learning about it. Google might help.
I think he’s teaching us to have a more holistic approach in the way we train
i love this!
Man the whole LLP thing just muddies the water... Intuitively full ROM just makes sense for a trained individual, with exercise selection influencing the strength curve of the movement. Plus adding in some LLP's as a byproduct of fatigue at the end of your sets gives the best of both worlds. Out of interest Ben, can you "speculate" why you think in the calf study, the stretched partial had more hypertrophy than full ROM? You would think full ROM trumps any partial, especially for untrained individuals.
what i dont really like with llp is also the fsct that you basically miss out on the benefits of the full rom. Having partial rom to begin with is hella stupid and bodybuilding as a whole is already sort of a dumb sport with so many people having barely any flexibility and growing old with pretty bad bodies when its been shown that rom is really important in old age. Also generally who else than bodybuilders gives a shit abt 10% more hypertrophy if you lose strength at many parts of the ROM.
Calisthenics eith weight is a way better sport. People have a better balanced body, they look more harmonious the tricks they do are more impressive and most girl would pick any day a calisthenic athlete vs a bodybuilder.. This is a harsh truth for many so ill. wait for the salty cope comments
@@telkmx wouldnt long length training generally make one more flexible?
Makes perfect sense. 💯
Dont overcomplicate this stuff. Do basic stuff, do it with harder load everytime. Progreasive overload, etc...
What about exercices that peak at medium muscle lenght ? Neither too stretched, neither too shortened.
Doesn't it make sense that it is the best position for the actin-myosin bridges to happen ?
One thing i noticed with lengthened partials is that most people use the stretch reflex to perform the reps wich obviously take some tension away
You are not far off, the thing is that we have to look at more variables such as the length-tension relationship of the given muscle and where the muscles has the most internal leverage to produce force. More force = more motor unit recruitment, which increases the number of actin-myosin cross bridges and leads to active mechanical tension, or otherwise hypertrophy. .
If you listen to Milo Wolf he is guilty of a lot of generalization fallacies. It just goes to show a person get a PhD and still never learn logic and critical thinking.
He is. I’m under the impression he’s become too invested in long length training and that anything else must be wrong.
@@Gopher31 He never says that other, less-stretching, exercises are wrong. He's just saying there's better ones.
The Stronger by Science crowd is going to have a meltdown. How dare someone without a PHD in exercise science challenge the conclusions of what is optimal. It's not like it's a pseudoscientific term or anything.