You don’t need to get super obsessive or neurotic about range of motion or training at long muscle lengths

[jgeral0172]

Plenty of people have gotten strong and jacked by training through all sorts of ranges of motion.

When the /r/naturalbodybuilding community takes a particular interest in a particular training variable, there’s a tendency for some folks to take things a bit too far. There’s also a tendency for content creators to make more and more extreme content around the hot topic, because the most extreme views tend to garner the most attention.

We do know that training at longer muscle lengths tends to build more muscle than training at shorter muscle lengths, but…

1. That doesn’t imply that the compound exercises people have been successfully using for decades are suddenly ineffective because they don’t load every muscle through the longest conceivable muscle length.

2. That doesn’t imply that you can’t build muscle without access to fancy equipment that allows you to place maximal tension on a muscle in its most stretched position.

3. That doesn’t necessarily imply that training through a longer range of motion or at longer muscle lengths is always superior.

4. That doesn’t imply that you should remove every exercise from your training routine that doesn’t load your muscles through the longest possible muscle lengths.

5. That doesn’t imply that you should perform exercises in ways that are dangerous or painful just so you can train at slightly longer muscle lengths (for example, if your knees or hips bother you when squatting ass-to-grass, it’s perfectly fine to squat to parallel; if it hurts your shoulders to do really deep pec flyes, it’s perfectly fine to not let the dumbbells or cable handles sink quite as deep).

6. That absolutely doesn’t mean you can’t build muscle unless you train through the longest possible muscle lengths all the time for every muscle, nor does it imply that training through short muscle lengths doesn’t also build muscle.

 

[thepinkpreacher]

@jgeral0172 You don’t need to be super obsessive or neurotic about any aspects of bodybuilding , I could probably even say life in general.

 

[dawn16]

@thepinkpreacher Optimal is the enemy of good or even great. Paralysis by analysis seems to really affect people pursuing fitness goals more than anything else I’ve seen in life for some reason.

 

[guaguar]

@jgeral0172 A lot of people could benefit from applying the 80-20 rule and KISS to their training.

 

[arisha]

@guaguar For the 80/20 rule, does that mean train to failure on 20% of sets and train not so hard on the other 80%?

 

[guaguar]

@arisha It means you get most of the work for a very little amount of the total work.

The 80-20 rule in general says that you get 80% of the results from 20% of the work and the last 20% of the results from the remaining 80% of the work.

The metaanalyses we have showed that for strength you got 81% of the results from just 1-4 sets when compared to 5-12 sets. For hypertrophy 1-4 sets got you 64% of the growth compared to 10+ sets.

So focusing on choosing solid exercises that cover your entire body and doing enough work with sets of 5-30 reps close to failure will give you solid results over time.

Worrying about specific tempos, rest times, intensity techniques, exactly what exercise variation you do for how many sets, on how many days and in what order is of far less consequence.

 

[arisha]

@guaguar Thank you!

 

[dawn16]

@guaguar I always keep this in mind but then when I have -for time constraints - to keep a daily workout at 30 minutes, motherfuckers be telling me that I will never grow like that ....

 

[jcreigns]

@guaguar 20% is a massive amount of results though. Its the difference between a 300 kg deadlift and a 240 kg one or a 180 kg and a 140 kg bench.

 

[guaguar]

@jcreigns No one is disputing that.

But keeping the logic going, it's the difference between working out 4 hours per week for a 240 kg deadlift and 140 kg bench or 20 hours per week for a 300 kg deadlift and 180 kg bench.

Or similar time investments for achieving 80% of your natural gains versus 5 times that to achieve 100%.

 

[jcreigns]

@guaguar The true difference isnt going to be time in reality though. The 20% is going to be fatigue management, nutrition and sleep etc. And maybe 9 hours in total.

 

[guaguar]

@jcreigns I've been in the gym with some of our 300 kg squatters and deadlifters, their workouts are easily 3 hours long and they go 4-5 times per week.

But sure, time spent outside the gym also goes into this.

In total, you still end up spending 80% of the time and effort toward getting that 20% bigger results.

 

[jcreigns]

@guaguar The reason it takes so long long is because they like being at the gym.

Unless you are gunning for a 1RM you never need more than 5 min rest in training between sets.

So you could do 36 sets in 3 hours.

A standard high volume powerlifting workout is usually 12-15 sets and 15 sets are a lot if you arent doing super low RPE.

But I agree with your point. Just pointing out an emphasis on effort.

 

[fortheloveofchrist]

@jgeral0172 Personally enjoying the trend, kinda breaks the monotony of doing ultra high volume heavy stuff that was popular before this.

 

[helen2002]

@fortheloveofchrist Glad people finally woke up to that nonsense. Idk how it even took off but I suspect it was because of a particular comedian with a PHD doing a Collab with everyone and their grandmother every 5 minutes and demonising all other styles of training.

 

[erigsby]

@jgeral0172 But, but, but, there's a jacked "natural" YouTuber that said I need to do it that way because they did it that way, got big, and are 100% natty!!!

 

[leena2016]

@jgeral0172 Something I take from the lengthened position thing, is that it actually reinforces why a lot of the old basic movements are good. Squat, Deadlifts/RDLs, barbell/dumbbell Bench Press, OHP, JM press for the tris, T-bar Rows, good old fashioned preacher curls - these are all movements which are hardest, or very hard around, the lengthened position. We've got a better understanding of why they're effective than we once did.

I might be in the minority but I'm really enjoying this discourse because it's given me some guidance around exercise selection. It's more difficult to try to find out how much volume you should do when you don't understand that this dumbbell lateral raise, for example, hardest at the top, gives a different amount of stimulation, & fatigue, than the esteemed cable lateral raise where the hardest position is just out of the bottom.

The only thing I'd stress to people, & this is 100% my opinion, is if you're stuck with a lift which is hardest in the short position, but you simply go beyond failure & do a few partials, then you'll probably just as effectively stimulate that muscle as a lengthened-biased movement done to regular failure. And once you've gone to failure on a lengthened-biased lift, you tend to barely be able to move - they're not so friendly to partials. So it's give & take.

 

[sashacat]

@leena2016 I mean, most of the exercises you mention are not hardest at the longest part though...

 

[leena2016]

@sashacat I said they were hardest, or very hard, around the longest part. I'd definitely challenge you on that if you think otherwise

 

[jleahj86]

@sashacat I thought I was the only one who noticed that lol.