Full R.O.M. Vs. Partials?

Anaballer · 10-06-2008, 09:45 AM

I've always been a firm believer in strict form, and as much range of motion that I could do comfortably without risking injury(i.e. forearms laying flat on the pad during preacher's, butt to the floor squats, etc., etc.) which has worked pretty well during the years. Using partial rep range, with short explosive movements always seemed like cheating the weight up to me or "less than perfect" form. Throwing the weights up and down, or bouncing them. Not lowering the weight completely or squeezing at the top of the movement.

But, I do see some people who do train that way who produce a pump and use more weight than they probably could using a stricter form, without grinding out those slow controlled reps. For example, I could lift at least 20lbs. heavier if I didn't go all the way down on preacher curls-or squeeze at the top for a second or two. How much more do you think you could squat if you only went to just above paralell to the floor? Or bench if you only came up half-way?

I know that "throwing" heavy weights with poor form is just opening the door wider for an injury to step in and kick me right in the ass. But only using half or a third of the movement seems like it would actually reduce the risk of injury. And I've seen some really BIG guys and even a few pro's(Coleman comes to mind) that seem to have truly awesome results from that "relaxed" style of training.

So, does it make more sense to just go heavier and use partials Vs. going a bit lighter and using strict form to bulk up?

RIPT · 10-06-2008, 09:56 AM

I only use partials when I reach failure to further fatigue the muscles. Other than that I believe in working the muscles through a full ROM. That's how nature designed them to be used, not short jerky movents.

T-Bone · 10-06-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIPT

I only use partials when I reach failure to further fatigue the muscles. Other than that I believe in working the muscles through a full ROM. That's how nature designed it to be used, not short jerky movents.

Totally agree. Full ROM is the only way to go.

At least until fatigue. X reps and planned cheating can be incorporated to finish of the muscle totally. Arnold was an advocate of controlled cheating I believe as well.

awal · 10-06-2008, 02:31 PM

i go all the way on the negative to get a stretch but i dont lock out on anything, i stop just before lockout.
i like to use partials on the bench and shoulder press on those last few heavys.

mangler65 · 10-06-2008, 03:02 PM

A full range of motion is also a good way to injure yourself. I've been injured with curls, squats and bench press using a full range of motion. (with curls it was with a preacher machine, never with a barbell). On machine preacher curls I don't let them stretch all the way out at the bottom, with bench I never bring the bar all the way down, and I only do partials on squats. I've found that on lat pulldowns I get a better pump by not bringing the bar all the way down, the biceps take too much stress of the lats if I pull it down too far.

onyx.h · 10-07-2008, 12:14 AM

I always find the FROM concept funny. It is great for measuring progress because you have a constant range but no exercise is REALLY a FROM, though SOME come close (i.e. dips for pecs but even they are not really close, sure its close to full stretch and full contraction but that alone does not equal FROM). There is something also to be said for just pure overload on the body. Any way I digress.... BOTH should be included.

cashrolling · 10-07-2008, 04:19 PM

I do partials sometimes, its just another way to work the muscles, but I personally prefer full motion.My experience showed me that only genetics freaks can afford to do partials all the time and still grow, for the rest of human beings full motion is what work.

roidman0212 · 10-08-2008, 08:49 AM

I believe that full range of motion is the only way, but partial reps do have there point in weight training. I have done them, but limited.

RIPT · 10-08-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onyx.h

I always find the FROM concept funny. It is great for measuring progress because you have a constant range but no exercise is REALLY a FROM, though SOME come close (i.e. dips for pecs but even they are not really close, sure its close to full stretch and full contraction but that alone does not equal FROM). There is something also to be said for just pure overload on the body. Any way I digress.... BOTH should be included.

The range of motion refers to that paticular excercise.

RIPT · 10-16-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awal

i go all the way on the negative to get a stretch but i dont lock out on anything, i stop just before lockout.
i like to use partials on the bench and shoulder press on those last few heavys.

IMO the lockout is important for pressing excercises like those used to train chest shoulders and tris.

10-06-2008, 09:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
Anaballer New Member Anaballer's Stats Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16 Status: Offline Anaballer's Info Location: Country:	Full R.O.M. Vs. Partials? I've always been a firm believer in strict form, and as much range of motion that I could do comfortably without risking injury(i.e. forearms laying flat on the pad during preacher's, butt to the floor squats, etc., etc.) which has worked pretty well during the years. Using partial rep range, with short explosive movements always seemed like cheating the weight up to me or "less than perfect" form. Throwing the weights up and down, or bouncing them. Not lowering the weight completely or squeezing at the top of the movement. But, I do see some people who do train that way who produce a pump and use more weight than they probably could using a stricter form, without grinding out those slow controlled reps. For example, I could lift at least 20lbs. heavier if I didn't go all the way down on preacher curls-or squeeze at the top for a second or two. How much more do you think you could squat if you only went to just above paralell to the floor? Or bench if you only came up half-way? I know that "throwing" heavy weights with poor form is just opening the door wider for an injury to step in and kick me right in the ass. But only using half or a third of the movement seems like it would actually reduce the risk of injury. And I've seen some really BIG guys and even a few pro's(Coleman comes to mind) that seem to have truly awesome results from that "relaxed" style of training. So, does it make more sense to just go heavier and use partials Vs. going a bit lighter and using strict form to bulk up?

10-06-2008, 09:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
RIPT Senior Member RIPT's Stats Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,712 Status: Offline RIPT's Info Location: Country:	I only use partials when I reach failure to further fatigue the muscles. Other than that I believe in working the muscles through a full ROM. That's how nature designed them to be used, not short jerky movents.
	__________________ The two best things for your health are humping and pumping. -- Who wants to see a 200 pund Mr.Olympia?-Arnold Schwarzenegger Last edited by RIPT; 10-09-2008 at 05:29 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2008, 02:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
awal Senior Member awal's Stats Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 636 Status: Online awal's Info Location: Country:	i go all the way on the negative to get a stretch but i dont lock out on anything, i stop just before lockout. i like to use partials on the bench and shoulder press on those last few heavys.

10-06-2008, 03:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
mangler65 Senior Member mangler65's Stats Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 5,353 Status: Offline mangler65's Info Location: San Diego CA Country:	A full range of motion is also a good way to injure yourself. I've been injured with curls, squats and bench press using a full range of motion. (with curls it was with a preacher machine, never with a barbell). On machine preacher curls I don't let them stretch all the way out at the bottom, with bench I never bring the bar all the way down, and I only do partials on squats. I've found that on lat pulldowns I get a better pump by not bringing the bar all the way down, the biceps take too much stress of the lats if I pull it down too far.

10-07-2008, 12:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
onyx.h Senior Member onyx.h's Stats Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 821 Status: Offline onyx.h's Info Location: jackson Country:	I always find the FROM concept funny. It is great for measuring progress because you have a constant range but no exercise is REALLY a FROM, though SOME come close (i.e. dips for pecs but even they are not really close, sure its close to full stretch and full contraction but that alone does not equal FROM). There is something also to be said for just pure overload on the body. Any way I digress.... BOTH should be included.

10-07-2008, 04:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
cashrolling Member cashrolling's Stats Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 72 Status: Offline cashrolling's Info Location: Country:	I do partials sometimes, its just another way to work the muscles, but I personally prefer full motion.My experience showed me that only genetics freaks can afford to do partials all the time and still grow, for the rest of human beings full motion is what work.

10-08-2008, 08:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
roidman0212 Senior Member roidman0212's Stats Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 552 Status: Offline roidman0212's Info Location: Country:	I believe that full range of motion is the only way, but partial reps do have there point in weight training. I have done them, but limited.