Ah! Yeah, I missed that in the original description. Your "15 degrees" fits my understanding. As I was typing that, I was actually thinking it would be more useful if you only used what was necessary to barely be able to move through the range of motion - which is what you're actually doing. Thanks for clarifying.
I havenāt looked for nor seen anything about that. I remember seeing some stuff in the past about starting your lift at maximum tension yielding better results though, so that may or may not feed into what youāre asking.
It does, sort of. I'll see if I can remember where I saw that article about partial motion (interestingly, it was about doing something like the first 1/3 of bench press) not developing strength for the full range.I havenāt looked for nor seen anything about that. I remember seeing some stuff in the past about starting your lift at maximum tension yielding better results though, so that may or may not feed into what youāre asking.
Maximum tension in this instance (and I might be using the wrong terms here) meaning like bench press - people tend to bounce the weight off their chest a bit to get some momentum, or cut the downward phase short a bit. The most effective way is to lower it completely, pause, then press. Basically like starting from a dead stop on your chest every rep.
Same for every exercise - pull-up, dip, squat, curls, etc. Rather than getting into a rhythm where motion never stops, treat every rep like itās the first rep from a standstill.
Kettlebell swings and the like are probably exceptions to this, as their focus is on constant motion.
Iāve also seen many studies saying after a certain point in the lift, the resistance decreases significantly due to momentum. So the first 2/3 of a bench press motion is where 90% of the work is done, and the last 1/3 doesnāt do much for you. Donāt hold me to specific numbers by any means. The entire range of motion is very important, but the final however much doesnāt get much resistance. Thatās where those isometric machines PTs used to love work their magic - they had a constant resistance throughout the entire ROM. They were wildly popular and desired in the 80s-mid 90s, but the machines were huge, only did one motion, and were absurdly expensive, so most PT clinics only had one or two different machines at most.
Hope this somewhat answers your question. Wait, what was your question exactly?
They needed a scientific study to determine that?
It was in response to a fad in bodybuilding at the time - doing the easiest part of the exercise at max x-rep weight, rather than the lower weight you could do the full range. They found that doing max weight for the reduced range didn't have as much impact on full-range development as doing the full range on lower weight. Seems logical, but had to be established since someone was pushing the short-range exercise as a better alternative.They needed a scientific study to determine that?
Seriously though, if you can find it, Iād like to read it. Iām sure there was something genuinely useful in it. I guess itās the nerd in me hidden behind this ultra-cool exterior
I don't want to compare it to WC specifically. I just feel that MMA is taught/pushed toward competition, one on one. While aspect of mixing your martial training to cover a wide variety of areas is a good thing: different ranges; standing; ground. Focussing on just one opponent could be a problem. This could be even more of an issue if your training emphasized ground fighting. A second opponent in that situation might be disastrous.
A second Opponent in most cases is disastrous, unless you can knock people over very quickly, which is not a noted part of wc,
This is a bit of logic that eludes me, yet a point I have seen come up many many times.
Sure, I mean if you are shooting doubles against a guy that has buddies around you could be in for a soccer kick or two.
Never? This is a decades old criticism of bjj and MMA, I'm surprised it's new for you.
Ive heard it. The argument generally goes "mma is good for one on one, but not for a group in the street. That's why (x style) is better, it trains you for the street against multiple attackers." Followed by some sort of reasoning about why you don't see it in the ring.
I believe Fezzik the giant said something like this.
I think the appropriate quote might be, "Rest well and dream of large women.""...are there rocks ahead?"...
To be able to beat two guys, it's a pre requirement that you can beat just one of them, if you can't it's pointless discussing which art you are going to use for the best results with two bad guys, totally pointless, if there are THREE bad guys you have lost anyway round, so it's even more pointless discussing which art is best,
Would he have been able to handle both or all 3 on his feet? If not, would he have criticized his standup skills/style and say he shouldāve taken them to the ground?
