I’m not going to lie I kind of did it begrudgingly and was suggested to just try it and I stuck with it. I found myself more annoyed as I did it though as there seems to be increasingly strong language acting like somehow if something wasn’t emphasizing this portion of the lift it was somehow worse.
I have made better progress in lats and shoulders particularly, but honestly a lot of it I would probably put more on consistent work and progression on lifts and hypertrophy focus compared to my more usual performance and strength bias.
I appreciate your insights on it and my question since I feel sometimes I struggle to figure out how to objectively evaluate it since RP and Mike are one of the few (influencers?) I still follow since I don’t really do social media. It made me unsure if I’m too critical of his insights on this case since I’m not used to the typical social media and content approach to things.
Im also like the resident non fan of all the old school 531, cube, etc style programs anyways for the same thought processes I think you are trying to illustrate. One of my main reasons getting off social media was due to constantly feeling like the approaches for people just never seemed to line up with the type of analysis on these things I’d prefer.
Thanks for the in depth response.
I think the best way to think of the data around lengthened training is that there seems to be something particularly hypertrophic with regard to this style when the right movements and resistance profiles are selected compared to doing the same moves only in a shortened position or even full ROM. Strongerbyscience did a good piece on explaining why it is VERY unlikely to be stretch mediated, which is why I keep calling it lengthened training, because it doesnt seem to be mediated by the stretch in the strict sense.
Some considerations for those trying to figure out how to use this new data in their training I have gathered from the people doing the research and other PhDs outside of Dr. Mike:
1) Since it is very likely not mediated by stretch alone, just getting to a stretched position does not seem to be the goal. It seems the a lot of the best moves to benefit from this concept of lengthened biased training are moves where the resistance profile has the most tension at a longer muscle length. This is why preacher curls have been showing better results over incline curls. The incline curl gets us into a stretched position at the shoulder but there is no real tension in the resistance profile at the bottom, so even though the preacher curl has some shortening at the shoulder, the peak resistance is at the longest length. So some moves that come to mind where I think some lengthened biased training can make sense due the resistance profile of the movements are things like preacher curls, Bayesian curls, overhead extensions, skull crushers, flys, chest presses, rows, and pulldowns. I have said we dont know if this applies to all muscles yet, but I think enough data is there if one is curious to extrapolate to other muscles and at least try some stuff out. I think trying some moves where we can influence the bias of the resistance profile to the longest part making it the hardest part there is worth a shot. Like various cable shoulder raises and biceps curls, since the more traditional DB movements for this muscles tends to have very little resistance in the longest position of those ROMs due to the natural of gravity and DBs.
2) How does doing full ROM impact the load and thus mechanical tension we can use on a particular movement and exert on a specific muscle, respectively? Calf raises is a good example here, doing lengthened partials would allow for a lot more time and load in the longer position compared to doing full ROM, since doing full ROM on this kind of move would usually require a lighter load. So some data suggests that doing lengthened partials can beat full ROM when taken to failure due to this. Leg extensions is another example. Similar but not exactly the same, sometimes, simply doing full ROM is not a load issue per say but a fatigue issue. Preacher curls tend to have very little resistance that top, so not very tough there, so your would not expect performance to be that much different between full ROM and lengthened partials, and yet some data showed lengthen partials on this move beating full ROM. The likely reason here is that since the top part has so little resistance, doing it just is a waste of energy and can accumulate some fatigue, so just do the part that matters with this kind of move. I think something like flys and various back movements would also be similar if tested.
3) I would not advocate making all of one's training lengthened biased just yet. Lengthened biased training tends to come with more muscle damage and fatigue. So I would consider adding some movements for the desired muscles into one's routine but still keeping some traditional movements, full ROM, and standard tempos.
4) On movements where the load has to be lighter to do full ROM, some newer data is suggesting that if you want to keep using a lighter load and do full ROM, ending a set with lengthened partials may help give some of the lengthened biased benefits compared to only doing lengthened partials on the movement from the beginning. It seems to help smooth out how much time and mechanical tension is spent at that position that would be missed by cutting the set due to hitting failure at full ROM using the lighter load.
My big issue with Dr. Mike and RP is that they seem to over generalize and over apply data. This has been the case for some time. Its in their books and videos, all material. Dr. Mike is smart, but he seems to lack the nuance I would like personally. I know you do not keep up with the social side, and I get why, but he and RP do get a lot of push back by other very smart people on their methods all the time. Eric helms and stronger by science tend provide much more nuanced interpretations in my opinion, they are the places I follow most of the
