Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anuj
but dude....those isometric-dynamic contrast techniques are draining..... my chest is raw and i fear to think how they'll be tomorrow !!
|
I've no doubt that they feel draining and produce soreness. Remember I explained to you thouroughly why I thought this would be the case. I realize that getting good and sore sometimes is a welcome feeling and gives you some feedback....but it is not a perfect indicator of effectiveness.
The bottom line is that the fatigue at one static joint angle does not transfer well to fatique at a full range of motion (I say this not because I think fatigue is a measure of muscle growth but because it is to most effective way to measure these things). What this means is that you're going to be building up lactic acid and waste products prematurely and "getting tired" but ultimately doing less work then you would have. What do you think the difference is between these and and some nice slow negatives and then maybe a good static hold at the end to top it all off?
Static holds are usually a supplemental thing that people do after they have reach failure. You give it a fancy name: "iso-dynamic contrast" and it sounds all scientific but it's really just a bunch of static holds in the middle of your reps. It's not like your body is saying "hey, look, there's a "contrast" here, I must grow".
That's the whole problem with "static contraction" training: it puts way too much stock in the "contraction" part of it. If you can hold the weight in a certain position for a while then you can also lower the weight nice and slow, traveling through a range of motions and lengthening the muscle under tension. Much more effective, imo.
And even looking at the chest exercise it makes no sense. Two inches from your chest? Thats more delts than chest, imo.