Are heavy partials GOOD?

[SSAlexSS]

Ok all!

I have read this revolutionary book "Power Factor Training" book by Peter Cisco dude.

He keeps talking about doing only partials (as they are safer than normal range movements) and using lots of weight.

Well, anyone tried it? Is there any actual science in partials? Is it good?

Basicly th reason for doing partails (in my own words) is:

To gain additonal rational muscle you must increase the weight. If you could do 200 pounds for 30 reps for 6 sets, yet you did only 100 pounds for 30 reps for 6 sets then your muscle gains would be minimum. By training in full range of motion you are using much less weight that you are truly capable of and thus you muscle growth isnt optimum. Or the strongest chain is as strong as its weakest link, same in lifting weight. But if you negate the weakest link (certain range of motion) then you could moe much more weight and give your muscle a much bigger impression.


anyways??? Did you read that book??? Anyone tried it?

 

[cure]

I find they don't do shit.

 

[acuraman]

I think heavy partials can be beneficial if done sparingly in other words don't do them every day for every exercise. Only do them for big compound movements like squats etc... They can help you move past a sicking point. But only once in a while for best results.

 

[milkbone]

I've been doing them for a while now to see how I like them. I don't find them any less intense than full range of motion as is the perception by some people. I keep the weight heavy and try to increase every workout ... either reps or weight. I have read the book you are referring to and decided to try them for this reason. My level of soreness is no different from the years before when I did full range of motion. Like you, I'm wanting someone to hit me with a study that proves full range is the way to go.

I just posted this exact topic on triedia.com yesterday and so far not many positive comments, however, no scientific info to back them up.