Boru's Thoughts on Isometrics

slemons

good work man. I dont mean to seem rude or anything but i am curious about your work and training philospohies. You make some fairly serious claims which if true means that an awful lot of standard weightlifting theories are needless. ie full rom, heavy weight, compound movements.

I've watched dvds and read a lot over the last while about different athletes at the top of different sports. Ronnie,ruhl,cutler - BBing, lots of sprinters, rugby players, nfl, pl'ing, o'lifting etc. They disagree on lots of things (like plyo's, recovery, %'s, bands&chains vs o'lifts) but in the main they all seem to agree that full rom compound movements are the optimum way to train the majority of your weight sessions. Isometrics are used sparingly at best, at worst they ignored due to the fact that such huge weight can be used that injury is inevitable

So im going to put it to you - do you think isometrics are a better way of training than the standard compound movements that have produced so many medals/champs etc?

Boru.

Just to thank everyone who offered to help out. All the review copies have been sent out! Woot!

Now Slemons, to breifly answer you - I don't discuss my personal training philosophies and training protocols on this forum.

With that siad I can back up my all my claims, with detailed training logs, of both myself and those of my clients, on top of which are over 5,000 independant clincial studies conducted on Isometric training since 1948. On top of which are several recent studies also proving the succes of this method.

Isometrics have gone through several variations such as CIC, Aerobic Isometircs, SCT, Max Contraction, MIT etc. Each have had varying degrees of success in regards to specific aspects.

Keep in mind Isometrics is NOT the holy grail of exercise and training. There is no ONE true mehtod. Isometrics is simply a tool that can be utilised for a specifc purpose. If you want to look like a bodybuilder, train like one, a fitness model train like, have the speed and fitness of a competive sprinter, train like one - it's that simple.

Isometrics can build incredible strength and increase muscle mass VERY quickly. It is also, I feel, the SAFEST and most efficent method of developing long term health and fitness. Minute for minute of exercise isometrics can provided a far safer and far greater intensity of workout then conventional training, depending on the goal. Furthermore it can be performed anytime and anywhere with varying degress of intentsiyt depending on your goals. It requires no equipment or you can utilise its' principals against extremely heavy weights (keep in mind unless you have VERY specific equipment this can carry a great risk of inury).

For my goals, note I say MY goals - yes Isometrics is the most effcient form of trainng possible.

As regards champions in all feilds of sports I would be confident in saying that many if not all, already use isometrics as it is medically and scientifically recognized as the quickest method of strength development and as such it would make sense to use it as part of thier training program - it's effects as I have mentioned, have been very well documented in this area.

slemons

cool man, nice answer.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Im not totally disregarding iso's. They are used a good bit in training for many different sports but they're not "the quickest method of strength development".
Well not any kind of strength that you could actually use on a sports field, or day to day life anyway. And i think thats what most people here are after

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Aww, it didn't continue. Boru, without asking for your training protocols or anything, can you explain how isometrics works? I don't want your secrets, just an overview. Does it increase size as well as strength?

Hanley

slemons wrote:

Well not any kind of strength that you could actually use on a sports field, or day to day life anyway. And i think thats what most people here are after

Just wondering why you say this?

Like without any real practical experience in Isometrics it's unfair to just totally dismiss it like that...

I know Boru has alot of studies and the likes which would contradict what you've just said.

Just curious as to your source?

I've never trained with Isometrics but they are something I'll be utilising in the future. I think that anything that can possibly make me stronger is something I owe it to myself to consider.

Boru.

brianthebard wrote:

Aww, it didn't continue. Boru, without asking for your training protocols or anything, can you explain how isometrics works? I don't want your secrets, just an overview. Does it increase size as well as strength?

Hi Brain I discuss many aspects of Isometrics on my website - check my sig link - there are over 100 pages of articles and my new e-book covers it in detail. :rolleyes: Now that the cheap plug is out of the way...this is the short and sweet explanation...

An isometric exercise is one in which the angle of the joint does not change but the muscle contracts. For instance if you go to do a bench press but put too much weight on the pins and push for all its worth and it doesn't move that's isometric. Keep that in mind it's going to be very important in my explanation of why

ISOMETRICS ARE CRUCIAL FOR ATHLETES.

:eek:

An isometric exercise works on the basis that it causes maximal stimulation of the muscle fibers which then produces maximal growth - a more detailed explanation of this is available in the e-book I'll be releasing soon (shameless plug 2 ). As I mentioned in a previous thread over 5,000 clinical trials were conducted proving that isometric contractions when properly performed can result in both increased strength (approx 5-15% per training session, though that obviously varies based on the person and the muscles involved) and muscle size.

Allow me to explain it this way (note this isn't a scientifically validated one but easy to grasp). You do a bicep curl and you do it full range of motion. When you are at the start of that motion your arm is outstretched. It is in its weakest position and can only recruit a small number of muscle fibers. In a 90 degree angle you can lift more because the muscle is shorter and you can recruit more fibers. The weight you struggle to take off at the beginning is easy at this stage. Finally at the top of the movement the muscle is in it's shortest position and you can recruit the most fibers - at this stage the weight you began with is nowhere near heavy enough to stimulate all those fibers.

That why we do reps. To fatigue those fibers...so that we get tired and on that last burning rep we stimulate as much non fatigued tissue as possible leading to muscle growth and strength increase.

Isometrics performs that last burning rep 1st....then goes home.

Now ask yourself how long are you in any of those positions when performing a full range curl? a 1/4 of a second...less?

It has been clinically shown that it takes about 7 seconds to fatigue and stimulate a muscle fiber. An Isometrics hold, with maximal muscle contraction held for 7 seconds is the MOST intensive muscular contraction possible as you perform over 7 times the work normally given. This causes huge development in both size and strength.

Simply put Isometrics works because it stimulates MORE muscle fiber, MORE intensely and QUICKER then any other form of exercise.

And for my third and final plug I do provide an expanded explanation describing in detail how an isometric contraction works and how muscle fibers are orderly recruited and contracted to produce increases in strength and size in my e-book. :rolleyes:


Now I would like to address the following....

Well not any kind of strength that you could actually use on a sports field, or day to day life anyway. And i think thats what most people here are after

Bull.

Have you ever swung a Hurley, a golf club, a tennis racket? Ever tried putting a shot, throwing a discuss, or tossing a javelin?

One's ability to control the swing or throw or hit with accuracy and power is controlled to a great extent by how much ISOMETRIC strength one has in the hands, wrists, and forearms.

The same is true for a gymnast on the high bar, ultimately if you do not have superior ISOMETRIC strength in hands, wrists, and forearms that allows you to maintain a strong, powerful grip you'll never be able to master the complicated, intense and difficult movements.

The same is true for MMA and Martial arts - al well and good grabbing a guy or locking him up, but if you can't apply strength or if you fatigue in that it ain't going to do you much good.

We can also take this one step further and apply it to competitive weight lifting. Think about it, no man can lift what he can't hold on too.

So from my perspective, the acquisition of true strength and athletic fitness not only relies on Isometric strength but is determined by it.

Bottom line: if you want to be a superior athlete or competitor focus on ISOMETRICS. It will pay off.

As for the non athlete, have you ever tried to open a jar, mowed the lawn moved the furniture, hold up a picture, held a baby, redecorated, been standing on moving bus or train and held the rail? Ever fired a live weapon? Your ability to contract your muscles isometrically and hold either yourself or an object in position is a VITAL part of our daily function. (Thank god not too many women, only those like Jane Seymor, practice isometrics or all men would lose are one advantage - the ability to open jars!)

Aside from all of that there are the increased health benefits such as increased circulation, stronger internal organs and the hugely decreased risks associated with compression based exercise such as weight lifting, no expense no equipment, not time necessary, not to mention enhanced and flexibility and strength in weaker body positions.

Or how about back pain, poor posture, weak joints and the infirm and elderly?

Wait...what was I thinking...your right, no one here would be after that :rolleyes:

Dragan

Boru. wrote:

An isometric exercise works on the basis that it causes maximal stimulation of the muscle fibers which then produces maximal growth

Hey dude,

just on this line. You wouldn't be the biggest chap i ever met, but i also know that size is not a goal for you. As such, do you limit your calorific intake to keep your size down?

Meant to ask you this months ago but only remembered now!

t-ha

Boru. wrote:

Allow me to explain it this way (note this isn't a scientifically validated one but easy to grasp). You do a bicep curl and you do it full range of motion. When you are at the start of that motion your arm is outstretched. It is in its weakest position and can only recruit a small number of muscle fibers. In a 90 degree angle you can lift more because the muscle is shorter and you can recruit more fibers. The weight you struggle to take off at the beginning is easy at this stage. Finally at the top of the movement the muscle is in it's shortest position and you can recruit the most fibers - at this stage the weight you began with is nowhere near heavy enough to stimulate all those fibers.

Hey Boru - nice explanation of isometrics generally. Just one query on recruiting more muscle fibres as the muscle gets shorter (contracts) - got any papers or anything on that?

In the example above, the moment the weight generates will be greatest at 90 degrees and will get progressively smaller as you go to the top of the movement (which is why some people with big egos and small arms use massive weights on preacher curls but don't extend their arms much at all), and at the bottom of the movement I would have thought the prime issue is a lack of leverage due to the biceps inserting close to the fulcrum of the movement?

Anyway - the point about the effective resistance offered by the weight varying over the course of the movement is well taken.

Boru.

Yep I do, as I've recorded on the journal I usually keep may cals around 1800 or less. This allows me to focus on maximising my strength without an increase in mass. I'm concnetrating on learning to maxiammly contract my muscles in any given moment rather than add mass. Rather then adding on extra muscle my goal is to make the muscle I do have the most efficent and the strongest possible. Thus while I have quite a small compact physiquem my muscles on papitation are far denser and thicker then would normaly be the case.

Again as recently noted in the log, I increased my calorie uptake to 4000+ a day and as a reuslts saw a substancial increase in musclar growth...

"Anyway…up to the start / mid February I reduced my calories and dropped down to 151 lbs at 10% body fat. This allowed me to see what I have and assess what I need to do more. I felt my chest needed some more development as did my legs and biceps. Over the last 3 – 4 weeks I began bulking taking in around 4000 – 4500 kcals a day. Very hard work for me, particularly as that was in mostly one VERY big sitting. (On my modifed version of the WD)

I’m now back up to 167lbs at 12% body fat. I’ve added a total of 16lbs on to my frame in 3-4 weeks of which 4% is body fat. Had I paid more attention to this I could have kept that number much smaller…but I did take a few days vacation…so I’ve added 4.94lbs of fat and 11.06lbs muscle. That’s about 2.76 lbs of muscle a week."

The great thing about the application of isometrics is that it allows you be extremely precise and consistent with your workouts, and it removes many of the variables that cna cause plateaus in regular conventional training methods. That way one can simply vary the results through diet intake.

My workout may be completley the same but if I eat X kcals I'll mainatian weight, X-500kcals I'll lose weight, and X+1000 I'll gain weight. It's also VERY easy to manage this, I'd eat the same staple foods just increase / decrease the quantities and portions to change my body comp.

On the other hand, and slightly unrelated, as a result of how quickly I'm able to gain mass I do actaully encounter problems with my flexability. For instance I have a signficant reduction in my deltoids as a result of overly developed pecs and anterior delts and can't raise my arm to along side my head. While this can be rectified through stretching exercsies, it takes me longer to increase flexability then it is to develop muscle.

It's not unusual for to add up to 1/4 of an inch on the biceps inside of just a few weeks of this form of training in fact... one ten week study of a similar (though not identical) protocol to mine among hardcore bodybuilders who had been lifting "heavy" for a long time and averaged about 38 years of age) achieved the following average gains:

• a 51.3% increase static strength
• a 27.6% increase in one-rep max in full range of motion! (without doing full range lifts for 10 weeks!)
• a 34.3% increase in ten-rep max in full range of motion! (see above)
• gained 9.0 pounds of new muscle (one subject gained 29 pounds of muscle!)
• lost 4.9 pounds of fat
• gained 1/2 inch on each biceps
• gained 1.1 inches on chest
• gained 1.2 inches on shoulders
• lost 0.4 inches on waist

In fact Christian Thibaudeau mentionsd that in his Isometrics for Mass!
How to get bigger by not moving a muscle availabe here - http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=313iso2

Now there are some problems with that article for instance -

"…there is not a statistically significant difference between the maximum strength, as measured in a static regime, and the maximum weight that can be lifted in the same movement." (1)

I would challenge that, as although I easily perfom a strong range isometric squat or leg press over 1,700 lbs I could not do so from a weak starting position - it just wouldn't happen.

That siad, it's a decent enough article.

Leon11

I just read the article and it seems this contridicts what you say in your log on the TT forum

Benefit #3: Isometric exercise isn't "energy expensive," meaning that you don't expend much energy by doing isometric training. So, you can get the benefits of IAT without interfering with the rest of your planned workout.

I assume there is different levels of intensity involved with the one above being a light hearted version whereas the intensity you train at causes you to black out and be in a heap for days after sometimes?

Reyman

Good post Boru. Very informative.

I did some research on isometrics about a year ago and if my memory serves me correctly. There are two significant issues around isometric training:

1. Strength gains occur at a fairly narrow angle (plus/minus 15 degrees) around the point of effort. So exercising the biceps over full ROM (180 degrees) might require six different contractions.
2. In practice gains taper after a relatively short period 6-8 weeks. So overall strength gains may be limited

There are other issues around the risk to certain individuals of high blood pressure generated by isometric exercise. But i'm sure you're aware of this and consider it in your programme

Hanley

Boru. wrote:

It's not unusual for to add up to 1/4 of an inch on the biceps inside of just a few weeks of this form of training in fact... one ten week study of a similar (though not identical) protocol to mine among hardcore bodybuilders who had been lifting "heavy" for a long time and averaged about 38 years of age) achieved the following average gains:

• a 51.3% increase static strength
• a 27.6% increase in one-rep max in full range of motion! (without doing full range lifts for 10 weeks!)
• a 34.3% increase in ten-rep max in full range of motion! (see above)
• gained 9.0 pounds of new muscle (one subject gained 29 pounds of muscle!)
• lost 4.9 pounds of fat
• gained 1/2 inch on each biceps
• gained 1.1 inches on chest
• gained 1.2 inches on shoulders
• lost 0.4 inches on waist

.

Wow... that's a pretty bold claim!

Boru.

t-ha wrote:

Hey Boru - nice explanation of isometrics generally. Just one query on recruiting more muscle fibres as the muscle gets shorter (contracts) - got any papers or anything on that?

In the example above, the moment the weight generates will be greatest at 90 degrees and will get progressively smaller as you go to the top of the movement (which is why some people with big egos and small arms use massive weights on preacher curls but don't extend their arms much at all), and at the bottom of the movement I would have thought the prime issue is a lack of leverage due to the biceps inserting close to the fulcrum of the movement?

Anyway - the point about the effective resistance offered by the weight varying over the course of the movement is well taken.

I've about a dozen T-ha and each one contradicts the next. :rolleyes: The evidence is varied and inconclusive as to which position causes the maximum fiber recruitment. To be honest that somthing that gave me a bi%ch of a time.

So I bipassed it. Everybody has a different point of maximal contraction - the determening factor is qhich postion allows you to lift the most weight weight statically and thus the most intense stimulous. and most growth etc.

This is important becasue it has been determined that is the intensity of the stimulous rather than time or position that produces growth - Physiologists H.S. Milner-Brown and colleagues empirically validated the fact that the load imposed upon muscle during contraction is the major factor dictating the type and volume of muscle fiber recruitment; the results of their research were published in the Journal of Physiology, 230, 350; 1973. See also J Neurophysiol. 1986 May;55(5):1017-29 and J Neurophysiol. 1987 Jan;57(1):311-24.

The problem is any weight you can lift through a full range of motion is sub-maximal - otherwise you wouldn't be able to lift it. If it's sub maximal then you aren't going to create maximum stimulaiton and so will have to repeats rthe exercsie hence conventiional trainng.

An isometric exercsie on the other hand or a VERY heavy partial (say 1-2 inches from YOUR stongest range) with the maximum weight you can lift will produce the most intense conraction. The trick is how you measure this...and that's where my system comes in.

I have found in experince that the point you lift the most weight at and thus that of greatest fiber recrutement is within the last 1-2 inches of a contraction. This must not be confuses with supporting a weight inthe structure of the bones and joints etc.

I hope that explains and clarifies what I was saying.

Boru.

Leon11 wrote:

I just read the article and it seems this contridicts what you say in your log on the TT forum



I assume there is different levels of intensity involved with the one above being a light hearted version whereas the intensity you train at causes you to black out and be in a heap for days after sometimes?

Like I said there are problems with his analysis. But you hit the nail on the head. Different intensity. For instance there is a great protocol that was popularised by Steve Justa, called Aerobic Isometrics where a position was held with apporx 35% of max contraction nad held for over 3 minutes - less intense but still excellent for building muscle mass becasue of increased blood flow to the muscle.

Boru.

Reyman wrote:

Good post Boru. Very informative.

I did some research on isometrics about a year ago and if my memory serves me correctly. There are two significant issues around isometric training:

1. Strength gains occur at a fairly narrow angle (plus/minus 15 degrees) around the point of effort. So exercising the biceps over full ROM (180 degrees) might require six different contractions.
2. In practice gains taper after a relatively short period 6-8 weeks. So overall strength gains may be limited

There are other issues around the risk to certain individuals of high blood pressure generated by isometric exercise. But i'm sure you're aware of this and consider it in your programme

Thanks.

As reards to point one your quite correct though most systems would advocate just three ranges - begining, middle and end. Again it depends on the stimulous. Dynamic Self resistance for intance you'd do in all three. Heavy partials, statics or my way you just perfrom in your strong range - anything else and you'd risk sever injury.

As regards the second point thats correct, but not applicable. Thse tests were conducted where ther was no progressive or measurable resistance. SO you' use isometrics against the same weight or object wiht no way to guage the level of the conraction thus you plateau.

Isometircs is no different from an other training system in this regards. Youn need to push against ever increasing pressue or weight as a result of your body developing and becoming stronger. I routinely will work against over 15% of what I id the last time thus I maintain steady increases in strneght anmd size without plateauing.

Also recovery rates were not taken into account. I myself need over 24 days to recover from some workouts. If i perform any sooner I haven't recovered or adapted and will be weaker as a result deterioration if not given adequate oppertunity to build and repair myself.

That make sense?

Boru.

Hanley wrote:

Wow... that's a pretty bold claim!

Humph that's nothing. I know of one study again on a similar method that produces 9lbs + of muscle gain inside of 7 days after only 2.5 minutes of exercise.

I myself have added over 11lbs in less then 250 seconds of exercsie, if I was to be technical...here's how...(this is taken from another forum in answer to a series of questions from the creator of the SoloFlex)...

I've detailed the progress I have made in my specific lifts over the
last few months in my journal entires, which you mention you have
enjoyed reading (thank you).

Each of the workouts I have listed have taken less then ten minutes to
perform. I perform 1 isometric rep, per session and hold this for about 7-10
seconds. There are a total of 5 exercises in a session as outlined in
my logs and thus on average I spend about 50 seconds at most on my max
lifts. That's the sum total of the workout strictly. However in my
total time I also include two light warm up reps per exercsie, 2 deep
breaths lasting about 15 seconds each. Thus my warm ups take a total
of about 2 and half minutes. The remaing 6 and half minutes or so is
spent setting up and settling into the next workout position, catching
my breath and grabbing some water. Bringing it on average to just
under ten minutes.

I have performed only 3 Workouts from my A (Chest) rotation in the
period since the start of Febuary where I weighed in at 151 lbs at 10%
bodyfat. Those workouts were on the 10-02-07,26/02/06 and the
18/03/2007. As of the 3rd of March I weighed in at 167lbs at 12% body
fat.

Each workout lasting about 10 minutes I only performed 30 minutes
approx of chest workouts. (I had also done 2 B workouts, so I included
those in the total time, bring it to under 50 minutes).

Of that 50 minutes approximately 4 and a half minutes was spent
perfoming my maximum tension exercises. So if I wanted to be VERY
precise I could make the claim that I built 11lbs of muscle in a total
of 250 seconds of exercise. But that would just sound silly ;-)

The rest of that time was spent concentrating on everything else in my
life, chielfy my nutrition, medical practice and personal training
company.

I hope that answers your question. If you have any more I'd be more
than happy to address them.

Yours,

Paul

t-ha

Boru. wrote:

I've about a dozen T-ha and each one contradicts the next. :rolleyes: The evidence is varied and inconclusive as to which position causes the maximum fiber recruitment. To be honest that somthing that gave me a bi%ch of a time.

Aye, same here.

Some more questions now if you don't mind, seeing as we have a thread open.

1] What are your goals atm (apart from filling out the bat-man suit). I've heard of a sport where people lift mad weights a few inches (i.e. four tonnes calf-raised etc.). I can't remember the name of it but are you looking to do similar feats?

2] Are you familiar with force dynamometers - they'ld be a handy way of measuring static force output for the time periods you're talking about - so you wouldn't need weights anymore, just something strong enough to handle the applied force. Strain gauges would be another cheaper option, though calibration can be tricky.

3] What position do you find your calves contract hardest in - and do you ever get problems with muscle cramping when contracting muscles as hard as possible? Mine suck & my "mind-muscle connection" to them is poor. I reckon I could pop my elbow backwards by just contracting my triceps hard enough, but I just can't seem to feel my calves (by which I mean the gastrocnemius muscles) contract?

Boru.

t-ha wrote:

1] What are your goals atm (apart from filling out the bat-man suit). I've heard of a sport where people lift mad weights a few inches (i.e. four tonnes calf-raised etc.). I can't remember the name of it but are you looking to do similar feats?

Dude Xneh on the suiteh....:o No feats necessarily - though I've pulled off a few, lifting someone twice my weight over head in a once handed press, support a 16st rocker on my abs while in a full neck bridge etc. For me it's not about showing off or competting - it's about self development and learning about me.

Essentially my goal is to be freaky strong within a short range of motion, near maximal contraction of my muscles. My second goal is complete strength in EVERY range of movement and position.

To me fitness is the perfection of 7 attributes –

• Strength
• Flexibility
• Endurance
• Speed
• Balance
• Coordination
• Aesthetics

t-ha wrote:

2] Are you familiar with force dynamometers - they'ld be a handy way of measuring static force output for the time periods you're talking about - so you wouldn't need weights anymore, just something strong enough to handle the applied force. Strain gauges would be another cheaper option, though calibration can be tricky.

Yes....yes I am....my own gym is based on such measures - now be quite or everyone will be super humanly strong....:rolleyes:

t-ha wrote:

3] What position do you find your calves contract hardest in - and do you ever get problems with muscle cramping when contracting muscles as hard as possible? Mine suck & my "mind-muscle connection" to them is poor. I reckon I could pop my elbow backwards by just contracting my triceps hard enough, but I just can't seem to feel my calves (by which I mean the gastrocnemius muscles) contract?

I do my calves directly after I've blitzed my legs. So I know there wonlt be much assisstance form them. With that said I do this just below my most conracted postion. SO say I was in the leg press, I'd keep my knees slightly soft and stand as tall as I could on my tipy toes - then I'd drop down an inch or so and this owuld be where I'd load silly weight on it.

And yes cramping happens. I find that this is becasue one contracts too fast, gradually build up tension and then kill them. If they do simply massage it out. I don't actually stop my leg press till I feel my glutes and sartorius cramp. I also once blew my knee out ONCE doing that. Scary scary moment.

Roper

The same is true for MMA and Martial arts - al well and good grabbing a guy or locking him up, but if you can't apply strength or if you fatigue in that it ain't going to do you much good.

As an MMAer, I can see how certain movements could be seen as somewhat isometric, and where your programme could have benefits. Finishing a submission eg. a guillotine would require strength in that limited range you are talking about. However, I believe those circumstances to be in the absolute minimum.

Most athletic movements use the full ROM. An example would be a simple pick up to take down. The full range of motion is required, the squat being a perfect example of a weighted exercise being transferred almost unchanged into an athletic environment here. Strength in a limited range will not transfer into a successful takedown, strength throughout the ROM will.

I wouldn't knock isometrics as a specific strength or bodybuilding system, but I would doubt its application into athletic endeavours until I'd seen more evidence. Do you know of any prominent athletes who use it as their primary strength programme? Any athlete/fighter whose programme I am aware of use a mixture of plyo and Olympic style lifts in the full range.

Using MMA as a specific example- As I've said above, I'm sure there is a place for isometrics, but in my opinion full ROM lifts are of the most benefit as they replicate the type of movements required in my game. Particularly the neccessity of hip motion and explosiveness.

I'd still be interested to hear more.

slemons

Hanley wrote:

Just wondering why you say this?

Like without any real practical experience in Isometrics it's unfair to just totally dismiss it like that...

I know Boru has alot of studies and the likes which would contradict what you've just said.

Just curious as to your source?

I've never trained with Isometrics but they are something I'll be utilising in the future. I think that anything that can possibly make me stronger is something I owe it to myself to consider.

I have used iso's a good bit before and read a lot about db hammer and jay schroeder (as much as you can anyway - secretive b@stards esp jay). i didnt dismiss them.
I am dubious about how relevant they are to athlete's or anyone who doesnt have lots and lots of time to train and lots of cash & equipment. The strength gained is only in a very small and specific rom. So if you were training iso's for squat say, you'd probably have to do like 10 different positions before you'd get a carryover to a full squat. you could just train your sticking point but then you're into westside.

And then for athlete's who dont have set tasks like squat bench etc, then who's to say how many different positions you'd have to train? 1000s??

if you want a little bit of help in a certain position then fine go for iso's they're great but if you want useable strength for gaa rugby etc then look elsewhere for the majority of your training

And as for the studies quoted and the claims made well - lol
"11lbs in less then 250 seconds of exercsie" -

"a 27.6% increase in one-rep max in full range of motion". i presume these guys gave up bodybuilding and became olympic weightlifting champs or pl'ing champs? ya right. fantasy land or contrived results like taking someone who had never front squatted and testing them on day one, then 10 weeks of intensive front squat iso's and retesting...

Boru.

Roper wrote:

As an MMAer, I can see how certain movements could be seen as somewhat isometric, and where your programme could have benefits. Finishing a submission eg. a guillotine would require strength in that limited range you are talking about. However, I believe those circumstances to be in the absolute minimum.

Most athletic movements use the full ROM. An example would be a simple pick up to take down. The full range of motion is required, the squat being a perfect example of a weighted exercise being transferred almost unchanged into an athletic environment here. Strength in a limited range will not transfer into a successful takedown, strength throughout the ROM will.

I wouldn't knock isometrics as a specific strength or bodybuilding system, but I would doubt its application into athletic endeavours until I'd seen more evidence. Do you know of any prominent athletes who use it as their primary strength programme? Any athlete/fighter whose programme I am aware of use a mixture of plyo and Olympic style lifts in the full range.

Using MMA as a specific example- As I've said above, I'm sure there is a place for isometrics, but in my opinion full ROM lifts are of the most benefit as they replicate the type of movements required in my game. Particularly the neccessity of hip motion and explosiveness.

I'd still be interested to hear more.

Hey Roper,

I disagree with that - I rarely see full range of motions being used in combat. I would be surprised if anyone stretched back and wound up for a punch in todays ring.

Jabs are a devestating blow that are delievered from a short range of motion. It's why they are quick and effective. Any type of impact strike, will when it makes contact require isometric strength for the inital seconds of impact. As does the fist to hold itself under that impact.

Take the reverse of your guilotine example - say an individual is placed in a choke. and are being stretched or in an arm lock. Training in isometerics would lead to greater strenght in this stretched out postion seriously reducing the risk of injury and submission. Furthermore in many MMA fights or ground grappling situations there are moments when one person often stuggles to maiatin someone in a position ie top mount. Conditioning with isometircs and the ability to squeeze with the adductors on you oponent for prolonged periods of time without fatiguiung would certainly be an advantge.

Should isometrics be someone's primary form of strenght training - only if they are competing in isometric strength challenges. The best way to get good at something is to train in it. For instance although Isometrics can develop great strength it doesn't mean you will automatically be a great lifter - that require co-oridination timing and understaning the nuances and rhytems of a lift.

Great example Alexander Zass, could break chains tied around his chest by breathing, bend steel bars and more - couldn't bench for crap, becasue he had never developed the SKILL to do so.

Just in the same way Isometrics can make you a better fighter, they can increase your strength, stamina and conditioning, but if you don't train the skills then you aint going to be a good fighter and that's where the primary trainng should be.

Besdies which I have stated that I personally am not inclined to train people in full range wieght lifting - the risks out weigh the benefits (both in short and definitely in long term).

As regards fighter who uses iso's sure - Frank Shamrock, Tito Ortiz, Mirko Cro Cop and Chuck Lidell to name a few all make use of Iso's - but as part of a whole rounded training program who's core focus is combat. Just the way it should be.

Boru.

slemons wrote:

I am dubious about how relevant they are to athlete's or anyone who doesnt have lots and lots of time to train and lots of cash & equipment. The strength gained is only in a very small and specific rom. So if you were training iso's for squat say, you'd probably have to do like 10 different positions before you'd get a carryover to a full squat. you could just train your sticking point but then you're into westside.

And then for athlete's who dont have set tasks like squat bench etc, then who's to say how many different positions you'd have to train? 1000s??

if you want a little bit of help in a certain position then fine go for iso's they're great but if you want useable strength for gaa rugby etc then look elsewhere for the majority of your training

And as for the studies quoted and the claims made well - lol
"11lbs in less then 250 seconds of exercsie" -

"a 27.6% increase in one-rep max in full range of motion". i presume these guys gave up bodybuilding and became olympic weightlifting champs or pl'ing champs? ya right. fantasy land or contrived results like taking someone who had never front squatted and testing them on day one, then 10 weeks of intensive front squat iso's and retesting...

One of the advantages of Isometircs though is that they take very little time, only a few minutes, and whats more can be done without any equipment. And I've already mentioned the various studies that show that isometrics imporves your full range strength.

With that said I would agree they can help with perfomance including gaa and rugby guys (think of a scrum - those trained in isometrics would certianly have the advanage in utilising strength against the oppsing force..) but there primary training should be rugby and gaa. I would say one of the advantages of Iso's would be freeing up more time for specific sports based training.

As for my comments - I've shown that with my body comp and photos. And I'm not the only one. Hell even I say it's ridiculous to state that 11lbs can be put on by 250 seconds exercise, but it is a fact. It would certainly be more undertandable to say I put on 11lbs of muscle over 4 weeks of hard intense training. That's also true and far easier to except. I can just boil it down to a specific time.

But you could do equally the same wiht conventional training. Sure you might be in the gym for 2 hours, but when you take out changing plates, grabbing water, warm ups and cool down, the idle chat - how long are you actually killing yourself lifting for - an hour...30 minutes? less? How long are you spending on those grueling last few reps? A few seconds - they make difference - that just happens to be the entirety of my training system and I time every second.

As for the guys mentiond in the study, they were expereicned body builders - and yes they increased their ROM by 27.6 % does that mean they have the skil, talent co-ordination, drive desire and mental fortitude to be PL'ers? Hell no. Does it mean they can better at what they want to do - bodybuilding? Hell yes.

Is it for everyone no - some people like going to the gym and training daily and that's great. I train so that I can enjoy long term health benefits, not the problems of compressive exercsie, I train to enjoy my life better - mountain climbing, horse ridding, golf, MA, etc, the stuff outside of the gym. So it works for me and at the end of the day that's the only person this has to work for.

BrianD3

Besdies which I have stated that I personally am not inclined to train people in full range wieght lifting - the risks out weigh the benefits (both in short and definitely in long term).

Could you elaborate on this?

The main experience I have in isometrics is using them at my pullup sticking point. I was pretty close to doing a weighted pullup with 100% bodyweight strapped on. I decided to do a couple of sessions where I did sets of 3 second isometric pulls against an "immovable" object at the sticking point. And yes, I did gain some strength and acheived the double BW pullup

A couple of comments i'd have on the training though
a) it's very difficult to gauge how hard you are pulling against the immovable object
b) it does seem like a very intense workout alright. I felt strange and light headed after them. Also had definite signs of CNS overtraining in the days afterwards. And had a touch of tendonitis in my elbows too.

Based on this, I would urge caution.

Reyman

BrianD3 wrote:

b) it does seem like a very intense workout alright. I felt strange and light headed after them. Also had definite signs of CNS overtraining in the days afterwards. And had a touch of tendonitis in my elbows too.

Based on this, I would urge caution.

Just curious - how do you identify CNS overtraining ?

t-ha

Reyman wrote:

Just curious - how do you identify CNS overtraining ?

Personally I start tripping over my own feet, opening doors into my own face etc.

I think a more scientific method is to test your morning grip-strength against your non-overtrained level.

Boru.

BrianD3 wrote:

Could you elaborate on this?

The main experience I have in isometrics is using them at my pullup sticking point. I was pretty close to doing a weighted pullup with 100% bodyweight strapped on. I decided to do a couple of sessions where I did sets of 3 second isometric pulls against an "immovable" object at the sticking point. And yes, I did gain some strength and acheived the double BW pullup

A couple of comments i'd have on the training though
a) it's very difficult to gauge how hard you are pulling against the immovable object
b) it does seem like a very intense workout alright. I felt strange and light headed after them. Also had definite signs of CNS overtraining in the days afterwards. And had a touch of tendonitis in my elbows too.

Based on this, I would urge caution.

Sure Brian - I discuss this in more detail in my book, but the basics of it are this - when perfroming repititions in weight training you compress the muscle. You make it tighter, obviusly and the fibers contract. Then you do it again and again.

The problem arises becasue not only are you conracting the muscle but everything else as well, including your capillaries. The constant repitition constricts and tightens them and blood cannot flow easily into them. As a result pressure can build up along he arteries and ultimately damage the heart.

This is just one of my concerns. While conventional weight training is certainly an effective form of workout producing excellent returns by way of increased muscle tissue, bone density etc, the long term health implications aren't great.

There are also the huge numbers of injuries resulting from weight training, even experienced lifters who follow proper procedue can easily hurt themselves a badly. Lifting big things (in a weak range of motion and all) is an invitation for disaster. Think of all the torn muscles, blown rotator cuffs, back injuries, blown knees and busted spines...that's not healthy to me.

Contacts this with Iso's. Performing Iso's drives blood into the capillaries feeding and nuturing your muscles. There are no weights to screw you up. There are no moving parts. You're never in a weak ROM. The problems occur in answering your questions.

A) That was the one great flaw with Iso's. You cant tell how hard your goigntbecasue nothign moves. So even though you may percieve it to be the same intensity it may not - hence people plateauing as previously discussed.

In the early 90's however this was resvoled by Pete Sisco and John little who advocated Static Contraction Training. Loading, placing barbell wihtin 1-2 inches of lockout and loading it with enough weight for you to support for 5 - 7 seconds. The problem with this is it's not accurate enough, nor is it safe. I remeber nealry tearing my left arm off and sleeping for months in agony and tears bevcasue of the dammage I did to myself on a trap shrug with 310 kg in UCD back in the day.

That's where my system comes in - absolute saftey control with proper isometric conraction utilising precise measurements. That said I still introduce my system with my own adaptation of SCT (there are some HUGE flaws with the original and the MCT system.).

Yep it is intnse. As I say it's the most intense workout possible and at hte level I do it at it ain't for every one. Each wokrout challanges my CNS. As I've detailed in my journal I've suffered blackouts, sever headaches, nosebleeds collapsed on a number of occasions and shot myself for days on end. Why the hell do you think I need to take 24 days off between body parts.

Now that is NOT something I do with my clients. I just need to push to see exactly what the limits are with my system and I need to know where the porblems are so that my clients don't suffer them. Unfortunately there are only 3 -4 people in the world going where I am with this. So I got push the boat. :rolleyes:

Leon11

Boru. wrote:

Unfortunately there are only 3 -4 people in the world going where I am with this. So I got push the boat. :rolleyes:

Just out of interest are you working closely with these people and would they share the same experiences as yourself in terms of "side-effects" from performing intense ISO's?

Roper

Boru. wrote:

Jabs are a devestating blow that are delievered from a short range of motion. It's why they are quick and effective. Any type of impact strike, will when it makes contact require isometric strength for the inital seconds of impact. As does the fist to hold itself under that impact.

Hey Boru, thanks for the reply. I disagree there, a jab is an example of a pure technique strike, which requires an explosive movement from the hips, which is where Oly style lifting would be advantageous. Its probably a bad example as a jab wouldn't be a 'strength' move as such, so I won't labour the point on this.

Your point on "play the game" is well taken and of course, I agree. My point is that if a fighter has 1 maybe 2 sessions a week for strength training, I believe those sessions to be better spent on that which would best replicate the movements in their fight. I'm not convinced isometrics is the answer there. Also, I've read your example of the reverse guillotine and I don't think I understand what you're getting at.

But still, more than one way to skin a cat.

Boru.

Leon11 wrote:

Just out of interest are you working closely with these people and would they share the same experiences as yourself in terms of "side-effects" from performing intense ISO's?

We do keep in close contact and yes - with every experiment Fup's happen. One of the trainers blew his whole right shoulder out and lost the use of the arm for a few weeks. He's quickly rehabbing it however using the same principals and systems. He now ensures that his wife is with him during the workouts.

Again - I stress this is NOT - what we perfrom with our clients. However it is necessary to test ourselves, the protocols and the equipment to the absolute limit, so as to have a full and comprehensive understanding of the pitfalls and potencials of this system.

Boru.

Roper wrote:

Hey Boru, thanks for the reply. I disagree there, a jab is an example of a pure technique strike, which requires an explosive movement from the hips, which is where Oly style lifting would be advantageous. Its probably a bad example as a jab wouldn't be a 'strength' move as such, so I won't labour the point on this.

You're right Roper the jab was a bad example...with that said many of the techniques I teach require the movement of the weight a short distacne (1-2 inches before the Iso) and I feel are certainly applicable to punching power. The point wasn't so much that a jab is an isometric movement - it's not, but that the majority of stirkes and movements in MA and combat are not done in a full range of motion, they are most often, in my experience short and fast, in which case Oly's and Plyo's are the way to go, but Iso's have their place.

Roper wrote:

Your point on "play the game" is well taken and of course, I agree. My point is that if a fighter has 1 maybe 2 sessions a week for strength training, I believe those sessions to be better spent on that which would best replicate the movements in their fight.

Couldn't agree more - but in that case I wouldn't say weight training is the answer. I'd be more inclined to practice resistance exercises of the strikes and grapples involved. E.g. heavy resistance tubing for punching and kicking drills, weighted sand bag drills for grappling and iso based work for strength in clinches and submissions. Of course some traditional lifts must be incoperated for the devleopment of baseline strength - but even then I'd use iso's as part of that program and why not, it can be done in less than 5 minutes so it's not a huge time commitment? You'd have nothing to lose and a lot to gain?


If I pratice trying to punch my way through an immmovabe object and stimulate strength in that application then when it comes to something that will yield imagine how much more penetrative and devestating that technqiue could be.

Again though - that's just me and this it was works and intrests me. I can tell you from my own experience as a martial artist - I have been able to hit guys a lot harder and perform my technqiues with a new snap and vigor since including isometrics in my routines. As I say the traditional katas I train even focus on this and the development of martial art applicable strength through isometircs.

Then of course there are wrestlers such as Gama who religiously practiced Isometrics and Bruce Lee who accredited iso's with his dense physique to name a few.

As regards the guillotine, what I was trying to explain was that Iso's can safely increase your strength in a stretched and weakend position - which would help protect you in that position.

And your dead right there is more than one way to skin a cat, every training methodology has it's place and purpose.

brianthebard

Fantastic thread thanks for all the information people and especially Boru. Definitely food for thought here!

Patto

t-ha wrote:

Personally I start tripping over my own feet, opening doors into my own face etc.

I think a more scientific method is to test your morning grip-strength against your non-overtrained level.

I have to say there is some great stuff in this thread. Boru, you are right out there on the edge man:) , I'm not sure I'd be in any hurry to run out there to join you but you contribute some amazing stuff.

Just on the point above. I was away from the gym for about 6 months after my son was born. Just back a couple of weeks now. I lost very little strength, even though I've lost a bit of muscle mass. For example my bench is back to exactly what it was 6 months ago after about 5 weeks. It interesting that my squats and deadlifts are quite a bit back as yet. I am however making 5Kg gains (on deads and squats) every week without putting on any size or weight and it is really killing me in terms or doms, headackes, lightheadedness and tension in the upper back of my neck.

I know this is probably something experienced lifters rarely experience as this is my body adapting to a stimulus it is somewhat unaccostomed to. I reckon neally all the gains I am making are down to CNS training. Its interesting that the heavier compound lifts like the squats and the deadlift require so much more time to train than the bench press for example. Its also interesting that I reckon in a few weeks I will be back to where I was with my squats and deadlifts 6 months ago with less muscle mass. If I was a Body builder I'd be devestated of course but as a runner and occasional football player you wonder what you needed that extra muscle for in the first place.

As for the dizzyness, headackes and tension in the neck I put this down to CNS overload or overtraining. They have settled down a bit now but the gains are still there. I never walked into any doors or anything but I think you guys are at a different level there. Doms are doms I think they are just a fact of life for any lifter, but they have settled down a bit now as well.