My Reaction to Static Contraction

Last week, the concept of static contraction was brought to my attention as a superior way of building strength and muscle. I am skeptical. Static contraction is "taking a weight and holding it in the target muscle's strongest position as long as possible-until your static strength is exhausted in that position." Now, I can see this as being useful in building muscle, but check out the next bit: the exercises are to be done "with an average of two workouts per week and only two static-contraction reps per bodypart."

This cuts weight training down to about fifteen minutes once or twice a week.

Now, the people who told me about this want to use static contractions as their only strength-building exercise. It seems to me like they're looking for a quick fix. Using only this to build muscle seems like wishful thinking. The caveat I've seen in my brief online search is that static contractions shouldn't be done regularly. For instance, Static Contraction Training and Mike Mentzer, Heavy Duty Workout says, "This is a great technique to use to blast through plateaus, but don't use it too often."

More information on this topic can be found here:

• Timed Static Contraction
• Static King (includes a how-to guide for this sort of workout, and a slashy bodybuilder photo)

I don't understand how such infrequent training can reap positive results. Do you know anything more about this? Is it bogus or true, and are there documented studies to prove it? If it is effective, can it be safely used as the primary method of muscular development? I want to know.