My Reaction to Static Contraction

[shanmonster]

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.

Comments

[wushi.livejournal.com]

From what I'm seeing in these articles, it's a matter of what you're interested. For larger muscles this static contraction stuff makes sense, because it allows you to put maximum stress on your muscles, greater even then you would from doing a single lift at your supposed maximum weight.

However, in terms of athletically useful strength, I don't expect this kind of training to work as a stand alone. Strength through the full range of motion, what that second article is saying is not necessary, is vital in most athletic endeavours. As well as well rounded exercises (variety) also something they're not interested in.

So, I think it's a matter of what you really want to get out of your work out. Big muscles, or athletically useable strength.

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm getting from my readings, too. The people who told me about static contractions are not athletes. They are mostly sedentary, and treat exercise as a necessary evil. They want to do this as a means of cutting back on exercise which "is a waste of time."

So would this be sufficient exercise for otherwise physically lazy people?

[wushi.livejournal.com]

I browsed around a few sites and found some guy who has apparently read up on the subject. His conclusion is that strength gains for static contraction only transfer to passive RoM at about 15% efficiency. So, I guess we're right there.

Well, if said people are in good shape to begin with, and they make sure to strengthen opposing muscles (quads and hamstrings, biceps and triceps) I don't see the problem. Though, cardio-vascular health, such as one gets from circuit training is another metric for health, that static contraction does not address.

[fusty-cabbages.livejournal.com]

I think the "quick fix" mindset is the wrong approach to fitness, but that doesn't discount the fact that you can often pack a decent workout into a moderately short period of time. Now, I'm talking a workout for people who simply want to maintain a healthy bodyweight, not necessarily people who are looking for a specific level of strength or cardiovascular endurance. If static contractions were being "hyped" as a way to get fit from only 15 minutes a day I'd be much more sceptical, but this sounds like a few uninspired people drawing thier own conclusions from a small bit of information.

Static contraction looks like an intersting concept to me, but then I'm interested in anything new that can shake up my workouts a bit. I like the way the "static-king" workout adds a few static contraction sets into full ROM reps, and advises to continue the static sets for only about eight weeks. My approach to new workout methods has always been "dive in and try it"; if you want to see if it works then add a few static sets into your workouts for a month.