Rating: 
Summary: Great workout, but book is poorly written
Review: Static Contraction Training is a wonderful method of working out. You get maximum results in a VERY short amount of time. If done right, you only have to work out once a week for about 10 minutes. The only problem is, this book is very poorly written. It doesn't go into great detail about how much weight you really have to use to make this workout effective. If you can full range bench press 225 lbs. for example, you will probably be able to do a 5-10 second hold with 400-450 lbs, maybe more. But most people you see trying this method aren't doing that. They'll use 315 lbs, and won't see any results. If you use enough weight, and exercise only once a week (or less), you're going to explode with tremendous muscle. BUT, many guys have a major problem with only lifting once per week. You don't feel like you're getting a pump, and your mind will tell you, "Hey, lift more! You're shrinking!" But you're not. In fact, I'm willing to bet if you lifted once per week, used the proper poundages, and took in enough calories to support muscular growth, you'd put 50-100 lbs. on your full range lifts in 3 months. Huge promises, yes. But this kind of training can do it for you. My other problem with this type of training is the stress involved. It can be TOO stressful to someone not in a dynamic state of health. I believe Mike Mentzer's premature death had something to do with his HIT workouts. Using these HIT methods, your blood pressure skyrockets during the lift, and this huge elevation in blood pressure could be very dangerous. Also, using the right poundages for this kind of workout could take you 3 to 4 weeks to fully recover. But the gym rat will try to go at it again in a week and overdo it big time. There must be a lot of caution taken with Static Contraction Training. I would use it to bust through a plateau, but then go back to full range training after you gain the strength you wanted to gain. I just think it's too stressful.
Rating: 
Summary: THE BEST BODYBUILDING BOOK EVER!
Review: For over ten years I've been using every type of training method available; Nautlius, Heavy-Duty, Arnold Schwarzenegger's, Joe Weider's, etc., etc. I enjoyed some gains in muscle size, but was beginning to believe that I would never have a truly impressive physique. How wrong I was! After using the principles and methods advocated in Static Contraction, I have gained 20 pounds of solid muscle, my strength has improved by 92% and I'm seriously considering entering my first physique contest. I also enjoyed the author's chapter on the rip-off supplement industry and their scientific (and verifiable) approach to muscle building. This is the "best" bodybuilding book I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: YorK barbell concepts revisited
Review: The technique of static contraction is not new. Those of us who were around back in the 1960's will remember seeing weightlifters Bill March and Tony Garcy and York BBC bodybuilders like the legendary John Grimek and former AAU Mr. America Vern Weaver using these techniques under a concept called "Isometronics" and Power Rack Training or just "overload." I can remember seeing pictures of JCG (Grimek as he was passionately referred to) doing a harness leg lift sometimes known as the Jeferson Lift with around 3,000 lbs. Some of the York BBC Olympic weightlifters were doing overhead presses-lockouts with up to 1,000 lbs and squats with around 2,000 lbs. These were short range movements called lockouts combined with static holds. Most of this was just promotion to sell Hoffmans (York Barbell) power racks which were set up with holes inside the power rack to set different positions for various exercises which inluded bench presses, squats, curls, shrugs and so on. York also sold a special bar that could be inserted inside the rack that involved no motion (isometrics) Some of us found these techniques were practical only if combined with more conventional full range movements, sets and reps scheme and used the power rack for a particular lift at a sticking point. For example, my sticking point on the overhead press was just above eye level (from shoulders to eyes was easy) so I would do my regular presses and then do some partial moves from eye level up to around 3 inches just short of lockout. It worked and I added 30 lbs to my overhead press in under 3 months. However, I want to point out that this was done in conjunction with regular training. It seems like more and more of the older training schemes are coming back and being passed off as something new. Mike Mentzers HIT system was essentially a ripoff of Arthur Jones Nautilus System. Clever marketing too. Jones used Casey Viator, a total unknown at that time (who used conventional training and trained with 2 former AAU Mr. America's--Boyer Coe and Red Lerille) but Jones gave Nautilus (HIT) as the "secret" to his success. Mentzer was also a unknown to most when he burst on the scene in 1976 by winning the IFBB Mr. America and finished second in the IFBB Mr. Universe. Mentzer tried to claim that the HIT Method was the secret of his success. Five years earlier, Mentzer after finishing 10th (he should have been in the top 5) in the AAU Mr. America attributed his success to conventional training, the right parents (genetics) and steriods. Techniques like static contraction is an okay method if used in conjunction with a more conventional approach. By and of itself, it won't do the job as many reviewers have noted here. It's more of a head trip than anything else. It also could be dangerous. I remember some training buddies who hurt their backs doing heavy overhead press holds and squats with extremely heavy weights. I think this system has more value for power and/or olympic lifters and then only if practiced with traditional training, full range movements and a good warmup. I also feel that it will do precious little to stimulate muscle growth.
Rating:
Summary: Static Contraction Training
Review: I have been lifting weights for almost 20 years. I have competed in bodybuilding, powerlifting and currently olympic weightlifting. When I first bought this book I thought it would be just another book I would read and then sit it aside on the shelf. But, no! This book has given me new found hope in competing once again. As an 38 year old I was stuck, not making any new gains. But, this form of training, has gotten me bigger and stronger than I have ever been in my life, and it only took me 12 weeks. The main point of this book is that it has scientific research to back up their form of training. The book shows you all the results, and the how to of training. There is no guess work involved, the book will give you some insight on muscle physiology, nutrition and how to rest and recuperate properly. After you finish reading this book, you will see how beneficial it is to train smart, rather than alot. Hey! I am 38 years old, and I am making the best strength gains I've ever made in my life. Thanks to the Static Contraction Training System. Russell (Muscle) Bass.
Rating:
Summary: theories
Review: "Lifting in the strongest range". Why? Most of what makes the strongest range what it is, is the leverage advantage of the limbs' position, not the filaments of the muscle: you can hold more near the 'top' because your supporting limb has almost escaped gravity by being almost vertical. The system makes more sense for certain movements,(where the joint is fully flexed to be in 'strongest range', but these disparate positions reinforce my contention it has little to do the muscle itself. So, if leverage is the main determining factor, wouldn't it be better to lift in the WEAKEST range? Same theoretical advantage, but enabling the trainee to use much lighter weights. Safer, less needful of special supporting equipment, and easier on the joints. YES, it's better,(it's been done), but the another of problems persists:in spite of SCT's claims, a large segment of the population does NOT transfer strength gained in a limited range to the full range. If it really doesn't matter to you, work the range that you care about,(I suspect that you'll change your mind). Serious lifters use these methods only to shore up weak links, but eliminating the traditional training will create a huge weak link everywhere else in your range. Old-time isometrics were practiced in many positions of each exercise. A big reason why they aren't so popular is that it actually takes MORE time to reach all of the necessary positions than to just do full-range reps. As far as muscle building:if you're out of condition , adolescent,(or best, both), this, or any system , will produce huge gains, but I've yet to see even an average bodybuilder who owes his physique to SCT
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Muscle Gains!
Review: The Static Contraction workout is the best workout that I have ever done. I have gained tremendous results from using the Power Factor system, but even greater results from the Static Contraction System. The book is straight forward and very informative on the results of static training. Static strength does indeed transfer over to full-range strength, which I have found out from my own personal experience. After only 8 weeks on the program I have gained 15 lbs. of solid muscle. I know for a fact that it was muscle because before I began the program I had my body weight and body fat percentage taken. Eight weeks later, after keeping a steady diet (as always) I weighed in 15 lbs more than I did 8 weeks ago, and my body fat percentage was 2%lower. My strength increased, and flexiblity was the same (due to stronger ligaments). For me, lifting weights once a week is all that is needed to increase my size and strength. Static Contraction Training is by far, the best book ever written on body building and strength training.
Rating:
Summary: JUDGE BY RESULTS PEOPLE!!!
Review: Results are the greatest way to judge the effectiveness of ANY training style...and with all due respect to the authors are these 2 guys in the best shape possible when you look at them- have you seen them? i mean one guy is somewhat thin and looks relatively healthy- though he resembles NOTHING near to a fit body builder, and the other guy looks likes a fat tub o lard!! (with all due respect sir). Seriously, I just can't give much credibility to a supposive fitness author/expert who looks more like a role model for a Krispy Kreme ad. Lose some weight buddy, then try and promote your ideas- walk your talk Mr. Little (your last name should be 'Huge'), b/c if I were to buy this book, and end up looking as chubby and larded/out of shape as you I would feel cheated and betrayed!!
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Book But...
Review: This book is fairy dubious. To document the gains made by trainees, it lists average increases, but no mean values or standard deviation for these results! That makes it meaningless for readers who have even a cursory knowledge of statistics and research methodology. The cover and photos in the book are standard for a bodybuilding work-minimal relevance to the contents, but that's the responsibility of the publisher, not the author. The authors ignore neural efficiency in muscle recruitment and the function of proprioceptivity in athletic skills. Of course, if all the reader wants is to have musculature for the sake of appearance, the book may be of value. There are a number of pieces of equipment on the market that allow one to exercise per a Static Contraction protocol. One is the power rack, originally designed for isometric and short range of motion work. Another would be a Health Lift machine, which was manufactured in the 1870's and available in a modern incarnation from Piedmont Design Associates.
Rating:
Summary: some facts:
Review: 1/Static Contraction recommends holding heavy weights in the strongest position to reach the most fiber, BUT the strongest position is a function of LEVERAGE, not muscle, and how much muscle worked is a function of how hard one works,(how close to failure one comes with a heavy enough weight to keep the time short, ie , less than one minute), in any given position or ranges, SO: working in the WEAKEST position is actually MORE effective, as it involves weights that can be handled more safely, that won't overly stress tendons and ligaments, and leave room for improvement with real-world equipment. 2/In spite of some claims, MOST people will NOT have a full-range effect. Some do, true, but MOST DON'T. This is reason to recommend the NAUTILUS CAM , which alters the resistance throughout a rep to even out leverage advantages and disadvantages. The only thing wrong with cams is that they aren't always perfect, but they CAN be.
3/As far as building tissue, I've seen SCT trainess who've made incredible poundage gains, with distinctly NON-muscular bodies. Don't believe the talk about those who are 'stuck in traditionalism': BELIEVE THIS: If Mr. Olympia could improve by replacing his current regime with SCT, he'd do it. There are NO top physiques built on this system. Powerlifters shore up their weak links by working in limited ranges, but only as special training, NOT as a replacement. Extremely short sets work mostly on the central nervous system, not tissue. Beginners will gain, adolescents will gain, those with transference genetics will get full-range strength, BUT , most of us will improve at the -exercise itself-, in the range practiced, ONLY. 4/Building strength in the full range is most important, not just for strength itself but for the safety from injury that it promotes,(falsely attributed to stretching). Trainees must ask themselves :"What qualities am I training for?" 5/Most of us would be better off with the METABOLIC CONDITIONING gained via few days off, higher reps, lighter weights, and full-body movements. Traditional workouts address this to a certain extent, SCT not at all. NOTE: Sisco is promoting a special machine to use for static contractions, which adds to the problems of the system: With very heavy weights, you know that you put in enough starting effort to immediately move the weight, and that you sustained the effort, or the weight would clank to its support. With the isometric machine and its meter,(dynamometer?),the resistance is -after the effort-, and will give no feedback incentive for the same quality of effort that weight will. Taking your time easing into a subjectively judged full effort, measured or not, with no way to measure how long the full effort was held is -not- static contraction, even if the most famous promoter of the system says it is; it's just old fashioned isometrics with a gimmick to add thousands to the price. If you like this idea anyway, a makeshift version can be just as effective for a -lot- less money: High-test webbing,or material of your choice, with loops or handles for the hands and feet, and a dynamometer in the middle.
Rating:
Summary: theories
Review: "Lifting in the strongest range". Why? Most of what makes the strongest range what it is, is the leverage advantage of the limbs' position, not the filaments of the muscle: you can hold more near the 'top' because your supporting limb has almost escaped gravity by being almost vertical. The system makes more sense for certain movements,(where the joint is fully flexed to be in 'strongest range', but these disparate positions reinforce my contention it has little to do the muscle itself. So, if leverage is the main determining factor, wouldn't it be better to lift in the WEAKEST range? Same theoretical advantage, but enabling the trainee to use much lighter weights. Safer, less needful of special supporting equipment, and easier on the joints. YES, it's better,(it's been done), but the another of problems persists:in spite of SCT's claims, a large segment of the population does NOT transfer strength gained in a limited range to the full range. If it really doesn't matter to you, work the range that you care about,(I suspect that you'll change your mind). Serious lifters use these methods only to shore up weak links, but eliminating the traditional training will create a huge weak link everywhere else in your range. Old-time isometrics were practiced in many positions of each exercise. A big reason why they aren't so popular is that it actually takes MORE time to reach all of the necessary positions than to just do full-range reps. As far as muscle building:if you're out of condition , adolescent,(or best, both), this, or any system , will produce huge gains, but I've yet to see even an average bodybuilder who owes his physique to SCT
|
