The Static Contraction Method

[John Peterson]

Hey Friends,

I have been asked a great question regarding Pete Sisco's book "Static Contraction" by one of our own forum members. I thought I would answer it here. His question to me was whether or not I agree that a contraction should be held only at a position of greatest strength as Sisco recommends and the answer is an absolute NO!

Let me state why. In "Static Contraction" Pete Sisco states that one should hold(or support Isometrically) the heaviest weight possible at the position of greatest strength for the duration of the contraction. In the Bench Press for example it is at very near full extension. Does it work? Yes, in one sense it does in that one will be able to work out once every 2 or 3 weeks and be able to add steadily to the amount of weight that he can support in that one position. BUT, doing so will create a great muscle imbalance that makes one stronger where he is already strongest and comparatively weaker where he is already weakest. Not only that but it causes a loss of strength and muscular endurance throughout one's entire range of motion. (obviously kind of a duh statement. Especially if one is training only once every three weeks)

So what is the right way. I've outlined it in IPR, Perform contractions in each of three positions at starting point, mid-point, and close to completion. In other words, at key points throughout the range of motion. For balanced super human strength and development no other method yields as good of a result when properly applied. However I also believe a limited program of power calisthenics or DVR/VRT should also be practiced for full range strength and endurance.

---John Peterson

[Andy62]

I have come across people who have tried the static contraction method on other sites. From what I can tell it doesn't work.

[JoeJustice]

John, I have this book, bought it when I was ninteen. Tried it for about 3 months and saw ZERO result from it (and paid a fortune for a gym membership in the meantime) The book does have some decent little nuggets of information in it but the overall concept is flawed. And I just can't believe the men in the book built their physiques with this system.

BTW, the copyright page says, "Cover design by Todd Peterson." Any relation? :tongue:

Now let's talk Classic Isometric Contractions for a minute here. You know Isometric Power Revolution was the second book of yours I bought and I honestly feel that I'm just now being able to properly preform CICs! I've had the book a year now and have vacillated between doing CICs and not doing CICs because I just couldn't really feel them working. But in recent months I've really been able to tap into them and feel that isometric contraction deep into the muscle! Maybe that says something about me, maybe I'm just thick in the head.:silly: But it took me a bit to really figure it out. Lifting weights and just following someone else screaming at you is so much easier, John! How dare you make me think for myself :tongue:

-Joe

[reg]

john i am not saying you are wrong but, i can't say you are right about a doing an isometric in just the position of greatest strength. i think the jury is still out. but as always i say to all;do what works for you.

[budgiefan]

I've yet to read anything favorable about this method, other than the author's claims.

[John Peterson]

Hey Reg,

Unless you said something that I don't understand, I said the exact opposite of what you are posting. Am I getting this wrong or misunderstanding? Please let me know because I don't get it.

---John Peterson

[ben alexander]

I asked a friend who weight trains, about this method and book. He said (and I'm not going to use the curse words he used!) "It's a load of junk. It's one of those things they invent to appeal to people who want to be strong with no effort."

He went on to say that he thought isometrics had their place, and used them himself, but didn't like the book. What he particularly hated was the use of pictures of Steve Reeves and others, which subconsciously suggest that this will make you as built or strong.

I think he said that the author said that Mike Mentzer, who believed in short sharp and intense nworkouts, was misrepresented in the book. It mentions how Mike went from 120 lbs at age 12, to 170 lbs at 15, thanks to some workout. To which my friend said -

"Yeah, it's called puberty! He'd have probably been pretty well built without the workout, cos he was growing up!"

Ben

[gruntbrain]

Occasional use of the static contraction protocol MAY be a nice addition to one's isometric pgm; at least, the feedback from holding a heavy weight can be of some value; you'll get objective evaluation of your isometric efforts .

[Viking Dan]

I've read that using isos at the weakest point in the ROM (the sticking point) has much greater carry over than working the strongest range.

If you're skeptical, see how long you can hold the mid point in a chin up (arms parallel to the floor) before spewing...

[Viking Dan]

P.S. Sisco and Little also wrote a book called Power Factor Training which I experimented with in the 90s. Basically, doing as many reps as you can with crushingly heavy weights over a 2-3" range of motion. SC is just an evolution of that.

[Black Knight]

P.S. Sisco and Little also wrote a book called Power Factor Training which I experimented with in the 90s. Basically, doing as many reps as you can with crushingly heavy weights over a 2-3" range of motion. SC is just an evolution of that.

I to used that training method for a few months when i was about 19.The concept sounded great but results never really came so to speak.As the weeks went on i did get up to more and more heavier loads for partial reps but when i tried testing myself on full range lifts i was much weaker and what really sucks about that was the fact that i was at the strongest id ever been on the weights prior to that.Right after using there program i ran into an add by Matt Furey and well the rest is history.

[John Peterson]

Hey Black Knight,

The ads espousing the Sisco and Little methods were extremely well written but I have never met anyone that felt as though the results were even remotely in line with what was stated in the advertising. Truth to tell, based on what you have stated, you probably had far better results than the vast majority of people.

But one thing that stands out in what you have stated is the loss of full range strength. Everything I have ever read underscores that obvious shortfall of the method.

---John Peterson

[revwally]

I and one other person I know had some positive results with this program. It did cause a pump for us. And there is something to be said about lifting such a huge amount of weight. It sort of grabs the mind. There are a couple of lifts that Steve J. likes that do the same, but he uses a slightly longer range of motions (still only a couple of inches).

I would say that the following are it's downfalls:

1. The carryover into other parts of a movement are minimal (this is John's point).

2. I don't have a powercage -- so safety was another issue, and for me that is a very big issue.

3. While I do own a lot of iron -- getting enough for some of the moves was unrealistic.

4. The mind pump is good -- once or twice -- but gets real boring real quick. I could only do about 2 - 3 weeks on this cycle.

5. Gee, in order to respond to item #2 they sell equipment. somethng like 2 - 4K. Isn't that a nice homebuilt solution.

6. It over promises what it can deliver (again John's point). It is not the be all and end all it promises to be.

7. doing the squats or deadlifts with the amount of weight that you build up to real quickly requires a belt (not a problem in my mind), but you can almost feel yourself shrinking and the compression on your spine.

8. It may give you the impression you can actually handle the weight that you are lifting, or at least a weight much heavier than you really can, which is dangerous (BTW, my kids knew, and heard me say the number one rule in daddy's gym is safety first, if this seems to be a theme you are hearing more than once).

9. This I can only say for myself...the energy I get from exercising was not there. Oh, it was for a few hours, but not the whole day, positive enjoyment.

There was a guy some time ago that used the same theory, but had an iso machine that did it in more safety -- again, his machine was a few thousand dollars.

there are a couple of other points, but I would have to bring out the book and look it over to double check them as far as how they fit the protocol. I don't think it is worth my time to do so.

As far as Ben's comments. If you read most of the books published by weightlifting/bodybuilding folk, you will see pictures of all sorts of folk within them. Often they never used anything similar to what the author is promoting. It may be because I am a little dense, but it took me a while to understand this -- and yes, it does continue to subconsciously communicate that if you follow the authors advice, you will get those results. This is why I stopped buying the mags years ago.

wally

[Greybeard]

P.S. Sisco and Little also wrote a book called Power Factor Training which I experimented with in the 90s. Basically, doing as many reps as you can with crushingly heavy weights over a 2-3" range of motion. SC is just an evolution of that.
John, Read your comment on static contraction of Iso's. I have been studying Maxick's Muscle Control.
And there is a simularity with Isometrics. But different in respect that in Muscle Control the muscles are
isolated and then tensed while all other and oposing muscles are relaxed. I guess my question to you is
does this make a difference? Or is Muscle Control not a good system of development.

[tom]

Before I became primarily a bodyweight exerciser, I used this method as a warm-up in lifting heavier weights. When I did my 20-rep breathing squat program and got to the 250 - 300 pound sets at a 200 bodyweight, I would load up 500 - 600 pounds and just stand with it for several seconds. Then I unloaded down to my working weight and it felt like nothing. It helped the first third to half of the set - after that nothing helps the pain.

I called it an overload warm-up, not an original idea. It has been around for a while. It is an effective warm-up but that does not make it a stand-alone program. The reason it works is that it desensitizes the proce$&^%& (the things that hurt when you stand up after a long plane ride).

It is like saying holding handstands will help you do handstand push-ups. Will it? Well, uh, yes, it would . . . to a point. In the beginning, to a new handstander, it is necessary. After that, after you can do one or two push-ups, you must practice the full range. Holding will make you good at holding.

Other than my handstand push-up example, I can't think of how Static Contraction Method would apply to bodyweight exercise, as warm-up or otherwise.

Tom

[John Peterson]

Hello Greybeard,

In his book "Worthwhile Journey" author Tromp Van Diggelen, discusses how he and Maxick had each independently discovered the "Muscle Control Method" (MC) of physique development that does have a great deal in common with Isometrics. In fact, their system included what we call "Pulse Isometrics."

Now, I'm going to state what I think of MC because I have studied it extensively. I think it is a marvelous ability to have, that allows a person to be able to consciously contract and relax each and every individual muscle at will either separately or in pairs or groups. This is something that India's Yogi's have practiced for millenniums of time and has been popularized in the writings of Frank Rudolph Young. It is a great ability to have when combined with other exercises that coordinate the muscles to work together rather than isolation exclusively.

Not everyone agrees. Physical Culture writer Earle Liederman wrote several times that he thought MC was a poor method of training for the purpose of building one's physique and that it caused a loss of Muscle size. I understand what Mr. Liederman wrote and why he was of that opinion. I'm sure that he would be right if that were all one ever did but not when someone is using it combination with other exercises like real Isometrics or combining it with certain power calisthenics as was done in the Maxalding Course. And of course, in my opinion, The Charles Atlas Dynamic Tension System was best of all when fully implemented.

---John Peterson

[gruntbrain]

Experimentor types may wanna modify the static contraction protocol by holding weights in multiple positions( ala Steve Justa). An adjustable webbing belt can help with your experiment in multi-positioned static contraction with any heavy object( eg hold a small kid like Illuvitar(Jake))

[reg]

john,the great charles atlas said exercise is only the tensing of a muscle.so all i am saying is tensing a muscle in the strongest range may have some merit.

[John Peterson]

Hello reg,


If one strengthens his strongest point even further without strengthening his weakest point, he further enhances the strength discrepancy and muscle imbalance between strong point and weak point that is already existing within the given range of motion. This is a recipe for injury if sudden movement is called for as one part of a muscle is disproportionately stronger than another and would literally make it easy to tear a muscle or tendon, This is why if I were forced to choose one or the other, I would focus Isometric contractions on the weaker point and make it stronger in order balance out the full range strength of the muscle. This in fact is where Isometric contraction is vastly superior to every other form of strength training because one can literally focus on strength development exactly where it is needed most.


---John Peterson

[ben alexander]

I and one other person I know had some positive results with this program. It did cause a pump for us. And there is something to be said about lifting such a huge amount of weight. It sort of grabs the mind. There are a couple of lifts that Steve J. likes that do the same, but he uses a slightly longer range of motions (still only a couple of inches).

I would say that the following are it's downfalls:

1. The carryover into other parts of a movement are minimal (this is John's point).

2. I don't have a powercage -- so safety was another issue, and for me that is a very big issue.

3. While I do own a lot of iron -- getting enough for some of the moves was unrealistic.

4. The mind pump is good -- once or twice -- but gets real boring real quick. I could only do about 2 - 3 weeks on this cycle.

5. Gee, in order to respond to item #2 they sell equipment. somethng like 2 - 4K. Isn't that a nice homebuilt solution.

6. It over promises what it can deliver (again John's point). It is not the be all and end all it promises to be.

7. doing the squats or deadlifts with the amount of weight that you build up to real quickly requires a belt (not a problem in my mind), but you can almost feel yourself shrinking and the compression on your spine.

8. It may give you the impression you can actually handle the weight that you are lifting, or at least a weight much heavier than you really can, which is dangerous (BTW, my kids knew, and heard me say the number one rule in daddy's gym is safety first, if this seems to be a theme you are hearing more than once).

9. This I can only say for myself...the energy I get from exercising was not there. Oh, it was for a few hours, but not the whole day, positive enjoyment.

There was a guy some time ago that used the same theory, but had an iso machine that did it in more safety -- again, his machine was a few thousand dollars.

there are a couple of other points, but I would have to bring out the book and look it over to double check them as far as how they fit the protocol. I don't think it is worth my time to do so.

As far as Ben's comments. If you read most of the books published by weightlifting/bodybuilding folk, you will see pictures of all sorts of folk within them. Often they never used anything similar to what the author is promoting. It may be because I am a little dense, but it took me a while to understand this -- and yes, it does continue to subconsciously communicate that if you follow the authors advice, you will get those results. This is why I stopped buying the mags years ago.

wally

Very interesting, Wally!

I'm aware of how magazines and books use pictures, too. I do, however, take umbrage to Sisco and Little's work. John Little in particular, is a very good writer, and you do want to turn the page. But on the other hand, he does tend to write in the most fawning way imagineable, epscecially about his two heroes, Mike Mentzer and Bruce Lee.

In one book, "Bruce Lee: Art of Expressing the Human Body", he lists all sorts of exercises and routines that Bruce performed. However, he does seem to imply very strongly that these were Bruce's secret methods...when in reality they're pretty standard exercises and routines that were popular back in the day.

Plus, there is way too much of the "there are no limits, only plateaus" philosophy. Bruce was not a god, but the routines John Little says Lee performed seem to be the sort of thing only Superman could do, at times. Naive fans might read these rouintes and try them - and probably severely injure himselves doing so.

Bruce was great, but he wasn't immortal. Here's a great link on Bruce, by his friend, Joe Lewis!

www.bruceleedivinewind.com/joelewis.html+joe+lewis+on+bruce+lee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

Ben

[tom]

I loved his movies. He was an actor, a physical actor. That's all. I loved his movies, his corny movies. I get so tired of hearing him referenced as anything other than a cool-looking actor. An unhealthily cool-looking actor.

I better shut up now. Sorry.

Tom

[gruntbrain]

Steve Justa's claims about Bruce Lee were also fetched pretty far; read the chap. on Isometric Aerobics where Bruce is said to lever a 80# for a timed iso 3 min.hold

[tom]

I got Justa's book when it first came out through Ironmind. The ideas are good and inspiring, but not necessarily more than one man's opinion, nor to be followed without care, if at all. Keeping that in mind, I like the book. For a broader view of the man, I think his youtube offerings, along with his curling, knock-out expert friend Herkster's offerings, give a good insight to the man.

Tom

[jayjay6631]

whats the difference between a classic isometric contraction vs powerflex isometric contraction?

[tom]

As for Steve Justa and the Static Contraction Method, there are some videos of him doing some pretty heavy weights, 1900 lbs, on YouTube. I thought I posted it a couple of days ago but it didn't take. If you search Steve Justa on YouTube, you will find some clips put up by herknews. Herkster is a friend of his, the one that Steve talks about in the book wrist-curling huge weights for high reps and having a strong knock-out punch. You can find some Steve and Herkster training clips, but you will also get a lot of other information about the two not related to weights necessarily. You may want to take a look if you are a big Justa fan and haven't seen it yet. I enjoyed the book, but noticed other stuff between the lines. I don't use the book.

Tom

[Big Bear]

you are so right about this John!

i have found that in my punches,or other things i do-chopping wood etc...holding the iso's in three positions really works THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT of the activity.it is not just when the maul hits the wood,or at the high point-it is all the way through.(i do this without using the maul-the iso's)
add a little fah jin and you have very powerful movement in time and space!

peace,
jason

[gruntbrain]

Modifying the Sisco/Little protocol to include multiple positioned ISO holds is worthwhile. An adjustable webbing belt like JP's could facilitate multi-positioned static contractions

[jlstraw]

John,

I realize this is a very old post, but I was curious.
I am not sure how you meant what you wrote, and I do not want to jump to any conclusions, so I need to ask a question. In the above paragraph, did you mean that if someone were to perform ‘static contraction’ at his or her strong point, then ‘a muscle’ would become imbalanced between its strong and weak point? Or, did you mean that the ‘muscle group’ used to perform the full rep of the lift would become stronger in it’s strong point, but weaker (or remain the same) in it’s weak point? There is a rather big difference between the two statements.
I do have a bit more I want to say on the subject, but I really do not want to respond until I am sure what was actually meant.

I hope that makes sense.
Thanks,
Jason

[John Peterson]

Hello Jason,

Your question,

" In the above paragraph, did you mean that if someone were to perform ‘static contraction’ at his or her strong point, then ‘a muscle’ would become imbalanced between its strong and weak point? Or, did you mean that the ‘muscle group’ used to perform the full rep of the lift would become stronger in it’s strong point, but weaker (or remain the same) in it’s weak point? There is a rather big difference between the two statements."


Answer: Jason, it's really very simple. If a muscle is already a great deal stronger at it's strongest point within any given range of motion and you were to apply intense isometric contraction at that strong point and thereby make it even stronger while doing nothing to improve the muscle's strength at it's weakest point, you would only further increase the disparity in strength between that muscle's strong point and weak point. You would not become stronger throughout the full range of motion at all because functional strength throughout the full range of motion is determined by the weakest point just as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. This is why Bob Hoffman and the men of the York barbell Club applied Isometric Contraction at their weakest point or sticking point within any given range of motion. They did not waste time to make their strong point stronger while neglecting the weak point. That would be sheer stupidity. Instead they focused on strengthening the weak point and did so with fantastic results. In fact, at that time they broke record after record with that magical combination of steroids and Intense Isometric Contraction.

---John Peterson

[jaymo]

Tried it.
Used it.
Found it lacking!

Veni Vidi Vici...

It is a shortcut that you want to explore, but it leads... nowhere!

Heavy resistance, despite our hopes and dreams, does NOT trump consistent, relentless, naural,and actually enjoyable bodyweight exercise!

This is the takeaway point for me... that, and that nutrition is even more important than exercise! It took me decades to understand that concept!
J

[monty]

I am having good results doing the Iso Power belt and mixing it with dsrs, push ups and cics, and warrior power "T"s. Peeps need to work the Isos for a good bit before making a judgement.
Monty

[keith james]

Hi John

When the books came out, the power factor training and the static contraction method, i bought them both as i was in a gym at the time.

Did i get the results that their books state, no i didn't. In some of the books they state that in their 'experiments', people's arms grew over an inch in little time, i.e. a few weeks, yeah i wish.

I remember doing shrugs on a smith machine, using partial movement. After warming up i loaded up the bar and started to shrug, as i was finishing i pulled a muscle in the back of my neck, i couldn't move my head fully around for weeks, i now laugh as i must have looked a right idiot, turning myself around to look at somebody instead of just turning my head.

When i left that course and tried to do pushups, boy had my strength gone down, so the carry over is terrible.

If i had my time back i would not waste my time with the system.

KEITH JAMES.