<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Partial reps vs full range of motion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/2010/01/02/partial-reps-vs-full-range-of-motion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/2010/01/02/partial-reps-vs-full-range-of-motion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:23:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/2010/01/02/partial-reps-vs-full-range-of-motion/#comment-1380396</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/?p=595#comment-1380396</guid>
		<description>Massey&#039;s study actually did account for gains, although they were based on an increase of five pounds if all 15 reps were achieved in all 3 sets, giving the full range crew a higher percentage increase each time. The biggest factor was that the full range participants had to perform each repetition for 6 seconds (4 eccentric, 2 concentric) while the partial went at a &quot;normal lifting speed.&quot; This means that the partial range participants gained &quot;the same results&quot; as the full range ones in 6-9 times less lifting time... which to me leads to more efficiency for the partial range idea. Wouldn&#039;t you like to get the same results in 7 minutes as what others are doing in 45? The most important thing to note is that there are zero research studies that prove the long-term safety of full range repetitions! There are ideas on torque that do not account for the variables of (the real... not often taught) muscle length-tension variances.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Massey&#8217;s study actually did account for gains, although they were based on an increase of five pounds if all 15 reps were achieved in all 3 sets, giving the full range crew a higher percentage increase each time. The biggest factor was that the full range participants had to perform each repetition for 6 seconds (4 eccentric, 2 concentric) while the partial went at a &#8220;normal lifting speed.&#8221; This means that the partial range participants gained &#8220;the same results&#8221; as the full range ones in 6-9 times less lifting time&#8230; which to me leads to more efficiency for the partial range idea. Wouldn&#8217;t you like to get the same results in 7 minutes as what others are doing in 45? The most important thing to note is that there are zero research studies that prove the long-term safety of full range repetitions! There are ideas on torque that do not account for the variables of (the real&#8230; not often taught) muscle length-tension variances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Smart Health Shop</title>
		<link>http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/2010/01/02/partial-reps-vs-full-range-of-motion/#comment-973005</link>
		<dc:creator>Smart Health Shop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bottomlinefitness.com/?p=595#comment-973005</guid>
		<description>i guess the benefit of partial reps would be in not locking out as to place more strain on the muscles. and the cons of partial reps would be not getting the full range of motion. why not experiment with both?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i guess the benefit of partial reps would be in not locking out as to place more strain on the muscles. and the cons of partial reps would be not getting the full range of motion. why not experiment with both?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

