Seems Legit?

[Mr Average]

So I was just trying to do a search on 3 point isometrics and came across this, it has nothing to do with 3 point isometrics
www.isometricsstrength.com/

It reads very much like another site and smells like

[Bruce Tackett]

3-point isometrics is a term I came up with on my own. In fact I figured out the concept on my own. A bit later I found out it was already in use and is commonly known as 3 position isometrics. If you were to search Youtube for 3 position isometrics, you'll find quite a bit.

[mr potatohead]

Nov 6, 2017 0:30:14 GMT Bruce Tackett said:

3-point isometrics is a term I came up with on my own. In fact I figured out the concept on my own. A bit later I found out it was already in use and is commonly known as 3 position isometrics. If you were to search Youtube for 3 position isometrics, you'll find quite a bit.

How about "Multi-Postition Isometrics" instead of those other, oxymoronic names?

[Mr Average]

Nov 6, 2017 0:30:14 GMT Bruce Tackett said:

3-point isometrics is a term I came up with on my own. In fact I figured out the concept on my own. A bit later I found out it was already in use and is commonly known as 3 position isometrics. If you were to search Youtube for 3 position isometrics, you'll find quite a bit.

I found out where I first saw it, it is in "Isometric Power Revolution" by JP.
I am a simple person and the thing I do get is if you take any weight, rubber strand or body weight exercise and hold it at the extension or contraction of a rep or a series of reps, depending on the movement and hold it for say 30 seconds isometrically. You have already used the strength needed to perform the task, so why do people claim that the strength carry over is only a certain amount and you then need to hold the weight for example in 2 other positions. You have already had the strength to move the weight to the eccentric in the case of a bench press. Does it mean that you will never push that same weight ever again because you never lowered it into 2 other positions for isometric holds? 

Of course not, so to me the 3 point/ 3 position isometrics make no sense, I am not saying people should not do it, I am a nobody but to me the claims I have seen made on isometrics and the strength carry over degree wise don't hold water.

[Bruce Tackett]

Nov 6, 2017 19:31:18 GMT Mr Average said:

Nov 6, 2017 0:30:14 GMT Bruce Tackett said:

I found out where I first saw it, it is in "Isometric Power Revolution" by JP.

He plagiarized that from me, along with some other things off of the Zen-in-the-Art website.

I am a simple person...

You're kidding!

I can't really address what you're getting at. I wasn't one of the guys in white lab coats who determined all of this. I only know that I have read about it from various sources and have implemented what I have read.

I know that Bruv states that strength is most effectively generated when performing an isometric when the muscle is in the stretched position. I have no idea how he came up with this. I can only guess that in that position, more stress is placed upon the tendons.

[mr potatohead]

blag did not write that.

[Mr Average]

Nov 6, 2017 19:45:00 GMT Bruce Tackett said:

Nov 6, 2017 19:31:18 GMT Mr Average said:

He plagiarized that from me, along with some other things off of the Zen-in-the-Art website.


You're kidding!

I can't really address what you're getting at. I wasn't one of the guys in white lab coats who determined all of this. I only know that I have read about it from various sources and have implemented what I have read.

I know that Bruv states that strength is most effectively generated when performing an isometric when the muscle is in the stretched position. I have no idea how he came up with this. I can only guess that in that position, more stress is placed upon the tendons.

Well I am not surprised on the JP part.

I was not aware that you came up with the 3 point part until I did a search and clicked on your pdf. 

I have seen claims made on many things including isometrics, when I say I am a simple person I mean I don't claim to be an expert on anything, I have done all sorts of exercise work related and leisure related for nearly 33 years, not everything exercise related but quite a bit.

The point I was trying to make is, there are all sorts of claims made out there, that if you do not do something this way or do something that way, you are missing out on full muscle developement. Do these people even know what they are talking about? Muscles are simple things, they do not care what works them they will respond by getting stronger over time, so when they are worked, they will find the work less taxing. I know that there is a maximum limit for everyone.

So back to my point about isometrics and the claims made, Joe Bloggs finds a 50lb dumbbell curl challenging enough for 8 reps. So Joe decides that he is going to do 1 rep with the dumbell so he curls it and at the top of the movement he holds it isometrically for a 30 second count and then lowers it.

Does that mean that his strength carry over was only 15 degrees? Does that mean that he has not recieved full muscle developement because he did not hold it in 3 different positons?

or as I feel that is BS because all the muscle knows is it has been worked and will tire no matter what.

[Bruce Tackett]

Nov 6, 2017 20:29:53 GMT Mr Average said:

when I say I am a simple person I mean I don't claim to be an expert on anything

I know. I was making a funny.

You tend to use words like "theory" and "claims". When it comes to specifics concerning muscle physiology, I have to assume studies were conducted by qualified personel. They aren't just making claims, they are stating tested and studied results. I don't believe whoever(s) stated that isometrics effects the muscle within a 15 degree range of where it is held, is a banjo player atop a bridge somewhere. Until someone proves otherwise, or proves that those stats did not come from the results of legitimate, qualified, physiological studies, then I will accept them as being true. Regardless of what I might or might not personally believe, I don't have the background or the knowledge to dispute such findings.

I will add that I don't believe a hold effects only 15 degrees. Of course the rest of the muscle would have to be somewhat effected. I think it all means to a lesser degree.

[Bruce Tackett]

BTW, blag, if you should have IPR handy, and if it doesn't involve a lot of digging, could you please let me know if JP specifically states "3-point isometrics"?

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2017 22:24:53 GMT Bruce Tackett said:

BTW, blag, if you should have IPR handy, and if it doesn't involve a lot of digging, could you please let me know if JP specifically states "3-point isometrics"?

Hey Bruce, he calls them," Classic Isometric Contraction". He mentions." three angles within any given range of motion". He doesn't mention," 3-point isometrics". He doesn't name them, only talks about position. 

[Bruce Tackett]

Thank you, Jacko!

[BigBruvOfEnglandUK]

I know that Bruv states that strength is most effectively generated when performing an isometric when the muscle is in the stretched position. I have no idea how he came up with this. I can only guess that in that position, more stress is placed upon the tendons.

I'm certainly no expert and have never had such fantastic success with isometrics that people should hang off my every word. It was just something that I read and it made sense to me. Whether it's true or not, I really don't know. Anyway, when I was training pretty much exclusively with isometrics it was because I did not have the time or energy (I was overworked) to do regular weights, strands or calisthenics workouts. I found that exercising the muscles in their stretched position was pretty good for maintaining strength and keeping supple and I did regain some muscle that I had previously lost.

[veg]

Rob Thoburn had good success working in the stretch position. 

Well, I was going to write an e-book about my new training style and charge the world for it -at least a few bucks, anyways. But I’m so busy with my consulting business that I don’t have the time. Plus, I’d rather just get the information into as many people’s hands as possible, as quickly as possible. So I’ll just tell you what to do here on this blog.

Beginning in 2005, I began experimenting with a new style of resistance exercise. Instead of performing the normal “full” range of motion for each exercise, I perform the first third of this range in which the main muscle being exercise is at its longest length.

Let’s use the barbell bench press as an example. I lift the barbell off the rack and lower it to my chest. Then I lift it back up about 1/3 of the way before lowering it back to my chest. Then I repeat for anywhere from 10-25 reps.

Now let’s consider barbell squats. I begin by bending my knees and descending into a squat position. Once my thighs are parallel to the floor, I begin to lift the barbell back up again. As above, I only lift it up about 1/3 of the way before descending again.

I perform anywhere from 15-20 sets per muscle group using this technique. I hit each muscle group 1-2 times per week.

That’s it.

How does it work? My experience has been that it works very well. If I go back to doing full-range reps for a week or so and then go back to my new “ROB” training style -”thirds”, if you like- my muscles appear much fuller and leaner within 24-48 hours. This type of training really does seem to make the muscles “pop” more. I swear they take on a different shape with this style of training. I really like it.

I’ve talk to one scientist about my new training style, and he says that it is possible that it might produce a greater hypertrophic (muscle-building) stimulus because I am performing my reps in a position where the muscles are longer. May this is why it seems to work. Perhaps there are other mechanisms involved. Noone can know for sure.

Try it out, and let me know what you think!

[Bruce Tackett]

Thank you for posting this info based upon personal experience, veggies! This is definitely something I will try when I've concluded my iso experiment.

What do you think of my idea that exercising a muscle in the stretched position might be more effective in building strength because it more directly hits the tendons?

[Bruce Tackett]

P.S. Might I suggest naming your technique Dynamic ROB?