Truth About Flexibility Interchange Between Kit And Myself

[Nathan]

While all of these topics are worth discussing, wrapping them up into this thread seems to have mostly resulted in distraction from the intended discussion. Let us simplify.

Your assertions:

19 hours ago, Maurice said:

I believe that the more you strengthen the lengthened position, the less stretch reflex (involuntary muscle contraction/shortening/added resistance) you will have. The ST system and many others seem to not agree with my assessment. 

We have established that ST and several other systems do recognize the value in strengthening the muscle in a lengthened state to reduce resistance to the stretch.

19 hours ago, Maurice said:

Lengthened muscle strengthening makes the muscle stronger while simultaneously reducing the stretch reflex resistance (Dual benefit). Shortened muscle strengthening only strengthens the muscle. (Singular benefit).

and

11 hours ago, Maurice said:

I believe lengthened muscle strengthening actually benefits the entire muscle whereas the shortened muscle strengthening only benefits the shortened range.

and

11 hours ago, Maurice said:

Lengthened muscle strengthening achieves both decrease in resistance and full muscle strengthening simultaneously. Strengthening in the shortened state only achieves strength gains.

Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. You posit a hypothesis and offer your anecdotal experience. However, Phi, and many others, have anecdotal experience that refutes this hypothesis. Perhaps you still think you're on to something different - no problem at all, but you must reform your hypothesis to take into account this new information.

So I ask you: what is your purpose in continuing this conversation? If you are absolutely convinced that you have found the answer and are simply trying to convince us, then I'm afraid continuing the conversation will benefit neither side. We have acknowledged that you discovered a critical piece of the puzzle, which is why it is an integral part of the ST system, as well as other methods. However, we have offered you insight into the collective experience of thousands of people that indicates that it is not the ultimate answer. You are free to ignore this, but if you wish to do so, I ask that you be honest (with yourself and with us) about your intentions to do so and not ask us to devote more time to fruitless discussion.

We all love learning and growing here, so we are happy to engage if you are genuinely trying to promote open discourse that will benefit others. If that is the case, perhaps re-framing the conversation, while keeping it as simple as possible this time, might make things go more smoothly.

[Maurice]

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

So I ask you: what is your purpose in continuing this conversation? If you are absolutely convinced that you have found the answer and are simply trying to convince us, then I'm afraid continuing the conversation will benefit neither side. 

My purpose was to see if I could improve on my hypothesis and find the best ways to implement it. Have an open discussion on if my thinking is flawed or possibly correct. Maybe discuss it with others that would understand the topic at hand and collaborate with an interchange of ideas. Learn new information from others as well that I haven’t figured out myself. 

I was not trying to sell my idea. I wasn’t trying to bash the ST System or convince you all to overhaul it. I e-mailed Kit directly at first because I didn’t want it to seem I was going to go to the forums to convert people away. He directed me to the forums.

It’s my word vs everyone else’s word. I have no credibility so it would make sense no one would outright believe what I say. Some think I’m trying to teach an already understood method while others think the method doesn’t work like I think it does. I think people mainly do the method incorrectly so of course most people would get suboptimal, or even negative, results.

But what’s the explanation for my results? If it didn’t work for anyone else, why does it work on me? Am I actually doing something right or am I just an exception to the rule? I thought if I explained my case more thoroughly, it would at least get people to listen. That didn’t work. Words aren’t that powerful from an unknown source.

I thought if I could show pictures or videos of myself displaying high levels of flexibility and strength combined, It might have a greater effect. I’m not sure that would even convince anyone. Just like building strength through powerlifting, it takes time. I can only improve so fast. The levels I’m at are great, but not impressive enough to me because of the short time of applying the method. Maybe in a couple more months the results will be worth showing.

I apologize if I wasted anyone’s time and I hope the best for everyone on their quest for growing and learning

[Nathan]

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

My purpose was to see if I could improve on my hypothesis and find the best ways to implement it. Have an open discussion on if my thinking is flawed or possibly correct. Maybe discuss it with others that would understand the topic at hand and collaborate with an interchange of ideas. Learn new information from others as well that I haven’t figured out myself. 

That's fantastic, and more than welcome here. But your responses haven't reflected this. We have acknowledged your ideas and offered views/experiences that clearly show that they don't pan out the way you are presenting them. If you think we have misunderstood your intended representation of the ideas, then you need to add more details and explain in a different way, rather then simply repeating them. You honestly don't seem very open to any of the information we have presented, but simply continue to assert that it is incorrect without expanding your hypothesis.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

I was not trying to sell my idea. I wasn’t trying to bash the ST System or convince you all to overhaul it. I e-mailed Kit directly at first because I didn’t want it to seem I was going to go to the forums to convert people away. He directed me to the forums.

And you're very welcome here. I can only speak for myself, but I was not under the impression you were trying to bash ST or sell your idea. As I said before, I got the impression that you found something that worked fantastically for you and your enthusiasm motivated you to share that something. I have tried to acknowledge that and also explain why it is almost surely not the panacea that you seem to feel it is. I may not completely understand your discovery, but you have only repeated it in the same way without expanding on it, and what you have offered so far is unfortunately nothing new, and is not a panacea.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

It’s my word vs everyone else’s word. I have no credibility so it would make sense no one would outright believe what I say.

I certainly believe that this method you have found has worked wonders for you. I do not doubt that in the least. But whether that means it is a superior method in general, and applied to a broader audience, is a completely different issue. The results you experienced individually is not your word against ours, because only you can tell us what you experienced. And no one is denying anything about your experience. We have only tried to explain that others have had polar opposite experiences as well.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

I think people mainly do the method incorrectly so of course most people would get suboptimal, or even negative, results.

Then by all means, explain the intricacies of the method and how to do it properly. That might spur some interesting discussion. Until now, you have simply repeated an assertion that we have shown to be false when applied to the masses.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

But what’s the explanation for my results? If it didn’t work for anyone else, why does it work on me? Am I actually doing something right or am I just an exception to the rule?

Depending on what those results actually are, the explanation is most likely that it filled the gap that you personally were lacking. It was the missing piece to your own individual puzzle. As Phi mentioned above, he has been getting outstanding results training only shortened ranged. Why did the opposite work for him? Because that was his own individual missing link. And I am sure your method has worked for others, or will work for others who have a similar missing link. You are doing something right for your puzzle. But, while some are more similar than different, we all bring different puzzles to the table.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

I apologize if I wasted anyone’s time and I hope the best for everyone on their quest for growing and learning

No need to apologize. As I said, you're more than welcome here. Based on what you have said, your intentions are good and I am happy to continue the conversation, as long as it is not rehashing the same back and forth that we have been engaged in so far. I'd love to hear about what exactly about your method is not properly understood/implemented, so please feel free to share specific details!

[Maurice]

5 hours ago, Nathan said:

I may not completely understand your discovery, but you have only repeated it in the same way without expanding on it, and what you have offered so far is unfortunately nothing new, and is not a panacea.

You are correct. I did not present the information correctly. I mentioned I am terrible at explaining. I am a far better student than a teacher. I apparently lack in some way or I just don’t know how to properly present information effectively.

5 hours ago, Nathan said:

As Phi mentioned above, he has been getting outstanding results training only shortened ranged. Why did the opposite work for him?

I never said other methods didn’t work. Most methods work for most, if not all, people. Even if the methods are done incorrectly. Some people prefer to do certain methods because it fits better with their lifestyle or is easier to do.The reasons why they work don’t contradict anything I said. There are many ways people can go about achieving the same goal.

For example, I think static stretching is almost a complete waste of time for gaining flexibility. But many have gotten their amazing flexibility from only static stretching. I’m not denying that it works. I strongly believe some methods are just outright better than others.

I tried to present a more effective, optimal, and injury preventative way to the specific task of gaining flexibility. In my first e-mail to Kit I said, “I am not trying to reinvent the wheel sort of speak. It’s more along the lines of showing you a better wheel and explaining what makes it better.”

6 hours ago, Nathan said:

The results you experienced individually is not your word against ours, because only you can tell us what you experienced. And no one is denying anything about your experience. We have only tried to explain that others have had polar opposite experiences as well.

If 1000 people were given the same instructions and yet only 1 person succeeded in achieving the desired result, what does that mean?

To me it feels like I’m the 1 person. Since the other 999 others failed, they are under the impression that the instructions don’t work. But how do they explain the success of the 1 person if I was given the exact same information? How could only 1 person reach the goal that so many others failed at? In this case, the instructions weren’t the problem. It was how the 999 went about following the instructions that lead to their failure.

I went about things the wrong way. Like I continue to say, I’m lacking in some areas as a person. I was trying to get the 999 to admit failure or seek out information from the 1 successful person on what I did differently. Instead it seemed like the 999 were ok with trying different methods so they wouldn’t listen to me anyway.

I believe the method is more difficult to perform than most other methods. I felt if no one would listen to me, explaining the intricacies of the method would be a waste of time. Ironically, I wasted more time not explaining it.

6 hours ago, Nathan said:

Then by all means, explain the intricacies of the method and how to do it properly. That might spur some interesting discussion.

Isometric Stretching is the method. It’s nothing new. Many people know of it. The goal is to get stronger in the stretched position. Time under tension (TUT) and applying force (muscle contraction) in the lengthened end range is the objective. Focusing on one muscle or muscle group at a time.

Isometric stretching has similar drawbacks as PNF stretching. It is difficult to do without a partner and contracting the target muscle while remaining in a stretched position is not easy. The location and the strength of some muscles makes this even more challenging.

How do you isometrically stretch your hip internal rotators, glutes, abs, or your lats (to name a few) without engaging the wrong muscles? 

I am currently trying to find the best positions, machines, or anything else that makes this method more practical, optimal, and safe. 

[Kit_L]

3 hours ago, Maurice said:

If 1000 people were given the same instructions and yet only 1 person succeeded in achieving the desired result, what does that mean?

To me it feels like I’m the 1 person. Since the other 999 others failed, they are under the impression that the instructions don’t work. But how do they explain the success of the 1 person if I was given the exact same information? How could only 1 person reach the goal that so many others failed at? In this case, the instructions weren’t the problem. It was how the 999 went about following the instructions that lead to their failure.

Maurice, again, this is simply faulty logic. Firstly, the "other 999 people didn't fail—everyone here does use isometric stretching which does build strength at end ROM. But that's not all they do.

You are trying to make the stretching problem set into a single nail that only responds to isometric/PNF-type stretching and that only your method is the right hammer. This set of assertions is simply incorrect, that's all. And as a matter of fact, the original PNF method explicitly included contracted-end-ROM techniques and other methods, too (five in all; I have written about this extensively).

Here, in the ST world, we avail ourselves of any of the many methods we use to improve ROM, and strength, and flexibility, and improve movement patters, which are more than all these things. We use fascial remodelling tools; neural re-patterning techniques, Liv's slo-flo sequences, limbering sequences, and many others, The point is that isometric stretching alone does not have the same beneficial effect for everyone that you seem to have experienced. I would like to see images of your end stretching position, too. 

Each person needs to find the key for his/her lock. As both Nathan and Phi have mentioned, end-range closing has worked extremely well for him. It has been effective for me, too, but in my past descriptions of my own journey, that method has not been emphasised, because other methods have yielded greater benefits for me at those times. At present, these techniques have been yielding benefits for me. The key point is that there are many methods that can be effective, and everyone here has used all of them—at different times, and according to the feedback that their bodies have been giving them at those times. IOW, the right method for you most likely will change, over time, and as you change.

[Maurice]

8 hours ago, Maurice said:

I tried to present a more effective, optimal, and injury preventative way to the specific task of gaining flexibility.

 

8 hours ago, Maurice said:

I never said other methods didn’t work. Most methods work for most, if not all, people. Even if the methods are done incorrectly. Some people prefer to do certain methods because it fits better with their lifestyle or is easier to do.The reasons why they work don’t contradict anything I said. There are many ways people can go about achieving the same goal.

 

4 hours ago, Kit_L said:

You are trying to make the stretching problem set into a single nail that only responds to isometric/PNF-type stretching and that only your method is the right hammer. This set of assertions is simply incorrect, that's all.

The specific goal is increased flexibility. I said other methods work. It just so happens that isometric stretching increases strength as well. In this case, you can work flexibility and strength simultaneously instead of one at a time. Isometric stretching is not the answer to everything. It just covers a lot of bases.

If someone likes to do Static, Ballistic, Dynamic, PNF, Yoga, or Myofascial releases, etc., that’s fine. I’m not telling anyone to change what they do if it works for them. I simply wanted to present (what I believe to be) a more effective, optimal, and injury preventative method. For the main goal of flexibility.

I attained great results in a relatively short amount of time with nearly no negative effects. I thought it would be nice to share with others and hopefully perfect the method more. I was hoping others may have found better ways to reach the difficult muscles effectively and would be willing to share the information with me.

If no one else wants to believe in Isometric Stretching as the pinnacle of greatness like I do or try it out more thoroughly, that’s ok with me. It seems to have endless potential and I’m excited to see what I can accomplish through this method. I will not try to force anyone to follow my example. I can continue to be my own test subject.

[Nathan]

10 hours ago, Maurice said:

I did not present the information correctly. I mentioned I am terrible at explaining. I am a far better student than a teacher. I apparently lack in some way or I just don’t know how to properly present information effectively.

No problem at all. Conveying what you want to say effectively is a skill, and skills improve with practice. I could use plenty more practice myself! But we're getting closer now. We just took a big detour in the beginning.

10 hours ago, Maurice said:

I never said other methods didn’t work.

Nor did I mean to imply you did. I should have included more information to frame my point better. What you don't know is that Phi is very knowledgeable about stretching, and has used isometrics before. However, the missing piece for him at this current point in time was end-range closing, so focusing on that is what has given him extraordinary results. It's not that he got okay results using a different method; rather, he got better results using a different method. Now you could claim that it was because he did it wrong, but there is probably no one in the Western world that has gone deeper down the isometrics-for-flexibility rabbit hole than his coach, Emmet Louis, so the likelihood of him simply not having done it properly is very, very slim.

10 hours ago, Maurice said:

To me it feels like I’m the 1 person. Since the other 999 others failed, they are under the impression that the instructions don’t work. But how do they explain the success of the 1 person if I was given the exact same information? How could only 1 person reach the goal that so many others failed at? In this case, the instructions weren’t the problem. It was how the 999 went about following the instructions that lead to their failure.

It is indeed possible that you are the one exception, and that everyone else is doing it wrong. But if you are truly interested in learning and developing, then you need to be open to the fact that it is much, much more likely that you simply haven't seen the bigger picture. You are approaching this from your limited experience with flexibility (that's not a bad thing - we all bring a different collection of experience to the table) and that can skew how things appear. Again, you may still be the exception, but you should try to stay open-minded as you continue to explore that possibility, rather than implying that much more experienced people have simply missed (or misunderstood, or whatever) the piece that you have discovered.

10 hours ago, Maurice said:

Isometric Stretching is the method.

Excellent, now the real discussion can begin. Isometrics are indeed an incredible tool for flexibility. There is a severe lack of good research about stretching, but strength training is a different beast. We have a lot of good, solid research on it, including using isometrics to build strength. It's been firmly established that isometric training strength gains a highly joint-angle specific. It's true that they are more specific when training at short muscle lengths vs. long muscle lengths, but they are still highly specific at long muscle lengths. So isometrics can indeed be used for extremely effective gains in flexibility by building strength at the end ROM. However, if you want extraordinary active flexibility, you will still need to train the short length.

10 hours ago, Maurice said:

How do you isometrically stretch your hip internal rotators, glutes, abs, or your lats (to name a few) without engaging the wrong muscles? 

I am currently trying to find the best positions, machines, or anything else that makes this method more practical, optimal, and safe. 

I highly suggest you spend some time looking at Emmet Louis's work, which he calls Modern Methods of Mobility. He has made an art form of using isometric training for flexibility. If you are serious about your inquiry, you owe it to yourself to learn from him. I highly recommend his workshops, as well. I've had the honor of attending one and he's a fantastic human being and teacher. Even if you can't do that, he has a YouTube channel full of great info. You should be able to find his blogs, etc. with a search as well.

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

I attained great results in a relatively short amount of time with nearly no negative effects. I thought it would be nice to share with others and hopefully perfect the method more. I was hoping others may have found better ways to reach the difficult muscles effectively and would be willing to share the information with me.

If no one else wants to believe in Isometric Stretching as the pinnacle of greatness like I do or try it out more thoroughly, that’s ok with me. It seems to have endless potential and I’m excited to see what I can accomplish through this method. I will not try to force anyone to follow my example. I can continue to be my own test subject.

Thank you for sharing, and I encourage you to continue exploring. I also remind you that you are working with a case of one - yourself. This method does not bring great, injury-free results to all, unfortunately. But who knows - perhaps your explorations can help refine it. I suggest asking about specific muscles in a separate thread so that we can address those specifically. It might even be a good idea to create your own thread in the training log forum here to get feedback throughout your explorations.

Please do continue to explore and be your own test subject. That's what we are all doing! And then we share the results with each other. That's how the ST system - an open system - continues to grow and improve. You're welcome to be a part of that, but I encourage you to try to bring some more flexibility to the conversation. If we are absolutely convinced that we are correct, then we will not be able to learn anything new. That's just how our minds work. By opening ourselves up to exploring the possibility of not being correct (even if only under certain circumstances), then we can really begin to learn and deepen our understanding.

In summary, I suggest that you: (1) explore Emmet's work, and (2) begin a new thread asking for thoughts about targeting specific muscles (specify them in the thread) with isometrics. Starting your own training log to document your explorations would be great too, if you are so inclined.

[Kit_L]

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

I was hoping others may have found better ways to reach the difficult muscles effectively and would be willing to share the information with me.

What have you been smoking, brother? That's exactly what we do here! Until today's post, you have not asked a single question, so no answers have been forthcoming. Instead, all you have been concerned to do is to tell us all about this thing you have discovered, which has been a core part of what I have been practising and teaching, and writing books about, for the last 30 years, while asserting that the other part of our method either do not work, are unnecessary, or are inefficient!

Re. your question about "How do you isometrically stretch your hip internal rotators, glutes, abs, or your lats?", that's easy. Just ask that question in its own thread, and people will answer. 

Actually, just search and spend a few hours reading what's already here; I believe this question has been answered in a number of posts. I know I know how to do precisely what you ask.

[Maurice]

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

Isometrics are indeed an incredible tool for flexibility. There is a severe lack of good research about stretching, but strength training is a different beast. We have a lot of good, solid research on it, including using isometrics to build strength. It's been firmly established that isometric training strength gains a highly joint-angle specific. It's true that they are more specific when training at short muscle lengths vs. long muscle lengths, but they are still highly specific at long muscle lengths. So isometrics can indeed be used for extremely effective gains in flexibility by building strength at the end ROM. However, if you want extraordinary active flexibility, you will still need to train the short length.

I’m under the impression flexibility and strength are more connected than people think so that is why I continued talking about them together. 

I’ve seen the data on isometrics being very joint specific. A common belief is that there may only be a 15 degree carryover from the contraction joint angle. I’m attempting to disprove this. If I succeed and if I want “extraordinary active flexibility”, training the short length will be unnecessary.

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

I highly suggest you spend some time looking at Emmet Louis's work, which he calls Modern Methods of Mobility. He has made an art form of using isometric training for flexibility. If you are serious about your inquiry, you owe it to yourself to learn from him.

I’ve looked at a lot of his work. I will continue to see if there is more information to draw from that will prove useful in my journey.

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

Thank you for sharing, and I encourage you to continue exploring. I also remind you that you are working with a case of one - yourself. This method does not bring great, injury-free results to all, unfortunately. But who knows - perhaps your explorations can help refine it.

I’ve stated many times I only have anecdotal evidence of myself. I don’t think people’s bodies are as different as people seem to believe. The word “genetics” gets thrown around a lot (no one has said it explicitly in this discussion) but I like to think there is a logical answer to most things.

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

Please do continue to explore and be your own test subject. That's what we are all doing! And then we share the results with each other. That's how the ST system - an open system - continues to grow and improve. You're welcome to be a part of that, but I encourage you to try to bring some more flexibility to the conversation. If we are absolutely convinced that we are correct, then we will not be able to learn anything new. That's just how our minds work. By opening ourselves up to exploring the possibility of not being correct (even if only under certain circumstances), then we can really begin to learn and deepen our understanding.

I believe both sides (you all and myself) have been guilty of being “absolutely convinced that we are correct.” I say one thing, (ex. lengthened end range strength benefiting the entire muscle) it’s immediately shut down. You all say one thing, and I say there’s a reason it doesn’t work. It seems you haven’t been willing to learn from me and I haven’t been willing to learn from you. Constant finger pointing has gotten most of the conversation nowhere. 

My anecdotal evidence I pointed out was purely flexibility specific. The ability to put my palms on ground from standing, putting my feet behind my head, being able to clasp my hands behind my back with the over/under reach, almost being able to do the splits. It gets better as I progress.

1 hour ago, Nathan said:

It might even be a good idea to create your own thread in the training log forum here to get feedback throughout your explorations.

If I only do isometric stretching (with no other form of stretching technique or typical weight lifting), and accomplish great feats of flexibility and strength, would that prove my case? 

If I’m able to do strength skills like the planche, 1 arm chin-ups, slow muscle ups, the human flag, the manna and be able to dunk a basketball; If I’m able to do flexibility skills like the splits in all directions and have high levels of active flexibility with it, by only using isometric stretching, wouldn’t that be amazing?

I may be completely wrong in the benefits I think can come of doing this one method. You all would be right and I would look like a complete fool. But what if I am right? That would revolutionize so many things. I’ve been so “stuck in my ways” because I think this mind blowing. I’m extremely curious to find out.

[Maurice]

3 minutes ago, Kit_L said:

What have you been smoking, brother? That's exactly what we do here! Until today's post, you have not asked a single question, so no answers have been forthcoming.

I admitted to wasting everyone’s time. I did not approach anything the right way. I admitted my faults in this regard. I am extremely passionate and my judgment was clouded. I can go on but I think my last post will explain why I went about it the way I did.

I will not continue wasting you all’s time. All I can do now is show proof or shut up. Why would anyone believe in a miracle if they can’t see it themselves? If I am indeed wrong, I will be a diligent supporter of you all for helping me see the light.

[Kit_L]

Can I get an "Amen?"  Just kidding!

Listen: there's no problem, and you have not been wasting anyone's time. And many of us have experienced the same 'miracle', but—this is interesting—there are other miracles. What we are all about is techniques for change. No politics, no prejudices, no BS.

And you are not wrong, either; but perhaps a little zealous. Again, no problem. 

If you can hear, and if you can learn, then you are, most definitely, in the right place. 

Welcome to the forums.

[jaja]

I've been reading the whole thing there's something I have to ask @Maurice. ST prescribes strengthening muscles in the lengthened state and others have already pointed that out. Why are you saying that your method is better, if the same technique is part of what Kit is teaching? Keep in mind that you can adapt ST to suite excellently both beginners and advanced practitioners, dealing with a wide set of problems. The reason in ST different tools come in to play is not only to address properly a variety of sticking points, but also to satisfy slightly different needs. Not everyone here is seeking flexibility — I happen to be more interested in “suppleness“, for example.

[Jonas W]

As stated by others, isometric strengthening at the end range is nothing new. Some concepts utilize that as a part of their techniques while others may choose to focus mostly or solely on it. An "extreme" example of progressive overload using isometric strengthening to achieve splits can be found in Van Zandts stretching protocol, which has been linked to on several occasions on this forum.

https://www.martialartsplanet.com/threads/isometric-split-progression.96381/

 

 

[MarkusO]

 

4 hours ago, Maurice said:

If I only do isometric stretching (with no other form of stretching technique or typical weight lifting), and accomplish great feats of flexibility and strength, would that prove my case? 

No, it would not show that you would reach far better results using the whole toolbox. Who builds a house only using a hammer? Good luck with that. Use specific tools for specific jobs. E.g., training dynamic high kicks only by isometrics will be less than ideal. I have the impression you are not considering the whole picture here. Flexibility training is a bit more than just doing the splits.

[Nathan]

4 hours ago, Maurice said:

I believe both sides (you all and myself) have been guilty of being “absolutely convinced that we are correct.” I say one thing, (ex. lengthened end range strength benefiting the entire muscle) it’s immediately shut down. You all say one thing, and I say there’s a reason it doesn’t work. It seems you haven’t been willing to learn from me and I haven’t been willing to learn from you. Constant finger pointing has gotten most of the conversation nowhere.

I just want to say that I have not claimed to be correct about anything. I have offered information that was relevant and pertinent to the conversation and encouraged you consider alternative perspectives, but I have never said you were outright wrong, nor did I ever "shut you down." In fact, I admitted numerous times that you may very well be correct. I also said I am happy to learn from you - I encouraged you to continue exploring and sharing your results. You are so passionate about defending your discovery that you're fighting off people who aren't attacking you.

But all of that is fine. I have no investment in the outcome here. You have made your position and attitude clear, so I am not going to offer any more regarding that. I'm glad to hear that you will continue to explore this inquiry of yours. If you have indeed found the panacea, then all of us will be happy to hear about it when you have refined the method. None of us are tied to any one technique or method. We are more than happy to adopt a new method if it is truly superior. So please continue to explore, and update us on your ultimate findings, regardless of the outcome. In the meantime, feel free to stick around and share the journey with the rest of us as we explore too.

[Maurice]

7 hours ago, jaja said:

ST prescribes strengthening muscles in the lengthened state and others have already pointed that out. Why are you saying that your method is better, if the same technique is part of what Kit is teaching?

I know Isometric stretching is used in ST. It is one of many different methods used in the system. I just feel it is a resource that has way more potential than what it’s used or given credit for.

7 hours ago, jaja said:

Not everyone here is seeking flexibility — I happen to be more interested in “suppleness“, for example.

I’ve said many times that isometric stretching was specifically for the benefit of flexibility. It just so happens to benefit a lot more than that as well. I know everyone here is not seeking flexibility exclusively. I encourage you to continue the pursuits you are more interested in. Like “suppleness”, for example.

7 hours ago, Jonas W said:

As stated by others, isometric strengthening at the end range is nothing new. Some concepts utilize that as a part of their techniques while others may choose to focus mostly or solely on it. An "extreme" example of progressive overload using isometric strengthening to achieve splits can be found in Van Zandts stretching protocol, which has been linked to on several occasions on this forum.

I even stated isometric stretching is nothing new. It’s been being taught for decades at least. But like the “extreme” example you mentioned, I feel isometric stretching is not always used to the full potential. I’m attempting to delve deeper into the method and find the hidden gems that so many great minds overlooked.

5 hours ago, MarkusO said:

No, it would not show that you would reach far better results using the whole toolbox. Who builds a house only using a hammer? Good luck with that. Use specific tools for specific jobs. E.g., training dynamic high kicks only by isometrics will be less than ideal. I have the impression you are not considering the whole picture here. Flexibility training is a bit more than just doing the splits.

The specific result I was seeking is Increasing overall flexibility. You need strength and flexibility for dynamic high kicks. Isometric stretching builds strength and flexibility simultaneously. If my assertions are correct, it should allow me to be able to do dynamic high kicks without training specifically for them. 

I know “Flexibilty training is a bit more than just doing the splits.” Just like strength is more than being able to bench press heavy weight. The splits is a general example that shows the person has much more flexibility than average. At least in their lower body.

4 hours ago, Nathan said:

I have never said you were outright wrong, nor did I ever "shut you down."

 Here are a couple examples in one quote (it’s hard for me to quote messages on different pages)

On 12/7/2018 at 9:16 PM, Nathan said:

“Similarly to the mind/body division being illusory, the clear division between pieces of the body is false, as well. Everything in the body is connected, and muscles do not function in isolation. Here we are looking at the agonist/antagonist relationship. Even if you maximally strengthen the lengthened position of an antagonist muscle, you will simply have a strong muscle that cannot be fully lengthened if the agonist is too weak to do so. Muscles contract - that is their strength. They do not lengthen themselves. You might think of it like this: strengthening the lengthened ROM creates potential, while strengthening the shortened ROM offers a way to express that potential. Both are useful.”

My statements regarding the mind/body division, isolating the muscles, and the benefits of lengthened end range strengthening. It was implied that my understanding of those topics were flawed or nonexistent.

Others have stated I was flat out wrong or clearly didn’t know what I was talking about on certain topics. So yes, I have been “shut down”.

I am not trying to argue with anyone. If isometric stretching produces in me the amazing results that I think are possible, we can go from there. If I fail miserably, I’ll admit my shortcomings and proceed to use the other methods you all think is necessary in reaching my goals. Live and learn

[Jonas W]

Can you share some specific details on how you're using isometric stretching? Dosage, intensity, etc?

[Maurice]

Just now, Jonas W said:

Can you share some specific details on how you're using isometric stretching? Dosage, intensity, etc?

That’s what I’m trying to perfect or at least make better. I come from a weight lifting background. For maximal strength benefit, I typically did 3-5 sets, for 3-6 Reps, with heavy weight. The heavier weight allowed me to do near-maximal muscle contractions. I was eventually able to bench press over 400lbs, while my squat and deadlift were over 500lbs.

Since I believe Flexibilty and Strength are very closely related, maximizing strength gains will lead to maximizing flexibility gains. Maximal muscle contraction at the lengthened end range is the goal. Since Isometric Stretching is Isometric (muscle length constant) and not Isotonic (muscle length changing), I have to convert accordingly.

You can only contract your muscle maximally for a certain period of time before you burn out anyway because of the anaerobic nature (You can only do a full force sprint for so long before you run out of energy).

I found some info where 9-12 second isometric holds is roughly equal to 3-5 repetitions. Currently I do 10 seconds max contraction holds for 2-4 sets depending on the muscle I’m strengthening. Typically I only target the same muscle once a week. Maybe twice if I want faster results for a specific muscle

 

[Jonas W]

12 minutes ago, Maurice said:

That’s what I’m trying to perfect or at least make better. I come from a weight lifting background. For maximal strength benefit, I typically did 3-5 sets, for 3-6 Reps, with heavy weight. The heavier weight allowed me to do near-maximal muscle contractions. I was eventually able to bench press over 400lbs, while my squat and deadlift were over 500lbs. 

Since I believe Flexibilty and Strength are very closely related, maximizing strength gains will lead to maximizing flexibility gains. Maximal muscle contraction at the lengthened end range is the goal. Since Isometric Stretching is Isometric (muscle length constant) and not Isotonic (muscle length changing), I have to convert accordingly. 

You can only contract your muscle maximally for a certain period of time before you burn out anyway because of the anaerobic nature (You can only do a full force sprint for so long before you run out of energy). 

I found some info where 9-12 second isometric holds is roughly equal to 3-5 repetitions. Currently I do 10 seconds max contraction holds for 2-4 sets depending on the muscle I’m strengthening. Typically I only target the same muscle once a week. Maybe twice if I want faster results for a specific muscle

  

So, I assume warming up is a part of it and then gradually going down into your current end-range hold and then doing the contractions? Did you read the details of the link I pasted? A maximal contraction effort is what Van Zandt wrote about as well, but he goes to sort of extreme lengths in his progressions - up to 3 minute isometric holds and at his last "level" it's with 30kg added weight. And by maximal contraction I mean 100 %. Compare that to a system like FRC (Functional Range Conditioning), I think they recommend at least 80 % of MVC. He recommends up to 3 stretching sessions a week, so it's very intense. And to quote him at the end of his post: " This method boasts a 100% success rate with my clients. Were they all genetic freaks? No. But they did all have the mental and physical fortitude to stick with this plan. If you do too, then you will do full splits also. I guarantee it. "

[Maurice]

1 minute ago, Jonas W said:

Did you read the details of the link I pasted? A maximal contraction effort is what Van Zandt wrote about as well, but he goes to sort of extreme lengths in his progressions - up to 3 minute isometric holds and at his last "level" it's with 30kg added weight. And by maximal contraction I mean 100 %.

I read the details of the link. That is indeed a form of isometric Stretching. And I do believe his claim of “This method boasts a 100% success rate with my clients. Were they all genetic freaks? No. But they did all have the mental and physical fortitude to stick with this plan. If you do too, then you will do full splits also. I guarantee it."

Most plans fail because people fail, not the plan. If you stick to the plan, you will get results. If you cheat or slack off, you will get suboptimal results.

That being said, you can’t maximally contract (100%) a muscle for 3 minutes. 3 minutes is in way into muscle endurance territory, not muscle strength (There is some crossover though). Maximal contractions are anaerobic. A muscle can only contract for a short period of time without oxygen.

Someone can increase there bench press by doing 30+ Reps per set. It would be better for muscle strength if they upped the weight and did 1-6 reps. Increasing the work time (Time under Tension) by too much has diminishing returns if the goal is pure strength

[Jonas W]

19 minutes ago, Maurice said:

I read the details of the link. That is indeed a form of isometric Stretching. And I do believe his claim of “This method boasts a 100% success rate with my clients. Were they all genetic freaks? No. But they did all have the mental and physical fortitude to stick with this plan. If you do too, then you will do full splits also. I guarantee it." 

Most plans fail because people fail, not the plan. If you stick to the plan, you will get results. If you cheat or slack off, you will get suboptimal results. 

That being said, you can’t maximally contract (100%) a muscle for 3 minutes. 3 minutes is in way into muscle endurance territory, not muscle strength (There is some crossover though). Maximal contractions are anaerobic. A muscle can only contract for a short period of time without oxygen. 

Someone can increase there bench press by doing 30+ Reps per set. It would be better for muscle strength if they upped the weight and did 1-6 reps. Increasing the work time (Time under Tension) by too much has diminishing returns if the goal is pure strength

Yeah I never stuck to that 3 minute protocol, I'm personally keeping it lower (up to a minute at the most of whatever active modalities I use, whether it's isometric, dynamic or mix of all). I think what he means is 100 % effort, even if the effort at say 2 minutes is done with a suboptimal capacity to produce the amount of force you could in the beginning.

[Maurice]

Just now, Jonas W said:

I think what he means is 100 % effort, even if the effort at say 2 minutes is done with a suboptimal capacity to produce the amount of force you could in the beginning.

I understand. But I’m saying strength gains increase the most for the TUT with maximal muscle contraction. The most force your muscle can produce for the longest time possible (which is about 10 seconds give or take). So 95-100%. The further you are from 100%, the less benefit it will have. If you are contracting the muscle at 0-80%, it doesn’t matter if you last 5 minutes. You can only maximally contract a muscle for a very short time

[Nathan]

11 hours ago, Maurice said:

Here are a couple examples in one quote (it’s hard for me to quote messages on different pages)

On 12/7/2018 at 9:16 PM, Nathan said:

“Similarly to the mind/body division being illusory, the clear division between pieces of the body is false, as well. Everything in the body is connected, and muscles do not function in isolation. Here we are looking at the agonist/antagonist relationship. Even if you maximally strengthen the lengthened position of an antagonist muscle, you will simply have a strong muscle that cannot be fully lengthened if the agonist is too weak to do so. Muscles contract - that is their strength. They do not lengthen themselves. You might think of it like this: strengthening the lengthened ROM creates potential, while strengthening the shortened ROM offers a way to express that potential. Both are useful.”

My statements regarding the mind/body division, isolating the muscles, and the benefits of lengthened end range strengthening. It was implied that my understanding of those topics were flawed or nonexistent.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I didn't intend to imply that I took no issue with any of your statements. I do believe your understanding of certain elements is incomplete, and I believe you are wrong about some of the things we discussed. But saying that someone is outright wrong and "shutting them down" conveys a sense (to me) that someone is unwilling to listen or engage in discourse with the other person. I have attempted to remain open to your ideas, and I have acknowledges the parts of your hypothesis that I have no issue with.

To clarify: yes, I believe you are mistaken about the mind/body divide. Regarding isolation, I acknowledged that we were using it in different ways and clarified my intended meaning in a later message. And yes, I did challenge your hypothesis that strengthening only the lengthened state will offer the benefits that come from strengthening the shortened state. That is not shutting you down; that is stating my position as a part of the discourse.

With that said, everything I said in my last message still stands. I look forward to the results of your continued exploration!

[Maurice]

2 minutes ago, Nathan said:

But saying that someone is outright wrong and "shutting them down" conveys a sense (to me) that someone is unwilling to listen or engage in discourse with the other person.

 

2 minutes ago, Nathan said:

And yes, I did challenge your hypothesis that strengthening only the lengthened state will offer the benefits that come from strengthening the shortened state. That is not shutting you down; that is stating my position as a part of the discourse.

Maybe “shutting me down” was too extreme of a phrase. 

Both sides (You all and myself) have done lots of research, talked to many people, and tried many different methods throughout our lives. We get to a point where enough “evidence” proves a point so it becomes as good as fact to us.

So if someone presents information contrary to these “facts”, like I have done a few times throughout the discussion, you all think I’m mistaken. Which is reasonable in my opinion. You all proceed to try to get me to realize the fallacy in my logic but I keep fighting back.

I’ll admit I’m a bit passionate. That may cloud my judgment. But since I think I found a “miracle method”, why would I do other methods that I feel are inferior in the pursuit of my goals?

You all seem to care that I have the “right” information. I appreciate you all looking out for my best interests. 

16 minutes ago, Nathan said:

I look forward to the results of your continued exploration!

Only time will tell if I hit a gold mine or if I’m a just a delusional person. I’ll keep you all posted on the results for sure

[jaja]

2 hours ago, Maurice said:

I’ll admit I’m a bit passionate. That may cloud my judgment. But since I think I found a “miracle method”, why would I do other methods that I feel are inferior in the pursuit of my goals?

I believe you are willing to experiment, to find your own way, and this is great. I also understand your position, but maybe you should consider the option to attend one of @Kit_L or @Emmet Louis‘s workshops.

This will allow you to have a better grasp of their methods and possibly to discover first hand something useful. Also — at the appropriate time — you could engage in face to face conversations with them.

I lack both the knowledge and the experience to say your either “wrong” or “right”, but I’m almost certain you don’t get everything about ST. I myself learned much more from a single workshop than I did by reading the forums and watching videos for three years or so.