Locking out lifts - muscle building

[BendtheBar]

Responding to a comment about not locking out:

A muscle applies the most force or compression when it is under stress and not locked out, so a relaxed lock out position is better for the joints unless it is so relaxed that you are hyperextending. A lockout is a lower compression state.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

What say you?

[5kgLifter]

A muscle applies the most force or compression when it is under stress and not locked out, so a relaxed lock out position is better for the joints unless it is so relaxed that you are hyperextending. A lockout is a lower compression state.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'm confused by that, a relaxed lockout is still a lockout, isn't it? And, to be hyperextending would have to imply overly aggresive lockout not a relaxed lockout which would result in hypoextending as opposed to hyperextending, wouldn't it?

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by 5kgLifter

I'm confused by that, a relaxed lockout is still a lockout, isn't it? :

Yes.

And, to be hyperextending would have to imply overly aggresive lockout not a relaxed lockout which would result in hypoextending as opposed to hyperextending, wouldn't it?

:confused

No, not necessarily. Could imply instability due to weakness, lack of balance, etc. You could feel lightheaded during a squat, tip slightly sideways during a lockout, and put added pressure on your ankle or knee as you try to catch yourself.

My point was that unless something funky is going on at the point of lockout, it is safer, or provides less direct stress on the joints than not locking out.

[Bill]

a bb type friend told me not to lock out to build muscle. on bench for example, he would say stop short of locking, and bring bar down 1" above chest to keep tension

[5kgLifter]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Yes.



No, not necessarily. Could imply instability due to weakness, lack of balance, etc.

My point was that unless something funky is going on at the point of lockout, it is safer, or provides less direct stress on the joints than not locking out.

I read that people who only ever lift without lockout never place the skeletal system under enough stress to be able to keep up with the muscle's strength, so in a way, they hinder their own progress; whether it's true or not, I don't know, but it seems to make some sense. Taking Oly lifters, as an example, the end position of the snatch is deemed the strongest in the movement because the skeletal frame assists in the load bearing where the muscles alone could not do so.

[Squatter]

Originally Posted by 5kgLifter

I read that people who only ever lift without lockout never place the skeletal system under enough stress to be able to keep up with the muscle's strength, so in a way, they hinder their own progress; whether it's true or not, I don't know, but it seems to make some sense. Taking Oly lifters, as an example, the end position of the snatch is deemed the strongest in the movement because the skeletal frame assists in the load bearing where the muscles alone could not do so.

I agree. My Crew leader Brian also told me this, which is why bodybuilders who do not lock out suffer pain if they ever do. Thus, they associate locking out with improper form which will eventually come to haunt you as you age.

All I know is that from personal experience, I have been locking out all my life and do not suffer from any excessive wear and tear. All the heavy ass benchers on the Crew also told me they have never suffered from abnormal or escessive joint pain.

I think ya gotta also train those tendons and ligaments, not to mention if someone wants to ever compete, they have to lock out and not only touch chest, but pause it there. All newbs should be taught to lock out, if not for anything else, to leave their options open if they ever want to compete. Besides, I think it is proper form and any deviation from the form should only be done if there is a good reason for it.

[evilinmotion]

Originally Posted by Squatter

I agree. My Crew leader Brian also told me this, which is why bodybuilders who do not lock out suffer pain if they ever do. Thus, they associate locking out with improper form which will eventually come to haunt you as you age.

All I know is that from personal experience, I have been locking out all my life and do not suffer from any excessive wear and tear. All the heavy ass benchers on the Crew also told me they have never suffered from abnormal or escessive joint pain.

I think ya gotta also train those tendons and ligaments, not to mention if someone wants to ever compete, they have to lock out and not only touch chest, but pause it there. All newbs should be taught to lock out, if not for anything else, to leave their options open if they ever want to compete. Besides, I think it is proper form and any deviation from the form should only be done if there is a good reason for it.

Exactly! I always lock out too and never had any big issues...only with my knees and ankles but I also used to jump from planes and still do a lot of running...

[Hunterace]

Learning from those that have done it for many years....always lockout and finish the lift!!!

[evilinmotion]

Originally Posted by Hunterace

Learning from those that have done it for many years....always lockout and finish the lift!!!

you have no idea how much i hate to go to a gym and see guys benching half a$$ (rom of 3-4 inches up and down)and acting all crazy with 135 to 185! wtf! worst than curling an empty bar in the squat rack!

[BigJosh]

You guys should tell this to a few of the "experts" over yonder. They'll argue until there blue in the face why locking out is wrong. Skinny, weak, working out for 1 year and knows for a fact that locking out is bad. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong!
[/end bitter rant]