locking out

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

A question for those of you who lift heavy weights.

I've read that locking out is a good thing...that one's joints were
meant to lock and support load and that if you do not subject them to
stress, you'll never get really strong.

A friend tells me locking out is not a good thing because that's what
he heard from a sports medicine specialist.

What's the truth?

References would be appreciated.

I'm not going to look for references, but I have seen the 'non-locking
out' theory in a few classes. With the idea being that the stresses are
now off the muscles and on the joints, as if that is a bad thing.

I don't think locking out builds much strength as normally you are in a
biomechanically advantaged position. OTOH - I don't see it wrecking the
joints either unless you do some kind of crazy ballistic thing.

So IMO it is nothing to get hung about. Lock out, but don't go crazy.

As for references, I suspect all you will find is speculation based on
anatomical considerations. I doubt it has been studied to any great
degree.

Quoted message said:

A question for those of you who lift heavy weights.

I've read that locking out is a good thing...that one's joints were
meant to lock and support load and that if you do not subject them to
stress, you'll never get really strong.

A friend tells me locking out is not a good thing because that's what
he heard from a sports medicine specialist.

What's the truth?

Dunno what the truth is. The downside to locking out WRT bodybuilding
is that you momentarily take the tension off the muscle. Not a big
friggin deal as far as I'm concerned.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:43:22 -0600, [email hidden]

(Hobbes) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

A question for those of you who lift heavy weights.

I've read that locking out is a good thing...that one's joints were
meant to lock and support load and that if you do not subject them to
stress, you'll never get really strong.

A friend tells me locking out is not a good thing because that's what
he heard from a sports medicine specialist.

What's the truth?

References would be appreciated.

I'm not going to look for references, but I have seen the 'non-locking
out' theory in a few classes. With the idea being that the stresses are
now off the muscles and on the joints, as if that is a bad thing.

I don't think locking out builds much strength as normally you are in a
biomechanically advantaged position. OTOH - I don't see it wrecking the
joints either unless you do some kind of crazy ballistic thing.

So IMO it is nothing to get hung about. Lock out, but don't go crazy.

As for references, I suspect all you will find is speculation based on
anatomical considerations. I doubt it has been studied to any great
degree.

Isn't it strange, Keith, that this issue doesn't seem to have been
studied extensively?

The argument for not locking out is that the muscle is not being given
any rest and one will "save the joints" by not subjecting them to
stress.

But why rush to fatigue by not giving the muscle any rest? Won't a
second or so rest between reps enable the lifter to generate greater
values of muscle tension?

And why not lock out your joints? Aren't they designed to lock and
support load? Don't the joints in your knees and elbows have
mechanoreceptors or sensors which respond to loading? Isn't it
important for strength development to overcome the panic signals
("Muscles, stop contracting!"😉 sent by these mechanoreceptors to your
spinal cord when you attempt a heavy lift?

Is this an insignificant issue or is subjecting your joints to stress
one way to help you get stronger?

It's true that at lockout you are in a biomechanically advantaged
position, but if you stay there for a second or so, isn't this a
static hold and can't static holds be helpful?

(With resistance cords, the finish position subjects you to the
maximum amount of stress. And that resistance level may be more than
you can lift with free weights because of the momentum generated from
the bottom when the resistance level is much less. I don't know how
the use of heavy resistance bands factors into the discussion about
locking out with free weights.)

I have seen a number of Web sites cautioning against locking out. Do
these admonitions reflect valid concerns with respect to preventing
injury to one's joints?

On several Web sites, I have seen "locking out" equated with
hyperextension. Are these the same thing? I wouldn't have thought
so. If I'm correct, how are they different?

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:56:11 GMT, Justin Case <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A question for those of you who lift heavy weights.

I've read that locking out is a good thing...that one's joints were
meant to lock and support load and that if you do not subject them to
stress, you'll never get really strong.

A friend tells me locking out is not a good thing because that's what
he heard from a sports medicine specialist.

What's the truth?

Dunno what the truth is. The downside to locking out WRT bodybuilding
is that you momentarily take the tension off the muscle. Not a big
friggin deal as far as I'm concerned.

Why rush the muscle to fatigue by not allowing it a second or so of
rest? Why not allow yourself a brief pause to generate higher values
of muscle tension? Why not give briefly subject your joints to
stress? Weren't they designed to support and lock load?

This subject apparently has not been studied that extensively. It is
not surprising, therefore, that people don't think it's all that
important.

Outside of the question as to whether "locking out" helps to make one
stronger, I'd like to know whether sports medicine physicians see a
lot of injuries associated with "locking out."

What is the difference, if any, between "locking out" and
hyperextending the joints? I've seen a couple of Web sites which
don't make a distinction between the two.