Rating: 
Summary: Heavy Duty
Review: This book takes you to a logical level of understanding of how to build muscle, and a way of measuring your progress in your training so that you know that you are improving. Although, I disagree with the author about his nutrition information. His muscle building info is right on. I have vastly improved my muscularity by using the information that I read in this book and his book "Static Contraction Training". This stuff really works... And it is a real eye opener for someone like me who "knows it all" when it comes to a subject like weight training.
Rating: 
Summary: Just another fad
Review: This is one of the most novel books on strength training I have ever read and attempted. Partials are a good tool to use occasionally in strength training but this book is unscientific despite what the authors and the reviewers try to say. This book is nothing to base a long term exercise program on. It is just a novelty. I am a certified CSCS through the NSCA now and wish I knew before wasting money on this book what I know now. Buyer beware.
Rating: 
Summary: Stop Hating on the Technique.
Review: Okay, this system worked for me. Before I had knee surgery, I had a personal trainer assist me with creating a program based on their methods. I then got the surgery and it helped with my recovery. This is a good thing.... So, what does this mean? It means it can work for some people, but not ALL people. The reviewers who put this book down are the same type of people who think they have the answer for all of the worlds problems!!! That is YOUR opinion. Just like the Atkins diet works for some people and the Zone works for others. No one system can address all factors contributing to weight loss or gain for that matter. Most of it is genetic anyway! Okay, so to my point, CHILL OUT! You don't have to buy the book or follow its principles. Some of them are probably incorrect, but so are a lot of mathematical calculations. Ask John Nash... I think in trying something new, that person opens themselves up to a lot of criticism, most of which is what the GenX generation would call HATING!! I think most of the reviewers here are just squawking hens that don't have a good thing to say about ANYTHING! Hell most of the people here would question Einstein's theories. WHAT MORONS! In closing, this is my advice. Try it out. If it doesn't work, you can always e-mails the gods that have reviewed this book to find the TRUTH! Peace out...
Rating: 
Summary: a candidate for winnowing
Review: This book has some valid points. One is to keep records and use them to identify what's working and what's not. If they had been a little more complete in their measures -- Heck! What's wrong with having a set just for progress check. Say Pick a weight and see how many reps you can do with it. If before you could only do two reps with 200 lbs and now you can do four or if you can now do two reps with 210, that's progress. To be fair though the idea of factoring in time as well as tonnage seems a valid point. I wouldn't rely on their power factor and power index and strong range partial movements as the only measure of progress. See other reviews. The strong range partials which the authors recommend seem to me to be too short. There are world class powerlifters using partials, but the partials are usually at least six inches not one or two. Basically, these lifters seem to be doing two things: 1. avoiding portions of exercises that are inherently risky 2. using more weight than could be used in a full range version of the exercise. Also, Everett Aaberg's MUSCLE MECHANICS book recommends against many "full range" versions of exercises. Sort of like the caution against squatting below parallel. But Aaberg has not gone whole hog on the partials. He just seems to be recognizing that "full range" can, for some people, mean having joints stretched beyond their elastic limits by certain exercises perform in the traditional recommended full range fashion. Having messed up a shoulder doing full range weighted parallel bar dips I tend to agree with this philosophy. Best to stop well short of a full stretch. I think the section on recovery time is good. The authors cautioning against "one size fits all" programs is excellent advice. Routines should be tailored to individuals and their state of development and allow enough time( weeks sometimes ) for growth to take place. As a matter of fact I wonder if the reviewers claiming outstanding gains weren't just finally giving their bodies a chance to recover and grow. I seriously doubt if strong range partials are the best way to train. An interesting, but potentially dangerous, technique that has been around for decades. So too have "holds" or static contractions. I would guess that most trainees do not need strong range partials. Simply occasionally using weights that are a little heavier than normal would be enough of a change to keep progress going. At the other end using lighter weights and higher reps occasionally helps too. For variety I like partials and static contractions also, but usually more at mid-range. The book cites instances of lifters and bodybuilders who have used partials ( who hasn't?) as evidence of their effectiveness.
Of course these same people also did a lot of other kinds of training. Grimek especially, unlike Sisco and Little, favored using a variety of exercises not simply the "best" ones. Summing up:
1. I'd be very hesitant to use strong range partials at all
2. The book is an interesting read
3. If you think your record keeping needs work, you might get some ideas from the book
4. Power racks are wonderful pieces of equipment and can be used for other things besides strong range partials
5. This book has been around since 1997 at least. Yet I have yet to see anyone of note claiming to use this exclusively.
Rating:
Summary: WOW!
Review: It's amazing to see all the conflicting views on this book. In short, the book gave me the info I needed to finally get my body mass and lifts moving again. I've been lifting for 11 years and have tried EVERY training protocol available, trust me. This book is a true representation of the science of bodybuilding. I noticed that two of the bad reviews had flaws in them. 1. One person claims to have made no gains while following the program, then states that he trained 2 days per week for the duration of his test. Obviously he did NOT follow the protocol of the book if this is the case.
2. Another person claims that partial range training does not stimulate more muscle fibers than full range bacause of the leverage difference. On the surface this would appear true. However, if you consider training to failure this changes. Muscle fibers are recruited as needed to move a given amount of weight, if you fail at full range you can still move the same weight in partial range, thereby continuing to tax muscle fibers that are still capable of performing work. In short this would cause the use of more fibers.
3. Peter Sisco and John Little only offer themselves as examples because they managed to increase their own body mass on the program. They do not make any claims about the state of their physiques as compared to top bodybuilders. Indeed for many trainees considering themselves "hardgainers" 20 pounds of muscle mass gained would be a huge accomplishment, but if that person only started from 150 pounds bodyweight, he certainly would not look like a professional bodybuilder.
4. The authors completed a study incolving over 20 trainees which proved the effectiveness of their training protocol. ALL of the trainees in the study made great progress in both mass and strength. This study was completed after the book, however and hence could not be sighted in the text. Sorry to burst your bubble guys but, the training protocol works in 100% of cases, if it is followed correctly.
Rating:
Summary: Power Factor: A Pioneer in the Perfection of Weight-Training
Review: ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE POWER FACTOR METHOD SCIENTIFIC Power Factor Training is a scientifically produced weight-training program that matured from an older concept in exercise physiology. In 1905, W. Roux, a noted exercise physiologist, studied the muscle growth of an array of athletes and observed, "the size and strength of muscles [are] related...to the amount of work done in a unit of time" (Steinhaus, Arthur, A., "Training for Strength in Sports," in "TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION." Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1963). After Roux's observation, exercise physiologists, such as H. Petow and W. W. Siebert, fervidly tried to develop this concept into something more practical. In 1998, ninety-three years after Roux's discovery, Peter Sisco and John Little hatched Roux's concept and brought the weight training method of Power Factor into the world. Sisco and Little thought that this breakthrough was not enough and decided to dwell further into the workings of the human body. So, after more research into the mechanisms of muscular development and a series of interviews with bodybuilding legends, such as Lou Ferrigno, Mike Mentzer, and Dorian Yates, Sisco and Little started encouraging the practice of strong-range partial repetitions. The argument for this practice is as follows. Since bodybuilders and weightlifters practice strong-range partial repetitions as a therapy for curing weight-training plateaus, it is logical to say that one should get progressively stronger if one were to employ strong-range partial reps on a regular training basis. PERSONAL EXERIENCE I have been lifting weights for more than one year without having much progress in terms of muscular development. As of today, I have used the Power Factor program for a little more than one month. My result: two of my friends who have seen me on a daily basis for the past two years recently told me that I have grown noticeably more muscular. Neither one knows that I am using the Power Factor program. Consequently, one of them actually accused me of using steroids! CONCLUSION Power Factor is scientific and it works!
Rating:
Summary: It worked for me!
Review: I lifted using the Power Factor Training principles just over 7 years ago. I experienced tremendous growth and strength increases. My only fault was that I stopped lifting when my first child was born. I was the strongest I had ever been, and that was on full repetition exercises. I had my doubts at first, but utilized the system for about four to five months religiously. I then went back to full repetition lifting, every lift went up. As a previous review stated, it may not be for everyone, but until you try, you will not know whether or not it is for you.
Rating:
Summary: It Did Not Work
Review: Since the beginning of February of 2001 I have used the Power Factor training method described in this book. I purchased the Power Factor Training Log and used it, and the full body exercises therein, to train. Prior to starting on the Power Factor program I had been using free weights. During the program I followed the directions, and my Power Factor numbers did increase with each passing week (I worked out twice per week). The numbers for the partials I was doing were impressive, at least for me. By May I was doing squats with 330 pounds and bench presses with 230. I was doing two sets of each exercise listed in the A and B workouts in the Training Log. The exercise routines were intense. Because of the time factor, and the push to finish each exercise quickly and move on to the next, the exercise routine was demanding. On May 19th, 2001 I did a full range test of my lifting strength. It had not improved. In most of the exercises the numbers remained static. I had some small improvement in the squats. After the full range test I was muscle sore for three days. Something is definitely different between the full range exercises and the Power Factor partials. And that something does not favor the Power Factor training method. I think the training method was a failure. The charts I was keeping in the book showed a strong increase for several weeks followed by a plateau. After some rest the numbers improved marginally once more. After a rest of 5 days I took the full range test. The results were disappointing. Because of my results I cannot recommend this book or any of the Power Factor publications. It seems many of the trainees have had my disappointing results. The authors need to do more testing to discover why some people are able to advance on this program and others are not. After 3 and one half months on the program it seems I would have shown some improvement; however, there was none.
Rating: 
Summary: Stanford University Report and A Reader from Upstate NY
Review: This is not a review persay but simply a plea to fairness. A Reader From Upstate NY in his 3 Star review claims to give us his conclusions after trying Power Factor Training. The report he gives is a word for word regurgitation of a Stanford University Report on Power Factor Training. Sir, unless you wrote this report, you certainly shouldn't pass it off as your own. Incidentally, the Stanford Report was not written by someone who had used Power Factor Training, or expiremented with it, etc. but relied on data from previous studies given in tomes such as Journal of Applied Physiology, American Journal of Sports Training, etc. Most of these types of studies are not designed to measure hypertrophy (when progressive overload causes muscles to grow). They are instead concerned with dynamic athletic performance, which most of us who are involved in weight training are not concerned with as such. We simply want our muscles to grow. It seems that most of these people who are using terms such as "biomechanical factors" are just repeating things they have read instead of having tried Power Factor Training themselves. As to people like A Reader From Upstate NY who would try to pass off other peoples words and ideas as their own: Shame on you! Incidentally, if you don't belive me you can easily find the Stanford report yourself by typing Stanford University, Power Factor Training into your search browser.
Rating:
Summary: Protracted Rest Periods
Review: I have read with interest some of the reviews of Power Factor Training - most of them are favorable. However to those still entrenched in dogmatic bliss, I have the following: Some of the people who address the shortcomings of the training method address in PFT will find that these limitations are discussed if one is to read the book carefully. A few points are: You will avoid overtraining and stagnation if you increase your rest time between workouts as your intensity, i.e. Power Factor and/or Power Index increases. At the beginning, the authors recommend a schedule of somewhere around every 3 days to a week. But you CANNOT stick to this schedule! As the authors explain throughout, more and more rest will be needed between workouts.
| 
