MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Is Slower Still Better?
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

NATUREBOY

Because doing so involves a higher degree of mechanical work and more efficient inroading, is it now the consensus that one's repetition speed should be as FAST as possible while still eliminating momentum ?

I was thinking of changing from a 4/4 to a 5/5 simply to have nice-looking 10-second-reps (I know, I'm weird) but didn't know if I would be moving in the wrong direction by doing so.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

You can't "eliminate" momentum, only minimize it. A moving resistance whether a weight stack or barbell always has a momentum. basic physics.

Are isometrics as effective as isotonic exercise when equal amounts of tension are utilized. Ask yourself that question.
Open User Options Menu

NATUREBOY

Cherry wrote:
You can't "eliminate" momentum, only minimize it. A moving resistance whether a weight stack or barbell always has a momentum. basic physics.

Are isometrics as effective as isotonic exercise when equal amounts of tension are utilized. Ask yourself that question.


Sorry, your language is over my head. Please just answer the question.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

The effective difference of going from 4/4 to 5/5 won't be much, though it will depend on exercise selection. Personally, for full range reps I say vary between 2/3 and 6/5 for better results.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

NATUREBOY wrote:
Cherry wrote:
You can't "eliminate" momentum, only minimize it. A moving resistance whether a weight stack or barbell always has a momentum. basic physics.

Are isometrics as effective as isotonic exercise when equal amounts of tension are utilized. Ask yourself that question.

Sorry, your language is over my head. Please just answer the question.


I'll re-phrase the question:

Let's say for sake of argument it takes you 60 secs to complete a set of an exercise with 5/5 cadence.

Ask yourself, would you get equalor similar results simply doing an isometric with equal tension in 6 position range of motion @ 10 secs per?>?

Open User Options Menu

glenn_001

New Zealand

Cherry wrote:
I'll re-phrase the question:

Let's say for sake of argument it takes you 60 secs to complete a set of an exercise with 5/5 cadence.

Ask yourself, would you get equalor similar results simply doing an isometric with equal tension in 6 position range of motion @ 10 secs per?>?



If using the same weight, no.

Open User Options Menu

markandspike

Here is an article by ellington regarding rep speed history.

Imagine the following scenario: four men interested in strength training, from different parts of the country, sitting at their computers ? all plugged into the same Internet, online discussion.

"Did Arthur Jones start HIT?" asks one guy.

"No, it was discovered by Bob Hoffman ? before Jones began writing in IronMan," counters another participant.

"Well, did Hoffman believe in one set to failure?"

"I'm not sure. But I think Jones got into one set to failure just to push his Nautilus machines."

"I'm not even sure that HIT works. What do you think?"

"HIT works initially ? but for only two or three months. That's probably why Ken Hutchins developed SuperSlow?"

"Is SuperSlow better than HIT?"

"Actually, SuperSlow training prevents you from staying motivated and getting results. That's why I use multiple sets."

The questions, responses, and comments go on and on ? as does the misinformation that is often mixed with fact. Like many of you, I often log on to various strength-training web sites that have discussion boards. I observe a lot of uncertainty in each of these chat rooms. Or as someone once said, "Every question has an answer that is simple, plausible, and WRONG."


Sure Enough!

No individual, nor group, involved in this industry has "the definitive answer" to our insatiable quest for bigger muscles. There's not a lot about muscles that we are sure of even most of the time ? much less, all of the time.

But, I am sure that I've worked on many studies, numerous seminars, multiple videos, and countless projects with the two men ? Arthur Jones and Ken Hutchins ? who are most responsible for establishing HIT and SuperSlow. Such experience provides me with a solid base to analyze and discuss both men and their philosophies.

And, I am sure that throughout my career, I've personally trained more than 10,000 people with my six-week courses of eating and exercising.

Why did I train all these men and women? First, because I was curious about what produced significant results and what didn't. Second, because I wanted to keep comparing and fine tuning ? for even better progress. Third, because I was interested in publishing the most result-producing routines and guidelines for other people to follow.

Thus, I can say, with a high degree of certainty, what it takes to get significant results in building muscle and losing fat. Better yet, you can study the concepts behind all my research projects, and view hundreds of before-and-after pictures of successful trainees ? in my more than two-dozen books.

The following history, ideas, and answers will help you better understand HIT and SuperSlow ? and ultimately get maximum gains from your workouts, as well as the routines you direct for others.


Arthur Jones and HIT

Unless you're a first-time reader of Classic X, then you know that Arthur Jones has had a profound influence on my strength-training beliefs. I've covered my initial meeting with Jones several times in my previous writings, so I won't dwell on that again. But I would like to note that in 1970, no one in the world ? except Arthur ? was writing about one-set-to-failure training. Multiple sets were the rage everywhere. Jones's articles in IronMan magazine were like a small star ? which kept getting brighter and brighter ? in a dark sky.

Because I was a national AAU bodybuilding competitor in the 1960s, I had several exercise discussions with Bob Hoffman of York Barbell Company and Strength & Health magazine. He was definitely not intrigued by one-set training. In fact, while Arthur Jones was becoming well known in the early 1970s, as a result of his Nautilus equipment, Hoffman simply ignored mentioning Nautilus altogether in his magazine.

I also had a number of talks with both Joe Weider, publisher of Muscle and Fitness, and Peary Rader of IronMan. Weider did not ignore Jones. Instead, he printed a six-part series of articles denigrating Nautilus machines, claiming they were: too expensive, not based on scientific principles, the cause of injuries, and unproductive in building muscular size and strength. Rader, on the other hand, promoted Jones and Nautilus in almost each issue of IronMan for several years. Some people believe that Jones's hard-hitting articles, and IronMan's increasing sales on the newsstands, probably kept the magazine profitable during some bleak times.

None of these magazine publishers, however, had the comprehensive grasp of physiology, nor the overall wisdom and focus, that Jones possessed. Jones had personally experienced the power of harder and briefer exercising ? Hoffman, Weider, and Rader hadn't.

To those people who feel like Arthur only pushed one-set training because it made it easier for him to sell his Nautilus machines, they are badly mistaken. In the early 1970s, Jones could have sold more equipment by promoting multiple sets.

For example, if he had said, "The only problem with Nautilus equipment is that instead of doing the standard three sets per exercise, you must to do six sets," I guarantee he would have sold a lot more machines by feeding the gyms and trainees exactly what they wanted to hear: more is better!

Jones, by going against the grain, chose one of the most difficult ways to market his machines. Why did he do that? It didn't have anything to do with selling. He did it because that's what produced the best muscle-building results.

Arthur never used the acronym HIT, but he certainly pushed "high-intensity training" ? repeatedly. And he was always talking about going to failure ? where you couldn't lift the weight another fraction of an inch, despite your utmost effort.

I went to work for Jones in 1973. I had already proved to myself from my training at Florida State University in 1970-1972 that his concepts worked better than did multiple sets. I definitely wanted to help him promote Nautilus.

Arthur always encouraged me to write about strength training. In one of my articles in 1974, I first used the guideline of 2-seconds up and 4-seconds down. It seemed like a reasonable rule, since many of our workouts centered on emphasizing the negative. In 1977, that same concept was promoted in a small book of mine entitled "Strength-Training Principles" and three years later in the bestselling "The Nautilus Book."

Today, more than 25 years after the 2-up and 4-down concept was introduced, I see it referred to almost every day in Internet fitness discussions ? which is an indication of how thoroughly the Nautilus/HIT philosophy influenced the strength-training world in the 1970s.


Ken Hutchins and SuperSlow

In the mid-1970s, Ken Hutchins entered the picture.

Ken and I grew up in the same small town of Conroe, Texas. When I moved to Tallahassee, Florida in 1968 to enter graduate school at FSU, I sold Ken all my strength-training equipment ? which consisted of four long bars and two sets of dumbbells, a bench, and 600 pounds of iron plates. Seven years later, Ken joined me in at the Nautilus headquarters in Lake Helen, Florida, and lugged all that equipment with him. Interestingly, it was promptly stolen from a training room in Daytona Beach. Probably somewhere in Daytona Beach today, someone is still lifting my old barbells and dumbbells.

Arthur Jones frequently stressed "proper form," but he really didn't get into the minute details of how to do each repetition of each machine. Ken and I both noted Arthur's lack of detail. Consequently, Ken devoted many years to exploring the finer points of speed of movement and inroad.

In 1982, Hutchins officially started calling his deliberate style of lifting and lowering ? SuperSlow. In his 200-page book, "SuperSlow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol," published in 1989, you can learn why and how he organized his system of strength training. The manual is as much of a Ken Hutchins's search for meaning in life, as it is a dissertation on proper form.

As I mentioned earlier, at Nautilus in the 1970s, we used the concept of 2-seconds up and 4-seconds down as a general training guideline to follow on most Nautilus machine repetitions. This guideline worked well on paper. But in practice, 2 seconds translated by most fitness-minded people meant 1 second ? and 4 seconds meant about 1-1/2 seconds. We realized that you had to monitor trainees very carefully for 2 up and 4 down to be meaningfully smooth and slow.

Even with careful supervision, Hutchins found that most elderly people had problems getting the hang of how to perform a repetition correctly. Only when the speed of movement was significantly slowed, did they finally grasp the finer details.

Ken's original slow guideline of 10-seconds up and 4-seconds down worked best with the older Nautilus machines, which contained bushings. These bushings added enough friction to the movement that a negative phase of longer than 4 seconds could actually be used as a crutch to make the exercise easier. That's why the negative phase was so much shorter than the positive. As Nautilus, MedX, and other equipment companies started using frictionless bearings in their machines, Ken modified his repetition protocol to the current standard: 10-seconds up (positive) and 10-seconds down (negative).

Since 1984, I've applied Ken's SuperSlow-repetition rule in most of my studies and books. As a result, my average trainee has received approximately 30 percent better strength-building results than the average trainee accomplished prior to 1984 using the 2-seconds up and 4-seconds down guideline.

Today, I recommend that anyone who is serious about strength training ? and particularly if there's a problem with form ? undergo at least six weeks of SuperSlow training. If you can get your instruction directly from Ken Hutchins, or one of his master-certified trainers, then so much the better. After six weeks of such concentrated effort, you will never go back to the slamming, banging, and jerking of the weight, that is so prevalent in most gyms and fitness centers. There is no better way to comprehend the physics of human movement and the importance of controlled repetitions than with the SuperSlow philosophy.


My Personal Workout

As I've explained previously on this web site, I'm not a super-strict practitioner of SuperSlow during my own workouts. But all my training is done slowly, with emphasis on being smooth. I haven't performed a fast, explosive repetition in more than 15 years.

My routine consists of one set of eight exercises. David Landau, a certified SuperSlow trainer, watched me workout on April 23, 2000, and he'll note that most of my repetitions were in the 6- to 8-second range on both the positive and negative. I could have improved on some repetitions, and maybe I could have gotten another quarter rep on one or two exercises, but generally, at 56 years of age, I'm okay with my condition.

Occasionally, I do negative chins or dips, as well as extremely slow repetitions on the leg extension and leg curl (see my article in Issue 4 of Classic X). On some short-range exercises ? such as the wrist curl and the calf raise ? I often use a cadence of 4 up and 4 down.

Basically, I'm content with an intensity level of 8 or 9 on a 10-point scale. I believe I can maintain my strength at such a level of effort. My goals, today, are a little different that they were 30 years ago. Then, I wanted to get as big and as strong as possible, so I would've concentrated more on maximum intensity.

Concerning frequency, I've practiced almost all the variations. My personal favorite is alternating between three times per week and twice a week. For the last three months, I've been on a Wednesday/Sunday schedule. I've tried training only once a week, but for me personally, it's never proved as productive as have two or three times per week.

Furthermore, when you're dealing with individuals who are trying to lose fat, exercising them three days a week is more motivational than is resorting to twice or one day per week. Don't underestimate the advantage of staying motivated. Three days per week also provides clients more time to ask those ever-changing questions about dieting ? which, if not answered promptly, can sabotage overall fat loss.


Internet Browsing

A few comments are in order concerning some of the misinformation that crops up on the Internet.

Does HIT work? Yes, it works. And not only for 6- or 12-week programs, but for years. To continue to make progress after approximately six months, however, you've got to know how to juggle properly the exercises and the techniques. The old style of HIT, as promoted in the 1970s, definitely needs more attention devoted to proper form (which is a strong point of SuperSlow). And the frequency issue needs to be explored comprehensively and updated, which I plan to do soon on Classic X.

Does SuperSlow produce better results than HIT? SuperSlow began as a subset of HIT. SuperSlow has the potential to produce better results because it's more precise, more thorough, and safer. For maximum results, however, you've got to know how to combine SuperSlow with HIT. If you're not prepared, you can get bogged down on some of the overall SuperSlow philosophy, as opposed to repetition protocol. That's why experience ? experience with training hundreds and hundreds of subjects ? becomes so valuable.

Are HIT and SuperSlow for everyone? Of course not. It takes a person who has above-average discipline in his or her life. But I'll tell you something that I've gleaned from personally training people in Waco, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Lake Helen, Dallas, Gainesville, and Celebration:

Many people (more than you probably believe) are not undisciplined and lazy by choice. If they are given simple, decisive instruction, they will train intensely.

Many people, if provided with specific directions and menus, will drastically alter their eating habits.

Most of the above people, however, will do neither of these challenging tasks for more than two weeks ? unless they quickly see and feel changes in their body.

Unless you are dealing almost exclusively with genetically gifted individuals, and few of us are, then you must get your clients to be concerned equally with their dietary calories to produce reasonably fast results. And that includes both losing fat and building muscle.

Many of the HIT and SuperSlow devotees, in my opinion, have failed to apply dietary restrictions in their own personal lives. Overfat trainers project less power over their clients that do lean trainers. I wish the groups as a whole would apply the same attention to detail to their eating as they do with their exercising.

Come on guys, give it some serious thought. You're all logical thinkers, or you wouldn't have been attracted to HIT and SuperSlow in the first place.


Motivating People

How do you motivate people to apply themselves? There's certainly more than one way to motivate.

Witness what has been going on recently at Indiana University with basketball coach, Bobby Knight. Knight has a hugely successful won-loss record ? and he uses intimidation as his primary tactic of motivation. His coaching career, however, is on the chopping block because of it. Yet, dozens of other coaches ? such as Vince Lombardi, Bear Bryant, Steve Spurrier ? have used it and are still using it. I've also seen Arthur Jones apply intimidation very effectively many times in training bodybuilders.

But there's also a flip side that's equally effective. It's more sympathetic, positive, and nurturing. Bobby Bowden of the FSU football team is an example of this style, as was John Wooden, the retired basketball coach of those championship UCLA teams.

A charismatic individual can employ either style, or almost any other technique. The key is that the coach, trainer, or instructor must project a secure belief in what he is doing ? and he must get this feeling across to his followers.

If HIT and SuperSlow have failed to capture a large audience, then it's our own fault. That's right ? you, me, and other enthusiasts are a big part of the problem. We're all guilty. But we certainly have plenty of ammunition available to feed our cause and our belief. Why don't we unit and get our acts together?


What You See Is What You Believe

Recently, on the Serious Strength web site, Danny Thompson, who was a personal trainer for many years in Gainesville, Florida, wrote that there was a lot of proof that showed SuperSlow and HIT have failed. And where was that proof? In the form of all those great bodies in gyms and fitness centers across the country ? those good-looking bodies which were produced with multiple sets, aerobics, and other more-is-better methods.

The HIT and SuperSlow groups, Danny noted, "Just don't look like fit people overall."

I recognize where Thompson is coming from. But I also understand that much of the reason these groups (as a whole) don't have that overall fitness look has to do with laxity in dieting. They are simply too fat. Many of the members may have a superior amount of muscle on their bodies, but you'd never know it at a glance because the muscle is hidden by a layer of subcutaneous fat.

Once again, the answer, at least a large portion of it, involves applying the same attention to eating that you use in exercising.


A Challenge:
The Head Leads and the Body Follows

HIT and SuperSlow followers are after the same thing: better results from strength training. No one group has all the answers. Both groups can learn and profit from the other.

In my opinion, HIT and SuperSlow ? working together ? provide the best approach to strength training. But it's going to take more than facts, guidelines, and muscles to get the job done. We're going to have to say YES to eating less.

It takes a sharp mind to master proper strength training. It takes an equally sharp mind to adhere consistently to a lower-calorie diet. HIT and SuperSlow practitioners should be able to transfer successfully the discipline required from one to the other.

Effective dieting begins in your head. It continues there, too. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Come on HIT and SuperSlow enthusiasts. You've displayed your old-style body too long. Bulk is out. Lean and defined are in. Let's give the overfat and out-of-shape masses something else to admire: strong bodies that not only are efficiently fit ? but look it. Then, they'll be more willing to apply and accept our philosophy.

Let's move into action ? ASAP!
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

MarkandSpike,

thanks for posting that article - Dr. Darden is a great writer.

regards

Nick
Open User Options Menu

spud

http://www.i-a-r-t.com/...%20movement.pdf

This is an interesting study. I don't know if any of you rate it.

It appears that the diffrence between 2/4 and 5/5 is pretty small.

The difference between 5/5 and 10/10 isn't really worth talking about.

I would say, with regards to slow reps, any slower than 5/5 and you aren't really gaining anything more with regards to safety and muscular loading. It is a point, after which, you get diminishing returns.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

spud wrote:
http://www.i-a-r-t.com/...%20movement.pdf

This is an interesting study. I don't know if any of you rate it.

It appears that the diffrence between 2/4 and 5/5 is pretty small.

The difference between 5/5 and 10/10 isn't really worth talking about.

I would say, with regards to slow reps, any slower than 5/5 and you aren't really gaining anything more with regards to safety and muscular loading. It is a point, after which, you get diminishing returns.


I discussed Brian's force gauge studies with several professional engineers, and all of them corroborated his results with mathematical models. There is no significant difference between 2/4 and 10/10, and almost no difference at all between 5/5 and 10/10. There are some instances where it may be beneficial to move as slowly as 10/10, but this is not necessary for the majority of people. As long as you're moving slowly enough that you're not throwing the weight and are able to reverse direction in a controlled manner, you're moving slowly enough. When in doubt about the proper speed of movement, it's better to move too slowly than too quickly, as Arthur says, but don't get carried away.

10/10 is actually LESS intense than the standard protocol. It might feel harder, but a simple experiment will show it to be easier.

Perform an exercise using a 2/2 cadence to positive failure with good form, recording the time. Wait an hour (so fatigue is less of a factor) then perform the exercise again with the same weight using a 10/10 cadence. Most people who do this end up getting 40 to 50 percent more time with the 10/10 set, showing that SuperSlow reps inroad the muscles less efficiently. In fact, I believe this is the only reason the SS subjects in Westcott's research increased their weights more than the 2/4 group - it was because the 10/10 reps made the sets easier, enabling the subjects to use more weight, and NOT because it made them significantly stronger than the 2/4 group. Westcott standardized the groups TUL, so that both groups averaged around 70 seconds. Considering that one can either perform longer with a set weight, or perform with more weight for a set time using SS because it's easier, the results are worthless. I believe that static testing would have shown either similar or lower strength increases for the SS group. In ALL other studies comparing SS to traditional rep speeds, SS performed dismally.

Unless you are an osteoporotic 80-year old woman or someone with an injury or condition requiring every extra measure of caution possible, there is neither a need nor a benefit to moving that slowly during exercise.
Open User Options Menu

chaire

North Carolina, USA

Drew,
What speed do you think is best for negative only?
God Bless,
Charlie
Open User Options Menu

therealto

As far as rep speed goes, I think it should vary according the the exercise you are doing. For instance if you are using the Nautilus Pullover a speed of 7-10 seconds on the positive, and 7-10 seconds on the negative is pretty easy to do because there is a large range of motion there. Now for a Incline Dumbbell Press there is a smaller range of motion so a speed of 3-5 up, and 3-5 down might be better. I don't think there should be one universal speed because everyone does things a little bit different when it comes to HIT forms of training.

Now as far as who developed HIT, or Slow Training, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Dr. Ben Bocchicchio because he started the whole idea of lifting slow. Ken Hutchins worked with him, and then stole the name Superslow and got a Copyright on it before Dr. Ben could. Dr. Ben worked with Arthur Jones basically from the start down in Florida. Benny is from Long Island and trained using the Nautilus approach, and then got hooked up with Jones, and kind of tweaked it, and then Hutchins came in, and stole everything. Dr. Ben is still training the HIT sytle out in Phoenix Arizona, and he calls it F.I.R.S.T. Focused Intensity Resistance Slow Training. I'm certified through him, and he got me to where I am today. I've been a personal trainer for 4 years now, and I've used the HIT form that entire time. There isn't another form of training that I would like to use.

Has anyone ever heard of him? Just curious because he is basically the founder.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Don't confuse speed with cadence, or speed with velocity. A 'speed of 10/10' does not make any sense. I'm being picky, as some are with my inappropriate terms within the math industry. Therefore, don't take any offense.

Brian D. Johnston
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

chaire wrote:
Drew,
What speed do you think is best for negative only?
God Bless,
Charlie


I believe one should be somewhat more conservative with rep speed during negative only and negative accentuated training due to the greater load used and greater potential of injury. A complete discussion of the reasons would require more time than I have at the moment, but I would not recommend anything less than 4 seconds, and probably closer to 8.

Part of the problem with slower reps performed in a regular positive/negative fashion is that the more metabolically efficient negative results in longer continuous periods during which the muscle isn't working as hard. With negative only, this is not a problem, so a slower cadence may not reduce the effectiveness much.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

logicbdj wrote:
Don't confuse speed with cadence, or speed with velocity. A 'speed of 10/10' does not make any sense. I'm being picky, as some are with my inappropriate terms within the math industry. Therefore, don't take any offense.

Brian D. Johnston


Brian's right. Technically, we should be using the term "cadence" rather than speed. The person who suggested different cadences for different exercises is also correct. There is a huge difference in the range of motion (degrees of rotation) in a full range pullover and a calf raise, for example.

Most people who recommend specific cadences are aware of this, but feel that a single recommendation is easier for teaching purposes, and note that very short and long range exercises require less or more time.

I believe a range of 2 to 4 seconds during the positive and negative is adequate for the majority of exercises, but I think it is important for progress evaluation to be relatively consistent with the speed used for particular exercises from workout to workout. What might be a good idea would be to measure the degrees of rotation involved in various exercises, and divide exercises into ranges based on these. Then recommend a maximum acceptable angular velocity which could be translated into specific cadences for exercises falling into the short, medium, and long range categories.

Of course, individual ROMs vary, and there will be exceptions for a variety of reasons, but this might be a simple system for doing so.

I have a few books on Kinesiology which contain the average ROMs for various joint movements. Perhaps I'll put together a table with recommended cadences based on this.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

therealto wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of him? Just curious because he is basically the founder.


Having only heard Ken's side of the story, I'm not going to comment on some of this, but it is a fact that Dr. Bocchicchio suggested the 10/10 speed to Ken. It is not true, however, that Dr. Bocchicchio was the first person to use very slow movements during exercise. Exercise/physical culture historian David Landau would be the best person to ask about this, but I'm quite certain that very slow rep speeds were used by others at various times long before Vince or Ken came around.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Drew Baye wrote:
spud wrote:
http://www.i-a-r-t.com/...%20movement.pdf

This is an interesting study. I don't know if any of you rate it.

It appears that the diffrence between 2/4 and 5/5 is pretty small.

The difference between 5/5 and 10/10 isn't really worth talking about.

I would say, with regards to slow reps, any slower than 5/5 and you aren't really gaining anything more with regards to safety and muscular loading. It is a point, after which, you get diminishing returns.

I discussed Brian's force gauge studies with several professional engineers, and all of them corroborated his results with mathematical models. There is no significant difference between 2/4 and 10/10, and almost no difference at all between 5/5 and 10/10. There are some instances where it may be beneficial to move as slowly as 10/10, but this is not necessary for the majority of people. As long as you're moving slowly enough that you're not throwing the weight and are able to reverse direction in a controlled manner, you're moving slowly enough. When in doubt about the proper speed of movement, it's better to move too slowly than too quickly, as Arthur says, but don't get carried away.

10/10 is actually LESS intense than the standard protocol. It might feel harder, but a simple experiment will show it to be easier.

Perform an exercise using a 2/2 cadence to positive failure with good form, recording the time. Wait an hour (so fatigue is less of a factor) then perform the exercise again with the same weight using a 10/10 cadence. Most people who do this end up getting 40 to 50 percent more time with the 10/10 set, showing that SuperSlow reps inroad the muscles less efficiently. In fact, I believe this is the only reason the SS subjects in Westcott's research increased their weights more than the 2/4 group - it was because the 10/10 reps made the sets easier, enabling the subjects to use more weight, and NOT because it made them significantly stronger than the 2/4 group. Westcott standardized the groups TUL, so that both groups averaged around 70 seconds. Considering that one can either perform longer with a set weight, or perform with more weight for a set time using SS because it's easier, the results are worthless. I believe that static testing would have shown either similar or lower strength increases for the SS group. In ALL other studies comparing SS to traditional rep speeds, SS performed dismally.

Unless you are an osteoporotic 80-year old woman or someone with an injury or condition requiring every extra measure of caution possible, there is neither a need nor a benefit to moving that slowly during exercise.



--So, let's say we take the barbell curl, perform 6 reps with 100 pounds in 2/2 = 24sec, an hour later we're able to perform 2 superslow reps with those 100 pounds = 40sec.

I think you can't compare those two sets, because with regular cadence you have to pass the sticking point 6 times in the postive portion, while with superslow it's only 2 times, doesn't this make the regular speed curl a totally different one from the superslow speed curl?

Concerning this point the regular speed curl is definitely harder.

At least, if we're comparing barbell exercises, such as the squat and the curl.


And if it's true, that nearly everyone gets for example those 2 superslow reps with 100 pounds an hour later, after the regular speed curl, why does nearly everyone has to reduce his weights when changing from regular speed to superslow?





Open User Options Menu

SB2006

Very slow reps were mentioned in a WW2 era Strength and Health for those who were unable to obtain enough weight due to the wartime iron shortage. There was also a great S&H article (1944) on manual resistance training.
Open User Options Menu

tylerg

What are our thoughts on a 1 (one) second positive? To hear this initially sounds fast but to use it with a heavy weight isn't really as fast as it seems (all terms being equal).

I have begun using a 1/4 cadence, lifting as fast as possible with a heavy weight, slowing down at the top and bottoom of the movement so as to eliminate momentum, at least as much as is possible. I have found with heavy weights that there isn't much momentum to be found.

Has anyone else tried this? If so, what are the results?

Any other thoughts?

Tyler
Open User Options Menu

SanSooMan

Dr. Kellogg of Kellogg's cereal recommended a 10/10 set back during the Civil War I believe. He taught weight training in the sanitarium to "head cases" like me. Guess you have to be crazy to do SuperSlow.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

henry_bordeaux wrote:

And if it's true, that nearly everyone gets for example those 2 superslow reps with 100 pounds an hour later, after the regular speed curl, why does nearly everyone has to reduce his weights when changing from regular speed to superslow?



Because when most people switch from regular speed reps to SuperSlow, they also tend to go from a regular TUL to a very long one. Ken Hutchins is currently recommending a ridiculously long 100 to 180 second TUL. Of course, if you're going to be performing an exercise for almost two to three minutes, you're going to have to reduce the weight from what you'd use for normal reps for a minute or less.
Open User Options Menu

NATUREBOY

So, bottom line - which is better?

I have been doing mostly 10 second reps (5/5 or 4/2/4, depending on the exercise) since mid-February and I have been getting weaker with each session.

I was thinking of switching to 5 second reps - 2/3 - and upping the reps until I get the 40-60 TUL.

Thoughts?
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

NATUREBOY wrote:
So, bottom line - which is better?

I have been doing mostly 10 second reps (5/5 or 4/2/4, depending on the exercise) since mid-February and I have been getting weaker with each session.

I was thinking of switching to 5 second reps - 2/3 - and upping the reps until I get the 40-60 TUL.

Thoughts?


Aren't you on a fatloss diet?
May be very well that you do too much sets. I found it's better to reduce volume while being on fatloss (short term for me that is as I don't have excessive fat in general).
I did quite well with the Hudlow Phase 1 routine of 5exercises only, done 2-3times per week.
I suspect you to be overtrained quite a bit. To get weaker can't be explained otherwise, at least not with cadence.

Thus said, I mainly go with 2/4 to 3/5 for most exercises(depending on ROM too).
Squat and SLDL I prefer more uniform 3/3-4/4, as well as with shrug, calf raise (3/3).
It's already more like a natural thing for me, means I'm not concentrating on cadence but on lifting smooth and controlled and lower with even more focus. I just count reps and check myself from time to time for TUL to see if I'm still on track.

Franco





Open User Options Menu

spud

NATUREBOY wrote:
So, bottom line - which is better?

I have been doing mostly 10 second reps (5/5 or 4/2/4, depending on the exercise) since mid-February and I have been getting weaker with each session.

I was thinking of switching to 5 second reps - 2/3 - and upping the reps until I get the 40-60 TUL.

Thoughts?


My thoughts?

Be careful here.

Don't fall into the trap of blaming the fact you are getting weaker on rep speed alone. I am sure that you realize there are many other variables that could be responsible for your regression.

Number of sets for certain exercises, TUL for certain exercises, number of sets per muscle group, TUL per muscle group, overall volume of sets, use of intensity enhancing techniques, training to or even beyond concentric failure, frequency of training.

Then there are the "outside factors" such as diet, whether that means macro nutrient split, overall calorie intake, pre workout and post workout nutrition, or perhaps quantity and quality of sleep.

Stress? Pressure at home or at work? Illness?

I doubt that simply changing from 5/5 to 2/3 or even 2/4 to 2/3 will make any difference.

Provided you don't have a TUL of higher than 90 seconds you should be okay. Anything higher than that is too much.

I do remember you saying on another thread that you train to isometric failure on most exercises as opposed to just concentric failure.

You stated ?I go until I can no longer contract against the weight; to the point which the weight automatically begins to decline, not when I decide to lower it.?

Do you think that this extra effort on every set is what is killing your progress? I am not saying you should switch to NTF workouts. Just give it 5-10 seconds of effort at the end of every set and then quit. If the weight hasn't budged within 5-10 seconds it probably isn't going to.

Do you count this period of static exertion when calculating your TUL?
Open User Options Menu

ryansergent

Kansas, USA

spud wrote:
NATUREBOY wrote:
So, bottom line - which is better?

I have been doing mostly 10 second reps (5/5 or 4/2/4, depending on the exercise) since mid-February and I have been getting weaker with each session.

I was thinking of switching to 5 second reps - 2/3 - and upping the reps until I get the 40-60 TUL.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

Be careful here.

Don't fall into the trap of blaming the fact you are getting weaker on rep speed alone. I am sure that you realize there are many other variables that could be responsible for your regression.

Number of sets for certain exercises, TUL for certain exercises, number of sets per muscle group, TUL per muscle group, overall volume of sets, use of intensity enhancing techniques, training to or even beyond concentric failure, frequency of training.

Then there are the "outside factors" such as diet, whether that means macro nutrient split, overall calorie intake, pre workout and post workout nutrition, or perhaps quantity and quality of sleep.

Stress? Pressure at home or at work? Illness?

I doubt that simply changing from 5/5 to 2/3 or even 2/4 to 2/3 will make any difference.

Provided you don't have a TUL of higher than 90 seconds you should be okay. Anything higher than that is too much.

I do remember you saying on another thread that you train to isometric failure on most exercises as opposed to just concentric failure.

You stated ?I go until I can no longer contract against the weight; to the point which the weight automatically begins to decline, not when I decide to lower it.?

Do you think that this extra effort on every set is what is killing your progress? I am not saying you should switch to NTF workouts. Just give it 5-10 seconds of effort at the end of every set and then quit. If the weight hasn't budged within 5-10 seconds it probably isn't going to.

Do you count this period of static exertion when calculating your TUL?


I read a study that pointed to Isometric failure as the main culprit that fries the CNS. I'll dig it up if your interested.

Ryan
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy