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
Slow Training
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

SteveHIT

www.irontruth.co.uk/slowtraining.html
Open User Options Menu

BeauMann

Iowa, USA

SteveHIT wrote:
www.irontruth.co.uk/slowtraining.html


Interesting read,

But...how does 2-4 min TUT sets constitute huge strength gains. Doesn't that go against the 30-90 second anaerobic pathway rule of muscle physiology?

BeauMann

Open User Options Menu

Turpin

SteveHIT wrote:
http://www.irontruth.co.uk/...ng.html




Interesting read Steve ( although Im no advocate of `slow cadence` ).

The site in general is very informative , with lots of interesting articles & videos.

Best wishes , T.
Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

BeauMann wrote:
SteveHIT wrote:
www.irontruth.co.uk/slowtraining.html

Interesting read,

But...how does 2-4 min TUT sets constitute huge strength gains. Doesn't that go against the 30-90 second anaerobic pathway rule of muscle physiology?

BeauMann




I got the biggest power increases in the legs when the sets was about 5 minutes long.I did leg extensions SS/W leg press,about 20 or more reps in both with 4/4 cadence.Then later i tried smith-squats and strength gain was remarkable after four such workout.Rarely have I been feeling so strong.But I stopped them because I was so full of lactic acid in that it began to drain from the nose, though I was training too often.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

BeauMann wrote:
SteveHIT wrote:
www.irontruth.co.uk/slowtraining.html

Interesting read,

But...how does 2-4 min TUT sets constitute huge strength gains. Doesn't that go against the 30-90 second anaerobic pathway rule of muscle physiology?

BeauMann



==Scott==
I've always wondered about this so called rule of 30--90 seconds as the optimum time a set should last? Do we really know that that is fact ?? Does the muscle really have a clock or something going in it that shuts down the fast twitch fibers when you go past a certain time in a set??
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
Good article by Drew.Many of the reasons I tried and am interested in slow training. Unfortunately I saw little in the way of actual gains the 4 months or so that I was doing slow but to be honest I really don't know what I'm doing and I haven't shown much in the way of gains lately no matter what I have done.Like he did I'm sort of going back to my latter way of training for a while to see how it compares now. I don't do what is considered explosive, I just go up as fast as I can safely and slightly slower on the way down.
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

That article was originally featured in Hard Gainer many years ago, I think Drew was originally influanced by Jamie Le Belle who was also one of Dr Ken's crew and also became a big advocate of slow reps..
Open User Options Menu

chasbari

Ohio, USA

entsminger wrote:

==Scott==
I've always wondered about this so called rule of 30--90 seconds as the optimum time a set should last? Do we really know that that is fact ?? Does the muscle really have a clock or something going in it that shuts down the fast twitch fibers when you go past a certain time in a set??


Once you enter the window of sustained anaerobic loading the duration of that anaerobic function may be in the 30-90 second window. that doesn't mean that you enter that window at the immediate onset of work. That's why the breathing as an indicator of entering this zone is a good clue.

It is possible to cross over from aerobic based energy utilization into this anaerobic zone several minutes into a set. I cannot find my citation at present but have read of studies that showed this happening at the end of extreme endurance studies where the shift happened as much as forty minutes in. There is much that is not fully and accurately understood about this when someone claims that the working set duration has to be within this time frame only.
Open User Options Menu

Terry McCann

Good article. Thanks for posting.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

chasbari wrote:
entsminger wrote:

==Scott==
I've always wondered about this so called rule of 30--90 seconds as the optimum time a set should last? Do we really know that that is fact ?? Does the muscle really have a clock or something going in it that shuts down the fast twitch fibers when you go past a certain time in a set??

Once you enter the window of sustained anaerobic loading the duration of that anaerobic function may be in the 30-90 second window. that doesn't mean that you enter that window at the immediate onset of work. It is possible to cross over from aerobic based energy utilization into this anaerobic zone several minutes into a set.

chasbari,
This is a very interesting idea but what you suggest is contrary to my experiences and observations:

For example, given an exercise where I perform two warmup sets before tackling the heaviest load I can handle for a RM attempt, I may use a very light warmup weight for the first set and an intermediate warmup weight for the second set, but short of only lifting the bar there is NO WAY these very easy underloaded warmup sets are not consuming substrate, could be classified as aerobic.

I'm not saying there is not some crossover but after that 2nd warmup set if I don't wait a good 5-7 minutes I don't get commensurate performance in the working set on account of not having waited for the glycogen and ATP to regenerate.

The krebs cycle is not a barrier to be broken like this; it's possible with enough creatine athletes can push out another 15 seconds of intensity in the set but I think no one is lifting for 7 minutes and then suddenly it becomes anaerobic in any applicable context outside of intermittenly walking and running and the latter is distinctly anaerobic, does not transition over time. I'd like to hear your reasoning to the contrary.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

chasbari wrote:
entsminger wrote:

==Scott==
I've always wondered about this so called rule of 30--90 seconds as the optimum time a set should last? Do we really know that that is fact ?? Does the muscle really have a clock or something going in it that shuts down the fast twitch fibers when you go past a certain time in a set??

Once you enter the window of sustained anaerobic loading the duration of that anaerobic function may be in the 30-90 second window. that doesn't mean that you enter that window at the immediate onset of work. That's why the breathing as an indicator of entering this zone is a good clue.

It is possible to cross over from aerobic based energy utilization into this anaerobic zone several minutes into a set. I cannot find my citation at present but have read of studies that showed this happening at the end of extreme endurance studies where the shift happened as much as forty minutes in. There is much that is not fully and accurately understood about this when someone claims that the working set duration has to be within this time frame only.


==Scott==
I sort of figured as such. It never made sense to me that there was this small window of productivity and anything out of that was a waste.

Not that this is really relevant but I remember way back when I was a kid at School our gym teacher asked me to pick a fairly light weight on the pulldown and see how many reps I could do on it. He picked a weight which was way below my max and said to just keep going until I couldn't move the bar. I being the expert that I thought I was thought what a waste of time this would be and I said I could go on all day with this weight.

Well after about 150 reps or so I finally couldn't budge the bar. I was exhausted. My lats and other related muscles have never been more sore.I could barely move my arms for a week, ha ha. It was well out of the box of sanity of a normal set but boy did it work those muscles hard.
Open User Options Menu

BeauMann

Iowa, USA

Maybe I has something to do with the accumulative byproducts of fatigue. Which some might say is most responsible for muscle growth.

BeauMann
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Good Stuff!

i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.

Open User Options Menu

jastrain

chasbari wrote:
entsminger wrote:

==Scott==
I've always wondered about this so called rule of 30--90 seconds as the optimum time a set should last? Do we really know that that is fact ?? Does the muscle really have a clock or something going in it that shuts down the fast twitch fibers when you go past a certain time in a set??

Once you enter the window of sustained anaerobic loading the duration of that anaerobic function may be in the 30-90 second window. that doesn't mean that you enter that window at the immediate onset of work. That's why the breathing as an indicator of entering this zone is a good clue.

It is possible to cross over from aerobic based energy utilization into this anaerobic zone several minutes into a set. I cannot find my citation at present but have read of studies that showed this happening at the end of extreme endurance studies where the shift happened as much as forty minutes in. There is much that is not fully and accurately understood about this when someone claims that the working set duration has to be within this time frame only.


Open User Options Menu

deletedac

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Good Stuff!

i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.



Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

huntdonnie70 wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Good Stuff!

i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.



I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.



The workout is the test and the test is the workout.

anything else is a good way to get hurt.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
...i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.


huntdonnie70 wrote:
I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.


If you read the article guys, you'll see he's not prescribing 'test your strength' as in "How much can you bench?".

He's just suggesting a gradual return to one's former faster rep speeds and workout poundages (or a bit more) to see how you rate against your previous, albeit sloppier, performance.

Doing this 'cold', as many do their HIT workouts, would obviously be a BIG mistake. Smartly done, this would include ramping-up in a series of 2-3 warm-up sets.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

deletedac

simon-hecubus wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
...i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.


huntdonnie70 wrote:
I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.

If you read the article guys, you'll see he's not prescribing 'test your strength' as in "How much can you bench?".

He's just suggesting a gradual return to one's former faster rep speeds and workout poundages (or a bit more) to see how you rate against your previous, albeit sloppier, performance.

Doing this 'cold', as many do their HIT workouts, would obviously be a BIG mistake. Smartly done, this would include ramping-up in a series of 2-3 warm-up sets.

Scott


Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

huntdonnie70 wrote:
Maybe I didn't get the gist of what he was saying. I was thinking that anyone reading the article and this, that is new to strength training, may benefit from not messing with looser form in the first place.


There's something to be said for that. However, "loose" form is a relative term.

What form were you using before you did Slow Reps? (that is if you're indeed doing them these days)

What rep speed were you using before you went into HIT?

When I first read Mentzer's work in the late 70s and early 80s, he was still a strong proponent of employing a myotatic stretch directly before the bottom of a rep, so as to get a strong rebound for the way up.

Again, it's all relative.

IF one had been training with loose form before embarking on Slow Reps w/o appreciable injury, it certainly wouldn't hurt to return there again for a short period to gauge progress. I'm all for safety, but there's no need to be an overprotective-mother-with-her-first-child about it.

OR NOT --- simply go to Slow Reps and never look back, using sight and touch to perceive how well you're doing.

Really it's just an idea and nothing to get up-in-arms about.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
...i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.


huntdonnie70 wrote:
I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.

If you read the article guys, you'll see he's not prescribing 'test your strength' as in "How much can you bench?".

He's just suggesting a gradual return to one's former faster rep speeds and workout poundages (or a bit more) to see how you rate against your previous, albeit sloppier, performance.

Doing this 'cold', as many do their HIT workouts, would obviously be a BIG mistake. Smartly done, this would include ramping-up in a series of 2-3 warm-up sets.

Scott


Scott is correct and anyone who trains with purposely slowed reps will decondition themselves to the higher forces of full effort reps.

It is never wise to attempt same without adequate preconditioning periods and warm-ups.

Open User Options Menu

deletedac

simon-hecubus wrote:
huntdonnie70 wrote:
Maybe I didn't get the gist of what he was saying. I was thinking that anyone reading the article and this, that is new to strength training, may benefit from not messing with looser form in the first place.

There's something to be said for that. However, "loose" form is a realtive term.

What form were you using before you did Slow Reps? (that is if you're indeed doing them)

What rep speed were you using beofre you went into HIT?

When I first read Mentzer's work in the late 70s and early 80s, he was still a strong proponent of employing a myotatic stretch directly before the bottom of a rep, so as to get a strong rebound for the way up.

Again, it's all relative.

IF one had been training with loose form before embarking on SR w/o appreciable injury, it certainly wouldn't hurt to return there again for a short period to gauge progress. I'm all for safety, but there's no need to be an overprotective-mother-with-her-first-child about it.

OR NOT --- simply go to Slow Reps and never look back, using sight and touch to perceive how well you're doing.

Really it's just an idea and nothing to get up in arms about.

Scott


Open User Options Menu

deletedac

BIO-FORCE wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
...i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.


huntdonnie70 wrote:
I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.

If you read the article guys, you'll see he's not prescribing 'test your strength' as in "How much can you bench?".

He's just suggesting a gradual return to one's former faster rep speeds and workout poundages (or a bit more) to see how you rate against your previous, albeit sloppier, performance.

Doing this 'cold', as many do their HIT workouts, would obviously be a BIG mistake. Smartly done, this would include ramping-up in a series of 2-3 warm-up sets.

Scott

Scott is correct and anyone who trains with purposely slowed reps will decondition themselves to the higher forces of full effort reps.

It is never wise to attempt same without adequate preconditioning periods and warm-ups.



Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

huntdonnie70 wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
...i have been badly injured supposedly "testing my strength" the way he describes in the article.


huntdonnie70 wrote:
I guess I don't see any reason to "test your strength" unless you're a competative lifter.

If you read the article guys, you'll see he's not prescribing 'test your strength' as in "How much can you bench?".

He's just suggesting a gradual return to one's former faster rep speeds and workout poundages (or a bit more) to see how you rate against your previous, albeit sloppier, performance.

Doing this 'cold', as many do their HIT workouts, would obviously be a BIG mistake. Smartly done, this would include ramping-up in a series of 2-3 warm-up sets.

Scott

Scott is correct and anyone who trains with purposely slowed reps will decondition themselves to the higher forces of full effort reps.

It is never wise to attempt same without adequate preconditioning periods and warm-ups.



I get what you're saying about "purposely slowed reps". I'm able to use levels of resistance where I'm kind of forced to move slowly during the concentric on some of the equipment I have access too.


I was not criticizing "purposely slowed" reps, but more recognizing that they reduce certain stresses and high muscle tensions such as the SSC and the Rapid Force Production Rate.

If you have not maintained a condition to that level of force in that ROM, you may be inviting potential injury.

Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

Nice article Steve. I have always enjoyed Isreal's and Bob's articles.
Open User Options Menu

Al Coleman

Ohio, USA

I know Drew Israel(the author).

He is one of the strongest and most giagantic individuals I've ever seen. He is around 6'6 and 300 pounds. Just a big dude.

Hell of a nice guy as well.

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