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
Super-Slow-Your Experiences
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

mentzer's boy

Please your reaction to this training.

Thanks.

Open User Options Menu

larsvonthreat

As I said it several times I got my best result strengthwise using superslow.I used a BBS big 5 once a week.

However I must say that except for chins and dips.If you have subpar machines don't even bother to try it.Friction will annihilate the superslow benefits.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

mentzer's boy wrote:
Please your reaction to this training.

Thanks.




tremendous potential

horribly represented... often misconstrued

rarely performed in a productive manner

requires diScipline

UNCOMFORTABLE

protocol of choice for physical rehabilitation

potentially the ULTIMATE extension of HIT ....

often constrained by circumstances

highly bastardized in the commercial settings i've seen it in

SSZ...SLOWBURN...20MINUTE WORKOUT...BLA..BLA...BLA
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

mentzer's boy wrote:
Please your reaction to this training.

Thanks.




one more.....

.......... INCOMPLETE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

larsvonthreat wrote:
As I said it several times I got my best result strengthwise using superslow.I used a BBS big 5 once a week.

However I must say that except for chins and dips.If you have subpar machines don't even bother to try it.Friction will annihilate the superslow benefits.



"I must say that except for chins and dips.If you have subpar machines don't even bother to try it.Friction will annihilate the superslow benefits"


i agree to a great extent

joshua
Open User Options Menu

iflyboats

I have whole-body arthritis and use SuperSlow to minimize the force on my joints. I do the "Big 5" workout once per week and have been very successful with it.
Open User Options Menu

sonny153

If you've seen my more recent posts, I love it. I use only free weights (thats all I have access to) and I've read Ken Hutchins book "Super Slow" over and over and have been trying to do it in the form he recommends and even under these primitive conditions I've taken my development to the next level. Done properly, its BRUTAL..but it works
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Opinion:

Little or no difference between Super-Slow and other lifting cadences.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

J-son

Worked very well for me. 2 things:

1. After lifting on/Off for 25 years I finaly understod the difference between "beating the weight" and inroad your muscle. Big difference, for me, SS makes that a LOT easier.

2. Training havent been this fun for years. Reason: good improvments, stronger then ever, right focus (inroad).

Ren-Ex is the force behind me looking in to the SS protocol.

I can endorse it for what that is worth.

//Jonas
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

Tony Williams wrote:
Opinion:

Little or no difference between Super-Slow and other lifting cadences.

Tony


Wait til the ultimate extension of Super Slow comes out - Super Duper Slow. Snails use to much momentum in their movement compared to this protocol. It's going to revolutionize weight training. If you're a rich geezer, it was made for you.

Seriously, Super Slow isn't any better than slow protocol. For an example of slow protocol, look at Dr. Darden's 5 minute video at the top of the main page.

Open User Options Menu

jastrain

J-son wrote:
Worked very well for me. 2 things:

1. After lifting on/Off for 25 years I finaly understod the difference between "beating the weight" and inroad your muscle. Big difference, for me, SS makes that a LOT easier.

2. Training havent been this fun for years. Reason: good improvments, stronger then ever, right focus (inroad).

Ren-Ex is the force behind me looking in to the SS protocol.

I can endorse it for what that is worth.

//Jonas


the way josh teaches superslow is a lot different than what it was when it first came out. i had done it for a couple of years on low friction nautilus. but what i discovered was that overtime if you hit your number and raise the weight eventually when you are at the upper limits of you strength you automatically go from purposely slowing the weight [for a 10/10 count] to it being an all out lift.
i then, made the mistake of reducing the weight again to purposely slow it again. this was a mistake and this was what people were doing with this protocol and this was why the results were not that great. it was only when i discovered that if you eliminate the momentum at the turnarounds and push the heaviest weight as hard as you can i really started to grow again--like i had grown when i 1st started nautilus training with the old aj 2/4 rep.
but the superslow [i don't know if you can even call it superslow] done properly, on low friction equipment [the old nautilus without the bearings you could not even go slow on the turnarounds because the friction].this took my body another leap forward
the next leap forward, i believe for me is to keep training like i am now but some how be able to add weight so i could fail in a proper rep range 4-6 rather than 8-10. there really is something to this ft-st fiber thing. i know that on most exercises i will fail at the same rep range regardless of the weight. but if the rep range is correct i will make continued progress for some time. chins and dips are a good example for me. i can do body weight chins and dips and fail in the 7-8 range. i can add weight and still fail in the 7-8 range. so maybe the 7-8 range is too high i should shoot for more weight in the 4-6 range and when i hit 6 add weight. i have done this with machines and i would break records [hit 6/ increase the weight next workout] for many workouts consecutively. the problem is that i cant add anymore weight to the machines that i am using at my gym--but i think i will up the weight on the chins and dips this week--see if i can get 4 and keep trying until i hit 6 i will see how this goes for a while.
conversely if i am in the 8-10 range i usually will fail at 8 even if i reduce the weight i usually fail on the same number [within reason of course 5-10 lbs lighter].
so yes superslow when done properly is the best protocol but it was/is very rare that people will do this properly.
again, it isn't a purposely slowed count to 10. it is a slow turnaround and then you push as hard and fast as is possible [if the weight is set properly [very heavy] you will be moving it slowly even though you are pushing as fast as possible. this will produce results that are like day and night--it is hard to teach in words but when you get the technique you will see the results. also you must have the right rep range for your fiber type. 4-6--in some cases 3reps--but this means the weight must be very very heavy and most machines [low friction machines ] wont have enough weight for an advanced athlete.
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

mentzer's boy wrote:
Please your reaction to this training.

Thanks.



Back in 1988, after being stuck fast at 78kgs for 2 whole years despite my best efforts to exceed it, two weeks on Ell's BIG routine and I was 80kgs!

I became obsessed with S/S... I spoke to it's originator, Ken Hutchins, bought ALL his articles, and first 2 editions of his book, even a nice blue S/S t-shirt...which I wore with pride. Yet nothing after that initial jolt for the next 3 years.

Speaking to Mike about it, he was of the opinion it had limited application, which I tend to agree. From his vast clientele and experimentation he found 4/4 suited a majority of exercises.

Personally I have an aversion to artificial rep tempo's for 2 reasons:

1) Your focus is split between getting the rep tempo down pat, instead of 100% on the exercise or intended muscle/s.

2) If you lift with your muscles, as I have since I started, thanks to Mike's teachings, then you find your own tempo.

I find 2/4 suites most moves. I don't count or anything, I just focus on "lifting" and let the pace fall where it lays.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

jastrain wrote:
J-son wrote:
Worked very well for me. 2 things:

1. After lifting on/Off for 25 years I finaly understod the difference between "beating the weight" and inroad your muscle. Big difference, for me, SS makes that a LOT easier.

2. Training havent been this fun for years. Reason: good improvments, stronger then ever, right focus (inroad).

Ren-Ex is the force behind me looking in to the SS protocol.

I can endorse it for what that is worth.

//Jonas

the way josh teaches superslow is a lot different than what it was when it first came out. i had done it for a couple of years on low friction nautilus. but what i discovered was that overtime if you hit your number and raise the weight eventually when you are at the upper limits of you strength you automatically go from purposely slowing the weight [for a 10/10 count] to it being an all out lift.
i then, made the mistake of reducing the weight again to purposely slow it again. this was a mistake and this was what people were doing with this protocol and this was why the results were not that great. it was only when i discovered that if you eliminate the momentum at the turnarounds and push the heaviest weight as hard as you can i really started to grow again--like i had grown when i 1st started nautilus training with the old aj 2/4 rep.
but the superslow [i don't know if you can even call it superslow] done properly, on low friction equipment [the old nautilus without the bearings you could not even go slow on the turnarounds because the friction].this took my body another leap forward
the next leap forward, i believe for me is to keep training like i am now but some how be able to add weight so i could fail in a proper rep range 4-6 rather than 8-10. there really is something to this ft-st fiber thing. i know that on most exercises i will fail at the same rep range regardless of the weight. but if the rep range is correct i will make continued progress for some time. chins and dips are a good example for me. i can do body weight chins and dips and fail in the 7-8 range. i can add weight and still fail in the 7-8 range. so maybe the 7-8 range is too high i should shoot for more weight in the 4-6 range and when i hit 6 add weight. i have done this with machines and i would break records [hit 6/ increase the weight next workout] for many workouts consecutively. the problem is that i cant add anymore weight to the machines that i am using at my gym--but i think i will up the weight on the chins and dips this week--see if i can get 4 and keep trying until i hit 6 i will see how this goes for a while.
conversely if i am in the 8-10 range i usually will fail at 8 even if i reduce the weight i usually fail on the same number [within reason of course 5-10 lbs lighter].
so yes superslow when done properly is the best protocol but it was/is very rare that people will do this properly.
again, it isn't a purposely slowed count to 10. it is a slow turnaround and then you push as hard and fast as is possible [if the weight is set properly [very heavy] you will be moving it slowly even though you are pushing as fast as possible. this will produce results that are like day and night--it is hard to teach in words but when you get the technique you will see the results. also you must have the right rep range for your fiber type. 4-6--in some cases 3reps--but this means the weight must be very very heavy and most machines [low friction machines ] wont have enough weight for an advanced athlete.



Very nice sir!

IF SuperSlow were about one thing we might say it was "10/10"

IF RenEx were about one thing it would be the "Turn-Arounds"

There is a lot of minutia tied up in here, but that's what we use the technical manual for.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

hdlifter wrote:
mentzer's boy wrote:
Please your reaction to this training.

Thanks.



Back in 1988, after being stuck fast at 78kgs for 2 whole years despite my best efforts to exceed it, two weeks on Ell's BIG routine and I was 80kgs!

I became obsessed with S/S... I spoke to it's originator, Ken Hutchins, bought ALL his articles, and first 2 editions of his book, even a nice blue S/S t-shirt...which I wore with pride. Yet nothing after that initial jolt for the next 3 years.

Speaking to Mike about it, he was of the opinion it had limited application, which I tend to agree. From his vast clientele and experimentation he found 4/4 suited a majority of exercises.

Personally I have an aversion to artificial rep tempo's for 2 reasons:

1) Your focus is split between getting the rep tempo down pat, instead of 100% on the exercise or intended muscle/s.

2) If you lift with your muscles, as I have since I started, thanks to Mike's teachings, then you find your own tempo.

I find 2/4 suites most moves. I don't count or anything, I just focus on "lifting" and let the pace fall where it lays.



To a GREAT extent equipment dictates protocol

Change the equipment ...change the application
Open User Options Menu

larsvonthreat

To me jastrain totally got the point.You don't go purposely slow.You go as fast as the heavy resistance allows you.

I have the same problem to fail on a preset number.For example I usually fail at 7 in the chins.But if i get it down to 4 I can use a lot more weight and have a better inroad also.
Open User Options Menu

J-son

Maybe I would have stated bastard Ren-Ex style instead of SS. I basicly try to mimic the videos at the Ren-Ex page with Nautilus.

When I load those machines (around 50% of them is now to easy), Im basicly pushing with a 6-10 tempo and a 4-6 neg, because of the weight. There is no other way for me to move the weight. What I added is a dead stop (training partner) to push against. To me, thats make a big, positive, difference.

Finally, reading the Ren-Ex, controlling the weight, has finally made me understod the inroad concept better if not perfect. The intensity for me has never been higher, Im more muscular today, which people comment, then I have ever been.

I will try to get a SS manual to see how much "wrong" I do compared to Kens teching. For now, Im just read very carefully everything Ren-Ex put out cause obviously I stil have a LOT to learn.

//Jonas
Open User Options Menu

J-son

One last note: I strive for 3-5 reps for upper body (sometimes only 2) and 4-6 for lower body, never more.

//Jonas
Open User Options Menu

jastrain

J-son wrote:
Maybe I would have stated bastard Ren-Ex style instead of SS. I basicly try to mimic the videos at the Ren-Ex page with Nautilus.

When I load those machines (around 50% of them is now to easy), Im basicly pushing with a 6-10 tempo and a 4-6 neg, because of the weight. There is no other way for me to move the weight. What I added is a dead stop (training partner) to push against. To me, thats make a big, positive, difference.

Finally, reading the Ren-Ex, controlling the weight, has finally made me understod the inroad concept better if not perfect. The intensity for me has never been higher, Im more muscular today, which people comment, then I have ever been.

I will try to get a SS manual to see how much "wrong" I do compared to Kens teching. For now, Im just read very carefully everything Ren-Ex put out cause obviously I stil have a LOT to learn.

//Jonas


the "dead stop" where you can contract as hard as you can in the contracted position [the strongest position] sounds like a very important piece of the puzzle, i wish the new nautilus had some kinda range limiter to really squeeze at the end of each rep. this, i am sure would create a deeper inroad to stimulate a better adaptive response for muscle growth [especially in an advanced athlete].
i think what you are doing currently is the correct way to train. the old s.s. stuff was very confusing with the 10/10 count.
you simply want the turnarounds to be smooth and controlled to slow the momentum at the start of each rep and then you push like hell to move the weight as fast as you can--if the weight is set correctly--which will be very, very, heavy. probably much heavier than most have ever tried--the weight will be moving slowly but you are trying to move it with your maximum effort. this 10/10 thing is completely misleading--it was a good start to learn form but it missed the boat completely because people would lighten the weight to move it slowly rather than trying to move the weight as fast as possible, it moves slowly with ones greatest effort
---------------it is day and night----------- the 2 techniques--i mean, just think of a power lifter.say he has 1000lbs on the bar and squats .if he is very close to his maximum strength/lift he is trying with everything he has to complete the rep--the rep may take 10 or more seconds of maximum effort to push maximumly through the entire rep range [maximum effort in every millimeter of every part of the rep. the weight will not move fast in spite of the lifter pushing as hard and fast with every fiber of his being!!
this is a lot different than one putting 30% less weight of his max lift and purposely slowing the weight for a 10 second count.
these are two entirely different training methods the first, [the power lifter--with safe turnarounds] will give you unbelievable results and the second, [purposely slowing a sub max weight weight for a 10 count] will leave you with mediocre results.
day and night
and many people don't get it--it has to be experienced for many to really get it --the original superslow caused more damage than good. in my opinion--but it looks like things are headed in the right direction
Open User Options Menu

jastrain

J-son wrote:
One last note: I strive for 3-5 reps for upper body (sometimes only 2) and 4-6 for lower body, never more.

//Jonas


i believe the 4-6 range is ideal for muscle growth provided you are pushing maximumly for every rep till failure. weight lifting is anaerobic not aerobic --if the rep ranges are too long the weight is too light the activity becomes more of an aerobic activity rather than anaerobic.---this stuff took me the better part of 30yrs to fully understand. i mean i rarely missed a workout for 30 yrs and in the persuit for better and better result it whittled its way down to some basic truths. safe turnarounds--lift as heavy, and hard, as possible, on every part of every rep--rep range should be on the lower end heavier end
Open User Options Menu

DownUnderLifter

jastrain wrote:
....you simply want the turnarounds to be smooth and controlled to slow the momentum at the start of each rep and then you push like hell to move the weight as fast as you can...the weight will be moving slowly but you are trying to move it with your maximum effort.


This way of doing things sounds very much like Fred Hahn's Slow Burn protocol.

DUL
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

HDlifter wrote; I find 2/4 suits most moves. I don't count or anything, I just focus on "lifting" and let the pace fall where it lays.

..................................

Turpin writes;
Exactly My take on exercise cadence too.

T.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

DownUnderLifter wrote:
jastrain wrote:
....you simply want the turnarounds to be smooth and controlled to slow the momentum at the start of each rep and then you push like hell to move the weight as fast as you can...the weight will be moving slowly but you are trying to move it with your maximum effort.

This way of doing things sounds very much like Fred Hahn's Slow Burn protocol.

DUL



not from what i've seen in his videos but this is all the more reason why the explanation need be more than a sentence or paragraph...
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Turpin wrote:
HDlifter wrote; I find 2/4 suits most moves. I don't count or anything, I just focus on "lifting" and let the pace fall where it lays.

..................................

Turpin writes;
Exactly My take on exercise cadence too.

T.



see "Negative thoughts" on the RenEx blog....

====================================

SLOWLY?Letting go of the past

Most people still believe that we are approximately 40% stronger on the negative portion of an exercise? The ?solution? to this is has been to ?emphasize the negative? by spending twice the amount of time lowering the weight.

2/4 protocol right?

So the negative offers a respite because the muscle(s) have an advantage during the lowering portion of the exercise. We then engage them in this respite longer, twice as long as the positive lifting part of the exercise. We make the easier part of the exercise longer (twice as long) and this is designed to increase the efficiency of the exercise?

Now add to this situation the friction problems inherent in the early machines that unload the muscles even further while lowering the weight and you?ve got a real mess on your hands. This entire process was a step in the wrong direction. Even removing friction with bearing upgrades does not release a person training in this modality from ?emphasizing the easy?.

This respite situation only seems to come up when discussing 10/10 protocols because we ?spend too much time on the negative? while everyone else spends twice as much time on it, and that?s just fine and dandy. Don?t believe that you?re using heavier loads for your 2/4, and that you?re unloaded less because of this. We use damn heavy loads with cams that load up coming back, not backward cams that generally reduce resistance as you lower the weight.

The problem is congestion, more on that later.

Let?s explore this a little further. We?ve been led to believe that, through the performance of an exercise your positive strength is depleted and in some cases your negative strength actually increases. It?s all over the MedX literature.

Even though it is clearly stated in the manual and literature, what the non-careful reader may not observe is that while MedX states that only static testing is valid, the negative lines on many of their graphs are:

1. Dynamic (how could you take a static negative?)

2. Not produced on a MedX testing machine that they were selling.

Instead they were (probably) produced on a true isokinetic machine built in the early to mid-80?s. How exactly would a negative strength reading ever occur on a MedX testing machine, right?

On pages 112-113 of Arthur Jones ?The Lumbar Spine? (the older large blue book), it is stated during a test of the quadriceps muscles:

?Prior to the exercise it was established by the test of the fresh strength that this subject was 40 percent stronger during the negative test than he was during the positive test, so his negative to positive ratio was 1.4 to 1. With fresh muscles?.

?But that ratio changed as the fatigue increased the friction within his muscles; during the fifteenth repetition his ratio was 2.2 to 1, meaning that his negative strength was then more than twice his positive strength. During the last repetition, number thirty-six, his ratio was then 9.6 to 1; his negative strength was nearly ten times as high as his positive strength?.

I have no doubt that this is what the test indicated. However this test is fraught with problems.

The subject performed 14 sub maximal repetitions.

Was the subject resting (unloading or taking tension off the muscles) at any point during the set?

I can only guess what the protocol speeds were (fast).

Thirty-six repetitions is a tremendous amount of mechanical work to perform and virtually warrants that the resistance was too light, or restated not meaningful enough to induce an efficient inroad. If the subject was in control of his effort (the resistance he was subjecting himself to) he had incredible endurance?

I?m not sure, I wasn?t there.

The fatigue was ultimately dramatic to the positive portion of the exercise; I wonder what portion of that was neurological do to the shear amount/volume of the exercise. In many ways this experiment probably shows us more for the lab, then leading us to refining protocols.

So the common wisdom is that after we have depleted all of our positive strength, we have loads and loads of negative strength remaining.

If you train on lousy cams and faster protocols that load/unload the musculature, I believe you end up in a situation where you have loads of congestion that ?you get to keep? that works against you during the positive portion of the exercise (probably inhibiting true inroad) and works for you on the negative/lowering part of the exercise, inhibiting and masking inroad.

Ever hear how people were trained on this machine?

Perform the exercise until positive movement ends. Next, machine lifts leg(s) via motor to the extended position and subject performs a negative (read- muscles resting during this process)- repeat.

Poor guy?s in the damn machine for something like 30 plus reps.

Don?t get me wrong, that?s a hell of an effort and one that I would imagine few could replicate. But if you?re not getting weaker with every rep, and quick, something is wrong.

So, the inroad takes a step back and the congestion remains, and probably increases.

My contention is that lots of congestion gets in the way of inroading. It also gets in the way of what you think you?re observing, which in turn influences how you believe you should train.

It all comes back to how the muscles receive-and what they do-with the resistance at hand.
Open User Options Menu

iflyboats

I have whole-body arthritis and I use SuperSlow to minimize the force on my joints. The combination of a lighter load plus less acceleration is ideal for my condition. I've been using the "Big 5" workout and variations thereof for about 20 months and I've increased my strength dramatically despite using very long TULs (2-3 minutes) and deliberately holding back on weight increases (I do this to protect my joints).
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

larsvonthreat wrote:
To me jastrain totally got the point.You don't go purposely slow.You go as fast as the heavy resistance allows you.

I have the same problem to fail on a preset number.For example I usually fail at 7 in the chins.But if i get it down to 4 I can use a lot more weight and have a better inroad also.





I have yet to see a superslow set that wasn't purposely slowed.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy