rep tempos

A

andrew123

New Member
whilst using hst and other methods my rep tempo has always been fast simply because i want to lift as much weight as possible for my reps. i have read a lot of articles however suggesting sets should last over 30 sec to induce hypertrophy particulary for hardgainers.
So the other day for arms and delts i did my reps using a 3/1/0 tempo. i had to significantly reduce my weights however i felt soreness the next day particulary in my delts like ive never felt before. Is this the secret ive been looking for? haha and do others employ this slower rep tempo like charles poliquin and others suggest
 
Bang 'em too fast and you're just initializing the movement. Momentum is doing the rest. Push 'em too slow (except for the negative) and your total workload drops due to fatigue. A 1/3 is often recommended. I do about a 1/2 for most reps.
 
Is that a count of one on the concentric phase and a count of three on the eccentric phase, or vice-versa?
 
Studies have shown that for strength AND hypertrophy the best rep tempo is as fast as possible for concentric and eccentric. Of course like quadancer pointed out, with lighter weights you can go too fast and let momentum do the work which would not be good. Just lift as fast as you can while controlling the motion, and lower the weight fairly quickly also, but controlled of course. The slow-rep myth has been debunked by science. In slow reps it is the extra lactic acid/fatigue which accumulates and causes extra soreness which has caused many to believe that slower reps are better. I used to think this also, thinking that the slower reps 'felt' harder and made me more sore.
 
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating anything slow, as I do a 2-second eccentric myself or faster, depending on what exersize it is.
Here's a tip: if the plates 'jingle' at the top, you're probably going too fast! Not a problem with the heavier weights; just trying to get them up in 1 sec. will work on your explosiveness.
 
My max squat effort last night probably took no more than around 6 or 7 seconds - ~3 seconds both ways, which was as fast as I could go and still stay in control.

The other day I did a brief experiment after reading some posts on rep times on Dr Darden's site.

Here's what I found using Bi Curls with a 37lb db to failure:

Slow tempo (10:10)

Right arm: 4 reps in 1:20 (couldn't start 5th rep but could have lowered it under control for a bit more TUT)
Left arm: 4 reps in 1:20 (again, couldn't start 5th rep but could have lowered it under control for a bit more TUT)

Fast tempo (around 1.5:1.5)

Right arm: 24 reps in 1:26 (average around 1.8s : 1.8s cadence)
Left arm: 25 reps in 1:30 (again, average around 1.8s : 1.8s cadence)

I took plenty of rest between tests and alternated arms too.

So I managed more TUT using a fairly rapid tempo. Even at that speed I didn't feel like there was much, if any, momentum involved helping with the lifting. I am certain that I could have made up the TUT with another control eccentric though.

Interestingly, when doing the slow reps, fatigue seemed to set in quite suddenly at around 1:10. With the faster cadence, fatigue built up more gradually, as would be expected.

My personal preference with 'lightish' loads (like during 15s) would be to do the reps reasonably quickly and just keep banging them out, stopping short of failure.
 
Interesting experiment Lol. Why not try the same with a weight that you are closer to max with, rather than one that you can skyrocket the reps like that - I'll bet the differences are closer.
Regardless, your experiment show us that:
a.) slow builds fatigue FAST
b.) there is an enormous difference between the two using isolation movements with a light weight.

I suggested that YOU do it again with more weight, as you are the 'control', we trust you not to skew it, (blind), and dere ain't no placebo! Maybe you should do it with a compound as well. And get plenty of rest between the first set and the second. That would be more fair to this discussion.
Besides, I'm lazy.
wink.gif
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Dec. 16 2006,15:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interesting experiment Lol. Why not try the same with a weight that you are closer to max with</div>
Yeah, I would love to but the only db I have right now is 37lbs! That's why I have to go to a gym.
biggrin.gif
If I can figure out a way to attach some extra weight to it I'll give it a go.
 
Scientific Muscle:

Interesting find. Can you provide us with the studies you are basing your statement on tempo on? I thought the recommended tempo was about 1:0:4?

Traps
 
Well here is one that showed increased strength response with faster reps.
But Dan Moore is the guy to ask for study references, I think he has an entire library of them!
biggrin.gif
 Dan, any studies to back me up here???

Rep Tempo
 
Sure,

Shepstone 2005

Paddon-Jones 2001

Ewing 1990

Farthing 2003 May and August

Munn, the one you cited

Plus the ones that looked at speed and recruitment thresholds/firing frequency
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Dec. 18 2006,00:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well here is one that showed increased strength response with faster reps.
But Dan Moore is the guy to ask for study references, I think he has an entire library of them!
biggrin.gif
 Dan, any studies to back me up here???

Rep Tempo</div>
Sci or Dan,
Just curious -- Do any of those references deal specifically w/ hypertrophy? I really don't care about increasing strength for its own sake.

Thanks,
s
 
I have no science to back this up, but I've always considered explosive up, controlled down to be the most effective because you get the benefits of being able to lift the heaviest weight you can for the reps, and getting the benefit of controlled eccentric contractions.

Explosive up focuses on activation of the fast-twitch fibres, which are the most readily prone to growth, and that's why it results in more growth than artificially slowing rep speeds.
 
Peak,

That's what I thought intuitively also. I've tried all kinds of tempos (even up to 30/30 chins - these are still fun to do every once in a long while for a new challenge), but I agree w/ your statement and what sci and others are saying. Just curious if any studies focused on primarily hypertrophy.

Thanx,
s
 
<div>
(smf @ Dec. 18 2006,15:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sci or Dan,
Just curious -- Do any of those references deal specifically w/ hypertrophy?  I really don't care about increasing strength for its own sake.

Thanks,
s</div>
Yes
 
Dan,  what is your take on the stretch shortening cycle?  There is an article over on T-Nation (Four Seconds) where they advocate at least 4 seconds on the eccentric and/or a pause in order to negate the elastic energy rebound and make the muscle &quot;work harder.&quot;  Of course, others advocate using the cycle and that seems to be the general direction of this discussion.

Even if they are correct, I am wondering if it wouldn't self-regulate anyway. The fact that you can use heavier weights with the stretch shortening effect might balance the lesser work required with elastic energy assistance.
 
Naturally there is some rebound of the SEC but overall the main contributors to strain, which is what is important, is force and fatigue.

In this thread at my site Blade and I had some good discourse on this aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top