super slow reps

N

need2eat

New Member
anyone have anythoughts on the controversial matter?


Ive read articles that claim to disprove it as beneficial, using scientific studies, to articles proving it using scientific studies. Have yet to read one laymans perspective that didnt at least find it somewhat beneficial.


I tried it yesterday as an alternative to continuing fives or doing negatives. I was introduced to the idea, after reading an article how this method helps injuries, etc., all the while improving strength, what better way to finish up a rough HST cycle to start anew?
smile.gif


Any thoughts on the subject?
 
In layman's terms: I did SuperSlow for almost a year. It felt great! No joint problems and able to feel the burn directly in the muscle I was working. I even worked up to where I was using about the same weight as I had used previously for normal speed reps. I thought everything was great until I realized I was shrinking. It is a tedious way to train only to lose muscle. My bodyweight stayed roughly the same while my arms, chest, and thighs got smaller. I think it might work well for the elderly because it will get them to train when they might ordinarily not do anything, but it is very inefficient for a bodybuilder. Even Drew Baye has discontinued his SuperSlow stuff.
 
Your bodyweight remained the same but you shrunk. How is that possible? Diet issue maybe?




I read its not good for elderly, as this method can cause the blood pressure to increase to unsafe levels, guess it depends on the lbs used.




I have noticed that this seems to increase strength as opposed to muscle size.
 
It is a very poor way to train, the extra slow negative is a major respite which allows you to think you are stronger than you are. That big break between positive reps is basically a poor way to do rest pause training. Just try dips at 2/2 and compare to what you can achieve (time wise) at 10/10.

The slow positive gives you time to better coordinate your whole body into each lift which once you get over the mental effect of the slowness you can then use to appear strong. More contractions per unit time is always better provided it is safe.

Maybe on the odd occasion you can throw in slow reps for variation.

Regards,
Andrew
 
Super slow will ultimately result in lower POWER production, however that's not to say that it won't help you in "getting the feel" of a new movement.
smile.gif

Experiment, evaluate, evolve...
wink.gif
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,10:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Your bodyweight remained the same but you shrunk.  How is that possible?  Diet issue maybe?



I read its not good for elderly, as this method can cause the blood pressure to increase to unsafe levels, guess it depends on the lbs used.




I have noticed that this seems to increase strength as opposed to muscle size.</div>
**** 35 years of training and I finally found that magic diet that will allow me to gain fat and lose muscle simultaneously! Oh, wait ... That's not a good thing ....
tounge.gif
*****

Bottom line: It really sucks as a training method.
 
One major-problem with super-slow reps...the loads must be decreased as the muscles cannot generate as much force when contracting purposely slow. The number one most important factor in weight-training is mechanical load intensity (maximal strain on muscle fiber), so super-slow reps are not very effective.
 
It doesn't suck if you want to get better at doing slow reps! Trouble is that isn't called for much in the real world so it doesn't translate well to most sports.

Doing reps reasonably quickly with a lighter weight (say up to your 15RM) and as quickly as possible with a heavy weight (around your 5RM) requires that your muscles generate more power (where power is the amount of work done per unit of time) than if you do them slowly.

I think it is also true to say that strength gains from lifting weights relatively quickly translates well to lifting them slowly but not the other way around. Thankfully, and unlike legee, I didn't spend a long time doing super-slow reps to find out how ineffective they are for hypertrophy.

Trying to generate more power makes the most sense to me as far as hypertrophy is concerned.
 
<div>
(leegee38 @ Feb. 06 2007,16:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,10:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Your bodyweight remained the same but you shrunk.  How is that possible?  Diet issue maybe?

 

I read its not good for elderly, as this method can cause the blood pressure to increase to unsafe levels, guess it depends on the lbs used.




I have noticed that this seems to increase strength as opposed to muscle size.</div>
****   35 years of training and I finally found that magic diet that will allow me to gain fat and lose muscle simultaneously!   Oh, wait ... That's not a good thing ....  
tounge.gif
 *****

Bottom line:  It really sucks as a training method.</div>
You must have, weighed the same, lost size, you musta found the magic fat conversion, seek scientific testing immediately!
smile.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 06 2007,18:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One major-problem with super-slow reps...the loads must be decreased as the muscles cannot generate as much force when contracting purposely slow.  The number one most important factor in weight-training is mechanical load intensity (maximal strain on muscle fiber), so super-slow reps are not very effective.</div>
Super slow reps arent easy.  How does the muscle differentiate between, lifting heavy and feeling heavy?  My muscles felt like they were put into overtime as compared to doing, normal weight/rep speed.


On paper, the intensity can actually increase, no?


I can see how it might specifically train a certain muscle fiber, why I only plan to do it as part of the HST and not all, for now, I might hate it.  
smile.gif




Again, Im not looking at super slow sets as being beneficial to hypertrophy, more for recovery and potential strength gain, primarily recover from an exhausting HST cycle.
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I can see how it might specifically train a certain muscle fiber, why I only plan to do it as part of the HST and not all, for now, I might hate it.
smile.gif
</div>
Irrelevant because once you use a high enough load, all muscle fibers are recruited anyway.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 06 2007,19:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,18:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I can see how it might specifically train a certain muscle fiber, why I only plan to do it as part of the HST and not all, for now, I might hate it.  
smile.gif
</div>
Irrelevant because once you use a high enough load, all muscle fibers are recruited anyway.</div>
so if you change the intenstiy of a movement, doesnt that increase the effective load?
 
They were.

For what it is worth, a quick search on pubmed turns up a few studies showing that traditionial training is superior to superslow, but I didn't see any supporting superslow. I didn't look that long though, maybe there was one or two. The studies I saw showed that superslow did improve strength in sedentary individuals but was inferior to traditional training for strength and body composition changes.
 
Legee said it best:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">**** 35 years of training and I finally found that magic diet that will allow me to gain fat and lose muscle simultaneously! Oh, wait ... That's not a good thing .... *****

Bottom line: It really sucks as a training method. </div>

ROFL!!!
laugh.gif
 
IMO, it is somewhat useful during 15's to make your reps somewhat more intense, but will only work well if mixed in HST with normal lifting protocols.

IOW, if you use it as a warm up, then it can be very effective but for hypertrophy it ha sbenn shown to be rather poor.

Strength wise, one of the best I have tried was the X-Size training protocol, which uses 1 rep of 120 seconds at 50% of 1 RM, but then it is followed by 2 quick drop sets at 80% of 1 RM and 60% of 1 RM for one body part, 5 minutes rest then another 2 sets for a different body part.

HST as is is still the best overall as it contains high and low reps and hypertrophy as well as strength training components.

Just my view
biggrin.gif
 
Would like more info on the X-size training protocol as well, I wasnt able to find anything on a search, with the exception of brief mention.
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,21:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">so if you change the intenstiy of a movement, doesnt that increase the effective load?</div>
There is no &quot;effective load.&quot; There is load, period. 200 lbs is 200 lbs regardless of how heavy it feels to you. So... cutting weight back and doing techniques to make it feel more intense is not going to help you. Cutting back the weight is almost never a good idea, unless you've just taken an extended time off or are doing a deload.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 07 2007,10:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 06 2007,21:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">so if you change the intenstiy of a movement, doesnt that increase the effective load?</div>
There is no &quot;effective load.&quot;  There is load, period.  200 lbs is 200 lbs regardless of how heavy it feels to you.  So... cutting weight back and doing techniques to make it feel more intense is not going to help you.  Cutting back the weight is almost never a good idea, unless you've just taken an extended time off or are doing a deload.</div>
So Tot if I understand you correctly you are saying that the old addage of the muscle doesn't know how much weight you lift is wrong.

You can go by feel only by pounds? Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top