super slow reps

<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 07 2007,16:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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?</div>
I believe Tot is saying the opposite, muscle fibers have no idea how much tension is placed upon them they only know,

YES, I am activated
No, I'm not

The difference between 20 lbs and 200 Lbs is how many fibers are activated but each fiber still doesn't know if it's 20 or 200 lbs.
 
Gotcha!

Thanks
biggrin.gif
 
X-size, is a protocol where the subject does a set-up set of 120 seconds with 50% of 1RM (60 seconds concentric + 60 seconds eccentric) followed by 2 rapid sets one at 80% of 1 RM, then take away 20% and do another set.

The set-up set is excrutiating, the whole workout takes about 25 minutes, all I got from it was strength, the owner though claims incredible mass gains.

You can find it at X-size.com, but it is not available as an e-book or article, you have to register and then it is sent by e-mail in bits and pieces.

I have put it together though, if anyone wants it...just beeeeeep.
 
Im still not convinced, no offense guys.  I do know this, my dropping the weight and slowing rep speed, my muscles are on fire, Im shaking, the works.  I dont get a pump per say, but I get this weird feeling inside my muscles that I just cannot explain.  Its quite interesting.  When finished, I feel like ive been run over by a large fluffy pillow, sure I feel muscles were worked big time but without all the strain and pain...haha

I think its gonna work ok for what I had intented it for...only time will tell I reckon.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 07 2007,18:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

muscle fibers have no idea how much tension is placed upon them they only know,
YES, I am activated
No, I'm not</div>
So as Im doing the last couple slow reps and my arms begin to shake, I begin to question whether I can complete the movement and force myself to follow through, much like standard training.  Wouldnt that be a good indication the muscle is getting the signal to activate?



Or



Realizing that the movement obviously targets some aspect of the muscle/body, that is lacking or otherwise, it wouldnt be so dang difficult, would that not, in the least, be a good indicator this type of training might be beneficial as part of other methods, such as HST, etc.? Im using it as my last two weeks, replacing negatives.
Thoughts
 
<div>
(bgates1654 @ Feb. 08 2007,13:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That weird feeling sounds like hypoxia.</div>
In case anyone was wondering like I was....

Hypoxia literally means &quot;deficient in oxygen.&quot; It can refer to:

* Hypoxia (medical), a shortage of oxygen in the body. Hypoxaemia is the reduction of oxygen specifically in the blood; anoxia is when there is no oxygen available at all.
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 08 2007,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">shortage of oxygen to the muscle = lactic acid which HST considers to be a good thing...no?</div>
Not for growth. You only experience that in the 15s. How much do you grow in the 15s compared to the 10s, 5s and negatives?
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 08 2007,08:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So as Im doing the last couple slow reps and my arms begin to shake, I begin to question whether I can complete the movement and force myself to follow through, much like standard training. Wouldnt that be a good indication the muscle is getting the signal to activate?



Or



Realizing that the movement obviously targets some aspect of the muscle/body, that is lacking or otherwise, it wouldnt be so dang difficult, would that not, in the least, be a good indicator this type of training might be beneficial as part of other methods, such as HST, etc.? Im using it as my last two weeks, replacing negatives.
Thoughts</div>
Again, how hard a lift seems to you is not a good judge of anything. You seem to be equating fatigue with growth... not necessarily true. Fatigue is not the main cause of growth. Otherwise pre-exhaustion would still be a big thing. Notice how HST lacks any sort of pre-exhaustion? Because fatiguing your muscles is not the key to growth...

Usually, if you are shaking real bad during a set, you should have ended the set a long, long time ago.
 
Exactly Tot. Consider the use of explosiveness in both BB'ing and Strength training. Gotta get the signals out to those dormant cells!
Still, I can see how it would appear that you're utilizing everything when fatigue sets in. Normally, if I'm gonna have some shakes, it's with arms doing something like 120 lb. incline db presses in the first few reps. As I blast that path, the shakes stop and I continue to either primary failure or set reps.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 08 2007,17:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 08 2007,08:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So as Im doing the last couple slow reps and my arms begin to shake, I begin to question whether I can complete the movement and force myself to follow through, much like standard training.  Wouldnt that be a good indication the muscle is getting the signal to activate?



Or



Realizing that the movement obviously targets some aspect of the muscle/body, that is lacking or otherwise, it wouldnt be so dang difficult, would that not, in the least, be a good indicator this type of training might be beneficial as part of other methods, such as HST, etc.?  Im using it as my last two weeks, replacing negatives.
Thoughts</div>
Again, how hard a lift seems to you is not a good judge of anything.  You seem to be equating fatigue with growth... not necessarily true.  Fatigue is not the main cause of growth.  Otherwise pre-exhaustion would still be a big thing.  Notice how HST lacks any sort of pre-exhaustion?  Because fatiguing your muscles is not the key to growth...  

Usually, if you are shaking real bad during a set, you should have ended the set a long, long time ago.</div>
NO, I was associating effort with effort, then growth.


The idea is to stimulate the muscle to grow, stimulation occurs doing slow reps.


Has absolutely nothing to do with pre exhaustion or fatigue.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 08 2007,17:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(need2eat @ Feb. 08 2007,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">shortage of oxygen to the muscle = lactic acid which HST considers to be a good thing...no?</div>
Not for growth.  You only experience that in the 15s.  How much do you grow in the 15s compared to the 10s, 5s and negatives?</div>
No offense dude but I could ask you the same and if you answer definitively, I would never believe a word you said again. I can't measure muscle gains with a micrometer or have time to determine which training influence is causing hypertrophy...scientist have enough trouble doing that themselves.


Now the question for you would be, how can you be so sure two weeks of this method (super slow reps), along with 15's, would be any more or less beneficial to the overall goal?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 08 2007,18:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Exactly Tot. Consider the use of explosiveness in both BB'ing and Strength training. Gotta get the signals out to those dormant cells!
Still, I can see how it would appear that you're utilizing everything when fatigue sets in. Normally, if I'm gonna have some shakes, it's with arms doing something like 120 lb. incline db presses in the first few reps. As I blast that path, the shakes stop and I continue to either primary failure or set reps.</div>


Has nothing to do with fatigue, for me.  The required effort is as progressive as if I were doig normal weight at a normal speed.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 08 2007,18:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">super-slow reps can stimulate hypertrophy.  It is just that they are not as effective as normal speed reps with higher loads.</div>
Now thats an interesting statement.

I dont disagree.  Suprise.  
biggrin.gif


As from what Ive read, this method is primarily good for two things, strength and recovery, Ive mentioned that a couple times, everyone wants to argue it as a single method of exercise, think &quot;in conjuction with&quot; ~ no more than two weeks ~ post HST, Im doing this for recovery of and HST cycle aka at the end, and possible strength gains.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 08 2007,18:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">super-slow reps can stimulate hypertrophy. It is just that they are not as effective as normal speed reps with higher loads.</div>
Unfortunately, there's no good evidence this is actually the case, imho. Or, rather, the statement is misleading because you're implying things about slow reps that need not necessarily be the case (i.e. lighter loads).

I was astonished by the shittiness of the research on slow reps after doing a review recently. One of the most frequently quoted pieces that was published in the NSCA's journal compared slow reps at 50% 1 RM to faster reps at 80% 1 RM. Does anyone realize how fantastically stupid that is?

Nothing about &quot;slow&quot; reps means you have to use very light weights. That's only true if you attempt to match reps, will which dramatically increase time under load for the slow group, requiring unbelievably pussy weights.

I found *ONE* study that attempted to match TUL/load. And how do you do that?

Simple: have people do &quot;normal&quot; rep speed for X reps, or half that rep speed for X/2 reps.

Loading in both cases is similar, the difference is that instead of the usual, say, 8 to 12, you end up doing 4 to 6. Loading and TUL end up similar between groups, with the only difference being rep speed (i.e. good science).

There's ONE study I'm aware of that did that, and it's the Westcott/Winett one. They found that the slower group did better testing 5 RM slowly than the faster group did testing 10 RM more quickly, for whatever that's worth. I would rather have seen 1 RM tests for both.

All that said, I SUSPECT more &quot;excursions per unit time,&quot; i.e. more total contractions in a given time period, will probably be a positive thing for muscle growth.

But a lot of the perceptions against slow reps are based on **** science, imho.
 
<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>
See previous example of study on oly athletes, 3 RM squat vs 8 RM, identical tension in the quads in both cases.

&quot;Effective load&quot; absolutely means something, spontaneous changes in body mechanics (below the conscious radar) can definitely affect the amount of strain any given muscle in a movement is experiencing.
 
Not to hijack this thread?

But how do we explain the MASS of results with GVT (GERMAN volume training)?

If I remember correctly the load they use is 20 rep max for 10 reps. (which is light weight or PUSSY weight
laugh.gif
)

However they go for 10 sets of 10 which is fatique based.

How do guys continue to grow on less weight and more volume?

Thanks...looking forward to the answer or at least your opinion!
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now the question for you would be, how can you be so sure two weeks of this method (super slow reps), along with 15's, would be any more or less beneficial to the overall goal? </div>

The proof is in the pudding! Try it and see, if it works you can share it with us.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How do guys continue to grow on less weight and more volume?</div>

Joe's also got a point, how does one disprove the fact that they are growing, is it extra rest, does fatigue have soimething to do with the muscle tissue overcompensating?

Hell, HST can improve if we find mixes that work, I'd say!
cool.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top