super slow reps
- Thread starter need2eat
- Start date
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I found *ONE* study that attempted to match TUL/load. And how do you do that?
Simple: have people do "normal" 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.</div>
In that ONE study (Westcott Winnett) they didn't measure the time for each rep with anything closely resembling substantial, no stop watch or metronome. Therefore their one variable was controlled by what? Some worker in the YMCA counting out load?
They didn't report the intensity used so you are assuming that the load was similar which may not be the case.
Lastly there was no random assignment to either group and in fact the SS group was only 35 out of the entire 147 how does that affect the power of their results and this doesn't even mention how they didn't report all the results and chose to publish the results from only the Chest press in study 2.
So yup they are all SHI*T
Munn et al 2005 used random assignment to 5 groups N=23 per group, control, one set slow, one set fast, 3 sets slow, 3 sets fast all used 80%1rm. Slow rep speed groups used 50 degrees/s and fast speed rep groups used approximately 140 degrees/s. 1 set fast showed more strength than 1 set slow, 3 sets slow or fast showed more strength gain that either 1 set fast or slow but 3 sets fast was no better than 3 sets slow.
But again Munn did not equate TUL and Load only Load.
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.
All the confusion and hub bub about slow reps fast reps and so on would definatley benefit from using the same measurement and variable criteria in all studies such as recommended here.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jul 15;
New fundamental resistance exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations.
Toigo M, Boutellier U.
Physical activity relies on muscular force. In adult skeletal muscle, force results from the contraction of postmitotic, multinucleated myofibres of different contractile and metabolic properties. Myofibres can adapt to (patho-)physiological conditions of altered functional demand by radial growth, longitudinal growth, and regulation of fibre type functional gene modules. The adaptation's specificity depends on the distinct molecular and cellular events triggered by unique combinations of conditional cues. In order to derive effective and tailored exercise prescriptions, it must be determined (1) which mechano-biological condition leads to what molecular/cellular response, and (2) how this molecular/cellular response relates to the structural, contractile, and metabolic adaptation. It follows that a thorough mechano-biological description of the loading condition is imperative. Unfortunately, the definition of (resistance) exercise conditions in the past and present literature is insufficient. It is classically limited to load magnitude, number of repetitions and sets, rest in-between sets, number of interventions/week, and training period. In this review, we show why the current description is insufficient, and identify new determinants of quantitative and/or qualitative effects on skeletal muscle with respect to resistance exercise in healthy, adult humans. These new mandatory determinants comprise the fractional and temporal distribution of the contraction modes per repetition, duration of one repetition, rest in-between repetitions, time under tension, muscular failure, range of motion, recovery time, and anatomical definition. We strongly recommend to standardise the design and description of all future resistance exercise investigations by using the herein proposed set of 13 mechano-biological determinants (classical and new ones).
Other studies that might interest you
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Sep 13; The effects of varying time under tension and volume load on acute neuromuscular responses.
J Physiol Anthropol. 2006 Sep;25(5):339-44. Time under Tension and Blood Lactate Response during Four Different Resistance Training Methods.
Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports Med. 2006 Sep;27(9):718-24.
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I found *ONE* study that attempted to match TUL/load. And how do you do that?
Simple: have people do "normal" 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.</div>
In that ONE study (Westcott Winnett) they didn't measure the time for each rep with anything closely resembling substantial, no stop watch or metronome. Therefore their one variable was controlled by what? Some worker in the YMCA counting out load?
They didn't report the intensity used so you are assuming that the load was similar which may not be the case.
Lastly there was no random assignment to either group and in fact the SS group was only 35 out of the entire 147 how does that affect the power of their results and this doesn't even mention how they didn't report all the results and chose to publish the results from only the Chest press in study 2.
So yup they are all SHI*T
Munn et al 2005 used random assignment to 5 groups N=23 per group, control, one set slow, one set fast, 3 sets slow, 3 sets fast all used 80%1rm. Slow rep speed groups used 50 degrees/s and fast speed rep groups used approximately 140 degrees/s. 1 set fast showed more strength than 1 set slow, 3 sets slow or fast showed more strength gain that either 1 set fast or slow but 3 sets fast was no better than 3 sets slow.
But again Munn did not equate TUL and Load only Load.
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.
All the confusion and hub bub about slow reps fast reps and so on would definatley benefit from using the same measurement and variable criteria in all studies such as recommended here.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jul 15;
New fundamental resistance exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations.
Toigo M, Boutellier U.
Physical activity relies on muscular force. In adult skeletal muscle, force results from the contraction of postmitotic, multinucleated myofibres of different contractile and metabolic properties. Myofibres can adapt to (patho-)physiological conditions of altered functional demand by radial growth, longitudinal growth, and regulation of fibre type functional gene modules. The adaptation's specificity depends on the distinct molecular and cellular events triggered by unique combinations of conditional cues. In order to derive effective and tailored exercise prescriptions, it must be determined (1) which mechano-biological condition leads to what molecular/cellular response, and (2) how this molecular/cellular response relates to the structural, contractile, and metabolic adaptation. It follows that a thorough mechano-biological description of the loading condition is imperative. Unfortunately, the definition of (resistance) exercise conditions in the past and present literature is insufficient. It is classically limited to load magnitude, number of repetitions and sets, rest in-between sets, number of interventions/week, and training period. In this review, we show why the current description is insufficient, and identify new determinants of quantitative and/or qualitative effects on skeletal muscle with respect to resistance exercise in healthy, adult humans. These new mandatory determinants comprise the fractional and temporal distribution of the contraction modes per repetition, duration of one repetition, rest in-between repetitions, time under tension, muscular failure, range of motion, recovery time, and anatomical definition. We strongly recommend to standardise the design and description of all future resistance exercise investigations by using the herein proposed set of 13 mechano-biological determinants (classical and new ones).
Other studies that might interest you
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Sep 13; The effects of varying time under tension and volume load on acute neuromuscular responses.
J Physiol Anthropol. 2006 Sep;25(5):339-44. Time under Tension and Blood Lactate Response during Four Different Resistance Training Methods.
Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports Med. 2006 Sep;27(9):718-24.
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,00:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">See previous example of study on oly athletes, 3 RM squat vs 8 RM, identical tension in the quads in both cases.
"Effective load" 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.</div>
Okay, I'm sure there are situations where a lighter weight can be just as effective as a heavier one. Your study with a 3 RM versus 8 RM squat - that's not such a huge difference in load as you would see in something like superslow vs traditional reps.
Regardless, the most reliable way, in my opinion, to determine if a weight is effective or not, is to compare the load you are using to what you have lifted in the past. Generally, lighter loads than what you are accustomed to will not be as effective.
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,00:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">See previous example of study on oly athletes, 3 RM squat vs 8 RM, identical tension in the quads in both cases.
"Effective load" 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.</div>
Okay, I'm sure there are situations where a lighter weight can be just as effective as a heavier one. Your study with a 3 RM versus 8 RM squat - that's not such a huge difference in load as you would see in something like superslow vs traditional reps.
Regardless, the most reliable way, in my opinion, to determine if a weight is effective or not, is to compare the load you are using to what you have lifted in the past. Generally, lighter loads than what you are accustomed to will not be as effective.
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 09 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.</div></div>
Thank you for the links, Dan. This one in particular I've been trying to locate!
Any thoughts on it? I found the results kind of surprising.
P.S. Do you have the full text of the Gillies study? If so, shoot it over to [email protected] if you wouldn't mind
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 09 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.</div></div>
Thank you for the links, Dan. This one in particular I've been trying to locate!
Any thoughts on it? I found the results kind of surprising.
P.S. Do you have the full text of the Gillies study? If so, shoot it over to [email protected] if you wouldn't mind
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,21:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 09 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.</div></div>
Thank you for the links, Dan. This one in particular I've been trying to locate!
Any thoughts on it? I found the results kind of surprising.
P.S. Do you have the full text of the Gillies study? If so, shoot it over to [email protected] if you wouldn't mind
</div>
The results are somewhat odd and unfortunately I don't have full text and I'm not going to pay $32 for it either, highway robbery, I must say
I've been corresponding with Professor Ken Baldwin (of Haddad, Adams, Baldwin fame) because I've been rather torn of late, anyway his response when I asked him about what the driving force of hypertrophy was, WRT either metabolic or mechanical work, he replied <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From my perspective the driving stimulus for increasing mass/size of individual fibers and hence the muscle as a whole is the volume of force that is imposed on the muscle</div>. So since we know that the volume of force is a matter of force and time it's apparent that either or any contraction that satifies this threshold will cause the signalling events to happen. Be it isometric, concentric or eccentric, as seen in the Haddad/Adams/Baldwin work
Skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to isometric, lengthening, and shortening training bouts of equivalent duration. J Appl Physiol. 2004 May;96(5):1613-8.
Similar acute molecular responses to equivalent volumes of isometric, lengthening, or shortening mode resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2007 Jan;102(1):135-43. Epub 2006 Sep 28.
He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting.
(mikeynov @ Feb. 09 2007,21:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 09 2007,19:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan @ Feb. 09 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Gillies et al Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May 10, actually equated TUT and load, Two sets of four lower body exercises (leg press, parallel squat, knee extension and knee flexion), 6-8 RM intensity. Long CON (LC) group performed the CON action for 6 s and the ECC action for 2 s, while the long ECC (LE) group completed the CON and ECC phases for 2 and 6 s, respectively. Both groups significantly increased strength in leg press CON only, ECC only and combined ECC and CON maximal strength (1 RM). Immunohistochemical analyses showed that vastus lateralis fibre areas significantly increased following LC training while only type I fibre area increased following LE training.</div></div>
Thank you for the links, Dan. This one in particular I've been trying to locate!
Any thoughts on it? I found the results kind of surprising.
P.S. Do you have the full text of the Gillies study? If so, shoot it over to [email protected] if you wouldn't mind
The results are somewhat odd and unfortunately I don't have full text and I'm not going to pay $32 for it either, highway robbery, I must say
I've been corresponding with Professor Ken Baldwin (of Haddad, Adams, Baldwin fame) because I've been rather torn of late, anyway his response when I asked him about what the driving force of hypertrophy was, WRT either metabolic or mechanical work, he replied <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From my perspective the driving stimulus for increasing mass/size of individual fibers and hence the muscle as a whole is the volume of force that is imposed on the muscle</div>. So since we know that the volume of force is a matter of force and time it's apparent that either or any contraction that satifies this threshold will cause the signalling events to happen. Be it isometric, concentric or eccentric, as seen in the Haddad/Adams/Baldwin work
Skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to isometric, lengthening, and shortening training bouts of equivalent duration. J Appl Physiol. 2004 May;96(5):1613-8.
Similar acute molecular responses to equivalent volumes of isometric, lengthening, or shortening mode resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2007 Jan;102(1):135-43. Epub 2006 Sep 28.
He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 10 2007,08:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting.</div>
Very interesting.
Please share when you know this.
Not that I speak labcoat b/c I don't but maybe someone can translate for me
(I rode the short bus to school)
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 10 2007,08:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting.</div>
Very interesting.
Please share when you know this.
Not that I speak labcoat b/c I don't but maybe someone can translate for me
(I rode the short bus to school)
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting. </div>
I agree, that will be very interesting. I'm sure you will let us all know when the study is out.
I agree, that will be very interesting. I'm sure you will let us all know when the study is out.
<div>
(Lol @ Feb. 10 2007,09:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting. </div>
I agree, that will be very interesting. I'm sure you will let us all know when the study is out.</div>
Here's what I know so far
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Without going into details, we have been studying whether or not there is an optimal number of contractions to induced cell signaling. For example using a four sets per bout/session paradigm involving an integrated contraction mode that sequences isometric to concentric to eccentric actions with a total duration of force lasting 3 seconds total (1 second in each mode); we compared responses with 5, 7 or 10 contractions per set. Our findings using over 10 subcellular markers indicated that the 10 contractions per set clearly gave more robust outcomes than the 5/set. However, the 7 contractions were ~equal to the 10/set paradigm. </div>
So apparently there is a no go-go-overkill type scenario whereas enough has to be done but too much isn't better.
(Lol @ Feb. 10 2007,09:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting. </div>
I agree, that will be very interesting. I'm sure you will let us all know when the study is out.</div>
Here's what I know so far
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Without going into details, we have been studying whether or not there is an optimal number of contractions to induced cell signaling. For example using a four sets per bout/session paradigm involving an integrated contraction mode that sequences isometric to concentric to eccentric actions with a total duration of force lasting 3 seconds total (1 second in each mode); we compared responses with 5, 7 or 10 contractions per set. Our findings using over 10 subcellular markers indicated that the 10 contractions per set clearly gave more robust outcomes than the 5/set. However, the 7 contractions were ~equal to the 10/set paradigm. </div>
So apparently there is a no go-go-overkill type scenario whereas enough has to be done but too much isn't better.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He also informed me of their latest study, unpublished as of yet, in which they were trying to identify what the threshold was, IE how much work is required, so that will be very interesting.
</div>
This is something I know you are waiting for like a kid on christmas eve! I can recall many times when this was brought up in your forum (and here at HST)....Dan, how many reps is ideal??? Or my famous max-stim thread "Why 20 Reps?" More better? Less?
</div>
This is something I know you are waiting for like a kid on christmas eve! I can recall many times when this was brought up in your forum (and here at HST)....Dan, how many reps is ideal??? Or my famous max-stim thread "Why 20 Reps?" More better? Less?
Well I wouldn't say waiting for, it will be a nice addition but of course it's relevance will be questionable because they are using a 1 sec MVC isometric then the conc then eccentric and I'm sure it's with NMES and not a RT paradigm. So it would be like doing a 1 sec 1RM hold then the Conc/Eccen and he didn't elaborate on how much intensity was being used for the anisometric movement. Lastly it's probably on rats but he didn't say one way or the other.
It will still be interesting
It will still be interesting
Well, I gave the superslow stuff a shot.
Instead of SD, I took 50% of my final 5rm, completed 3sets of 5 per exercise and each rep consisted of 20 total counts, roughly a count = a second, 10up -10down.
I did this for two weeks and I did progress the weight per workout.
The cycle following the superslow routine, I skipped the 15's and went right through the 10's and 5's like a hot knife through butta'.
I didnt choose to do the slow sets routine at the end of the last cycle and im definitely feeling it this cycle. Guess what Ill be doing at the end of this cycle?
Anecdotally speaking of course.
Instead of SD, I took 50% of my final 5rm, completed 3sets of 5 per exercise and each rep consisted of 20 total counts, roughly a count = a second, 10up -10down.
I did this for two weeks and I did progress the weight per workout.
The cycle following the superslow routine, I skipped the 15's and went right through the 10's and 5's like a hot knife through butta'.
I didnt choose to do the slow sets routine at the end of the last cycle and im definitely feeling it this cycle. Guess what Ill be doing at the end of this cycle?
Anecdotally speaking of course.