anyone try super slow training?

[AAP]

what were your results. incorporating it somewhat in workouts now, but just wondering if anyone tried the whole program.

 

[Protobuilder]

You mean the one where you get super-slow gains? LoL j/k I've never tried it but have read several things saying it's crap. Basically, I think the goal is to increase the eccentric phase of the exercise, which causes more damage to the muscle fibers and more DOMS, but ultimately doesn't really make much difference.

 

[36drew]

It doesn't make much sense as I understand it. It is basic physics:

Work = Force x Distance where Force=mass x accelartion

Work represents the stimulus being placed on the muscle. So basically we have W= FxMxA. Now if you acclereate through a lift at 1.5m/s as opposed to 0.5m/s you have just trippled the work(stimulus) placed on the muscle.

Don't ask me where time fits into the equation, but thats one way of thinking about it.

 

[bignate73]

pretty outdated, some of the principles of eccentric work are sound, but a slow concentric is a waste of time and energy. you'd be better off adding in a set of rest/pause ala DC style.

 

[thelion2005]

I am not sure what "super slow" is.
I read some "X REP" articles and they advised 32 secs per set. I tried it and it slowed me down. Also caused a deep, deep burning around the 7/8 th rep.

I also remember such an approach back in the 70's with Robbie Robertson taking the lead. He was pictured doing preacher curls with a 50 lb bb.

Seems like no one stayed with it long enough to champion the cause and/or show results.

 

[bignate73]

i think its dr. wayne wescotts superslow training

 

[novamanms]

I've read basically what a couple guys have already said. It hurts more and doesn't increase gains.

Probably something best left to break up the monotony.

 

[bodypump2]

it just means longer time in thegym

 

[Madcow2]

The idea was TUT or time under tension playing a big role. TUT comes out as significant but you have to really look at the driver here. Is increased TUT the driver or is the driver increased workload (volume X intensity) from which increased TUT falls out. I wouldn't put too much stock in TUT alone and go with lower loads and fewer reps in order to maximize time.

 

[coolcolj]

slow concentrics are very good for lactic acid build up

very good for leaning up protocols

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

So is eating less.

 

[coolcolj]

try it sometime, not as easy as you think....

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Which part, the superslow stuff? Been there, done that.

Leaning up? Doing it right now, and pretty easily. That could have to do with me being 19, though.

Eating less? Never had a big appetite in the first place. Easier to eat twice than 4-6 times for me.

 

[coolcolj]

yeah it's a hell of a lot easier in your late teens!

I used to get lean just doing a 30min walk in the mornings...that doesn't work anymore...
all to do with hormones, enjoy it while it lasts

It's not just a matter of calories in and calories out. Everything is interactive in the body. And diet doesn't shrink all types of fat deposits in the body

 

[AAP]

A noticeable decrease in fat has been attributed to many people that used superslow training. Why? I don't know maybe someone can explain it for me.

I am currently training with Paul Baker who is prepping for the IronMan and the Arnold Classic and he says that he only incorporates superslow training during his contest prep because it leads to faster BF% loss, although we are not doing the entire workout superslow.

I think the original superslow workout was doing something like 3 exercises, 2 sets each, 8 reps with 10 seconds down/10 seconds up with 35% of your single rep max.

For instance the way we have been incorporating it is like :

Chest workout
Incline barbell presses - 3 sets 10 reps
Incline Icarian Machine 2 sets 5 reps superslow
Flat dumbell flyes 3 sets
Flat presses 2 sets

Sometimes we just throw in a superslow set at the end of each exercise for one set too.

 

[novamanms]

Maybe super-slow sets cause increased blood mobilization and glycogen depletion.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

yeah it's a hell of a lot easier in your late teens!

I used to get lean just doing a 30min walk in the mornings...that doesn't work anymore...
all to do with hormones, enjoy it while it lasts

It's not just a matter of calories in and calories out. Everything is interactive in the body. And diet doesn't shrink all types of fat deposits in the body

Well physiology will say otherwise, that it is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out. I happen to agree with this. Care to explain what you think goes against thermodynamics?

 

[enigma4dub]

Well physiology will say otherwise, that it is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out. I happen to agree with this. Care to explain what you think goes against thermodynamics?

He just did read the above post. The one you quoted.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

He just did read the above post. The one you quoted.

No, he didn't. He said "everything is interactive in the body". That's not very descriptive, now is it? No, didn't think so.

Diet will work to rid people of all types of fat, just not to the point where you'll get shredded (9-10% bodyfat, after that, you need a different approach) - for the general population, a regular calories in < calories out diet will work fine until you get to that level. Visceral and subcutaneous fats are both minimized through diet. HIIT can help with nutrient partitioning and rid you of some extra sub-q, but again, either way will work.

I don't see how it's not a matter of calories in vs. calories out. Whether or not simply restricting calories is optimal isn't the issue.

 

[enigma4dub]

All you know on the subject is what you are regurgatating from someone else, probably from madcow. So how can you be an authority on something like hormonal change like ccj mentioned when you havent done real research and you havent experienced it yourself. not even 20 years of age.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

First off, don't try and bring up age, since it has nothing to do with this. Doing so just shows how ignorant you are.

Second, don't make these silly fucking assumptions that I don't know what I'm talking about. Again, showing what an ignorant fucktard you are.

Third, everything we all learn is something that someone else spit out you moron. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you didn't think before you typed that above, 'cause you're further proving my point - that you're an idiot.

Stop speaking and typing in English, asshat. You didn't invent the fucking language, so quit "regurgatating" ( ) it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=regurgitating <~~Click. Read. Learn.

Douche bag.

 

[Longhorn85]

Work = Force x Distance where Force=mass x accelartion

Work represents the stimulus being placed on the muscle. So basically we have W= FxMxA. Now if you acclereate through a lift at 1.5m/s as opposed to 0.5m/s you have just trippled the work(stimulus) placed on the muscle.

Don't ask me where time fits into the equation, but thats one way of thinking about it.

Good thinking but if I remember my Physics

Acceleration is not the speed, which you have depicted (meters per second). It is the rate of increase (meters per second, squared).

W does not equal FxMxA, W = M x A x Distance.

So if Mass and Distance are fixed, greater acceleration means more work.

Maybe that means it is better to start the rep slow and finish fast rather than have a constant speed?

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Good thinking but if I remember my Physics

Acceleration is not the speed, which you have depicted (meters per second). It is the rate of increase (meters per second, squared).

W does not equal FxMxA, W = M x A x Distance.

So if Mass and Distance are fixed, greater acceleration means more work.

Maybe that means it is better to start the rep slow and finish fast rather than have a constant speed?

Too much thinking about nominal stuff. Train fast to be fast, train slow to be slow. Yes, you can nitpick and complicate things beyond that, but that's what it'll come down to.

Honestly, your best bet is to do the concentric portions of all reps explosively (as weights approach 100% RM, speed will be slow regardless of how explosive you try to be), and then do a steady, typical negative. 'course, some exercises have exceptions.

 

[enigma4dub]

First off, don't try and bring up age, since it has nothing to do with this. Doing so just shows how ignorant you are.

Second, don't make these silly fucking assumptions that I don't know what I'm talking about. Again, showing what an ignorant fucktard you are.

Third, everything we all learn is something that someone else spit out you moron. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you didn't think before you typed that above, 'cause you're further proving my point - that you're an idiot.

Stop speaking and typing in English, asshat. You didn't invent the fucking language, so quit "regurgatating" ( ) it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=regurgitating <~~Click. Read. Learn.

Douche bag.

lol @ u. thank you for the spell check. why is it that anytime someone disagrees with you, you turn to childish name calling? ill just ignore your rant and keep in mind you get offended when someone mentions your age. which if you actually READ my post and ccj, regarding age and fat reduction beyond thermodynamics,IT WAS NOT A PUTDOWN. HELLO!? JUST A FACT.



"coolcolj yeah it's a hell of a lot easier in your late teens!

I used to get lean just doing a 30min walk in the mornings...that doesn't work anymore...
all to do with hormones, enjoy it while it lasts

It's not just a matter of calories in and calories out. Everything is interactive in the body. And diet doesn't shrink all types of fat deposits in the body"

 

[enigma4dub]

Good thinking but if I remember my Physics

Acceleration is not the speed, which you have depicted (meters per second). It is the rate of increase (meters per second, squared).

W does not equal FxMxA, W = M x A x Distance.

So if Mass and Distance are fixed, greater acceleration means more work.

Maybe that means it is better to start the rep slow and finish fast rather than have a constant speed?

that is dead on when it comes to dynamic rows. accelerate through the lift.

 

[36drew]

Honestly, your best bet is to do the concentric portions of all reps explosively (as weights approach 100% RM, speed will be slow regardless of how explosive you try to be), and then do a steady, typical negative. 'course, some exercises have exceptions.

Agreed in full.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

lol @ u. thank you for the spell check. why is it that anytime someone disagrees with you, you turn to childish name calling? ill just ignore your rant and keep in mind you get offended when someone mentions your age. which if you actually READ my post and ccj, regarding age and fat reduction beyond thermodynamics,IT WAS NOT A PUTDOWN. HELLO!? JUST A FACT.

Well I seemed to overlook that you were using it as that, and not a way to say "you're too young to know enough about this". For that, I apologize.

At the same time, though, stop emulating the shit CCJ said. Don't regurgitate the whole point of age factoring in. Jesus, what's wrong with you? Can't you create your own facts?

You'll ignore my rant because you've got nothing else to retort with. That's why, not because it's suddenly childish and you're going to take the "higher road" by refusing to participate. A little intimidated by internet name-calling? My, oh my.

Oh, and calories in vs. calories out is still the main factor, even as you grow old. The only difference is, your metabolism slows down and you need to adjust accordingly.

Yes, I'm aware there are some other things at play that change as you age. Calories are still the main issue to tinker with. The rest is just details. I'd say, even as you grow older, thermodynamics apply.

And for all those grandpas, there's always HRT. Get those T-levels nice and high again, increase sex drive, and lose fat like you were twenty. Well, not exactly, but it helps.

 

[enigma4dub]

First i never said thermodynamics wasnt essential to weight loss. I said there are other things involved past your teen years. which you just agreed with.

Secondly, Im assuming since you misread my post(regarding age) that you take issue with me questioning your knowledge based upon your posts. ie "regurgitating" others statements and misinterpreting them. A good retort from you would be a sample of books and articles you have read, classes you have attended degrees you have attained etc that prove me wrong.

However you decide to shoot from the hip and "punk" me on the internet. well you'll excuse me, I dont get in internet fights.

edit: i think anthrax is still bitter over this exchange where several members question his hypothesis on the deadlift.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5713621#post5713621

 

[OMEGA]

have used it for very specific exercises
i call it going "static " and sectioned the actual technique into 3 sub-techniques within one full technique if that makes sense