Question on repetition speed, acceleration and volume

[stevius]

Talking with my friends today they told me they like to do a massive amount of reps, quite slowly, not very often and get ripped and sore.

I wanted to explain the benefits of blasting out fewer reps and putting a lot of power into them such that the bar moves faster. The thing is I don't actually know what it means to work this way other than the fact that:

A- You'll be able to jump higher/ run faster etc.

B- Training with force and fewer reps means a short workout with a short recovery period to get back in the gym at 100 plus percent faster.

Does anyone know much about this?

 

[ZGzaZ]

You're thinking too hard...

 

[s8nlilhlpr]

soreness does not indicate progress, moving more weight does

Moving weight slowly, increases your strength only at that speed.

Force = Mass X acceleration. More speed means you generate more force.

Eat and lift more.

 

[stevius]

Ah, the voice of sanity! These guys I know are moving the weights deliberately slow as though they were lifting big weights.

For the record I love to push reps with more and more weight and fast. In fact I actually forgot Dan John's number 2 rule: Constantly strive to add weight to the bar and move it faster.

Also, ever since I cut down the workload I work harder at the rep range I set, feel less worn out, recover faster and left with feeling of wanting more.

Thanks for the assistance guys!

 

[al420]

I like to go overly heavy, and overly explosive

 

[Synpax]

Whats' the science behind this?

The goal is to grow muscles and get stronger.

Apparently when you move the weight slowly, you increase the amount of time your muscles are under stress and increase the amount of damage you to do them (which is good, because that leads to more muscle recruitment).

Do any of you have anything to back up what you said empiracally?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that the understanding I lay out here is contrary to your assertions.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

You state:

The goal is to grow muscles and get stronger.

Apparently when you move the weight slowly, you increase the amount of time your muscles are under stress and increase the amount of damage you to do them (which is good, because that leads to more muscle recruitment).

Muscle growth will happen whether you move the weight slower or faster, no doubt. You use less weight when moving the weight slowly, since it increases the stress on the muscles, correct? Wouldn't moving the bar faster and stacking more weight on satisfy the "get stronger" part to a higher degree? To me, it just seems silly to make the weight harder than it really is.

 

[stevius]

Yes, what johnrobholmes said makes perfect sense. If you want to push bigger weights and push out more reps then you have to apply as much force to the bar as humanely possible. Heavy weight requires heavy concentration and that also means pushing like your life depends on it.

 

[al420]

THese guys are talikng about TUT (time under tension). It is def a decent BB training method, tons of folks here that compete (mostly figure and one female BB) use TUT.

Personally I would rather chalk up and do some real damage.

 

[Kabeetz]

THese guys are talikng about TUT (time under tension). It is def a decent BB training method, tons of folks here that compete (mostly figure and one female BB) use TUT.

Personally I would rather chalk up and do some real damage.

I always thought it was Time Under Titties... a measure of how much ass you're getting vs. time in the gym. In that cause you'd want as high a number as possible for sure.

Time Under Tension... not so much a big deal.

 

[al420]

I wish I had more hands so I could give those titties 4 thumbs down

 

[totallyjacked83]

The slow repititions are similar to HIT (High Intensity Training). I focus on going slow during the negative part of the lift and exploding during the positive. This gets me insanely sore and puts on mass...

 

[gjohnson5]

Actaully the people who are proponents of bench press plyometrics will say the faster the bar is moved the better. The deceleration of the bar will promote strength gains just as much as he acceleration

Whats' the science behind this?

The goal is to grow muscles and get stronger.

Apparently when you move the weight slowly, you increase the amount of time your muscles are under stress and increase the amount of damage you to do them (which is good, because that leads to more muscle recruitment).

Do any of you have anything to back up what you said empiracally?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that the understanding I lay out here is contrary to your assertions.

 

[stevius]

There's too much confusion about lifting. I like the easy, simple stuff like training hard, eating and resting. Since when was thinking and learning about training harder than actually training and growing muscle? Scratch the surface and then... woah, I just opened up a king size tin of worms.

I keeping forgetting there's a lot of politics and economics clouding the wonderful world of lifting: far too many overeducated coachs spinning a story or ten to justify their paycheck. On the other end of the stick the great training pioneers grow in spite of what they do rather than because of it. Shit, I haven't hardly trained my pecs in years and they're still both massive and useless. They were born to be huge no matter what I did.

The best thing to do is to be born without a brain but with great genetics and a 100% fast twitch muscle fibres.

Goddamnit, if I want to slow the bar down I'm not going to pretend it's heavy. I'll stick more weight on and see what that does to the speed of my repetitions. Heavy weight- mind into muscle = concentrating my way to more reps and higher intensity!

 

[H_T_]

momentum is bad.

 

[stevius]

fear of weight, is the mindkiller. truth!

 

[silver_shadow]

Whats' the science behind this?

The goal is to grow muscles and get stronger.

Apparently when you move the weight slowly, you increase the amount of time your muscles are under stress and increase the amount of damage you to do them (which is good, because that leads to more muscle recruitment).

Do any of you have anything to back up what you said empiracally?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that the understanding I lay out here is contrary to your assertions.

that's not the science it's theory. theory proposed by mike mentzer that was made to sound like science (aka fact). do you know anyone following mentzer's principles who is big? i don't.

anyway, since you want *science* here you go:
http://coachesinfo.com/category/strength_and_conditioning/242/

 

[s8nlilhlpr]

Whats' the science behind this?

The goal is to grow muscles and get stronger.

Apparently when you move the weight slowly, you increase the amount of time your muscles are under stress and increase the amount of damage you to do them (which is good, because that leads to more muscle recruitment).

Do any of you have anything to back up what you said empiracally?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that the understanding I lay out here is contrary to your assertions.

Actually its very simple. Pick up a physics book. The TUT crap you are posting has no science behind it. F = MxA is a simple equation that works. Period. You can make the weight 'feel' heavier if you want, but 100lbs=100lbs.

 

[gjohnson5]

Check out this video of Adam Archuleta
http://www.arpprogram.com/resources/video/archuleta_freak.html

I've always been a proponent of plyos but this way over any track plyos we did

But notice the emphasis is on stopping momentum or deceleration.

that's not the science it's theory. theory proposed by mike mentzer that was made to sound like science (aka fact). do you know anyone following mentzer's principles who is big? i don't.

anyway, since you want *science* here you go:
http://coachesinfo.com/category/strength_and_conditioning/242/

 

[silver_shadow]

i don't see him doing super slow reps!

 

[gjohnson5]

Not sure where doing reps super slow promoting strength gain came from...

I've been looking for those Jay Schroeder (yes the formed Washington Redskin Quarterback) training videos. I believe there's one called "Freak of Training"

i don't see them doing super slow reps!

 

[silver_shadow]

Not sure where doing reps super slow promoting strength gain came from...

I've been looking for those Jay Schroeder (yes the formed Washington Redskin Quarterback) training videos. I believe there's one called "Freak of Training"

the thread starter says his friends tell him to do super slow reps with pink DBs

 

[SpyWizard]

well, the only way to prove your method is better than theirs.. is be bigger..

but then we must talk about why it is you think you need to prove anything to them, and i'm just not up to it today..

 

[Synpax]

Actually its very simple. Pick up a physics book. The TUT crap you are posting has no science behind it. F = MxA is a simple equation that works. Period. You can make the weight 'feel' heavier if you want, but 100lbs=100lbs.

Right, but the force isn't what makes you stronger. The mass you move does.

So M = F/A, so the slower the A, the more M.

There is also the issue of acceleration.

Besides, if doing them slower feels harder, that's because you are working your muscles more.

 

[silver_shadow]

Right, but the force isn't what makes you stronger. The mass you move does.

So M = F/A, so the slower the A, the more M.

There is also the issue of acceleration.

Besides, if doing them slower feels harder, that's because you are working your muscles more.

dude are you kidding me?!

m=f/a ?! so if you use slow acceleration your mass increases?! please go to samoth and let him have a good laugh!

you don't increase the mass of the bar by accelerating it less! please read a refresher course in physics.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/newtlaws/u2l3a.html

 

[Protobuilder]

Right, but the force isn't what makes you stronger. The mass you move does.

So M = F/A, so the slower the A, the more M.

There is also the issue of acceleration.

Besides, if doing them slower feels harder, that's because you are working your muscles more.

No offense intended, but you're just completely wrong. Read up on the neural system, for starters, and its role in fiber activation.

 

[myfault]

Right, but the force isn't what makes you stronger. The mass you move does.

So M = F/A, so the slower the A, the more M.

There is also the issue of acceleration.

Besides, if doing them slower feels harder, that's because you are working your muscles more.

wow....

just wow.

 

[coolcolj]

pausing and moving slower does increase work for the muscles

but diminishes force and power output, and lessens tendon/reactive and stretch reflex contribution

if you want to work the muscles better then add pauses and go down slower etc
which also lessen joint/tendon impact

if you want to work the nervous sytem better, recruit more fibers and motor units push as hard as you can and bounce etc

if your already jumping and sprinting quite a bit then use weights to work the muscles better and lessen contribution from the tendons and joints. Ie the gym work strengthens the muscles and the jumping/sprinting works the nervous system with respect to speed/power and joint/tendon/stretch relfex contribution.
As long as you are practising your speed, movement effeciency, jumping and sprinting etc, you don't need to train explosively in the gym... and it saves your joints and minimise injury potential

 

[Synpax]

I'm just speculating in response to what was posted here. Don't jump down my throat for making a devil's advocate argument. Without carefully questioning this information when it gets posted here, we wind up perpetuating myths.

EDIT: to clearify, I was mocking the use of Newton's law here to address muscle development - by itself without a fuller context of what's going on.

The one article stated seems to qualify different kinds of improvements. It looks like the 'time under tension' - a term I've never heard of before (nor do I know who Bruce Mentzner is) - doesn't produce as fast as sprinters as heavy weight training - but the fast weight movement looks even worse.

It also seems to depend on your goals. II/I being high might be a goo dthing for a sprinter, but an endurance type might want a lower ratio and might be better served with slow sets - and that is the context to which the method was introduced to me.