Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Super SLOW lifting... effective??
- Thread starter hesselite
- Start date
H
HighIntensity
Guest
the effectiveness of this training is that muscle is created on the negative movement of training not the foward thrust. Plus stabilizer muscles are worked even harder with slow negative reps.
Watch your joints though heavy negative training can be harsh on weak ligaments
Watch your joints though heavy negative training can be harsh on weak ligaments
Blood&Iron
New member
SuperSlow, as patented by Ken Hutchins, has been amended to a 10s concentric and 10s eccentric. It was formerly 10s concentric, 4s eccentric. Neither approach works particulary well with free-weights, where the resistance curve of the lift is not the same as the strength curve of the muscle, or with most machines, which have too much friction. The SuperSlow Exercise Guild has their own line of machines which are very low friction. Hammer Strength, and some Nautilus machines will also work quite well. The approach is very effective(I have used it numerous times and put on quite large amounts of muscle mass, and increased my strength my substantially.) however it also is much more painful than conventional lifting cadences. A recent study by Dr. Wayne Westcott showed a 50% greater increase in strength over a 2-4 cadence(which is still much slower than that employed by the majority of trainees) but after the 8-week study ended only 2 out of something like 187 participants said they would be willing to continue using the protocol. SuperSlow is also much safer on one's joints than conventional cadences as momentum is reduced to essentially nothing. The SuperSlow website has a fair amount of information if you are interested. It's located at
http://www.superslow.com
http://www.superslow.com
diamonddiceclay
New member
For what it's worth, NO PROS lift this way
Blood&Iron
New member
Uhh...so what?diamonddiceclay said:
bignate73
New member
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume 15 Number 3 August 2001
Early Phase Adaptations of Traditional speed vs. Superslow Resistance training on Strength and Aerobic Capacity in Sedentary Individuals
"...it appears that SS strength training is no better at enhancing strength development than TR (traditional 4/2/0) strength training. In fact, we found that TR strength training is more effective at improving strength in many of the exercises in the absence of changes in percentage of bodyfat, BMI, LBM and bodyweight."
Volume 15 Number 3 August 2001
Early Phase Adaptations of Traditional speed vs. Superslow Resistance training on Strength and Aerobic Capacity in Sedentary Individuals
"...it appears that SS strength training is no better at enhancing strength development than TR (traditional 4/2/0) strength training. In fact, we found that TR strength training is more effective at improving strength in many of the exercises in the absence of changes in percentage of bodyfat, BMI, LBM and bodyweight."
Blood&Iron
New member
Unfortunately I can only find the abstract of this study, which does not describe it in enough detail to know whether it was well conducted. A great many studies have flaws that a high-schooler would be ashamed to make. That's not to say that the study is invalid, only that without this info it is impossible to judge its worth. I don't really feel like digging around for it at the library, but I assume you have the original bignate73. Can you post a detailed description of how it was conducted?bignate73 said:
Blood&Iron
New member
I'm still interested in seeing how the study was designed and the results, if you've got the time to type it out. Thanks.bignate73 said:
alllriiiight. <sigh> hehe. ill get to it possibly tomorrow, since my arms are kindof shaking right now. (fun at the gym)
do i have to draw the charts?
