Exercise
February 10, 2008
It seems every year another fitness “guru” releases a book or video claiming superslow training is the best thing since the invention of the dumbbell. For those of you who’ve never heard of superslow training, it’s basically a form of resistance exercise where each repetition takes about fifteen seconds to complete. According to superslow proponents, the biggest attribute of the technique is that it reduces momentum during training, thereby increasing force to the target muscle. In addition, by reducing momentum, the potential for injury is supposedly decreased. Sounds logical, right? Well, not exactly…
The effects of momentum on training are wildly overstated. Provided that weights are lifted in a controlled fashion, the target muscles are performing the majority of work. Momentum is a non-factor. What’s more, assuming proper technique is utilized, simply slowing down the speed of repetitions will have no effect on reducing injuries. In fact, the injury rate for those who train with proper form in a traditional protocol is almost non-existent. Thus, the science behind the superslow claims simply doesn’t add up.
All things considered, superslow training is suboptimal for achieving maximal muscular development. Here’s why:
First, the weights used during superslow training must be extremely light to compensate for the slow speed of the lift. While this allows the concentric (i.e. positive) portion of the rep to be executed in the desired fashion, it takes away most of the muscular stress on the eccentric (i.e. negative) portion (muscles can handle significantly more weight on eccentric actions than on concentric actions). And since the eccentric component is perhaps the most important aspect in promoting muscular development, results from superslow simply can’t compare to performing reps at a traditional cadence.
What’s more, superslow training is extremely tedious. The excruciatingly slow tempo causes most people to become bored with the routine in a relatively short period of time. This ultimately reduces exercise adherence – and if you don’t train, you won’t get results!
Bottom line: If you’re looking to optimize muscle development, the best advice with respect to rep speed is to follow the ABCs of lifting: always be in control. As long as you lift weights in a controlled fashion, the effects of momentum are negligible. This is not to say that superslow has no place in a routine. It can serve as a good “change of pace” and, when used occasionally, might help to overcome a training plateau. But for the majority of your workouts, a traditional lifting regimen is the way to go.
Stay Fit!
Brad
TAGS: Superslow, speed of repetitions, rep speed, repetition speed, lifting speed, superslow exercise, eccentric repetitions, lifting momentum
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Entries (RSS)
Brad,
Clearly you haven’t read the research. And it appears you think a dumbbell is the be all and end all of training.
Define ‘controlled fashion.’
If slow training overcomes a plateau, why not keep using it? What plateaued you in the first place?
Subit your evidence that a ‘traditional lifitng regimen’ is the way to go as you claim.
And while you’re at it, define a traditional lifting regimen.
Comment by fred hahn — February 11, 2008 @ 1:42 am
Hey Fred:
I’m actually quite familiar with the research on superslow vs. traditional rep training (and FYI, the term “traditional” in this context generally refers to a 2 second up phase and a 2-4 second downphase). So let’s look at the *published* peer reviewed research on the subject (I’ve footnoted the articles cited below in case you’d like to take a look at them).
1) At the University of Wisconsin, Neils and colleagues examined a group of subjects performing traditional speed reps vs. superslow reps on markers of strength and peak power. The results? The group performing traditional speed reps showed an approximately 100% greater improvement in strength on the squat in comparison to superslow and had a significant increase in peak power (superslow showed no improvement in peak power at all).
2) At George Washington University, Keeler and colleagues separated a group of subjects into either a traditional speed or a superslow protocol to evaluate strength improvements. The results here were even more striking between the traditional speed rep group vs. the superslow group in terms of increases in strength: bench press (34% vs. 11%), torso arm (anterior lateral pull-down) (27% vs. 12%), leg press (33% vs. 7%), leg extension (56% vs. 24%), and leg curl (40% vs. 15%). When adding up the numbers, the traditional rep speed group’s improvement in total exercise weight lifted was almost 150% greater than that of the SS group after testing.
3) At the University of Alabama, Hunter and colleagues looked at the effects of a traditional speed rep vs. superslow on body composition. Total net energy expenditure from oxidative processes was 45% higher for the traditional rep speed protocol (i.e. significantly more calories burned). What’s more, the postexercise lactate difference was almost two times greater following traditional rep speed training than superslow – this is significant because lactate is theorized to potentiate a hypertrophic response via increased cellular hydration, as well as increasing excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (the number of calories burned *after* the workout is finished). In conclusion, the study went on to say: “Traditional resistance training increases energy expenditure more than SST (i.e. superslow) does and thus may be more beneficial for body weight control.”
4) Finally, researchers at the Sudbury Exercise and Performance Testing Center, studied the effects of momentum on different lifting speeds. The results showed that momentum was insignificant between superslow and traditional cadences (2 seconds seems to be the critical number for concentric rep speed in reducing momentum). The study went on to conclude: “From this data it can be seen that there is little difference, in regard to forces produced/experienced and the issue of safety (i.e., potential for injury as a result of unwanted and excessive forces) between the 10-10, 5-5 and 2-4 protocols.”
As far as why superslow might be effective in overcoming a plateau? Simply because changing variables is the key to keeping your body off guard (doing almost *anything* different will help to overcome a plateau). This is a basic tenet of exercise, and the basis of periodization (see Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome). But because of the factors mentioned in my post on Superslow, the benefits regarding this approach be short-lived and the trainee will need to again employ a traditional rep protocol to optimize results.
Hope this helps,
Brad
1) Neils CM, et al, Influence of contraction velocity in untrained individuals over the initial early phase of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):883-7
2) Keeler, L. K., Finkelstein, L. H., Miller, W., & Fernhall, B. (2001). Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. SuperSlow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol 15, No. 1, pp. 309-314
3) Hunter GR, et al, Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Feb;17(1):76-81.
4) Johnston BD, Moving Too Rapidly in Strength Training Will Unload Muscles and Limit Full Range Strength Development Adaptation. Journal of Exercise Physiology, Vol 8 No 3 June 2005
Comment by Brad — February 11, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
[…] bookmarks tagged eccentric Superslow? Not the Way to Go… saved by 3 others jag9676 bookmarked on 02/11/08 | […]
Pingback by Pages tagged "eccentric" — February 11, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
I interviewed with a local SST gym yesterday, and went through a workout. Interesting, however, having been in the Health and Wellness industry for over 30 years, I am uncomfortable with the lack of warm up and cool down aspects of the protocol. I am also concerned that several muscle groups were completely ignored. I imagine that for the beginer the intensity of the workout, ie. going to failure would put the person in significant pain, due to residual soreness. Having trained thousands of people over the last couple of decades I am going to decline their offer of employment. I am doing this because I have a simple way of living, it\\\’s called living with integrity. Tell the truth. I believe if I tell the truth to the clientele, they wouldn\\\’t have any clientele! Not so good for them, however, it is the only way to live…in my opinion.
Comment by Jack — August 5, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Hi Brad,
I’ve been doing HIT since 1994, actually spoke with the late Mike Mentzer. I totally agree with you on the rep cadence. As long as the turn around is smooth and slowly coming out of the turn a 2 second cadence is fine. I tried SS for a month and actually felt weaker and softer. I did not see Fred Hahn response after your lengthy response. Anyway cheers.
Comment by Pat Ycaro — November 5, 2014 @ 1:22 pm