Pete Sisco told me to ask

[MANWHORE]

So i just wanted to see what everyone thought ..... Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?

 

[Bob Smith]

Not that Im aware of.

 

[J DUB]

Here are a couple I found with a very quick search. I didn't do a PubMed search, but there might be more there. These results are somewhat confounding, but keep in mind the subjects were previously untrained so it is hard to extrapolate such results onto people who have been lifting for years. Beginners tend to respond well to any sort of exercise.

However, I do not think you will find a strength coach or anyone else knowledgable in the field who will say that partial reps are just as effective as full ROM reps for strength or hypertrophy. Partials might have their place, such as board presses with the Westside lifters, but for hypertrophy a full ROM is certainly best.

Also, these studies examined strength instead of hypertrophy...I don't see this being a big deal as if you get stronger then you will almost certainly get bigger.

__________________________________________________
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 409411.

Influence of Range of Motion in Resistance Training in Women: Early Phase Adaptations
C. Dwayne Massey


Department of Human Performance and Recreation, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406

John Vincent and Mark Maneval


Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

J. T. Johnson


Department of Human Performance and Recreation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

ABSTRACT

Massey, C.D., J. Vincent, M. Maneval, and J.T. Johnson. Influence of range of motion in resistance training in women: Early phase adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(2): 409411. 2005.The purpose of this investigation was to compare partial range-of-motion versus full range-of-motion training in the development of maximal upper-body strength in women. A 1 repetition maximum bench press was used as the criterion measurement. A 10-week, 2 days per week training regimen was used. Subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 13) trained with 3 full range-of-motion sets on the bench press. Group 2 (n = 8) trained with 3 partial range-of-motion sets. Group 3 (n = 8), serving as a quasi-control, trained with an equal combination of partial and full range-of-motion sets. Findings indicated that each of the 3 groups experienced an increase in bench-press strength from pre- to posttest. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found between the full range-of-motion group and the partial and mixed groups (p < 0.5). This finding suggests that lifting through a full range of motion was superior to the other training regimens used in this study. However, this investigation also indicated that the partial technique had a positive effect on strength across time within the parameters of this study.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2005, National Strength and Conditioning Association

________________________________________________________-





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




doi: 10.1519/13263.1
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 518521.

An Analysis of Full Range of Motion vs. Partial Range of Motion Training in the Development of Strength in Untrained Men
C. Dwayne Massey, Mark Maneval, Melissa Moore, and J.T. Johnson


University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406

John Vincent


University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

ABSTRACT

Massey, C.D., J. Vincent, M. Maneval, M. Moore, and J.T. Johnson. An analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development of strength in untrained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):518521. 2004.The purpose of this investigation was to compare partial range of motion versus full range of motion training in the development of maximal strength. The bench press was used as the criterion measurement. The study was conducted over a 10-week period with training sessions occurring twice per week. Subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (N = 11) trained with 3 full range of motion sets on the bench press. Group 2 (N = 15) trained with 3 partial range of motion sets. A partial repetition was defined as one that is beyond the sticking point 2 to 5 inches from full extension of the elbows. Group 3 (N = 30) trained with a combination of partial and full range of motion sets. All subjects were pre- and posttested on the bench press through a full range of motion using a 1 repetition maximum. Each of the 3 groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in strength from pre- to posttest. No differences were found between groups. These findings appear to suggest that partial range of motion training can positively influence the development of maximal strength. Therefore, those involved in the strength and conditioning profession can confidently including this method as an adjunct to their normal training protocols when working with individuals similar to those found in this investigation. It is suggested that additional research be conducted to further establish the effectiveness of partial range of motion training in developing maximal strength.

Key Words: range of motion, maximal strength, partial repetitions




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2004, National Strength and Conditioning Association

 

[MANWHORE]

Alrighty then

 

[Desibaba]

How come almost always these types of studies are done on untrained subjects? They should use experienced lifters who have a considerable amount of muscle mass.Newbies get gains no matter how they train for a few months.

 

[J DUB]

There are a number of reasons, but a couple are:

1) they are easy to find...usually grad or undergrad students in the department or just normal students who the researchers might pay to allow themselves to be subjected to fun experiences like muscle biopsies and blood drawing.

2) untrained subjects provide a common baseline, because trained subjects can all vary with their respective training histories. For example, there is a big difference between a guy who has been bb'ing for 10 years and a guy who has been pl'ing for 10 years. This could make the results very confusing, as their past training will highly influence their response to different programs, etc.

3) It is much easier to get results from untrained subjects, because let's say you have 8 weeks to do a study. Trained subjects will likely not respond to anything over 8 weeks, so it will be hard to really quantify any measurable change in hypertrophy, VJ, etc. However, put some untrained sloths on a HIT program for 8 weeks and you can say "Hooray! HIT works and this is just the result I was looking for!" This looks much better than getting funding for a study and finding no measurable difference between your control and experimental groups, as would likely be the case with trained subjects over a short period of time.

Scientists are fully aware of the problems with using untrained subjects, but trained subjects present a host of problems as mentioned. This is a good reason why (amongst others) that people pay attention to a lot of the old Soviet studies, because they were usually conducted on elite athletes. How many studies in the US are done on pro sport athletes, or even Olympic athletes? Not that many, although the OTC in Colorado has turned out a couple interesting things.

It is always wise to pay attention to the research, but also don't just brush off anecdotal evidence as each time we step in the weightroom we are basically guinea pigs trying to find what works. Some of the best stuff for weightlifting was not found with research but rather with people just messing around and seeing what works and what doesn't. However, WRT to partial vs. full ROM, I can say with confidence that full ROM is almost always better, i.e. a full DB curl is absolutely superior to stopping half way any way you look at it for hypertrophy.

I apologize for the sloppiness of this post, but hope the info was good.

 

[Madcow2]

Some of the best stuff for weightlifting was not found with research but rather with people just messing around and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Just an interesting aside, I think there are two really cool things that many people take for granted.

1) The barbell - add standard combinations of plates to configure it for virtually any load desired. Round plates make it sit nice on the ground too (damn the morons who made the "fancy" hex plates).

2) The whole general idea of doing multiple submaximal reps as a set. A really neat organization that's very practical and quantifiable.

Just some random stuff that is taken for granted to the point that most people don't even give it a thought.

 

[bigtrevm]

Personal experience

From personal experience I really struggled to see gains in my chest with a Full Range of Motion, then from watching guys I knew and from watching the movie Pumping iron I noticed that alot of guys with great Chests didn't do a Full Range. I have only switched to a lesser range for about four months and my gains have been much better. I now stop between 1 and 2in above my chest and stop just ever so slighty short of lockout. This method seems easier on my shoulders too.

Perhaps you should try it and see what works for you

bigtrevm

 

[MANWHORE]

From personal experience I really struggled to see gains in my chest with a Full Range of Motion, then from watching guys I knew and from watching the movie Pumping iron I noticed that alot of guys with great Chests didn't do a Full Range. I have only switched to a lesser range for about four months and my gains have been much better. I now stop between 1 and 2in above my chest and stop just ever so slighty short of lockout. This method seems easier on my shoulders too.

Perhaps you should try it and see what works for you

bigtrevm

Some guys only use full range for a stretch and to test strength but use only partial when training for size/strength ...

 

[J DUB]

Where did Pete Sisco ask this? You are referring to the one who has written a few books, right?

 

[MANWHORE]

Where did Pete Sisco ask this? You are referring to the one who has written a few books, right?

Yes,that's him ... i get e-mails from Power Factor all the time at my Zip account. ... I check that account every now and then .... Here is the latest email ...............How To Win Every Gym Debate Part 1

One of my biggest pet peeves is the the awful strength training information that gets freely passed around in gyms and especially online. Because PFT and SCT are new, innovative and unconventional they are often magnets for the purveyors of this useless and even harmful advice. What follows is a series of e-mails that will help give every reader the critical thinking skills and pertinent arguments that can win every gym debate and allow you to continue your productive training uninterrupted by the Luddites who fear new technology.

Debate: You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.

Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. Its often from some person who thinks hes helping you out by passing on some physiology knowledge he once heard. Sometimes its just a know-it-all jerk who critiques everyones workouts.

In any event, ask him this simple question, Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?

Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single study supporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, are you saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What Im saying is that there are billions of cases over thousands of years of humans building muscle without using a full range of motion. So if a future study concludes that cant happen the study will be wrong.

The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial studios, humans just dont use a full range of motion when performing high intensity exercise. For example:

a) When you try to push a car you dont place your hands near your chest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from you

b) Likewise, you also dont squat down on you haunches, you barely bend your knees when you push a car

c) When you climb a ladder you dont go three rungs at a time even though you could

d) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongest and most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use our full range of motion

There are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers and others who have very muscular physiques without ever using a full range of motion in their daily jobs.

And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth, yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all the bodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with maximum range of motion to develop flexibility.

Sometimes youll hear this variation: If you dont use a full range of motion, youll develop a short muscle. Again, there is not a single study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of your muscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, your muscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter. Wont happen.

And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work of the maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leads to maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the short muscle remark is ridiculous.

For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static Contraction Training have been showing people how to limit range of motion in favor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate that over 200,000 people have used these methods to build new muscle. Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitness equipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.

So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of muscle building, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. The overwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts. It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6 inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics is concerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxes your limits, not the greater distance.

You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle. It never was true and never will be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training to lift the maximum amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safest possible range of motionand watch your progress take off.

Have a great workout!

Pete

 

[MANWHORE]

You know what i like? Well i'll tell you ... I like super slow reps because i get such a good pump and the burn hurts like hell. I will even get sick if i push too hard. When i train with super slow reps,i like to get a very deep stretch.

 

[Bob Smith]

You know what i like? Well i'll tell you ... I like super slow reps because i get such a good pump and the burn hurts like hell. I will even get sick if i push too hard. When i train with super slow reps,i like to get a very deep stretch.

Are you being serious? Super slow reps is probably the absolute worst way to try to build muscle.

 

[CyniQ]

If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter.

That's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

A PT told me this same thing one time. She said that I should only come down til my elbows were at 90 degrees when I bench. At 90 the bar was nowhere near my chest. I was young and gave it a shot for 8 weeks. I did get stronger. But I don't think I progressed much faster than I would have with a full ROM. What I did find is that my muscles were shorter. Sort of. When I went back to benching at a full range of motion, I couldn't do it. IIRC it took me about 2 weeks of stretching to get my full ROM back.

If I tried those kinds of partial reps now. I would only incorporate them into a program that included full reps. Kind of like a speed strength system where you lift really heavy one workout and really fast the next.

 

[J DUB]

Let me just begin by saying that this is pure idiocy. Anytime you see a program with a label like HIT, PFT, SCT, SS, even HST, and it claims (in any way) to be the best way to train, look elsewhere, preferably at a good sportscience book. These uneducated gurus who spew this crap out do nothing but confuse people and make themselves look stupid at the same time.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the the awful strength training information that gets freely passed around in gyms and especially online. Because PFT and SCT are new, innovative and unconventional they are often magnets for the purveyors of this useless and even harmful advice. What follows is a series of e-mails that will help give every reader the critical thinking skills and pertinent arguments that can win every gym debate and allow you to continue your productive training uninterrupted by the Luddites who fear new technology.

I am not sure what PFT and SCT are, but I really doubt they are new. It has been a while since anything extraordinarily "new" has happened in training. SCT sounds like isometrics...if so, this is one of the oldest forms of exercise, hardly new! If someone can tell me what is so new and technologically advanced about this method I would appreciate it. It's kinda like Pilates...it recently became marketed well but is by no means new. Also, please do not consult this man for critical thinking skills...he apparently has none.

Debate: You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle.

Nearly every person who has trained with either Power Factor Training or Static Contraction Training has heard this comment in the gym. Its often from some person who thinks hes helping you out by passing on some physiology knowledge he once heard. Sometimes its just a know-it-all jerk who critiques everyones workouts.

I guess I'm the guy he's talking about. Oh well.

In any event, ask him this simple question, Has there ever been a clinical study that demonstrates humans need a full range of motion to build muscle; or a study that demonstrates range of motion plays a bigger role in hypertrophy than the amount of weight lifted?

Perhaps it will surprise you to know there is not a single study supporting that conclusion. Nor will there ever be. What? Pete, are you saying you can predict the outcome of future studies? No. What Im saying is that there are billions of cases over thousands of years of humans building muscle without using a full range of motion. So if a future study concludes that cant happen the study will be wrong.

Oh boy, this is a gem. I found and posted on here, within 5 minutes, two studies showing that a full ROM is superior to partial ROM. I can probably find more, as I did not even touch PubMed. Pete is also dismissing the results of thousands of weightlifters, powerlifters, and bodybuilders whose physiques and strength were gained through full ROM exercise. He is correct in stating that it is possible to build muscle without using a full ROM, but in assuming this is the optimal way to train he is simply wrong. WHY would one want to train with a partial ROM anyway? I guess he is the final authority, however, when it comes to scientific evidence...anytime researchers find conclusions now they should just ask Pete Sisco to see if what they found is correct or not.

The fact is, outside of the gym and infomercial studios, humans just dont use a full range of motion when performing high intensity exercise. For example:

a) When you try to push a car you dont place your hands near your chest to push, you place them almost fully extended away from you

b) Likewise, you also dont squat down on you haunches, you barely bend your knees when you push a car

c) When you climb a ladder you dont go three rungs at a time even though you could

d) When we walk we automatically use a step that is in our strongest and most efficient range of motion; by nature we almost never use our full range of motion

Is he kidding? How many times a year do we push a car or climb a ladder? Anyway, I think I'll put my money on Louie Simmons (who squats 1,000 with a full ROM) pushing a car further and faster over some guy squatting 315 with a partial ROM any day of the week. This is nonsense, and I have nothing else to say in response to this.

There are millions of construction workers, mechanics, landscapers and others who have very muscular physiques without ever using a full range of motion in their daily jobs.

Hell, I guess all lifters should take up these professions then. I guess we are all wasting our time doing those heavy, full ROM benches and squats. Silly us. I bet a landscaper who squats down to plant some fucking 1/8 lb. flowers will outsquat me anyday...yeah right.

And if full range of motion was the crucial road to muscle growth, yoga instructors and martial artists would be winning all the bodybuilding titles because they consistently exercise with maximum range of motion to develop flexibility.

Here, he is eliminating a crucial element to hypertrophy and strength: LOAD. Last time I checked, yoga practicioners and martial artists don't perform movements with 300lb on their back. But, bodybuilders, weightlifters, and powerlifters use full ROM movements with heavy pounds and guess what? They are the biggest, strongers mofos on earth. Enough said. Is it becoming clear that Pete is an idiot?

Sometimes youll hear this variation: If you dont use a full range of motion, youll develop a short muscle. Again, there is not a single study to back up this assertion. The length and shape of your muscles is determined by who your parents are. Furthermore, your muscles are permanently attached to your bones. If you do partial reps, you muscles do not disconnect themselves, creep along the bone and reattach themselves during the night in order to become shorter. Wont happen.

Your muscles are not attached to your bones? Jesus Christ, how do we move then? It is obvious that this guy has never taken any sort of a basic Anatomy and Physiology class. The last sentence doesn't even make sense, I don't even know what to say about it.

And when you lift the maximum weight possible it requires the work of the maximum number of muscle fibers. Maximum fiber recruitment leads to maximum muscle hypertrophy; which is just one more reason the short muscle remark is ridiculous.

OK, he might have a point here (which is nothing new), but I fail to see how this fits in with his argument.

For nearly fifteen years Power Factor Training and Static Contraction Training have been showing people how to limit range of motion in favor of lifting more weight in a safer range. I now estimate that over 200,000 people have used these methods to build new muscle. Thanks to the recent advent of the purpose-built Explosive Fitness equipment, our customers will soon number in the millions.

Since when was it shown that partial ROM training was safer? There are studies, in fact, showing that partial ROM squats place more stress on the knees than full ROM squats!!! Would he like to debate with biomechanists on this issue??? It is clear as well that he is using this flawed method of training to push some exercise equipment....a common tactic amongst these non-educated gurus.

So the evidence is clear and unambiguous; in the realm of muscle building, range of motion has almost no significance whatsoever. The overwhelming factor of significance is how much weight a muscle lifts. It is better to lift 200 pounds 3 inches than to lift 100 pounds 6 inches. It is better still to lift 400 pounds 1.5 inches. All three lifts represent the same amount of work as far as physics is concerned, yet when you try them it is the greater weight that taxes your limits, not the greater distance.

Work in simple terms is force x distance. Force, in turn, is mass x acceleration. It is impossible to know if these exercise regimes are equivalent in work production as we do not know the acceleration of the lifts. Lifting 100 lbs 6 inches can certainly produce more work than lifting 200 lbs 3 inches if the acceleration of the 100lb. load is higher. This is basic physics but I guess Pete will say the laws of physics are wrong, too.

You need to lift through a full range of motion in order to build maximum muscle. It never was true and never will be true. My best advice is to use Static Contraction Training to lift the maximum amount of weight you can, in the smallest and safest possible range of motionand watch your progress take off.

Have a great workout!

As one can see from my quick criticism of this junk, one should be careful when reading such nonsense on the internet, or anywhere for that matter. There are no qualifications necessary to write something on the internet, and often people take advantage of this and spew forth such garbage. If anyone would like to disagree with me here I am open to debate. To anyone who comes across other such gems of knowledge, please post them here as I had a good time destroying this article.

Pete

 

[MANWHORE]

Are you being serious? Super slow reps is probably the absolute worst way to try to build muscle.

What if i told you i was seeing some nice gains from them? Do you have a few studies showing this
I like studies ... O and J DUB i guess that is that

 

[J DUB]

doi: 10.1519/1533-4295(1999)021<0029:SSTBB>2.0.CO;2
Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 2929.

BRIDGING THE GAP: Super-Slow Training: Buyer Beware
David Pearson, CSCS,
and Robert Newton, CSCS


REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH research is published regarding the physiological response of the neuromuscular system to resistance training, all too often, athletes are advised to train in ways that conflict directly with fact. Several scientific facts clearly refute the efficacy of super-slow resistance training as a valuable technique in strength and conditioning.



Motor Unit Recruitment Return to TOC

If the goal of the resistance-training program is to increase muscle size (hypertrophy), then the most important design consideration is to recruit all of the motor units for a given muscle. Both fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibers have the capacity to increase size, and so a sensible strategy is to maximize the growth of all fibers. Slow-twitch fibers are activated in all resistance-training exercises; however, fast-twitch fibers are only activated during maximal or near-maximal lifts, as well as towards the end of a set, when fatigue of the slower motor units requires recruitment of faster motor units. According to the size principle, super-slow training will recruit predominantly slow motor units and so the hypertrophic response will not be optimal. In terms of strength, increases are achieved by a combination of hypertrophy and changes in neural activation. It has already been argued that super-slow training is unlikely to be effective for increasing muscle size. To increase the amount and frequency of neural activation, heavy resistance training at or near maximum is required. Therefore, it is unlikely that super-slow training is optimal for strength development.



Velocity Specificity Return to TOC

A consistent finding of research into the neuromuscular system has been the velocity specificity of training. Strength is increased at the velocity (and relative load) at which the person trains. Therefore, if strength gains are realized from super-slow training, they will only be exhibited at that slow movement speed used in training and will be greatly reduced as one performs more dynamic movements common to traditional resistance training and in particular sports and activities of daily living.



Explosive Performance Return to TOC

Dynamic performance, particularly in explosive or powerful movements such as jumping, throwing, or sprinting, is best improved by performing fast, powerful, resistance-training exercises. This is supported by the numerous studies showing the effectiveness of weightlifting, ballistic resistance training, and plyometrics for increasing explosive performance. The use of super-slow training is unlikely to improve athletic performance and may even reduce performance in activities requiring rapid and powerful muscle contraction. Recent research work at Southern Cross University compared super-slow and traditional resistance training. Subjects were divided into 2 groups, such that half the subjects completed normal-speed resistance training and the other half completed super-slow training. The groups were tested before and after training for arm girth measurements and for bench press and lat pull-down capacities. The traditional training group increased in all 3 measures over the training period, while the super-slowtraining group did not change significantly on any of the measures. The percentage change over the training period in all 3 measures was significantly higher for the traditional-training group compared with the super-slowtraining group. Based on these findings it appears that super-slow training is ineffective for increasing muscle strength or size. While it may be argued that any form of progressive overload will cause the muscle to respond to the stress, training to enhance athletic performance is much more involved. Athletes need to train for strength, power, and speed, not to become super slow.

Robert Newton, PhD, is the Coordinator of the Biomechanics Laboratory within the Human Performance Laboratory at Ball State University.


__________________________________________________________




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Greer


Beau Kjerulf Greer is a doctoral student in exercise physiology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

___________________________________________________


Early-Phase Adaptations of Traditional-Speed vs. Superslow Resistance Training on Strength and Aerobic Capacity in Sedentary Individuals
LAURA K. KEELER, LORI H. FINKELSTEIN, WAYNE MILLER, and BO FERNHALL


Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20052.

ABSTRACT

We performed a randomized exercise training study to assess the effects of traditional Nautilus-style (TR) or superslow (SS) strength training on muscular strength, body composition, aerobic capacity, and cardiovascular endurance. Subjects were 14 healthy, sedentary women, 1945 years of age (mean SD age, 32.7 8.9 years), randomized to either the SS or TR training protocols and trained 3 times per week for 10 weeks. Measurements were taken both before and after training, which included a maximal incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer, body composition, and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) tests on 8 Nautilus machines. Both groups increased their strength significantly on all 8 exercises, whereas the TR group increased significantly more than the SS group on 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%). Thus, the TR group's improvement in total exercise weight lifted was significantly greater than that of the SS group after testing (39% vs. 15%). Exercise duration on the cycle ergometer and work rate significantly improved for both groups, but there was no group-by-training interaction. No significant differences were found for body composition or additional aerobic variables measured. Both strength training protocols produced a significant improvement in strength during a 10-week training period, but the TR protocol produced better gains in the absence of changes in percentage of body fat, body mass index, lean body mass, and body weight. In addition, strength training alone did not improve O2max, yet short-term endurance increased.

Reference Data:Keeler, L.K., L.H. Finkelstein, W. Miller, and B. Fernhall. Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals.

______________________________________________________

 

[J DUB]

doi: 10.1519/1533-4295(2005)027<0032:TEOLVS>2.0.CO;2
Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 3237.

The Effectiveness of Low Velocity (Superslow) Resistance Training
Beau Kjerulf Greer, MA, CSCS, HFI


Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

ABSTRACT

Superslow training, a form of low-velocity resistance training, is continuing to gain popularity in the U.S. This brief review examines the validity of the Superslow philosophy and its supposed benefits.

Key Words: Superslow, low velocity, resistance training, strength, muscle endurance



Superslow training, a form of low-velocity resistance training, has gained significant popularity in the last decade, with the lay press also demonstrating a profound interest in this unconventional type of physical training. However, a lack of research studies has resulted in the inability to confirm or disprove the many publicized benefits of Superslow training. Only recently have appropriate research designs emerged to test the efficacy of a Superslow program as compared with a traditional one (7, 10, 23, 25, 27, 42). The term traditional is used uniquely by each training study and therefore will be defined separately in the context of each individual study for the purposes of this brief review.

Superslow resistance training involves 10-second concentric contractions and 4- to 10-second eccentric contractions (26). Currently, the majority of Superslow-certified facilities use 10-second eccentric contractions. An exercise typically lasts for 80160 seconds, the amount of time to complete approximately 48 repetitions. Although one can train at a higher frequency, it is claimed that benefits can be achieved through a single 15- to 30-minute session per week (26). According to the developer of Superslow training, this unique form of exercise offers a safer workout and superior benefits in terms of muscular fitness, cardiovascular health and fitness parameters, sport performance, and overall functionality as compared to more traditional forms of either resistance or aerobic training. In fact, the Superslow philosophy regards traditional aerobic training as a health risk related to musculoskeletal disorders and sees it as ineffective at reducing chronic disease risk (26).

Superslow advocates claim that their exercise regime is a high-intensity workout (26). If relative intensity is defined as a percentage of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM), it is clearly a low-intensity workout, as the average load is greatly lessened in comparison with traditional resistance training (25, 27). When comparing fast (2 seconds) and slow (10 seconds) eccentric protocols, the rates of perceived exertion (RPE) were 8.3 2.1 and 5.4 1.5 respectively (30). Therefore even if intensity is estimated by perceived difficulty, which is relatively uncommon in resistance training research but has been recently validated (31), Superslow training should not be considered a high-intensity workout.



Muscular Strength and Endurance Return to TOC

Only 1 peer-reviewed study exists suggesting that a Superslow protocol may be more effective in developing total body strength than traditional resistance training. Westcott et al (42) trained 147 men and women for 810 weeks using either regular speed resistance training (2-second concentric phase, 1-second pause, and a 4-second eccentric phase) or Superslow training (10-second concentric phase and a 4-second eccentric phase). The regular-speed group completed 812 repetitions per set while the Superslow group completed 46 repetitions. The regular-speed and Superslow groups were tested for strength by a 10RM and a 5RM, respectively, at a speed consistent with their training. Subjects in the Superslow group showed approximately a 50% greater increase in strength on several exercises from pre- to posttesting (42).

The choice of strength testing protocol in this study provokes controversy. Although other studies have used a 10RM to test strength, many would contend that it is not the best indicator of strength (as compared to a 1RM for example). More importantly, using a 5RM for the Superslow group at the speed described above (10- and 4-second contractions) has never been used in another peer-reviewed study, and therefore its validity as a measure of strength must be questioned. Clearly the Superslow group got better at performing their protocol than the regular-speed group, but this does not necessarily mean they got stronger.

A possible explanation for the greater improvements in the Superslow group is low neuromuscular coordination at baseline. The term neuromuscular coordination refers to motor unit recruitment, synchronization, rate coding, and antagonist inhibition. Few, if any, activities of daily living (ADLs) are purposely done at a slow speed. Subjects in the Superslow group may have had an initially low level of neuromuscular coordination at generating continuous force at such a slow speed, therefore making it easier to improve. Because speeds used for traditional resistance training more closely mimic ADLs, the traditional speed group may not have had this inherent advantage of a low baseline level. This point is further supported by studies showing significant increases in strength without significant increases in lean body mass after a period of Superslow training (10, 27). Ultimately, because of its questionable testing methods, the Westcott study does not indicate whether a traditional or Superslow training program is superior for producing strength gains.

Other studies cast doubt upon the ability of a Superslow protocol to increase muscular strength as effectively as traditional weight training. Keeler et al (27) studied 14 healthy, untrained women for a 10-week period. Subjects trained 3 times per week, performing 1 set of 812 repetitions on 8 exercises. The subjects were divided between a traditional protocol (2-second concentric phase, 4-second eccentric phase) and a Superslow protocol (10-second concentric phase, 5-second eccentric phase). Time between exercises was controlled between groups, as this could have been a confounding factor regarding aerobic measures that were made (2, 6).

Even though both groups showed significant strength gains as measured by pre-and posttraining 1RM, the traditional group had greater improvement in 5 out of 8 exercises, as well as total weight lifted. Across all exercises, the Superslow group's strength improved by 15% above baseline, whereas the traditional group saw a 39% improvement (27). It is possible that the Superslow group may have shown greater improvements if tested at a speed specific to its training protocol. However, the 1RM is considered to be an appropriate test for strength (4).

In response to criticism that the study by Keeler et al. was not performed at a certified Superslow facility, researchers at Furman University organized 39 college-aged men to compare the benefits of a traditional workout versus the Superslow protocol (7, 10, 23). Subjects trained either at a college fitness facility according to the 1998 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines for cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, at a local certified Superslow gym 1 day per week according to Superslow protocol, or they were placed in a control group. ACSM guidelines for muscular fitness involve performing 1 set of 812 repetitions on 810 exercises at a frequency of 2 times per week (3). The concentric phase was performed as quickly as the resistance allowed, while the eccentric phase was done in a controlled manner (but with no precise duration restrictions). It should be noted that the ACSM guidelines were not designed for athletic performance (15) and were chosen simply to represent a traditional workout regime. Cardiovascular exercise of progressively increased volume was included in the traditional group's workout in order to test the claim that Superslow training enhances cardiorespiratory fitness.

After a 16-week training period, all subjects were tested for upper and lower limb strength and endurance on a Kincom dynamometer (Chattecx, Chattanooga, TN). When compared with baseline data, Blount et al (7) found that muscle endurance for arm flexion and extension significantly improved (5.46% and 2.3% fatigue index respectively) as compared with the traditionally trained and control groups. Because this test was performed at a speed (180/s) drastically different than Superslow speeds, these results suggest that the training would have carryover to external activities. A significant improvement (11.58 foot-pounds) in lower limb extensor strength (measured at 60/s) was also observed in the Superslow group (7).

In contrast, no improvements in lower limb endurance, upper limb strength, or lower limb flexor strength were observed in either training group when compared with controls (7). The highly specific nature of isokinetic testing may account for the lack of measured strength gains in both groups. This is plausible, as a 1-set workout of traditional-speed resistance training has been demonstrated numerous times to effectively increase strength for untrained subjects (9, 16). There is also research to suggest that the use of multiple sets will confer additional benefit (38); a higher level of adaptation may have been needed in order to observe benefits by isokinetic testing. Yet another possibility is that strength gains were diminished due to the high volume of aerobic work performed by the traditionally trained group in the latter weeks of the training period. There is evidence to either support or refute this hypothesis (5,11,22,32). Regardless, after the 16-week training period, the traditionally trained group had significantly gained lean body mass, whereas the Superslow and control groups did not show improvements (10).



Isokinetic Studies Return to TOC

During isokinetic work, maximal effort is made throughout the set against a resistance with a fixed velocity. This differs from Superslow training and certain isoinertial (i.e., the often misused term isotonic) protocols in which a submaximal effort is made (until the latter portions of the set) with a relatively fixed velocity as determined by the practitioner or subject (29). This also differs from other isoinertial circumstances in which maximal effort is made throughout the set and therefore the velocity is determined by the amount of resistance. Consequently, protocols used in isokinetic training studies do not fit under the formal definition for Superslow training. Although the applicability of isokinetic studies remains controversial, certain research provides good comparison between slower and faster protocols; they are therefore appropriate for this discussion with the caveat that results cannot be directly applied to any form of isoinertial training without some degree of debate. Considering that traditional isoinertial resistance training velocity does not frequently exceed 60/s (36), only recent studies using a protocol velocity of 30/s or less will be discussed.

Isokinetic training at 180/s was shown to be superior to 30/s in regards to developing both muscular power and endurance more than 20 years ago (1); recent studies confirm this finding. Paddon-Jones et al (33) assigned 20 untrained subjects to 1 of 3 isokinetic training programs: 180/s, 30/s, or control (no training). After 10 weeks of training, the 180/s group showed a decrease (13%) in the percentage of type I fibers and an increase (7%) in type IIb fiber percentage. In addition, increases in concentric and eccentric torque at 180/s, isometric torque, and eccentric torque at 30/s were observed in the faster trained group. Neither the 30/s velocity nor control group demonstrated a significant improvement in torque production or changes in muscle fiber type (33).

Farthing and Chilibeck (14) placed 24 untrained subjects in either a 180/s velocity training group or a 30/s group. The subjects trained 1 arm eccentrically for 8 weeks and then trained the opposite arm concentrically for the same duration. Faster eccentric training conferred the largest increases in peak concentric and eccentric torque across all testing velocities. Faster eccentric training resulted in greater hypertrophy (as determined by sonography) than both 30/s and 180/s concentric groups, but not the slower eccentric group. The slower eccentric group showed a greater hypertrophic response than a control group only. According to the results of this study, eccentric training at 180/s is a better route for inducing hypertrophy and maximizing strength in elbow flexor muscles than slower eccentric training or concentric training at either velocity used (14).

Observations from a study by Shepstone et al confirm these findings (40). In this study 9 subjects trained 1 arm on an isokinetic dynamometer at a velocity of 210/s and the opposite arm at 20/s. After training 3 times per week for 8 weeks, type II muscle fiber (IIx, IIa/x, IIa) hypertrophy was greater in the 210/s velocity trained arm (31 5%, 22 5%, and 17 5%, respectively) than the 20/second velocity trained arm (9 5%, 10 3%, and 5 2%, respectively). Type I fiber showed significant increase as well; however no difference was seen between the faster and slower protocols (40). Ultimately these isokinetic studies indicate that performing resistance training at slow velocities may be less effective in developing strength and hypertrophic gains when compared with faster velocities (1,14,33,40).



Cardiorespiratory and Metabolic Effects Return to TOC

As previously mentioned, Superslow advocates claim that the training provides cardiovascular, as well as muscular, benefits (26). Although Superslow sets are not long enough in duration to reach a true steady-state metabolism and therefore be considered aerobic, the protocol is essentially a form of (low-intensity) circuit weight training (CWT). Research has demonstrated that CWT can modestly improve measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (2,6,19,20). Caterisano et al (10), reporting from the same experiment as Blount et al (7), showed that after the 16 weeks of training o2max and anaerobic threshold were unchanged in the Superslow group. As expected, the traditional group realized significant increases in both measures (5.57 mL/kg/min and 10.32% o2max, respectively). Further-more, Keeler et al report that after 10 weeks of a Superslow protocol, aerobic capacity and ventilatory threshold went unchanged (27).

A study by Hunter et al (25) further suggests that Superslow training does not provide a significant cardiovascular stress. When comparing a Superslow training session with a more traditional resistance training session, the Superslow session resulted in lower exercise heart rates and postexercise lactate levels. Combining energy expenditure values during work and the 15-minute recovery period, the traditionally trained group spent approximately 48% more kilocalories (172 29 vs. 116 22) in the same time period (25). Furthermore, because favorable changes in blood lipid profiles appear to be dependent on the caloric volume of exercise (12, 44, 45), Superslow training is an unlikely candidate for reducing this cardiovascular disease risk parameter.

Because kilocalories are an estimate of work, it is not surprising that Superslow training does not provide a metabolic stimulus equivalent to traditional training. Work is the product of force and distance; the distance that the weight moves will obviously be similar between the different training velocities. However, the force exerted is much lower in Superslow training because a lower resistance is used (25, 27). Therefore, less total work is done, and consequently fewer calories are burned as compared to traditional training. The premise that Superslow training would not be effective in controlling body weight/body fat is further supported by an unchanged body fat percentage after 16 weeks of Superslow training. The traditionally trained group, following the ACSM guidelines for the same time period, showed a 5.51% decrease in body fat percentage (10).

One of the rationales for the (publicized) superiority of Superslow training is that, because momentum is lessened, the muscle is forced to work harder throughout the lift. However, Westing et al. demonstrated that, with increasing contraction velocity, concentric torque decreases but eccentric force increases (43). Regardless, momentum can be controlled to reasonable levels without adhering to a program as extreme as the Superslow protocol. Consequently, it is unlikely that force output differs greatly between traditional training velocities and the Superslow protocol if using the same resistance. Therefore, the point previously mentioned regarding lower force output and its consequences is validated.



Athletic Performance Return to TOC

Superslow training has also been touted as an effective way to train athletes (26). This claim is unlikely, as the vast majority of sports benefit from hypertrophy of fast-twitch fibers or high-threshold motor units and, consequently, the development of strength, power, and speed (17, 18). Because the intensity used during a Superslow workout is approximately 2550% of the 1RM (25, 27), higher threshold motor units will not be trained effectively (18, 24, 47). Strength gains as a result of resistance training are greatest at the approximate velocity that the training was performed when maximal effort is made (13, 46), although there is some evidence that does not support velocity specificity (34). Regardless, the majority of sports require force production at high velocities, and therefore training at a low velocity without maximum effort, as in Superslow training, would probably not be optimally beneficial. In addition, vertical jump, upper and lower limb power as measured by dynamometry, and grip strength were not improved over 16 weeks of Superslow training (7). Traditional exercise did not improve these variables either, as the ACSM guidelines were not designed to improve athletic performance (15).



Safety Issues Return to TOC

Although no studies exist testing the claim that training at a low velocity is safer, the absence of ballistic movements suggest that traumatic injury risk may be lower (26). However, Surakka et al (41) observed that a supervised program of power-type strength training (i.e., a program incorporating ballistic movements/activities) did not result in elevated injury rates for untrained middle-aged individuals. Because the muscle-tendon unit is under tension for considerably more time during Superslow training, there is a theoretical greater risk for overuse injuries, although as of yet there has been no research investigating this parameter. Most Superslow-certified facilities are machine based, which is generally (anecdotally) considered a safer mode of exercise. However, research has indicated that there is no practical difference in injury rates between using machines or free weights in healthy adult individuals (37).

There have been concerns that, due to the nature of training, elevations in blood pressure during exercise may be extreme, even though the Valsalva maneuver is discouraged (26). To this point, no known studies exist reporting blood pressure during a low-velocity contraction. Although there is a body of research indicating that resistance training has minimal chronic effects on resting blood pressure in normotensive individuals (8, 21, 39), Kelley's meta-analysis (28) found a treatment effect of 3% and 4% decreases in resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively. After 4 months of Superslow training, resting blood pressure values were not significantly changed, although the trend was toward a slight rise in diastolic pressure (3.81 mm Hg; 23).



Conclusion Return to TOC

More research needs to be performed concerning low-velocity resistance training before formal conclusions can be drawn. The available evidence demonstrates that it may be effective in developing muscular endurance as well as muscular strength when exerted at a velocity similar to the training (which is of extremely limited use in performing ADLs or in most athletic events). Traditional benefits associated with cardiorespiratory training are not seen with this type of training. Although no formal conclusions can yet be drawn regarding training velocity (35), it is highly questionable whether low velocity resistance training will find an appropriate place in the adult fitness model or as a rehabilitation modality.

 

[J DUB]

References Return to TOC

1. Adeyanju, K., T. Crews, and W. Meadors. Effects of two speeds of isokinetic training on muscular strength, power and endurance. J. Sports Med. 23:352356. 1983.

2. Allen, T., R. Byrd, and D. Smith. Hemodynamic consequences of circuit weight training. Res. Q. 47:299306. 1976.

3. American College of Sports Medicine. The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:975991. 1998.

4. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. 2000. pp. 8183.

5. Bell, G., D. Syrotuik, T. Martin, R. Burnham, and H. Quinney. Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 81:418427. 2000.

6. Blessing, D., H. Willford, J. Barksdale, and F. Smith. Alterations in lipids and cardiorespiratory function after weight training. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 14:7583. 1988.

7. Blount, P., A. Caterisano, B. Greer, B. Fletcher, J. Farmer, P. Stewart, and J. Norton. The effect of Superslow training on strength parameters in college aged males. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35: (Suppl. 5). S373 2003.

8. Blumenthal, J., W. Siegel, and M. Appelbaum. Failure of exercise to reduce blood pressure in patients with mild hypertension. Results of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 266:20982104. 1991.

9. Carpinelli, R., and R. Otto. Strength training : single versus multiple sets. Sports Med. 26:7384. 1998.

10. Caterisano, A., P. Blount, B. Greer, B. Fletcher, J. Farmer, D. Kyriakos, and P. Stewart. The effect of Superslow training on aerobic capacity and body composition in college-age males. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35: (Suppl. 5). 373 2003.

11. Craig, B., J. Lucas, R. Pohlman, and H. Sterling. The effects of running, weightlifting and a combination of both on growth hormone release. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5:198203. 1991.

12. Durstine, J., P. Grandjean, P. Davis, M. Ferguson, N. Alderson, and K. Du-Bose. Blood lipid and lipoprotein adaptations to exercise. A quantitative analysis. Sports Med. 31:10331062. 2001.

13. Ewing, J., D. Wolfe, M. Rogers, M. Amundson, and G. Stull. Effects of velocity of isokinetic training on strength, power, and quadriceps muscle fibre characteristics. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 61:159162. 1990.

14. Farthing, J., and P. Chilibeck. The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 89:578586. 2003.

15. Feigenbaum, M. Rationale and review of current guidelines. In: Resistance Training for Health and Rehabilitation. J. Graves and B. Franklin, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 2001. pp. 1332.

16. Feigenbaum, M., and M. Pollack. Prescription of resistance training for health and disease. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:3845. 1999.

17. Fleck, S., and W. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs (2nd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1997. pp. 2127.

18. Gentry, M., and T. Caterisano. A Chance to Win: A Complete Guide to Physical Training for Football. Greenville, SC: The Iron Palace Co. 2003. pp. 1121.

19. Gettman, L., J. Ayres, M. Pollock, and A. Jackson. The effect of circuit weight training on strength, cardiorespiratory function, and body composition of adult men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 10:171176. 1978.

20. Gettman, L., and M. Pollock. Circuit weight training: A critical review of its physiological benefits. Phys. Sportsmed. 9:4460. 1981.

21. Gilders, R., E. Malicky, J. Falkel, R. Staron, and G. Dudley. The effect of resistance training on blood pressure in normotensive women. Clin. Physiol. 11:307314. 1991.

22. Gravelle, B., and D. Blessing. Physiological adaptation in women concurrently training for strength and endurance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:513. 2000.

23. Greer, B., P. Blount, A. Caterisano, K. Karinshak, D. Shelby, and L. Valez. The effect of SuperslowTM training on resting blood pressure in college-age males. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35: (Suppl. 5). S373 2003.

24. Henneman, E., G. Somjen, and D. Carpenter. Functional significance of cell size in spinal motoneurons. J. Neurophysiol. 28:560580. 1965.

25. Hunter, G., D. Seelhorst, and S. Snyder. Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 17:7681. 2003.

26. Hutchins, K. Superslow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol (2nd ed). Casselberry, FL: Media Support. 1992.

27. Keeler, L., L. Finkelstein, W. Miller, and B. Fernhall. Early-phase adaptations of traditional speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:309314. 2001.

28. Kelley, G. Dynamic resistance exercise and resting blood pressure in adults: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Physiol. 82:15591565. 1997.

29. Kroemer, K.H. An isoinertial technique to assess individual lifting capability. Hum Factors. 2255) 493506. 1983.

30. Kulig, K., C. Powers, F. Shellock, and M. Terk. The effects of eccentric velocity on activation of elbow flexors: evaluation by magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:196200. 2001.

31. Lagally, K., S. McCaw, G. Young, H. Medema, and D. Thomas. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18:359364. 2004.

32. Nelson, A., D. Arnall, S. Loy, L. Silvester, and R. Conlee. Consequences of combining strength and endurance training regimens. Phys. Ther. 70:287294. 1990.

33. Paddon-Jones, D., M. Leveritt, A. Lonergan, and P. Abernethy. Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans: the influence of contraction velocity. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 85:466471. 2001.

34. Pereira, M., and P. Gomes. Effects of two movement velocities of isotonic exercise on gains in strength and muscular endurance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: (Suppl. 5). S289 2002.

35. Pereira, M., and P. Gomes. Movement velocity in resistance training. Sports Med. 33:427438. 2003.

36. Pipes, T., and J. Wilmore. Isokinetic vs. isotonic strength training in adult men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 7:262274. 1975.

37. Requa, R., L. DeAvilla, and J. Garrick. Injuries in recreational adult fitness activities. Am. J. Sports Med. 21:461467. 1993.

38. Rhea, M., B. Alvar, L. Burkett, and S. Ball. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35:456464. 2003.

39. Schwartz, R., and V. Hirth. The effects of endurance and resistance training on blood pressure. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 19: (Suppl. 4). 5257. 1995.

40. Shepstone, T., S. Dallaire, C. Correia, J. Tang, and S. Phillips. Effect of velocity on elbow flexor hypertrophy following eccentric high-resistance training in young males. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35: (Suppl. 5). S386 2003.

41. Surakka, J., S. Aunola, T. Nordblad, S. Karppi, and E. Alanen. Feasibility of power-type strength training for middle aged men and women: self perception, musculoskeletal symptoms, and injury rates. Br. J. Sports Med. 37:131 2003.

42. Westcott, W., R. Winett, E. Anderson, J. Wojcik, R. Loud, E. Cleggett, and S. Glover. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 41:154158. 2001.

43. Westing, S., A. Cresswell, and A. Thorstensson. Muscle activation during maximal voluntary eccentric and concentric knee extension. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 62:104108. 1991.

44. Williams, P. Relationship of distance run per week to coronary heart disease risk factors in 8283 male runners: The National Runner's Health Study. Arch. Intern. Med. 157:191198. 1997.

45. Williams, P. Relationships of heart disease risk factors to exercise quantity and intensity. Arch. Intern. Med. 158:237245. 1998.

46. Wilson, G., R. Newton, A. Murphy, and B. Humphries. The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25:12791286. 1993.

47. Zatsiorsky, V. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 1995. pp. 9296.

 

[J DUB]

Please read the above studies and disabuse yourself of the notion that SuperSlow training is a superior, or even equal, method of increasing strength or hypertrophy, much less athletic performance.

Also, the Westcott study that was mentioned in one of the articles which got positive results for SuperSlow...he was strongly tied to Nautilus and Arthur Jones and therefore was inherently biased. Also, if you look at the protocol you will see obvious flaws: like 10RM vs. 5RM, different velocities, etc. Basically, it is a terrible study which tells us nothing.