In May of 2001, Muscular Development magazine ran a feature on SuperSlow® training , in which contributing editor Bob Lefavi, PhD. interviewed Dr. Wayne Westcott, Dr. William Kraemer, Dr. Robert Newton, and myself. The following is the portion of the article with my interview, followed by my current thoughts on the subject.
Drew Baye
May 2001
I still think the TUL’s [time under load; beginning to end] that people use with SuperSlow® are too high. But, it’s not so much a problem with SuperSlow as it is with the way it’s being applied. My personal experience has shown that the six to eight rep range, while producing significant improvements in other trainable areas of fitness, is less than ideal for someone trying to gain muscle mass, for a few reasons.
First, obviously, if you’re spending 120 to 180 seconds performing an exercise, you’re not going to use nearly as much weight as you would if you were trying to fail in a lower TUL. Second, it unnecessarily increases the overall volume of the workout.
Ken’s [Hutchins] experience with rehabilitation and training osteoporotics has led him to be more acutely aware of the potential for injury in some subjects during exercise when poor form and typical movement speeds are used. It’s an irrefutable fact that when a material is exposed to a level of force that exceeds it’s structural strength, it fails, and that force = mass x acceleration. The principle, that slower movements are safer, is a given.
The principles behind SuperSlow are sound. If there are any problems, it’s in the application. Obviously, younger, stronger athletes are structurally far more sound than the elderly and injured that Ken has spent much time working with. I believe a moderate, but not quite as slow rep speed would still be safe, but more efficient in terms of keeping TUL lower, while still providing enough reps per set to be safe.
In any case, slower is safer, and slow movement loads the muscles more efficiently because there’s less momentum. He’s right about that. How much slower? I would have to say that like everything else, it’s an individual thing. In my opinion, a big part of the problem with a lot of things is that people want instructions, not understanding. They want to be told exactly what to do, but not have to think too hard about it. Problem is, in so many endeavors, the proper action is context sensitive. while the same principles apply, their applications will be different for each person’s unique situation.
It is true that there’s no one program to fit everybody, if you define “program” as a specific set of actions (do this X number of times, Y days per week, at Z cadence, etc.). But, if you define a program as a set of principles to be applied based on each individual, then there can only be one program for everybody since we’re all physiologically pretty much the same (with much variation in form, but not in basic function). And we are all subject to the same laws of physics. The individuals simply have to do the work and experiment and find out how to best apply those principles within the context of how their bodies respond to training.
Is it important to move slowly during exercise? Yes, slowly enough that you are using your muscles to do the work and not exposing your body to excessive force. Is it necessary to move so slowly as 10/10? Probably not. It’s got a built-in margin of safety to compensate for those on the low end of the bell curve of structural integrity. There are other considerations, such as motor skills, but these are not fixed either. While it may be necessary for someone with poor motor control to move more slowly to really be able to focus on what muscles they’re using, someone with better motor control may not. Like the RDA is more than what the average person needs, so as to compensate for those on the higher end of the bell curve where nutritional requirements are concerned, I think the SuperSlow recommendation of a 10/10 rep is the same type of thing. My body’s daily requirement for vitamin B might be X, but if I take in a little more, it’s not going to hurt anything. My body may be structurally strong enough to withstand X amount of force, but it doesn’t hurt to reduce the force a little more, for safety’s sake.
Of course, continuing with the vitamin analogy, as you know, too much of some vitamins can be a bad thing. If a particular individual is using a particular rep cadence and some minimal rep range guideline for the sake of safety, but it results in a TUL/volume of exercise that is beyond what is ideal for that individual based on his tolerance for, and ability to recover from and adapt to the stress of exercise, then he may be going too slow. There are also motor control problems involved.
In any case, I think SuperSlow is based on sound principles, but individuals have to determine how to best apply them based on their particular goals and needs. In the case of a bodybuilding application of the protocol, I recommend using a much lower rep range and TUL than what the general, non-bodybuilding fitness-minded individual would use.
In short, I believe the SuperSlow exercise protocol, like HIT [High Intensity Training] in general, is not so much a fixed “program” as it is a set of principles, the application of which must take into consideration individual differences. I agree that change in a workout is necessary, but those changes should be in accordance with how one’s body is responding to the training, and in accordance with the principles of the protocol, which I believe to be absolutely correct.”
Comments on this entry are closed.
Hey Drew. Interesting post.
“A repetition cadence averaging 2 to 3 seconds on the positive and 2 to 3 seconds on the negative is adequately slow for most people over the full range of most exercises.”
Do you mean to say that, if a person COULD lift a weight they are using for a set in 1 second, they should purposefully take 2 or 3 instead?
Do you think that if a person CAN lift a weight in once second, the weight just might be too light to begin with?
My experience is if you can lift a weight in one second – if this IS indeed possible in good strict biomechanically correct form – you are starting out with a weight that is too light to begin with and if you purposefully take 3 seconds to lift it, your set will wear on for too long.
Other than beginners, the weights I use and my advanced clients use are heavy enough that a 1-2 second positive is simply impossible to perform.
The look of your blog, BTW is really nice. I might switch to Wordpress too!
Assuming a moderate rep range, if the weight is heavy enough, after the first few repetitions a 2 to 3 second positive is about as fast as a person should be able to move, and this speed will decrease further towards the end of the set. If a lower rep range is used and the weight is heavy enough this will be about as fast as the person is capable of moving right from the start.
Only the first few reps should be purposefully slow. After this, if the weight is heavy enough a faster speed of movement shouldn’t be possible. The turnarounds should still be purposefully slow, however, to avoid bouncing or jerking the weight.
Drew, Is it possible to build muscle for very thin people with very high reps in the range of 15 to 25? If low reps do not work for them?
I read that Dr. Darden SAID that super slow, very high reps are the way to go for skinny people. Has there been any tests done?
Or is it the heaviest weight performed super slow for low reps is always the best.
Thanks
Bob
Some people respond better to higher rep ranges or set durations than others, particularly people with a higher percentage of slow twitch fibers. This doesn’t have anything to do with being thin or skinny, however. I was pretty skinny before I switched to HIT, and I tend to do best with a rep range of 6 to 8 at typical repetition speeds. I have also trained several skinny guys who gained a significant amount of muscle using low to moderate repetition ranges.
SuperSlow does not build muscular strength or size any better than repetitions performed just slowly enough to maintain strict form.
I address both repetition range and speed in my upcoming book.
Does a muscle have to be kept under tension for 60 to 90 seconds for building? How about the tension length of longer is better? 100 seconds per set?
Research across the board shows that rep ranges which are a representation if set TIME do not produce different outcomes. A set should last 30-120 seconds. If the set is taken to failure or darn close to it all or most of the fibers will be stimulated. If the equipment is poor less fibers will be fatigued as failure will occur due to the shortcoming of the equipment. This is why body builders swear by multiple sets of various different exercises per body part.
If you are skinny, EAT! Train, EAT, rest, grow. Make the weight as heavy as you can so that you are in the 30+ second range for your sets. And since you will lift heavy, start the set carefully. DO NOT thrust, yank, heave or shove to start the set.
It is not necessary for a muscle to be kept under tension for 60 seconds to stimulate increases in muscular strength and size. Many people have built very muscular physiques with sets lasting well under 30 seconds.
If you can perform an exercise for 100 seconds or longer, you are not using a heavy enough weight if increasing muscular strength and size is your goal.
Sorry Fred, but a study published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology in September, 2005 showed people with certain genotypes for angiotensin converting enzyme responded differently to moderate (8 to 12) versus higher (12 to 15) repetition ranges. Subjects with the DD genotype appeared to respond better to higher loads and lower reps, while those with the II genotype appeared to respond better to higher repetition ranges. While a middle-of-the-road approach may work well for the majority of people, there are going to be some who do better with higher reps, and some who do better with lower reps, and a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach isn’t going to provide the best possible results for those people.
Also, regardless of the equipment used, whether high-tech machines or barbells, as long as the load is heavy enough all the motor units in the involved muscles will be recruited and stimulated.
Colakoglu M, Sirri Cam F, Kayitken B, Cetinoz F, Colakoglu S, Turkmen M, Sayin M (2005) ACE Genotype May Have an Effect on Single versus Multiple Set Preferences in Strength Training. Eur J Apple Physiol 95: 20-27
Drew – I read the abstract – do you have the full citation? I’d like to read it. From the abstract I can see some flaws already. But basically what this study is showing is that no matter what your ACE genotype, you can get stronger no matter what your rep range is between 8-15. It suggests that some people with different ACE genotypes will respond better to a different rep range. How much better we don’t know. And it was a 6 week study to boot. We need to read the entire study.
There is another study which refutes the idea that ACE genotype matters in terms of performance:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/92/4/1774
Seems to me this would indicate that the study done on strength gains might be faulty.
And the equipment matters Drew and it matters big time. For example, in my Nautilus Nitro biceps curl you will fail in the bottom (start) position every time. The cam is extremely aggressive at the start. Clients can perform multiple reps from 3/4 of the way up to the top after ‘failure’ is reached at the bottom. So if you were to just stop a set when you fail in this machine you would in no way have deeply fatigued your biceps. This does not happen in some of my other retroffited machines where failure is a random event.
Of course anyone can get stronger using a moderate rep range, but some people will do better with higher or lower reps, and why settle for less than optimal results? That was my point.
Did you read the paper you linked? I didn’t see anything in there that would have suggested the Colakoglu study conclusions were invalid. They paper you linked is talking about aerobic power and muscular endurance.
As for equipment, despite all the theorizing on both sides, in terms of practical results I have seen little to convince me that equipment makes a significant difference, and there is no research I am aware of that conclusively demonstrates the superiority of either.
In the section on machines versus free weights in their very thorough critique of the ACSM position stand, Carpinelli et al had the following to say about it,
“…there is no scientific evidence cited in the Position Stand to support the superiority of free weights or machines for developing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. Either training modality or a combination of modalities appears to be effective.”
How you train has far more to do with your results than the equipment you use.