A recent study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (1) claims SuperSlow is less effective for muscular hypertrophy than traditional reps. Thirty four women were divided into four groups, a SuperSlow (SS) group, a traditional strength (TS) group, a traditional endurance (TE) group, and a non-exercising control (C) group. Each group performed these two times during the first week and three times each of the following five weeks. The SS group performed six to ten repetitions at a 10/4 cadence with approximately 40 to 60% of their 1RM, for a time under load (TUL) of approximately 84 to 140 seconds per set and an average of 336 seconds per three sets. The TS group performed six to ten repetitions at an approximate 1/1 to 2/2 cadence with approximately 80 to 85% of their 1RM, for a TUL of approximately 18 to 30 seconds per set and an average of 72 seconds per three sets. The TE group performed twenty to thirty reps at an approximate 1/1 to 2/2 cadence with approximately 40 to 60% of their 1RM, for a TUL of approximately 60 to 90 seconds per set and an average of 225 seconds per three sets.
While the TS group used a load between eighty and eighty five percent of their one rep max, the SS and TE groups only used loads between forty and sixty percent due to the longer TUL. The researchers should have but did not also include a SS group using a load and TUL matched to the TS group.
After six weeks the TS group had greater improvements in cross-sectional area (CSA), myonuclear domain size (cytoplasm per myonucleus), and myonuclei number than either the SS or TE group, which had similar results, although the SS group had greater improvements in CSA than the TE group. If the researchers had only included the SS and TE groups which were matched for load and TUL they would have had to conclude slow repetitions are more effective, all else being equal. If the study had also included a SS group using a load and TUL matched to the TS group that group would have had results which were comparable to or better than the TS groups as well, which is exactly what happened in Wayne Westcott’s SuperSlow studies (2). It would not surprise me if the omission of a lower TUL SS group was intentional, considering the NSCA’s bias against high intensity training.In Westcott’s studies the SuperSlow groups performed a single set of four to six repetitions at a 10/4 rep cadence and the traditional strength training group performed a single set of eight to twelve repetitions at a 2/1/4 cadence, both for a TUL of approximately 56 to 84 seconds per set. In both studies the SuperSlow groups’ exercise weight loads increased on average 50% more than the traditional groups.
SuperSlow repetitions haven’t prevented NABBA competitor Josh Trentine from building muscle.
The Herman-Montemayor study does not show that SuperSlow repetitions are less effective than traditional repetitions for improving muscular strength and size, since the results of the SS group were actually slightly better than the TE group which used traditional speeds when roughly matched for load and TUL. What it does show is that all else being equal a higher load and shorter TUL is more effective (comparing TS and TE) for hypertrophy, at least in the short term. This is consistent with what I found in my own experimentation with long (80 to 160 seconds) versus short (40 to 80 seconds) TULs when using SuperSlow. While either will improve muscular strength and size in the long run I and the clients I used it with had better results with the shorter TUL. Keep in mind that what I am calling a shorter TUL is actually still relatively long compared to sets performed at traditional repetition speeds, but since only one set is performed the cumulative TUL is similar to that of multiple sets performed at traditional speeds. If your goal is to maximize improvements in overall functional ability including cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning while minimizing your risk of injury you should not perform sets that are too short, though. As a conservative starting point I recommend using enough resistance that you are able to achieve momentary muscular failure between around thirty and ninety seconds, and beginners should start at the higher end of this, between around sixty and ninety.
Moving slowly during exercise is not going to reduce your muscular strength or size increases as long as you reduce your repetition range to compensate for the longer repetition duration so you are able to achieve momentary muscular failure within a reasonable TUL. It is also important to consider that if you are training hard, progressively, and consistently with a reasonable volume and frequency you will eventually become as strong, muscular, and well-conditioned as your genetics allow regardless of the specific repetition cadence or training method you use, however slower rep speeds and more joint-friendly exercises and repetition methods are much safer in the long run and brief, high-intensity training will produce the same results much more efficiently.
For more specific recommendations on repetition speeds read Repetition Speed Recommendations and High Intensity Workouts.
References:
- Herman-Montemayor, Jennifer R., et al. “Early-phase satellite cell and myonuclear domain adaptations to slow-speed versus traditional resistance training programs.” Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2015).
- Westcott WL, Winett RA, Anderson ES, Wojcik JR, Loud RL, Cleggett E, Glover S. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2001 Jun;41(2):154-8
Comments on this entry are closed.
Excellent post Drew.
I’ve experimented with various volume/set/rep patterns over the last 2-3 years purely to find out what works best for me and I concur that a heavier weight and reduced TUL seems to be my sweet spot, but the TUL is still between 45-90 seconds and as high as 120 for calves and Thighs.
Also tried your ‘condensed’ pre-exhaust method of upping the weight by 20-30% and halving the TUL on both exercises so the combined TUL is roughly the same as would have been done for the straight compound set, and I’ve got to say that I think you are definitely on to something.
Thanks again Drew, you are one of the few folk writing about BB and strength training who leaves his ego at the door, or keypad, and just tells it as it is, and boy, do you know your stuff!!
Lift strong!
Best
Jamie.
Thanks Jamie,
While a broad range of times can be effective it is possible for sets to be too long. As I mention in the article, a range of 30 to 90 seconds seems to be a good starting point for most people.
Try and tell that to Dr. Brad Schoenfeld and the rest of those fellas.
Hey Fred,
If they can’t see or admit the glaring problems with studies like these I doubt anything I say is going to change their mind.
Not only do they not see it Drew, they actually fight against it.
One thing Dr. Schoenfeld continues to state is that it’s not possible to lift 85% of your 1RM slowly. He says he tried this with his grad students and none of them could even do 1 rep with 85% 1RM.
Of course this is both untrue and irrelevant to the fact that this study did not have a slow rep, 85% 1RM group.
I pointed out on my FB page that if anything, this paper shows the superiority of slow reps over fast reps at 40-60% 1RM.
Hey Fred,
There is a lot of anti-HIT bias out there, but there are also a lot of people who despite being well-educated just seem to have a hard time understanding certain things or breaking away from tradition. Some times I’m not sure whether these things are honest mistakes or oversights or if they are intentional design decisions. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt but it would not surprise me if a short TUL SS group was intentionally left out for this purpose.
A lot of them simply miss the forest for the trees. They focus on single issues or factors, while the goals of training often necessitate consideration of a huge number of factors, not the least of which is safety. Even if fast rep speeds were more effective for stimulating improvements in any factor of functional ability – which they are certainly not – it would still make sense to use slow reps to minimize the risk of injury and avoid compromising long term functional ability for short term benefits.
Check this out:
http://www.musculardevelopment.com/training/14747-optimum-rep-speed-for-maximum-gains.html#.Vj327berTrd
Thanks for posting the link to that Fred. No differences found in the meta-analysis he did but still talks about the load being to light with super slow. The irony is the only study that supports that is his, which was due to his own failure to properly increase the load and equalize the TUT’s of the protocols. His study would have been rejected by every reputable exercise/physiology journal due to this huge error. He must know the assistant editor in chief for the S&C journal or something. Sarcasm aside, I do think his overall recommendation of 3/3 for rep speed is still a good safe speed for MOST individuals though, and provides a very high level of tension. Certainly better than the 12 reps in 11 seconds I watched a man in my gym do the other day!
When I began using ARX, I was put on their default set-length: 120 secs. After good strength increase, but not much muscle, we switched to 80 secs. After 3 sessions, this seems to have solved the problem. The interesting thing about this is that % of 1RM doesn’t affect # of reps possible w/ARX. Perhaps a sub-conscious holding-back to conserve for the last 40 secs? I sure didn’t _feel_ like was was holding back!
Hey Mark,
With conventional, gravity-based methods there is a compromise between resistance and duration. You don’t want so much resistance and so little TUL that form and safety or metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning effect are compromised, and you don’t want so little resistance and so much TUL that tension and strength and hypertrophy are compromised. However, the ARX and other equipment providing accommodating resistance are a special case, since the load is potentially always at or near maximum regardless of duration you have to be really careful not to overdo it. It’s a lot like timed static contraction training, a little goes a long way which is why you don’t spend the entire time at maximum effort.
Another enjoyable read. I found Super Slow (on Ell’s BIG routine) was just what the doctor ordered! After being stuck fast at 78kg for 2 whole years–despite my best efforts–a mere 2 weeks on BIG and I was 80kgs! After that, no matter how I tweaked SS, it failed to deliver much else.
I bought all, or at at least most, of Hutchins products (papers, books–1st and 2nd edition of his SS manual–even a SS t-shirt! 😉 ) Yet I couldn’t get it to do much else passed the initial jolt I got from BIG. Shame, as early 90’s I was one of its biggest advocates.
Hey Lifter,
Without knowing exactly what you were doing and what you changed I can’t say what the problem might have been, but it was not the speed. Any repetition speed can be effective if you’re training hard, progressively, consistently, etc., and if the relative loads and TULs are about the same it won’t make that much difference other than moving more slowly is safer, up to a point.
The loads in traditional SS are too light.
Hey Fred,
Agreed. While a broad range of loads appear to be effective for stimulating increases and strength and size there is definitely a point beyond which continuing to reduce the load and increase the set duration reduces effectiveness.
The reality is that they should be calling you to do study. You and other people who have years of experience in the super slow community. These people are just taking something that they do not know much about our experience and trying to test it out for a certain amount of time. The interesting part is that if they actually looked pre 1960s the era of Golden Age bodybuilding where everybody used to take drugs. The ones that achieved better physiques use some kind of form of static or contraction training based under time. Another key point note if you look at some of the writings in gymnastics by the Russians and they will tell you to break plateaus you have to do time under load. Of course this was all done through body weight. When I was in gymnastics we did a variety of different exercises at great speeds. To make those exercises harder we always use time under load and held rest pause. By the way I’d like to thank you your book and your blog is amazing. I hurt my back 3 years ago and I thought I could not get back into weightlifting. While using your methods and the body by science book re have my back and put on 10 pounds of lean muscle. Funny part is that I am happier now but I left more and my cardiovascular has gotten better ironically. Got your ripped book working on my eating habits
Hey Jancel,
There is plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of repetitions using slower than traditional speeds, but the most important factor is safety. Ultimately, the degree of muscular strength and size, cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, flexibility, and improvements in other factors of functional ability you are capable of attaining is genetically dictated, and as long as you train hard, progressively, consistently, with a volume and frequency appropriate to your body’s response to exercise, and with adequate rest and nutritional support you will eventually max these out despite differences in the particulars. In the long run, a lot of different methods can be effective. Where they tend to differ the most is in efficiency and safety and this is where high intensity training in general and more controlled repetition speeds in particular are a better choice. The goal is not simply to get bigger, stronger, better conditioned, etc., but to do so while minimizing your risk of injury and avoiding wear and tear that can undermine your functional ability and health in the long run.
Most of the studies people cite when they are trying to argue for the superiority of faster reps are either poorly designed, use relatively worthless tests and testing tools (1RMs, isokinetics equipment, etc.) or are focused on measuring things which are related to strength and hypertrophy increases but are not conclusive by themselves, rather than simply looking at changes in strength and hypertrophy over time.
I’m glad I’ve been able to help you resume training after your back injury and congrats on your progress so far. It’s not ironic that your cardiovascular conditioning has improved, though, since high intensity training is the most effective way to improve it. I hope you find the Getting Ripped book helpful also and hope you will update me on your progress once you’ve been following it for a while.
Drew,
I perform mostly an isometric workout. Sometimes I’ll do a few slow reps afterwards. I’ve been experimenting sometimes on different exercises doing multiple slow contractions instead of just one. So I’ll do TSC with a shorter TUL, then slowly ease up on the intensity, then go slowly hard again to change things a bit. Maybe similar to omega sets, but without moving any weight. Do you think this is a good idea?
Hey John,
As long as you are careful with the application of force this could work. What you are describing is similar to traditional overcoming isometrics which involved multiple reps lasting a few seconds each with varying amount of rest in between. I discuss the difference between this and TSC in the Timed Static Contraction Training ebook.
Higher load and shorter TUL seems to be superior. I mean at least for myself, in short term yes, but clearly better. I’ve kept mine training program and schedule pretty much the same, some volume changes here and there, but I’ve been experimenting with loads, rep speeds and ranges.
In chin-up for example, my TUL has to be quite short and I’ve to use heavier weights (additional weights), because I cannot add reps, but I can add weight everytime while keeping TUL/rep count the same. Quite odd when compared to every other exercise, where I have to use somewhat longer TUL, especially legs.
More reps with “faster” cadence and shorter TUL (overall) has been more beneficial for me.
Hey Chief,
A variety of reasonable repetition ranges or times and loads can be effective and there is no long term advantage to a faster cadence for muscular strength and size gains. In fact, isometrics can be just as effective as dynamic exercise, and it doesn’t get any slower than that.
hey drew I was wondering if by “fast” reps you mean jerking reps? I do relatively short reps, but not super slow just controlled. Would that also help minimize injury
Hey Marco,
If you reverse direction slowly and smoothly between the positive and negative phases of the repetition you significantly reduce your chances of injury. There are other reasons you should move more slowly during repetitions, though, and I recommend taking at least four seconds to complete the lifting and lowering phases, not including the time to reverse direction.
I feel moving one inch per second all the time (not slowing down during the easy part and going faster during the harder part ) with a heavy weight does the trick .. trying to move slow after the first two reps becomes the problem. Stay focus on one inch per second … the biggest change from the original SS protocol.
One inch per second is way too slow for many exercise movements, especially if you have longer limbs. A better approach would be to simply move as slowly as you can smoothly, without the movement becoming a series of short stops and starts.