Does SuperSlow Training Produce Super Fast Gains? (Research Analysis) 

I’ve just started slow workouts. I can tell you now I shake and feel like I’ve really worked the muscles. It might sound and even look easy but they hurt and they really tire you out quickly. Two weeks in so I’ll see how the body reacts

I've been training this way exclusively for a year and I can tell you this is the best way to build muscle quickly.

The key in these studies always comes down to one thing - train to failure or near failure because your bidy has to recruit more muscle fibers.

Note, at 0:51 I stated superslow training's protocol refers to performing a 10 second lifting and *4* to 10 second lower duration, despite it only saying a 10 second lifting and *10* second lowering duration. However, the reason I said a *4* to 10 second lowering duration is because it seems in Ken's original research on the older women with fragile bones, 4 second lowering durations were used (paulogentil.com/pdf/Effects%20of%20regular%20and%20slow%20speed%20resistance%20training.pdf). Moreover, all of the studies explored in this video involved a superslow training protocol that involved a 10 second lifting duration with a 4 or 5 second lowering duration. Just wanted to clear this up, in case anyone was confused. Nevertheless, I hope the video was helpful and informative in some way :)

i am pro arm wrestler and tried super slow training for the first time this week, altho 4 second eccentric and 4 second concentric on 80% max lift, 5 reps a set. Next day i was sick bed ridden. Recovered fully after two days. It was the first time i was actually physically fatigued to that extent compared to normal lifts. Already looking forward to trying it out again Monday!

The problem of the Schuenke study is that both groups performed the same volume with the same frequency. If you workout harder you need to give your body more time to recover. The super slow group in this study was simply being overtrained. Additional point, slow reps are safer, reducing injuries which over the long term results in more growth. Second advantage of superslow/HIT training is you have to spend much less time in the gym.

This channel is consistently among the most useful, clear, and most rational resources for resistance training knowledge on RU-vid or, frankly, anywhere else. Summarizing complex research results using quality narration augmented by cleverly relevant visuals (which must be a lot of work) is very effective, making even the most technical information readily accessible to almost everyone. In the spirit of balanced feedback, I might humbly suggest a perhaps annual summary of the field. That is, what you believe the general consensus of the field is shaping up to be, or if a consensus has or is coming together on this theater or hypertrophy, so to speak. There is a hell of a lot of material, and extracting a relatively consistent or at least logically coherent understanding of what actually works would be a real accomplishment. Regardless, this is excellent content, and deserves the widest of audiences.

The ‘negative’ (slowly lowering about 80% max) has been used by powerlifters for decades It probably strengthens tendon and ligaments for stability

17:13 the muscle has no idea how much a weight is. It only understands when it is not strong enough to hold the weight (ie fatigue). Hypertrophy is accomplished via SuperSlow. It may not be for crazy heavy weights…at first. But Hypertrophy is still accomplished. I train many of my clients exclusively on SuperSlow. 10 seconds on the positive phase, and 10 seconds on the negative phase. My clients (especially my male clients) can leg press very heavy loads in SuperSlow. The concept is if the muscle can press 600 lbs super slow, it can definitely push it at a regular speed no problem. The progressive overload may move slow, but when it moves it is certain. Also the loss of muscle does not seem to occur as it does with regular training. I can have a client take 3 mos off and pick up right where they left off at, whereas a regular training client will have to be set back weights due to loss. Granted SuperSlow is not feasible for many free weight options, but the purpose of SuperSlow is to build muscle, and to do it fairly fast (with consistency). These are people that want to look and feel good, not to enter a competition or show off to their bros how much they can bench press. It is safe, time saving and fast. It is perfect for the person with limited funds, limited time and limited patience. 1 hour a week for what I help them build that may take others longer seems to pay off. It is not for everybody though. I have clients that I do not train in this method. There are a few people that cannot cope with the intensity (and I cannot stand their complaints that its so hard). Others I train based on what they wish to achieve and on whether or not it is a gym or home setting. There are many ways to train, but SuperSlow is a very effective way to train and has yielded fast and satisfactory results for my clients and myself. This is also not to say that one shouldn’t still engage in some form of cardio and healthy eating habits. But that is another story all together.

Brilliant video. Thanks for comparing different studies and making an honest conclusion about each.

Great analysis! Sounds like the primary utility of S.S. training is similar to B.F.R in that it provides some stimulus to muscle fibers while minimizing stress to connective tissues due to light loads/low forces. Probably a good tool when coming back from injury, etc., but not something that would be appropriate for optimal strength/hypertrophy gains.

Happy to see not relying on one study but digging deeper into all the available study to give a good if not fair conclusion. I'm sure this guy does a huge job in researching those articles.

As a Feldenkrais Method guy, I *love* the fact that you make so much reference to Henneman. His work is truly crucial to understanding how all this stuff works.

Wonderful work mate! I'd conclude that S.S. training would be ideal for individuals recovering from injury or for geriatric fitness protocols.

Amazing quality information!

lol 3:15 is my basic regime the "regular" to failure 3 times a week (for now) Love the videos, colors, and art.

This is one of the best videos I've seen comparing HIT and all its counterpoints and supporting points. I believe an incorrect conclusion is drawn regarding the Yoon et al study towards the end however. You state Central Fatigue is higher when lifting lighter loads till failure... but the findings of the study actually show the opposite. CNS fatigue is exponentially higher on a per second basis depending how much MVC is being applied. If a weight was chosen to force the individual to fall within the usual 60-90 second range, I would bet the MVC losses would be lower than even the 80% group which failed at 25 seconds. This is based on the fact the 20% MVC could hold out for 14 minutes! This means that failing in the 60-90 range would be even more efficient with an appropriate weight meaning that nearly 100% of MVC could be applied.

I swear by superslow. And I don´t have patience to argue with deniers.

Being that these people were all untrained could say a lot. We like to call this beginner gains. I’ve trained for a few years now and do the slow movement for specifically hypertrophy and it works very well.

2 words: Doug Mcguff Another 2 words : Body by Science...read the book!

Ive been using super slow training for a few years now, and at 51, i remain injury free. I aim for 10 seconds concentric and 10 seconds eccentric(positive and negative). A total of 5 repetitions per set. 2 sets of leg press, 2 sets of hamstring curls, 2 sets quad extensions, 2 sets of calf raises. Did a leg workout doing this last night. It is intense, and my heart rate really gets up there. Im not pushing the big weights like some guys at the gym, but im willing to bet my intensity is as high. Hit a new PR for quad extensions at 150 lbs.

i remember using this method in the 90s, absolutely awesome

Please do a video on isometric training such as pushing against an immovable object. Love the channel!

Thanks for the info

14:40... It seems that somebody forgot Physics... Force = Mass / Aceleration; [Newtons] Work = Force x Distance; [Joules] Potency = Work / Time; [Watts] The thing here is that The Body, the muscles opperate with ElectroChemistry and Neurological Receptors. Slow Motion reps can't clean the neurological receptors fast enough to send the signal of the need of increased recruiting muscle fibers, the Electrochemical induced Contraction wastes the receptors and doesn't reduce the "Voltage" of the contraction and then the electrolites and neurotransmisers keep being pushed but wasted, if you do not recover those electrolites and Neurotransmisers then you feel tired but the muscle wasn't recruited completely you just stressed the nervous system not the muscle.

What is really amazing is the Time Under Tension on this training style, although I suggest less time for the contraction and more time for the excentric portion of the movement, to create more microtears on the muscle fibers, signaling more repair/ through muscle protein synthesis

8:21 SuperSlow offers aesthetics much faster though. It is ideal for a person who has a limited schedule, but want the aesthetic look of working out, without the commitment. It builds muscle much faster. With SuperSlow you can see visible changes on the body after 8 sessions (2xweek = 1 month) in less time than the regular. Strength and power are different things.

.slowing down your tempo definitely makes the muscles work harder ,and less chances of injury

I think S.S. Protocol is beneficial for (rough estimate) 95-99% of the population. Why I say this is because if you are strictly interested in hypertrophy, cardiovascular gains, low risk of injury, and the most efficient in the case of time and result I would then it would 100% be said that S.S. Is the ideal workout for you. Where I think it falters A BIT is in the area of strength sports because it is better obviously to practice lifts the way you’re going to preform them like in powerlifting, Olympic lifting, strongman, etc. where I think S.S can be melded in those sports is if the athlete is going through a hypertrophy phase and needs to put on size while preventing injury and saving time so they have more time to recover, practice their sport, and still having more time to recover and focus on other stuff outside of their sport as well (which in some cases is just as important as what you do in training or your sport). Is S.S. OPTIMAL for strength? Well depends how you measure strength… if how you measure strength is how much you bench, squat, deadlift, or some other skill based workout then no… but does it help you contract, create more force, and push past preconceived muscle limitation then yes but again it really depends how you determine/test for strength. The only reason high volume is doin is really based on tradition. And the studies that show that higher volume is correlates to high strength and hypertrophy because more volume let’s you accumulate enough fatigue that would equate to S.S. Protocols which is to go to failure. NOW though it has been shown it is not 100% necessary to get to failure it is shown that the closer to failure how shown better hypertrophy and as we know hypertrophy does increase strength (unless your measurement is a specific skill like bench). Most people are not the best judges of what RPE or RIR they’re at and it is still under a lot of discussion for the exact amount of effort needs to be stressed/exerted in order to stimulate muscle growth so going to momentary positive muscular failure is a good indicator for people to reach for. Also S.S. Is almost without a doubt THE SAFEST routine to prevent injuries in the weight room, joints, etc. It would be the most counterproductive thing to get hurt lifting so that must be the NUMBER ONE priority when training people and especially athletes. It eliminates momentum and any jerking or sporadic movements which GREATLY increase risks of injury and for normal people that are under trained/developed and especially for athletes at are usually overtrained becuase if all the training for their sport and have created massive imbalances and are more susceptible to accidental accidents. Overall I see S.S. As one of the best if not the best protocol for hypertrophy, strength, and time efficiency unless it’s for strength sports and even then it still has its place in it. I would like to see an arguement against S.S. Or it’s sister protocols like HIT or anything else like that. Soo please everyone I would be super open to hearing your discussion and thoughts on this ofc 💪🏽. Overall good video but I feel that some parts were cherry picked to make it look bad and appeal to the dumbest people in the S.S. Movement (I feel that I described this poorly so I’ll make an edit if it’s getting a lot of flag back to further explain myself). An example is when the video says “people of S.S. Think it’s the best for hypertrophy becuase if the slow protocol causes more muscle fiber recruitments and better contraction” though it DOES put the muscle on constant tension and since the goal is to train to complete momentary muscle failure it COULD recruit more fibers in individuals that don’t normally train like that, it is not the most important part of the S.S. Method and not the goal. So that sounds like it was said by an unintelligent promoter of the S.S. Method for marketing but to say that’s how the vast majority think of it as that isn’t true. Check out Ken Hutchins videos, drew baye, Doug mcguff, and others that are excellent examples of

Really interested in this! I’m doing something similar to Doug McGuff’s workout so eager to hear more on this subject!

Seems like with all of these things the studies are all over the place. I don't think any of it really matters. You have to load the muscle and fatigue it. The way a person best does that probably depends on his individual circumstances.

My situation used what you are calling superslow training when I studied martial arts in the mid 1960s. Sifu said it was how he was taught and part of how his ancestors trained.

Why your video topics are always interesting af?

Literally swapped my routine to super slow reps 3 weeks ago My arms and shoulders have never felt bigger

This was very informative although I am excited to see more studies be done for a better understanding of slow reps. I have personally always viewed SuperSlow training as a slow negative and fast positive. For example, when doing a chest press I would take about 5-8 seconds(this is a guess, i do not count)to bring the weight to my chest, but push the weight as fast as possible. I also always enjoyed doing it at lower reps (2-8) and closer to my 1rpm(60%-90% also a guess). I would really like to see information on how that stacks up against other styles. I mostly enjoy this style because I seem to incur less injuries this way. TLDR: I like to drop slow and lift fast at heavyish weights, I wonder how it differs in hypertrophy and strength results from other lifting techniques.

again great video, thanks for the effort! could you make a video about supersets? 😁

I have a hypothesis that individuals who tend to be more explosive may benefit in terms of hypertrophy by doing slower (and fewer) reps per set, while individuals who tend to be less explosive may do better with more reps executed with a faster rep speed on both the eccentric and concentric. Individuals may also vary in which approach works based on muscle group. Important that I think that approximately 80% loads should be used in either case.

I’ve gained muscle training this way in a caloric deficit, non-steroidal.

The super slow workout should only be for one set to momentary muscle failure twice a week max, so I’m iffy on that study of 19 women performing 3 sets of each exercise. Great video on explaining the importance of force though.

Please do a video on motorized weight machines, such as ARX Fit (I believe some new home “smart” trainers work similarly). Practitioners of ARX style workouts also reference BBS/Doug Mcguff. Theoretically it should work great. You are pushing or pulling against immense force. Think of it as moving isometrics. The eccentric phase is 2-4 times greater than concentric. The workouts are 30 minutes, once or twice a week. However, my own experience is not as great as I had hoped. First, there is actually quite a learning curve. You can’t just go full steam, otherwise you won’t even get beyond a couple of reps. After three months, my increases were between 6%-20%. Given that my max deadlift is around 250lb at a weight of about 210 (age 45), I feel like I should have made more progress.

Makes sense👍

If we consider that the Superslow method would invoke lots of extra fatigue, it would be interesting to see if perhaps it would be more effective if done with only 2 sets, and done just every 4-5 days, vice 3 times per week, as was advocated by Mentzer. (Perhaps the lighter loads needed and blamed for lack of success could be mitigated by using heavier weights, say 70%1RM, but, at a lower rep range target, say, 5-8 reps. This might in effect more thoroughly test Mentzer's theories....)

I train each set slow but not super slow and made my best gains

Central fatigue also explains the one week rest time, has it recovers slower than muscle fibers

I found it weird that the superslow group was only lifting light loads. Why not look at the effects of super slow training with heavier loads for 1-3 repetitions

According to Doug McGUff, one must do only one session to failure, and not train again for a week to allow the muscle to recuperate and improve. Using SS only with a regular protocol is not SUPPOSED to work.

Yuri Verkhoshansky described something similar to this a long time ago, but apparently claimed the slow tempo resulted in more type 1 fiber hypertrophy and mitochondria growth. I cannot find much about it, and what protocols I have seen are conflicting. The book is like $65. It makes sense to me that these super slow people may get a bigger mix of fibers, though. There could be some really good reasons to train this way.

“Force” is not the appropriate measure of effort here. Yes there is an equation, but that’s for setting a object in horizontal motion, not for fighting gravity. What is your equation for resisting gravity, it aint force, coz its continuous. There’s very little tension involved in a short set of sudden tugs on a rope (explosive sets). Now try slowly pulling a rope without rest for a 10 times longer extended period (superslow set). Then tell me which one is more likely to send you to bed early and result in muscle fatigue the next day. Case in point.l: The cart loaded with coal can be pulled with a thin steel cable. Force. The cart however cannot be suspended with a thin steel cable. Not pulling “Force” but “tension” due to gravity is key to effort. Otherwise crossfitters would get massive off their kipping pullups. In reality, gymnasts on the rings, holding off gravity in long held positions, are much stronger and bigger.

I think it's noteworthy that the slow reps were done with 10 seconds on the concentric movement and only 4 seconds on the eccentric movement. We know that eccentric movement is generally where the money is in lifting, even to the point that gains can be maximized by cheating the weight up and doing a slow eccentric back down, either to break a plateau in max weight or to get a few more reps at the end of a set. So I'd be a lot more interested in research that looks at doing more than a 4 second eccentric movement, though I know it might be a while before that is done.

Just a note. When doing a Force = Mass * Acceleration calculation for weightlifting at sea level, you need to include the acceleration of gravity at sea level. That is 9.8 M/S squared.

Hi, study on slow reps with 80% 1rm is missing from the video.

Should be clear by the end of the video, but I really think that you should have mentioned that MOST of those studies researching repetition tempo, as well as the ones regarding one versus multiple sets are conducted VERY poorly meaning they try and equate irrelevant parameters such are repetitions and force production within isolated rep range or part of the movement, while the ONLY thing that has to be equal on both sides ex.(multiple sets vs one set) is proximity to failure or mechanical tension(which has 1 to 1 correlation not including central fatigue) Schoenfeld's research is the best example of forming a conclusion while the execution of sets that are labeled as "to failure" is CLEARLY just failure to maintain a previous cadence which is NOT an indicator that all recruitable glycemic motor units are recruited . Henneman's size principle is all we need to understand how muscles grow and it has nothing to do with anything besides mechanical tension.

Have you done a video on a) supramaximal eccentrics, that is to say using a weight that is greater than your concentric max for moderate (4 s) or slower reps? Also I know you have presented some info in favor of deloads or resensitization breaks. Have you done anything on using volume ramping between deloads or training breaks, such as simply adding sets on a weekly basis? I am not sure if volume ramping in a mesocycle is essential or if you can simply use intensity ramping (adding reps or weight, or going closer to failure). I think there is some evidence that volume ramping is not as good as intensity ramping for strength.

You can time a 10 second concentric and 10 seconds eccentric with a metronome set to 60bpm at 5/4 time. Four measures equals a rep and you do 3 reps a minute.

We know to a certain degree some rules of thumbs like the range of RM% appropriate for hypertrophy. Close to failure or to failure produce similar effects etc but on larger scales and going more nuanced we sure know little or not at all or we only some information so little to be conclusive or even contradictory. to that the solution would be a mixed strategy of anything one can do reasonably. periodically or in every workout to alternate between number of reps number of rm% number of seconds eccentrically or concentrically going to failure in some sets others close to others far from.superseting some muscles others not.doing all that while one watching his numbers going up strength wise on average every 2-3 months or more depending on how advanced the person is. For example While training chest one can mix or superset couple exercises like dumbbells and dips or pushups and bars.going heavy weighted on some sets and light in the end or vise versa one can take the last reps slower than regular or vise versa going to failure in the last set etc and all this shouldn’t be overwhelming at all and could be developed by sense and experience knowing how to milk every workout optimally.

These studies are really interesting. I think the results get skewed b/c of the amount of work done between each test group being so drastic. I don't think we will see true benefits of tempo training until they include work and power as a function of hypertrophy.

How is central fatigue or CNS fatigue perceived as opposed to muscle fatigue/soreness? Moreover are fatigue and soreness one and the same thing?

This very much depends on end goals, if you wish to tone and stay injury free slow weights have a massive advantage in maintaining form and posture, but obviously more reps with more weight must mean more muscle even if a percentage of the rep is gravity assisted

14:30 small correction force formula is correct but the interpretation was wrong. Gravitational weight is equal to the force exerted by muscle. Force is constant for a given weight at any speed of repetition. The power (force x velocity) increases with speed

It was brilliant of the researchers to use woman.

you do not have to go though for really slow tempos e.g. 10s, 4s up - 4s down would be fine to diminish central fatigue while having the benefits of superslow, in my opinion

Whatever you train is what you gain

The super slow protocol was not followed in regards to recovery time in the second study. Refer to both Ken Hutchins and Body by Science Doug McGuff. Strength and growth (adaptation) occurs during recovery.

jerking and swinging destroy ur joint, and the strength coming from Momentum

It doesn't make sense that super slow would do the same number of reps in these studies.. they would have way higher time under tension and have to use way lighter loads

What about overcoming isometrics then?do you think it's optimal for gaining strength at specific angles?

what if it's all about overtraining? if two groups of ppl are training with the same amount of sets and reps but the first is slow repping and the second is not, even though the first group uses lighter weights, wouldn't they feel more exhausted or even sorer?

Shit ,I've seen many ppl doing full 10rep sets in 9 seconds 🤣

Let's clear the misconceptions: How fast you lift doesn't matter! What matters is how close you go to failure and the time under tension. When you know that you can see that it doesn't matter which training concept you use if you consider your personal tolerance to training, recovery and your personal goals. Example: person A uses high volume biceps curls 5 sets 10 reps normal reps speed, close to failure total of approx. 100 sec time under tension, person B does 1 set to failure but the set takes approx. 100 sec. - both individuals will have simmilar gains assuming they use same weight for the bicep curls and that they are genetically same with same diets and lifestyles.

I'm interested how your, House of Hypertrophy(Sorry, I don't know your name sadly 😕) own training is going, and what kind of programming are you using or changing it constantly? With the amount of research you are studying it would be easy to have paralysis by analysis and thus having less than optimal result for not sticking through any programming for long enough.. been there myself. 😉

to be fair the study is not really legit because to compare two protocols you should perform the protocol according to its own standards, i.e. super slow typically advocates 1x per week training and only 6 "the big six" exercises, so doing ss training 3x week and 12 sets would be grossly overtraining if you do it the way they say to

One interesting point that I would guess could come up is that the nervous system adapts much faster than the musculoskeletal system and I would wonder if 30, 60, or 90 days in The effect of central fatigue Is compensated for by adaptation.

Summary please, esp answering the question in the title?

Anything new is probably positive. Notice how many different protocols work? If you have been doing moderate rep speed sets for years. Probably, super slow would be a new stimulation.

just an fyi; you can develop an insanely level of strength through extreme slow reps (30 seconds). I've been inform by someone who has expereinced the differenece first had (my dad use to do 30 second reps) a ripped bodybuilder was unable to loosen something at work; and my dad who use to do 30 second reps, was able to loosen it without much effort; this confused the bodybuilder to no end; so my dad adviced him to try 30 second rep... i will ask him for an update in a few weeks.

I feel like a better way to test the 1 rep maximum is letting the regular group do the super slow, then letting the super slow do the regular. I feel like itll be a different ball game then

The fact that regular training allowed for bigger 1RM is neural adaptation and not any progression in number of filaments... Meaning that one rep max strength demonstrated in those movements is not transferable, improvement in transferable strength has 1 to 1 correlation with improvement in actin and myosin filamentation...

I question your conclusion that regular training tempos produce more strength than super slow - namely at the end of the trial how were the subjects tested? Did they use regular cadence when attempting their 1 rep max? If so that would negatively effect the super slow subjects as 1 rep max attempts are a particular skill beyond simply demonstrating strength. All trials are flawed because there are so many variables that need to be controlled and considered.

One rep max ive reached my limit Lifting heavy weights harass destroy my joints i cant do heavy super slow i wish i saw this earlier amazing

So, there is no proper answer to this?

Whats the summary,who is better ?

If this improves bone density, I'm sold! I've lifted heavy weights and ran for years but still got osteoporosis. The osteoporosis drugs that are out there have some pretty bad side effects such as muscle cramps, and jaw bone necrosis😳. Also, while they may increase bone density, they don't increase bone resiliency which puts you at risk for...bone fractures! Y'all need to be FEEDING your bones properly when you're young. Dark leafy greens have the most absorbable form of calcium. Vitamin D3/K2 supplements are also very good. Avoid sodas with phosphoric acid (Coke, Coke Zero, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, etc.). Drink water! Lift weights!

Super slow 10s not really needed, unless in really bad physical, recovery after extreme degradation state. It has its place there. Somewhere in the range of 3-5 sec cadence is better for study comparison. Also, weight used should not be 30% 1rm, but higher, since we're not recovering, but building. Could be even 80% of 1rm if person has good stamina-slow twitch dominancy. Direction change from negative to concentric should also be slow, without peak forces production. But why even bother, if fast explosive movements bring results? I'll tell you why. If trainee is a responder, with robust frame, joints, connective tissue, he'll grow no matter what. But if trainee is a weaker framed, scoliosis, pelvic tilt... you name it-he got it, prone to injury from higher loads and greater accelerations of weight. Then slow speed is the only answer. Also if you already have achy joints from past abuse of fast movements, reverting to slow and reducing weight further 10-20%, with mindfull use of muscles at any moment, without full extention and going to true failure or very close to, allows you to continue training even with injury. You can still double progress the movements. Another thing necessary is keeping the tension in set for 60-90 secs. And believe me, if training correctly, the 1st rep is already hard. And you have to continue in 5/5sec cadence till you reach 60-90 secs. Now this is hard AF but also safe and kind to the joints and ligaments, especially if you are the type of person, that is prone to getting hurt if using explosive movements. Also, you might not get hurt for 5 years, but suddenly, sth snaps, and you quit alltogether..why. if you train slow, nothing can snap. If all is OK, you might reach genetic potential a bit slower, but once you reach it, you only maintain. Longevity is and should always be before presumably faster but riskier results. My knees are/were shot. Could barelly walk down stairs. Now can do a slow 1rm squat with good form 210 lb and a 80 sec (14 reps) set of rougly 5/5 cadence with 172 lb, with ZERO knee pain. Doing it normally, with 1-2 sec timing, I felt it in the knees for a week or more, which discoragued any consistent leg training. So you see, not being a weak woman trying to relearn how to use the body, but also not super responder. This is the only way my body allows me to get stronger in time. Why even bother with few weeks long studies, which promote higher loads with faster acceleration, since results are measured in months/years. And going slower brings them safely.

Slow reps are more safe and just as effective at building muscle as long as you are going to failure. 5 seconds positive and 5 seconds negative works well for me

Performing super slow training 3 times a week results in overtraining.that’s why the muscle gains were not better that the regular training

Eccentric only with more than 1 rep max is where the magic is

4 seconds up 4 seconds down is slow enough, anything beyond that is just too annoying and hard to keep track of the tempo properly

ive been making gains fairly rapidly with slow training the mike mentzer way

Super slow training aside. We constantly hear or are taught that slow full range motion under intense and heavy weights is king when building however. However when i carefully look around my gym and the bigger and stronger guys from intermediate to advance, I never notice anyone doing slow or regular full range motion on any exercises. I see fast or lightning fast with only partial range of motion in most cases involving free weights. I seem to be the only one going average and full range to near fatigue on every set but i feel as if im always the last in my group to leave and my stregth or muscle seems subpar when comparing. I have my T cjecked regularly, I focus on nutrition as well, and follow a puah pull legs split. But as much as im enjoying the process and in my own lane, I feel like Im falling behind those who started arojnd the same i did or even a handful of new to the gym types. What gives?

I take 3 days per each set, diapers and feeders are required however.

i just know that when i do slow reps, i grow a lot!! You have to rest more too

Arthur Jones believed Ken Hutchin's protocol was too damn slow.

you might as well call it static contraction very effective

*I dont understand why they would use women for those studies. The data from them would seem to be utterly useless to determine how it would work for men.*

Hang on. The regular group did 4 seconds on eccentric movement. That is not regular lol. Most 'regular' tempo is much faster. 4 seconds is time under tension also. Kind of blurs things.

It's funny that you put this video out because there seems to be a buzz about super slow training going around the RU-vid fitness community atm. I'm inclined to take it up myself to see if I can heal some naggy injuries.

Super slow probably results in better neuromuscular connection, which increases strength without getting bigger muscle.

Is your native language English?

👍

No Music? What..I do SuperSlow /Pause training..I always use Music.. Works great with staying with in a Tempo/ while simultaneously getting a good Rep while also retaining a good rythm..Music is made in Layers..You just go off the slowest layer of the best..This is HipHop and Pop usually.. Works great.