Research shows you should not look in the mirror longer than 4s. If you do, there is no extra benefit and you may start questioning what you see looking back at you...
Look at my comment and see what someone that read the articles and studies he is referring to has to say. I disagree with his findings and have posted a response for him to read and he has not. It seems that he is only producing these videos for click bait.
It subjects the tissues to much lower forces which logically means a reduction in injury risk I use slow cadence precisely because I don't want to risk injury from elastic rebounding , I don't care if that means I can lift less weight because the weight is just a tool I'm using to exhaust my muscles
@Maximum_Natural_Muscle it's the best way to ensure we can keep training into our later years I would happily sacrifice every PR I made from lifting faster if it meant I'd never been injured to the degree I have been over the last 30 years. Not a single injury since adopting a slow cadence
Ohhhh Dr Mike gonna be madddd... I'd already started speeding up the eccentric portion of my squats bc I play basketball and was willing to sacrifice a small portion of potential hypertrophic gain for better performance by not weakening that stretch response at the bottom, but it's nice to know I may not be giving up much of anything at all and can apply that to other movements, as well.
Actually I think he said pretty much the same thing, as long as you control the eccentric and don't let the weight fall you're good... But no need to purposefully lengthen the eccentric just to get into a specific preset tempo....also depends what you're doing and if safety is a concern (at least this is what I'm getting from this)
@@giuliam2531I heard him before saying up to a 5 second eccentric on a squat is ideal though.. not sure if that's what he's been saying lately but that's lonnng
@@geminierica4077 maybe it depends on the lift ...the squat might benefit from sinking in more slowly for joint/safety 😅 I noticed since I started controlling the eccentric on the squat my hips feel better. But I agree there is definitely a"too slow" for that too
Removing the training of stretch reflex won’t have any effect on your sports performance. You train it specific in your sport training. A 30 mins weight session will have no impact. If it could simply walking or performing any task at a rudimentary, slow pace would effect sprinting performance
Very interesting. I think the point is to try to not have a moment of rest between eccentric and concentric movement? That's what I understood. Thank you for the explanation!
I choose exercises, mostly on cable machines, in which even in the starting position the muscle under full tension from the weights. This should improve the stretch-mediated hypertrophy.
I always thought, that the eccentric needs to be slow enough to counter the effect of letting the weight fall. If you let the weight fall to fast, you cheat on the eccentric tension part. I always try to control the eccentric so I feel, that I am lowering the weights and not letting them fall, without bothering to measure the duration. I think for most longer movements it's about two seconds ... short movements, like calfs, more like 1s
Interesting. I’ve been doing slow eccentrics which explains why I have been getting so strong over the past few months, but not so much in my muscle size. I have been giving my muscles enough stimulus against the constant tension, but probably not enough volume. I’m going to make this subtle change and see if I can increase my muscle size
You emphasize the stretch reflex pretty heavily here, but do we have evidence that using it (on a movement such as the lateral raise for instance) rather than a slower eccentric has any differences for hypertrophy? And if not, wouldnt the recommendation be to maintain slower eccentrics because they likely carry less risk of injury?
Most of these details depend upon athletes goals. There is sport specific weightlifting(like sprinters train the muscles used for sprinting and for explosivitey). For example for bodybuilders higher and slower reps with good focus on the trained muscle units might work better(adding some drop sets or till failure once in a while). While for a powerlifter low reps more sets and explosivity might be more beneficial. So first set a goal. But as i matured i learned to rest more, i used to workout twice a day once where i take upto 72hrs rest for full recovery now. Overtraining is more draining and destroying the body than building things.
so basically its same for hypertrophy and better for increasing strength bc one is using momentum, and theres more need for strength to control that and decelerate the weight. i mean, one could get the same strength increase by using controlled movements and increasing the weight on the bar.. and as others have mentioned, if its basically the same for hypertrophy, but the slow movements are safer and allow us to achieve same hypertrophy with lighter weights - we should just keep doing slow controlled movements..
I hate the internet. On Muscle training tipps I gradually went from complete idiots to solid experts. After changing my routines like 10 time, Menno Henselmans appears on my list and I discover once again that I've been told a lot of untrue or stupid things. Okay, slight adjustments once again XD
Great! For leg extensions, How about that moment when you get to the top of the concentric? Hold .5 of a sec or immediately start the eccentric movement?
I think slower eccentric is also effective for learning better technique. What about slow eccentric for a phase, then transition to faster for the next phase or two?
I've been saying this for years. Slow and fast controlled eccentrics are equal for hypertrophy. But faster eccentrics are better for strength. So overall fast is probably superior
Can I still employ a pause on some bench variations where I've had a barbell bench injury in the past. Like the way I barbell bench is maybe 2 second eccentric (I don't count) and a brief pause when it touches my chest, explosive concentric always. On dumbbell bench and bayesian flys I don't pause.
But surely lifting with less weight with slower eccentric and pauses have a better stimulus to fatigue ratio, thus a greater overall growth response when more volume is done
Good god, what a disaster. "Performing a slower eccentric contraction" is an oxymoron. "Contraction" is the concentric 1:21 1:21 portion of the movement, as you just defined a few seconds earlier! Just complete gibberish.
Great video! RP’s Dr. Mike israetel’s strongly encourages milking eccentrics during lifts. Do you consider this misguided as it trades off the potential tension of more reps, with higher load with fewer reps with focus of the eccentric stretch?
How does this fit with lengthened partials given the latest research showing it being better or the same in terms of hypertrophy compared to full rom? Dr Milo Wolf says you should pause briefly in the most stretched position. Do you agree or is the stretch reflex more important still?
I would guess the point of saying to stop is to ensure the stretched position recieves maximum stress rather than being helped by the bounce if you don't stop.
@@Raumance True but on the otherhand the stretch bounce produces greater tension although for a lower period of time. But seems like in the end with net zero effect regarding hypertrophy.
Wouldn’t this be an argument to slow down the eccentric? If the hypertrophic effect is similar either way, then a slower eccentric would be better because you require less weight to accomplish the same muscle growth. Less weight and loading means less risk of injury and less fatigue. For example, doing squats with a 4 sec eccentric and a pause at the bottom, you would do much less weight then you would otherwise. The body would be much less fatigued, and certainly would have less axial fatigue. But still the same hypertrophic effect. This perhaps might allow you to do more volume overall because you are less fatigued, and hence get more hypertropy.
Personally, if I perform slow 4sec eccentric squats with pause I'm way more fatigued than during faster squats that rely on the stretch reflex. Even if the loading is less on the first. Matter of fact, to make things worse, if I perform 1&1/2 reps to really milk the slow eccentric on the lenghtened part I'm abdolutely trashed with very little weight and can't perform as many sets.
It’s been shown that slow eccentrics are much more damaging than concentrics and fast eccentrics, which means that you’ll likely be able to recover faster and tolerate more total volume. Your squat example would maybe produce less central fatigue within the session (which you could work around with longer interset rests) but much greater post-workout fatigue for the following days
I think the argument is sound, but the practicality is limited. I've noticed people have a really hard time respecting eccentric control with a fast eccentric. It's just so unnatural as you get tired to keep mental focus and respect this. And, since people are generally limited by systemic fatigue rather than muscular fatigue, I think it's better to have a 2s eccentric, even if you "lose" on the stretch-reflex, because you can just do 1 more set. The reason most of these studies find no difference is because they are testing the wrong thing. Once you do enough total work the modality becomes almost irrelevant, because 5 sets of bicep curls will induce near-maximal hypertrophy for that session regardless of technique, as long as it's close to failure. To truly test whether one way is better than another you have to test sub-maximal stimulus. If I do 2 sets of curls and I get 60% of my maximal hypertrophy from that session, THEN we can see if 1s eccentric vs 3s eccentric actually produces >60%.
If the studies cited are correct that there is no significant difference in strength and hypertrophy development between 4s and 1s eccentrics, then there is no evidence that increasing the speed of the eccentric in order to utilize the stretch reflex improves hypertrophy or stretch-mediate hypertrophy. Given a lack of evidence that a faster eccentric actually results in greater hypertrophy, I would argue that the speed of the eccentric should be determined by safety considerations. A slower eccentric results in lesser impact forces at the end range/turnaround which almost certainly results in less risk of injury to joint structures from what amount to impact forces exceeding capacity of the joint structures. Also, given the same resistance, a slower eccentric does in fact result in more consistent muscle tension over the range of motion than a faster eccentric. The fastest possible eccentric would be achieved by releasing the load completely and allowing it to free fall, but this would involve precisely zero eccentric muscle tension. When performing the eccentric we are resisting the free fall of the load. The speed of the eccentric is determined by how much one resists the free fall with muscle tension. If the resistance is 100 pounds, and one produces exactly 100 pounds of muscle tension to resist its fall, there will be no movement downward. In order for the load to move toward Earth one must reduce muscle tension to less than 100 pounds. The speed of the eccentric thus depends on how much tension you generate against the load. The less tension you produce against the free fall of the load, the faster the load descends. This is simple physics. Therefore, the more slowly you lower the load, the more tension you must produce. So, if you let the load drop rapidly you are sacrificing muscle tension through the full range of motion and at the same time dramatically increasing the impact force encountered at the end of the eccentric as you suddenly stop its downward trajectory. This increased force is encountered for only a brief moment but can do a lot of damage. As a thought experiment to understand what kind of forces develop, consider how much damage the load would do to your foot if you let it drop rapidly from 18 inches above (about the stroke length of many compound movements). Just ten pounds dropped from 18 inches would put significant damaging stress on the soft tissues of the foot. Thus, slowing the eccentric reduces the risk of injury from impact forces.
@@SuperKool500if people can do 8 reps and produce as much growth as people doing 10 reps with the only difference being cadence, you can say that the eccentric group is producing more tension on their muscles per rep. There is no way to explain this without resorting to literal magic.
@@zakazan8561 Yes but the total time x tension matters. The person with faster eccentrics, but more reps gets just as good of hypertrophy, so these people need to stop claiming that slower eccentrics yield better hypertrophy.
@@andrewmueller9986Studies do show that eccentric based lifting yields more hypertrophy than concentric based lifting, that is likely where they are getting that. "Eccentric training performed at high intensities was shown to be more effective in promoting increases in muscle mass measured as muscle girth. In addition, eccentric training also showed a trend towards increased muscle cross-sectional area measured with magnetic resonance imaging or computerised tomography. Subgroup analyses suggest that the superiority of eccentric training to increase muscle strength and mass appears to be related to the higher loads developed during eccentric contractions. The specialised neural pattern of eccentric actions possibly explains the high specificity of strength gains after eccentric training." It does seem that eccentric lifting can build more muscle due to the ability to reach further levels of fatigue and stimulus. If you do in 8 reps what someone has to do in 10 reps to get the same benefit, the 8 reps is objectively better since you are fatiguing more units of muscle per rep.
@@andrewmueller9986I don’t think they suggest it yields better hypertrophy but rather similar outcome under safer circumstance if not more efficient circumstances
I don't buy it. Are we sure that using the SSC is good for growth? If that was the case, wouldn't plyometrics be a great way to build hypertrophy? Same with power training; not ideal for hypertrophy. Additionally, lowering the weight eccentrically can also help to build stabilization and synergistic muscle strength. Thoughts? I'm going to read those articles and get back to you.
There is a huge and glaring issue with spouting science based evidence and insisting like a zealot that scientific studies are the be all and end all, the final word on what will give the best results. Studies and peer reviewed work is so narrow minded and near sighted for example there are huge differences between untrained individuals, intermediate gym goers, advanced trainees etc. What qualifies as trained? Is someone who is "trained" exactly the same as the next individual who you label as "trained" how can you even begin to objectively analyse factors such as training intensity or that individuals ability to tolerate pain or intensity? You can't and this is why insisting that the science is the bottom line doesn't work. There are far too many fators at play including genetics, using performance enhancing substances (many users who will never admit such a thing) there are 8+ billion people on planet earth, how on earth you think a study that uses a control group that is relatively TINY can ever come to a foregone conclusion is beyond me it just seems a bit narrow minded.
Ok. You might want to re name your thumbnail “Dr Mike is wrong” because your recommendation is very very different to his😂. I’d love to see a debate on this topic between you two.
A "Mike Israetel is wrong - is stretching at the end of the rep really more effective?" or whatever, surely might be effective clickbait indeed :) I think Menno's common sense applies here. Sure focussing on the stretched part of the rep, can make that rep in itself more effective, BUT, it comes at the cost of being able to handle less weight and/or reps. At the end, as we can predict by now, both methods are almost equally as effective, given appropriate volume and intensity jadajada, and it's a matter of preference/ safety/ sport specific training (if applicable) etc. Boring answers often apply in exercise and nutrition :)
So, what Dr Mike from RP is suggesting, which is controlled eccentrics with a 1-2 second pause at the most lengthened position, is just empirical advice? I feel kind of betrayed, because I thought Dr Mike was always supporting his advice on science. I mean Menno and Mike agree on the controlled eccentric (meaning the muscle does the work) but the pause seems like anecdotal advice. However, I should mention that when pausing at the bottom of a Bench Press for example, I feel like I take the momentum completely out of the equation, which probably enables me to control the movement even further. Don’t know, I feel baffled right now…
A lot of Mike's videos are unfortunately presented as - this is what all of us exercise science / evidence based guys agree upon, this isn't up for much debate and it's what we all learned at PhD level. However most of his videos are based on logic, reason and experience, with the evidence strongly in mind. Rather than something that can be put forward as an unequivocal truth.. It's a blend of philosophy and science. So Mike's vids are a tremendous resource, and if you did everything he said in every video you would do great, but if he tried to submit a lot of them to a scientific journal there would be a lot of people saying "hold your horses there, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not so sure we can say that yet". If you want the most guarded and concrete advice then go to Eric Helms. Then Menno's work will include all Eric's work, plus stuff that is slightly less concrete but has a strong trend towards. Then Mike's stuff will give you a ton of food for thought on top of that. Luckily, where they agree is where the gold is, and disagreements around lifting tempo, body part frequency and periodisation etc. make such a tiny difference it isn't worth worrying about who is correct, and are just ideas to experiment with yourself. Mike's hypertrophy made simple playlist is likely where the concrete is, the rest of his stuff is mostly just ideas to play with.
Gym Bros, we meet again in the dungeons of another scientific evidence based video teaching us how to get swole! 😂 On a serious note, I enjoyed the information. I'd still recommend slowing and controlling the eccentric minimum 2 sec for compound movements at least. One thing these study lack is time. I may lift a lower weight than you now but in 1 yr plus Im more likely to have more gains because I'm able to train consistently with no injuries.
I'd argue that I struggle to feel a mind muscle connection with a faster eccentric which ultimately voids any gains in my target area. Not to mention the avoidance of injury. Anyone else feel this way?
Memo do you not have a higher degree of risk by using a faster “explosive” tempo. For instance the transfer of mechanical tension ends where tendon meets bone. We know tendons adapt to stimuli at a slower rate than muscle tissue. Therefore, momentum used could produce the highest risk of injury. The turnaround speed explosively is exactly the recipe to rip that tendon right off the bone. Most people are explosive and faster on concentric and using too much weight. How bout lower resistance, slow down cadence, mitigate risk!
i think you misunderstood those studies. A short eccentric phase doesn't improve performance, it says it improves concentric performance. But it is unclear what follows from that - the study says that there isn't a great difference in hypertrophy. If you wanna do strength training - do that. If it is about hypertrophy, then longer eccentric phases seem best (that is my interpretation) because it most likely decreases risk of injury. I also think you probably misunderstood the comparisons that are made between longer and shorter durations of the exercises. I've seen another youtuber that was irritated by this aspect too and asked one of the researchers. Accordingly, if shorter and longer durations of exercises are compared, they are usually adjusted for weight, meaning that when comparing 2second eccentric to 8 second eccentric phases, more weight is used for the shorter duration exercises. If that is actually the case, then again longer eccentric phases are better because you can use lower amounts of weight for the same hypertrophic effect, again reducing injury risk.
well yeah, and you could also use less weight and more reps for the same effect. shorter duration will increase concentric performance, meaning you can lift heavier loads for more reps. This, in turn, will increase your strength, which will help with hypertrophy
@@mithras666 I agree, but still: strength training obviously predominantly improves strength. Cycling in such a training style for mesocycles will improve hypertrophy in the long-term. But if want to improve hypertrophy, you should generally do hypertrophy-focused training, not strength training. The thesis that he puts forward here is that shorter eccentric phases are supposedly better because they improve strength and don't seem to have a negative impact on hypertrophy - basically saying it's the best of both worlds. That, I think, is not the scientific consensus. Strength and hypertrophy training should be cycled in and out, using either for its advantages and counteracting the negative effects of either training method.
Just control the weight - there’s really not much more to it. Tension is relevant in 2 contexts 1/ how much weight you lift 2/how close to failure you are For safety and longevity reasons I stick to 8-15RM with controlled tempo. I feel it’s middle ground not giving up on tension but still remaining safe The stretch reflex argument I think is theoretically driven and grossly over rated. As a compliment to sports performance, I feel weight training exists to reduce injury and in adjunct. An hour spent learning the skill of you sport is 10x more valuable than that spent in weight room chasing some small ability to develop something that may transfer to the sports arena
The older I get, the less I pay attention to these studies. In my experience, slowing the rep down and ensuring no loss of mind muscle connection, and absolutely annihilating the muscle (to failure and beyond) group, once per week, with progressive overload, has by far had a much larger impact on muscle size than anything else, and it isn't even close. In addition, my strength has skyrocketed as well ( I believe this is due to never getting sloppy with form, making each rep as difficult as possible for the target muscle group). I am a masochist when I enter the gym, my muscles are the object of my torture. Moreover, I think getting stuck in the weeds with all these studies leads to gym goers having analysis paralysis, and their effort and programming suffers as a result. I'm not saying there isn't some merit to these studies but, again, I find my anecdotal experience mileage to vary greatly vs the empirical evidence, except for the basic tenets: Nutrition & rest coupled with mechanical tension, intensity, and progressive overload (and smart exercise selection). If you have those on point, forget about everything else and you will achieve an elite physique.
Since there's no clear difference to strength and hypertrophy, then slower tempos should be preferred in novices to intermediates to reduce injury risk and form breakdown.
It’s like the debate of heavy vs light- why not both? There are benefits and draw backs to every freaking thing in exercise science, so a wise person would simply use a good variety, and see what works best for them.
Hi Menno, How do you make sure your getting this strecht responce right? I feel like most ppl who do fast eccentrics with no pauze are kind of bouncing the weight. And for me taking a short pause removes that option. Also this recommendation seems a bit dangerous as your putting a lot more force on your muscles and tendons. I get why going to slow on the eccentric isnt optimal, but maybe you could give some advice on how to get this stretch responce safely?
After watching Mike Israetels newest video and now this I wonder why you two seem to disagree so much about that topic. Since you are friends, have you debated that already?
i personally swear by arthur jones HIT cadence of a 2-1-4 tempo aka 2 sec concentric - 1 sec hold - 4 sec negative it just feels so "natural" to me to count it that way.. slower just feels not that natural to count for me
Hi, Menno! I read your article that fast and explosive concentric is not the ideal for females. Is this true? Females should focus on slower movements and getting more reps in instead?
By this logic, could we conclude that overloaded negative rep sets, where a spotter helps with the concentric to lockout, and the trainee controls the eccentric portion on a weight that they wouldn't normally be able to lift through the concentric portion, might be a beneficial training technique for this type of stimulus?
I'm suspicious of the source of the power generated in the stretch reflex. Take standing calf raises for example. If I employ a rapid eccentric, then the elasticity of my calf tendons assist quite a bit with the next rep. This cant be good for hypertrophy? I do believe the calf to be an exceptional muscle in this regard though, but worry some of the same concept carries over to other muscles.
Letting the stretch reflex take control under a high load is very dangerous. Scientific evidence does not find differences, so let's make the exercise safer. We also know that the number of reps in a set does not affect hypertrophy, it makes little sense to count volume in this way, what does it matter if you do fewer reps because your eccentric phase is slower?
Disappointed that there was no research presented to support the claim that stretch reflex enhances hypertrophy. I constantly hear recommendations to pause at the stretched position to get TUT at the most hypertrophic range and then see the opposite advice around force generation and the stretch reflex. Both make perfect sense theoretically but neither camp ever seems to support the claim with outcome data despite being generally evidence based. Seems like we would have a bit more clarity on this by now.
There's quite a few things missing here. Some include: Momentum - lifting and lowering a free weight with high momentum reduces the force on the muscle through the range of motion. For example, if you use an explosive concentric phase during a biceps curl, the initial force to move the weight is high, but once it is going, that tension on the muscle is reduced as momentum carries the weight through space. This is why it is actually BAD to do the eccentric fast. Not only that, but the forces put into a free weight lift in this nature leads to increased risk of injury as you are putting a lot of force against the muscle and joints all at once. If you are competing, you may need to do this to move the most amount of weight, but I'd argue that it is not the safest option. What should we consider volume? Normally, volume is sets X reps X weight, but is this a good approach? I would argue that the working time a muscle is under meaningful load is more important and that all motor units in the muscle are activated and fatigued to generate a stimulus for muscle growth at rest. With that said, if weight/tension is really high for a set, the TUT may be lower, but the stimulus achieved may be just as good. This is why I think we see similar hypertrophy results between 5-30 reps as long as a high enough effort is involved at the end of that set. This is why the argument that slowing down the rep speed, especially during the eccentric, leading to less volume may not matter at all. Proximity to muscle failure is really what matters (intensity of effort) and that enough of a stimulus is generated to build muscle at rest. Technically, you could generate that stimulus in 1 set (as many other channels talk about). However, I personally recommend 2-3 sets minimum as most individuals cannot generate that stimulus in 1 set due mostly to giving up before they should (mentally think they reached it, but did not). I agree with maintaining muscular control, but as mentioned in the Momentum section above, the faster the free weight is moving (in either direction) the less tension is place on the muscle working during that set. You are basically "catching" the weight at both ends of a rep if the weight is moving too fast. I personally like around a 3 second concentric, 3 second eccentric as this feels like a good spot. Another channel by Jay Vincent has around a 5-5 rep speed. Again, the main focus is to reduce momentum and high forces during the direction change (to avoid injury to your joints/tendons and muscles). So while you can build muscle with a faster rep speed (as long as it is close enough / to failure), it may be a bad approach. Also, strength comes down to a lot of factors, including muscle insertions, skill/technique of a lift, muscle fiber density, etc. Some good channels that talk about this are Jay Vincent (as mentioned above), Drew Baye, and Dr. Doug McGuff.
that's a good point, though explosive movements are also a (functional) thing. what I like to do is have a slow eccentric, short pause and an energetic concentric. with the concentric you also have less injury potential because you practically can't overload your muscle unless you really push it
Thanks for the video! At RP, the pause in the stretched position is heavily emphasized. Why do you think that is? Can you make a counterargument for your position on it? Also, what's your definition of "controlled eccentric"? Wouldn't it necessitate a 1:2 tempo at minimum?
I would guess that's just to assure you spend time in the most lengthened portion of the movement, which is more hypertrophic; if you're just pumping reps you will most likely end up skipping on that very bottom portion of the movement, which would lead to less mediated-stretched hypertrophy@@MxmuPrm
@@hongkyongko if you listen to what Menno says... He mentioned that the reversal of the weight creates a high amount of tension... And this can lead to hypertrophy. The thing with milking the stretch is that it makes you weaker . You get less volume.. and you lose the benefit of the stretch reflex.
You mention that the negligible or even worse results fornthe slow eccentric groups is due to "lower total volume" as a result of the increased difficulty of slow eccentrics. Are these studies controlling the load/weight? The reason I ask is because I wonder if there would be a difference if total volume (#reps and #sets) was controlled but load was allowed to vary. Obviously, the slower eccentric group would need to lift lighter loads to get to the same volume as the fast eccentric group. Are there any studies that do this specific comparison for strength or hypertrophy results?
Have had this question for such a long time because of the conflicting information that's around. The subtle nuance of slower eccentrics are better when you're able to use more load and not just the same load you could do for regular speed slowly is what was missing from my understanding. Very well explained, Menno!
The stretch reflex is exactly what you want to prevent,. That decrease how much mechanical work your muscles are performing. You should always slow the negative, pause during the turn-around for .5-1 seconds. This will help prevent injuries and increase the work muscles are performing. How slow you should perform the eccentric all depends on the exercise and its ROM. There is a big difference between calf raises and machine pullovers.
Ok I read the articles. The Handford et al. (2022) article showed that performing eccentric actions at durations shorter than 2 seconds can enhance subsequent concentric performance in terms of maximum strength, velocity, and power. All this means is that they can get more reps because, in my opinion, it decreases TUT. Quick eccentric movements focus more on enhancing neuromuscular efficiency, power output, and the effectiveness of the stretch-shortening cycle, not hypertrophy and strength. Handford et al. (2022), did show that there was no significant difference, in terms of hypertrophy, between 2 and 6 second eccentric lifting. The Pearson et al. (2022) article had two groups; a 1s eccentric and a 3s eccentric. The 3s group had the repetitions adjusted to match the TUT of the 1s group. To me, this is a flaw in the findings. If anything it shows that TUT is the real deal here, which aligns with my beliefs that slower tempo provides greater hypertrophy gains. Additionally, the tempos were 1-0-3-0 and 1-0-1-0 which more than likely meant that there was bouncing at the bottom so a transition was more likely the amortization phase of a plyometric movement. The study by Hermes, M. J., & Fry, A. C. (2023) compared eccentric temps of 2.6 seconds with much slower, 10 second eccentric training and showed that strength improvements were better with the 2.6 group. I have zero argument with this. I have training with a 10 second eccentric for fun / pain cave, but never thought I was going to get a tone of benefits from it. Overall, I stand firm on my position. Fast eccentric training is not for hypertrophy. Control the weight with smooth tempo in the eccentric phase, eliminate the SSC by not bouncing in the transitions (top and bottom).
I don't think he disagrees with you. You would both say, really slowing the eccentric part of a movement starts training the muscle more for endurance. A controlled lowering of the weight to fully stretched is absolutely for hypertrophy and making that last 10 seconds takes you away from power generation and into endurance training. Guys in the gymn sometimes slow the concentric or eccentric portion of lifts to make them harder, not realizing that raising the difficulty that way doesn't provide more growth stimulus. Heck, at extremes it might encourage muscle fiber type switching and reduce your fast twitch fibers if done consistently for weeks or months.
I dont think he is talking about bouncing in any case. I think it is meant to say that the last part of essentric with fast slowing will have great impact on gains. I dont think that 1 second essentric od bench will always lead to big bounce. I think this is eliminated with good tehnique where you control that last few cm when you come near chest. Also i think bounce is always there, going for 3 or 1 sec essentric, there is just difference in weight you are moving. So by doing bigger bounce you are moving more weight while with smaller bounce you are doing less weight and your force on the end in probably pretty close.
Obviously this is all splitting hairs at this point, but I think the overall message is that although eccentric training is crucial, be weary that theres a clear drop off if doing it for too long per rep (10 second excentrics). I’m excited for more studies to come out to find the near perfect optimal eccentric time per exercise. We’re all fucking nerds talking about ~1% more potential gains lol
most people don't care about strength, and studies on muscle CSA show that the bigger muscle is always the stronger muscle, so focusing on strength only has applications in sports where weight can be an issue, like MMA or gymnastics or endurance sports. The bigger you are, the stronger you are. Growing the same amount of muscle with less weight and volume is a clear advantage when you're talking about access to gym equipment / time constraints.
THANKS for this video. In my case I am performing slow negatives because I am connecting a lot better with the muscles than doing a fast nagatives. Maybe that s because I was always training with slow negatives and I am used to connect with the muscles this way.
I have always thought this to be the case. I use a fast concentric and a controlled eccentric. Squats will naturally have a longer eccentric than something like Bench Press or Curls etc.
I'm also skeptical of puased reps and lengthened partials as it relates to this topic. The stretch shortening cycle is taken out of play with puased reps to some degree. Most movements that I've programed for myself with lengthend partials I find it difficult to get 100% drive out of the bottom position when I am anticipating quickly decelerating the bar. It turns into more of a tempo conncentric to make certain I'm hitting my arbitrary point of the end ROM for the partial to keep the reps consistent. I currently use puased reps, LP, and longer 2-4 second eccentrics in my training. I just think they are all overhyped.
Another very valuable video. Thank you, Menno. What do you think about the eccentric part of the movement performed with a supramaximal concentric load, i.e. a load you are only able to lower, not lift.
Henselmans argues that when lowering the weight at a regular pace rather than slowly, it triggers "the stretch reflex" to forcefully contract the muscle in the stretched position. Since muscle tension in the stretched position is beneficial for hypertrophy and the reflex produces much tension in this position, it is worth it to employ this reflex.
Also, four seconds is rediculously slow for an eccentric. If you really count from 0 to 4 seconds (yes, not from 1 to 4, that's THREE Seconds), that's a rediculously long time. Moreover, slow eccentrics to me are just unintuitive, boring and gimmicky. Conclusion: for hypertrophy, it's fine to just lift in a classic controlled, safe, reasonable fashion (1+1 sec for example) like Eric Helms said more than 10 years ago. There's many ways to rome, and the regular roads still work just fine. Going slower on the reps/ focussing on stretching at the bottom (Mike Israetel style) comes with a tradeoff: less reps/ weight possible, resulting in about equal gains in the end. Just pick what you prefer, while staying safe and going till a couple reps away from failure. Boring basics, they stubbornly just keep working!
1. The reason that we emphasize the eccentric is because it results in LESS FATIGUE Not because it results in greater hypertrophy with a given volume. It enables us to subject the muscle to higher volume. Which LEADS to more hypertrophy. 2. Are there studies showing that the stretch reflex increases hypertrophy?(literature says that loading a stretched position = greater hypertrophy. That does NOT mean that those increases are from the stretch reflex(in the beginning of the video your argument operates under that assumption)) Interesting thought process going through the concept. Need more complicated research to find the nuances. Great video although I disagree with the conclusion :)
It's almost 2024 and we should stop counting training volume for hypertrophy as reps x sets x weight. If you do 100 kg x 10 x 4 sets in 10X0 tempo RIR 0, then 100 x 6 x 4 sets in 30X0 RIR 0 - it is basically the same volume (Henneman's size principle). There's no clear evidence for stretch reflex creating more longitudinal hypertrophy (maybe Pearson et. al. 2022 but it still may be biased cuz of few reasons) but more studies are needed to confirm this. Longitudinal hypertrophy may be also depending on sarcomeres lenght of a given muscle. Slower eccentric contractions (3-4s) may give us less microtears (which is very, very good) so it's ok to use them in the beginning of your meso/microcycle. Moreover - slower eccentric contractions may be responsible for type I muscle fibres that are attached to high threshold motor units but there is also no clear evidence. We have to notice that due to force-velocity relationship varying eccentric tempos may give us some additional growth but it wouldnt be more than 10% (and probably type I muscle fibers). So in summary - remember of Pareto principle: train close to failure, use proper progressive overload for hypertrophy (adding weight onto your bar is not always a progressive overload), eat good amount of protein and sleep well. This will get you to your maximum genetic potential.
Great video but it would help me if you actually showed someone doing what you are talking about out. I’m new to weightlifting so please forgive my lack of awareness. I’m also a visual learner. Great video. I’m a new subscriber.
Wait so while doing calf raises I should just lower quickly(still controlled) to take advantage of the stretch reflex? I've always thought you're suppose to pause at the bottom to remove momentum/the stretch reflex?
The benefits of eccentric focused exercises are not apparent to someone with a lot of money / time and access to adequate gym equipment. For people that don't have as much access to gym equipment, eccentric focused work is a clear advantage, since it does produce the same amount of hypertrophy with less volume. This means that the same amount of muscle growth can happen utilizing less than optimal weights or it has applications for people with not a lot of time to devote to the gym, they can use larger amounts of weight for less overall workout time without resorting to strength training protocols that also call for a lot of rest time. Muscle CSA and hypertrophy training has a better correlation with strength than just pure strength training. If you compete in MMA and have weight constraints, then yeah strength is important, but for the vast majority of people, especially recreational lifters, hypertrophy and muscular endurance are far better ways to achieve fitness than trying to maximize strength.
SOOOO< MENNO, using machines would it beneficial for single joint exercises to use a weight you normally, move to failure at 12 reps, BUT this time after each concentric rep you conciously lowered the eight with only one leg or arm and try to get the same 12 reps. IF successful that would be a significant addition of intensity and load on those eccentric repsa and thus strength or growth?
How about the time you stay at full extension? Like I do a curl then I contract, I wait a little (1/2 or one second) and then I release. I understand this release phase should be faster and not that slow, but should I wait the 1/2 or one second at the full extension of the exercises? That's what I have learned.
Menno (all) ... consider not pausing even for a split second at top or bottom of rep. Instead, do a tiny half circle at each end, therefore not actually stopping and starting with a jolt. Best example is an engine piston. It never stops. Zene
