MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
A New Type of Repetition
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

Yesterday, I tried a style of repetition that I thought would be interesting. I performed 6 repetitions - all at different tempos. The first was 8 up and 8 down. I gradually increased my speed until the last repetition and I performed it 2 up and 2 down. I would strongly recommend trying this. Has anyone ever tried this and if so, is there a name for this? I know that Arthur said to start slow and increase speed through out the set, but I'm giving specific numbers.
Rep 1 8/8
Rep 2 6/6
Rep 3 5/5
Rep 4 4/4
Rep 5 3/3
Rep 6 2/2
Open User Options Menu

OmarZakariyaKhan

Highheavy,

That's an interesting idea. However, when I reach the last rep or so my reps slow down to around a 5 second positive despite trying to lift the weight as fast as possible. How would you factor this in?

Open User Options Menu

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

Omar Zakariya wrote:
Highheavy,

That's an interesting idea. However, when I reach the last rep or so my reps slow down to around a 5 second positive despite trying to lift the weight as fast as possible. How would you factor this in?


Hi Omar,
Yes, if a resistance is heavy enough - the fastest movement possible will be quite slow. Remember, it's still in the early stages, but I think that I'm on to something.
Open User Options Menu

frostyF

Arkansas, USA

I believe it`s called timed breakdowns.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

I couldn't stand there counting like that in the middle of a hard set just takes too much brainwork. But maybe just subjectively changing cadence as set progresses would work.

One other thing, i would go faster in beginning of set during the eccentric when you're "stronger" and resistance relatively "lighter", but slow down considerably eccentrically as set progresses and the resistance is heavier relative to existing strength of muscle.

Longer on the eccentric when your weaker.

:))
Open User Options Menu

RUGGED_INTELLECT

You could call them hreps, or hhreps. You should write a book and make a dvd showing all the different cadences possible to be used. There are so many great ideas coming out just now, like a renaissance in muscle.
Open User Options Menu

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

Dr. Darden,
Have you or any of the many people who have trained under your and Arthur's tutelage ever tried this type of controlled acceleration with each repetition?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Highheavy,

What you are trying is probably fine for a few workouts. But in the long run, it will probably be difficult to record acccurately what you've done after a training session.

It's hard enough, to record what you've achieved, if you do each repetition exactly the same way. Now try varying the speed of each rep? What if you are a little fast on rep 2, or a little slow on rep 5? Do you still count them?

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

Hey Dr. Darden.
Thank you for your time and willingness to respond to my question.
Yes, I do understand that what I'm proposing is complex. I am trying to think of it as more of a guide-line - similar to SuperSlow in that while each repetition should take roughly 10/10 - it's not in stone. I will try this method for the next couple weeks and let everyone know how it is working. Also, I will say that I am giving more serious thought to what Drew and Dr. Mcguff have recommended as far as TUL vs. traditional repetition counting. I think that it may lead to more consistency and uniformity with workouts and it 's conceivable that this will be what many HIT enthusiasts standardize on.
Open User Options Menu

TigerFighter VS

New Jersey, USA

Its too bad they don't make a magnetic counter, one that could attach to a weight and yet stay in view, that could count off seconds. That way, you could just look at the counter and gauge your time in reps, rather than counting them in your head.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

H.H.

Good to see some experimenting, I would add that doing it in reverse is also a nice variable. The progressively longer TUT's are a good set extender. That is, with more rest during the negative you can usually (in most moves) squeeze out some extra TUT without reducing load.

The manner you are performing the set now has a built in "warming in" great for big moves and high load (which I would guess you enjoy). I am interested to hear about your progress as you explore this further.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

I forgot to add: One way to avoid having to fixate on counting so much it becomes distracting is to have a beat (like a metronome).

So many folks overlook their natural sense of rhythm for creating and maintaining proper cadence. A musician does not count while they perform complex skills if you catch my drift.

It is a skill that is easy to develop if you train with a beat for a while. Personally, I can box for 2 or 3 minute rounds without watching a clock. I can perform a 1 minute set without tracking time either.

Mind you, I may be off by a few seconds here or there but you would be amazed how close you can get. Having a good sense of rhythm during a set makes a big difference and is used during metal work (like a exam) as well. Having a beat/tune in mind, which creates a nice self-sustaining rhythm, helps one function under all sorts of duress and rigors work.

One way to work this particular rep scheme is to have a recording that emits a tone every so many seconds and which decreases (or increases) in intervals as you go. Working with it (like a interval sprinter program) helps one develop the skill over time and keeps you on track as you go.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

AShortt
I like the idea of a tone to keep you in sync. Again, I want to point out that this is a mere guideline. I've heard a number of people criticize SuperSlow stating the slow cadence reduces the amount of fibers recruited due to a lighter than adequate load and also suggesting that it hampers neuro-efficiancy - who the hell knows?

Here's a question. Why is it that when doing SuperSlow - quite often subjects never get sore and if they do it's never to the degree that they would if using the traditional 2/4? The actin and myosin are still moving so wouldn't there still be micro-trauma occuring?
Open User Options Menu

seanoz

highheavy wrote:

Here's a question. Why is it that when doing SuperSlow - quite often subjects never get sore and if they do it's never to the degree that they would if using the traditional 2/4? The actin and myosin are still moving so wouldn't there still be micro-trauma occuring?


Good points, and hence the reason there is still much to be learned about the relationship of DOMS from microtrauma and the resultant hypertrophy due to cadence and protocol, it is still murky.

Of course having additional strength is functionally a prime concern for fitness, and SS certainly helps in that department, and whilst most people simply want to lose fat and get 'toned' SuperSlow is a great approach for beginners and intermediate, and is certainly a way to improve form when it deteriorates.

Sean.
Open User Options Menu

highheavy

Tennessee, USA

Seanoz,
I agree that SuperSlow is a great protocol - the "ultimate" as they claim, I'm not so sure. I encourage anyone here to try a slow-controlled cadence and gradually increasing the speed. Tomorrow will be another workout and I plan on trying only 4 reps and the tempo will be as follow:
Repetition 1, 5/5
Repetition 2, 4/4
Repetition 3, 3/3
Repetition 4, 2/2
This will produce a TUL of roughly 30 seconds. This is why I think that Drew and Mcguff are on to something when they talk about standardization using TUL. I may not get each repetition perfectly within the selected window of time, but I can be accurate in adhearing to a TUL of 30 seconds while increasing the speed of each repetition. I'll report my workout tomorrow.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

highheavy wrote:
Seanoz,
I agree that SuperSlow is a great protocol - the "ultimate" as they claim, I'm not so sure. I encourage anyone here to try a slow-controlled cadence and gradually increasing the speed. Tomorrow will be another workout and I plan on trying only 4 reps and the tempo will be as follow:
Repetition 1, 5/5
Repetition 2, 4/4
Repetition 3, 3/3
Repetition 4, 2/2
This will produce a TUL of roughly 30 seconds. This is why I think that Drew and Mcguff are on to something when they talk about standardization using TUL. I may not get each repetition perfectly within the selected window of time, but I can be accurate in adhearing to a TUL of 30 seconds while increasing the speed of each repetition. I'll report my workout tomorrow.



May i ask what is the rationale behind a second or two difference b/w reps?

in other words, give me a good reason to even bother..

;)
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Cherry wrote:
highheavy wrote:
Seanoz,
I agree that SuperSlow is a great protocol - the "ultimate" as they claim, I'm not so sure. I encourage anyone here to try a slow-controlled cadence and gradually increasing the speed. Tomorrow will be another workout and I plan on trying only 4 reps and the tempo will be as follow:
Repetition 1, 5/5
Repetition 2, 4/4
Repetition 3, 3/3
Repetition 4, 2/2
This will produce a TUL of roughly 30 seconds. This is why I think that Drew and Mcguff are on to something when they talk about standardization using TUL. I may not get each repetition perfectly within the selected window of time, but I can be accurate in adhearing to a TUL of 30 seconds while increasing the speed of each repetition. I'll report my workout tomorrow.


May i ask what is the rationale behind a second or two difference b/w reps?

in other words, give me a good reason to even bother..

;)


Cherry,without having to dwell on it,i would insist you not even bother......load is obviously sub-par and such loads should only be

utilized after a period of overreaching (intense training).Also,the lifting of such loads for several weeks will undoubtedly lead to

detraining.

My opinion is it's totally ludicrous.All this counting time crap is not a necessity for hypertrophy.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Law&Order wrote:

Cherry,without having to dwell on it,i would insist you not even bother......load is obviously sub-par and such loads should only be

utilized after a period of overreaching (intense training).Also,the lifting of such loads for several weeks will undoubtedly lead to

detraining.

My opinion is it's totally ludicrous.All this counting time crap is not a necessity for hypertrophy.


I disagree, there is a huge difference between a 10/10 rep and a 2/2 rep - a difference that will have a large bearing on hypertrophic response.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

AShortt wrote:
Law&Order wrote:

Cherry,without having to dwell on it,i would insist you not even bother......load is obviously sub-par and such loads should only be

utilized after a period of overreaching (intense training).Also,the lifting of such loads for several weeks will undoubtedly lead to

detraining.

My opinion is it's totally ludicrous.All this counting time crap is not a necessity for hypertrophy.

I disagree, there is a huge difference between a 10/10 rep and a 2/2 rep - a difference that will have a large bearing on hypertrophic response.

Regards,
Andrew



"A big deal" at the end of a set with same resistance? Please tell us just how it's so much better?
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

SuperSlow is definitely not the "ultimate exercise protocol". There is nothing special about really slow reps. Or really fast reps, for that matter.

Go only slowly enough that you can maintain strict form and reverse direction between the positive and negative without bouncing or jerking the weight. Assuming you have already learned how to perform the exercise properly and are using good form, there is no benefit to going any slower, and it may even reduce the effectiveness of the exercise.

All that is necessary is that you don't accelerate so quickly that the muscle is noticeably unloaded or that the force you encounter is significantly greater than the selected resistance level. This can be accomplished without resorting to extremely slow repetition speeds.

I was a certified SuperSlow instructor, I worked with Ken Hutchins for several years, and worked for the SuperSlow Zone as a technical advisor and director of education, so I know the SuperSlow protocol as well as anybody, including all the arguments in favor of it, and most of them simply aren't supported by science.

10/10 reps do not involve significantly less force or significantly more efficient muscular loading than 2/4 reps, and there is almost no difference at all between 10/10 and 5/5 reps. There is no benefit in terms of safety or muscular loading to moving any more slowly than about a 4/4 or 5/5.

Slower rep speeds to make it easier for a trainer or spotter to observe a trainee's form and to instruct them and correct problems, but again, 5/5 is adequately slow for this purpose. It allows for easy enough observation, and plenty of time to provide instructions and for clients to respond to them.

Contrary to what many SS instructors would tell you, you are not going to destroy your body using faster rep speeds provided reasonably good form is used. You're also not going to get significantly better results using SS, and if you follow Ken Hutchins instructions to use 100 to 180 second TULs, you're going to get worse results.

The only time I might recommend moving that slowly would be if you're doing very heavy negatives, in which case you need to be extra cautious about maintaining control, especially towards the bottom of the movement.
Open User Options Menu

seanoz

The only time I might recommend moving that slowly would be if you're doing very heavy negatives, in which case you need to be extra cautious about maintaining control, especially towards the bottom of the movement.

I think the original details for the NO protocol are to use a 10 second lowering for as many as 4-5 reps and then almost an all out effort to stop the resistance from moving for a further 2-3 reps, and then the trainee must use an all out effort to stop the resistance until the control is so fast as to be no loading at all, (or dangerous).

I have to admit Drew is pretty spot on with this, I feel personally that 10/10 is still perfect in most movements for teaching and for beginners until they know the proper method, then after 2-3 sessions move them to 10/5, and after they can properly execute each exercise then roughly 4/4 is the best way train them. I leave my clients on 10/5 for 6 sessions and then see how they go without me advising on speed, and it's working nice, they are DEFINATLY not using momentum, and that's the key.

After Drew's 'breakaway' I have tried various mixing and matching of protocols and he is right about inroad efficiency, SS is not actually inroading as efficiently, so it is LESS efficient for intermediate and advanced.

I am failing sooner on 4/4 than on SS. (I use the same resistance levels), and that is unusual to say the least.


Sean.


Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Cherry wrote:

"A big deal" at the end of a set with same resistance? Please tell us just how it's so much better?


I think that using the same weight, your TUT will be much higher using 10-10 cadence on exercises taken to failure, in comparison with a 2-2 cadence.

Hence, superslow in most circumstances will take you above your optimal TUT. With that knowledge, I suppose you could increase the load when doing superslow reps, to compensate. Nevertheless, as Andrew said, there is a massive difference betweent the two cadences.

regards
Nick
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

A 10/10 cadence is a very different animal from a 2/4 cadence - that is what I am saying (not that one is better than the other because that is context dependant).

First off, to move the same load faster (without momentum) requires greater force output from the muscle(s).

Second spending additional time during the negative allows for greater rest time when considering the set as a whole. This because you are significantly stronger during eccentric muscular work.

Third, eccentric muscular action is notably different in nature from concentric/positive muscular contraction. Thus, the nature of the demands/stimulus is different when considering a set that spends more time with positive contractions or vice versa.

Fourth, if momentum is minimized in both instances, then the slower the cadence the more opportunity there is to move the resistance with intra and inter muscular coordination and such skill based factors. Relatively speaking slower cadences see less tension being focused on the targeted muscles, especially with repetitive simplistic practice.

Fifth, the less positive contractions you create the less muscular pump you will encourage.

I liked H.H.s approach because starting with a slow cadence allows for an easing/warming into a hard and heavy move. I think a nice set variable (say for a blitz) is to pyramid cadence during a set. Start slow, ease in then work ever harder with the faster cadence. When effort is clearly quite high start slowing down to extend the set TUT.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

DSears

I've experimented with a slightly different way of doing the reps. I'll do 2 (10/5) SS reps and then kick into what I call AFAP (as fast as possible) which are typically 3 to 5 seconds on the positive.

I'll do about a 3 second negative on those reps and I'm very careful to maintain good form. I'm trying to essentially fatigue the muscle a bit before I really go hard. I'll usually fail at around 50 to 60 seconds and increase weight if I get 60.

The way I figure it is if you can do one or two SS reps in perfect form the weight is not too heavy and you're not cheating it up. But, I've noticed a difference in the mental aspects, I'm not holding anything back to make sure I get a particular speed, I'm working as hard as I possibly can on those last reps.

David
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

seanoz wrote:

I have to admit Drew is pretty spot on with this, I feel personally that 10/10 is still perfect in most movements for teaching and for beginners until they know the proper method, then after 2-3 sessions move them to 10/5, and after they can properly execute each exercise then roughly 4/4 is the best way train them.

I leave my clients on 10/5 for 6 sessions and then see how they go without me advising on speed, and it's working nice, they are DEFINATLY not using momentum, and that's the key.

Sean.


I disagree. Everyone that I showed Superslow to, either quit weightlifting, if they were starting out, or quit the method after a few weeks, if they were not starting out.

I do not train people for a living. But if I did, I sure would not use a protocol where everyone quit. Why start training a new person a method in the beginning, if you are to soon switch gears?

This "superslow" method is extremely boring, and psychologically discouraging, which is not good for a new person, as weightlifting consistency is a heck of a lot more important, than some rep performance in the beginning.

No human endeavor is ever done at a "superslow" pace, and never will. I'm sure some of these "Modern HITers" will refute this with their brand of logic, but a reasonable person can see this method does not work for the majority.

When Superslow 1st came out I tried it, when the book "BIG" came out I tried it again, with these same results I might add. This method is for those who want to mentally train hard, but physically lift light weights. All I can say is, Get over it!

Marc
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy