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
Does SuperSlow Equal Super Strong?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Tony Williams

http://www.pponline.co.uk/...ght-training-44

Open User Options Menu

sonny153

Personally I made better gains training more conventionally than with super-slow..I don't think superslow addresses maximum power production. There's a huge difference if in say rep number 10 of a set of bench presses and you're pushing as hard as you can and the weight is just creeping up compared to deliberately holding back your speed. The whole issues of momentum is a moot point anyway..as as you near the completion of your set you've fatigued so many muscle fibers that you're not strong enough to generate any momentum.
Open User Options Menu

deleted

sonny153 wrote:
Personally I made better gains training more conventionally than with super-slow..I don't think superslow addresses maximum power production. There's a huge difference if in say rep number 10 of a set of bench presses and you're pushing as hard as you can and the weight is just creeping up compared to deliberately holding back your speed. The whole issues of momentum is a moot point anyway..as as you near the completion of your set you've fatigued so many muscle fibers that you're not strong enough to generate any momentum.


Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

I didn't read the article, but superslow = superstrong? That's pretty silly. Chances are, if I can eventually move super-weight super-slowly, chances are, I'm super-strong.
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

Didn't read the article, but, as per S.A.I.D., you can make your own conclusions.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony



There is sort of a two sided coin to that though. Hutchins may not, but Trentine does. SB may use HIT, but so does Dorian Yates.

And of course, Joe Weider preaches HVT yet never looked like a worked out, lol.

The issue to me right off the bat is testing it at a higher TUL and using 5 second negatives with a 10 second positive.

That had to be a protocol for older people with health problems, because in reality, that is restraining the benefits of the negative by using a much lighter weight and then proceeding to move it slower.

In that other thread, Josh told us that there are provisions for going faster initially, but at the end of the set your going slower because you have to, which is what happens anyway.

He also talks about using lower TUL because the weight dictates it, which again makes sense. I was never on board for 10/10 for 10 reps, that is over 3 minutes of TUL and an aerobic effort at that point.

But 40-60 seconds should be the sweet spot with heavier weight.
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

Tony Williams wrote:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/...ning-44


For those who didn't take the time to read the article- you didn't miss much.

The focus of the article was a study which tested the Super Slow protocol vs. conventional training. Except they didn't test the Super Slow protocol, so it makes their finding seemingly irrelevant.

Instead of performing the Super Slow protocol (as written in Ken's manual), they made their own protocol, including performing the SS sets with 25% of the subject's 1Rep Max. Think about that- 25%.

The researchers then had the subjects perform conventional training with 65% of their 1 Rep Max. The following is what the researchers were measuring:

"Heart rates and minute-by-minute oxygen-consumption rates were recorded during each workout and for 15 minutes after the sessions as well; blood-lactate levels were measured immediately after the training ended. On the morning after each workout (following a 12-hour overnight fast), the rate of resting energy expenditure was measured in each athlete."

They compared results from subjects using 25% of 1RM vs. subjects using 65% of 1RM. Without ever doing this research, the results should have been more than obvious.

I have no clue if SS is better than conventional training (I've never tried it). However, I know that this is proof of nothing (well maybe it is proof that many people, even researchers, have no clue what SS protocol really is).

On a side note: I found the Super Slow Manual on Amazon for $30. I bought it, it arrived yesterday and I will try it for myself.

Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

Tony Williams wrote:
What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony


What does this post have to do with the article you linked? Are you spamming your own thread?
Open User Options Menu

TOM C

I'm not for or against superslow training, but both studies seemed flawed.

the study against superslow obviously had too light a weight and was too high on the reps. May be people who actually know something about training should be involved in these studies.

The study showing positive results was as silly. Why would you compare 5 rep strength increases for one protocol with 10 rep strength increases for the other protocol? Why not the same rep comparison or better still a 1RM comparison. The only reason I can think of is to hide the real results.

There were some interesting reviews at amazon.com on the Super Slow book:

http://www.amazon.com/...howViewpoints=1

One of the more interesting:

"I've been a personal trainer for thirty years and have tried out every different type of weight-resistance training there is. After reading this book I tried out the superslow techniques and got amazing results but I had to make a few adjustments to the info in this book. The principle of maintaining total control of the weight during the exercise so that gravity and momentum is not doing work is valid, but through experimentation you will find that an eight second count in both directions is the ideal speed for maximum control. Anything less than this timing does not give total control so his recommended five seconds up and ten seconds down is wrong, and anything more than this timing is unnecessary. The muscles will fatigue after 60 seconds so if you use an eight count in both directions you will be able to do four reps of each exercise. Experiment yourself and you will see that the eight count is best.
What I don't agree with is the superslow program wherein you only do a 20 min workout twice a week and only do a few exercises working only major muscle groups. This has led to people opening up superslow training facilities wherein they have a very limited amount of equipment and charge $60 for a 20 min session. Gimme a break! This may be okay for the average person who just wants to get in better shape, but it is not for the serious body-builder who wants to look great. The program does not work each muscle group in enough different ways to develop symmetry and maximum definition in the muscles.........."

Open User Options Menu

bdog

Why do so many people here slam super slow, negative training and the like and yet Dr. Darden has gotten great results training his subjects with these techniques? Perhaps proper application of the training technique is lacking?


Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joseph Anderson wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/...ght-training-44

For those who didn't take the time to read the article- you didn't miss much.

The focus of the article was a study which tested the Super Slow protocol vs. conventional training. Except they didn't test the Super Slow protocol, so it makes their finding seemingly irrelevant.

Instead of performing the Super Slow protocol (as written in Ken's manual), they made their own protocol, including performing the SS sets with 25% of the subject's 1Rep Max. Think about that- 25%.

The researchers then had the subjects perform conventional training with 65% of their 1 Rep Max. The following is what the researchers were measuring:

"Heart rates and minute-by-minute oxygen-consumption rates were recorded during each workout and for 15 minutes after the sessions as well; blood-lactate levels were measured immediately after the training ended. On the morning after each workout (following a 12-hour overnight fast), the rate of resting energy expenditure was measured in each athlete."

They compared results from subjects using 25% of 1RM vs. subjects using 65% of 1RM. Without ever doing this research, the results should have been more than obvious.

I have no clue if SS is better than conventional training (I've never tried it). However, I know that this is proof of nothing (well maybe it is proof that many people, even researchers, have no clue what SS protocol really is).

On a side note: I found the Super Slow Manual on Amazon for $30. I bought it, it arrived yesterday and I will try it for myself.



Yeah, that is another good point, this study was a waste of time.

What they should have done instead was let the ss group have a few weeks of practice with it to build up their strength with the protocol learning wise.

That way they lose the nueral stuff and use a higher percentage of weight, sort of like comparing a squat vs leg press, but making sure they both have experience to avoid skewing the results.
Open User Options Menu

db144

Tom C:

1.5 to 2 hrs per session, twice a week, 6-8 exercises per body part. Is that sound training advice? I think not. Sounds like another hack trainer has read weight training by volume for dummies.

d
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Do you think Hutchins is inspiring enough to lead SuperSlow?

Does he normally speak in an affected manner like that in person as he did on the video?

The entire taping is poor -- not something a company would normally release.

What has happened to Hutchins' SuperSlow since the video and his departure from the SuperSlow franchises? And what was the reason for the split?

More about TULs and percentages of 1RM in a bit.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

Tony Williams wrote:
Do you think Hutchins is inspiring enough to lead SuperSlow?


Do you think this is relevant to the efficacy of the protocol?

Does he normally speak in an affected manner like that in person as he did on the video?

The entire taping is poor -- not something a company would normally release.


I'm going to assume that no one knows what you are referring to, as you did not link any video of Hutchins to the discussion . . . which is why I asked previously what any of this has to do with the thread you started.

What has happened to Hutchins' SuperSlow since the video and his departure from the SuperSlow franchises? And what was the reason for the split?

Ken is working for/with Overload http://overloadfitness.com/...ners-staff.html

You probably could contact him there to get your questions answered.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
Do you think Hutchins is inspiring enough to lead SuperSlow?

Does he normally speak in an affected manner like that in person as he did on the video?

The entire taping is poor -- not something a company would normally release.

What has happened to Hutchins' SuperSlow since the video and his departure from the SuperSlow franchises? And what was the reason for the split?

More about TULs and percentages of 1RM in a bit.

Regards,
Tony


Tony,

I am having trouble understanding what you are getting at here. Ss as per Josh Trentine seems to mean maximizing the strength curve with your form, or TUL rather.

There seems to be an endless application to this, and if you would look at it a little different than just exact TULs you might find something that will help your training immensly.
Open User Options Menu

TOM C

db144 wrote:
Tom C:

1.5 to 2 hrs per session, twice a week, 6-8 exercises per body part. Is that sound training advice? I think not. Sounds like another hack trainer has read weight training by volume for dummies.

d


db144 wrote:
Tom C:

1.5 to 2 hrs per session, twice a week, 6-8 exercises per body part. Is that sound training advice? I think not. Sounds like another hack trainer has read weight training by volume for dummies.

d


I totally agree. I posted this quote as I found the 8 second on positive and 8 second on negative as being superior to 10 second positive and 5 second negative (as 5 second having too much momentum) as an idea worthy of consideration.

I didn't notice he was recommending 6-8 exercises per body part. May be I'll edit that part out.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joseph Anderson wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Do you think Hutchins is inspiring enough to lead SuperSlow?

Do you think this is relevant to the efficacy of the protocol?

Does he normally speak in an affected manner like that in person as he did on the video?

The entire taping is poor -- not something a company would normally release.

I'm going to assume that no one knows what you are referring to, as you did not link any video of Hutchins to the discussion . . . which is why I asked previously what any of this has to do with the thread you started.

What has happened to Hutchins' SuperSlow since the video and his departure from the SuperSlow franchises? And what was the reason for the split?

Ken is working for/with Overload http://overloadfitness.com/...ners-staff.html

You probably could contact him there to get your questions answered.


1. Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.

2. My apologies, I thought I posted it on this thread. I did post it earlier on another thread.

3. Since I was a reporter, I am not shy. I'll email him when I have the time. I just thought others who knew the situation would be more forthcoming than perhaps Hutchins would. He is quite vague on the video.

Here is the Hutchins' video from Youtube from a year ago announcing his split from the franchise:

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=ziZJWZiPXBI

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Drew Baye on High Load/Low TUL Versus Low Load/High TUL and his disagreement regarding changes in SuperSlow:

"My biggest disagreement with SuperSlow training is not the repetition speed, but rather the current prescription of relatively light loads and very long set durations.

"Ken Hutchins?s original 1984 guidelines for the SuperSlow protocol were to perform 3 to 5 repetitions using a 10 second positive and 5 second negative movement, which resulted in a set duration of 45 to 75 seconds.

"This was roughly the same duration resulting from the traditional Nautilus training guideline of 8 to 12 repetitions using a 2 second positive and 4 second negative, and is highly effective for improving muscular strength and size in most people.

"Over time Ken recommended longer and longer set durations, requiring lighter and lighter loads. In the 1992 edition of Ken?s SuperSlow technical manual, he recommends a repetition range of 4 to 8 using 10/5, resulting in a set duration of 60 to 120 seconds, a 50% increase in time.

"In 2005, the official guideline for the SuperSlow Zone personal training franchise was to use a level of resistance that allowed for 100 to 180 seconds time under load using 10/10, a 133% increase in time over the original guidelines. "

These guidelines were part of the reason for my resignation from the SuperSlow Zone.

"Most research and a large amount of empirical evidence suggests set durations between 30 and 90 seconds to be best for improving muscular strength and size. While the original SuperSlow guidelines were within this range, the current guidelines are totally outside of it.

"These kinds of set durations and light weights are what one would expect from an aerobics-based program, not one for building strength.

"In all of the research on SuperSlow where the SuperSlow group used a longer set duration, the SuperSlow group performed very poorly compared to the group using a more moderate repetition speed.

"In the early 2000′s, frustrated with my lack of muscular size gains following Ken?s 1992 SuperSlow guidelines, I began experimenting with reducing my set durations, eventually finding I made much better progress using a range of 40 to 60 seconds.

"Others started reducing their set durations and also experienced better results. On the few occasions I discussed this with Ken Hutchins he seemed interested in my results, but was concerned training with lower times and heavier weights would significantly increase the risk of injury.

"To date, neither I nor any of my clients have been injured since using not only the shorter set durations but also faster repetition speeds (averaging 3 seconds during the positive and 3 seconds during the negative). In my opinion Ken greatly overestimates the risk of both traumatic and overuse injuries in healthy people using moderate repetition speeds.

"Former SuperSlow Master Instructor Fred Hahn developed his own slow training protocol called Slow Burn, which I believe is one of the best applications of high intensity training using slow rep speeds."

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony



There is sort of a two sided coin to that though. Hutchins may not, but Trentine does. SB may use HIT, but so does Dorian Yates.

And of course, Joe Weider preaches HVT yet never looked like a worked out, lol.

The issue to me right off the bat is testing it at a higher TUL and using 5 second negatives with a 10 second positive.

That had to be a protocol for older people with health problems, because in reality, that is restraining the benefits of the negative by using a much lighter weight and then proceeding to move it slower.

In that other thread, Josh told us that there are provisions for going faster initially, but at the end of the set your going slower because you have to, which is what happens anyway.

He also talks about using lower TUL because the weight dictates it, which again makes sense. I was never on board for 10/10 for 10 reps, that is over 3 minutes of TUL and an aerobic effort at that point.

But 40-60 seconds should be the sweet spot with heavier weight.


Weider obviously trained when he was younger.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/...derpodcaste.jpg

Drew Baye clamed that Hutchins was advocating TULs as long as 180 seconds.

Josh claimed it was untrue, but since he was not part of the conversation, his statements are hearsay.

Baye's statement:

"In the 1992 edition of Ken?s SuperSlow technical manual, he recommends a repetition range of 4 to 8 using 10/5, resulting in a set duration of 60 to 120 seconds, a 50% increase in time.

"In 2005, the official guideline for the SuperSlow Zone personal training franchise was to use a level of resistance that allowed for 100 to 180 seconds time under load using 10/10, a 133% increase in time over the original guidelines. These guidelines were part of the reason for my resignation from the SuperSlow Zone."

I plan to email Hutchines and ask him what he believes.

Regards,
Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joseph Anderson wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony

What does this post have to do with the article you linked? Are you spamming your own thread?


Spam has that jelly-like substance when you open the top of the can which I dislike.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

http://www.nsca-lift.org/...%20Training.pdf
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Tony Williams wrote:
Joseph Anderson wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Do you think Hutchins is inspiring enough to lead SuperSlow?

Do you think this is relevant to the efficacy of the protocol?

Does he normally speak in an affected manner like that in person as he did on the video?

The entire taping is poor -- not something a company would normally release.

I'm going to assume that no one knows what you are referring to, as you did not link any video of Hutchins to the discussion . . . which is why I asked previously what any of this has to do with the thread you started.

What has happened to Hutchins' SuperSlow since the video and his departure from the SuperSlow franchises? And what was the reason for the split?

Ken is working for/with Overload http://overloadfitness.com/...ners-staff.html

You probably could contact him there to get your questions answered.

1. Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.

2. My apologies, I thought I posted it on this thread. I did post it earlier on another thread.

3. Since I was a reporter, I am not shy. I'll email him when I have the time. I just thought others who knew the situation would be more forthcoming than perhaps Hutchins would. He is quite vague on the video.

Here is the Hutchins' video from Youtube from a year ago announcing his split from the franchise:

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=ziZJWZiPXBI

Regards,
Tony


So according to you, he works for or with Joshua.

That explains why Josh goes nuts whenever SuperSlow or Ken Hutchins is mentioned.

Josh has a conflict of interest. He stands to gain monetarily.

He pretends to be totally objective when he is anything but objective.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
What an inspiring speaker. ;

Does he act a bit odd to you?

Great editing :), and the mic drops out and sounds like it is placed in the back of the room.

Why did Hutchins split from the SuperSlow franchise?

Hutchins says "details are quickly evolving," but this video was recorded more than a year ago and the split occurred in 2008.

Does he practice SuperSlow? His physique is not exceptional to say the least.

Tony



There is sort of a two sided coin to that though. Hutchins may not, but Trentine does. SB may use HIT, but so does Dorian Yates.

And of course, Joe Weider preaches HVT yet never looked like a worked out, lol.

The issue to me right off the bat is testing it at a higher TUL and using 5 second negatives with a 10 second positive.

That had to be a protocol for older people with health problems, because in reality, that is restraining the benefits of the negative by using a much lighter weight and then proceeding to move it slower.

In that other thread, Josh told us that there are provisions for going faster initially, but at the end of the set your going slower because you have to, which is what happens anyway.

He also talks about using lower TUL because the weight dictates it, which again makes sense. I was never on board for 10/10 for 10 reps, that is over 3 minutes of TUL and an aerobic effort at that point.

But 40-60 seconds should be the sweet spot with heavier weight.

Weider obviously trained when he was younger.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/...derpodcaste.jpg

Drew Baye clamed that Hutchins was advocating TULs as long as 180 seconds.

Josh claimed it was untrue, but since he was not part of the conversation, his statements are hearsay.

Baye's statement:

"In the 1992 edition of Ken?s SuperSlow technical manual, he recommends a repetition range of 4 to 8 using 10/5, resulting in a set duration of 60 to 120 seconds, a 50% increase in time.

"In 2005, the official guideline for the SuperSlow Zone personal training franchise was to use a level of resistance that allowed for 100 to 180 seconds time under load using 10/10, a 133% increase in time over the original guidelines. These guidelines were part of the reason for my resignation from the SuperSlow Zone."

I plan to email Hutchines and ask him what he believes.

Regards,
Tony



I am guessing that Josh Trentine is being honest about the different provisions within the same protocol for different people.

Hutchins may have liked something specifically for a period, and then changed his mind. Josh Trentine may like something for a more 'bodybuilding' POV, and Hutchins may be looking at things from a more 'overall' POV.

The fact is that whatever Hutchins is recommending this very second is not on the table the way Darden's stuff is or the way Mentzer's is.

I am very critical of the method your reviewing and talking about there. 10/5 is absolutely retarded in my view since it gives more attention to the positive and the negative gets completely shafted.

But what about 2/8 or 4/6? Or even a rest pause set of 5/15? There is a lot there that I never considered.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

bdog wrote:
Why do so many people here slam super slow, negative training and the like and yet Dr. Darden has gotten great results training his subjects with these techniques? Perhaps proper application of the training technique is lacking?




Does he actually claim to be training his clients in SuperSlow ... or just slowly.

For the record, I have nothing against negative training. I do it myself.

Regards,

Tony
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy