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?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Joseph Anderson

Tony Williams wrote:
So according to you, he works for or with Joshua.


Not according to me, according to Overload's "Meet Our Staff" page.

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

Not necessarily, but it might.

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

Standing to gain monetarily isn't a bad thing. If you or I claim SS to be superior and it ends up not being the case, we have nothing to lose (except maybe our own results from training). When a person stands to gain monetarily, it also means there's a chance they could lose. I think it adds to the credibility of his opinion, as he has staked the success and reputation of his business on it. He is so convinced he is invested.

If Josh "says" it works, that cannot change the reality of the outcome. If it doesn't work, his business fails (or he changes). I don't see the conflict.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joseph Anderson wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
So according to you, he works for or with Joshua.

Not according to me, according to Overload's "Meet Our Staff" page.

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

Not necessarily, but it might.

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

Standing to gain monetarily isn't a bad thing. If you or I claim SS to be superior and it ends up not being the case, we have nothing to lose (except maybe our own results from training). When a person stands to gain monetarily, it also means there's a chance they could lose. I think it adds to the credibility of his opinion, as he has staked the success and reputation of his business on it. He is so convinced he is invested.

If Josh "says" it works, that cannot change the reality of the outcome. If it doesn't work, his business fails (or he changes). I don't see the conflict.


I never stated that monetary gain is bad.

However, if he touts SuperSlow and never reveals a business relationship with Hutchins on this forum, then a conflict of interest exists by leading some to believe he is totally impartial.

And with a monetary interest in SuperSlow, it is impossible for him to be totally impartial about SuperSlow, studies or anything about it.

At the least, an appearance of impartiality is impossible.

Tony
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.


That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

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.

That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

Tony


You kind of have to read between the lines with that though. I am sure he is talking about for specific goals and possibly for different people.

Like mentioned previously, it is about matching the method to the person. Everyone does that with any training method when the as is protocol is not giving sufficient results.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
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.

That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

Tony


You kind of have to read between the lines with that though. I am sure he is talking about for specific goals and possibly for different people.

Like mentioned previously, it is about matching the method to the person. Everyone does that with any training method when the as is protocol is not giving sufficient results.


If you read Baye's comments, which I posted, it revolved around much more than just the TULs.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Super slow flies in the face of science. If moving super slow made sense we would have sprinters only pushing cars! Obviously this would help but the SAID theory says different as being a super strength producer! Force=mass x acceleration.
It is almost too obvious to consider.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

summaHIT wrote:
Super slow flies in the face of science. If moving super slow made sense we would have sprinters only pushing cars! Obviously this would help but the SAID theory says different as being a super strength producer! Force=mass x acceleration.
It is almost too obvious to consider.
]]

Hutchins is afraid even the healthiest athlete will get injured ... unless you perform SuperSlow.

As an adjunct, OK.

As a total program, not so OK.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

summaHIT wrote:
Super slow flies in the face of science. If moving super slow made sense we would have sprinters only pushing cars! Obviously this would help but the SAID theory says different as being a super strength producer! Force=mass x acceleration.
It is almost too obvious to consider.


This was the crux of the discussion I had wish Josh on a post awhile back. He kept telling me to read the manual, I kept bringing this up.

Upon further review, I am wondering if the protocol as a whole is just about reducing the outside forces and setting guidelines, not 'laws', around the concept.

In other words, they know dropping down into the squat position better enables the load on the thighs in order to have maximal force, but does anyone squat like that outside of powerlifters? I could not imagine free falling to an ass to grass position with anymore than 200 pounds.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
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.

That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

Tony


You kind of have to read between the lines with that though. I am sure he is talking about for specific goals and possibly for different people.

Like mentioned previously, it is about matching the method to the person. Everyone does that with any training method when the as is protocol is not giving sufficient results.

If you read Baye's comments, which I posted, it revolved around much more than just the TULs.

Tony



Your insinuating that there is some disagreement between Hutchins and the SS Zone, or maybe something else?

I am having trouble understanding your main objective with SS-debate the protocol, diss Hutchins/Trentine, or what?

I have my reservations about it, but Josh nailed it in the thread about the back machine about how it works and what their objectives are, and I must say that so far I am on board. Not for the cadences or method, but I love the goal and feel like it is on the right track.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

smanjh wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
Super slow flies in the face of science. If moving super slow made sense we would have sprinters only pushing cars! Obviously this would help but the SAID theory says different as being a super strength producer! Force=mass x acceleration.
It is almost too obvious to consider.


This was the crux of the discussion I had wish Josh on a post awhile back. He kept telling me to read the manual, I kept bringing this up.

Upon further review, I am wondering if the protocol as a whole is just about reducing the outside forces and setting guidelines, not 'laws', around the concept.

In other words, they know dropping down into the squat position better enables the load on the thighs in order to have maximal force, but does anyone squat like that outside of powerlifters? I could not imagine free falling to an ass to grass position with anymore than 200 pounds.


Using a purposefully slow cadence is harder since you are using less motor units to move the weight as opossed to if you you were trying to move it as fast as possible. The perception that it is more productive in eliciting strength and muscular size gains due to the taxing nature (ie. Intensity) is untrue.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
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.

That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

Tony


You kind of have to read between the lines with that though. I am sure he is talking about for specific goals and possibly for different people.

Like mentioned previously, it is about matching the method to the person. Everyone does that with any training method when the as is protocol is not giving sufficient results.

If you read Baye's comments, which I posted, it revolved around much more than just the TULs.

Tony



Your insinuating that there is some disagreement between Hutchins and the SS Zone, or maybe something else?

I am having trouble understanding your main objective with SS-debate the protocol, diss Hutchins/Trentine, or what?

I have my reservations about it, but Josh nailed it in the thread about the back machine about how it works and what their objectives are, and I must say that so far I am on board. Not for the cadences or method, but I love the goal and feel like it is on the right track.


Of course a disagreement exists. Hutchins split from the franchise.

I posted a video twice ... actually three times ... of Hutchins talking about it.

Hutchins titles his book, "The Ultimate Exercise" ... baloney.

Good adjunct to other routines.

But the "ultimate" is just nonsense.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

summaHIT wrote:
smanjh wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
Super slow flies in the face of science. If moving super slow made sense we would have sprinters only pushing cars! Obviously this would help but the SAID theory says different as being a super strength producer! Force=mass x acceleration.
It is almost too obvious to consider.


This was the crux of the discussion I had wish Josh on a post awhile back. He kept telling me to read the manual, I kept bringing this up.

Upon further review, I am wondering if the protocol as a whole is just about reducing the outside forces and setting guidelines, not 'laws', around the concept.

In other words, they know dropping down into the squat position better enables the load on the thighs in order to have maximal force, but does anyone squat like that outside of powerlifters? I could not imagine free falling to an ass to grass position with anymore than 200 pounds.

Using a purposefully slow cadence is harder since you are using less motor units to move the weight as opossed to if you you were trying to move it as fast as possible. The perception that it is more productive in eliciting strength and muscular size gains due to the taxing nature (ie. Intensity) is untrue.


I fully agree, you can get a hell of a workout from a milk jug, lol, but it won't do anything.

BUT...what about taking the same weight you would get 10 reps with and getting three slow ones, maybe four slow ones equaling the same TUL?

That is what I am talking about. Reducing weight to get 100-180 seconds TUL is a step backward to me.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
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.

That's the point:

Baye says Hutchins was pushing for up to 180 seconds TUL which is ridiculous.

Josh's denies Hutchins ever advocated it. However, unless Josh witnessed those discussions, he has no idea what was really said.

Only Baye and Hutchins and any others that heard their conversations know the truth.

Tony


You kind of have to read between the lines with that though. I am sure he is talking about for specific goals and possibly for different people.

Like mentioned previously, it is about matching the method to the person. Everyone does that with any training method when the as is protocol is not giving sufficient results.

If you read Baye's comments, which I posted, it revolved around much more than just the TULs.

Tony



Your insinuating that there is some disagreement between Hutchins and the SS Zone, or maybe something else?

I am having trouble understanding your main objective with SS-debate the protocol, diss Hutchins/Trentine, or what?

I have my reservations about it, but Josh nailed it in the thread about the back machine about how it works and what their objectives are, and I must say that so far I am on board. Not for the cadences or method, but I love the goal and feel like it is on the right track.

Of course a disagreement exists. Hutchins split from the franchise.

I posted a video twice ... actually three times ... of Hutchins talking about it.

Hutchins titles his book, "The Ultimate Exercise" ... baloney.

Good adjunct to other routines.

But the "ultimate" is just nonsense.

Tony


Ok, I think I am seeing a bit clearer now on your objectives with the thread.

I would like to point out a few things about both me and you:

1. We don't have access to the equipment.

2. We have not had a certified instructor put us through the workout in what they deem proper.

I live a few hours away from Ultimate Exercise, which is McGuff's place. I have wanted to go down there for the last 5 years, but something always came up.

If Josh tells me that this is a good option to get the experience, I would love to go and provide feedback as soon as I could arrange it, unless it was a ridiculous price or something.

I would just want one workout since I could not travel that far even for 1x a week sessions, but it would be cool none the less. I would only go if he had the machines correctly up fitted though.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

BUMP
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

smanjh wrote:
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.


According Ellington Darden, and not too long ago, 10/5 is still the best cadence for gaining muscles with free weights and standard equipment.

He used it with his best case-studies, BIG and Upside-down BB (D.Hudlow).
And if you think a bit about, it makes perfect sense, as a longer negative on standard machines is too easy due to friction and can be "misused" to spend too much time in the easier parts of the ROM (this counts for free weights too - SS machines supposedly do not have easier parts of the ROM).
Open User Options Menu

howard1976

Can anyone answer me this question!!

Taking the SAME weight, how come you fail far quicker doing fast reps than with super slow reps??

That would point to summa saying, you use less motor units when doing super slow, so there fore it takes longer to hit failure!!

Surely hiting failure is less time, is more intense, and productive!!

This is why i am not buying into super slow. BUT if someone can answer this question. It might make things DIFFERENT!!
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

howard1976 wrote:
Can anyone answer me this question!!

Taking the SAME weight, how come you fail far quicker doing fast reps than with super slow reps??

That would point to summa saying, you use less motor units when doing super slow, so there fore it takes longer to hit failure!!

Surely hiting failure is less time, is more intense, and productive!!

This is why i am not buying into super slow. BUT if someone can answer this question. It might make things DIFFERENT!!


Actually, if you fail FASTER with FAST REPS with the SAME WEIGHT, it rather points that with those fast reps LESS motor units are used. Think about. It makes no sense that you fail faster because you use MORE motor units. It's like saying a strong experienced bodybuilder with muscular 18" guns will get less reps in a 100 lbs-curl then a marathoner who never touched a weight .




Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Ciccio wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
Can anyone answer me this question!!

Taking the SAME weight, how come you fail far quicker doing fast reps than with super slow reps??

That would point to summa saying, you use less motor units when doing super slow, so there fore it takes longer to hit failure!!

Surely hiting failure is less time, is more intense, and productive!!

This is why i am not buying into super slow. BUT if someone can answer this question. It might make things DIFFERENT!!

Actually, if you fail FASTER with FAST REPS with the SAME WEIGHT, it rather points that with those fast reps LESS motor units are used. Think about. It makes no sense that you fail faster because you use MORE motor units. It's like saying a strong experienced bodybuilder with muscular 18" guns will get less reps in a 100 lbs-curl then a marathoner who never touched a weight .






You do not fail because you use less motor units but fail because you have performed much more work in much less time.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

summaHIT wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
Can anyone answer me this question!!

Taking the SAME weight, how come you fail far quicker doing fast reps than with super slow reps??

That would point to summa saying, you use less motor units when doing super slow, so there fore it takes longer to hit failure!!

Surely hiting failure is less time, is more intense, and productive!!

This is why i am not buying into super slow. BUT if someone can answer this question. It might make things DIFFERENT!!

Actually, if you fail FASTER with FAST REPS with the SAME WEIGHT, it rather points that with those fast reps LESS motor units are used. Think about. It makes no sense that you fail faster because you use MORE motor units. It's like saying a strong experienced bodybuilder with muscular 18" guns will get less reps in a 100 lbs-curl then a marathoner who never touched a weight .






You do fail because you use less motor units but fail because you have performed much more work in much less time.


Does that mean you agree that you use less motor units with fast reps?
Work is irrelevant for muscles, they "know" only tension and time.


Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

summaHIT wrote:
You do not fail because you use less motor units but fail because you have performed much more work in much less time.


True.

If the fast reps are failing faster with same resistance, the slow repper needs to increase resistance in order to fail within the same amount of time.

Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Ken has NEVER even as much as uttered the words ultimate exercise in relation to his protocol.


I'll have to disagree with you on this one. The title of Ken's manual (which arrived in the mail early last week) is Super Slow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

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.


==Scott==
I could be wrong on this but I don't think the kind of superslow that Joshua does incorporates purposely going slow on any rep. It took me quite a while to understand where he was coming from as he was saying that he went slow but pushed as hard and fast as he could. After much deliberation I finally think I now understand what he ment and that is the machines he uses are made so that the resistance is such that he is pushing hard and fast from the first rep but it does travel slowly due to the machines cams etc.
As most of us don't have access to such Hutchins type machines, my question now is, can a good superslow workout be had on other machines like Nautilus that aren't designed like a Hutchins machine.
I have been trying my version of superslow on Nautilus machines and I have to say that like it. I haven't been doing it long enough to tell if it really works well for me and more than that I don't know if I'm doing it properly. Hopefully Joshua can clear some of these questions many of us have in the near future.I think Joshua knows what the heck he's talking about so let's give him a chance to explain this before we say no to it.
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

entsminger wrote:
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.

==Scott==
I could be wrong on this but I don't think the kind of superslow that Joshua does incorporates purposely going slow on any rep. It took me quite a while to understand where he was coming from as he was saying that he went slow but pushed as hard and fast as he could. After much deliberation I finally think I now understand what he ment and that is the machines he uses are made so that the resistance is such that he is pushing hard and fast from the first rep but it does travel slowly due to the machines cams etc.
As most of us don't have access to such Hutchins type machines, my question now is, can a good superslow workout be had on other machines like Nautilus that aren't designed like a Hutchins machine.
I have been trying my version of superslow on Nautilus machines and I have to say that like it. I haven't been doing it long enough to tell if it really works well for me and more than that I don't know if I'm doing it properly. Hopefully Joshua can clear some of these questions many of us have in the near future.I think Joshua knows what the heck he's talking about so let's give him a chance to explain this before we say no to it.


That is what I am trying to convey. Obviously taking 1/3 of the weight and moving very slow purposely is goofy as hell.

But taking something you can 2/4 and doing those reps and then slowing down? Not so goofy in application.

I still think reducing outside forces, including your own momentum, is the way to go. Not so much an arbitrary number of seconds for the hell of it.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Joseph Anderson wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Ken has NEVER even as much as uttered the words ultimate exercise in relation to his protocol.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. The title of Ken's manual (which arrived in the mail early last week) is Super Slow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol



yes, my bad.

Dr. Doug McGuff wrote the book called "Ultimate Exercise".

i'm sure you were aware of this, i mention it for others so there is not confusion between Ken and Doug's books.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy