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

entsminger

Virginia, USA

mentzerfan wrote:
Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!


==Scott==
Yea, it's almost as unusual as threads about Mike Mentzer.There's so much more out there about Mentzer that we've never head of,,ha ha...
Actually I did read something the other day about Ray Mentzer that I haven't head much about on here. I was reading an article about Bill Pearl and I think it said something to the effect that even he thought the Mentzers were Genetic freaks ( like he wasn't) and that at one time Pearl saw Ray Mentzer curl the whole 250 pound stack on a Nautilus curl machine with one arm. Pearl said he tried it with both arms and could barely budge it. Them boys was strong....
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

Ciccio wrote:
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.




Can you read?
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

entsminger wrote:
mentzerfan wrote:
Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!

==Scott==
Yea, it's almost as unusual as threads about Mike Mentzer.There's so much more out there about Mentzer that we've never head of,,ha ha...

Actually I did read something the other day about Ray Mentzer that I haven't head much about on here. I was reading an article about Bill Pearl and I think it said something to the effect that even he thought the Mentzers were Genetic freaks ( like he wasn't) and that at one time Pearl saw Ray Mentzer curl the whole 250 pound stack on a Nautilus curl machine with one arm. Pearl said he tried it with both arms and could barely budge it. Them boys was strong....


Yes, the were incredibly strong. Mike Mentzer at 15 had more strength and muscle than most natural trainees would ever attain. If I recall, he was squatting 500 and benching 300-350 at that age never having seen a steroid.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
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.


Would you want to do a 180-second TUL?

That's what Baye alleged Hutchins suggested.

Joshua denies it.

Of course, he also denied that Hutchins ever used the word "ultimate" to describe SuperSlow.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

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


Never say NEVER.

And the title is all over Google.

Just JT opening his mouth before his brain engages :)

Open User Options Menu

howard1976

Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
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.

Would you want to do a 180-second TUL?

That's what Baye alleged Hutchins suggested.

Joshua denies it.

Of course, he also denied that Hutchins ever used the word "ultimate" to describe SuperSlow.

Regards,
Tony


Well, I would be up for anything trying it out. I don't know if they would want to get that out of me for my goals or whatever, but it would mainly be to use the machines and maybe, just maybe, ask Mcguff about Mentzer if I was lucky enough to get him to put me through the workout.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??


What is fast reps? is that 2/4, 2/2, 1/1?

My guideline for myself is limiting momentum unless you absolutely need it on the last rep, but only then a little.

1/1 is bouncing up and down.

You could always give it a shot.
Open User Options Menu

deleted

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.


I got the same from what Joshua has talked about that you did Scott. The idea isn't to intentionally move slow but be forced to move slow.

Arthur Jones talked about doing this as you start reaching fatigue in a set. I think it's in one of the Nautilus Bullentins. I didn't understand what he was getting at until kinda recently.

If I'm understanding Joshua, you would be forced to move slow from the get go using his Overload or Ken Hutchin's equipment.

It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway to an extent. You still have to be mindful of control with certain ranges or certain exercises. If you're using equipment that is designed to match your strength throughout the movement it would be more efficient??

As for the longer TUL, could it be this was intended for clients not interested in strength gains/hypertrophy and more interested in more endurance results or just trying to maintain health/muscle/bone mass?
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??


If you do faster reps, you are doing more work in less time.

If you lift more boxes out of the back of a pickup in less time than the next guy, you are doing more work than the other man.

Eliminate momentum and swinging ... control the weights instead of allowing them to control you, and you will be fine.

Regards,
Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Donnie Hunt wrote:
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.

I got the same from what Joshua has talked about that you did Scott. The idea isn't to intentionally move slow but be forced to move slow.

Arthur Jones talked about doing this as you start reaching fatigue in a set. I think it's in one of the Nautilus Bullentins. I didn't understand what he was getting at until kinda recently.

If I'm understanding Joshua, you would be forced to move slow from the get go using his Overload or Ken Hutchin's equipment.

It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway to an extent. You still have to be mindful of control with certain ranges or certain exercises. If you're using equipment that is designed to match your strength throughout the movement it would be more efficient??

As for the longer TUL, could it be this was intended for clients not interested in strength gains/hypertrophy and more interested in more endurance results or just trying to maintain health/muscle/bone mass?


It's not what Baye indicated.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Donnie Hunt wrote:
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.

I got the same from what Joshua has talked about that you did Scott. The idea isn't to intentionally move slow but be forced to move slow.

Arthur Jones talked about doing this as you start reaching fatigue in a set. I think it's in one of the Nautilus Bullentins. I didn't understand what he was getting at until kinda recently.

If I'm understanding Joshua, you would be forced to move slow from the get go using his Overload or Ken Hutchin's equipment.

It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway to an extent. You still have to be mindful of control with certain ranges or certain exercises. If you're using equipment that is designed to match your strength throughout the movement it would be more efficient??

As for the longer TUL, could it be this was intended for clients not interested in strength gains/hypertrophy and more interested in more endurance results or just trying to maintain health/muscle/bone mass?



"It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway"

YES, YES , YES....you got it Donnie, sometimes i feel like i'm speaking Japanese on here. Such paradigm blindness
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

entsminger wrote:
mentzerfan wrote:
Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!

==Scott==
Yea, it's almost as unusual as threads about Mike Mentzer.There's so much more out there about Mentzer that we've never head of,,ha ha...
Actually I did read something the other day about Ray Mentzer that I haven't head much about on here. I was reading an article about Bill Pearl and I think it said something to the effect that even he thought the Mentzers were Genetic freaks ( like he wasn't) and that at one time Pearl saw Ray Mentzer curl the whole 250 pound stack on a Nautilus curl machine with one arm. Pearl said he tried it with both arms and could barely budge it. Them boys was strong....


Discussing H.I.T. is not like discussing current events.

You can discuss only so many things, then it becomes repetitive.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.



5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


He has limited time, but he always has time for me. :)

No, he left a silly parable about a squirrel, honestly when I asked about Hutchins' departure from the SuperSlow Zone. I got the point, but it certainly did not reveal why Hutchins left SSZ.

Maybe he left because SSZ is such a flop.

Josh has a monetary interest in SS. That is why he is so secretive.

Saying that people cannot reach their potential without SS is silly.

He does like the word UNSTOPPABLE, though.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.


Then read Baye's explanation of how Hutchins wanted him to increase TULs to as much as 180 seconds.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.


He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Donnie Hunt wrote:
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.

I got the same from what Joshua has talked about that you did Scott. The idea isn't to intentionally move slow but be forced to move slow.

Arthur Jones talked about doing this as you start reaching fatigue in a set. I think it's in one of the Nautilus Bullentins. I didn't understand what he was getting at until kinda recently.

If I'm understanding Joshua, you would be forced to move slow from the get go using his Overload or Ken Hutchin's equipment.

It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway to an extent. You still have to be mindful of control with certain ranges or certain exercises. If you're using equipment that is designed to match your strength throughout the movement it would be more efficient??

As for the longer TUL, could it be this was intended for clients not interested in strength gains/hypertrophy and more interested in more endurance results or just trying to maintain health/muscle/bone mass?


"It's seems to me that when you're using heavy weight with free weights or machines and keeping strict form the whole slow thing kinda happens anyway"

YES, YES , YES....you got it Donnie, sometimes i feel like i'm speaking Japanese on here. Such paradigm blindness


Josh also like such words as "paradigm" in order to sound like a scientist when he actually is a ... trainer.

Note his irritability with Donnie when anyone questions his "protocol" (good word).

Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.


The issue becomes what happens when you remove all outside force and create the overall tension leading to the required contraction, and of course the rate coding events that coincide.

Somehow, everyone seemed to think I was always the one promoting 'Pumping Iron' style reps, not the case at all.

Do I recommend lifting in view of a stop watch? Hell no. But everything I do is controlled and ends up slow anyway.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

entsminger wrote:
mentzerfan wrote:
Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!

==Scott==
Yea, it's almost as unusual as threads about Mike Mentzer.There's so much more out there about Mentzer that we've never head of,,ha ha...
Actually I did read something the other day about Ray Mentzer that I haven't head much about on here. I was reading an article about Bill Pearl and I think it said something to the effect that even he thought the Mentzers were Genetic freaks ( like he wasn't) and that at one time Pearl saw Ray Mentzer curl the whole 250 pound stack on a Nautilus curl machine with one arm. Pearl said he tried it with both arms and could barely budge it. Them boys was strong....


To be fair though, from the slander in 'The New HIT' to the very disregard for principles around training for pursuit of popularity found on TNation, the haunting of this sight from Mentzer's ghost seems most appropriate:).

Anyone want to read one of Mike's last comments on his website involving the above? I would love to share the quote.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
entsminger wrote:
mentzerfan wrote:
Oh wow. A discussion over fast vs slow rep cadence. How unusual!

==Scott==
Yea, it's almost as unusual as threads about Mike Mentzer.There's so much more out there about Mentzer that we've never head of,,ha ha...
Actually I did read something the other day about Ray Mentzer that I haven't head much about on here. I was reading an article about Bill Pearl and I think it said something to the effect that even he thought the Mentzers were Genetic freaks ( like he wasn't) and that at one time Pearl saw Ray Mentzer curl the whole 250 pound stack on a Nautilus curl machine with one arm. Pearl said he tried it with both arms and could barely budge it. Them boys was strong....

To be fair though, from the slander in 'The New HIT' to the very disregard for principles around training for pursuit of popularity found on TNation, the haunting of this sight from Mentzer's ghost seems most appropriate:).

Anyone want to read one of Mike's last comments on his website involving the above? I would love to share the quote.


Slander is spoken.

Libel is written.

You cannot legally slander or libel the dead in the United States.

Mentzer is dead. Therefore, no libel or slander was committed in "The New H.I.T."

Let's see the quote.
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.



howard1976,

Sorry I missed this . . . TW is bombarding this thread with nonsense.

First, failure can happen for a multitude of reasons. Is is OK to assume that failure is happening for the same reasons in the fast and slow sets? I'm not sure and therefore any comparison would need to be curbed for that reason (IMO).

Second, comparing levels of inroad is moot. "Inroad" is not a concept defined in scientific literature. It is an idea that may have merit, but I do not use this theory to compare the quality of one set over another.

Additionally, who's to say that both methods don't have merit for different reasons? Josh mentioned considering both mechanical work and metabolic work. Maybe there is balance needed between both for optimal loading, fatigue, fiber recruitment, etc?


BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time?

In the context of one set, probably not. I've never don SS, but slower movements vs. fast usually is not the issue. The total volume of work causes problems for me.

or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

Again I have no experience with this. I personally have never performed long sets with slow reps. The answer may lie in the reason for "failure" . . .
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))


I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy