A client recently asked me about a training method she discovered which is referred to as
Superslow training (the lack of a space is intentional, this is actually a trademarked term and should not be confused simply with the term "Super Slow").
While discussing this topic could take the space of an entire book, I'll keep this short and to the point.
The premise is basically this...
Use very light weights, and move the weight very, VERY slowly through the repetition range.
While the normal cadence for most weight lifting is usually about two seconds up and two seconds down, Superslow training often recommends taking approximately 10 seconds to lift the weight, and 4 seconds or more to lower. Some advocates of Superslow training are even recommending much longer rep cadences than this.
This type of training was originally developed in the early 80's to help facilitate muscular development in the elderly, as the slow speed was deemed to have far less risk for patients in this population who are more succeptible to fractures and falls (variations on this type of training have been around much longer, from the 1800's in fact, just not packaged and sold in the manner that Superslow has).
To date, few scientific studies have focused on this type of training, and the ones that have were not the most reliable.
The reason for the popularity of Superslow is...as always...marketing.
A few celebrities got on board and endorsed it a while back, and the method was then patented and frachised, resulting in a number of trainers who are now 'certified' in Superslow training.
Again, nothing special here, just marketing hype to make it sound like a monumental breakthrough resulting in a new training method that can only be administered by someone "certified" in Superslow training. This makes people think that the only way to get the body of such-and-such celebrity is to seek out a specialist who provides this incredible new training method.
Unofortunatley, this method just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Of course, as is the case with most fads and gimmicks, there are some aspects of this training that are valid. By slowing down the rep speed, you virtiually eliminate momentum, which focuses more stimulus to the muscle being worked. Rather than just 'heaving' the weight up (I've observed more than my fair share of muscle-heads swinging weight around haphazardly, obviously trying to impress fellow gym-goers by lifting weighs that are far heavier than they could normally handle) you are forced to use nothing but muscle to lift the weight, thus working the muscle harder.
Another benefit of slow rep speed is that the muscle is under tension for a longer time, which is a good thing...in moderation. Time Under Tension (TUT) is a well known concept among exercise physiologists and is an important component to developing strength and musclular size, but there IS a line. The truth is, Superslow training tends to go way beyond that line.
Here's are the problems...
When you try and lift a weight very slowly, taking 10 seconds or more to lift the weight, you simply cannot handle a very heavy load. However, a heavier load is ESSENTIAL to developing stronger, bigger, and more defined muscles. Superslow training does not allow you to handle heavy loads, and thus, inevitably, your progress will hit a major wall if you train in this way for any length of time.
A second downfall is that you actually train your body to move slowly, which is unnatural. Your body will develop in the way that you train it. What I mean by this is, Olympic sprinters train with speed and power, because that's what they need their bodies to do. They need to move fast and explosively. You won't find an olympic sprinter jogging around the track at a snails pace would you? Of course not, because come race day, their body would be prepped to move slow.
While you might think this is not applicable to you, how many times have you ran quickly up a set of stairs? What about getting up off the couch? If you train very slowly, then you could actually make something like standing up from the couch more difficult because you have trained yourself to move slowly, with little power, force, and muscular strength.
So what this all boils down to is this...
Go ahead an take a little longer with your reps: 2-4 seconds to lift and the same to lower, to keep momentum to nill, and keep your weights as heavy as you can comfortably and safely handle.
Any decent trainer will be able to determine what the best rep speed is for you and your goals. I would recommend finding someone who is an expert in all training methods who can help you design a training program that will work for YOU.
Be weary of anyone peddaling only one type of training method. It's probably just marketing hype.
Helping you build the body of our dreams,
RD
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You've sort of got it right Rylan although the very light weights part is usually used for rank beginners and seniors.
ReplyDeleteWhere you have it incorrect is the sport specific aspect. Training slow will not make you slow and training fast will not make you fast. This is a myth that just won't die.
You used a sprinter not jogging as an example which is sort of a useless example.
Speed and power are produced by strong muscles. Making muscles stronger will result in their ability to produce more speed and power.
Like a car engine, to produce more power you don't drive it faster and faster in the hopes the engine will become more powerful or be able to produce more torque. No. you simply replace the existing engine with a more powerful one.
This is what weight lifting does.
Sprinters sprint around because they must keep in practice with their skills, NOT to make them fast. They are already fast naturally.
A stronger sprinter will be a faster sprinter all other things being equal. A weaker sprinter will become slower. That is one reason why athletes slow down with age.
How you make you muscles stronger deserves careful attention to:
1. Saftey
2. Efficieny
3. Effectiveness
Research CLEARLY indicates that so long as you fatigue, work, train, tire out, etc. the muscle(s) in a 30-120 second time frame results are essentially the same.
Train slowly and you risk less injury. In fact I'd say none. But you are correct tha the weight must be heavy enough to satisfy the correct TCF (time to concentric failure).
Train fast and explosively and your risk of injury increases.
And slow training was not originally developed in the 80's. It's been around since the 40's. It was called MC MM which stands for 'muscular contractions with measured movement.'
A 10 second lift and lowering was recommended. Many bodybuilders of old used this technique to BREAK plateaus, not cause them.
Rylan, I'd like to see the research to support your claim that slow training causes a plateau.
And after all, no matter how you train you cannot keep getting stronger and stronger forever.
Dr. Westcott's 3 studies on slow training vs. standard all show that a 10/4 rep tempo out muscled a 2/4 rep tempo. His studies were actually quite well done as he kept the set times essentially equal rather than the rep number which a number of other slow studies mistakenly did.
Train hard but train smart.
Thanks Ry!
ReplyDeleteFor taking the time. I really appreciate this info. I will link it to my blog.
Christine
p.s. I like the statement "Helping you to build the body of your dreams" - you did (for me)! If I can do it at age 60 - anyone else can do it too - if they are prepared to listen, follow their guide and work hard. Time is ticking - tick tick tick....the sooner they get going, the sooner they will feel healthy, energetic, and look great. The sky is the limit!
ReplyDeleteFred,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your input, it's great to get another trainer's perspective. However, I ask that all fitness professionals please post their credentials when leaving comments so my readers can be sure that they know what they are talking about. For credentials, I mean your education, and certifications, not books you've published and such.
You bring up some good points, but I find fault with your arguments.
First off, the Sprinting example is exactly what you would find in the real world, so no, it is not useless. You simply will NOT find professional athletes using superslow training.
I clearly remember this discussion in my 4th year exercise physiology class. One student brought up the debate of training slow with professional hockey players, and the professor just about laughed him out of the class.
Training as close to your sport as possible is the hallmark of sport specific training. You simply will NOT find pro athletes training slow. Period. I know this, because I have worked with many myself, and know personally many trainers who do as well.
Don't believe me? Just ask Mike Boyle, the world authority on athletic training, and ask him what he thinks about superslow training. Or Alwyn Cosgrove, or Jason Feruggia, or Dr. Berardi for that matter. I'm sure their answer would be the same.
As for your example of a car engine. That is a useless example. Of course an engine won't become more powerful if you drive it faster, engines are not ADAPTABLE! Muscles are.
Lift light weights, and you will stay weak. Lift heavy weights and you will become strong, PERIOD.
Granted, world class sprinters may naturally have more fast twitch fibers than non-sprinters, but what you are suggesting is that they are naturally fast, so therefore no matter how they train they will be fast? I categorically disagree. I have worked with many athletes who were slow when I met them, and through proper training became fast.
I am sure any professional athlete would agree, genetics alone will get you nowhere.
How you make muscles stronger does not relate to safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. It relates to:
A) Load
B) Time Under Tension
C) Recovery
Stress the muscle with enough force, with proper volume, and then allow the natural recovery process to rebuild. THAT's what causes gains in strength and size.
Of course, having a client throw around weights explosively, willy nilly, before they have preconditioned their body to handle such demands and you are asking for injury, but no knowlegeable trainer would do such a thing.
However, I will tell you that I have many trainees, well above 40 years of age, who can perform a textbook Clean and Jerk, or Single Arm Dumbbell Snatch with perfect safety. Not only have I seen these client's results skyrocket when employing these techniques, but they find it fun as well.
And, yes, I know Superslow hasn't been around since just the 80's. Re-Read the post and you will see that I stated it's been around much much longer. Longer than even the 40's in fact. The funny thing is, it went away for a long, long time with only a few devout Superslow trainers sticking to their guns.
Why would this happen?
Because it simply did not give results like traditional tempo strength training.
And I think you would agree Fred, it's all about the results.
RD
As a 66 year old woman who went from leg pressing 75 pounds to 370#, I find your "light weights" comments insulting.
ReplyDeleteSuperSlow saved my life, made me want to live again, and made me capable of living a full and functional life. I guess because I'm not a muscle jockey, I don't count.
Oh, and I don't have any so-called "credentials -- other than I am still alive and loving life.
Taru,
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear. I think superslow has it's merits. Obviously for someone just beginning, the benefit is the reduced risk of injury. However, I very much stick to my original comments that you can only get so far with the results that this type of training will net you.
I commend you wholeheartedly for your accomplishment, and I would never take that away from anyone. The fact that you are exercising, weight training, and enjoying a better life because of it makes me incredibly happy.
However, I do have to contend that using a leg press as a measure of strength is a bad example. While your strength has certainly increased, leg press poundage's above the 500-600lb range are not unheard of in populations that share your age group.
More importantly, I do not recommend that ANYONE continue with a leg press beyond their beginning months of training.
The reason for this is that a Leg Press is a very poor exercise when examined functionally. For that matter, many machine exercises are. What I mean by this is that you would be hard pressed to find an everyday activity or movement that would simulate the type of movement that you perform on a leg press.
The importance of this cannot be understated when quality of life and improving function are the goal (if you are simply trying to build big muscles for show, then ignore these comments - but I'm pretty sure that is not your goal.) Because the Leg Press is a 'unnatural movement' it places greater focus on the quadriceps, little emphasis on the hamstrings, unnatural pressure on the hip flexors as well as compressing the lumbar spine to an unwelcome degree.
Once enough strength has been gained with a leg press, I strongly recommend moving to a more natural and useful movement like a squat.
The squat is a functional exercise that will more naturally load the hamstrings, quadriceps, glutes, hip stabilizers, and hip flexors. Not to mention core stability muscles such as the Transversus Abdominus, Internal and Exernal oblique, as well as the spinal erectors and multitude of other spinal stabalizing muscles.
Not only with this result in greater gains of strength throughout your ENTIRE body, but you will also benefit from a marked increase in bone density throughout the hips and vertebrae compared to what would be seen when simply using a leg press.
To top all that off, think of how much more natural a squat is. How many times during the day do you bend down to pick something off the floor, climb a flight of stairs, get up off the couch or the toilet seat?
Yes Taru, superslow can help to a certain degree. But I implore you to start adding more functional movements to your arsenal if you truly want to experience a step forward in your health and fitness.
PS. For safety sake, DO NOT try to squat superslow. Now THAT is an injury waiting to happen.
Now these comments make sense, it seems that both Fred and Taru have a vested financial interest in Superslow training.
ReplyDeleteDidn't I say it was all about marketing?