To bulk up, what is better? Doing 20 sets of fast reps or 10 reps of slow reps (Slow negatives and isometric holds)?
Inconsequential. Bulking is a product of scaling intensity and volume and matching it with recovery. Rep speed plays minimal role compared to an overall program.
2 Likes
Surely the benefit of these techniques is to increase TUT. If you do half as many reps, you’re just robbing Peter to pay Paul and you gain nothing from the decreased speed.
Depends on what you mean by fast. Like 50-60‰ of one repair max, explosive fast isn’t really a thing for high rep sets. And 20 rep range is more like rehab/prehab applications.
Work is work in the end but I vote for moving every as fast as you can on the concentric.
This is a myth. 20 rep squats will grow your legs like nothing else.
1 Like
Then they’re both true.
1 Like
Disagree. I’ve read various research articles and spoken with physical therapists, all of whom say that slow negatives - 3-seconds-plus - greatly increases the body’s production of growth hormone. From what I recall, the larger the muscle group or the more muscle groups involved, the more GH is released from slow negatives.
To answer OP’s question, I believe both fast and slow reps are effective, depending on the movent and muscle group.
Oh noes you used the R word…
Was expecting a post on the research that compared more gains in fast as possible reps vs purposefully slow reps but ok
Man, if you can do 3-5x10 for 4-6 exercises at a slow pace without having to commit yourself to an asylum, you’re a better person than me lol
1 Like
I feel you’ve missed the point here. I believe @T3hPwnisher is saying that you need to sort the big rocks of:
Before you start worrying about little rocks like tempo training.
1 Like
To demonstrate the crux of my statement, if one trainee does 1 set of 8 curls with a slow negative and another trainee runs Mass Made Simple, who will experience more growth?
Rep speed alone is inconsequential. I would aruge the degree of growth hormone released from it would be the same
1 Like
What if a program like Mass Made Simple is effective Because it uses fast reps, slow reps, short sets and long sets, focused negatives and isometric holds and “regular” style to get all the gains possible?
And then it is arranged to use all that stuff in a way that’s great for mass.
1 Like
Yup. And on top of all that, it’s got a solid selection of movements, with a logical and sustainable weight progression model, and a solid recovery strategy built in.
It’s like cooking; a lot of trainees want to eat a cake, but what they end up doing is sitting in their kitchen eating all of their ingredients and wondering why they keep contracting salmonella.
1 Like
Or trying to use Only the one Best ingredient and ending up with hardtack.
2 Likes
I have the ebook, I’ve done the program. It doesn’t. Maybe it would work marginally better if it did, although I would love to see the masochist that would do 50 rep sets of squats with 3 second negatives and pauses.
How fast did you move doing the Goodmornings? What were your abs and upper back doing as you held them still during front squats? How long did a set of 20 squats take compared to a set of 3? How did the bar move during each set?
Just because you didn’t perceive it at the time doesn’t mean the work wasn’t in there.
3 Likes
A point well made.
Maybe this Dan John fella might know a thing or two about lifting.
2 Likes
The growth hormone response from lifting’s a load of overhyped bullshit as well
50 reps of slow squats with a pause would be pretty awful.
1 Like