T Nation

Fast Negatives?

Whatsup with many of you guys saying “Do fast tempo on the eccentric portion” ?

Why?

[quote]Racarnus wrote:
Whatsup with many of you guys saying “Do fast tempo on the eccentric portion” ?

Why? [/quote]

ask Waterbury in his locker room, i believe it is him who you are talking about right? He’s the only one i’ve heard that from…Seems strange to me…

Just make sure the weight doesn’t fall by gravity. That’s really all there is to it.

[quote]Racarnus wrote:
Whatsup with many of you guys saying “Do fast tempo on the eccentric portion” ?

Why? [/quote]

I wouldn’t recommend anyone train that way unless they want an injury or unless they are lifting a weight light enough to not have to worry about an injury.

Then again, if you are lifting that light, then there is something wrong to begin with.

You show me the guy curling a 90lbs dumbbell who tells me it sounds like a good idea to drop the weight really fast on the negative and I’ll show you a guy getting ready to have a biceps tear.

Be careful of those who only look at the world through the eyes of scientific study. One thing they teach us in school when it comes to treating patients…is that you don’t really start to learn shit until you graduate.

The human factor is one variable you don’t take lightly.

Control the weight on the negative. Most larger lifters do NOT slowly lower the weight, but the idea is to lower the weight under control. Most newbies will take “fast negatives” as meaning you simply drop the weight. That is why most of the newbies even worried about that article are about to fuck up.

[quote]Majin wrote:
Just make sure the weight doesn’t fall by gravity. That’s really all there is to it.[/quote]

Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Majin wrote:
Just make sure the weight doesn’t fall by gravity. That’s really all there is to it.

Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.[/quote]

I am going to change the face of the weightlifting world, I am going to tell all of you how to grow bigger than ever before and lift more weight.

When I first told some one my new idea they were speachless.

Here it goes…

Dont injur your self! If you end up with a injury you lose strength and muscle. There for if you dont injur your self you will be much stronger and bigger than you would be other wise.

You all heard it first here!


But realy tho he made some intresting points.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.[/quote]

What’s wrong with super slow negatives?

[quote]P1 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.

What’s wrong with super slow negatives?[/quote]

Look at how huge the people doing them are in majority, then look at the size of the guys who move the weight a little faster are and get back to me.

Even being able to spend that much time on the negative portion would limit your sets drastically…unless you were lifting a weight light enough to allow you to get through several reps of doing so.

This isn’t about “right or wrong”. This is about what has produced results when it comes to building the most muscle size and strength. You can do super slow reps all you want to. I personally won’t be.

[quote]n3wb wrote:
I am going to change the face of the weightlifting world, I am going to tell all of you how to grow bigger than ever before and lift more weight.

When I first told some one my new idea they were speechless. [/quote]

I have an advanced degree. I have read lots of books. Many of my books are leather bound. When I tell people of my leather bound books, they stare at me in awe.

Are you in awe yet? You should be.

[In unison, a bunch of high school kids who weigh 150 pounds and who swear by my methods sigh: Yes, yes, oh yes!]

[quote]n3wb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Majin wrote:
Just make sure the weight doesn’t fall by gravity. That’s really all there is to it.

Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.

I am going to change the face of the weightlifting world, I am going to tell all of you how to grow bigger than ever before and lift more weight.

When I first told some one my new idea they were speachless.

Here it goes…

Dont injur your self! If you end up with a injury you lose strength and muscle. There for if you dont injur your self you will be much stronger and bigger than you would be other wise.

You all heard it first here!

But realy tho he made some intresting points.[/quote]

You should have told Dave Tate that, then! lol. That standard applies to 300 lbs’ers too. lol.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Look at how huge the people doing them are in majority, then look at the size of the guys who move the weight a little faster are and get back to me.

Even being able to spend that much time on the negative portion would limit your sets drastically…unless you were lifting a weight light enough to allow you to get through several reps of doing so.

This isn’t about “right or wrong”. This is about what has produced results when it comes to building the most muscle size and strength. You can do super slow reps all you want to. I personally won’t be. [/quote]

Maybe all you huge guys did them to get big, and now you’re not telling anyone because you’re being muscle-selfish and don’t want anyone else to get big!!!

Okay, on a serious note, I have an idea why slow negatives “won’t work”.

It seems hard enough to get someone to life with a lot of intensity (also disputed by that CW article, but I still think one needs to lift with MORE intensity if they’re not getting results), so just imagine how difficult it would be for them to push themselves if they’re torturing themselves with slow reps.

I could see slow negatives causing someone to quit a set early just from pain, fatigue, or even just boredom, which would lead to less gains.

Then again, I could be way off.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
n3wb wrote:
I am going to change the face of the weightlifting world, I am going to tell all of you how to grow bigger than ever before and lift more weight.

When I first told some one my new idea they were speechless.

I have an advanced degree. I have read lots of books. Many of my books are leather bound. When I tell people of my leather bound books, they stare at me in awe.

Are you in awe yet? You should be.

[In unison, a bunch of high school kids who weigh 150 pounds and who swear by my methods sigh: Yes, yes, oh yes!][/quote]

That was the most funny thing I have seen in weeks.

I’ve been reading a lot of Louie Simmons shit lately and he mentions this a lot. I don’t completely get it, but I’ll try to give an explanation.

Say you’re doing a box squat.
By lowering faster (not to the point of falling, but faster than normally) you’re increasing kinetic energy more than by just adding mass (because it’s 1/2 mv^2). So when you’re on the box the energy transfered (and this is the part I don’t completely get…is it to the normal force of the box, or is he just talking about the stretch reflex?) and you’ll have more power to work with on your way up.

(this is probably far more important for strength then mass. I think overall for mass it’d be worse to go especially faster)

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Most larger lifters do NOT slowly lower the weight, but the idea is to lower the weight under control. [/quote]

Most large lifters do not slowly lower the weight?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.[/quote]

really? That’s a pretty absolute statement!

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Look at how huge the people doing them are in majority, then look at the size of the guys who move the weight a little faster are and get back to me.

[/quote]

How about all the 120 lb. bodybuilder that move the weight a little faster? This must invalidate moving the weight faster? There are plenty of little wimps moving the weight fast too. GENETICS!!!

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
n3wb wrote:
I am going to change the face of the weightlifting world, I am going to tell all of you how to grow bigger than ever before and lift more weight.

When I first told some one my new idea they were speechless.

I have an advanced degree. I have read lots of books. Many of my books are leather bound. When I tell people of my leather bound books, they stare at me in awe.

Are you in awe yet? You should be.

[In unison, a bunch of high school kids who weigh 150 pounds and who swear by my methods sigh: Yes, yes, oh yes!][/quote]

That was pretty funny Claw.

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.

really? That’s a pretty absolute statement!

[/quote]

Wow, I guess it was. Maybe you can prove that statement wrong real quick by showing all of the massive bodybuilders that train super slow and gained most of their size that way.

Training extremely slow requires the use of less weight. In majority, light weights don’t build massive muscles. “Absolute statement”? I would guess so. Incorrect statement? Well, I guess that’s up to you to prove wrong.

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Look at how huge the people doing them are in majority, then look at the size of the guys who move the weight a little faster are and get back to me.

How about all the 120 lb. bodybuilder that move the weight a little faster? This must invalidate moving the weight faster? There are plenty of little wimps moving the weight fast too. GENETICS!!!

[/quote]

If those 120lb bodybuilders arent fat then they cant complain because thats proof that they arent even eating enough to gain fat.

Genetics is a shity excuse.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.

really? That’s a pretty absolute statement!

Wow, I guess it was. Maybe you can prove that statement wrong real quick by showing all of the massive bodybuilders that train super slow and gained most of their size that way.

Training extremely slow requires the use of less weight. In majority, light weights don’t build massive muscles. “Absolute statement”? I would guess so. Incorrect statement? Well, I guess that’s up to you to prove wrong.[/quote]

There are massive people who train slow and there are massive people who train fast.

There are skinny people who train slow and skinny people who train fast.

People that use light weight to train slow are weak. People who use heavy weight and train slow are strong.

People who use heavy weight and train fast are strong and people who use light weight and train fast are weak. It’s all relative.

The only absolute in strength training is progressive overload, the rest is preference and variety.

It’s pretty simple stuff. There are no magic answers just different ways of doing the same thing. Some better than others but, only to a small degree when progressive overload is present.

If there was an absolute in training other than progressive overload it would be pretty evident but, it’s not. The results would be so drastic it would be evident of the programs superiority.

I enjoy using many different exercises, reps, sets, intensity techniques, volume techniques, and other protocols. Some are better than others to a degree. Adaptation may be a reason for change, maybe not. I enjoy the art of training more that the science because the science is inconsistent at best.