T Nation

Super Slow Reps

Any feedback on that Power of 10 book that suggests super slow reps and sets lasting up to 2 minutes? I like the slow rep idea but can’t really see doing only one set for 6 different exercises per week.

[quote]DTHEASH1 wrote:
Any feedback on that Power of 10 book that suggests super slow reps and sets lasting up to 2 minutes? I like the slow rep idea but can’t really see doing only one set for 6 different exercises per week. [/quote]

Shoot me. I can’t think of anything more boring than doing 10 reps over the course of 2 minutes. I think the whole system is crap.

No, superslow sets are a waste of time.

If you are strong enough to use X amount of weight for a super slow set, you’re far better off to put some more weight on the bar and lift it explosively.

I tried this back in high school. I saw some gains for a short period of time, and then, I had to switch to something else.

A lot of good research has been conducted over the years. Figure out what works best for your body, rather than searching for programs.

Control or even fairly slow on the negative is one thing. Sometimes I’ll do slower negatives and concentrate on a weak side for instance, but I can’t see any point in 12 seconds per rep and besides timing something like that would be distracting in the extreme.

It is shit. Talk about crapping out your nervous system. There is one animal I can think of that is known to do alot of slow concentric muscle actions. A sloth. If you want your body to look like that, go ahead.

Going slow is okay, but taking 2min for a set…no thanks.

all of these responses+ the fact that any power you have would go in the shitter. you would be “re-educating” your neuro-muscular connections to fire slowly.

put simply, power= speed + strength.

even if that shit worked like a charm for size gains, theres no way you could convince me to intentionally throw my power out the window, when clearly there are other methods to get big.

You should really only do one of 2 things.

Move sub max weights as fast as possible
Move max weights, as fast as possible.

Lengthen the eccentric to to reach a desired t.u.t, but once this goes over 60-75 secs, your wasting your time in my opinion.

I think it’s good if you’re injured or looking for a change, but most of the time I think it’s a better idea to explode the concentric and control the eccentric.

Here’s a review on that very topic: http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459467

The evidence (both academic and practical) is pretty overwhelming.

If you want the build that the author Adam Zickerman has, then be my guest.

if you can explain to me why it’s more beneficial to to do 10 reps in 2 minutes than the most possible (while staying in control, and maintaining good form, of course), with the same weight… be my guest.

You can’t pull that whole time under tension dogma either because 2 minutes under any sort of big weight will drop you. You won’t get there.

using maximal force a lot is what builds muscle. plain simple truth.

If you want proof, look at the marathon runner vs the sprinter.

There is something behind slow reps, but ‘Super-Slow’ seems to be a waste of time. The most important factors in hypertrophy training appear to be, time under tension (TUT), the amount of muscular force produced and total load/volume. The level, or amount, of these factors should be kept high, but more isnt always better.

Super Slow super sucks.

And there’s no way, with the speed recommended, you would be able to train with a load that is heavy enough for your body to adapt, and add any significant amount of muscle to.

Super slow works well for seniors with arthritic and bone density issues.

It can also work well for a short period of time, as a change of pace, if you can stand it.

As for the fry of the CNS, no. Unless the sheer boredom of the protocol counts.

Super slow appears to burn more calories per amount of ‘work’ done.

In the Hunter et al study quoted by Barr, the amount of actual work done in the normal training group was 4x the amount done in the superslow group, but the energy expended was only about 50% greater.

This imbalance between work and energy expenditure is also noted in other studies.

time under tension has been shat upon (or at least brushed under the carpet and forgotten about) recently… . I guess its not as important for growth as once thought. …