Rep Speed

[notfreemoney]

1: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Sep;37(9):1622-6. Links
Comment in:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Feb;38(2):401; author reply 402.
Resistance training for strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed.
Munn J, Herbert RD, Hancock MJ, Gandevia SC.
School of Physiotherapy, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia. J.Munn@fhs.usyd.edu.au
PURPOSE: To compare effects on strength in the early phase of resistance training with one or three sets and fast or slow speeds. METHODS: A total of 115 healthy, untrained subjects were randomized to a control group or one of four training groups: one set fast (approximately 140 degrees.s(-1)), three sets fast, one set slow (approximately 50 degrees.s(-1)), or three sets slow. All subjects attended training 3 x wk(-1) for 6 wk. Subjects in the training groups performed unilateral elbow flexion contractions with a target six- to eight-repetition maximum load. Control subjects sat at the training bench but did not train. One repetition maximum strength, arm circumference, and biceps skinfold thickness were measured before and after training. RESULTS: One slow set increased strength by 25% (95% CI 13-36%, P < 0.001). Three sets of training produced greater increases in strength than one set (difference = 23% of initial strength, 95% CI 12-34%, P < 0.001) and fast training resulted in a greater increase in strength than slow training (difference = 11%, 95% CI 0.2-23%, P = 0.046). The interaction between sets and speed was negative (-15%) and of borderline significance (P = 0.052), suggesting there is a benefit of training with three sets or fast speeds, but there is not an additive benefit of training with both. CONCLUSIONS: Three sets of exercise produce twice the strength increase of one set in the early phase of resistance training. Training fast produces greater strength increases than training slow; however, there does not appear to be any additional benefit of training with both three sets and fast contractions.
PMID: 16177617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 36–38.



Weight Training and Repetition Speed
Gerard A. Palmieri

Department of Athletics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506
ABSTRACT
Fifty-four college-aged males were randomly assigned to one of three experimental training groups to determine the effects of slow, fast, and the combination slow and fast speed dynamic concentric weight training on leg power. Each group trained the legs with squats, leg extensions, and heel raises. Pre-, mid, and post-testing included one repetition maximum in the squat, the vertical jump without the use of the arms, and leg power using the Lewis formula. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures showed that each group significantly (p<0.05) gained in leg power, but significant differences between the groups did not exist. It was concluded that neither slow, fast, nor the combination slow and fast repetition training speeds was superior in developing leg power in untrained college-aged men.



Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint performance.
Liow DK, Hopkins WG.
Sport, Fitness and Recreation Department, Wellington Institute of Technology, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
PURPOSE: Athletes often use weight training to prepare for sprint events, but the effectiveness of different types of weight training for sprinting is unclear. We have therefore investigated the effect of slow and explosive weight training on kayak sprint performance. METHODS: Twenty-seven male and 11 female experienced sprint kayakers were randomized to slow weight training, explosive weight training, or control (usual training) groups. Weight training consisted of two sessions per week for 6 wk; in each session the athletes performed 3-4 sets of two sport-specific exercises with a load of 80% 1-repetition-maximum. The two training programs differed only in the time taken to complete the concentric phase of the exercises: slow, 1.7 s; explosive, <0.85 s. To determine the effects of training on sprint acceleration and speed maintenance, the athletes performed 15-m kayaking sprints pre- and posttraining; an electronic timing system provided sprint times at 3.75-, 7.5-, and 15-m marks. RESULTS: Relative to control, both types of weight training substantially improved strength and sprint performance. The improvements in mean sprint time over 15 m in each group were: slow, 3.4%; explosive, 2.3%; control, -0.2% (90% confidence limits for pairwise differences, approximately +/-1.4%). Over the first 3.75 m, the improvements were: slow, 7.1%; explosive, 3.2%; control, 1.4% ( approximately +/-2.6%). Over the last 7.5 m, the improvements were: slow, 2.1%; explosive, 3.0%; control, -0.8% ( approximately +/-1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Slow weight training is likely to be more effective than explosive training for improving the acceleration phase of sprinting, when force is high throughout the length of the stroke. Explosive weight training may be more effective in speed maintenance, when forces are developed rapidly over a short period at the start of the stroke


Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals.
Keeler LK, Finkelstein LH, Miller W, Fernhall B.
Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
We performed a randomized exercise training study to assess the effects of traditional Nautilus-style (TR) or superslow (SS) strength training on muscular strength, body composition, aerobic capacity, and cardiovascular endurance. Subjects were 14 healthy, sedentary women, 19-45 years of age (mean +/- SD age, 32.7 +/- 8.9 years), randomized to either the SS or TR training protocols and trained 3 times per week for 10 weeks. Measurements were taken both before and after training, which included a maximal incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer, body composition, and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) tests on 8 Nautilus machines. Both groups increased their strength significantly on all 8 exercises, whereas the TR group increased significantly more than the SS group on bench press (34% vs. 11%), torso arm (anterior lateral pull-down) (27% vs. 12%), leg press (33% vs. 7%), leg extension (56% vs. 24%), and leg curl (40% vs. 15%). Thus, the TR group's improvement in total exercise weight lifted was significantly greater than that of the SS group after testing (39% vs. 15%). Exercise duration on the cycle ergometer and work rate significantly improved for both groups, but there was no group-by-training interaction. No significant differences were found for body composition or additional aerobic variables measured. Both strength training protocols produced a significant improvement in strength during a 10-week training period, but the TR protocol produced better gains in the absence of changes in percentage of body fat, body mass index, lean body mass, and body weight. In addition, strength training alone did not improve Vo2max, yet short-term endurance increased.


1: J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2001 Jun;41(2):154-8. Links
Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength.
Westcott WL, Winett RA, Anderson ES, Wojcik JR, Loud RL, Cleggett E, Glover S.
South Shore YMCA, Quincy, Massachusetts, USA.
BACKGROUND: The study assessed a way to increase the intensity and effectiveness of resistance training by comparing training with a slower repetition speed to training with a conventional repetition speed. Slower repetition speed may effectively increase intensity throughout the lifting phase while decreasing momentum. METHODS: Two studies were done with untrained men (N=65) and women (N=82), (mean age=53.6) who trained two to three times per week for eight to 10 weeks on a 13 exercise Nautilus circuit performing one set of each exercise. Participants exclusively trained using regular speed repetitions for 8 to 12 repetitions per set at 7 sec each (2 sec lifting, 1 sec pause, 4 sec lowering) or a Super Slow training protocol where they completed 4 to 6 repetitions per set at 14 sec each (10 sec lifting, 4 sec lowering). All of the participants were tested for either the 10 repetition-maximum (RM) weightload (regular-speed group) or the 5-RM weightload (slow-speed group). RESULTS: In both studies, Super-Slow training resulted in about a 50% greater increase (p<0.001) in strength for both men and women than regular speed training. In Study 1, the Super-Slow training group showed a mean increase of 12.0 kg and the regular speed group showed an increase of 8.0 kg increase (p<0.001). In Study 2, the Super-Slow training group showed a 10.9 kg increase and the regular speed group showed an increase of 7.1 kg (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Super-Slow training is an effective method for middle-aged and older adults to increase strength. Although studies still need to be done with at-risk populations, repetition speed should be considered when prescribing resistance training.
PMID: 11447355 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Rootabager]

cliffnotes for the lazy?

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
smiley is it just me or do you have a hardcore man crush on this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...pretty much.

[notfreemoney]

Here are the conclusions for each study that I posted. Please feel free to post other studies if you have found them. Science seems pretty mixed. Why do some people authoritatively say that fast reps are the best way?

It was concluded that neither slow, fast, nor the combination slow and fast repetition training speeds was superior in developing leg power in untrained college-aged men.



CONCLUSIONS: Slow weight training is likely to be more effective than explosive training for improving the acceleration phase of sprinting, when force is high throughout the length of the stroke. Explosive weight training may be more effective in speed maintenance, when forces are developed rapidly over a short period at the start of the stroke


TR = traditional speed versus SS = super slow speed
Thus, the TR group's improvement in total exercise weight lifted was significantly greater than that of the SS group after testing (39% vs. 15%). Exercise duration on the cycle ergometer and work rate significantly improved for both groups, but there was no group-by-training interaction. No significant differences were found for body composition or additional aerobic variables measured. Both strength training protocols produced a significant improvement in strength during a 10-week training period, but the TR protocol produced better gains in the absence of changes in percentage of body fat, body mass index, lean body mass, and body weight. In addition, strength training alone did not improve Vo2max, yet short-term endurance increased.

CONCLUSIONS: Super-Slow training is an effective method for middle-aged and older adults to increase strength. Although studies still need to be done with at-risk populations, repetition speed should be considered when prescribing resistance training. (SS resulted in 50% more strength gains)
PMID: 11447355 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[/ QUOTE ]


CONCLUSIONS: Three sets of exercise produce twice the strength increase of one set in the early phase of resistance training. Training fast produces greater strength increases than training slow; however, there does not appear to be any additional benefit of training with both three sets and fast contractions.
PMID: 16177617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 36–38.

[Thremp]

I hate studies that use untrained men. They're basically useless.

[notfreemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate studies that use untrained men. They're basically useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a method of control. A study that used bodybuilders on all different training levels would be basically useless. A study that used all elite athletes that are at their peak would also be pretty useless.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate studies that use untrained men. They're basically useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a method of control. A study that used bodybuilders on all different training levels would be basically useless. A study that used all elite athletes that are at their peak would also be pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv. Though initial response to training is enough to blur almost all the differences out.

[notfreemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate studies that use untrained men. They're basically useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a method of control. A study that used bodybuilders on all different training levels would be basically useless. A study that used all elite athletes that are at their peak would also be pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv. Though initial response to training is enough to blur almost all the differences out.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, science is never going to be perfect. The fact is that we dont know for sure which method of training (fast reps versus slow reps) is better. Why do you support fast reps when the science is mixed?

[Thremp]

notfree,

Because fast > slow.

[notfreemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
notfree,

Because fast > slow.

[/ QUOTE ]

it makes sense physiologically ( we are trying to stimulate the type IIa and IIb fibers) which are used at fast speeds. BUT that doesnt change the fact that it isnt known that your assertions are correct.