Rep Speed

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the anecdotal evidence points in this direction, which is the best that is out there since the science is dubious at best.

[notfreemoney]

i definately dont think that it should be ignored and should still be regarded as a debatable topic. Slower reps may have a place in a strength training workout. In the end, the difference may not even be that significant that average lifters would need to worry about it.

[notfreemoney]

oh, and i hate studies based on anecdotal evidence, they are bascically worthless.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
oh, and i hate studies based on anecdotal evidence, they are bascically worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. You were the one that suggested to use science to back your view (which admittedly doesn't point left or right). All "gym" knowledge points away from it. (As an aside I doubt you could show statistical significance of SS as better than a flex routine for untrained males over a 8 week study)

Also, there really shouldn't be any slow reps in strength training. Maybe in BB to increase TUT, but no place to get stronger.

[Wolfram]

Think about it from an evolutionary perspective.
Why would we develop over the ages in such a way that performing slow movements that have no inherent value would be more beneficial to physical growth than performing fast useful movements.

If a caveman has to fight hard for his life, most of the stuff he does is fast-twitch. If he has enough food, his body should allow him to be more adept at doing the things he needs to survive (running, jumping, fighting etc).

If a caveman has little need for survival skills (lives in a peaceful area or an organized and defended society) he'll have less need for those powerful muscles and therefore they will decrease to save on energy cost.

[notfreemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it from an evolutionary perspective.
Why would we develop over the ages in such a way that performing slow movements that have no inherent value would be more beneficial to physical growth than performing fast useful movements.

If a caveman has to fight hard for his life, most of the stuff he does is fast-twitch. If he has enough food, his body should allow him to be more adept at doing the things he needs to survive (running, jumping, fighting etc).

If a caveman has little need for survival skills (lives in a peaceful area or an organized and defended society) he'll have less need for those powerful muscles and therefore they will decrease to save on energy cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all know that if you dont use it you lose it and that you need stimulation to grow/ gain strength. None of that is enlightening. There is more than one way to provide stimulation.

[theblackkeys]

Duration of the exercise is one variable that is being neglected in those studies. The duration of the effort (time under tension?) is probably quite a bit longer in the slow rep group than in the fast rep group. I imagine that extra effort (it's not work but it's still extra effort) is similar to adding a couple reps, and that those who expended more effort regardless of speed would gain more than those who didn't.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
Duration of the exercise is one variable that is being neglected in those studies. The duration of the effort (time under tension?) is probably quite a bit longer in the slow rep group than in the fast rep group. I imagine that extra effort (it's not work but it's still extra effort) is similar to adding a couple reps, and that those who expended more effort regardless of speed would gain more than those who didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is just one of the problems with the studies. They don't have direct comparisons where various parameters are held as constants. In fact it's hard to say exactly what you should control for so really you should have way more people in the study so that you can cross-correlate various variables to see what the real determining factors are. You ideally want a lot of people in the study over a long period.

So, eg. to test slow vs. fast reps you would want to have people people doing the same moves, but then have groups doing the same set & rep counts, groups doing the same total workout time, groups doing the same time under tension, etc. etc.

For example, someone does 10 reps of super slow. Someone else does 10 explosive reps, then decreases the weight a bit and does a superset of 10 more explosive reps, so the total time taken is about the same. How would those compare? etc. etc.

IMHO slow reps have a very valuable place in the gym, which is testing your form with low weight. It can also really help you concentrate and feel the muscles that should be working at various parts of the movement, and it can get you out of the bad habit of jerking through the movement.

Slow reps may also be superior for injury rehabilitation.

[TomHimself]

[ QUOTE ]
Lift as fast as possible. Lower under control for lifts where it applies (non-O).

[/ QUOTE ]sorry but what does non-O mean? ty

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lift as fast as possible. Lower under control for lifts where it applies (non-O).

[/ QUOTE ]sorry but what does non-O mean? ty

[/ QUOTE ]

Olympic lifts