[quote]belligerent wrote:
rbpowerhouse wrote:
Gee, I wonder why…
belligerent wrote:
few, if any current pros have ever tried SuperSlow.
Same reason most people reject anything. Because it goes against their current ideology.[/quote]
well thats one possibility…
or maybe because it sucks.
I know it’s just an anecdotal report here, but I wasted several months implementing a super slow protocol years ago. I really thought I was on to something, having progressed from HIT to Static Contraction and then Super Slow (I was always willing to try something new). I actually LOST a bit of size after 3 months doing this stuff. There’s a reason why speed of contraction, and load are issues in most decent training approaches. There’s also a reason why the higher threshold motor units are recruited better when contracted in an explosive manner (and thereby produce… growth).
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I know it’s just an anecdotal report here, but I wasted several months implementing a super slow protocol years ago. I really thought I was on to something, having progressed from HIT to Static Contraction and then Super Slow (I was always willing to try something new). I actually LOST a bit of size after 3 months doing this stuff. There’s a reason why speed of contraction, and load are issues in most decent training approaches. There’s also a reason why the higher threshold motor units are recruited better when contracted in an explosive manner (and thereby produce… growth).
S
[/quote]
What training method worked best for you?
[quote]Forkit wrote:
What training method worked best for you?
[/quote]
I’ve changed so many variables over the years (which you’re supposed to, that’s how you keep your body struggling to adapt, and thereby progress), but the one constant, has been a conscious effort to really push the weight in a forceful manner on the positive portions, never fully lock out, and then forcefully resist on the negative portion while moving through a (almost) full ROM.
So many people think there’s some magic Set/Rep scheme. Some days I may do 1 or 2 exercises for a single bodypart, doing 5-6 sets of each, and other days I might do 4 different exercises for a bodypart, but only do 2-3 sets of each. I also tend to switch my exercises around a lot. Not always the specific exercises, but sometimes simply the order I do them in. I think sometimes it’s the simplest concept that can make the biggest impact, but you have to give it enough time to see (and that’s where a lot of people make mistakes, changing their approaches every couple of weeks).
S
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I don’t have a “perception”, I have a scientific mind. And I honestly can’t believe there are people dumb enough to believe that skeletal muscle isn’t designed to contract explosively. A little history lesson… two cavemen bodybuilders about 40k years ago were out hunting their protein requirements, when low and behold a damn smilodon decides to increase HIS daily protein with THEIR asses. Caveman 1 has explosive-contracting muscles, jumps up and runs like Carl Lewis on a coke binge, while caveman 2 has slow contracting fibers and “goes for the burn”. He gets eaten, and he doesn’t get to pass on those wonderful genes. That is how it works. Your body isn’t some random machine…the best traits for fighting and flighting and surviving have survived down through the years. And a muscle not designed for explosive contraction is an extinct muscle.
And I don’t know where the hell you get your information, but Sergio only hooked up with Jones very briefly and AFTER he had already won Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia. Mentzer I’m not even going to mention because he is so wacked out, and Viator had the best genetics in the history of the world I think- Mr. Universe at 19.
And you can’t “load” a muscle fiber with the weights you use in a super slow contraction because the weights by nature have to be so light in order to perform the 10 second concentric rep that there is zero loading taking place. And you are confusing “fatiguing” a muscle with something that is actually desirable in muscle growth. You don’t grow when you fatigue a muscle. Fatigue is UNdesirable in training. Thats like staying up all night long and then trying to study for an exam AFTER you are exhausted. If a muscle fatigues in the coarse of training it to failure or near failure, thats fine. But that isn’t the reason your muscle grows.
[/quote]
Muscles are not “DESIGNED” for anything. Nothing in nature is “DESIGNED.” Muscles are simply capable of contracting fast when they are commanded to do so. And this fact does not provide any information about the ideal speed of movement for weight training.
Fatigue is strongly implicated in the mechanism of muscle hypertrophy. The other major factor is loading. When the type II muscle fibers are fatigued under the tension of a load, they tear slightly, which is a likely stimulus for hypertrophy. The question has always been what balance of fatigue and loading produces the best results.
Even the fast training systems are based on the same basic principle. They induce fatigue and fiber damage over the course of multiple sets, whereas SuperSlow and HIT induce maximum fatigue in a single set. Say that one is better than the other, fine, but don’t imply that something radically different is happening between the two.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Fatigue is the exhaustion of energy substrates in a muscle cell, causing the muscle cell to reduce performance or even halt contraction. You mentioned “tearing slightly” which is NOT FATIGUE, it is structural damage. Fatigue a a chemical issue, the tearing of the actin and myosin is a physical issue, and is what prompts hypertrophic remodeling. Fatigue has nothing to do with it. [/quote]
I gotta back him up on this. Go check any Biology, or even the CSCS Textbooks (I know I still have mine!), it’s pretty basic knowledge. Too many times a lot of different terms get thrown about with the thrower not really grasping what they’re talking about.
S
[quote]MODOK wrote:
LOL, PLEASE go take a biology class. You HIT cult members are a dying breed, but are both entertaining and annoying when you venture out into the light of day.
Natural selection “designed” your muscle physiology. It designed everything about homo sapiens. Our bodies have been forged by natural forces to PERFORM TASKS NECESSARY FOR PERPETUATION OF THE SPECIES. Muscle phys is a HUGE portion of that. Producing explosive force is the only thing that has enabled us to survive. Running, jumping, swinging an ax and hammer, and a million other tasks. Nothing is done slowly. A slow muscle is a dead muscle.
Furthermore, a muscle is not going to be forced into an adaptive response (hypertophy) if you are constantly contracting it against only submaximal loads over long periods of time. If you do 5 reps of bench press with a 10 second eccentric and concentric phase with 200 lbs, and I do 15 reps in that same 50 second time period with that same 200 lbs, who has done more work? Which muscle is going to be forced to hypertrophy more? My muscle, of course. Check out the physical definition of work and you will understand.
And your definition of fatigue is wrong. Fatigue is the exhaustion of energy substrates in a muscle cell, causing the muscle cell to reduce performance or even halt contraction. You mentioned “tearing slightly” which is NOT FATIGUE, it is structural damage. Fatigue a a chemical issue, the tearing of the actin and myosin is a physical issue, and is what prompts hypertrophic remodeling. Fatigue has nothing to do with it. [/quote]
You have distorted the argument to a degree that I wouldn’t bother attempteing to communicate with you any further.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Fatigue is the exhaustion of energy substrates in a muscle cell, causing the muscle cell to reduce performance or even halt contraction. You mentioned “tearing slightly” which is NOT FATIGUE, it is structural damage. Fatigue a a chemical issue, the tearing of the actin and myosin is a physical issue, and is what prompts hypertrophic remodeling. Fatigue has nothing to do with it.
I gotta back him up on this. Go check any Biology, or even the CSCS Textbooks (I know I still have mine!), it’s pretty basic knowledge. Too many times a lot of different terms get thrown about with the thrower not really grasping what they’re talking about.
S
[/quote]
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
It’s fucking pathetic that so many people on here claim to be bodybuilding experts but can’t even construct anything resembling a valid argument, and have to rely on the most infantile logical fallacies to create the appearance of winning the debate.
HIT/Superslow training is flat out fucking retarded.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
It’s fucking pathetic that so many people on here claim to be bodybuilding experts but can’t even construct anything resembling a valid argument, and have to rely on the most infantile logical fallacies to create the appearance of winning the debate.[/quote]
Are you even reading the same thread we are?
S
[quote]MODOK wrote:
I guess belligerent is taking his toys and going home.
And the only straw man here is the scarecrow-looking physician/trainer that wrote “Body by Science”. God I HATE when medical professionals try to throw their credentials around in fields only obliquely related to their area of expertise. I would never in a million years do that.[/quote]
People include their titles in their fucking mailing addresses. McGuff has NEVER used his medical credentials to give himself authority on exercise. Instead, he has repeatedly done exactly the opposite, stated that medical training confers nothing in the way of training expertise.
First a straw man, now an ad hominem. I don’t care if you have a different opinion, but I can’t stand bad argumentation.
[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
HIT/Superslow training is flat out fucking retarded.[/quote]
the man who started it had a confirmed IQ of 175+
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Are you even reading the same thread we are?
S
[/quote]
MADOK distorted the fuck out of my argument. I never said that fatigue = tearing. Although the definition of fatigue that he posted is correct, it doesn’t contradict anything I said, and really doesn’t have anythng to do with the fucking subject matter.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
IrishMarc wrote:
HIT/Superslow training is flat out fucking retarded.
the man who started it had a confirmed IQ of 175+[/quote]
i doubt his IQ was that high
and even if it was, the fuck does it have to do with anything? I’d take training advice from Ronnie Coleman any day over Stephen Hawking. take a wild guess why.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I know it’s just an anecdotal report here, but I wasted several months implementing a super slow protocol years ago. I really thought I was on to something, having progressed from HIT to Static Contraction and then Super Slow (I was always willing to try something new). I actually LOST a bit of size after 3 months doing this stuff. There’s a reason why speed of contraction, and load are issues in most decent training approaches. There’s also a reason why the higher threshold motor units are recruited better when contracted in an explosive manner (and thereby produce… growth).
S
[/quote]
I know that Super Slow doesn’t work for exactly the same reason. I tried it. Definitely my worst results ever.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Muscles are not “DESIGNED” for anything. Nothing in nature is “DESIGNED.” Muscles are simply capable of contracting fast when they are commanded to do so. And this fact does not provide any information about the ideal speed of movement for weight training.
Fatigue is strongly implicated in the mechanism of muscle hypertrophy. The other major factor is loading. When the type II muscle fibers are fatigued under the tension of a load, they tear slightly, which is a likely stimulus for hypertrophy. The question has always been what balance of fatigue and loading produces the best results.
Even the fast training systems are based on the same basic principle. They induce fatigue and fiber damage over the course of multiple sets, whereas SuperSlow and HIT induce maximum fatigue in a single set. Say that one is better than the other, fine, but don’t imply that something radically different is happening between the two.
[/quote]
Between a fast rep and a slow rep, at least one thing is radically different between the two – the central programming in the nervous system. Between slow movements versus normal or speeded ones, the motor programs are radically different and involve different brain areas.
It’s also kinda interesting that the fast programs are characteristic of higher skill in many kinds of movements (reaching and grasping, handwriting, skiing, etc.), with more ballistic components, fewer on-line corrections, and less cortical involvement.
I will say that the initial arguments for slow training did at least sound plausible. I mean, the whole concept of eliminating momentum, and thereby allowing the focus on actually stressing the muscular contraction does sound like it would work. In practice though, as well as looking at the actual science behind muscular fiber recruitment (Thibs wrote a whole book on this! -lol), it just doesn’t fly.
S
For those who do not think HIT is a good program, what other programs should I look into? Is Optimized Volume Training any better? My goals are size gains, not really strength.
Thanks
I’ve noticed belligerent doesn’t like anything that isn’t HIT’s dick.
I know this doesn’t add to the thread in any real way, but I’ve been waiting to say it for a while.
What programs do you guys think will give better results than HIT?
Thanks!