Body by Science Doug McGuff and John Little

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
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.[/quote]

I’m not an HIT purist and I don’t criticize competing philosophies unless it’s uber-retarded faggotry like crossfit and Paul Chek. I come from a sprinting background and have probably done more O-lifts and powerlifting type training than the next five bodybuilders on this site combined. I just defend HIT when the subject comes up. There is a difference.

42

First post here so Hi everyone.
Very interesting area of discussion, I’ve personally never tried super slow so it’s difficult for me to comment on it’s efficacy from that perspective.
I do however always try to maintain very strict form, usually 2-3 seconds for the concentric contraction and 4-5 seconds for the eccentric.
The reason for this is that introducing any kind of momentum almost invariably leads to connective tissue problems in my elbows, shoulders and knees, I’m probably more prone to this then most, but as long as I keep things controlled it’s mostly fine.

Anyway to the point,I have a friend who hasn’t exercised in 10+ years and has never trained with weight, he’s quite tall 6’4’’ and suffers from lower back and knee problems which I think stem from previous martial arts training.
As he expressed a desire to get into shape but was concerned that it might irritate his back and knee problems we started talking about what approach would be best, I suggested that weight training was the most powerful, effective and safe means by which to do this and would benefit his knees and lower back , which he liked the idea of.

He’s seen the Body by science videos on youtube and is interested in giving it a try
At the moment he’s waiting to get an exercise ECG and the go head from his GP to engage in a exercise program, so will probably be ready to commence in a week to ten days time.
My intention is to take photographs, anthropometric measurements, body weight, body fat % using skin fold callipers(not particularly accurate I know but useful for direct comparison) etc on a weekly basis, together with a full record of the workouts recorded in spreadsheet form.

I should state that his intentions are to lose fat, improve energy levels, regain some strength and generally work his way back to a generally more active lifestyle, building an extreme degree of muscular development isn’t a priority.
Should be an interesting experiment, I might post the results if he stays the course.

43

[quote]belligerent wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research?

What scientific research have you EVER seen conducted over a long enough period of time to conclude ANYTHING about long-term maximal muscle hypertrophy? All the studies a short term studies, most using untrained subjects.

Please give me a study conducted over 3 years in which one group performed this super slow crap and the other uses progressive overload with explosive lifting. It doesn’t exist. You can get ANY protocol to grow a muscle over an acute period of time. Hell, hanging on an overhead bar a few minutes a day will hypertroph muscle for a little while.

The evidence to the contrary of your theory is 1. there are ZERO big strong guys doing “super slow” ( and the author weighs 140 lbs himself) and 2. A muscle is designed for EXPLOSIVE contractions. The body wasn’t designed to move around like a ground sloth. You want a bigger muscle, you have to force an adaptation by making a muscle move a heavier weight or in a faster time. Thats the ONLY way you get truly big.

Super slow has got a frog’s dissected gastroc in a petri dish on your side of the evidence. The other side has Reg Park, Reeves, Scott, Oliva, Arnold, Franco, Haney, Yates, Coleman, etc. Super slow loses.
[/quote]

Muscles are not “designed” to contract explosively; they are “suited” to contact as fast or slow as the nervous system commands them to. While SuperSlow may be unecessarily slow, speed of movement is not the most important factor in determining hypertropy. You can make gains without movinng at all (isomentrics). What matters is that you load the muscle fibers and fatigue them, not how fast you move.

I agree that scientific evidence doesn’t prove the supremacy of any method. But so-called “empirical” evidence is even weaker. You’re at the mercy of your perception, and most people will see what they want/expect to see.

For example, your insinuation that Sergio Oliva and Dorian Yates contradict Superslow is a blatant distortion, because Oliva was personally trained by Arthur Jones and Yates openly favors HIT to this day (SuperSlow is a subgenere of HIT). And you managed to completely ignore the success of Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer. People have been successful with this method, but your perception forbids you to see it. That’s why I don’t accept arguments that rely on “empirical” observations.

In any case, it is an outright logical fallcy to suggest that a training method is invalid simply because current pro bodybuilders don’t use it- this argument totally ignores the critical importance of genetics, the rampant drug use in bodybuilding, and the fact that SuperSlow and HIT have never been widely used. You can’t dismiss a training method on “empirical” grounds if most people haven’t even tried it.

[/quote]

Belligerant: Not to be rude, but your knowledge of anatomy and physiology is not quite up to par. Muscles are designed to contract explosively. One speed for muscle fiber contractions. It may appear that a muscle is contracting slow, but this is because more motor units are being recruited over time. Muscle fiber contraction speed is still the same. If weight is being used, a full speed contraction requires more force therefore more muscle fibers than a slow contraction. Which is one reason why the super slow would not be as effective.

Also, you mention how Sergio Olivia was part of the HIT camp as well as Yates. I’ll definitely agree with that, but that is not the same as the super slow camp. if you’re going to make an argument at least try and make valid points.

44

Dude the guy looks like he can’t bench 185 once.

45

That video was one of the stupidest training videos Ive probably ever seen whoever came up with that is worse then Scot Abel. And did Yates really use HIT or just a low volume with high intensity? two totally different things imo.

46

Marathon runners are so jacked.

47

You guys do know that you are reviving an arguement that is over a year old right?

48

[quote]DoveofWar08 wrote:
You guys do know that you are reviving an arguement that is over a year old right?[/quote]

D:

49

[quote]That One Guy wrote:

[quote]Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research? [/quote]

Watch this clip[/quote]
Pretty much the gospel right there.

In 5 years of training, I think I’ve seen maybe one person use the super-slow method. You’d think after what, 2 or 3 decades (?), such a method would be more common place if it truly was comparable to lifting explosively.

Natural selection dictates genetics. But I think MODOK said it the best!

50

[quote]Telemacus wrote:
First post here so Hi everyone.
Very interesting area of discussion, I’ve personally never tried super slow so it’s difficult for me to comment on it’s efficacy from that perspective.
I do however always try to maintain very strict form, usually 2-3 seconds for the concentric contraction and 4-5 seconds for the eccentric.
The reason for this is that introducing any kind of momentum almost invariably leads to connective tissue problems in my elbows, shoulders and knees, I’m probably more prone to this then most, but as long as I keep things controlled it’s mostly fine.

Anyway to the point,I have a friend who hasn’t exercised in 10+ years and has never trained with weight, he’s quite tall 6’4’’ and suffers from lower back and knee problems which I think stem from previous martial arts training.
As he expressed a desire to get into shape but was concerned that it might irritate his back and knee problems we started talking about what approach would be best, I suggested that weight training was the most powerful, effective and safe means by which to do this and would benefit his knees and lower back , which he liked the idea of.

He’s seen the Body by science videos on youtube and is interested in giving it a try
At the moment he’s waiting to get an exercise ECG and the go head from his GP to engage in a exercise program, so will probably be ready to commence in a week to ten days time.
My intention is to take photographs, anthropometric measurements, body weight, body fat % using skin fold callipers(not particularly accurate I know but useful for direct comparison) etc on a weekly basis, together with a full record of the workouts recorded in spreadsheet form.

I should state that his intentions are to lose fat, improve energy levels, regain some strength and generally work his way back to a generally more active lifestyle, building an extreme degree of muscular development isn’t a priority.
Should be an interesting experiment, I might post the results if he stays the course.

[/quote]

Why don’t you get him to train like you? A controlled tempo and strict form make a lot more sense than doing 30 second long reps, even for someone injured. You’d build some mental toughness training super slow, but I doubt any strength or size (beyond beginners gains).

51

I am curious. Those argueing both sides. Has anyone actually tried superslow on a superslow machine or a retrofitted MEDX machine? I don’t do superslow and I was once very against it but it wasn’t until I actually jumped on the proper equipment to implement the protocal did I start to see the potential value of the method.

Many on here are correct about superslow being very different then classical HIT. Arthur Jones (creater of HIT) employed Ken Hutchins (creater of superslow) and would later go on to say some rather cruel things about him. So I don’t personally lump them into the same category.

Also for those who call HIT crap or volume crap. You should be able to produce results with either method. Both have factors that are intertwined. If you cannot, you simply don’t understand.

Finally to touch on Stu’s post (by the way sir I comend you on being so transparent with your physique and experiences) If you have been doing a volume/density type routine for a long time you will probably see some new growth on a HIT program, and ofcourse vice versa for all you HITTERS out there.

Michael

52

I’m sure few people have used the actual Jones designed equipment. I still don’t see much potential of superslow program, but they are of use with controlled or slower negatives.

53

[quote]Teledin wrote:

[quote]That One Guy wrote:

[quote]Forkit wrote:
So lack of ancedotal evidence in the forum is sufficient enough reasoning to reject McGuff’s program? Whatever happened to trust in scientific research? [/quote]

Watch this clip[/quote]
Pretty much the gospel right there.

In 5 years of training, I think I’ve seen maybe one person use the super-slow method. You’d think after what, 2 or 3 decades (?), such a method would be more common place if it truly was comparable to lifting explosively.
[/quote]

I respect Tate as an athlete/coach, but his statement in that video represents everything that is wrong with the training world. The single biggest impediment to progress in many fields is that people tend to focus solely on WHO says something rather than on WHAT is being said - they’re committed to personalities rather than ideas. This mentality has warped the field of physical training into a social club rather than a science. A rational person evaluates training methods by looking directly at the facts of reality and using his own independent judgment to decide whether they stand on their own logical merit, not by listening to one person over another.

Since the facts of reality do not in any way depend on social concensus, the number of bodybuilders who agree with SuperSlow is totally irrelevant. All of history is replete wtih examples of ideologies that were at one point prevalent, but later turned out to be dead wrong. The idea that explosive lifting is ideal for stimulating muscle growth is just the latest such example.

54

[quote]belligerent wrote:

A rational person evaluates training methods by looking directly at the facts of reality and using his own independent judgment to decide whether they stand on their own logical merit, not by listening to one person over another.
[/quote]

The “facts of reality” are that when big people tell you they got big through a certain method [unless they have some motive to lie], then that method works for certain people. Listen to/watch multiple big people with multiple methods, and chances are, one or more of those methods will work for you.

I can’t believe we have to rehash this…it makes NO sense to listen to little people who haven’t even TRAINED big people on how to get big. It is fucking retarded. And before you cry “I didn’t say that”…no, you didn’t. Not specifically. But it is ALWAYS where these damn threads go.

55

I doubt whether this discussion will ever really die. Personally after 12 years I have found nothing which comes close to the focussed level (and shear pain) of intensity with Super Slow. I am now 2 years into a 15 minute 1 x per week program and still make gains every session (Med-X kit). Genetics, nutrition and imposed demand are the only factors which dictate any physical development.

The only argument is how much imposed demand is enough - I always found plateaus were hit with multi set routines and frequent sessions forcing me to change programs. Super Slow has afforded me the opportunity to strive for genetic potential as the program doesn’t waiver from its set protocols.

56

I wouldn’t advise super slow anything, but something popped into my thick skull. Olympic power lifters are kinda lean and not bulky whatsoever. Bodybuilders don’t explode with the same intensity and are much larger. Now, oly pl do 1 or 2 reps and have long rest periods. BB’ers are under tension much longer with shorter rest periods.

On the other hand. The recruitment of the biggest (fast twitch) fibers are only activated when they are needed. If you’re repping really slow I’m afraid you wouldn’t recruit the biggest fibers. I’m far from huge, but for the most part explosive movements and higher reps have worked best for me. I also vary my reps and sets greatly to avoid plateauing.

As far as science and studying and theories - who cares? Studies are proved wrong all the time. Theories are just guestimations based on limited data.

If you’re so sure about a particular style of training take some pics, post 'em, and update us every 6 months. When you’re huge and shredded you can rub it in all our faces.

57

[quote]belligerent wrote:

I respect Tate as an athlete/coach, but his statement in that video represents everything that is wrong with the training world. The single biggest impediment to progress in many fields is that people tend to focus solely on WHO says something rather than on WHAT is being said - they’re committed to personalities rather than ideas. This mentality has warped the field of physical training into a social club rather than a science. A rational person evaluates training methods by looking directly at the facts of reality and using his own independent judgment to decide whether they stand on their own logical merit, not by listening to one person over another.
[/quote]

Well, what better facts or reality are there to either support or disprove a training method’s effectiveness than the results that it has produced in the individuals using it?

Tate is saying to listen to the guys who have made the most progress and have had the greatest success results wise with their training and to gleam whatever useful knowledge you can from them, test it out on yourself and make minor alterations as needed to fit your individual physiology. How in any way shape or form is that unscientific?

It’s not irrelevant in the least. How are you going to deride the bodybuilding/powerlifting community for being “unscientific” in one breath and then say that actual flesh and blood statistical data is irrelevant in the next?

And we aren’t talking about abstract philosophical or theological ideologies here; we’re talking about methods which can be directly applied and tested to judge their effectiveness. There’s a reason for example that “bleeding” people when they’re sick isn’t a very popular medical procedure in this day and age.

The idea that explosive lifting is ideal for stimulating muscle growth has grown out of decades worth of anecdotal evidence, Kinesiology’s understanding of how the neuromuscular system functions, and yes even some studies performed by skinny people in white lab coats (though those would be of least importance IMO). It’s not just some hair brained ideology that was pulled out of thin air with no evidence to support it.

Whether or not it truly is ideal, or whether they’ll find an even more effective method in the future is yet to be seen. But definitely don’t try to make the argument that “superslow” training is in any way more scientifically valid.

58

the most important thing is that you use muscular strength to move the weight rather than momentum…

arthur jones never said to lift slow…he said reps should be performed as fast as possible in perfect form…but if any doubt should exist regarding form then the reps should be performed at a more controlled pace…

thats just common sense, man…

59

If the studies are done on individuals without prior lifting experience then it doesn’t really count. Virtually any style of lifting will yield results. What we are really getting at is once you’re advanced, can a particular style help you progress. Lift heavy and fast without sacrificing form. To change it up every once in a blue moon I can see using the super slow style, but that’s about it.

60

[quote]Academy wrote:
I doubt whether this discussion will ever really die. Personally after 12 years I have found nothing which comes close to the focussed level (and shear pain) of intensity with Super Slow. I am now 2 years into a 15 minute 1 x per week program and still make gains every session (Med-X kit). Genetics, nutrition and imposed demand are the only factors which dictate any physical development.

The only argument is how much imposed demand is enough - I always found plateaus were hit with multi set routines and frequent sessions forcing me to change programs. Super Slow has afforded me the opportunity to strive for genetic potential as the program doesn’t waiver from its set protocols. [/quote]

Silly troll is silly