[quote]belligerent wrote:
Swiss cheese? Surely, you can come up with a better analogy than that.[/quote]
this may be slightly off topic but…
YOU HAVE WONDERFUL BREASTS!
[quote]kerplunk wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Swiss cheese? Surely, you can come up with a better analogy than that.[/quote]
this may be slightly off topic but…
YOU HAVE WONDERFUL BREASTS! [/quote]
FTW!!!11!
Wait, what?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
When I see a single high level bodybuilder, powerlifter, or strongman that trains using only this training method, I will reconsider it. Until then, I call bullshit. [/quote]
The interesting aspect of all this is it wasn’t until I stopped training like a powerlifter or bodybuilder that real gains were made - maybe I am the only person on the planet who this works for…what are the odds?
[quote]Academy wrote:
maybe I am the only person on the planet who this works for…what are the odds?[/quote]
Not good,… not good at all.
S
[quote]Academy wrote:
The interesting aspect of all this is it wasn’t until I stopped training like a powerlifter or bodybuilder that real gains were made - maybe I am the only person on the planet who this works for…what are the odds?[/quote]
What are the odds someone would join the forum and make their first and only posts in this thread in support of a method that doesn’t work?
[quote]Just_Matt wrote:
What are the odds someone would join the forum and make their first and only posts in this thread in support of a method that doesn’t work?[/quote]
Probably the same as when someone pops up to argue for ‘Butts Ceiling’, or discuss a certain company’s newest amazing supplement -lol.
S
[quote]Just_Matt wrote:
[quote]Academy wrote:
The interesting aspect of all this is it wasn’t until I stopped training like a powerlifter or bodybuilder that real gains were made - maybe I am the only person on the planet who this works for…what are the odds?[/quote]
What are the odds someone would join the forum and make their first and only posts in this thread in support of a method that doesn’t work?[/quote]
I know right? I lol’d.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Fiber recruitment is determined by force requirements, not speed requirements.
[/quote]
Actually speed does have a determining effect on fiber recruitment. I don’t have the study saved on my PC anymore (as I got a new computer), but anyone who is interested can search for a discussion between myself and Tim Henriques about motor unit recruitment in which Tim posted several studies in which the researchers tested different lifting methods to find out their effects on MU recruitment; sorry can’t remember the exact thread.
Maximal load (and in actuality you only need about 85% of 1RM to recruit all available MU’s, after that any additional force is created from purely neurologic mechanisms) is just one method of recruiting all MU’s, and isometric contractions in and of themselves is not all that great of a method of building muscle.
It’s actually fatigue that lowers the force requirements needed to recruit the largest MU’s, which means that only the last couple reps are really recruiting all available MU’s, and fatigue is not dependent on using slow contractions. Training super slow burns like hell, and feels really hard, so it would seem like it would be more effective, but in actuality it isn’t. More painful doesn’t automatically mean better.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]D Public wrote:
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps. In some cases I also suspect that they’re simply looking to “cash in” on people’s laziness. Just think how attractive a training system where you don’t have to use heavy weight, or you can use super heavy weights (to bolster your ego) but not move them at all, or only move them through a minimal ROM, and you only train once a week (if not even less) is to your average cough potato who wants to look like (Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, insert other “buff” celebrity).
Contrast that with programs where the trainee is in the gym 5-6 times a week and are expected to have to work up to big weights through a full ROM (which takes a substantial amount of invested time and energy).
The first option(s) seem like a much more attractive one to the average American who is used to an “instant gratification” society (fast food, the internet, etc…) and who would probably rather spend obscene amounts of relatively useless supplements (not that there aren’t good ones out there too) and gimmicky exercise equipment looking for a “get big quick” scheme than to actually put in the work necessary to actually achieve those goals.
[/quote]
You are fucking clueless. SuperSlow is the HARDEST training method ever invented. It’s like running an all-out 400m-800m sprint for every body part. If you want to doubt its effectiveness, fine. But there is nothing about a SuperSlow workout that is attrative to the lazy.[/quote]
But see, that’s something that they wouldn’t realize until they actually did a couple workouts and felt the intense burn that accompanies it. From a purely philosophical standpoint it “seems” (which is what I said before) like the more attractive option. People like Little and McGuff are selling books, not actually taking these people through workouts.
If they can get people suckered in by making it look like they only have to work out once a week (if not even less), for a relatively brief time period, not have to work their way up to using big weights (or if they do, only moving through the shortest, strongest ROM possible in order to boost their egos) and look like the bodybuilders (who probably never trained like they prescribe until they were hired to do the photo shoot/video) who they use as examples of how effective their training style is, then they don’t really care if these people stick to their program or not.
And I’m anything but clueless. I did about a 5 month stint of Beyond Failure Training using Smith’s “Zero Momentum Reps” method in the past. I know very well how intense superslow training is. And you know what? There are even tougher training methods out there, but like I said harder doesn’t equal better for building muscle.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]D Public wrote:
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps. In some cases I also suspect that they’re simply looking to “cash in” on people’s laziness. Just think how attractive a training system where you don’t have to use heavy weight, or you can use super heavy weights (to bolster your ego) but not move them at all, or only move them through a minimal ROM, and you only train once a week (if not even less) is to your average cough potato who wants to look like (Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, insert other “buff” celebrity).
Contrast that with programs where the trainee is in the gym 5-6 times a week and are expected to have to work up to big weights through a full ROM (which takes a substantial amount of invested time and energy).
The first option(s) seem like a much more attractive one to the average American who is used to an “instant gratification” society (fast food, the internet, etc…) and who would probably rather spend obscene amounts of relatively useless supplements (not that there aren’t good ones out there too) and gimmicky exercise equipment looking for a “get big quick” scheme than to actually put in the work necessary to actually achieve those goals.
[/quote]
You are fucking clueless. SuperSlow is the HARDEST training method ever invented. It’s like running an all-out 400m-800m sprint for every body part. If you want to doubt its effectiveness, fine. But there is nothing about a SuperSlow workout that is attrative to the lazy.[/quote]
But see, that’s something that they wouldn’t realize until they actually did a couple workouts and felt the intense burn that accompanies it. From a purely philosophical standpoint it “seems” (which is what I said before) like the more attractive option. People like Little and McGuff are selling books, not actually taking these people through workouts.
If they can get people suckered in by making it look like they only have to work out once a week (if not even less), for a relatively brief time period, not have to work their way up to using big weights (or if they do, only moving through the shortest, strongest ROM possible in order to boost their egos) and look like the bodybuilders (who probably never trained like they prescribe until they were hired to do the photo shoot/video) who they use as examples of how effective their training style is, then they don’t really care if these people stick to their program or not.
And I’m anything but clueless. I did about a 5 month stint of Beyond Failure Training using Smith’s “Zero Momentum Reps” method in the past. I know very well how intense superslow training is. And you know what? There are even tougher training methods out there, but like I said harder doesn’t equal better for building muscle.[/quote]
Cannot argue with any of the points you have put across - you are right in that level of intensity and burn does not equally equate to increase of lean tissue. What I would say is that if you are able to make consistent progress through lifting heavier weights with slow cadence, full range of movement, month after month then improvements are confirmed. If plateaus are met prior to you achieving the results you feel you are capable of - then maybe this is not for you or time for change. The weights I use are now coming close if not matching those I was hitting when using regular rep cadence - increase resistance by 2lbs plus each week on most stations, you are increasing total resistance by over 100lbs each year (over 200lbs on leg press)- again full rep range. It may take you the first 12-18 months to get weights back upto a ‘heavy’ stage but physically I have found it worth the commitment. Neural adaptation is a major factor, but not everything. I still every 2 months check PMax on major movements to ensure my power is not negatively effected - this decreased slightly in the initial 6 months but then continued to increase for the following 18. This is not the protocol for everyone - but is currently working for me.
This is not the protocol for everyone - but is currently working for me.
[/quote]
How advanced are you? How long have you been lifting? Any numbers? Not being a dick, just curious.
[quote]Academy wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]D Public wrote:
Honestly, i think they lack the intelligence to understand his ideas…it’s either that or their egos are so inflated that they can’t admit that their own ideas suck…
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps. In some cases I also suspect that they’re simply looking to “cash in” on people’s laziness. Just think how attractive a training system where you don’t have to use heavy weight, or you can use super heavy weights (to bolster your ego) but not move them at all, or only move them through a minimal ROM, and you only train once a week (if not even less) is to your average cough potato who wants to look like (Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds, insert other “buff” celebrity).
Contrast that with programs where the trainee is in the gym 5-6 times a week and are expected to have to work up to big weights through a full ROM (which takes a substantial amount of invested time and energy).
The first option(s) seem like a much more attractive one to the average American who is used to an “instant gratification” society (fast food, the internet, etc…) and who would probably rather spend obscene amounts of relatively useless supplements (not that there aren’t good ones out there too) and gimmicky exercise equipment looking for a “get big quick” scheme than to actually put in the work necessary to actually achieve those goals.
[/quote]
You are fucking clueless. SuperSlow is the HARDEST training method ever invented. It’s like running an all-out 400m-800m sprint for every body part. If you want to doubt its effectiveness, fine. But there is nothing about a SuperSlow workout that is attrative to the lazy.[/quote]
But see, that’s something that they wouldn’t realize until they actually did a couple workouts and felt the intense burn that accompanies it. From a purely philosophical standpoint it “seems” (which is what I said before) like the more attractive option. People like Little and McGuff are selling books, not actually taking these people through workouts.
If they can get people suckered in by making it look like they only have to work out once a week (if not even less), for a relatively brief time period, not have to work their way up to using big weights (or if they do, only moving through the shortest, strongest ROM possible in order to boost their egos) and look like the bodybuilders (who probably never trained like they prescribe until they were hired to do the photo shoot/video) who they use as examples of how effective their training style is, then they don’t really care if these people stick to their program or not.
And I’m anything but clueless. I did about a 5 month stint of Beyond Failure Training using Smith’s “Zero Momentum Reps” method in the past. I know very well how intense superslow training is. And you know what? There are even tougher training methods out there, but like I said harder doesn’t equal better for building muscle.[/quote]
Cannot argue with any of the points you have put across - you are right in that level of intensity and burn does not equally equate to increase of lean tissue. What I would say is that if you are able to make consistent progress through lifting heavier weights with slow cadence, full range of movement, month after month then improvements are confirmed. If plateaus are met prior to you achieving the results you feel you are capable of - then maybe this is not for you or time for change. The weights I use are now coming close if not matching those I was hitting when using regular rep cadence - increase resistance by 2lbs plus each week on most stations, you are increasing total resistance by over 100lbs each year (over 200lbs on leg press)- again full rep range. It may take you the first 12-18 months to get weights back upto a ‘heavy’ stage but physically I have found it worth the commitment. Neural adaptation is a major factor, but not everything. I still every 2 months check PMax on major movements to ensure my power is not negatively effected - this decreased slightly in the initial 6 months but then continued to increase for the following 18. This is not the protocol for everyone - but is currently working for me.
[/quote]
I’m glad to hear that it is working for you, and I’ll totally agree with your previous statement (at least I think it was you that said it) that this type of training builds mental toughness and the ability to really push through pain.
Once again, I’m not arguing that there aren’t some people out there who can use this type of training effectively (though, just like those who can use ridiculously high volumes, frequencies and weights all at the same time, they are the minority IMO). Trevor Smith comes to mind (though admittedly, I can’t say for certain that he reached his size training only, or even primarily in this manner) as an example.
Unless someone is at the extreme low end of the recovery bell curve, is severely over-trained, or has one hell of a stressful and physically demanding lifestyle outside of the gym, then I honestly think that they’d be better off with more than once a week training. And in most cases would be better off not doing super-slow reps (unless perhaps they had serious joint issues and needed a way to still tax their muscles).
You are still going to recruit all of the muscle fibers (due again to the presence of fatigue and it’s effects on MU recruitment) with this method, it’s just that only the last couple of reps are going to be effective at doing so. If you were to simply try to move the weight as fast as possible on the concentric (you could even employ a relatively slow controlled negative if you wanted to), then every single rep would recruit all of the muscle fibers, and you could still go to failure if you wanted to.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
This is not the protocol for everyone - but is currently working for me.
[/quote]
How advanced are you? How long have you been lifting? Any numbers? Not being a dick, just curious.[/quote]
No worries - training consistently for 18 years, most protocols tried, most worked well, but plateaus hit after several months…worked in the industry for about 10 years. I personally have preference for med-x equipment for many reasons (although that would be another forum) One of the advantages to moving over to SS is faster cadence equated to shifting full stacks on all major Mu groups…many ways to overcome this and I dare say that when plateaus are hit with SS (and I still wish to continue progressing) I will look at alternates - As far as main weight being shifted with SS…Leg P: 650lbs, Lat P: 460lbs, Ch P: 340lbs…each for 120secs consistent TUT. It seems that 5-6 reps whether regular rep speed or SS is favourable to my body. If I was to continue progressing at 2lbs increase per week (4 on LP) then I will be hitting full stack in another 2 years (20 weeks for the Lat P)…halfway there, I’ll let you know how it goes;)
[quote]Academy wrote:
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
This is not the protocol for everyone - but is currently working for me.
[/quote]
How advanced are you? How long have you been lifting? Any numbers? Not being a dick, just curious.[/quote]
No worries - training consistently for 18 years, most protocols tried, most worked well, but plateaus hit after several months…worked in the industry for about 10 years. I personally have preference for med-x equipment for many reasons (although that would be another forum) One of the advantages to moving over to SS is faster cadence equated to shifting full stacks on all major Mu groups…many ways to overcome this and I dare say that when plateaus are hit with SS (and I still wish to continue progressing) I will look at alternates - As far as main weight being shifted with SS…Leg P: 650lbs, Lat P: 460lbs, Ch P: 340lbs…each for 120secs consistent TUT. It seems that 5-6 reps whether regular rep speed or SS is favourable to my body. If I was to continue progressing at 2lbs increase per week (4 on LP) then I will be hitting full stack in another 2 years (20 weeks for the Lat P)…halfway there, I’ll let you know how it goes;)[/quote]
How do you have access to MedX equipment? Do you go to a a specialty studio or something?
[quote]Academy wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
When I see a single high level bodybuilder, powerlifter, or strongman that trains using only this training method, I will reconsider it. Until then, I call bullshit. [/quote]
The interesting aspect of all this is it wasn’t until I stopped training like a powerlifter or bodybuilder that real gains were made - maybe I am the only person on the planet who this works for…what are the odds?[/quote]
Dude, seriously, are you the goal of anyone here?
[quote]belligerent wrote:
You are fucking clueless. SuperSlow is the HARDEST training method ever invented. It’s like running an all-out 400m-800m sprint for every body part. If you want to doubt its effectiveness, fine. But there is nothing about a SuperSlow workout that is attrative to the lazy.[/quote]
Isn’t it more like doing walking lunges around a 400m track while everyone else is running?
What I’m curious about, is what truly is being qualified as ‘progress’. If the best way to get better at powerlifting is training like a powerlifter, and the best way to get better as a bodybuilder is training like a bodybuilder,… and someone admittedly isn’t doing either, and making “progress”,… I;d like to know what is being noted.
If it’s simply a matter of ‘this week I can move the same weight slower, for longer’,… then I fail to see how that would benefit anyone whose goals are more bodybuilding related. I always make the analogy of tennis players,… they get insanely good (and efficiently strong) at delivering a backhand, but you don’t see much muscle growth as a result of it.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
What I’m curious about, is what truly is being qualified as ‘progress’. If the best way to get better at powerlifting is training like a powerlifter, and the best way to get better as a bodybuilder is training like a bodybuilder,… and someone admittedly isn’t doing either, and making “progress”,… I;d like to know what is being noted.
If it’s simply a matter of ‘this week I can move the same weight slower, for longer’,… then I fail to see how that would benefit anyone whose goals are more bodybuilding related. I always make the analogy of tennis players,… they get insanely good (and efficiently strong) at delivering a backhand, but you don’t see much muscle growth as a result of it.
S[/quote]
It is the same reason I can’t stand HIT-ites. I have had some make claims of “progress every single week”…but then you ask for pics and they look like a very average first year trainer who isn’t serious at all…and their idea of “progress” is one set taken for more reps or minor weight progress as they leave out that their starting point (due to their training) is so low that they could literally “make progress” for a year and still be beginner level or less as far as gains actually made.
I don’t see really impressive people training with slow reps. All I see are small people or people who look no better than half serious weekend warriors.
I know what got me big, a shit load of heavy weight with much of it done through explosive movements even on exercises like curls.
It makes no fucking sense to follow people who are not making the greater gains.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
What I’m curious about, is what truly is being qualified as ‘progress’. If the best way to get better at powerlifting is training like a powerlifter, and the best way to get better as a bodybuilder is training like a bodybuilder,… and someone admittedly isn’t doing either, and making “progress”,… I;d like to know what is being noted.
If it’s simply a matter of ‘this week I can move the same weight slower, for longer’,… then I fail to see how that would benefit anyone whose goals are more bodybuilding related. I always make the analogy of tennis players,… they get insanely good (and efficiently strong) at delivering a backhand, but you don’t see much muscle growth as a result of it.
S[/quote]
It is the same reason I can’t stand HIT-ites. I have had some make claims of “progress every single week”…but then you ask for pics and they look like a very average first year trainer who isn’t serious at all…and their idea of “progress” is one set taken for more reps or minor weight progress as they leave out that their starting point (due to their training) is so low that they could literally “make progress” for a year and still be beginner level or less as far as gains actually made.
I don’t see really impressive people training with slow reps. All I see are small people or people who look no better than half serious weekend warriors.
I know what got me big, a shit load of heavy weight with much of it done through explosive movements even on exercises like curls.
It makes no fucking sense to follow people who are not making the greater gains.[/quote]
If those same people were to read a couple of REAL studies about training done on serious athletes they would also know that any training literature thats worth a damn supports explosive lifting. Zatsiorsky, perhaps one of the most knowledgeable writers about strength training even suggests a body part split for bodybuilders (who would’ve thought) and pump sets at the end of every session haha. The same people quoting random studies are usually the ones making minimal progress and dont know what to look for in a study in the first place. I deeply suggest anyone looking to further their knowledge about training to look into russian literature concerning strength training such as The Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir Zatsiorsky, and books written by mark rippetoe, bill starr, lon kilgore, etc. All these people support the notion that to look like a bodybuilder you should train like a successful bodybuilder, and to look like a powerlifter you must train like a powerlifter, and strongman and so on.