wow how have I just now noticed this thread? There are some dumb people in here. There is no proof that ANYONE EVER has used this program or methodology to build an impressive physique… therefore there is no proof that this program works. Not that hard to comprehend there.
All the biggest strongest guys do basically them same sort of things (none of which is this program) So logic would show that what they are doing is working and has been working for decades.
someone spare me the time and give me the basics of this “science” style training. Reps, cadence, # of exercises…
[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]
Have you ever competed in anything lifting-related?
There’s nothing wrong with selling books. Every training ideologue sells books.
The book in question is not even written for hardocre bodybuilders. It’s written for average exercise enthusiasts and its purpose is to advocate hard resistance training (as opposed to aerobics-based activity or “cardio”) as the best form exercise for general health and well-being. The authors indulge in the science behind this. It’s great stuff not found elsewhere.
I argue, based PURELY on theory, that SuperSlow can be used successfully by high-level bodybuilders, but it’s impossible to prove either way without known examples of bodybuilders who have given it a serious try. In order to validly assert that it DOESN’T work, you would need documented examples where it was given a fair chance and failed. It’s not enough to merely observe that no bodybuilders of note currently use it, because that only proves that it isn’t being tried, NOT that it has failed.
Realize that SuperSlow ideologues and even most “HIT-ites” do not reach out to the bodybuilding community. This is NOT the battleground they are choosing to fight on. They know what the response is and they don’t bother.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Have you ever competed in anything lifting-related?[/quote]
Dude HIT and SuperSlow aren’t even intended for that purpose. They’re for hypertrophy only. If you want to compete in powerlifting, weightlifting, strongman or anything else, you have to train in a way that mirrors those events. Any HIT advocate apart from an outright “noob” would tell you that.
I do not believe that SS is a superior method of packing on lean tissue for everyone or that anyone devoting themselves to SS have the ability become competitive powerlifters. Specific Adaption to Imposed Demand holds true whatever the case - with adaption being key. I have found that through imposing a demand once a week for 15 mins that adaption occurs and has continued to for over 2 years. I didn’t begin being a lightweight trainer shifting small weights - but have found that both size and strength increases continue. I train for strength as this is the element I can measure accurately every session - if my nutrition (which due to infrequency of sessions I need to be very mindful of) and genetics assist in me increasing size then great - it has done so far…currently at 210lbs and around 12%BF - I am not looking for far greater gains as I am realistic regarding my own potential.
I can however, see me training in a similar manner 20 years from now, completely injury free and as strong as my potential allows. You have to lift heavy - but I do not believe you need to always lift fast (unless this is the field in which you want to compete - back to SAID). When timed to perfection your last SS rep(s) will be explosive as you will physically be trying to lift as fast as possible - but will still take you 8+ secs to get there. I am physically where I want to be training in a way which suits my lifestyle - I hope we can all say the same:)
[quote]Academy wrote:
I do not believe that SS is a superior method of packing on lean tissue for everyone or that anyone devoting themselves to SS have the ability become competitive powerlifters. Specific Adaption to Imposed Demand holds true whatever the case - with adaption being key. I have found that through imposing a demand once a week for 15 mins that adaption occurs and has continued to for over 2 years. I didn’t begin being a lightweight trainer shifting small weights - but have found that both size and strength increases continue. I train for strength as this is the element I can measure accurately every session - if my nutrition (which due to infrequency of sessions I need to be very mindful of) and genetics assist in me increasing size then great - it has done so far…currently at 210lbs and around 12%BF - I am not looking for far greater gains as I am realistic regarding my own potential. I can however, see me training in a similar manner 20 years from now, completely injury free and as strong as my potential allows. You have to lift heavy - but I do not believe you need to always lift fast (unless this is the field in which you want to compete - back to SAID). When timed to perfection your last SS rep(s) will be explosive as you will physically be trying to lift as fast as possible - but will still take you 8+ secs to get there. I am physically where I want to be training in a way which suits my lifestyle - I hope we can all say the same:)[/quote]
You keep talking about how realistic you are as far as your potential. Are you a genetic scientist?
There is no way anyone can know what their potential is before they actually reach it…so the very fact that you THINK you know what you can accomplish right now as some absolute limit likely shows just how much you will only hold yourself back.
Anyone claiming they will be injury free in 20 years is in no way at all pushing their limits.
PERIOD.
I’m thinking that we’re still never going to see photos of ANYONE (Academy or anyone else) that convinces traditional trainers that they’ve built amounts of muscle respectable (and obviously attributed to their training) in this manner. Saying that he’s 210 lbs and 12% bodyfat (and we’ve all seen how accurate most people’s perceptions of their bodyfat levels turns out to be), and having one profile pic that doesn’t exactly look like a big or ripped up dude (I like the fisheye lens type of angle though, they use in on WWE all the time to look bigger too! -lol) isn’t exactly helping the argument. I will say that he’s at least being polite while arguing 
Also,… this is a quote from Christian in his forum that I thought was nicely relevant:
"Muscle growth is all about mechanical loading. Loading has:
S
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
someone spare me the time and give me the basics of this “science” style training. Reps, cadence, # of exercises…[/quote]
A whole lot of panting but not much movement, sort of like old people having sex.
I read it. I agree with the book’s basic premise on genetics and the comparative primacy of strength training over cardio. But I have some questions, centering on published research. While the book is called Body by Science, there seems to be little science (peer-reviewed literature) that supports its primary strength training positions.
At present, there aren’t many comparative rep speed studies at all (faster vs. superslow) and most of those are poorly-designed and have been treated harshly in peer-review critiques for faulty methodology. Further, the studies that seem to show support for such training used much higher frequencies and greater sessional volumes than those in the book (more like 2-3x per week with many more exercises per routine than the 3-5 shown in the book). So, even while slow speeds have been used in the science literature, the programs suggested by the book seem quite different than that used in the science.
While it is true that adaptation occurs when the body is at rest, I’ve seen no studies showing that shifting to infrequent training session intervals (7 days apart, 10 days apart, or 14 days apart) is equal or superior to the traditional 2-3x per week (per bodypart) training schedules, which is supported by the preponderance of research, and by even the slow-training research cited as support. So, is there any peer-reviewed evidence stated in the book that shows very infrequent training frequencies to be superior to traditional frequencies for comprehensive strength/hypertrophy programs?
Is there any evidence (not faulty logic, physics) that supports the belief that slow training is safer than faster training (high intensity but low force is called the BEST training in the book). In anecdote, I’m guessing any serious training with serious loads can hurt you; after all, shit happens. But I’m looking for the comparative science showing one approach to be safe and the other less safe. One barrier to such injury evidence might be ethical concerns. But maybe it is out there.
I’m asking to see the science, not anecdote or physiques, because the word science was used in the title.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You keep talking about how realistic you are as far as your potential. Are you a genetic scientist?
There is no way anyone can know what their potential is before they actually reach it…so the very fact that you THINK you know what you can accomplish right now as some absolute limit likely shows just how much you will only hold yourself back.
PERIOD.[/quote]
EXACTLY!!! That is exactly what Hungry4More and I were talking about in that whole Trial and Error thread.
No way you can know your genetic limit till you actually reach it which would take decades
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’m thinking that we’re still never going to see photos of ANYONE (Academy or anyone else) that convinces traditional trainers that they’ve built amounts of muscle respectable (and obviously attributed to their training) in this manner. Saying that he’s 210 lbs and 12% bodyfat (and we’ve all seen how accurate most people’s perceptions of their bodyfat levels turns out to be), and having one profile pic that doesn’t exactly look like a big or ripped up dude
S[/quote]
my thoughts exactly. I was definitely not seeing 210lb at 12% in that avatar.
[quote]Roygion wrote:
Is there any evidence (not faulty logic, physics) that supports the belief that slow training is safer than faster training (high intensity but low force is called the BEST training in the book). In anecdote, I’m guessing any serious training with serious loads can hurt you; after all, shit happens. But I’m looking for the comparative science showing one approach to be safe and the other less safe. One barrier to such injury evidence might be ethical concerns. But maybe it is out there.
[/quote]
The critical factor witch respect to injury risk is acceleration. Basic physics tells you that s greater change in velocity results in higher forces. Since all injuries are caused by excess force, the less you accelerate, the lower your chances of injury. That much should be indisputable.
The question is how much acceleration is acceptable. It may be that SuperSlow cadence (10 seconds each way) is unnecessarily slow and that you can train faster than that without increasing your injury risk. So while physics doesn’t tell you exactly how fast is ideal, it does at least tell you that minimizing acceleration will reduce the forces on your joints, tendons, bones, etc. compared to explosive lifting.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Roygion wrote:
Is there any evidence (not faulty logic, physics) that supports the belief that slow training is safer than faster training (high intensity but low force is called the BEST training in the book). In anecdote, I’m guessing any serious training with serious loads can hurt you; after all, shit happens. But I’m looking for the comparative science showing one approach to be safe and the other less safe. One barrier to such injury evidence might be ethical concerns. But maybe it is out there.
[/quote]
The critical factor witch respect to injury risk is acceleration. Basic physics tells you that s greater change in velocity results in higher forces. Since all injuries are caused by excess force, the less you accelerate, the lower your chances of injury. That much should be indisputable.
The question is how much acceleration is acceptable. It may be that SuperSlow cadence (10 seconds each way) is unnecessarily slow and that you can train faster than that without increasing your injury risk. So while physics doesn’t tell you exactly how fast is ideal, it does at least tell you that minimizing acceleration will reduce the forces on your joints, tendons, bones, etc. compared to explosive lifting. [/quote]
No, he said avoid faulty logic and provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
What you are doing now is why so many books get sold in the first place further confusing people.
What works, works, What doesn’t, doesn’t. Who gives a flying rat’s ass about what SHOULD happen in a logical world?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, he said avoid faulty logic and provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
What you are doing now is why so many books get sold in the first place further confusing people.
What works, works, What doesn’t, doesn’t. Who gives a flying rat’s ass about what SHOULD happen in a logical world?[/quote]
My logic is not faulty. The scientific proof was published in Newton’s “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” in 1687. There is no room for errors of interpretation when dealing with physics this basic. Less acceleration = less force = lower risk of injury.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, he said avoid faulty logic and provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
What you are doing now is why so many books get sold in the first place further confusing people.
What works, works, What doesn’t, doesn’t. Who gives a flying rat’s ass about what SHOULD happen in a logical world?[/quote]
My logic is not faulty. The scientific proof was published in Newton’s “PhilosophiÃ??Ã?¦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” in 1687. There is no room for errors of interpretation when dealing with physics this basic. Less acceleration = less force = lower risk of injury. [/quote]
We are talking about bodybuilding. We are talking about results. You are trying to act as if a physics equation will tell us specifically how fast someone should train before injury…when the human body IS ADAPTIVE TO STIMULI AND CAN COMPENSATE.
Therefore, unless you have studies showing this to occur in humans as you state, quit the bullshit. You aren’t speaking to a room filled with 11th graders. I am pretty sure all of those physics classes I took in college as well as biology put me on a level to know what I’m talking about.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Roygion wrote:
Is there any evidence (not faulty logic, physics) that supports the belief that slow training is safer than faster training (high intensity but low force is called the BEST training in the book). In anecdote, I’m guessing any serious training with serious loads can hurt you; after all, shit happens. But I’m looking for the comparative science showing one approach to be safe and the other less safe. One barrier to such injury evidence might be ethical concerns. But maybe it is out there.
[/quote]
The critical factor witch respect to injury risk is acceleration. Basic physics tells you that s greater change in velocity results in higher forces. Since all injuries are caused by excess force, the less you accelerate, the lower your chances of injury. That much should be indisputable. [/quote]
This is exactly my point regarding how rhetoric and faulty applications of physics have been used by relative authorities to bedazzle their audience. In the well-known formula, F=MA, force includes both acceleration and MASS. A heavy enough resistance, even in the absence of visible movement, can produce injury, obviously. Trainees can be injured even using static contraction protocols, and with enough resistance, injury is likely.
Force plate examinations have shown the actual difference between a 10 second rep and a 2 second rep is really not that great as supposed, providing the initiation speed is maintained throughout the range of motion (no bounce, for example). Minimizing acceleration minimizes force IF the load is held constant. But none of this tells us anything about the thresholds for relative safety in lifting, which are currently unknown, and clearly affected by individual/genetic factors too (actually the book is decent on the genetics issue).
So saying that THE critical factor with respect to injury is acceleration is actually unsupported (your Newtonian misappropriation notwithstanding), even if increasing acceleration can increase force.
I ask simply for science (peer-reviewed evidence) that shows the application of superslow is better or safer in the various ways claimed or implied by the book (of which greater safety is but one implication). The other claims relating to strength and body transformation, which are highly pertinent to this venue, as Professor X rightly suggests, seem more sensational (like the unusual exercise INfrequency shown). At present, I have found no such evidence for those claims, and even the relevant literature that does exist, flawed as it is, is fundamentally different in parameters than those claimed in the book. And that’s a problem when trying to make an argument to folks that ask you actually to support claims.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
My logic is not faulty. The scientific proof was published in Newton’s “PhilosophiÃ??Ã?¦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” in 1687. There is no room for errors of interpretation when dealing with physics this basic. Less acceleration = less force = lower risk of injury. [/quote]
The “error of interpretation” here is that you seem to be preoccupied with the means and not the end. I can play the extreme logic game too. Watch this: according to my rational and scientifically sound interpretation of Newton’s law of gravity as applied to bodybuilding, nobody should ever do horizontal pressing or pulling movements because they don’t make full use of the gravitational forces exerted upon us all. However, if any trainee was bold enough to attempt a horizontal movement - which goes against Newton’s Law that gravity move downwards - they may find their bodybuilding career cut short due to crippling injuries resulting from said gravity-defying exercises.
It follows that any bodybuilding program including horizontal movements is scientifically unsound.
The above is ridiculous, of course. The point is that no matter how ridiculous it sounds, there are people out there who’d swallow it hook, line and sinker. And it’s not a million miles away from the line of thinking John Little utilizes when writing his books.
The less force the better? Good luck with that.
[quote]Academy wrote:
I do not believe that SS is a superior method of packing on lean tissue for everyone or that anyone devoting themselves to SS have the ability become competitive powerlifters. Specific Adaption to Imposed Demand holds true whatever the case - with adaption being key. I have found that through imposing a demand once a week for 15 mins that adaption occurs and has continued to for over 2 years. I didn’t begin being a lightweight trainer shifting small weights - but have found that both size and strength increases continue. I train for strength as this is the element I can measure accurately every session - if my nutrition (which due to infrequency of sessions I need to be very mindful of) and genetics assist in me increasing size then great - it has done so far…currently at 210lbs and around 12%BF - I am not looking for far greater gains as I am realistic regarding my own potential.
I can however, see me training in a similar manner 20 years from now, completely injury free and as strong as my potential allows. You have to lift heavy - but I do not believe you need to always lift fast (unless this is the field in which you want to compete - back to SAID). When timed to perfection your last SS rep(s) will be explosive as you will physically be trying to lift as fast as possible - but will still take you 8+ secs to get there. I am physically where I want to be training in a way which suits my lifestyle - I hope we can all say the same:)[/quote]
So this is best for hypertrophy? Why haven’t we seen a competitive bodybuilder that started out training this way, and has spent the majority of his career lifting in this fashion? Here’s my guess: it’s inferior. Belligerent, if this system isn’t superior for any type of lifting related sport, to include BBing (I thought you said it was about hypertrophy, yes?), what the fuck is it good for?
Oh that’s right, nothing.