DC: Actual Speed of Negatives, Rest Pause Times?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

I was reading that Dante himself says “6 to 8 true seconds” for negatives. That struck me as quite remarkable given also the number of reps expected. Many would have to drop weights to below 50% 1RM to get that many reps with negatives that are that long, and I don’t believe they are dropping their weights that light.

In trying to search further on this, I found among other things that he berated some of his followers for using a stopwatch and from this asking if 5 measured seconds was okay.

This has me doubting whether “true seconds” is intended by him to be verified as being actual seconds, or necessarily ever was verified by him as being such, and raises the possibility that what he calls true seconds may be nothing like actual seconds.

And a 6-count or 8-count is for most people radically different than 6 or 8 actual seconds.

So next step: how about some videos purported to be DC-style training?

While I did not view every such video, the longest negatives I saw were about 4 seconds. Most were 2 seconds. Some were 1 second. For sure not a single video had a single rep as slow as 6 true seconds.

The next thing I noticed was rest duration for rest pause sets. One fellow took about 40 seconds. This is vastly different than 15 seconds. However that is a side note, as I don’t at all think that resting 15 seconds is too short for rest-pause, and myself view the lengthy rest as being misapplication of the method.

But on the other hand if those speaking of how well DC works for them are actually usually using rest periods such as 40 seconds in the RP sets, then it is worth knowing that when considering their testimonies. If that is what a person is doing then it would be more accurate to attribute their benefits to doing 3 maximal-reps sets with 40 second rest periods than to doing “one RP set.”

Back to the duration of negatives: There’s no need to provide a quote of what Dante says as I’ve seen what he says on the subject.

The question is, these people generally getting good results from what they call DC training, what is actually being done in terms of time of negatives?

2

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I was reading that Dante himself says “6 to 8 true seconds” for negatives. That struck me as quite remarkable given also the number of reps expected. Many would have to drop weights to below 50% 1RM to get that many reps with negatives that are that long, and I don’t believe they are dropping their weights that light.

In trying to search further on this, I found among other things that he berated some of his followers for using a stopwatch and from this asking if 5 measured seconds was okay.

This has me doubting whether “true seconds” is intended by him to be verified as being actual seconds, or necessarily ever was verified by him as being such, and raises the possibility that what he calls true seconds may be nothing like actual seconds.

And a 6-count or 8-count is for most people radically different than 6 or 8 actual seconds.

So next step: how about some videos purported to be DC-style training?

While I did not view every such video, the longest negatives I saw were about 4 seconds. Most were 2 seconds. Some were 1 second. For sure not a single video had a single rep as slow as 6 true seconds.

The next thing I noticed was rest duration for rest pause sets. One fellow took about 40 seconds. This is vastly different than 15 seconds. However that is a side note, as I don’t at all think that resting 15 seconds is too short for rest-pause, and myself view the lengthy rest as being misapplication of the method.

But on the other hand if those speaking of how well DC works for them are actually usually using rest periods such as 40 seconds in the RP sets, then it is worth knowing that when considering their testimonies. If that is what a person is doing then it would be more accurate to attribute their benefits to doing 3 maximal-reps sets with 40 second rest periods than to doing “one RP set.”

Back to the duration of negatives: There’s no need to provide a quote of what Dante says as I’ve seen what he says on the subject.

The question is, these people generally getting good results from what they call DC training, what is actually being done in terms of time of negatives?

[/quote]

Scott would be the man to have Dante’s exact quote, but basically he’s stated that his saying “6 to 8 second negatives” was simply an attempt to get people to not simply let the weight drop (or bounce) on the negative portion. He figured that most people would cheat when they counted anyhow, so 6 to 8 seconds would be counted like onetwothreefourfivesixseveneight and in actuality wind up being much less.

He’s after control on the negative (as in you could stop and reverse the weight at any point if need be), not a specific tempo.

If you haven’t already done so, watch Jason Wojo’s vids. Dante has stated on several occasions that Wojo’s form is pretty much the epitome of what he’d like to see everyone doing. Explosive positive, controlled negative. It’s no coincidence that Wojo was also the one who Dante gave permission to make a DC training DVD as well.

3

Yes, Wojo is at about 4 seconds or a touch less.

Thanks: that’s what I thought but wanted to check. I did not want to go to “6 to 8 true seconds” (using the word “true” as most people would or the dictionary would) as I thought that would be mistake, but definitely it’s what Dante said.

4

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

The next thing I noticed was rest duration for rest pause sets. One fellow took about 40 seconds. This is vastly different than 15 seconds. However that is a side note, as I don’t at all think that resting 15 seconds is too short for rest-pause, and myself view the lengthy rest as being misapplication of the method.

But on the other hand if those speaking of how well DC works for them are actually usually using rest periods such as 40 seconds in the RP sets, then it is worth knowing that when considering their testimonies. If that is what a person is doing then it would be more accurate to attribute their benefits to doing 3 maximal-reps sets with 40 second rest periods than to doing “one RP set.”

[/quote]

From everything I’ve seen (Wojo’s video, Justin Harris’ video, and online) the reference that they give is usually 10 to 15 breaths, not seconds. Now, people being different, 15 breaths can last anywhere from 20 seconds to 40 seconds, so it can have a wide disparity. I think Dante’s point with this was to just give a way for people to focus on recovering during the limited pause in a rest-pause set than sit there watching the clock.

5

Some guys like 12 breaths, some prefer 15 and I know of at least 2 ex-powerlifters using 20 breaths even.

I can’t give you any scientific explanation Bill, but I believe that the oxygen intake is a more critical factor (i.e. people really need to take deep breaths, at least 12 and more than 20 is a waste or something like that) than actual time spent resting (within reason, too little rest and you’re muscles won’t have recovered enough no matter how much you breathe and if you rest for too long, then you’re essentially doing straight sets again…).

You can rest for 40 seconds, breathing shallow or generally take in too little air and an RP set will suffer from that (I’ve noticed that with myself at least… But as I’ve said, it’s mostly a guess. Obviously you’re going to breathe hard after sqauts but less so after curls or the first exercise of the session in general.)

6

[quote]ultimatethor wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

The next thing I noticed was rest duration for rest pause sets. One fellow took about 40 seconds. This is vastly different than 15 seconds. However that is a side note, as I don’t at all think that resting 15 seconds is too short for rest-pause, and myself view the lengthy rest as being misapplication of the method.

But on the other hand if those speaking of how well DC works for them are actually usually using rest periods such as 40 seconds in the RP sets, then it is worth knowing that when considering their testimonies. If that is what a person is doing then it would be more accurate to attribute their benefits to doing 3 maximal-reps sets with 40 second rest periods than to doing “one RP set.”

From everything I’ve seen (Wojo’s video, Justin Harris’ video, and online) the reference that they give is usually 10 to 15 breaths, not seconds. Now, people being different, 15 breaths can last anywhere from 20 seconds to 40 seconds, so it can have a wide disparity. I think Dante’s point with this was to just give a way for people to focus on recovering during the limited pause in a rest-pause set than sit there watching the clock.[/quote]

Yes, on the rest-pause I have seen Dante give breaths, though advocates of his method often state seconds and then typically figures such as 15 seconds, or I have seen 10 seconds for the first interval and 15 for the second.

It’s an interesting point and difference because:

  1. If the time is 40 seconds then by all ordinary convention this comprises doing 3 sets, not one rest-pause set. A 30 or 40 second rest between sets is a completely traditional bb’ing technique and is long enough to physiologically quite definitely make them separate sets.

Some of the videos really had be saying “WTF?” because they were titled as being “DC-style” but there was not one thing about them different from quite traditional bb’ing style.

  1. Counting by breaths has the problem you point out of being quite variable in length. With the variability being in the direction of being where the more demanding the exercise is, the shorter the rest interval is.

I really don’t know why anyone refers to time intervals that are not actual seconds and in fact only about half that as being “true seconds” or why someone has a difficulty in expressing things in actual seconds.It’s not as if timepieces are in short supply or that the second should be an unfamiliar unit of time. However we all have our shortcomings, and if that’s the greatest of them it’s no major thing to have to correct for. The problem just is being able to know that one needs to interpret “true” as meaning “not true, but about twice as fast as true.”

7

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

From everything I’ve seen (Wojo’s video, Justin Harris’ video, and online) the reference that they give is usually 10 to 15 breaths, not seconds. Now, people being different, 15 breaths can last anywhere from 20 seconds to 40 seconds, so it can have a wide disparity. I think Dante’s point with this was to just give a way for people to focus on recovering during the limited pause in a rest-pause set than sit there watching the clock.

Yes, on the rest-pause I have seen Dante give breaths, though advocates of his method often state seconds and then typically figures such as 15 seconds, or I have seen 10 seconds for the first interval and 15 for the second.
[/quote] Did you get this from IM? I’d ignore the blogspots and other unofficial sources…

[quote]
It’s an interesting point and difference because:

  1. If the time is 40 seconds then by all ordinary convention this comprises doing 3 sets, not one rest-pause set. A 30 or 40 second rest between sets is a completely traditional bb’ing technique and is long enough to physiologically quite definitely make them separate sets.

Some of the videos really had be saying “WTF?” because they were titled as being “DC-style” but there was not one thing about them different from quite traditional bb’ing style.

  1. Counting by breaths has the problem you point out of being quite variable in length. With the variability being in the direction of being where the more demanding the exercise is, the shorter the rest interval is. [/quote] See my post above. [quote]

I really don’t know why anyone refers to time intervals that are not actual seconds and in fact only about half that as being “true seconds” or why someone has a difficulty in expressing things in actual seconds.It’s not as if timepieces are in short supply or that the second should be an unfamiliar unit of time. However we all have our shortcomings, and if that’s the greatest of them it’s no major thing to have to correct for. The problem just is being able to know that one needs to interpret “true” as meaning “not true, but about twice as fast as true.”[/quote]

Keep in mind that DC’s been that way for over 2 decades or so… I don’t see too many people complain about this :wink:

If you want to use 40 seconds, fine. I still stand by my opinion that actual oxygen intake is more important here.

Regular straight sets (with timed rest or not) never came anywhere close to increasing my strength as fast as DC-RP… Have a look at Hanley’s thread at IM and consider the weight-jumps he made on squats/deadlifts for example…

8

Personally, no, I do not want to use 40 seconds.

While it may not be as Dante intends, myself I intend to continue to use 15 seconds such that these are actual rest-pause sets, not three separate sets with approx 30-40 seconds rest.

I don’t myself find the amount-of-oxygen argument logical. First, breathing rate is dependent on the amount of oxygen debt (and carbonic acid buildup) which is a function both of the amount of muscle mass worked and how much work per unit mass the muscle did in the set, of which I see no correlation with reason for a given muscle having differing rest time in rest-pause. Second, an exercise having less total work gives slower breathing rate after the exercise, thus same amount of oxygen (if assuming this) is supplied for less total work done. Again, not a reason to aim for same total oxygen.

30-40 seconds of rest is not a “pause” within one set: it is a very common and long-standing bodybuilding time between sets.

I really don’t get why anyone calls multiple sets with 30-40 seconds between “one rest-pause set.” I mean, you can call bananas “meat” and carbohydrates “protein” if you want but that doesn’t make them meat or protein.

9

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Personally, no, I do not want to use 40 seconds.

While it may not be as Dante intends, myself I intend to continue to use 15 seconds such that these are actual rest-pause sets, not three separate sets with approx 30-40 seconds rest.

I don’t myself find the amount-of-oxygen argument logical. First, breathing rate is dependent on the amount of oxygen debt (and carbonic acid buildup) which is a function both of the amount of muscle mass worked and how much work per unit mass the muscle did in the set, of which I see no correlation with reason for a given muscle having differing rest time in rest-pause. Second, an exercise having less total work gives slower breathing rate after the exercise, thus same amount of oxygen (if assuming this) is supplied for less total work done. Again, not a reason to aim for same total oxygen.

30-40 seconds of rest is not a “pause” within one set: it is a very common and long-standing bodybuilding time between sets.

I really don’t get why anyone calls multiple sets with 30-40 seconds between “one rest-pause set.” I mean, you can call bananas “meat” and carbohydrates “protein” if you want but that doesn’t make them meat or protein.[/quote]

I can see how a powerlifter who thinks a short rest period is 2 minutes would “feel like” a rest-pause if he stopped for 40 seconds. I say feel like because I don’t know if it would physiologically be the same thing as a traditional bodybuilder doing 15 second rest pauses. They will probably be both out of breath and will suffer from decrease in performance in the consequent sets. I have seen bodybuilders take 60 seconds between sets and perform the same set with the reps, so I see what you’re saying (although I haven’t seen anyone do that with 30 seconds honestly).

Depending on your rest-between-the-sets habits people might get similar total reps with 40 and some with 15. Now to make sure people who follow Dante don’t get mad at me, I will say I’m not Dante and have never heard him say what I’m about to say: Bill, I think you should look at some of the rep ranges that Dante provides and go from there. If you rest for 40 seconds and get the same amount of reps as your first set, then I think you should decrease your rest time and decrease it till you find a reasonable/acceptable rep total. You could also go ask Dante, I don’t think he would mind responding to a question like this.

One detail I’ll add, and I think someone somewhat mentioned this already - sorry if I’m repeating: I used some rest pause and decided to go for breaths instead of seconds. I found that when watching the clock for 30 exact seconds my breathing wouldn’t be optimal (almost like holding your breath when watching an exciting scene). I saw that I performed better by just counting 10 breaths (and I tried to use a similar breathing pattern every time so the rest time was always similar)

10

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Personally, no, I do not want to use 40 seconds.

While it may not be as Dante intends, myself I intend to continue to use 15 seconds such that these are actual rest-pause sets, not three separate sets with approx 30-40 seconds rest.

I don’t myself find the amount-of-oxygen argument logical. First, breathing rate is dependent on the amount of oxygen debt (and carbonic acid buildup) which is a function both of the amount of muscle mass worked and how much work per unit mass the muscle did in the set, of which I see no correlation with reason for a given muscle having differing rest time in rest-pause. Second, an exercise having less total work gives slower breathing rate after the exercise, thus same amount of oxygen (if assuming this) is supplied for less total work done. Again, not a reason to aim for same total oxygen.

30-40 seconds of rest is not a “pause” within one set: it is a very common and long-standing bodybuilding time between sets.

I really don’t get why anyone calls multiple sets with 30-40 seconds between “one rest-pause set.” I mean, you can call bananas “meat” and carbohydrates “protein” if you want but that doesn’t make them meat or protein.[/quote]

The original mentzer rest-pause was something like 8 singles with 6 second rests in-between (or so).
Why not call it 8 singles with 6 second rests in-between instead of rest-pause ?

What you call it is not going to make a difference in your actual training.

11

lol this is why dante never posts anywhere but IM anymore and doesn’t post a whole lot even over there.

15 deep breaths is 15 deep breaths. Controlled negative is just controlled negative.

i suggest you read some of the stickies in the Puppy Pound section of IM if youre confused about something, its all there.

12

I suppose if I made a practice of doing things like calling 3 or 4 seconds “6 to 8 true seconds” in my writings, and calling three sets with 30 or 40 seconds rest between them “one rest-pause set” by whatever strained illogic then I suppose I also would want to limit access to only those that accept whatever I say unquestioningly and without pointing out that I don’t use words according to what they mean.

However I myself strive to communicate clearly and to use words according to what they mean.

Thanks to those that clarified the actuality.

Those that are out to fight back for your hero with justifications of why it’s better to give inaccurate descriptions of time of negatives yet to call the inaccurate description “true seconds,” or better to call three sets with 30-40 seconds rest inbetween “one set,” go ahead but I really don’t think you’ll be accomplishing anything, and personally I’m really not interested in any contorted efforts at justifying Newspeak.

What I am interested in is understanding what is being done in practice, as well as what was intended, and applying those things or parts of things that I consider useful. Thanks to those posts above that were useful, that has been accomplished.

13

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Personally, no, I do not want to use 40 seconds.

While it may not be as Dante intends, myself I intend to continue to use 15 seconds such that these are actual rest-pause sets, not three separate sets with approx 30-40 seconds rest.

I don’t myself find the amount-of-oxygen argument logical. First, breathing rate is dependent on the amount of oxygen debt (and carbonic acid buildup) which is a function both of the amount of muscle mass worked and how much work per unit mass the muscle did in the set, of which I see no correlation with reason for a given muscle having differing rest time in rest-pause. Second, an exercise having less total work gives slower breathing rate after the exercise, thus same amount of oxygen (if assuming this) is supplied for less total work done. Again, not a reason to aim for same total oxygen.

30-40 seconds of rest is not a “pause” within one set: it is a very common and long-standing bodybuilding time between sets.

I really don’t get why anyone calls multiple sets with 30-40 seconds between “one rest-pause set.” I mean, you can call bananas “meat” and carbohydrates “protein” if you want but that doesn’t make them meat or protein.

The original mentzer rest-pause was something like 8 singles with 6 second rests in-between (or so).
Why not call it 8 singles with 6 second rests in-between instead of rest-pause ?

What you call it is not going to make a difference in your actual training.

[/quote]

Right, if we want to only use one definition of rest-pause, then Mentzer’s gets to lay claim because it was the first. Otherwise you’re just doing straight sets with (insert interval of time) between them, no matter how short those rest periods might be.

I believe Dante refers to his method as “DC RP”, so as not to confuse people with other commonly used definitions/methods. I don’t think that’s being misleading.

I also don’t recall ever reading him actually say that the negatives should be “6 to 8 true seconds”. So, if you read that somewhere, it was whoever wrote it’s misinterpretation, not being inconsistent on Dante’s part.

If you (Bill) have the actual post where he (Dante) says “true” seconds though, please post it and I’ll retract that last statement.

14

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

The question is, these people generally getting good results from what they call DC training, what is actually being done in terms of time of negatives?

[/quote]

It’s a controlled negative. You don’t wildly drop/lower the weight. Just lower it under control.

IMO, I think too much time is being spent on how many seconds should a person spend in between sets and how long should the person spend on the eccentric. The information is out there, as you have obviously seen.

I think the best thing to do (if trying this method out yourself is your goal) is to just give it a try while keeping in mind the information you have read (i.e., approx. 15 breaths in between sets and lowering the weight under control). I think you’d see some good gains by just following the basics and using your head (and not being too nit picky about these things), as you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

15

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
lol this is why dante never posts anywhere but IM anymore and doesn’t post a whole lot even over there.

15 deep breaths is 15 deep breaths. Controlled negative is just controlled negative. [/quote] I agree on the 15 breaths.
However, I guess there’s still too much outdated info floating around the net about the negative-speed…
People keep asking that question even at IM, despite the stickies. [quote]

i suggest you read some of the stickies in the Puppy Pound section of IM if youre confused about something, its all there.[/quote]

16

OMG

The whole 6-8 seconds was a post by Dante rsponding to someone…it was just that…A POST

I’ve read a comment by him at IM where he goes into the ludicrusy of it all.

Imagine someone took a psot by you…9 years ago…and it got posted all over the internet and printed in manuals and wot not.

He just posted it…he didn’ think about it like many of the posts!

17

It was quite funny and predictable watching this thread deteriorate.

It had all the classic signs of someone seeking to worry about the stuff that simply doesn’t matter.

Control the negative, lift heavy weight, fail, pause, lift again, fail, pause, lift again, stop, stretch. Eat lots of food, get stronger, get bigger, the end.

18

I heard that if you do 6- to 8-second negatives, double to triple your poundages, use rest-pause, and really blast the olive oil, you will be able to make the earth quake with every olive-oil laden fart.

19

[quote]Joe D. wrote:

It had all the classic signs of someone seeking to worry about the stuff that simply doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

lol more of this.

Mr. Roberts if you think that anyone follows true concentric timing to the second youre fooling yourself. Yes, there are very dedicated individuals who never miss their timing on every rep but that is far and few between (id say less than 5%).

im not dante but i can see why he justifies having an incorrect concentric phase, the vast majority of people who will see his program and go use it will cheat the concentric, but the tricks on them because he really only wants 3-4 seconds.

call it newspeak but id rather see someone care that much to make sure people who do his program do it correctly than someone who just throws out a program and not give a crap if they do it wrong. He could have let that one thread a long time ago die off, but he chose not to and put his name behind that program.

20

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
lol this is why dante never posts anywhere but IM anymore and doesn’t post a whole lot even over there.

15 deep breaths is 15 deep breaths. Controlled negative is just controlled negative. I agree on the 15 breaths.
However, I guess there’s still too much outdated info floating around the net about the negative-speed…
People keep asking that question even at IM, despite the stickies.

i suggest you read some of the stickies in the Puppy Pound section of IM if youre confused about something, its all there.

[/quote]

yea but in dante’s defense most of the out dated info isnt on any boards or sites in his control, so he cant really do much other than have his underlings refer people to IM. People will always fail to read stickies and ask obvious things over and over, which it seems is why dante never answers posts about his program any more.