[quote]n3wb wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Look at how huge the people doing them are in majority, then look at the size of the guys who move the weight a little faster are and get back to me.
How about all the 120 lb. bodybuilder that move the weight a little faster? This must invalidate moving the weight faster? There are plenty of little wimps moving the weight fast too. GENETICS!!!
If those 120lb bodybuilders arent fat then they cant complain because thats proof that they arent even eating enough to gain fat.
Genetics is a shity excuse.[/quote]
Genetics is not an excuse it is one of the many variables in developing strong and big muscles. It may be the most important in achieving great success in any physical field. Muscle belly length, origin and insertion of muscle, limb length, percentage of fast twitch verses slow twitch, neurological efficiency, these are all Genetic traits just like eye color. No matter how bad you want blue eyes if you have green eyes, genetics has dealt its cards. All can improve to a degree when it comes to strength and size but, some will improve more dramatically and some will improve minimally. Not an excuse just reality.
There are massive people who train slow and there are massive people who train fast.
There are skinny people who train slow and skinny people who train fast.[/quote]
Make this rhyme better and we may have Dr. Seuss Jr. on our hands. I was asking for examples of these massive people who train slowly.
I mean, we have tons of video of several competitors training that you can pull right off You tube. The ones who are carrying a lot of size sure don’t seem to be training “super slow”. I have trained many places in the past few years and don’t see the largest bodybuilders training that way.
From your previous post, I was under the impression that you knew of several massive bodybuilders who trained super slow to gain most of their size.
I guess not, huh?
[quote]
The only absolute in strength training is progressive overload, the rest is preference and variety.[/quote]
We aren’t just talking about “strength training”. We are talking about what has led to the most size gains. There is a difference.
[quote]
If there was an absolute in training other than progressive overload it would be pretty evident but, it’s not. The results would be so drastic it would be evident of the programs superiority.[/quote]
Isn’t it? I mean, are you saying we just don’t have enough of a pool of large bodybuilders to observe to make some definitive statements at all? How many more do you think we need?
This isn’t about what you “enjoy”. This is about what creates LARGE MUSCLES IN MAJORITY. If you don’t have LARGE MUSCLES, then what you “enjoy” is irrelevant.
[quote]Racarnus wrote:
Whatsup with many of you guys saying “Do fast tempo on the eccentric portion” ?
Why? [/quote]
Under certain loading parameters (50%-60% of max) you can do this to build reactive strength. The weight comes down fast and takes more effort to stop. Then you blast the weight back up as fast as you can.
This is used to reduce the time of the s/sc(stretch/shortening cycle).
It is a good technique for building strength, which is good for building size which is good for building strength…
Don’t do it with near max weight. You will lose. Big time.
Also, for what it’s worth, try not to latch on to a single sentence without looking at the entire system or method of training to which it belongs.
I think by fast he meant faster than your average gym rat- not the smash your chest cavity on the way down from a bench or put a hole through the floor on a deaflift interpretation of “fast”. Don’t polarize it, just take it as it is.
It’s worth mentioning that Mike Mentzer got to his best physique and had a perfect score in Mr. Universe (he was the first to do this) with the help of slow negatives.
Still, you can’t argue with results. I don’t know too many successful bodybuilders who train like Mentzer.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
It’s worth mentioning that Mike Mentzer got to his best physique and had a perfect score in Mr. Universe (he was the first to do this) with the help of slow negatives.
Still, you can’t argue with results. I don’t know too many successful bodybuilders who train like Mentzer.[/quote]
Mike Mentzer built his physique training like everyone else during that time period, especially during those earlier years where he built the bulk of the muscle mass he was carrying. He didn’t change his routine until later on (the late 70’s), most of his real push for HIT training coming AFTER his 1980 loss at the Olympia contest.
I bicep curl up to 80kgs sometimes, (heavy for me), and i DROP the weight very quickly. I have been doing this for sometime now and i have had no bicep injuries. Though i admit when going heavy and fast it has felt close sometimes.
If you look at the evolution of the Westside Barbell protocols you will see a change that is pretty evident over the years. I believe that observation of some shortcomings created this change.
The original techniques they used were dynamic effort (fast reps) and max effort (heavy singles).
With these two protocols they also used sets of 10 on assistance work.
Latter, repetition effort and sub-maximal effort were added. These 2 techniques added new tools in developing muscle hypertrophy. This is because fast reps and maximal reps were not enough to develop maximum muscle growth.
DeFranco also uses the repetitive effort very extensively with maximal effort. He uses dynamic effort sparingly with more advanced athletes.
One of the major draw backs with rep speed being the most important component is measuring compensatory acceleration during the reps. Many lifters have a hard time understanding and executing maximal force against the bar. It is tough to measure and ensure progression.
Prof. X has developed a tremendous physique with his workout techniques and his program would develop great results in others but, there are other protocols that are just as effective. If we are to judge the effectiveness of a program on individual results than we should all be doing Ronnie Coleman?s workout. Ronnie Coleman is at a certain stage of development and his program works best for him. It is all about finding the proper dosage of overload for your needs.
There are many variables in developing maximum strength and size.
I do believe using fast reps exclusively may be a mistake for many people.
I do believe using fast reps exclusively may be a mistake for many people.[/quote]
Chris, we don’t disagree that people should avoid limiting how they train to any one train of thought. However, to my knowledge, we were discussing SUPER SLOW training, not simply training at a slightly different speed than “fast”. the two are not the same.
I have seen several barely developed people acting like they get an award for moving the weight as slowly as possible simply because their form is so “perfect”. I have NEVER seen a larger bodybuilder who trained that way to build most of his body mass.
My reps are pretty fast, however, I do make some attempt to lower the weight slightly slower than I lifted it. That negative portion of the movement has been credited with being the most effective for growth for as long as I can remember reading about bodybuilding. This isn’t new info.
In training around a lot of bodybuilders (quite a few who compete) aside from possibly doing some slower movements at the end of the workout just to get some more blood into a muscle group, I haven’t seen any who focus on moving the weight as slowly as possible. Obviously, their true speed of movement will be individual.
I am also not talking about dropping a weight as fast possible as one previous poster just wrote. That is a great way to set yourself up for an injury once you really start going much heavier.
I hate even discussing Mike Mentzer because the way he trained to build most of his mass is not what he pushed with HIT training. I will avoid going deeper into why I just don’t consider most of his methods valid because there are even more disciples for that than there are on this site.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mike Mentzer built his physique training like everyone else during that time period, especially during those earlier years where he built the bulk of the muscle mass he was carrying. He didn’t change his routine until later on (the late 70’s), most of his real push for HIT training coming AFTER his 1980 loss at the Olympia contest.[/quote]
Yup, he started out training more like Arnold than Arthur Jones, but it’s interesting to know that a change in the with the help of slow negatives in the final years of his career made him look the best he ever did. He was surely intense when he did those negative only dips.
Still, this doesn’t mean slow negatives are the way to go. It worked for Mentzer, but I don’t know too many other people who had his success with this kind of training.
BTW, off-topic, I remember CW, even though he discourages the use of tempo schemes, saying something like it’s good to use slow tempos at times, given valid reasons (ie. to provide different a growth stimulus to your body).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< My reps are pretty fast, however, I do make some attempt to lower the weight slightly slower than I lifted it. That negative portion of the movement has been credited with being the most effective for growth for as long as I can remember reading about bodybuilding. This isn’t new info.
In training around a lot of bodybuilders (quite a few who compete) aside from possibly doing some slower movements at the end of the workout just to get some more blood into a muscle group, I haven’t seen any who focus on moving the weight as slowly as possible. Obviously, their true speed of movement will be individual. >>>[/quote]
Yeah, the way I remember it was that micro trauma was created to a greater degree while providing resistance during the lengthening portion of a movement. More damage, more repair, more growth. This of course assumes in the first place that the controlled self injury of inducing micro trauma and the subsequent recovery is the foundational mechanism whereby additional and stronger tissue is synthesized.
My personal experience, which is certainly not intended to be the litmus test, would appear to confirm that this is the case.
The one and only method on the face of God’s green Earth that produces significantly with my maddeningly stubborn lateral delts is negative only raises with a low cable. I’ve tried everything I could think of and only assisting one side up with the other arm and lowering it at a controlled moderate speed in strict form gets the damn things to grow. This is with a weight that I can’t do a single positive rep with.
As an example. Anecdotal yes, but it happens to be the case at least for me.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
In order to end this stupid argument, you must all remember.
There are no constants in bodybuilding.
There are people that grow using fast negatives, and people who grow using super slow negatives.[/quote]
There are those of us who have been declaring loudly for quite a while that different folks will respond differently to different training methods and many times a lot differently. This is the “artistic” aspect of this whole endeavor that is lacking in those whose progress is perpetually eluding them.
Regardless of what breakthroughs may come, don’t hold your breath for anything like mathematical certainty in the lifetime of anybody reading this and maybe for a couple centuries longer than that.
Although it was Waterbury who probably started it, many posters echoed his words in a number of threads. I don’t really follow who said what first. This thread has become fragmented and I don’t have time to respond to everything.
I made this thread because it doesn’t make sense. Depending on the exercise, fast negatives make things harder or easier. Shouldn’t the goal be to make things as hard as possible without injuring yourself?
Descending quickly on a forward DB raise makes things easier, but descending quickly on an overhead press makes it harder.
In general, I think you should go slowly at the sticking point of an exercise, and then faster where the exercise is easier so that you’re not just taking a break from exertion. Make the exercise as hard as possible. Don’t just fall through a sticking point, and don’t go slowly where the exercise is easy.
And, as several people pointed out, don’t descend so quickly that you’ll injure yourself. On squats and benches, I go slow enough so that I’m not worried that I’ll lose control.
I think in order to have a conversation on this topic one needs some way to quantify speed. For one person a 4 second negative may be fast, for another they may consider a 1 second negative fast.
It may also vary depending on the size of the individual. A 2 second negative on a short guy like me may be the same speed as a 4 second negative for Shaq. The speed may also vary from exercise to exercise.
If the weight is heavy (over 70% of 1RM) I would not think it wise to use real quick negatives: to basically drop the weight and “catch” it at the bottom of the movement. It seems to me if taken to this extreme if would be the joints, tendons, and ligaments that would take most of the force rather than the muscle.
Even in a “fast” negative one would need to maintain control in order to avoid damaging the joints, ligaments, or tendons. Just my thoughts.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
In order to end this stupid argument, you must all remember.
There are no constants in bodybuilding.
There are people that grow using fast negatives, and people who grow using super slow negatives.[/quote]
Who are these people? Which group is bigger?
Often, to end a debate, people will say, “Well, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.” Well, sometimes that is true. Often it is not.
If you can’t point to people who are getting huge using super slow negatives, then your argument is not persuasive. Bodybuilding isn’t pie in the sky type of stuff.
This isn’t a philosophy class where we all get to make shit up and argue everything a priori. Muscle growth occurs in the real world and is an observable phenomenon. Because of this, we need not and should not take anything based on faith.
If people aren’t growing using a given protocol, then that protocol is invalid.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
In order to end this stupid argument, you must all remember.
There are no constants in bodybuilding.
There are people that grow using fast negatives, and people who grow using super slow negatives.
Who are these people? Which group is bigger?
Often, to end a debate, people will say, “Well, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.” Well, sometimes that is true. Often it is not.
If you can’t point to people who are getting huge using super slow negatives, then your argument is not persuasive. Bodybuilding isn’t pie in the sky type of stuff.
This isn’t a philosophy class where we all get to make shit up and argue everything a priori. Muscle growth occurs in the real world and is an observable phenomenon. Because of this, we need not and should not take anything based on faith.
If people aren’t growing using a given protocol, then that protocol is invalid.[/quote]
What about all the little weaklings that do not do super slow reps. Do the little lifters doing fast reps invalidate fast reps? Hell no!
What about all the little weaklings that do not do super slow reps. Do the little lifters doing fast reps invalidate fast reps? Hell no! [/quote]
The big huge muscular veiny people validate faster reps. This isn’t about the little people. I know they want equality like the rest of us, but when it comes to what is actually working out there and what isn’t, if you can’t point to anyone who went from small to “fucking Huge” doing super slow reps, then it loses ground as far as how effective it is, especially if all of those huge bastards in the corner all got huge by lifting a lot faster.
Since when is finding the most efficient way to be “extreme” based on those without the capability to ever get there?
What about all the little weaklings that do not do super slow reps. Do the little lifters doing fast reps invalidate fast reps? Hell no!
The big huge muscular veiny people validate faster reps. This isn’t about the little people. I know they want equality like the rest of us, but when it comes to what is actually working out there and what isn’t, if you can’t point to anyone who went from small to “fucking Huge” doing super slow reps, then it loses ground as far as how effective it is, especially if all of those huge bastards in the corner all got huge by lifting a lot faster.
Since when is finding the most efficient way to be “extreme” based on those without the capability to ever get there?[/quote]
here is something to think about. Maybe it’s a psychogical thing. Are Mesomorphs more apt to train in a certain style and ectomorphs in another. Type A personalities are more apt to do fast reps possibly.
Something else to ponder. If we take 20 untrained individuals in a gym, we train 10 using slow negatives and 10 using fast negatives. But we stack the deck. We test vertical jump and divide them by body type. We train all the mesomorphs that have the highest vertical jumps with slow negatives and the low vertical jump and ectomorph group using fast reps. With your line of thinking the fast rep group will see better gains. But, with my line of thinking the genetic superior group would blow the fast rep group away. And if you flipped it the opposite would be true. So Genetics is the #1 determining factor of superior gains not reps speed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Majin wrote:
Just make sure the weight doesn’t fall by gravity. That’s really all there is to it.
Why is this “new”? Haven’t people been lowering the weight under control for decades now? The only ones doing super slow negatives…are the small people who don’t grow much.[/quote]
I know… You have tell people to not let the weight tear off limbs. But then be careful not have them do a slow-motion-for-me. It’s like you give these ‘extremists’ a fork and they either jam it into their eye or drool until the food gets cold.