I think super slow ( not necessarily exactly as Hutchins taught) is a very safe way to consistently handle heavy weights. Great for longevity, recovery and especially joint health.
I donāt think that negative or N/A training is best for hypertrophy. There could be genetic marvels who thrive on that type of training, but for average trainee with abundance of slow-twitch muscle such training doesnāt create enough stimulus: few high-tension muscle contractions, fewer motor units are activated during the eccentric portion of repetition, pump is not so prominent, slow negatives mean greater recruitment of slow-twitch fibers while decreasing the burden on the fast-twitch and intermediate fibers in order to conserve energy; impracticality of such type of training (and associated dangers) and prolonged recovery process (I understand that few on this forum will support me, but I would opt for higher frequency vs higher intensity). Coupled with calorie surplus one may think that all gains are pure muscle, which is not always/rarely the case. BTW, I donāt remember any bodybuilder(s) who trained exclusively in negative style; irrespective what one can think about mental abilities of bodybuilders (reference to Arthur Jonesā views on this subject), I would not underestimate BBs ability to listen to their body feedback. Still I think that Dr. Darden was spot on recommending both higher volume and frequency of training (and not any other methods) as part of specialization routines in order to bring up lagging muscles.
2 Likes
Could you list what you experienced?
Curious. Did it improve your results?
== Scott==
I tend to agree with this. Not being the Mentzer type with long muscle bellies and superior genetics I never found using very heavy weights for negatives ever produced better results than just plain old reps of 8ā15 where concentration in the muscle was the predominate effort, not how much weight I could use. Using very heavy weights also required very long recovery times which I hate!
Just recently, I managed to tweak the tendons in my elbows just by messing around a bit with some ballistic movements with modest weights (trying a kettlebell snatch). It was a reminder that past a certain age, you have to be a lot more careful about tendons and ligaments. They get brittle with age, get injured more readily, and heal more slowly.
So I have concerns about heavy eccentrics, especially where heavy means handling more weight than you can move concentrically, or using close to maximum weights for singles. Misjudge the amount that you can safely lower, you might lose months of training (or more) to a tear or tendinitis.
Like Scott, Iām quite happy to stick with normal speed reps (2/4ish) and weights where I can get 5 to 10 reps in good form. For younger guys, I can see how it could be an interesting experiment.
1 Like
I spoke with the owner of xforce in tampaā¦a huge portion of her clientele are seniorsā¦no reported injuries from performing eccentrics using xforce equipmentā¦which uses 40 percent more weight than the concentric portion of the exercise
I will concede that this is not the same as what the OP has started this thread
That is good to know. But in that setting, there are some things which likely mitigate the risk:
-
Use of machines, so no way to lose control of the movement in a way that overloads stabilizing structures or muscles. That is likely safer than say, lowering an overloaded barbell from a forklift (the Bob Peoples example).
-
Supervised training, by trainers who are probably pretty conservative when it comes to setting loads, given the demographics of the group.
-
Higher repetition training scheme, meaning the loads are selected to allow 5 to 8 reps (if I recall correctly). So fatigue is still being used in combination with overload.
Also, my sense is that both relative and absolute weight levels play a role in the risk. An older, untrained person who is weak is going to be using weights which are a lot further away from the limit strength levels of their tendons than someone who has been lifting a long time, and decides to āgo heavyā based on what he used to do in the pastā¦
1 Like
I agree as I donāt even attempt to try to do eccentrics with a 315 pound bench press or a 460 pound squat
I only use machines nowadays anyways, 
This thread got me scrambling for Brad Schoenfeldās book again, where this is examined. The upshot here is that the research is mixed when it comes to concentric versus eccentric. However, what is more consistent is the evidence that eccentric training triggers unique growth pathways as well as distinct adaptations in muscle fibers. In order to exploit this, you clearly need to determine which form of negative training to do. One way would be to replicate what the subjects did in the various studies showing a benefit. I donāt intend to cite them all here, but one study (Hortobagyi et al) had groups doing either concentric or eccentric knee extensors. Subjects did 4-6 sets of 8-12 maximal reps 3 days a week for 12 weeks. Results show the eccentric group had significantly greater increase in type II fiber hypertrophy in the quads.
2 Likes
That does make it harder to know what to do. It would be easy, but possibly incorrect, to say that because a particular study, using a particular kind of eccentric protocol produced benefits, then any kind of eccentric training would give the same result.
In some of the older material, eccentric and concentric tended to be viewed as just different ways to achieve the same general kind of adaptation, be it hypertrophy or strength. But the more recent evidence that they produce different kinds of structural adaptations suggests otherwise.
Not sure if Schoenfeldās book touches on this, but I have seen articles suggesting that aging disproportionately affects concentric strength. In other words, as you get older, ability to produce concentric force is lost more rapidly than the ability to produce eccentric force. So I could see why someone older might start to prefer eccentric focused work, because it would seem more rewarding, i.e., you donāt see the consequences of aging as easily. But the flip side might be that concentric focused training should be emphasized, because that is what you are most at risk of losing.
Schoenfeldās book only provides a brief summary of each study, so you would need to look up each to see exactly what methods they used.
I believe that as long as you pay eccentrics some attention in your training you are bound to benefit. For most folks, that is going to be simple attention to slower more controlled negatives after the concentric phase of the rep.
And while you could specialise in this type specialist training, what happens to concentric work meantime? And what happens to gains from eccentric work when you stop and go back to more conventional stuff? I believe thatās one of the theories behind CTās current work, i.e. exercises remain quite constant but youāre continually rotating through various contractions and tempos, as well as throwing in loaded stretches. The idea is you cover all bases to maximise all available hypertrophy pathways.
There is ongoing research on eccentric training. In particular, Titin research on folding of such molecules, and release of myokines. There seems to be much unknown about Titin at this time. In some instances there can be upwards of 8 weeks for eccentric muscle damage to subside. The puzzle of the rebound effect of eccentrics not causing as much damage on subsequent training sorties is still unsolved.
But no doubt that intense exercise causes beneficial myokines to being released which can be like a booster shot against COVID-19ā¦ this is especially true when the large muscles of the body are targeted, yeah, your butt and thighs. Probable true of the lats and traps also. Makes me wonder if all those bi & tri articles were wasted words!
You mean with the repeat bout effect of exercise and muscle damage no longer being caused?
1 Like
Sirloin,
Yes, lots to read here!
And,
Myokines , squats
1 Like
Interesting, Iāve read similar other research with regards to muscle damage no longer happening due to the repeat bout effect. That being true, (according to the research) it takes 7 or more days for a muscle to get back into a unaccustomed state.
Therefore, if muscle damage and deep inroad was what I was after Iād persoonally not be training more than once a week. Itās not what am after now though, I prefer training more frequently and with more of a focus on concentric work or holds in the form of Prowler pushes, deadlifts, farmers, strict press etc.
The eccentric can possibly train elastic recoil properties in muscles. This is important in regards to performance and injury. The downside of eccentrics is muscle damage and subsequent prolonged recovery. The upside of eccentrics is muscle damage and the subsequent release of beneficial myokines!
1 Like
It can be very confusing to look at all the things which have been published about eccentric training, and try to decide what should and should not be included in a program. That is particularly true for someone older, for whom ballistic movements can present a greater risk of injury.
My default position is that I donāt want to overdo eccentric training, either in terms of load or volume, because it can produce a whole lot of DOMS, and increase recovery time. I donāt need science to reach that conclusion; it comes from first hand experimentation. So I mostly use traditional training methods which combine eccentric and concentric contractions, because that is the tried and true method which has been around for a long time. I perform the eccentric more slowly than the concentric because of safety reasons - I donāt want have to generate a lot of force at the lower turnaround by having to deaccelerate a rapidly dropping weight.
Heavily overloaded slow eccentrics are interesting from a theoretical perspective, but generally require access to equipment or training scenarios that are not available to me anyway. I suppose if you warm up, move slowly, and are careful about weight progression it probably isnāt that risky. But what is the value over just doing standard reps, especially at the age of 69? That has been harder for me to figure out.
Ballistic movements are a different matter. Again, I donāt need science to tell me it might be dangerous. Just playing around with things like light power cleans and kettlebell snatches demonstrates to me that my joints do not tolerate that kind of stress very well anymore. Looking at the academic literature, it is hard for me to tell how much benefit there might be to including some higher velocity movement with light weight vs heavily loaded fast movements. But again, my interest in that question is mostly theoretical. No way am I going to be doing fast movements against heavy resistance, due to injury considerations.
== Scott==
I quite concur with this and I donāt have to see studies or read the science to know that lifting a weight up with a tractor or forklift to use for negatives is quite absurd .
Not absurd if your Bob Peopleās trying to be the best deadlifter of his time! Different strokes for different folks!
I am coming around to Ken Hutchins views on statics. Not quite as bullish on statics as Ken, but, all the same, too bad Dr. Darden didnāt pick Kenās mind on statics, much like he did on SuperSlow