So if 15 seconds is very slow what’s that make a 30 second decent ? Wasn’t Superslow based on 10 second reps ? A 30 second rep must be Super duper slow, ha ha .
Scott
1 Like
Dropping the weight happens in half a second or less. Watch a clock tick. A 1-0-1 cadence which is pretty much the norm for most rep work happens like that. A smooth, continuous motion, up and down.
That’s Julius Maddox benching 405x13 a few years back, hence the hilarious “drug free” caption because ain’t no way he’s coming up on 800 lbs without assistance, but maybe he was back then. Enormous dude. Either way, that’s about a 1-0-1 cadence. He’s not dropping the bar, just a smooth motion.
Edit: watching it with the time going at the bottom, it’s even a bit faster than a second. But the point remains.
In the strength and conditioning realm, “fast” eccentrics tend to be associated more with plyometric training, and the use of flywheel training. The intent seems to be improved speed, power, and explosiveness, rather than strength or hypertrophy.
With HIT, maybe more accurate to say that you have slow, very slow, and glacial eccentrics. 
2 Likes
==Scott==
I see what you are saying! Thanks!
1 Like
With HIT, maybe more accurate to say that you have slow, very slow, and glacial eccentrics.
== Scott ==
I’m guessing with HIT much of it is glacial eccentrics , ha ha ! With 30 10 30 even the rep speed of the 10 portion which my guess typically is about 2 -4 is very slow at the least with 30 being glacial . Ive even hear of 60 second negatives. These must be fossil or frozen reps, ha ha !
Wait a minute. The reality is contrary to the findings in that study, as far as my own experience goes.
Considering I hastily observe maybe 50 trainees at the gym each time I excercise - all of them doing it the slow one sec negative way. Maybe a handful of these people are carrying a decent physique. Some of them are strong. Most of them are moving weights in bad form, they should not approach. Obviously, all of them applying HVT. Not very inspiring - and again - contrary to the study findings. Makes you wonder what the handful are doing right? Genetics? Diet?
Not wanting to get into a verbal slamfight here. Each to their own, of course.
Using your average gym bro as a means to prove or disprove a training style is probably not the best thing to do.
I see some wild stuff in gyms
2 Likes
I get what you mean, wanna_be - But if the study is right - the majority of trainees would state an example (as well as my previous me)?
Plenty of studies proving all kinds of training is “best”.
I think when you find lack of progress or results, you’ll also find lack of consistency in training AND nutrition. All kinds of things work when you get those 2 things right, and nothing works when you get those 2 things wrong.
2 Likes
All of it will balance out…assuming enough work/sets are involved.
If going heavier, I like to use a slower negative for safety reasons.
If a more moderate weight or something a tad lighter, I prefer a faster cadence and negative in general.
If one is only doing one set per muscle to failure, I could see a slower set being better to get enough work or tension time. Someone doing a 1/1 cadence for 10 reps will only get 20 seconds of TUT; 2/4 at 10 reps will give 60 seconds.
I almost always do more than one set per muscle, so I think speed (either way) matters less as I am getting enough work most likely.
== Scott ==
So you put as much or more importance on TUT than reps , cadence speed etc?
I believe the main stimulus for growth is tension (sufficient resistance) and fatigue (which requires some volume/work to fatigue the muscle). So if doing multiple sets, this is fairly easy to accomplish…using fast or slow reps.
But, if someone is only doing one set, using fast reps, I question whether it’s enough. But using a slow set, will give more work…increasing the odds of stimulation with one set…if that makes sense?
2 Likes
Who cares what a bias study shows? Weight throwing is a good way to injure yourself. A fast negative/drop.
I would like to see a study of about 100 powerlifters or olympic lifter who are now 60 years old. I would like to know their physical condition.
Better yet a list if injuries they had. More so the ones who big and fat vs normal framed. I would like to see a study of those who failed too.
I would like to know if anyone here who post contrarian HIT studies that actually does what the study suggests. What were their results were over a 3 year period of time. Did they get hurt?
Here is a study this is probably best for the average joe who want to improve their life. Who wants or be strong.
http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/Other/arthurjonesreview.pdf
I wanna see a thread of hit followers and what they look like. Maybe they don’t get hurt as much (doubtful) but I bet most don’t look like they lift.
1 Like
Hi again wanna_be,
Wouldn’t the same generalized statement apply for the majority of all trainees (what do they look like?).
I believe many HIT-trainees keep a low profile (except for maybe in the Darden forum at T-nation). That being said, I know a couple of active HIT-posters here who have competed in BB and seem to be in good shape (check earlier threads).
1 Like
What got me into HIT was getting hurt from deadlifts and squats in a reckless style. I think I look like I lift.
Better yet the other benefits is at my age 57 my libeto is like I was 20 again. I sleep well. I have overcome a broken leg that I need two surgeries to fix. I could not do anything for 2 years.
Sat on my rear and gained about 30 pounds. I was around 210. Ironically I was in the same condition from the extreme consolidation routine when I was a client of Mentzer.
Both times I used Dr.Drardens routines to get back in shape.
I actually overtrain from multiple set per muscle routines. I actually overtrain with Dinosaur training.
Looking forward to your results and story.
1 Like
Refreshing,
No facts or logic presented to counter that faster tempo properly loaded eccentrics are not better.
Wow,
Nada
It seems to be not scientific. The experimental designs can’t control the various variables
A lot of people don’t lift for looks…some do for strength, some for health, some for fat loss, some for something to do…so, why does it have to always come down to you don’t look like you lift?
Better for who? I learned the hard way it’s not for me. Give us an example of what is a faster tempo properly loaded eccentric. Then I will consider if it would work well over a sustainable period of time.
I don’t want to hear you say read the study. I want to hear what you think and have done. How did it work for you? If it worked well for you great you found a away the works for you. Was it sustainable?
The things that work well for me are sustainable over time. That’s what is important to me. Like I just posted about.
This is what is logical for me.