I find it interesting that Baye will proudly declare himself to be an Evidence Based practitioner, and then studiously ignore or dismiss our of hand any research which runs counter to his core beliefs. For some reason, some HIT proponents feel the need to channel their inner Arthur Jones (i.e., present as outspoken, arrogant, smarter than everyone else). Personally, I think he would do better by showing a little humility…
4 Likes
It is an interesting question. Can HIT be updated to take into account more recent research on training and hypertrophy and still be HIT? The Mentzer idea that failure itself is a hypertrophy trigger seems pretty dated. And what should we do with research suggesting that reps close to failure are disproportionately taxing to recovery relative to the amount of stimulation they provide? If you start yielding on these points, what is left? Maybe the term should become mostly a historical footnote?
As for hybridization programs:
Lately I’ve seen a number of programs that I like to call “everything but the kitchen sink” training methods. They come from folks who follow the science on strength training. What they do is identify different mechanisms that have been shown to be related to hypertrophy (mechanical tension, metabolic stress, the pump, loaded stretching, eccentric emphasized training, etc.). Then they weave together a training program, typically pretty complex, that tries to invoke each of these mechanisms by employing different kinds of reps and rep schemes. Since the programs attempt to implement the findings of scientific research, they tend to be called science based.
I personally think that the programs really ought to be described as “hypothetically better” programs. I say that, because for the most part, they haven’t been proven, in a scientifically rigorous way, to be superior. At best, we have anecdotal evidence, and the testimony of coaches who promote the methods to judge the effectiveness of the programs. Now I don’t mean to dismiss that kind of evidence as worthless. But I don’t think it rises to the standard of “scientifically proven”.
As ‘fitafter40’ says, just my $0.02 (which is worth even less these days due to inflation).
2 Likes
Whats even funnier, i just watched a video of jay vincent training elliot, and Drew commented on it…but made no disrespectful comments about the form, the speed, the face making, the grunting and etc…which makes me wonder why???
1 Like
Can you link to that video, please? Very interesting.
1 Like
Great post AA
Marc
Interestingly, the greatest LEG man of all time, Tom Platz, did seated and standing calf presses.
What is more interesting is that he did mid-range statics with extremely heavy weights.
In my book of things, you either are born with long muscle bellies in calves or not. If you are, you will have big calves. If not, forget about it. Two more things are also important: (a) the overall body weight - the heavier you are, the bigger are your calves (i.e. I have never seen a big, not necessarily a muscular guy or a woman, with small calves), and (b) the location of the center of your body mass: if your center of mass is lower (i.e. your have shorter legs), your calves are bigger.
On the first point: find pictures of Dorian Yates when he won British Championship in 1986 and his transformation pictures of 1992-1993 and compare his calves before and after. Certainly, PEDs have their major impact too, but that’s another point. There are many others who grew their calves without doing too much/too often or doing something unusual simply due to good genetics and simply becoming heavier. The only exception was Arnold, who came to the U.S. more bulky (therefore, should have bigger calves, but it was not the case) and then slimmed down to his competitive weight while increasing his calves substantially, but I suspect his calves were just implants (Tom Platz mentioned that option too).
On the latest point: look at Asian people. Most of them have long and large calf muscles even without any kind of training, although most of them are slim/not bulky.
Isometric or static holds, as Tom Platz mentioned, may be a good thing for some people whom AJ classified as “G type” (exercise benefit is produced across the whole range of movement, even if only a part of range was exercised), but for S (specific) type this is not the case. The danger of holding a substantial amount of weight (how strong your tendons, ligaments, bones) is a factor as well especially when we age. PEDs do wonder both on physiological and psychological sides - they literally help you to cross the barrier(s).
3 Likes
They’re doing a lot of business together at this point
1 Like
And both are hypocrites
After reviewing the initial post, I further investigated “The Perfect Workout” page.
In particular, one of their articles caught my attention. The article in question was entitled
“Cardio Vs. Strength Training.” Of course I should have known by now that all studies related to cardiovascular conditioning will be misinterpreted (intentional lying) by the SuperSlow cult.
The author writes:
Strength training to “muscle success” improves flow-mediated dilation.
This was demonstrated in a 13- week study in which the arterial benefits were seen after six weeks .
The source of information was from Rakobowchuk.
The author left out the final statement from the study in question:
However, unlike studies involving endurance training, flow-mediated dilation did not increase with resistance training. Thus arterial adaptations with high-pressure loads, such as those experienced during resistance exercise, may be quite different compared with endurance training.
As you see , the author of this article cherry picks what they choose to believe.
Even prior to this, this article cherry picks a study from Steele who is on record as stating cardio doesn’t exist.
SuperSlow should be rebranded , Another Tool in the Toolbox!
2 Likes
It would be interesting to know whether set length correlates to any cardiovascular benefits, and if so, to what extent?
SuperSlow miss out on the pump action/reaction, which from a novel perspective would indicate less cardiovascular effect. Also, heavy lifting in itself is primarily an effect depending on a rise in blood pressure (analogue to heartrate/pulse in aerobic excercise).
Is there a middle ground? Or even more interesting: Is there ANY benefit from SuperSlow training? (Opening a can of worms here).
Banging the hornets nest again?
When McGuff talks about super slow and cardio, he talks about how the long intense contractions help milk blood out of the muscle, thus improving venous return. But earlier on, he also speculated that long time under tension helped to recruit fast twitch fibers by “choking out” slow twitch fibers. In effect it is a kind of blood flow restriction.
These ideas seem potentially contradictory. The longer the time under tension, the greater the potential contradiction.
Intense anaerobic work of some kinds (i.e., sprint intervals) improve some markers of cardiovascular fitness. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence that SuperSlow reps work in the same way as sprint interval training.
1 Like
Maybe this subject deserve some rest, after all?
Contradictory indeed. Especially considering that pump training proponents also apply the blood flow restriction argument. At least, this can be motivated by the fact the pumped muscle is bigger, which means more blood/volume at the site.
I have also heard the longer TUT argument to recruit fast twitch fibers - but you would need a heavy enough weight/demand in order to reach significant mechanical tension. The problem as I see it, is that too many TUT trainees rely on the TUT itself - when you would do better with a (not too) higher intensity and a heavier weight.
I personally recall this problem during a period with Darden’s 30-30-30 when the weights maxed out on half the machines/excercises. From a meditative perspective I liked 30-30-30 though. As @atp_4_me said - another tool in the toolbox.
1 Like
Since cardiovascular disease is the #1 cause of death, everyone, including those who practice SuperSlow, should be interested in the most important muscle in the body, the heart 
!
Resistance training , especially SuperSlow, does not meet the criteria for cardiovascular conditioning. If one wants stamina for daily activities, perform LONGER & STRONGER, with a better physique, then cardiovascular conditioning should be of prime importance.
One main problem, seldom mentioned, is the rather short duration of resistance training, and the reliance of anaerobic fuel supplies. Efficacious cardiovascular conditioning promotes a reliance on fat (prime source of fuel). Longer durations of activity promote increased fat burning enzymatic activity along with the fat burned, along with the increased concentration of mitochondria in the slow twitch muscles.
Why anyone would dismiss cardiovascular conditioning is beyond belief. Quit listening to ALL those who discredit cardio. There is no such thing as resistance training for a overall cardiovascular healthy heart
1 Like
Speaking of Dorian Yates, I was shocked to hear him state that he never worked his forearms. He possesses great , massive forearms. He states all the heavy gripping of pulldown bars was responsible.
Furthermore, Bret Contreas has reported that squats have much higher peak EMG readings than standing calf raises. Do we also not need calf raises?
This is something SuperSlow should have looked into!
I personally witnessed Viator, Coe, and both Mentzer’s, using Superslow. They may not have applied it that often, but they all used it multiple times.
3 Likes
Wow, that’s an eye opener…thank you for setting me straight
If Dorian Yates had utilized SuperSlow after he became very advanced, he may have saved himself many of his injuries. As I have said, SuperSlow is another tool in the toolbox.
Neither did Mike!