|
|
|
|
|
Super Slow Weight TrainingThe Scientific Facts Behind Super Slow Weight TrainingThis article originally appeared in the sports science newsletter, Peak Performance. What is super slow weight training? How do you perform super slow weight training? What are the benefits of super slow weight training? These are all questions you may be asking about super slow weight training due to recent ravings in the press. However this technique was first introduced way back in 1982, at the University of Florida by a researcher named Ken Hutchins, who used the method in an osteoporosis study carried out with older women. For all the recent press attention the scientific research supporting super slow weight training is rather thin. Super slow training is a method of strength training where all movements are carried out very slowly, carefully and in a deliberate manner (1). The concentric (shortening) part of a movement takes 10 seconds to complete and the eccentric (lengthening) part takes 4-5 seconds. This compares to traditional strength training recommendations of a 2 second concentric phase, a 1 second pause and a 4 second eccentric phase. However many weight trainers shorten this to just 1 second for each phase. Therefore super slow weight training is basically carried out in slow motion with the emphasis being on form and coordination rather than speed. It is believed that this method has a greater impact on strength and muscle size than traditional weight training, promotes more effective loss of body fat as well as providing a higher quality aerobic workout. (For details, see Hutchins’ book, Super Slow (2), or visit his web site – http://www.superslow.com). This has led to Hutchins successfully developing videos, training courses and special training equipment for the general public but as stated the scientific research supporting this training method is limited. Some physiologists are even quite sceptical about the super slow training method. This is because during a strength workout the energy cost of that workout is influenced by the amount of work performed and the intensity (the percent of the one-repetition max) at which it is performed at. Resting energy expenditure (amount of energy used while not active) can increase following a strength session, with the amount of increase dependant upon the volume and intensity of the strength work carried out during the session(3). During super slow weight training both volume and intensity will be low due to decreasing the lifting speed to 10 seconds. You won’t be able to lift a high percentage of your 1RM over 10 seconds! Therefore its hard to see how super slow traning would increase resting energy expenditure and lead to a higher fat loss. Comparison of Super Slow and Traditional Training Each athlete completed two workouts to train all major muscles 3 days apart. One workout was a traditional workout and the other a super slow workout. Subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment order – either super-slow training first or traditional training first. The super-slow session involved one set of eight repetitions of each exercise, with 10 seconds of concentric and five seconds of eccentric action for each rep. In accordance with Hutchins’ recommendations, one minute of rest was permitted between exercises. During each workout heart rates and oxygen consumption (amount of oxygen consumed per minute) were recorded as well as blood lactate levels at the end of each session. On the morning after each workout (following a 12-hour overnight fast), the rate of resting energy expenditure was also measured in each athlete. Metabolic Effects No subject could perform the required 8 repetitions at more than 30% of 1RM for any exercise with the average maximal percentage of 1RM with which the athletes could complete eight super-slow reps was only 28%! Since all of the seven athletes could handle 25% of 1RM, this intensity was chosen for the super-slow workouts. This therefore shows the impact super slow training can have on the intensity of a workout with 25% of 1RM being considered as very light in resistance training compared to the average 70% of 1RM used by most athletes in strength workouts. The Alabama researchers wanted to make sure that the traditional workout took the same amount of time as the super-slow session. However this was a problem because it meant the number of reps could not be equivalent due to the time length needed to perfom the traditional repetitions. As it turned out though, the traditional session took 29 minutes (when 2 sets of 8 reps were performed with 1 minute rest between sets) the same time needed for the super slow session. The traditional intensity used was a typical 65% of 1RM. Although total workout time was the same the amount of time working was actually very different. In the super slow session, the athletes spent 10 x 8 x 15 seconds = 1200 seconds (20 minutes) actually doing work. By contrast, the traditional group worked for just 2 x 10 x 8 x 2 seconds = 320 seconds (5:20) during the their session, albeit at a higher intensity. Although the time working was different, oxygen consumption and heart rates were much higher during and after the traditional workout than for its super-slow equivalent. Average heart rate was 143 beats per minute for the traditional session compared to 113 for the super slow workout. Recovery heart rate (15 minutes after exercise) was 119 beats per minute for the traditional compared to just 95 for the super slow activity. Oxygen consumption followed the same pattern. The net oxygen uptake during the traditional workout was 23 litres, compared with 15ltrs during super-slow effort. Similarly, during recovery after a traditional workout, the athletes burned 8.2ltrs of oxygen, compared with 6.7ltrs after super-slow training. Data on energy expenditure and post exercise lactate also failed to show any advantages for super slow training. The morning after measurements of energy expenditure also revealed the super slow athletes did not enjoy higher metabolic rates than the traditional trainers. This therefore showed metabolic disadvantages of super slow training. The Alabama researchers actually pointed out, that the amount of energy expended by the super-slow athletes during their 29-minute workouts was actually less than one would expect to burn during a leisurely 20-minute-per-mile walking pace over the same time period. Therefore, to put it in simple terms, the very low intensity (25-28% of 1RM) is too low to increase metabolism in any significant way compared to the usual intensity of traditional training (65-75% of 1RM) which has greater metabolic benefits. The greater resistances used for traditional training also allow for the completion of more total muscular work than during super-slow sessions. In the Alabama study, four times as much muscular work was performed during the traditional session than during the super-slow workout, even though the muscle-contraction time advantage favored super-slow effort by almost 4-1 (1200 seconds vs 320 seconds). Strength Comparisons The two groups used the following protocols: Both groups had a 60-90-second rest between exercises and, as they grew stronger over the course of the study, resistance was increased in 2.5-5% increments. Following the 10 weeks, the traditional group had improved 1RM significantly more than the super slow group for the bench press (34% vs 11%), lat pull-down (27% vs 12%), leg press (33% vs 7%), leg extensions (56% vs 24%) and leg curls (40% vs 15%). The traditional group’s improvement in total weight lifted was significantly greater than that of the super-slow group (39% vs 15%). There was however no difference between endurance and body composition between the two groups, thus this study showed super slow training offered no advantages at all over conventional resistance work. A separate study carried out by super-slow advocate Wayne Westcott and colleagues, however, provided evidence to support the use of super-slow workouts(6). The investigation used 82 untrained men and women who carried out regular speed-strength training 2-3 times a week for 8-10 weeks, while 65 others undertook super-slow training with the same frequency over the same period. The protocols used were:
To assess strength gains the traditional group performed a 10 rep max compared to a 5 rep max for the super slow group. As it turned out, the super-slow training produced something like a 50% greater increase in strength for both men and women than regular training – a statistically significant effect. As Westcott and his group noted, super-slow training seemed to be an effective way for previously untrained, middle-aged and older adults to increase strength. There were however problems with the study in that the two groups were not checked for the same characteristics, 1RM was not assessed, and the traditional athletes were evaluated for 10RM, while the super-slow individuals were tested for 5RM. It may be that it is easier to increase 5RM by a large amount of weight than it is to inflate 10RM by the same amount. It is also promoted, by super slow training advocates, that this training improves muscle hypertrophy compared to traditional training. This is an interesting concept, since muscle growth is usually linked with gains in strength. In addition, for each 1lb gain in muscle tissue accrued from strength training, there is usually a 10-20 kcal increase in daily energy expenditure(7), which could enhance fat-burning and further magnify whole-body leanness. The only trouble is that scientific research has suggested that the intensity which is necessary to induce muscular hypertrophy is no less than 50% of 1RM, which is considered to be above the maximal intensity at which a great deal of super-slow training is carried out(8). Is It Worth Performing Super Slow Training? It is reported that a good strength workout will elevate resting energy expenditure for 20-40 hours after the training session ends(9,10), therefore increasing fat burning and muscle rebuilding. There is however no evidence to suggest that super slow training offers this effect. There is no solid proof that it burns fat better, builds muscle more effectively, or provides a better aerobic workout than conventional training, which it is quoted to do by Ken Hutchins. In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that super-slow training would help athletes in a truly functional way. Gains in strength are speed specific so the movements involved in super slow training are not specific to the rapid movements in competitive sport. Therefore, even if future studies reveal that super slow training has added benefits over traditional methods in 10RM, 5RM or even 1RM strength, remember that these advantages will be unlikely to be displayed on the field or track, where speed is required. References
Speed
Training Agility
Training Speed
Training Workouts Strength
Training for Speed |
|
