Slow Reps, Fast Reps, or Both ???
- Thread starter Big_Idiot
- Start date
Ok sorry, I missunderstood you then.
No worries, should have been clearer in my first post :11doh:
This has been one of the most interesting/informational threads in a while.
For most, focusing on rep speed is futile. The vast majorit of trainees will be best served by focusing on the fundamental factors that contribute to hypertrophy. People have enough stuff to *trip* themselves with. Just go into any gym and you'll see people doing more ridiculous stuff than you can shake a stick at.
Focus on progressively overloading the muscle with sufficient volume.
Manage fatigue. Going all out every time you train probably won't last long unless you are an absolute noob. Work lower intensity periods into your training with some sort of deloading.
Use common sense. Obviously doing a bunch of isolation work isn't going to do much for you if you are looking to make your whole body grow. Stick to the big barbell exercises.
Instead of focusing on rep speed, I think focusing on something such as total tonnage would better serve most lifters.
I understand we're talking theory here....
Focus on progressively overloading the muscle with sufficient volume.
Manage fatigue. Going all out every time you train probably won't last long unless you are an absolute noob. Work lower intensity periods into your training with some sort of deloading.
Use common sense. Obviously doing a bunch of isolation work isn't going to do much for you if you are looking to make your whole body grow. Stick to the big barbell exercises.
Instead of focusing on rep speed, I think focusing on something such as total tonnage would better serve most lifters.
I understand we're talking theory here....
But, HOW significant a difference is there between a moderate and fast tempo in improving strength and muscle mass gains ?
For example, let's say you took a dozen gym rats and trained them with a moderate rep tempo- not slow - protocol for 10 weeks.
Then you took another dozen gym rats and trained them in the exact same way. The only difference being that this second dozen went with a fast rep tempo - not slow - rep tempo protocol for 10 weeks.
- All other things being equal, how significant an increase ( i.e minimal ) in strength would you expect to see in the fast tempo group vs the moderate tempo group ? An increase of 5%, 10% ? 20% ? 50 % ?
- Also, ( all other things being equal ) how significant an increase in muscle mass would you expect to see in the fast tempo group vs the moderate tempo group ? An increase of 5%, 10% ? 20% ? 50 % ?
- Also, ( all other things being equal ) how significant an increase in muscle mass would you expect to see in the fast tempo group vs the moderate tempo group ? An increase of 5%, 10% ? 20% ? 50 % ?
Again, just to be clear, I'm not asking about a slow vs fast tempo - but a moderate vs fast tempo.
In any event, I tend to side with what stroutman81 said - keep it simple.
Focusing on basic fundamentals ( i.e like ' perfect form ', sets, reps, load ) would seem to be a more important issue to focus on for gym rats than subtle issues like rep tempo - IMO.
Last edited:
Do you expect any of us to know exactly how much it matters? No one can say "this accounts for 5.5484514845164198794651% of your strenght gains"
If you ask me, a fast concentric tempo is one of the fundamentals when it comes to strenght training. And if it gives you 5% or 15% better results, who cares? It costs you nothing to do it. Ofcource propper form, set, reps, load, fatigue management is more important, but I say again, what does it cost you to move the bar as fast as you can concentric? I belive many on this site are past the basics anyways, we know to use propper form, how to use different sets and reps.
Why go against something that is proven to work by questioning how significant it is? You don't know how significant using propper form is, you can say "it's very significant, you can get injured with impropper form" but you can't say "propper form gives you x% better results than if you use impropper form"
And don't give me the form crap, because everyone says "as fast as possible without sacrefising form" form comes first.
If you ask me, a fast concentric tempo is one of the fundamentals when it comes to strenght training. And if it gives you 5% or 15% better results, who cares? It costs you nothing to do it. Ofcource propper form, set, reps, load, fatigue management is more important, but I say again, what does it cost you to move the bar as fast as you can concentric? I belive many on this site are past the basics anyways, we know to use propper form, how to use different sets and reps.
Why go against something that is proven to work by questioning how significant it is? You don't know how significant using propper form is, you can say "it's very significant, you can get injured with impropper form" but you can't say "propper form gives you x% better results than if you use impropper form"
And don't give me the form crap, because everyone says "as fast as possible without sacrefising form" form comes first.
My only point is rep tempo isn't very important for most lifters relative to hypertrophic adaptation. Angry or not, you can't really debate that point, which I know you aren't angry Karky!
well you sort of can, training CNS specific will teach your body to recruit more MTs (you can say you teach your body to use more of the muscle) which will make hyp come faster. But that's more an indirect consequense.
Waterbury is one of those who advocates fast tempo both for strenght and size. Though I usually argue for fast concentric when it comes to strenght training. I don't have much experience with hyp specific training.
Waterbury is one of those who advocates fast tempo both for strenght and size. Though I usually argue for fast concentric when it comes to strenght training. I don't have much experience with hyp specific training.
As I read my last post it came across as kind of angry and hostile, just wanted to let you guys know that was not the intension.
Lol, it did read as being a bit angry
I have to say I agree that just lifting the weight is the important thing and that lift tempo is the minutiae but that's a lot of why we're here; the minutiae, we all want that extra 1%.
If we didn't discuss the tiny little factors we'd just have one thread that said
eat, eat, eat, lift, eat, eat, sleep. rinse. repeat
I'm not sure I understand your debate against my previous post? Can you clarify.
Are you suggesting that by focusing on rep tempo over progressive overload it will result in greater recruitment and coding?
Last edited:
You said it matters, and that ' tempo ' makes a difference in strength and muscle mass gains. I was simply asking you if those gains were ' significant ' or not or just minor in nature ( when comparing moderate vs fast tempo ) - i.e minor :there is really no significant difference in outcomes between moderate and fast tempos.
I assumed since people can conclude ( by means of academic study ) why things like post-workout shakes and doing HIIT optimize results, the same could be said for fast tempo. Perhaps the best thing to do is to couch this fast tempo theory against some study that supports the theory. For example, when you cited your explanation as to why fast tempo yields improved results - which study / studies did you have in mind ?
If you don't know the extent - even a ballpark estimate - to which a fast tempo will yield enhanced outcomes in strength and muscle mass - fair enough. Perhaps some other poster knows.
My question is - how do you it isn't 0.1 % ? That's all I was asking.
Again, perhaps there is no significant difference at all between moderate and fast tempo protocols. So, I'd guess you'd care, because if there is little difference, there is no need to make fast tempo a priority over things like perfect form, overload, sets, 1RM max etc. etc.
Well again, the only reason you would ' move the bar as fast as you can ' - vs moving it at a moderate tempo - is if it yielded significantly better results. If it didn't - then why do it ? If a moderate pace gets you pretty much the same results, I would probably opt for a moderate pace and focus more of my attention of making sure each rep is executed in perfect form under complete control, than trying to ' move the bar as fast ' I can - but that's just me.
Fair enough.
When you say " proven to work " - which studies " prove " this ?
I suspect the studies you will come back with will probably shed some light on how their test subjects improved by going with a fast tempo - and perhaps then it is possible to say " studies have shown fast tempo may improve strength and muscle mass by as much as " X " % "
I never said proper form enhances strength or muscle mass - I focus on proper form because proper bio-mechanics ( i.e lines of force, leverage, planes of motion, direction of resistance etc. etc. ) minimizes of joint stress and risk of injury and maximizes the concentration you put on target muscle groups. Every exercise has an " ideal " orientation - and proper form means striving toward this ideal.
Again, to me there is a bigger down side to improper form than there is to training at a moderate pace ( vs fast ) and that is why I would give form much more importance over tempo - but that's just me.
Form isn't crap.......perfect form rules !
Last edited:
Lol, it did read as being a bit angry
I have to say I agree that just lifting the weight is the important thing and that lift tempo is the minutiae but that's a lot of why we're here; the minutiae, we all want that extra 1%.
If we didn't discuss the tiny little factors we'd just have one thread that said
eat, eat, eat, lift, eat, eat, sleep. rinse. repeat
I would agree.
Hoss
1
For the most part I focus on total volume like you stated stout, but when I begin to plateau speed work, and explosive sets have worked every time. Then coming back to my sacred cow of high volume/frequency works again.. I think once one becomes advanced they need to consider incorporating it somehow, because Karky is right it's proven to help recruit more actual fibers which helps ALL PLrs BBrs alike.
I would agree.
I think I got confused somewhere here. I've been debating against the use (or I should say worry) of slow-tempo reps. Not fast/explosive type stuff.
If that is what Karky meant.... I feel ya both!
Ok, now I am angry.
Wrangell, you don't read my posts before you reply.
I never said to sacrefise form, I actually said form always comes first, because the advice is "lift as fast as possible while maintaining good form"
I said "don't give me the form crap" as in "I wont sacrefise form for speed" (which is pretty much all you are saying) because no one says you should sacrefise form for speed.
Because the fact is, moving the bar fast "or intending to, as it would be with bit loads" recruits more monitor units.
For the love of god, all you can do is critizse peoples posts, and you don't even read them.
about the nerous system
TESTOSTERONE NATION - The Shocking Nervous System!
Lots of articles from WB:
T-Nation - Authors
Just brows through some and see what he says about speed, because that is pretty much what I say about speed.
And I never said you said propper form gives better gains, I'm just saying you can't tell me how significant anything is, basicly, because it will be different from person to person. And I said that the gains from faster speeds is significant, do I have a study to back this up? No. But if you want, you can read through all the studies Chad gives as reference. (though you probobly have to pay for them)
And for the record, if you get too hung up in the studies written on a pice of paper, you will become a pice of paper. Just now is science catching up with what we have know from experience for decades.
Truth be told, if you haven't read up on anything about how the nervous system is related to training and speed training, you shouldn't even be in this discussion.
Wrangell, you don't read my posts before you reply.
I never said to sacrefise form, I actually said form always comes first, because the advice is "lift as fast as possible while maintaining good form"
I said "don't give me the form crap" as in "I wont sacrefise form for speed" (which is pretty much all you are saying) because no one says you should sacrefise form for speed.
Because the fact is, moving the bar fast "or intending to, as it would be with bit loads" recruits more monitor units.
For the love of god, all you can do is critizse peoples posts, and you don't even read them.
about the nerous system
TESTOSTERONE NATION - The Shocking Nervous System!
Lots of articles from WB:
T-Nation - Authors
Just brows through some and see what he says about speed, because that is pretty much what I say about speed.
And I never said you said propper form gives better gains, I'm just saying you can't tell me how significant anything is, basicly, because it will be different from person to person. And I said that the gains from faster speeds is significant, do I have a study to back this up? No. But if you want, you can read through all the studies Chad gives as reference. (though you probobly have to pay for them)
And for the record, if you get too hung up in the studies written on a pice of paper, you will become a pice of paper. Just now is science catching up with what we have know from experience for decades.
Truth be told, if you haven't read up on anything about how the nervous system is related to training and speed training, you shouldn't even be in this discussion.
I read all your posts in full.
That said, I'm not sure why you're getting so pushed out of shape - I never said you endorsed sacrificing form for speed. I know you put a lot of value on form - any any speed - I get that.
I simply said I place more emphasis on form than tempo.
I get that - you mentioned this earlier
I did read your posts - I didn't criticize your posts. I think you and I simply place a different emphasis on the importance of fast tempo.
Fair enough. Everyone has different opinions. Our opinions differ - nothing more.
So, your views are based primarily on Waterbury's opinions - got it.
Well, I would argue that from a bio-mechanical point of view, that there is an ' ideal orientation ' for any given exercise when you take into account those factors I mentioned earlier like lines of force, leverage, planes of motion, direction of resistance etc. etc. So, when trainers train clients, there is ' proper form ' of an exercise than minimizes joint stress and maximizes the recruitment of a target muscle / group.
In that context, I would say ' proper ' form is the same - not different - person to person.
So, can I assume you think the studies Chad supplies should be sufficient enough proof to support the theory ?
My point is, the reason people get so consumed and obsessed by things like HIIT, post - workout shakes, creatine, etc. etc. - is because of evidence supplied by science and academic studies that support these concepts / practices.
And, in this case, if people want to cite the physiological aspects of the human body to endorse a theory that a certain tempo protocol is superior, you have to test that theory with scientific studies to see whether the theory is valid or not.
I have as much right to be in on this discussion as you do - neither of us is an expert on the human central nervous system.
And, I've read about the nervous system in the context of training. And as a result, I've concluded that while tempo may be of some significant benefit to some - i.e the bodybuilder looking for that edge - for most gym rats, I haven't read anything that suggests there are ' significant ' improvements to be had by going from a moderate tempo to a fast tempo.
Again, I'm not saying fast tempo isn't a good thing, but for most gym rats i think it's relative importance in the whole scheme of things is a bit overblown - particularly on this forum
You say form is more important than speed for you. But nothing states you have to do one or the other, you can do both! That's what I don't get. It's like me saying that drinking water is more important to me so I don't eat. It's madness, because I can do both!
Ask any sucessful powerlifter if intending to move the weight fast makes a significant difference or not. If it does for a powerlifter, why shouldn't it for a gym rat? They are both human.
And by different from person to person I wasn't talking just about form, I was talking about anything. And good form would differ from person to person as different people have different limb lenghts etc.
I never said you don't have a right to be here. I just implied that it doesn't seem like you have read up on much of the stuff out there about the nervous system and training, and if you haven't you can't understand the arguments being made. But now you say you have read up on it and I guess I belive that.
My views are not based primarily upon Waterbury. I never said that, don't try to make up new meanings for things I have said. I said what he says is basically what I say, that is because I happen to agree with the man.
And for the record: People were hung up in HIIT, PWO shakes, and stuff like that before there was any research to prove it. Because people learned from experience.
Ask any sucessful powerlifter if intending to move the weight fast makes a significant difference or not. If it does for a powerlifter, why shouldn't it for a gym rat? They are both human.
And by different from person to person I wasn't talking just about form, I was talking about anything. And good form would differ from person to person as different people have different limb lenghts etc.
I never said you don't have a right to be here. I just implied that it doesn't seem like you have read up on much of the stuff out there about the nervous system and training, and if you haven't you can't understand the arguments being made. But now you say you have read up on it and I guess I belive that.
My views are not based primarily upon Waterbury. I never said that, don't try to make up new meanings for things I have said. I said what he says is basically what I say, that is because I happen to agree with the man.
And for the record: People were hung up in HIIT, PWO shakes, and stuff like that before there was any research to prove it. Because people learned from experience.