Slow Reps, Fast Reps, or Both ???

[Wrangell]

You say form is more important than speed for you.

That's correct - for me. For others it might be something else.

In my view, if your form is lousy...be it slow reps, moderate reps, fast reps...then tempo becomes sort of moot point.

But nothing states you have to do one or the other, you can do both! .

I agree. In fact, I never claimed otherwise.

Though while you can do both, it has been my experience during my years of coaching and based on feedback from our training staff ( i.e hockey players ) as players do exercises more quickly, form and control has a tendency to suffer. Not in all cases mind you, but more often than in cases of slow or moderate reps. However, I agree with you. You can do both - if that's what you want to do.

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!

I didn't say you couldn't do both.

I simply put more value on doing an exercise in impeccable form at a moderate pace as I see no significant benefit in going from a moderate to a fast pace for most average gym rats.

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.

I'm not savvy on the generally accepted protocols of power-lifting - so i can't comment on the relevance of tempo when it comes to power-lifting.

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.

No. For the vast majority of gym rats, things like an ideal ' plane of motion ' or ' line of force / resistance ' don't change simply because of your physique.

An ' ideal orientation ' for an exercise is meant - in most cases - to be generic IMO.

I never said you don't have a right to be here.

Correct - you said " 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 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.

Believe it or not - I'm good it either way.

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.

Good ...now I know.

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.

I would disagree.

Particularly on the connection between HIIT and optimizing fat loss - I would say that HIIT & fat loss only really took off as generally accepted maxim after the Tremblay study up here in Canada was published.

 

[Karky]

not plane of motion, but form. for example some will have their knees pass their toes because theire femurs are very long.

And the "fast" we are talking about here is a fast that still allows you to keep form 100%

as players do exercises more quickly, form and control has a tendency to suffer.

Then you are going too fast. You keep your speed just under the point where form suffers, and you are doing it as fast as possible without sacrefising form. How many times do I have to explain it? You keep throwing the form thing at me, and I keep repeating that it's "without sacrefising form" You don't go so fast that you loose the impeccable form. That's why your whole form argument is invalid. If you can only go at a pace you would define as moderate without sacrefising form, then that is "as fast as possible without sacrefising form" and you are then following the recommendation.

HIIT and fat loss took off after those studies, but alot of people already knew.

And I said you shouldn't be here if you haven't read up. I'm not saying anyone should throw you out, I'm just saying I think if you haven't read up on it, it's over your head. I stated my opinion.
But that's not relevant anymore, because you have read up on it.

 

[goergen1]

But, HOW significant a difference is there between a moderate and fast tempo in improving strength and muscle mass gains ?

In my view, if your form is lousy...be it slow reps, moderate reps, fast reps...then tempo becomes sort of moot point.

These are a decent question and statement. I think that speed of lifting becomes more significant to a trainee as their training age increases. For a beginner the change in speed may only have a small increase in training effect.

After 3 - 5 years of training the speed becomes increasingly important.

People who train at the elite level will realize the greatest benefit from training fast, since they have the best motor control.

That being said. I think that, after ensuring the best form possible, learning how to train at a faster pace is a good idea and will lay the groundwork for more advanced methods later in the training career.

The definition of speed will change as the training age increases as well. What was considered fast early in a training career will be considered slow later in the career.

I would disagree.

Particularly on the connection between HIIT and optimizing fat loss - I would say that HIIT & fat loss only really took off as generally accepted maxim after the Tremblay study up here in Canada was published.

Unless this study was released in the 60's, Karky is right. People knew and used these training methods before the research.

Actually, That is true for just about all training methods. Most can be traced back to the 1800's at least. The groundwork was laid well before the research was done.

 

[JonnyM]

I don't really get where you are coming from Wrangell, could you explain what you mean by moderate pace/tempo?
If by moderate tempo you mean person A putting 100% effort in and only lifting at a moderate pace and person B putting 100% effort in and lifting faster then I understand where you are coming from.
But if by moderate pace you mean someone deliberately not lifting the weight as fast as possible then I'd have to say that yes there is a difference between moderate/fast pace/tempo.

It's not the speed at which the weight goes up and down visually, it's the speed at which you're trying to move it. I always aim for a 2 second concentric stage and a 4 second eccentric stage, for some exercises I will manage that 2 exercises, for others it may take me 4 seconds to lift the weight. Although this may cause a visible tempo change it doesn't mean I'm not trying to maintain a fast tempo it just means that the body part I am focusing on is not strong enough to match the pace I am trying to move it at.

So if a moderate pace is all you can manage while still putting 100% effort in then that's all you can do, but if you can physically move the weight faster without sacrificing form, then do so.

On the whole I'd have to pretty much agree with everything Karky has said, I've just been a bit thrown off by the moderate/fast thing as to whether or not you're talking about visual speed or targeted speed.

 

[Wrangell]

not plane of motion, but form. for example some will have their knees pass their toes because theire femurs are very long.

But, staying within an ideal plane of motion is simply part of proper form.

For example, aspects of ideal form to do a proper curl or a proper pulldown is the same whether you are 5'6" or 6'6" IMO. The basic mechanics - for most people and not extreme cases - don't differ.

However, if you disagree on this point - fair enough.

And the "fast" we are talking about here is a fast that still allows you to keep form 100%

I agree - that would be the goal

Then you are going too fast. You keep your speed just under the point where form suffers, and you are doing it as fast as possible without sacrefising form.

Agreed - they would be going too fast.

How many times do I have to explain it? .

There's no need to keep explaining it - because - I'm not disagreeing with you. Form should be ' letter perfect ', regardless of tempo.

We agree.

You keep throwing the form thing at me, and I keep repeating that it's "without sacrefising form" You don't go so fast that you loose the impeccable form. That's why your whole form argument is invalid..

Trouble is, that's not my argument.

It had nothing to do with form. My contention is that dropping your tempo down .5 to 1 second or whatever ( for example ) from an ' as fast as you can ' tempo doesn't enhance outcomes significantly IMO. That said, I simply pointed out that it has been my experience that, when training hockey athletes, the likelihood of form being compromised tends to go up as speed goes up to ' as fast as you can with proper form '.

If you can only go at a pace you would define as moderate without sacrefising form, then that is "as fast as possible without sacrefising form" and you are then following the recommendation.

Then I guess the whole concept or difference between slow, moderate and fast tempo becomes blurred. Assuming you have good form in all tempos, then you have to define what you consider the difference between fast and slow.

HIIT and fat loss took off after those studies, but alot of people already knew.

I find that odd ( that people already knew ), since ( based on what I've read ) the Tremblay study is often referred to as the landmark study that bebunked the notion that slow and steady aerobic cardio is optimal for fat loss....given it was one of the first studies to show how HIIT optimizes fat loss vs steady state cardio.

But I'm glad we can agree - that HIIT took off after those studies.

And I said you shouldn't be here if you haven't read up. I'm not saying anyone should throw you out, I'm just saying I think if you haven't read up on it, it's over your head. I stated my opinion.
But that's not relevant anymore, because you have read up on it.

Exactly.

 

[Wrangell]

I don't really get where you are coming from Wrangell, could you explain what you mean by moderate pace/tempo?

Something a bit less than however you wish to define ' fat tempo ' I suppose.

I assume that tempo would be defined in terms of time - i.e seconds of duration for each part of a complete rep.

If by moderate tempo you mean person A putting 100% effort in and only lifting at a moderate pace and person B putting 100% effort in and lifting faster then I understand where you are coming from.
But if by moderate pace you mean someone deliberately not lifting the weight as fast as possible then I'd have to say that yes there is a difference between moderate/fast pace/tempo.

I agree that there is a difference in how fast it takes to execute a fast tempo vs a moderate tempo - I'm simply not aware of anything to suggest that for most gym rats the difference between the 2 - moderate/fast pace - will lead to any ' significant ' differences in outcomes.

It's not the speed at which the weight goes up and down visually, it's the speed at which you're trying to move it. I always aim for a 2 second concentric stage and a 4 second eccentric stage, for some exercises I will manage that 2 exercises, for others it may take me 4 seconds to lift the weight. Although this may cause a visible tempo change it doesn't mean I'm not trying to maintain a fast tempo it just means that the body part I am focusing on is not strong enough to match the pace I am trying to move it at.

The visual aspect is irrelevant IMO.

At the end of the day, do you think will see any significant differences to your strength and or mass over a month or so if those times are lengthened by say a .5 second or 1 second etc. here or there ?

So if a moderate pace is all you can manage while still putting 100% effort in then that's all you can do, but if you can physically move the weight faster without sacrificing form, then do so.

If that's what you want and can do - go for it.

 

[Hoss]

My contention is that dropping your tempo down .5 to 1 second or whatever ( for example ) from an ' as fast as you can ' tempo doesn't enhance outcomes significantly IMO. That said, I simply pointed out that it has been my experience that, when training hockey athletes, the likelihood of form being compromised tends to go up as speed goes up to ' as fast as you can with proper form '.

Have you even tried explosive training, or low tut training? I have yet to meet anyone (who I KNEW was doing it correctly) that it didn't help. It doesn't seem like Karky is talking about likelihoods, because obviously you're more likely to have less than perfect form lifting fast. But you're more likely to have less than perfect form lifting too heavy, does that mean you should stay light all the time? No way, go as heavy as possible WHILE STILL MAINTAINING FORM (<-What Karky has said several times).

EDIT**

"I assume that tempo would be defined in terms of time - i.e seconds of duration for each part of a complete rep."

Then that would vary person to person, muscle to muscle, weight to weight, exercise to exercise, rep to rep; which would make it impossible to measure or record. A 2 second concentric would be much faster on say a squat then it would on a wrist curl, because of the exercise, meaning that a set time would be a rather poor marker of fast. 'Fast' is subjective, if you're moving the weight as fast as you can while still maintaining good form, that's defined as fast.

 

[Hoss]

At the end of the day, do you think will see any significant differences to your strength and or mass over a month or so if those times are lengthened by say a .5 second or 1 second etc. here or there ?

Probably. And if you could have an edge at all why not take it. I mean if you knew you would grow more, .1% or 50%, from one more rep on one set you'd do it right? Between pwo shakes, creatine, and explosive training (things you said were so small) I'm sure you're notice a good difference. I know certain pwo shakes (protein/carb) have shown to give an additional 5% strength increase over sugar water alone.

 

[Wrangell]

" At the end of the day, do you think will see any significant differences to your strength and or mass over a month or so if those times are lengthened by say a .5 second or 1 second etc. here or there ? "​

Probably. And if you could have an edge at all why not take it. I mean if you knew you would grow more, .1% or 50%, from one more rep on one set you'd do it right?

Guess it depends if your goal is......... to grow more, grow as fast as you can, grow in the most optimal way possible ? - then I suppose .1 % makes sense. The again, HIIT optimizes fat loss at a per calorie level, and post workout shakes may or may not optimize the utilization of various nutrients but it doesn't mean everyone should opt for HIIT or take a shake after a workout.

In a nutshell, it depends on what your training goals are and if you want or need the most optimal approach to training and nutrition.

Between pwo shakes, creatine, and explosive training (things you said were so small) I'm sure you're notice a good difference.

The issue is whether there is a significant difference between options and whether the optimal approach is always needed. Take your PWO for example. If you only train every 24 hours, and your PWO shake is only for glycogen replacement purposes does it really matter whether you have that shake within 20 minutes of working out ? Probably not - you'll likely top up your glycogen stores within 24 hours either way. Or your PWO with it's fast acting carbs to boost protein absorption - does it matter if that carb has a GI score of 75 or 85 or 95 ? Likely it won't make any significant difference in how much or fast you build muscle.

And for that matter if after choosing every optimal approach you have available to you it means you can add 10 pounds of muscle in " x weeks " VS adding 10 pounds of muscle in " x + 4+++++ weeks " by not opting for every optimal approach...there is no reason not to adopt the latter approach if it suits your needs.

 

[Hoss]

In a nutshell, it depends on what your training goals are and if you want or need the most optimal approach to training and nutrition.......The issue is whether there is a significant difference between options and whether the optimal approach is always needed.

If you don't just train as a hobby: taking a less than optimal approach is just idiodic, sorry if that sounds mean, it is.

You don't NEED the optimal approach, but you don't NEED to lift, you don't NEED to eat excess protein. If you want to grow, you do.

If you only train every 24 hours, and your PWO shake is only for glycogen replacement purposes does it really matter whether you have that shake within 20 minutes of working out ? Probably not - you'll likely top up your glycogen stores within 24 hours either way.

PWO shakes/meals are multi purpose, the timing has more to do with protein timing and absorbtion; see next post about carbs.

Or your PWO with it's fast acting carbs to boost protein absorption - does it matter if that carb has a GI score of 75 or 85 or 95 ? Likely it won't make any significant difference in how much or fast you build muscle.

Most peoples' goals aren't solely to 'build muscle'. Most want to maintain a low/respectable bf% which is why we choose carbs with a better GI score throughout the day and a 'worse' GI score pwo.

And for that matter if after choosing every optimal approach you have available to you it means you can add 10 pounds of muscle in " x weeks " VS adding 10 pounds of muscle in " x + 4+++++ weeks " by not opting for every optimal approach...there is no reason not to adopt the latter approach if it suits your needs.

And there is no reason to not adopt the former if it makes no difference since you're already pushing the weight, just push faster. That simple.

 

[JonnyM]

I assume that tempo would be defined in terms of time - i.e seconds of duration for each part of a complete rep.

Actual time of the lift, as many people have stated, and as I tried to state, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, whether it takes you 2 seconds or 10 seconds does not matter it's all about the explosive power you are attempting to use.

I'm simply not aware of anything to suggest that for most gym rats the difference between the 2 - moderate/fast pace - will lead to any ' significant ' differences in outcomes.

Yay! Finally a point I can prove you wrong on using commonly accepted and proven knowledge.
Ok, fast twitch fibers are larger than slow twitch fibers. If you could isolate muscle fibers you would still choose to exercise both slow and fast twitch, but you will see larger gains with those fast twitch muscle fibers.
Research:
Welcome to Techno Fitness Ltd.
Slow and Fast Twitch Fibers
Now back onto your point about tempo and moderate/fast pace not leading to significant gains.
TeenBodybuilding.com - Shane Giese - Slow & Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.
"They are ideally suited for fast bursts of power" - I'm not pointing you necessarily to the article but the references at the bottom which back up this guy's research.
So we can put two and two together, fast twitch fibers give you big gains, and the best way of exercising them is using fast bursts of power.

If we are referring to strength then fast bursts of power is also beneficial.
Periodization Training For Sports - Google Book Search
"Only a high speed of contraction performed against a maximum load will rapidly recruit the fast-twitch fibers and result in increased maximum strength" And seeing as you are recruiting these fibers more rapidly there is more chance of causing micro-tears and therefore building muscle.

Back to my point about tempo not mattering, the article above also says:
"Slow-velocity strength training can improve high-velocity strength [Type II fibers] if the athlete atemps to move the weight as quickly as possible (Behm and Sale, 1993"

As several people have said, tempo/pace/speed what ever you want to call it accounts for nothing, it's about moving the weight as quickly as possible. So if you are only using a moderate tempo/pace/speed and you're not moving it as fast as possible then you are not as rapidly recruiting Type II fibers.

The visual aspect is irrelevant IMO.

Re-read my post, in particular this line:
"It's not the speed at which the weight goes up and down visually"

At the end of the day, do you think will see any significant differences to your strength and or mass over a month or so if those times are lengthened by say a .5 second or 1 second etc. here or there ?

Yes, above articles. To summarize, fast-twitch type II fibers = bigger, faster movements = recruited more rapidly, recruited more rapidly = more tears, more tears = muscle building as well as strength building. All scientifically proven in the research quoted or subsequent links.

Now, I have no problem with people voicing their opinion, free speech is great!
However, I don't like people posting unfounded and frankly rubbish non-sense.
Feel free to go out and research this to try and prove me wrong but if you're just going to do your usual and quote and simply post your own foundation less opinions then it could confuse some newcomers to the sport on how to train.

Also, I'd like to point out that in all the articles, form is paramount and they only take about moving the weight as fast as possible while maintaining strict form.

Please don't take my thread to be argumentative in anyway or an angry response, it's just I'm a lawyer, it comes natural to me .

 

[Wrangell]

If you don't just train as a hobby: taking a less than optimal approach is just idiodic, sorry if that sounds mean, it is.

As I said before, people train for different reasons and toward different goals. There are many approaches one can take to reach the exact same goal. And granted, some approaches are more optimal than others - but that is a subjective issue ( as to what is optimal for someone ) as much as anything else.

But, the suggestion that opting not to choose the most optimal approach - for whatever reason - is idiotic...is in and of itself..... idiotic IMO.

Many approaches can reach the same goal - some simply do it in a more optimal manner than others - people simply choose the approach that works for them. And, some are more optimal than others.

You don't NEED the optimal approach, but you don't NEED to lift, you don't NEED to eat excess protein. If you want to grow, you do.

Correct - if you want muscles to grow you need to train properly. And you need a bit of extra protein and more carbs - and adequate fat - as well. There are optimal ways to achieve this and less optimal ways to go about it.

PWO shakes/meals are multi purpose, the timing has more to do with protein timing and absorbtion; see next post about carbs.

Actually, the timing of PWO shakes / nutrition also has to do with the rate of glycogen replacement ( as I mentioned ) which is optimized immediately after a workout. And although this is an optimal way to replace glycogen ( if that was your sole concern ) in most cases it isn't something most gym rats need to do. In this case, though it is optimal, it really provides no significant benefit because glycogen stores will usually get topped up in adequate time without it.

Most peoples' goals aren't solely to 'build muscle'. Most want to maintain a low/respectable bf% which is why we choose carbs with a better GI score throughout the day and a 'worse' GI score pwo.

If you say so.

I don't think hi GI carbs make you fat - I think calorie surpluses ( beyond what your body requires each day ) do.

And there is no reason to not adopt the former if it makes no difference since you're already pushing the weight, just push faster. That simple.

My comment was a generic one - it wasn't directed at the issue of tempo alone.

 

[spidey]

to the topic starter:i always go as fast as i can on the push and controlled on the way back to the starting position

 

[Karky]

plane of motion is part of propper form, but propper form is more than that. And if me and you both had perfect form on the squat, I bet my bar would move a bit different than yours, mainly because I have pretty long femurs.

when I say "lift fast" I mean "as fast as you can while keeping form 100%" I just can't be bothered to type that long sentence every time I say it. And you say that your hocky players form is more likley to get compromised if they lift as fast as possible while maintaining good form.. that's impossible. Because this "fast" speed is NOT suppose to be so fast that form can get compromised because of it. I feel like a broken record here.

And about the studies, the myth got debunked, but there were people who already knew. But those people diden't write articles about stuff, they were busy training. It's the same thing with the high frequency training that has kind of taken off latly. Strongmen have done that for years. Even before bodybuilders popularized the body part split. And we are still trying to debunk that notion. While alot of strenght athletes were probobly laughing all through the 60's

And you keep saying that different people choose different paths, and that the moderate tempo path works for you. While it's true that training is highly subjective, I like the quote "Training is not a religion, it's a science"
Some thins are simply better for the lot of us because the human body has the same functions.

 

[Wrangell]

plane of motion is part of propper form, but propper form is more than that.

I know ......plane of motion was just one aspect of an ' ideal orientation ' I cited.

And if me and you both had perfect form on the squat, I bet my bar would move a bit different than yours, mainly because I have pretty long femurs.

Perhaps, but regardless of height, the generic guidelines ( you need to stay within ) to perform a squat in an ' ideal orientation ' remain pretty the same for virtually everyone - except perhaps for extreme body types.

when I say "lift fast" I mean "as fast as you can while keeping form 100%" I just can't be bothered to type that long sentence every time I say it.

I know ...you keep saying that ....I get it.

And you say that your hocky players form is more likley to get compromised if they lift as fast as possible while maintaining good form.. that's impossible.

No it's not.

What I said was " as players do exercises more quickly, form and control has a tendency to suffer. Not in all cases mind you, but more often than in cases of slow or moderate reps " We simply saw more bad form when they were focusing on doing reps " as fast as they can " - they thought they were doing it " as fas as they can in good form " - but in fact they weren't.

Because this "fast" speed is NOT suppose to be so fast that form can get compromised because of it. I feel like a broken record here.

Not sure why you keep repeating yourself - I get it - I already told you I agree with you

And about the studies, the myth got debunked, but there were people who already knew. But those people diden't write articles about stuff, they were busy training.

If you say so.

It's the same thing with the high frequency training that has kind of taken off latly. Strongmen have done that for years. Even before bodybuilders popularized the body part split. And we are still trying to debunk that notion. While alot of strenght athletes were probobly laughing all through the 60's

Whatever - but I'm not discussing high frequency training - it's not relevant to my point.

And you keep saying that different people choose different paths, and that the moderate tempo path works for you. While it's true that training is highly subjective, I like the quote "Training is not a religion, it's a science"

I agree - the best way to optimize training and to try and separate myth from reality - is science IMO.

Let's face it, the reason so many lifters get so obsessed about things like scarfing down protein, taking creatine, taking PWO shakes, taking hi GI carbs in that PWO shake, doing HIIT etc. etc. almost always stems back to scientific studies that endorse these things and validate them.

That's why isn't good enough simply to say that fast tempo yields significant gains in strength and mass - science has to test this theory with studies to see if this notion is valid or not.

Some thins are simply better for the lot of us because the human body has the same functions.

 

[Karky]

I mean that my body and your body are very simular in how it works. How new protein is made, etc, etc.

I just mentioned the HFT thing as an example.

And I think you're wrong about that scientific studies is why people do what they do. Sure, for some, it is. However, all your examples are about diet, which is a very different thing from training. If you take for example HFT (as mentioned) training with high intensity (not the famous HIT, but doing reps with 90% and above, singles, doubbles, tripples etc), compound movements, etc. was popular and used by many way before any research backed it up.
There is enough experience going around to say that lifting fast works like a charm, it's actually not a very new thing.
The problem with training is that in the "body building" period, when training was popularised and comertialised, it was the body building methods that were on display. Not the weird people lifting heavy rocks and throwing weird stuff around. And now, when science is debunking all those myths commertial bodybuilding brought with them, people think that it's new stuff. Alot of people seem to think that, FBWs, fast reps, etc, is new stuff that came after the bodybuilding era due to science. That's not the case, people have known for ages, just not the general population, because before the bodybuilding era,
people who did strenght sports were weird. (this is really an aside since it's not really what the discussion is about, but it's a point I've been wanting to make for a long time)

And if your players who loose propper form, even though they think they are not, are simply not doing it correct, and using too much speed. And thus not folloing the general advice, even though they think they are.

 

[Wrangell]

Actual time of the lift, as many people have stated, and as I tried to state, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, whether it takes you 2 seconds or 10 seconds does not matter it's all about the explosive power you are attempting to use..

I would say it does.

Taking only 1 or 2 seconds to lift a weight up is different ( in terms of it's impact on your body's response ) than taking 6-8+ seconds - just ask Karky !

Yay! Finally a point I can prove you wrong on using commonly accepted and proven knowledge.
Ok, fast twitch fibers are larger than slow twitch fibers. If you could isolate muscle fibers you would still choose to exercise both slow and fast twitch, but you will see larger gains with those fast twitch muscle fibers.
Research:
Welcome to Techno Fitness Ltd.
Slow and Fast Twitch Fibers
Now back onto your point about tempo and moderate/fast pace not leading to significant gains.
TeenBodybuilding.com - Shane Giese - Slow & Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.
"They are ideally suited for fast bursts of power" - I'm not pointing you necessarily to the article but the references at the bottom which back up this guy's research.
So we can put two and two together, fast twitch fibers give you big gains, and the best way of exercising them is using fast bursts of power.

If we are referring to strength then fast bursts of power is also beneficial.
Periodization Training For Sports - Google Book Search
"Only a high speed of contraction performed against a maximum load will rapidly recruit the fast-twitch fibers and result in increased maximum strength" And seeing as you are recruiting these fibers more rapidly there is more chance of causing micro-tears and therefore building muscle.

Nice try.

But none of the above has anything to do with what my point was.

Good read though.

Back to my point about tempo not mattering, the article above also says:"Slow-velocity strength training can improve high-velocity strength [Type II fibers] if the athlete atemps to move the weight as quickly as possible (Behm and Sale, 1993"

As several people have said, tempo/pace/speed what ever you want to call it accounts for nothing, it's about moving the weight as quickly as possible. So if you are only using a moderate tempo/pace/speed and you're not moving it as fast as possible then you are not as rapidly recruiting Type II fibers.

I have no issue with any of this. In fact I never claimed otherwise.

Re-read my post, in particular this line:
"It's not the speed at which the weight goes up and down visually"


Yes, above articles. To summarize, fast-twitch type II fibers = bigger, faster movements = recruited more rapidly, recruited more rapidly = more tears, more tears = muscle building as well as strength building. All scientifically proven in the research quoted or subsequent links.

Again, I have no issue with any of this. I never claimed otherwise

Now, I have no problem with people voicing their opinion, free speech is great! However, I don't like people posting unfounded and frankly rubbish non-sense.Feel free to go out and research this to try and prove me wrong but if you're just going to do your usual and quote and simply post your own foundation less opinions then it could confuse some newcomers to the sport on how to train.

Why would I try and prove you wrong ? I don't disagree with any of the links you provided. I fact, most of it makes a lot of sense.

Also, I'd like to point out that in all the articles, form is paramount and they only take about moving the weight as fast as possible while maintaining strict form.

Agreed.

Please don't take my thread to be argumentative in anyway or an angry response, it's just I'm a lawyer, it comes natural to me .

We won't hold that against you.

 

[Wrangell]

And I think you're wrong about that scientific studies is why people do what they do.

My point is, it isn't good enough to follow a practice simply because you ' think ' it's doing what you think it is. That is training based on anecdotal evidence. It has it's place - but if you want to say a claim is a fact - you have to go a step further.

For example, if you think - that all other things being - you will gain more lean muscle mass by taking 3 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight than 1 gram, you have to have a theory that supports that notion and then be able to test it to see if it is valid.

And, as I said before - on PWO shakes. The reason almost every gym rat on this forum is so obsessed with PWO shakes is that science has shown ( in studies ) that it optimizes the absorption and replenishment of nutrients - i.e why do you think gym rats are so obsessed with having dextrose, malodextrin etc. etc. in their PWO shake ? Science is also behind tempo theory or HIIT theory and on and on - it al gets back to science. In fact, your very endorsement of fast tempo training is entirely due to the findings of scientific research.

karky - do you have a PWO shake right after a workout ? Do you have any idea how many grams of carbs / protein is in it and what type of carb ( hi GI ? ) it is ? And if the answer is yes - WHY do you take a PWO shake so soon after a workout ?

Sure, for some, it is. However, all your examples are about diet, which is a very different thing from training.

Diet was simply used to illustrate the role of science - nothing more.

If you take for example HFT (as mentioned) training with high intensity (not the famous HIT, but doing reps with 90% and above, singles, doubbles, tripples etc), compound movements, etc. was popular and used by many way before any research backed it up.There is enough experience going around to say that lifting fast works like a charm, it's actually not a very new thing.

People can say what they want - to make it a valid claim - you should be able to back it up with science.

The problem with training is that in the "body building" period, when training was popularised and comertialised, it was the body building methods that were on display. Not the weird people lifting heavy rocks and throwing weird stuff around. And now, when science is debunking all those myths commertial bodybuilding brought with them, people think that it's new stuff. Alot of people seem to think that, FBWs, fast reps, etc, is new stuff that came after the bodybuilding era due to science. That's not the case, people have known for ages, just not the general population, because before the bodybuilding era, people who did strenght sports were weird. (this is really an aside since it's not really what the discussion is about, but it's a point I've been wanting to make for a long time)

Agreed - it's irrelevant.

And if your players who loose propper form, even though they think they are not, are simply not doing it correct, and using too much speed. And thus not folloing the general advice, even though they think they are.

Agreed.

 

[Karky]

I take a PWO, dunno the exact ammount of what. I don't take it because of scientific evidence, because most scientific evidence supporting PWO shakes are done when the subjects train in a fasted state, which is not realistic. I diden't want to bring this up, because you just use it as an example, and attacking examples have no point, since I get the example and agree with it.

And there are studies that support fast lifting, but I dont have any here, but I belive links have been provided with names of the studies in case you wanted to look at them. And I don't think everything has to be backed up by science, becuase if it has to, then we will never get further than science allows us, and science will hold us back.

anecdotal evidence does have a high place when it comes to training. If something has worked for thousands of different people, why should you be so different? Though I do agree, anecdotal evidence can be quite annoying, and often very wrong. But the thing about this is that it is also scientificly supported, and the knowledge about how the nervous system works with regards to fast training is there.

And in every thread you always ask for scientific evidence, but you never provide any for your own claims.

I could say "do you have scientific evidence that says the earth is round?"
If you don't provide any, that doesn't mean the earth is shaped like an elephant.

And also, scientific studies aren't always correct. You can support just about any claim within reason with a scientific study.
In addition, some studies are just crap, in order to evaluate if the study can really be used as proof, one has to read the entire thing, and often, to get acces to full studies, you have to pay.

 

[Wrangell]

I take a PWO, dunno the exact ammount of what. I don't take it because of scientific evidence, because most scientific evidence supporting PWO shakes are done when the subjects train in a fasted state, which is not realistic.

The why DO you take it ?

If I recall correctly, in some of your earlier posts, you have mentioned a post workout " window ' ( in the context of PWO ) - i.e within 30 minutes or so of your workout- as the best time for PWO nutrition. Perhaps the " window " is the the reason you take a PWO ?

In any event, the ' window ' was discovered by science

I diden't want to bring this up, because you just use it as an example, and attacking examples have no point, since I get the example and agree with it.

Fair enough

And there are studies that support fast lifting, but I dont have any here, but I belive links have been provided with names of the studies in case you wanted to look at them.

Again, fair enough

And I don't think everything has to be backed up by science, becuase if it has to, then we will never get further than science allows us, and science will hold us back.

If you claim something is a fact - I think you do IMO.

anecdotal evidence does have a high place when it comes to training. If something has worked for thousands of different people, why should you be so different? Though I do agree, anecdotal evidence can be quite annoying, and often very wrong. But the thing about this is that it is also scientificly supported, and the knowledge about how the nervous system works with regards to fast training is there.

I never claimed it wasn't.

And in every thread you always ask for scientific evidence, but you never provide any for your own claims.

Actually, what I'm saying is that if people claim ( anecdotally ) a certain protocol yields significant results, then you need science - i.e scientific evidence - to determine if the claim has any validity

I could say "do you have scientific evidence that says the earth is round?" If you don't provide any, that doesn't mean the earth is shaped like an elephant.

If you have scientific evidence - you present it. If you don't, you can't support your claim. Correct.

And also, scientific studies aren't always correct. You can support just about any claim within reason with a scientific study.

That is why they are published in an academic journal and subject to peer review.

In addition, some studies are just crap, in order to evaluate if the study can really be used as proof, one has to read the entire thing, and often, to get acces to full studies, you have to pay.

That's what scientists do.