Quote:
Originally Posted by chessnut
I tend to agree that free weights are superior. I usually do a mix at the gym. But I'm at home now, so machines are not an option.
When you say there is no advantage, on what do you base that? Your experience? What you've read? Scientific studies?
The studies that I am aware of either show superslow to be greatly superior or no different than volume training in increasing strength (2 of each). The studies that show no difference seem to be designed poorly (lifting only 50% of 1 rep max in the superslow group). The protocol in the slow burn book is also a little different than the usual superslow in that SS is 10 seconds up 4 seconds down, whereas SB is 10/10.
All I can say is that I have been working out for over 5 years and have read about a dozen different strength training/bodybuilding books. I consider myself an intermediiate/beginner. I have never has these kind of results doing volume training on machines or free weights. It may be due to a temporary challenge that I could get used to. Frankly, I don't think I could only work out this way as it is not a lot of fun! But I think it lives up to the advertising of quick and effective!
Just MHO. YMMV. Yada yada yada...
Btw my wife has put up with checking my biceps for years now. She's completely bored and annoyed whenever I say "Check this out." After 2 slow burn workouts I finally got her to check and after a perfunctory squeeze she went "Whoa!"
That's enough proof for me.
|
I'm basing my contentions on a combination of science, practical experience and empirical evidence. Before I even get into studies, here's all the proof you'll need;
Number of top athletes produced by HIT/slow training: None of them
Number of athletes produced by volume/explosive training: All of them
If we look at trials, there aren't many well-conducted studies on the subject comparing slow vs. fast but I'll share what evidence we do have.
Westcott produced a study that showed superiority of slow tempo training in one study, however the study was poorly conducted and has never been replicated.
In fact Keeler et. all conducted a study that showed vastly superior strength gains in the traditional speed group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum
In terms of metabolic effects and body comp, traditional training reigns supreme once again. Net energy expenditure was 45% greater in the traditional training group than that of the slow tempo group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum
There are other studies that show
better peak power and
greater gains in hypertrophy and z-line streaming (a measure of protein re-modelling) with traditional vs. slow training.
For other nails in the coffin, here is a meta-analysis that looks at HIT vs. traditional volume. Not good news for the HIT peeps.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373
A friend of mine has a review being published in less than a month - the most comprehensive one to date on the subject. Again, not good news if you are a HIT proponent. I'll post it when it becomes available.
Bottom line, if you think that the evidence favors HIT/slow tempo - you've been fed a steaming pile of ostrich poop.