As for you 400 pound scenario, would they get smaller? Well, we know that 180 seconds is a poor stimulus for building mass. We know that if we are not getting larger or maintaining mass we are getting smaller.

I do not think you will ever see a person go from 80 seconds to 180 by using the same weight load to get there. If it was to happen, it would have more to do with neurological factors than actual muscle mass. The only way to go from 400 for 80 secs to 400 for 180 secs is to increase the load every time you train until you are using a good deal more weight for the same 80 secs. Once at 600 for 80 secs I can see the person doing 400 for 180.

As for your idea of not being able to do 401 once – um – I don’t follow.

Marc for years I used strict superslow and while it burned and was hard I built very little muscle – none in fact really. Once I realized that to fail in the same time frame using 2/4 Nautilus tempo you needed a heavier weight – not a lighter one as SS suggests, it struck me light a bolt of lightening. Slow Burn was born and I started gaining more mass. Too bad I realized this at 43.

I welcome you to join in on our discussion forum. Go to http://www.seriousstrength.yuku.com We really hash it out there!!

I forgot to ask. Please confirm the following scenario: A person is doing, say, 400 lbs. for 80 seconds, and they’ve acquired a certain amount of muscle mass by that point. Are you saying that if they were to stay at that weight, to see if they could increase their time with it (say, to 180 seconds), they would start getting smaller, even though their strength is going up? Strength would have to go up, because one must be stronger to go twice as long with a given weight. Otherwise, no matter how long they could go with 400 lbs., they wouldn’t be able to lift 401 once. And, as you stated, instead of using 300 for 120 seconds, one might be able to use 400 for 80, so they are related to each other. Use less for longer; more for shorter.

Marc

Great stuff! Holy Smokes! 12 pounds in 2 years? That’s fantastic! How does your physique compare now with what we see on the cover of your Slow Burn book? Wonderful, wonderful. I’ve wondered about the size vs. strength bit myself, because I’ve found it so hard to believe that training in an inefficiently loaded manner is better than in an efficient one. All right; I’ll try it again with myself, to see what’s possibly going on.

How are you dealing with the possibility of some people feeling that the weight’s so heavy they’re feeling crushed? Also, I wasn’t meaning that the heavier weight was GOING to injure people; rather, that it just increased injury potential.

By the way, Drew Baye has commented about needing more negative excursions to promote better mass gains. Have you incorporated something to accommodate that?

Marc

There are perhaps 3 dozen theorized mechanisms for muscle failure only one of which is total fiber recruitment. Just because you fail in an exercise does not mean you have called all of the fibers into play.

What do you think is lifting the 400 pounds as opposed to the 300? You guessed it.

What I neglected to mention was that I have found very similar TCF’s using very different weight loads. EX: If I use 270# in pullover I fail in 50 seconds. If I use 220 I fail in 60. Not much different TCF’s for vastly different loads. But If I try 275# I can barely eek out a rep.

I have honed in on the target. TCF’s of 90 seconds plus miss the target entirely.

And the bottom line is not if Gary is getting stronger it is if he is getting more muscular. Is he? How do you know? Before we got our Bioanalogics device over two years ago we assumed that if a person got stronger they added muscle and would lose some fat. Nope. Some clients insist on light weights for long set times because they have difficulty with the feeling of a heavier weight or cannot for other reasons. These folks when tested on the machine sometimes showed a loss of lean tissue. Not much, but some. ALL of the clients that were in the TCF range of 40-80 gained.

Personally I have added 12 pounds of lean tissue in 2 years. My TCF’s range from 40-70.

Here’s a free tip for what it’s worth – if a client CAN move a weight fast say in a 1-2 second positive, the weight is far too light. The weight should be heavy enough that a 1 second positive is impossible right from the first rep.

Rep tempo should be dictated more by the weight rather than imposed upon by the trainee.

The SS tech manual is fraught with mistakes. The concept of thorough inroad is faulty. The idea of a perfect rep speed is nonsense.

If the weight feels as if it can’t be moved by the client, as I mention in Slow Burn, then you are on the right track for weight load.

Speaking of weight load, here’s another tip for what it’s worth – when a client feels they can’t start the exercise, help the client and start the client in the negative. Have them hold the most contracted position for 5 seconds or so, then allow them to descend slowly and you will see them perform the positive with little trouble.

Marc, I have been training folks like this for years and we never have a safety problem. Never. We are putting slabs of muscle on folks and clients are quite happy.

You mentioned high reps for conditioning – like Adam Zickerman you misunderstand the cardio aspect of strength training. Strength training should not be used to mimic aerobics by elongating sets out of the anaerobic range. You don’t need to do this for strength training to improve total mitochondria. As long as you are causing hypertrophy and working the muscles anaerobically, mitochondria will proliferate. Eating a diet high in good fats will further improve mitochondria.

Again the bottom line is: Are our clients adding muscle tissue. Using strength gains as the only measure of progress is insufficient. It can lead one far astray. If set times drag on past 100 seconds, there are diminishing returns.

Load dictates fiber recruitment. If the muscles perceive a light load it is my opinion that even if you reach failure you will not have recruited all of the fibers. My experiments with vastly different weights for very similar TCF’s indicate this may be true. I can remember doing strict super slow (remember I was one of the original 10 master SS instructors) for 2 years and thinking “Where is my added muscle?” My body didn’t change a jot.

This is Marc Noel, Master SuperSlow Instructor, who is Gary’s instructor. You commented about the 400 lbs. vs. 300 notion years ago, but I replied at that time that the issue wasn’t whether the person could lift 400. It was whether they could lift it for two minutes. Yes, Gary might be able to use more weight for a shorter time, but that’s not the point. It is to get him to the point where he can lift it for the same amount of time. Just like with McGuff’s Signature Time Under Load, if a subject stagnates at a certain rep count/time, they are progressed in weight. This occurs with Gary in some exercises. If a person is able to show progress, then there must be productivity. Sometime in the past, someone put forth the notion that a person would be stronger/bigger doing four reps with heavier weights, and continuing in that fashion, instead of eventually being able to use those same weights for eight reps. I said “Do you mean to tell me that I will be stronger/bigger if I can do four reps with a given weight than if I can do eight reps with it? This means that the more I can do, the smaller I get, even though the weight remains the same.” Moving along, I have experimented with lower TULs, but have found them to be excessively heavy, thereby encroaching on safety, and also dramatically intimidating for some people, so much so, that, sometimes, an individual can’t even start the movement. I will progress someone if they are stagnant, but I’ve yet to encounter someone who hasn’t been able to progress beyond four reps or 80 seconds. Also, you might remember in some dialogues along the way, that I’ve had to remind some associates that we are trying to address all aspects of fitness simultaneously, not just strength, so I prefer to keep rep count higher for the conditioning aspect. Once again, if a person can’t get there, I’ll put them up in weight, but I prefer to look at the entire picture, for example, taking into account what the person did on the first three exercises before assessing the last three, meaning, if he did two more reps on leg press, then matched on pull-down, it’s probably because he started pull-down extra-tired. I’ll wait to observe a pattern before making a change.

As an example of how heavy the weights used here are, I’ve had the Kevlar belt break on my vintage Nautilus Compound Leg Press (modified for belt/pulleys) twice. The belt is rated at 4,400 lbs.

Something else to consider is: if a person is doing eight reps, it might be that they have stimulated an improvement by rep six, and the rest is superfluous. However, if they come in the door not feeling up to speed, then, if they are trying to beat last time’s seven reps, yet stall out at six, they’ve accomplished something. But if the recommended rep count/TUL is extremely low, they might not even meet the minimum. Besides, it appears that numerous individuals can still fall apart under sufficient duress, meaning that if the load is sufficiently ponderous, they might end up invoking discrepancies and hurt themselves. In comparison, a bit lighter (not light) weight might enable them to go far enough to stimulate an improvement, but not with so much duress as to fall apart.

For me, I cut myself off at ten reps (either 10/5 or 10/10, as per the Second Edition of the SS Technical Manual; haven’t seen a justification for 10/10 on leg press or chest press), using a metronome to enforce proper form and consistency. I used to cut off at six, then got to a point where I felt like I was being crushed in the equipment. The target musculatures could handle the load, but the rest of me didn’t like it. So I cut off at eight, then encountered the same thing. Now I’m cutting off at ten, but am concerned about what will happen when/if I get to ten with my previous high weights.

I am glad SS has worked so well for you and I appreciate your concern for my well-being.

I always approach any new exercise and any new routine with caution. I have been lifting for years, despite being a beginner with SS-SB. What attracts me to the slow approach is the unwavering commitment to good form above all.

Careful not to fall into what I call the ‘rep trap.’ Many HIT/Superslow trainees spend far to much time using weights that are far too light and wait far too long to get a certain rep number before adding weight. EX: If you are doing the leg press exercise for 2 minute sets using 300 pounds I put to you that you could use 400 pounds right now. Going from 300 pounds to 302, 304, etc. will do you little good if you are already capable of 400. In fact, you will give yourself a false sense of progress.

I also do not agree that you should lift 10/10 strictly (depedns on the exercise) nor do I think that 2 minute sets will do you much good.

Although I have only 3 years experience with SS I have the advantage of access to proper equipment and one of the most experienced trainers around. From a safety standpoint I would suggest you perform a MINIMUM of 6 reps before adding weight (120 seconds at 10-10).

I say this Moises because you are a beginner. Once you have developed better technique then you can lift greater weight with less time under load, and less chance of injury. If you do not have an experienced trainer and proper equipment even this protocol can be risky.

There is absolutely no limiting factor with this protocol as long as you keep progressing in your program (moving up in weights). In my case I am still getting stronger, even at 58 years of age. If one is lucky enough to continue getting stronger (safely) that should be proof a program is working well. Keep in mind every person will have a different response (genetics) to a given training regime.

Even with this conservative approach you will soon enough reach the upper limits of your potential and then its a matter of gutting out smaller increments of strength gains. The intensity will come faster than you can believe.

I was lucky to meet the right trainer. I think this is the most important factor and it is probably the most difficult part.

Good Luck,

Gary

Ken wrote:
“I am in my fifth month of this with a trainer and am about ready to give it up. I told myself I would give it six months but I do not see any significant improvement.”

You responded to Ken writing:
“Ideas: Your trainer might be using a system called superslow which usually uses very light weights for very long set times. This will get you nowhere.”

That’s when Gary chimed in, stating:
“I have doing SuperSlow for 3 years. I can assure you that my program is neither light weights, high reps or repeated sets.”

The issue is not who said what. The issue is what your critique of SuperSlow is.

Both SS and SB have 10/10. That’s not the difference.

SB uses 60-90 seconds. SS typically uses 80-120 seconds.
You are claiming that >80 seconds does not provide adequate stimulation. Gary says that in his case, it does. I am just starting and have been doing 60-90. I would like to lift as heavily as I can without sacrificing safety.

Fred, you have written recently that the SS concept of inroad is not sound. I would like to understand better why you believe that.

Thanks,
moises