Lifting "heavy"...or lifting "light" slowly.

[jeffk694]

For example...Lets say Ive been using 50 lb dumbells to do arnold presses, and I struggle getting up that 10th rep. And on another occassion, I use 35 lb's to do arnold presses, but I do them in slow motion, and once again I struggle getting up that 10th rep. Which would be better?

[DJAuto]

For most purposes, a controlled medium pace movement is fine. There's no point in performing slow motion repetitions if your goal is to increase strength AND mass...it will simply lead to premature fatigue.

[Senecan]

In my experience, a slow motion is useless. What builds muscle is the contraction of that muscle with resistance (combined with proper diet and rest). Having said that, performing a rep too fast will cause injury, you can very easy tear something by overextending your body on a deadlift for example.

So just as DJAuto stated, a medium pace is best.

[Veteq]

Mike Mentzer was a proponent of slow (painfully slow) reps and minimal volume with his Heavy Duty H.I.T. program. He worked with Dorian Yates as well as being a somewhat successful (and underrated?) competitor himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mentzer

[Dale1988]

Depends on your goals. If you are building for mass then you will want to control the weight very intensely to recruit as many muscle fibers as possible. Now this can be done a high speed, but it would take signifigant dexterity to do so and unless you have been training for over 6 months, I would just recomend 2 seconds up 2 seconds down for maximal mass gains.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Lift heavy slowly for high reps.

</thread>

[doinmiabs]

What did I just read? 2 seconds up...4 seconds down I think. That being said: IMO there is benefit in both ways of lifting. I like to try to change things up from workout to workout. Today, when doing shoulders I sat on a bench to avoid cheating and did lat raises slowly to really feel the muscle working. The next time I'll stand, do heavier weight and will probably cheat on my last rep.

I think it all works as long as you are actually doing the work!

[KingOfLimbs]

What did I just read? 2 seconds up...4 seconds down I think. That being said: IMO there is benefit in both ways of lifting. I like to try to change things up from workout to workout. Today, when doing shoulders I sat on a bench to avoid cheating and did lat raises slowly to really feel the muscle working. The next time I'll stand, do heavier weight and will probably cheat on my last rep.

I think it all works as long as you are actually doing the work!

The only time I go slow and light is at the end of a bi or chest workout where I didn't feel that I exhausted the muscles enough. Ill usually go 1/2 my 5-8 rep max and just do really slow reps with as perfect form as I can.

Is this hurting me?

[gomez26]

For example...Lets say Ive been using 50 lb dumbells to do arnold presses, and I struggle getting up that 10th rep. And on another occassion, I use 35 lb's to do arnold presses, but I do them in slow motion, and once again I struggle getting up that 10th rep. Which would be better?

first thing to realize is that those 2 situations cannot be compared directly - they are different types of loading over a different range. dont be too tied down to rep counts.
time is the fundamental measure of the set, not reps. we only count reps for convenience.
so if your 50lb set using a 1.5/1.5 cadence lasted 30 seconds while your 35lb set using a 3/3 cadence lasted 60 seconds, they are not comparable regardless of the fact that both were 10 reps.

a valid comparison would be 35lb set using a 3/3 cadence for 10 reps Vs. 35lb set using a 1.5/1.5 cadence for 20 reps. both sets would last 60 seconds & would be very, very similar in terms of the type of stimulation they provide.
most ppl here wouldnt even dare though since 20 reps is considered taboo (too high) even though many of these same ppl would happily do the slower set for 10 reps.

for a set lasting the same time, the difference between slow & fast reps is greater instantaneous tension fluctuation for the fast reps, but the average tension across the whole set would be the same for both speeds.

[TigerStealth]

both is always better. Cliche answer but its true -- the most growth comes from a combo of overloading the muscles by using both heavy weight and higher rep, time under tension sets. this way you hit all muscle fibers

[ectofitness]

IMO, fast twitch muscle fibers > slow twitch

[Tommy W.]

All tempo's are useful. Exploding off the start and semi slow back to starting position tends to be the most result oriented protocol.

[doinmiabs]

The only time I go slow and light is at the end of a bi or chest workout where I didn't feel that I exhausted the muscles enough. Ill usually go 1/2 my 5-8 rep max and just do really slow reps with as perfect form as I can.

Is this hurting me?

I don't think that's hurting u necessarily. It sounds like a drop set (on your last set) you're performing slow. Like I said above: All of these movements, IMO, can spark some muscle growth. We all just gotta do the work!

[usertag]

i tried both. i feel heavy weight is better. i use heavy weight until my muscle got hardened.. then i tried moderate weight and slow reps.. i felt my muscle no more hardened. then i went back to heavy weight.. my muscle went back to hardened.

you can try fast concentric and controlled eccentric using heavy weight. like 0.5-1 sec up and 2 sec down

[h3adbang3r14]

thats wat ive found as well is heavy hardens the muscle more so i normally go heavy exept in my "off" cylce in which i do sustanment to keep wat i got

[DYTrainer]

Usually when someone increases the weight the range of motion and form usually suffer pretty bad. Now if your main goal is to move the weight from point A to point B (aka powerlifter) then it really doesnt matter how you got it there. But if your goal is to put on lean muscle mass it sure as hell matters how you moved it. Let's take bench press for example. When is someone is going "heavy" what usually happens? They let the bar drop (ie there is no controlled negative part of the rep, the weight is controlling them rather then them controlling the weight). Now since the weight is "heavy" next comes a nice bounce of the chest ( bet that feels great). And what do you know, they got it back up to complete the rep. Technically they completed the rep--hey good job-- but with a blatant disregard to form, range, rep tempo do you think the chest received any sort of growth stimulation? Very little if any.

But this is what goes on in every gym. Some of the most notorious exercises are barbell curls ( hint: this isnt a full body exercise), bench press (would rather look like i bench 400 while only benching 200 then look like i bench 200 while being able to "bench" 400), tricep push downs ( most people turn this into a modified chest press), and standing calf raise(this shouldnt look like a messed up version of the squat).

So for the average trainee they would be best served to slow down their reps. 2-4 second negative, 1-2 pause in the fully contracted position, and a controlled positive. But the trade off is that the weight they are used to using will have to be decreased since they would now probably performing the exercise correctly ( correct form, full range of motion, correct rep tempo). Since they are using the muscles the exercise was designed for it should stimulate muscle growth. If their diet is on point, then this should turn into new muscle mass. However, most get caught up in the ego-lifting game and continue to "lift" weights that are obviously too heavy for them week in and week out. While they get a nice ego stroke, their body remains the same. So the best would be to lift as heavy as you can while maintaining the form, range, and rep tempo you choose. Progressively increase in weights and/or reps, get your diet in check and you are good to go.

[GeneralSerpant]

They're both shock methods.

The way you could compare it, is by taking a rep-range and weight that you can do any day of the week at a regular speed. You'd then either increase the weight and take off a rep, or slow down the speed and take off a rep.

[Arm_Wrestler]

The heavier route is the way to go. By better, I assume you mean which would be more effective for adding size and strength. Unless you are nursing an injury or trying to prevent one from recurring, go heavier for 10 reps. If you can do it for 10 reps, it is not that heavy anyway... for the repective person doing the set.

[GeneralSerpant]

Heavier will recruit more explosive power, and slower will recruit broader muscle activation.

Slower lifting won't exploit comfortable angles and the most powerful part/use of a muscle. Heavier lifting will force you to use the form that's most natural to you. If your form is naturally really good, there is less reason not to use heavier lifting to shock muscles.

[Tyciol]

In my experience, a slow motion is useless. What builds muscle is the contraction of that muscle with resistance.

I don't follow the association between these two sentences. Do slow motions not involve contraction of the muscle against resistance?

If we go to the "slowest" motion (non-moving, isometrics) these still do build muscle, as we see with people building their grip/forearms with pulling movements, and their lower back erectors from static support of the sine during squats/deadlifts/extensions.

Slower lifting won't exploit comfortable angles and the most powerful part/use of a muscle.

While true, they do exploit the enhanced difficulty in the uncomfortable angles. I guess the question is: what makes a muscle grow more, using it when its most powerful, or using it at weaker angles? Or is there a difference? I don't know the answer and would be interested in seeing studies about it.

Some things I can see making the high-power movements better would be that dealing with higher numbers allows microloading progressions of smaller increases, and also that the brief rest in tension during the easier portions (by it efficient pull or being helped with momentum) is that it would allow waste to get out and fuel to get in, perhaps allowing the muscles to do more work for longer.

That ties into the whole "what's better, 1 set or multiple sets" or "should I occlude blood flow to my biceps by tying a rubber band around my shoulder" type arguments.

IMO, fast twitch muscle fibers > slow twitch

This is a separate issue. Fast twitch fibers can be hit with slow or isometric movements if the resistance is high enough.

While we do use fast-twitch fibers during fast movements (say, throwing a ball), if the mass they are accelerating is light, the amount of challenge these fast-twitch fibers will get from the motion is questionable.

My guess is: a 5 second concentric with a 200lb barbell would probably produce bigger gains in fast-twitch fiber size than a 0.5 second concentric with a 2lb ball.

[ThickAsABrick]

lifting 30 percent less than you can in slow motion for the same number of reps is a dumb.

if you're after more time under tension, simply do more reps.

few things are a complete waste of time in lifting, but purposefully lifting very slowly with lighter weights than what you can normally handle is one of them.

[ger2oo5]

lifting 30 percent less than you can in slow motion for the same number of reps is a dumb.

if you're after more time under tension, simply do more reps.

few things are a complete waste of time in lifting, but purposefully lifting very slowly with lighter weights than what you can normally handle is one of them.

Just because you dont do it/tried it doesnt mean it is dumb. Have you even tried it? Certainly worked for Mentzer and more recently Jon Harris http://www.jonharris.com/