Speed Does Matter

Recent study in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research confirms that super slow resistance training does not metabolize more calories than traditional weight training.

SPEED DOES MATTER
Study indicates that super slow training does not metabolize more calories than traditional weight training

Colorado Springs, CO --(February 27, 2003)-- The National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) recently published a study in its official scientific journal, The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Vol.17, No. 1, page 76-81) that confirms super slow resistance training (a form of training where all muscle actions are performed in a very slow and deliberate manner) does not expend more energy than traditional resistance training (2--3 sets of 8--10 repetitions at 65--70% of one repetition maximum--the maximum amount of weight that can be lifted one time). The results of the study show that those looking to lose weight through resistance training will use more energy with a traditional form of training than with a super
slow method.

Super slow resistance training continues to increase in popularity as a new method of losing weight, however very few scientific studies have evaluated the effects of super slow training. One of the claims of super slow training is that it requires more energy than traditional weight training. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham recently tested this claim.

Seven male subjects with at least one year of previous resistance training experience participated in the study. The subjects resting energy rate and one repetition maximum were determined after two days without exercise. Five days after this pretest, randomly assigned subjects performed either a super slow program, or a traditional program. After three days of rest, the subjects switched, and performed the other program.

The exercises performed for both programs included: leg extension, bench press, biceps curl, leg curl, behind the head triceps extension, bent over row, reverse curl, shoulder press, upright row, and squat.

The super slow program consisted of eight repetitions with a 10 second concentric (against gravity) phase, and a five second eccentric (with gravity) phase at 25% of one repetition maximum. The traditional program consisted of two sets of eight repetitions at 65% of one repetition maximum. No time constraints were set on concentric or eccentric action. Both programs took 29 minutes to complete.

Results show the traditional resistance training program had a higher energy cost than the super slow training program. The super slow program was significantly lower in total work and relative exercise intensity when compared to traditional training. Intensity was 2.6 times greater, and over four times more work was performed with the traditional resistance training program.

This study does not support the claims of proponents that super slow training is a superior method for energy expenditure. Individuals looking to lose weight through resistance training may do better to find a program that utilizes more energy than the super slow approach.

Throughout its 25-year history, the National Strength and Conditioning Association has sought to educate its members and increase respect for the strength and conditioning profession. The NSCA fulfills this goal by providing a wide variety of resources such as: exceptional professional journals; cutting edge conferences; scholarship and grant opportunities; educational text and videos; and career services to its 26,000 members. Visit the NSCA web site www.nsca-lift.org for more information.

###

NOTE: The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research is the official research journal of the National Strength and Conditioning Association, and is available from Alliance Communication Group at 800-627-0932. For a complete copy of the research paper (Vol. 17, No. 1, page 76-81) or to speak with a leading strength and conditioning expert on the topic, you may contact the NSCA Public Relations Department at 800-815-6826.