"I read your book, but I'm somewhat confused (a frequent occurance for me).There are two sets of workouts: "in your home", basically using some houshold items and body weight; and in the gym using specific gym equipment."
Correct. And thanks for reading the book!
"I want to try your system using my free weights and a basic universal machine. Do I just change the timing and tempo of my current free-weight and machine exercises?"
Yes -basically go slower on the lifts and train to complete fatigue as best as possible to tap into the fast twitch fibers.
"I'm sorry if I missed something in the book, but I just can't find the anser to my question. I'm posting as anonymous because my password doesn't seem to be working, and I can't figure out how to reset it. Thank you."
You're very welcome!
Go slow to tap fast twitch fibers. LOL
Oh Fred.
"Go slow to tap fast twitch fibers. LOL"
Why are you laughing?
Before I go into a long post, please explain to us all your understanding of the orderly recruitment theory. Be brief please.
I've just come back from nearly three weeks holiday in France and was pleasantly surprised to see that Dr Davis is taking up Fred Hahn's Slow Burn. I've been following Fred Hahn's protocol for more than three years now. I'm in my mid 50's and have osteoporosis, atypical type 2 diabetes (ie I'm very thin and not insulin resistant) and a heart defect. I started doing Slow Burn specifically to help increase my bone density on the advice of Dr Mike Eades. It works not only for that - the technique was originally devised by a physiotherapist called Ken Hutchins for people with osteoporosis (Super Slow) - but also for my general fitness. I started lifting weights at home with this method and then moved on to the gym, now I do once a week at home with free weights and once a week at the gym with machines. I have gained such strength and muscle tone, I lift as much as some of the body building men at the gym I go to when it comes to the leg press ! Arm muscles no where near as strong as a man's but then I am a skinny woman, but my legs are very strong....and that helps increase bone density on hips. Fred is always helpful when I've had problems....nice to see you here Fred 
"..nice to see you here Fred "
Thanks Anne!
Isn't heavy weight a good way to tap into fast twitch? Why move down to a weight you can handle to those long reps? (different anon)
"Isn't heavy weight a good way to tap into fast twitch? Why move down to a weight you can handle to those long reps? (different anon)"
You're not - with slow reps you are using a heavier weight than when using fast reps. That is one HUGE difference between superslow and slow burn.
Think of it this way. Do as many "regular" push ups as you can. Up, down, up down - pump away. Time how long it takes you to get to complete fatigue.
Let's say you reached complete fatigue in 60 seconds. An hour later do slow push ups. Your set will last longer.
So to reach complete fatigue using slow reps you need to add more weight to your body.
The same is true for machines, free weights, etc. The weights I use on my machines can't be lifted in one second - impossible.
But Fred, earlier you said in a comment "go slower" not "go heavier."
I know with a heavy weight I can't move it that fast (though with training I have seen how I can move a higher % of my increasing 1rm faster), but I am *trying* to move them as fast as possible.
It sounds like you advocate for something different - not even trying to move the weight as fast as possible. It's not clear to me.
"But Fred, earlier you said in a comment "go slower" not "go heavier."
****Where did I say this? If I did I think I was referring to something someone else said RE: Olympic lifting.
"I know with a heavy weight I can't move it that fast (though with training I have seen how I can move a higher % of my increasing 1rm faster), but I am *trying* to move them as fast as possible."
****Right. And depending on the lift, you can learn to use leverage to your advantage. But the goal is not to lift weights quickly. The goal is to fatigue the target muscles to stimulate a growth response.
"It sounds like you advocate for something different - not even trying to move the weight as fast as possible. It's not clear to me."
As fast as possible is relative. You should be trying to move it as fast as possible on the last rep. Because many machines and free weight exercises are not able to offer the correct resistance from start to finish, sometimes the start of an exercise has the weight too light and thus you could, if you pushed as hard as possible move the weight quickly. Perhaps I should blog on this?
Fred - it's up above. Your quote was:
"Yes -basically go slower on the lifts and train to complete fatigue as best as possible to tap into the fast twitch fibers."
Going slower will lower the limit of the heaviest weight I can do. I am not inclined to use any breaks on my heavy lifts! I am not training to restrain.
Also -as fast as possible on the last rep - but not others?
"But the goal is not to lift weights quickly. The goal is to fatigue the target muscles to stimulate a growth response. "
I guess we have different goal(s). My goal is to get stronger in a movement.
"Fred - it's up above. Your quote was: "Yes -basically go slower on the lifts and train to complete fatigue as best as possible to tap into the fast twitch fibers." Going slower will lower the limit of the heaviest weight I can do. I am not inclined to use any breaks on my heavy lifts! I am not training to restrain."
Only of you are currently using a lot of leverage, bouncing and, as I mentioned using machines or free weights that under load you at the start.
"Also -as fast as possible on the last rep - but not others?"
As I said, which I don't think you are understanding, if an exercise under loads to in a given range then you want to limit the use of momentum and make sure that you are feeling meaningful resistance throughout the entire range.
"But the goal is not to lift weights quickly. The goal is to fatigue the target muscles to stimulate a growth response." I guess we have different goal(s). My goal is to get stronger in a movement."
You mean like what - bench more weight? Then we have the same goal. All productive resistance training programs progress the resistance. My goal is to gain or maintain lean mass. If I could tap myself on the shoulder with my magic muscle wand and increase my lean mass 20 pounds, I'd instantly bench more, squat more, curl more, etc. If I lost 20 pounds of lean mass, I'd be weaker.
There are 12 year olds who can snatch more weight than I can but I assure you I am "stronger" than they are. They could not budge the weights I use in my gym.
If one is into the "Yo man, what can you bench?" mind set, fine. All in good fun. But when people use this mind set to discredit other peoples strength because they use machines instead of free weights, this is quite absurd.
I understand that leverage changes along a movement make some positions more / less advantages but to call free weight lifting "lot of leverage or bouncing" a bit disingenuous.
It might also be called using one's body. And since my body is what I'll always be using to lift/exercise/etc it seems like a good model to base my training on.
"There are 12 year olds who can snatch more weight than I can but I assure you I am "stronger" than they are. They could not budge the weights I use in my gym. "
This line - are you really bragging about being stronger than 12yr olds? And by weights do you mean machines or weights?
When I say I like getting stronger in the movements, it means I like doing the moves and getting stronger in them. 2 things I can do at once, by practicing the move! Call it opinion.
It looks from above like you have denied requests to prove your competency at some common gym lifts (moves) so why shouldn't one be skeptical that you or your system is especially good at producing competency in them? Deadlifting is fun, machines aren’t to me. So to sell (someone like) me on the effectiveness of your method, you’ll need to prove its effectiveness and that it’s so effective it’s worth doing despite the unpleasant nature of a machine.
"I understand that leverage changes along a movement make some positions more / less advantages but to call free weight lifting "lot of leverage or bouncing" a bit disingenuous."
****That's not what I said.
"It might also be called using one's body. And since my body is what I'll always be using to lift/exercise/etc it seems like a good model to base my training on."
****Does it? Or are you being argumentative?
"There are 12 year olds who can snatch more weight than I can but I assure you I am "stronger" than they are. They could not budge the weights I use in my gym. "
This line - are you really bragging about being stronger than 12yr olds?"
****Try not to be so transparent.
"And by weights do you mean machines or weights?"
****If you do not know the answer to this, I can't help you.
"When I say I like getting stronger in the movements, it means I like doing the moves and getting stronger in them. 2 things I can do at once, by practicing the move! Call it opinion. It looks from above like you have denied requests to prove your competency at some common gym lifts (moves) so why shouldn't one be skeptical that you or your system is especially good at producing competency in them?"
****You've missed the point entirely.
"Deadlifting is fun, machines aren’t to me. So to sell (someone like) me on the effectiveness of your method, you’ll need to prove its effectiveness and that it’s so effective it’s worth doing despite the unpleasant nature of a machine."
****You're not getting it and I can see that you are choosing not to. Enjoy your lifts!
"I understand that leverage changes along a movement make some positions more / less advantages but to call free weight lifting "lot of leverage or bouncing" a bit disingenuous."
****That's not what I said.
"It might also be called using one's body. And since my body is what I'll always be using to lift/exercise/etc it seems like a good model to base my training on."
****Does it? Or are you being argumentative?
"There are 12 year olds who can snatch more weight than I can but I assure you I am "stronger" than they are. They could not budge the weights I use in my gym. "
This line - are you really bragging about being stronger than 12yr olds?"
****Try not to be so transparent.
"And by weights do you mean machines or weights?"
****If you do not know the answer to this, I can't help you.
"When I say I like getting stronger in the movements, it means I like doing the moves and getting stronger in them. 2 things I can do at once, by practicing the move! Call it opinion. It looks from above like you have denied requests to prove your competency at some common gym lifts (moves) so why shouldn't one be skeptical that you or your system is especially good at producing competency in them?"
****You've missed the point entirely.
"Deadlifting is fun, machines aren’t to me. So to sell (someone like) me on the effectiveness of your method, you’ll need to prove its effectiveness and that it’s so effective it’s worth doing despite the unpleasant nature of a machine."
****You're not getting it and I can see that you are choosing not to. Enjoy your lifts!
Hello Fred,
Fred, you wrote: <>
I really appreciate your willingness to continue to respond to questions and comments here. But I have to admit that I've become very confused (it's a frequent occurance for me).
I primarily use free weights. I'm lost at this point as to how specifically to use free weights to do the "Slow Burn".
Would you be so kind to perhaps specifically describe how I would do bench presses and/or squats (I do "a** to the grass" squats) so that I understand?
A number of folks here are using a lot of jargon that I just can't understand.
If there is another site that explains this very simply, I'll gladly go there to.
Thank you for bearing with me. I really want to try your program, but at this point I'm very confused.
Sincerely,
Tom
"I really appreciate your willingness to continue to respond to questions and comments here. But I have to admit that I've become very confused (it's a frequent occurance for me). I primarily use free weights. I'm lost at this point as to how specifically to use free weights to do the "Slow Burn".
Would you be so kind to perhaps specifically describe how I would do bench presses and/or squats (I do "a** to the grass" squats) so that I understand? A number of folks here are using a lot of jargon that I just can't understand. If there is another site that explains this very simply, I'll gladly go there to.
Thank you for bearing with me. I really want to try your program, but at this point I'm very confused."
Hi Tom - It's actually quite simple. Use the same weights you squat with now and when you squat - and make sure you are using safety stops of some sort when squatting or benching - take 1-2 seconds to move the bar the first inch down, lower to wherever you like to go, then slowly rise up taking 5 seconds or longer to rise up to where you are not quite locked out - maybe 3 inches prior to lockout. Then reverse and continue until you cannot budge the weights off the stops even though you are attempting to rise up as fast as possible IN GOOD FORM. That's it!
Hi Fred,
And thank you for explaining the Slow Burb squat in simple terms. I get it! (I think).
If I understand, and apply your explanation to the Bench press, I would lift the bar of the pins and then take 1 to 2 seconds to lower the first inch, continue down, reverse, and then take 5 seconds back up, without locking out?
Jeez....I can feel the burn just thinking about it.
But I'm now confused about the amount of weight. It seems that with the constant controlled load on my muscles, I would have to drop to a lower weight. I ask this because it seems that a regular lift uses momentum to some degree to help move the weight.
Fred, I really appreciate your help with all my questions.
By the way, I don't have stops for the squats, but I do have some really deep divots in my floor .
Best regards,
Tom
Hi Fred, And thank you for explaining the Slow Burb squat in simple terms. I get it! (I think).
****Don't over think it. Just do it.
If I understand, and apply your explanation to the Bench press, I would lift the bar of the pins and then take 1 to 2 seconds to lower the first inch, continue down, reverse, and then take 5 seconds back up, without locking out?
****Right 5 seconds or so. No bounce. No prestretch which is where you use the elastic properties of your tendons to help you initiate an explosive start off the chest. When the bar touches the safety stops, pause without unloading the muscles and then press powerfully upwards. If the weight is right you should not be able to press it fast.
Jeez....I can feel the burn just thinking about it.
****Well then!
But I'm now confused about the amount of weight. It seems that with the constant controlled load on my muscles, I would have to drop to a lower weight. I ask this because it seems that a regular lift uses momentum to some degree to help move the weight.
***Unless your form is coyote ugly, bouncing off the chest, wriggling around to gain leverage advantages, etc you won't need to lower the weight. You might even need to raise it.
Fred, I really appreciate your help with all my questions.
****No problem. Glad to be of help.
By the way, I don't have stops for the squats, but I do have some really deep divots in my floor .
*****Hah - well I do not suggest squatting or benching without them. You're asking for trouble.
Tom
Why are you asking squat and bench advice from a guy who doesn't do those lifts?
"Why are you asking squat and bench advice from a guy who doesn't do those lifts?"
Why do you continue to come here to this blog and offer nothing but negativity.
Tom - To address Anon's poorly presented yet potentially valid statement, I don't squat or bench at present. However, I have in the years past for many years.
Oh and since you're still lurking about Anon, I take it you were unable to answer any of the questions I posed to you.
1. Give us all one good, physiological reason why slow burn wouldn't work to build strength and muscle
and
2. Define and describe the Orderly Recruitment theory.
Don't cheat and use Google - use your noodle.
Thanks once more Fred.
You're correct....I tend to overthink things. I really appreciate your guidance on this.
On another note....if I may, I would urge you to utterly ignore the wingnut above. He's posted comments on other blog he and they're all negative. He's a self-described expert, but i picture him sitting alone in front of his computer fondling a handfull of ball bearings like Queeg in The Caine Mutiny.
He loves baiting people. There is no reason you need to "defend" against his comments.
I fo rone really appreciate the time you take to give advice.
Thank you fred.
You're correct....I tend to overthink things. I really appreciate your guidance on this.
****You bet.
On another note....if I may, I would urge you to utterly ignore the wingnut above. He's posted comments on other blog he and they're all negative. He's a self-described expert, but i picture him sitting alone in front of his computer fondling a handfull of ball bearings like Queeg in The Caine Mutiny.
**** ;)
He loves baiting people. There is no reason you need to "defend" against his comments.
*****Agreed but it's fun sometimes to respond.
I for one really appreciate the time you take to give advice.
***Well thanks. I enjoy the dialog.
Fred and "Tom"
Fred, glad you recognized the validity of my question - why ask someone who doesn't bench or squat about doing the bench and squat. But you didn't address it, nor did "Tom." No big deal. Just saying.
Not sure which other blog this anon is said to have commented on. BTW there's more than one person who has posted anon comments here, "Tom," and you're one of them.
Fred, glad you recognized the validity of my question - why ask someone who doesn't bench or squat about doing the bench and squat. But you didn't address it, nor did "Tom." No big deal. Just saying.
*****There was nothing to address. You were wrong. I have squatted and benched. I did for years.
Not sure which other blog this anon is said to have commented on. BTW there's more than one person who has posted anon comments here, "Tom," and you're one of them.
****We know. You must admit however that your question was aggressive.
Anonymous said: "BTW there's more than one person who has posted anon comments here, "Tom," and you're one of them."
When I posted as Anonymous, I clearly identified myself as Tom. As for your question about why I would take advice fron Fred....It's none of your damn business.
You're the same troublemaker who has posted on other blogs here. You still don't have the guts to identify yourself.
You're a gutless little twirp who gets his jollies by fomenting problems. Grow up. Fred has much more tolerance of you than I do.
This sounds great i love reading this article it is nice.
I thought I would put my two cents in here.
The purpose of exercise is to make you stronger and causes many other positive adaptations to take place within the body that I won't pretend to understand. Your goal is to make your body perform the hard work (high intensity muscular contractions). If you are using a heavy weight that you can can handle in good form the "explosive", "fast", movement isn't going to happen. It may happen to some degree early in the set. Think of controlling the resistance/weight. I think sometimes people mix up stimulation with the way people lift random objects in everyday life. We don't necessarily think about keeping tension on the muscles when we are changing a flat tire or lifting our kids. Although we should still try to be mindful of the way we do these things. Then of course we have the whole issue of moveing fast in sports. You can move fast in sports because you aren't moving outside resistance. You of course have to practice your sport to improve that speed/skill. You will increase your strength for your sport or lifting your kids or changing a flat tire when you challenge your muscles with a heavy resistance and you make your muscles do the work. When you are doing the concentric phase of a lift your muscles are attempting to move fast, if the resistance is heavy enough and you are using good form you movement will actually be slow especially as you begin to fatigue. As for the negative phase you want to contol the contraction. You don't have to lower extremely slow.
Good stuff here by Fred. Safe equipment, heavy load, control the movement. Doing Slowburn, Superslow, Body By Science, or the like is the right way to go. You don't have to do deadlifts, you don't have to squat, you don't have to do olympic lifts, you don't have to use free weights.
That sums it up Stoing!
Hi Fred,
I wanted to see if I could get your opinion on something. Isolation exercises. It seems to me that with isolation exercises, particularly on a rotary machine, that you are working a muscle as closely as possible with out leverage taking away resistance on the muscle. I know not all single joint machines properly vary the resistance over the range of the movement. I know that with compound movements you of course involve more muscle mass simultaneously. On the other hand if you look at say the bottom of a dumbbell fly, you are getting tension in the pectoral region, the biceps, the forearms. Sorry if this post seems kinda jumbled, I'm trying to get to the point as quickly as possible without unnecessary rambling. I guess the short of it is that it seems to me that certain so called isolation free weight exercises have positions where there is a great deal of "resistance" without requiring much weight. And it seems that this is similar to what happens during a rotary single joint exercise. I'm sure you're familiar with Bill DeSimone and John Little. I know they have some different recommendations about where to load muscles and how leverage affects exercises. Just thought I'd get your opinions on my rambling here.
My last post was kind of a jumbled mess. My thinking is shouldn't a big part of one's intention in the gym be to load muscles where they are exposed to the most "resistance"? I don't know what particular exercises you recommend.
If one's goal is to simply stay "fit" or wanting to keep the body in "good shape" is it necessary to push oneself to the great discomfort level? This may contradict some of my earlier posts. If ones goal is to continue to gain more and more muscle mass I understand why you must at some point increase the amount of resistance in a given exercise. I think that moving safely and low impact as possible should be on our minds whenever we move or lift anything. What has been coming to me off and on for some time is that is it really necessary to push oneself so "hard" during exercise?
'If one's goal is to simply stay "fit" or wanting to keep the body in "good shape" is it necessary to push oneself to the great discomfort level?"
I don't know what you're level of "great discomfort is." Truth be told I've had clients feel great discomfort on the 3 repetition of an exercise but they were able to complete 8 reps. You get the best bang for your buck if you take a set to complete fatigue.
"This may contradict some of my earlier posts. If ones goal is to continue to gain more and more muscle mass I understand why you must at some point increase the amount of resistance in a given exercise. I think that moving safely and low impact as possible should be on our minds whenever we move or lift anything. What has been coming to me off and on for some time is that is it really necessary to push oneself so "hard" during exercise?"
Hard is relative of course. What is hard can sometimes be enough. Sometimes not. But if you are doing it right, your R session should last 15 - 30 minutes. Of that time if you are doing 8 exercises and reaching complete fatigue in say 60 seconds on each machine, you are only spending 8 total minutes under the iron if you will. Of those 8 minutes, only half the time will be truly uncomfortable.
Isn't 4 minutes or so of hard effort worth the rewards?
Hi Fred, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I'm also the one posting as, Stoing. When I tried to post as Stoing on these last two it didn't work so I posted as Anonomys. I have not read your book yet. Reading through this blog and some other stuff you have written online really makes a lot of sense to me. You along with Little, Baye, McGuff, DeSimone, Darden, and some others have really made me think. I admit I don't understand a lot of the different processes that take place in the body from strength training or from more endurance length exercise. The point of failure or and fatigue have been something I have wondered a a lot about. To me the idea of contolled contractions or static contractions seem lik they would be much safer for the structural integrity of the body. I've had conflicting thoughts regarding "functional " lifting. If you look at the way we lift something in everyday life it is quite different than the way we load our bodies when "strength training". I guess the thinking here is that is it a good thing to isolate certain muscle groups instead using almost the whole body to lift something like when lifting a heavy box or moving a heavy piece of furniture. You then of course have the some the neck musculature that you would have to address directly if you wanted to strenghen those muscles. You and the other guys I mentioned seem to be very knowledgable and have a lot of integrity. Sorry if I rambled too much here.
Hi Fred,
I would definately agree with you that 4 minutes or so of hard effort is worth it. Again I apologize if my postings seem too incoherent or jumbled. I wrote some of what I wrote in a bit of a hurry and on my cell phone.
I'm probably getting of track with my reference to more "functional" type lifts. When I say functional I don't mean "explosive" or trying to match a specific "skilled" movement. I'm thinking along the lines of what is more biomechanically sound for the body. John Little, Pete Sisco, Stuart McRobert, Bill DeSimone, and some others have made me think alot about this part of strength training. I was wondering what your do's and don'ts with range of motion and maybe certain exercises are.
Stoing
Hi Fred,
My name is Donnie Hunt. I'm the guy who has been posting here recently as Stoing and anonymous. I thought I should just use my real name. I was having some concerns about posting with my real name online. Anyways I have read down through the comments on this blog and really like what you have to say about strength training. I have not engaged in a workout myself for awhile but I have always had an interest in doing and learning about this topic. You along with the other guys I have already mentioned on here have really influenced my thinking on strength training. Anyways I thought I'd stop with the mysterious names, use my real name and say hello.
If ones primary goal is the greatest strength/hypertrophy gains would you recommend and even lower TUL?
Hi Donnie - glad to meet you!
You asked:
"If ones primary goal is the greatest strength/hypertrophy gains would you recommend and even lower TUL?"
Well not necessarily. First and foremost is diet. You have to get that right. Adequate protein intake is essential.
I'd use weight loads that rendered muscle failure in 50-70 seconds. Experiment of course. Train 2X a week. Experiment with this too. Sometimes try 3X a week, other times once a week or 3 training sessions in to weeks.
Thank you very much for the advice, Fred.
What a confusing thread.
Fred, can you help me clear some things up - this slow method sounds interesting and different. So far in my test I seemed to like it but people tell me no one ever got really strong this way. Where could I find examples of some individuals who have demonstrated great strength and muscle development using this method? Thanks!
"What a confusing thread.
Fred, can you help me clear some things up - this slow method sounds interesting and different. So far in my test I seemed to like it but people tell me no one ever got really strong this way. Where could I find examples of some individuals who have demonstrated great strength and muscle development using this method? Thanks!"
Well the first thing I tell people who are given this line of nonsense is that this sort of reasoning is worse than worthless since there are scores of athletes throughout history who were powerful athletes who never even lifted a weight.
It's akin to when people were being negative towards the automobile because everyone else was riding horses.
Read the book Static Contraction Training by Pete Sisco:
http://www.precisiontraining.com/
In this type of training you don't just move slowly, you don't move at all. I don't agree with all of what Pete says, but the idea is the same.
It's like saying to be smart, eat a low carb, high fat diet to fuel brain cells adequately. We know that this is the best way to eat for brain health - low sugar, no grain. But then someone says to you "What geniuses eat like that?" One has nothing to do with the other.
Great strength and muscular development has a HUGE genetic component to it. Never forget that.
Fred, I am still confused. You say:
"Well the first thing I tell people who are given this line of nonsense is that this sort of reasoning is worse than worthless since there are scores of athletes throughout history who were powerful athletes who never even lifted a weight."
Sure, I get this, old football players, to name one example, didn't lift weights but were often impressive and strong.
But I was hoping that, if your methods are pretty good, there should be some impressive people who've used them I could find. You know, show my friends some dudes who did and kicked some butt!
Know anyone?
"But I was hoping that, if your methods are pretty good, there should be some impressive people who've used them I could find. You know, show my friends some dudes who did and kicked some butt! Know anyone?"
If I gave you a list this would prove nothing. One could say they were strong to begin with.
There is a strong man named Drew Israel who trained using a slow rep training protocol after years of injuries. I don't know where he is now unfortunately.
Then there's Joel Waldman who owns Belmar Fitness. He had, at one time, one of the largest necks in the world.
Doug Holland and his son won many power lifting competitions using slow reps for their basic training and then practicing power lifting once a month.
http://bit.ly/fBO6V3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwmuk4N1Dv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-L8WKYpJY
And there are many more people out there doing much of the same.
But in the end, who cares that there aren't a lot of pros doing it. Big deal.
You might find this interesting. You might need a magnifying glass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86834534@N00/502572150/
Fred, I understand there's limitations to this kind of "evidence." I am not trying to make the argument that "playing basketball makes you tall" for example.
But if this system was really good at producing strength and size gains you'd think it'd start to creep into athletics since those guys are competitive and will try anything, and keep doing it if it works. I mean, a 53yr old guy doing a moderate deadlift is the first impressive lift you can find? Maybe someone you trained for a few years?
Look, maybe the real selling point of your slow burn is safety and convenience, which are valuable, but it's not showing much performance.
If not, it's cool, it just doesn't sound like the kind of thing worth doing for people who want move heavy stuff not on machines.
"Fred, I understand there's limitations to this kind of "evidence." I am not trying to make the argument that "playing basketball makes you tall" for example. But if this system was really good at producing strength and size gains you'd think it'd start to creep into athletics since those guys are competitive and will try anything, and keep doing it if it works."
I must beg to differ. EX: There are a ton of studies that indicate that stretching decreases stability in the joints and reduces power output in athletics that require such. Whey then do sports teams continue their elaborate stretching programs?
"I mean, a 53yr old guy doing a moderate deadlift is the first impressive lift you can find? Maybe someone you trained for a few years?"
Did you miss the part where I said the he and his son won many power lifting championships? He has squatted over 3 times his body weight. Doug is a beast. My clients are almost all regular people not strength athletes.
"Look, maybe the real selling point of your slow burn is safety and convenience, which are valuable, but it's not showing much performance."
Define "performance." You are confusing demonstrations of strength and building muscle.
"If not, it's cool, it just doesn't sound like the kind of thing worth doing for people who want move heavy stuff not on machines."
If your goal is to move heavy stuff around go do that but be careful. If your goal is to hit tennis balls, go do that.
The goal of resistance training is to build muscle and strength. If your goal is to do that safely, efficiently and effectively, try Slow Burn. If you don't care about your own safety and just want to pick up heavy objects for the sake of it, fine.
When you get injured, and you will get injured, don't come crying to me. ;)
Fred:
So I asked you to show me some evidence of this strength and muscle slow burn has built... and the first response is a logical argument, not evidence.
The second response was one moderately strong old guy, a guy reduced to using slow burn from injuries, and a guy with a big neck.
The third response is an argument about another subject, a contesting of a definition, and what I feel to be sarcasm.
I think the most telling part of your response was this:
My clients are almost all regular people not strength athletes.
Cool. Just admit your training is applicable for strength athletes.
"So I asked you to show me some evidence of this strength and muscle slow burn has built... and the first response is a logical argument, not evidence."
All weight lifting methods that are taken to momentary muscle fatigue within the anaerobic window and are progressive in nature increase strength and muscle mass provided recovery and diet are applied properly. So what is your point exactly?
"The second response was one moderately strong old guy, a guy reduced to using slow burn from injuries, and a guy with a big neck."
Doug Holland and his son were/are champion power lifters. He did not adopt slow rep training because of his injuries though he found them useful after he became injured by performing weight lifting in a manner you seem to prefer.
"The third response is an argument about another subject, a contesting of a definition, and what I feel to be sarcasm. I think the most telling part of your response was this: My clients are almost all regular people not strength athletes. Cool. Just admit your training is applicable for strength athletes."
OK I admit it. It is applicable for strength athletes. ;0
You forgot to put in a 'not' there didn't you?
Well, you seem to be uneducable on this matter. Too bad really. Did you check out the references I gave? Did you read the article from strength and health or did you skip it?
Correct Fred, I forgot the "not." Tiny articles aren't the things I was looking for here. It was fun learning about your weird training cult.
"Correct Fred, I forgot the "not." Tiny articles aren't the things I was looking for here. It was fun learning about your weird training cult."
My "weird training cult?" Hmm. Heck, I didn't know lifting heavy weights, a couple to a few times a week, in a progressive manner, using a controlled repetition tempo to the point where the muscles are fully fatigued was a cult.
Thanks for the clarification! And here I thought all along I was doing something that millions of other people have been doing for decades!
What a silly-billy I am. ;0
"And here I thought all along I was doing something that millions of other people have been doing for decades! "
You truly are a master internet debater as this thread shows. "Slowburn the fitness revolution" or whatever you sell it as is what millions have been doing for decades when I point out how marginal your practices are. You even call it lifting weights when it suits your points.
Man there's plenty of funny evidence about your around the net, though:
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=23 and your forum is funny seriousstrength.yuku.com
Good stuff man. I will check in on you for laughs now and again.
"You truly are a master internet debater as this thread shows. "Slowburn the fitness revolution" or whatever you sell it as is what millions have been doing for decades when I point out how marginal your practices are."
Marginal? What does that mean?
And the title and tag line of my book was created by Random House. I had absolutely no choice in it. And since they insisted on this title and tag, we had to write the book in a way to match the title. I didn't even choose the words Slow Burn.
"You even call it lifting weights when it suits your points."
Say what? What did you think it was? You didn't know that strength training and resistance training usually means weight lifting?
"Man there's plenty of funny evidence about your around the net, though:
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=23"
Yes Anthony Colpo's a gem.
"and your forum is funny seriousstrength.yuku.com
Good stuff man. I will check in on you for laughs now and again."
VG. Laughter is a good thing. Soothes the soul. We should all laugh more.
Some of these comments on here on here get me. lol. But I guess they're the same comments you get on most strength training sites.
Strength is strength. If you're moving explosively it's a result of strength from your muscles contracting. If you are moving slowly and controlled it's a result of your muscles contracting.
The heavier the resistance you're contracting against the slower you're body will HAVE to move. If you're goal is hypertrophy you're going to want to work in this realm. Fred talks about the time under loads on here.
CONTROLLING the resistance in strength training is safer because it lowers the impact forces coming back on the body.
Whether you doing olympic lifts, playing contact sports, or doing Superslow resistance training its all a result of strength/muscle contraction.
If your goal is to get stronger you don't have to engage in unsafe lifts and you don't have to use free weights. And all this talk about stabilizers. lol. Do you really think your body doesn't have to stabilize its self when using a machine?? Your stabilizers are worked more thoroughly during other exercises anyway.
Some of these negative comments on here are quite funny. Is it really that hard to see the benefits of this type of training. Or do some of these posters just like to argue and make fun.
We are talking about a form of exercise that is going to improve you strength wise, aerobic wise, and do it very safely, very low impact.
Another thing I find amusing is all this talk about "real strength". Whether you're engaged in explosive sports or a very slow exercise protocol, you are "demonstrating" strength/contracting your muscles. Your muscles are working at different levels of strength, but they are still doing the same thing they always do, "contract".
With a protocol like "Slow Burn" you are moving slow but are capable of producing a great deal of force, the greater the load. You are also doing it much safer than trying to throw a barbell over your head.
Do you really not see how a machine can allow you to engage the targeted muscles very intensely and safely? Do you really think the body doesn't have to stabilize itself during machine exercises? Do you not work the so called stabilizers more directly with other exercises??
The thing is Anon when people see videos of people using a slow rep protocol in good strict form, it looks as if the lifter is doing nothing. Watch here:
http://on.fb.me/dMKcBT
My eldest daughter Georgia is working extremely hard with a very heavy weight (for her). But it looks like easy work. Her heart was pounding through her chest.
So many people poo-poo slow rep training - till they try it of course.
Hey Fred,
I just watched some of the video you linked here. Something is up with my computer because it kept stopping and loading. I was having trouble trying to watch a "Renaissance Exercise" video last night.
That is awesome you have your family involved in training The first daughter had excellent form and control! I didn't get to see much past 3 minutes of the video so far. Good stuff my friend.
Ok. Now i was able to see the whole video. These young ladies both have really good form and control Fred! That is awesome that you have them involved in what you do! Thanks for sharing
Ok. Now i was able to see the whole video. These young ladies both have really good form and control Fred! That is awesome that you have them involved in what you do! Thanks for sharing '
You bet. Kids love it!
"What you have discovered is fat gain and loss is all about how you eat and not exercise.
Slow Burn is all about proper form. I have a video that takes you through a home based workout using body weight and free weights.(Fred)"
How can one use slow burn principles of heavy resistance with bodyweight?
Anonymous
9/21/2010 1:01:13 AM |Fred,
I read your book, but I'm somewhat confused (a frequent occurance for me).
There are two sets of workouts: "in your home", basically using somehoushold items and body weight; and in the gym using specific gym equipment.
I want to try your system using my free weights and a basic universal machine.
Do I just change the timing and tempo of my current free-weight and machine exercises?
I'm sorry if I missed something in the book, but I just can't find the anser to my question.
I'm posting as anonymous because my password doesn't seem to be working, and I can't figure out how to reset it.
Thank you.