super slow lifting is superior
Two studies were done with untrained men (N= 65) and women (N= 82),(mean age= 53.6) who trained two to three times per week for eight to 10 weeks on a 13 exercise Nautilus circuit performing one set of each exercise. Participants exclusively trained using regular speed repetitions for 8 to 12 repetitions per set at 7 sec each (2 sec lifting, 1 sec pause, 4 sec lowering) or a Super Slow training protocol where they completed 4 to 6 repetitions per set at 14 sec each (10 sec lifting, 4 sec lowering). In both studies, Super-Slow training resulted in about a 50% greater increase (p< 0.001) in strength for both men and women than regular speed training. In Study 1, the Super-Slow training group showed a mean increase of 12.0 kg and the regular speed group showed an increase of 8.0 kg increase (p< 0.001). In Study 2, the Super-Slow training group showed a 10.9 kg increase and the regular speed group showed an increase of 7.1 kg (p< 0.001).
but wait actually, fast contractions are better!
One slow set increased strength by 25% (95% CI 13-36%, P < 0.001). Three sets of training produced greater increases in strength than one set (difference = 23% of initial strength, 95% CI 12-34%, P < 0.001) and fast training resulted in a greater increase in strength than slow training (difference = 11%, 95% CI 0.2-23%, P = 0.046). The interaction between sets and speed was negative (-15%) and of borderline significance (P = 0.052), suggesting there is a benefit of training with three sets or fast speeds, but there is not an additive benefit of training with both.
wait wait wai! actually it seems that both fast and slow repetitions are equal
Results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s
here we go again, turns out faster is better
but MaxV resulted in significantly greater gains than HalfV in all variables analysed:
turns out fast repetitions are so superior they actually build more muscle with less weight, 35% of one rep maxes are better than 70% if faster speed is used
it seems that the LLHV protocol may offer an equal if not better training stimulus for muscular adaptation than the HLLV protocol, because of the greater time under tension, power, force, and work output when the total volume of the exercise is equated.
as you can see everything is so contradictory it is actually ridiculous. How is one supposed to interpret everything? I've listened the opinion of many experts but they seem to choose one or the other on preference and ignore conflicting studies.