Rating: 
Summary: some 'ifs' and 'buts':
Review: Slow training should be done with: 1/Special equipment, because when lifting free weights or typical machine resistance, the weight that is correct at the beginning of the movement will require more speed to move later, and may become too light towards the end of the movement . This is the point behind the original Nautilus and MedX machines:asymetrical pulleys,(cams), change the leverage advantage to keep the resistance appropriate throughout the exercise, allowing unchangingly slow movement in the full range. (Also , the machine must be designed with very low friction, a costly production procedure, as friction can add unaccounted for and arbitrary resistance during slow movment.) and; 2/Expert coaching,(ie "Superslow",tm). Properly executed slow training is SO HARD that without someone monitoring your technique and effort, and giving you proper encouragement, you will -never- work as hard as this system demands for it's special results. Even with all of the proper equipment and help, slow training can be _very_ discouraging at plateaus, and is quite expensive. Very slow movement is an exaggeration to quarantee safe movement. you don't need to move all that slow. What you really need is:1/ Not 'throw' the weight, but rather 'squeeze' it, the speed within this quideline is your choice.. and: 2/ Once you've found a speed keep it consistant from week to week , to not get a false sense of progress, as speeding up can make heavier weight possible to lift,(that is NOT the goal!!!). On the whole , Hahn seems to trying to make this system into something that it is NOT; a home workout. But how many books can you sell by telling people that, properly done, this must be shortest, but HARDEST, work of your life? My question is: How many of the crucial details of the original concept,(Super Slow), can you disregard, and yet still somehow have the valued results of the system?
Rating:
Summary: Slow motion works but hard to stick with
Review: Read the Nov 18 review "Some Truth and Some Junk" -- that's a good summary. I'd add one point and correct one:The correction is that the review says the routine doesn't create the calorie deficit needed for weight loss. That's right. But immediate calorie deficit isn't the basis for weight loss associated with strength training. The idea is that over time, strength training increases lean body mass (muscle) which the body uses more calories to maintain, even at rest. Strength training increases baseline metabolism. CV exercise by contrast burns calories at the time, and that's it. Strength training doesn't do much at the time of the exercise (relative to cv) but gives you an ongoing burn rate instead. The addition is that even though these routines are demonstrated to be effective, they are very hard to stick with. It is hard for most people to subject themselves to that feeling of muscle burn on a slow lift to failure. Even though it's less time efficient, most people are better served by a more traditional workout that they stick with long term, than a more perfect routine they can't stick with.
|
