Claim: Super Slow Training Will Increase Strength

Claim: Super Slow Training Will Increase Strength
While the original Super Slow doesn’t specifically address strength, it mentions that it’s a superior method for athletic performance. Strength is part of that. So, we can assume its proponents also see it as a superior method to develop strength.

Verdict: This is unequivocally and resoundingly false. Super Slow training is inferior to strength development.

Analysis: It doesn’t take a thousand studies to know that lifting light weights won’t make you as strong as lifting heavy weights, even if the light work leads to significant muscle growth. That’s because strength isn’t just a matter of muscle mass but also how effective the nervous system is at utilizing that muscle to produce maximum force.

If more muscle mass gives you greater strength potential, you still need to maximize neurological adaptations to be able to use that potential to its fullest.

That’s what a study found when they compared light (30% of 1RM) and heavy (80% of 1RM) training to failure. While both groups had the same amount of muscle growth over the length of the study, the lightweight group only got half of the strength gains as the heavy group, again, despite the same amount of muscle growth (3).

Granted, the lightweight group didn’t use Super Slow reps, but if anything, Super Slow would lead to fewer strength gains as the force production is even lower due to the low acceleration.

What it tells us is that – surprise – if you want to gain a lot of strength, you need to lift heavy weights. Super Slow uses loads in the 30-50% range and, therefore, will not be very effective at increasing maximal strength.

Caveat: Any exercise program done with the intent to use progressively heavier loads will lead to some strength gains, including Super Slow. But the only studies showing equal or superior progress in strength from Super Slow was when the Super Slow group was tested on Super Slow tests (5RM using a Super Slow tempo). This isn’t surprising since they’re practicing that type of work.

But in studies looking at testing a true 1RM, Super Slow under-gained traditional lifting significantly. For example, researchers found that over a 10-week period with a program of 8 exercises, a Super Slow group had an average strength gain of 15% while a traditional lifting group had an average gain of 39% (4). This is pretty consistent with the light-versus-heavy study showing twice the strength gains in the “heavy” group.

For the record, when I train sport and strength athletes, I do include some slow eccentric exercises, especially in the initial accumulation phase. A slow eccentric has benefits during that phase as a preparation for the heavier lifting to come.

In fact, researchers in one study examined the rate of strength gain in lifters when they either try to accelerate the weight as much as possible (compensatory acceleration), or only push hard enough to lift the weight, leading to a slower rep speed.

The group trying to accelerate as much as possible had almost twice the strength gains as the group going slower (5). While this study didn’t delve into Super Slow per se, it does indicate that trying to accelerate a load is more effective for strength than going slower.

It’s very effective at speeding up motor learning and could help develop tendons and technical efficiency. This is important stuff when you move on to a phase of heavy, traditional lifting. But I never use slow concentric phases like Super Slow recommends, at least not on the lifts where I want to develop maximal strength.

Claim: Super Slow Training Improves Cardiovascular Fitness

The belief is that Super Slow training is as effective (or more) as aerobic training to improve cardiovascular fitness. Writing on the original Super Slow work is very anti-aerobic. It asserts that aerobic work is actually dangerous and that Super Slow training is just as effective as aerobic training in improving cardiovascular fitness.

Verdict: This is laughable, at best. Many studies have found no improvements in cardiovascular capacity from Super Slow exercise. Although if done in a circuit format, it can have some positive effects. However, a Super Slow circuit wouldn’t be any more beneficial in this regard than traditional circuit training.

Analysis: Circuit training 19 can have a positive impact on many cardiovascular fitness markers. It can improve VO2 max and mitochondrial density, as well as several other health markers. But those benefits are due to the structure of the workout (circuit), not the repetition style.

In fact, a Super Slow protocol was shown to have no significant improvement in VO2 max over a 16-week period (6). A different, short-term study did find a very small improvement in VO2 max with a Super Slow protocol, but not any different than the traditional training group involved in the study (7).

The Keller study mentioned earlier also looked at VO2 max improvements and found no difference between a Super Slow protocol and a traditional lifting approach, although both groups had a small improvement.

What this shows is that the speed of the reps doesn’t have an impact on cardiovascular fitness development. The modest improvements are from the circuit structure. And these improvements are much lower than they would be with aerobic training.

Claim: Super Slow Improves Athletic Performance, Power, and Speed
The belief is that Super Slow training is superior and safer than traditional lifting for improving athletic performance.

Verdict: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! Not even close.

Here, the literature is pretty straightforward: strength increases are velocity-specific. You get better at fast movements by training fast movements. For one thing, the motor recruitment pattern is different between fast and slow movements.

During fast/explosive movements (on the left) there’s an initial burst from the agonist/prime movers (and synergists) while the antagonist (muscles opposing the movement) are relaxed. The more relaxed they can be, the more explosive you will be. Then the antagonist(s) fire to stabilize the movement and allow the agonists to provide a second burst. This all happens in milliseconds.

During slow-strength movements (on the right), there’s only one activation phase: the agonists fire all the way through, with a background co-activation of the antagonists. This is because, during explosive movements, the brain favors speed over stability. During slow movements, it’s the opposite.

So, you can be really good and strong in slow movements without improving fast movements. And vice versa.

If you train exclusively using slow movements, you won’t be able to improve fast movements as much as if you included traditional training as well as high-velocity work (jumps, throws, explosive lifting, and Olympic lift variations).

Most sports require fast movements. Draw your own conclusions.

.