Now, if you’re like me, you’ve always heard that you’re supposed to lift the bar (concentric) as fast as possible, and that doing so would recruit more fast twitch fibers since you’re producing more force, and more muscle fibers activated = more gains.
However, I’ve never heard anyone pinpoint how much of a difference maximum rep speed actually made – at least not with any credible sources backing them.
Well, this recent study – Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training – suggests that it makes a huge difference:
Approximately double the strength gains by lifting the bar with maximum speed each rep, as opposed to a slower cadence, even when equating training volume and intensity. VERY cool. Personally, I would have expected a difference, but not anything THAT dramatic.
Let’s dive in.
Background
As I previously touched on, the thinking behind lifting the bar as fast as you possibly can is this:
1. To produce more force, your body uses more muscle fibers (as opposed to each fiber just contracting harder to produce more force)
2. The first fibers your body uses are the smallest, slow-twitch fibers. To produce more and more force, it recruits progressively larger and stronger fibers, with your largest, strongest fast twitch fibers being the last ones integrated into the movement. (This is called Henneman’s Size Principle)
3. Recruiting these fibers isn’t based on the weight you’re using per se, but rather the amount of force you produce. Force = mass x acceleration, so all other things being equal, lifting a bar faster means you produced more force to lift it.
4. Therefore, lifting the bar faster recruits more muscle fibers.
5. The fast twitch muscle fibers – the last ones you recruit – are the ones most prone to hypertrophy, so lifting faster = more fast twitch fibers used = more strength and size gains.
Sounds great in theory, right? Except…
The bulk of the previous research looking at the effects of lifting velocity on strength gains showed that there was no significant difference between lifting as fast as possible and lifting at a slower cadence.
Oops. That theory sounded so appealing and straightforward a moment ago.
But wait a second – as the authors in this current study point out, much of the past research on the subject was methodologically flawed.
1. Many of the studies didn’t equate load and volume. This was a problem with the studies that HAD shown intentionally lifting fast was better than intentionally lifting slower. If you’re intentionally lifting the bar slower, you’re not going to be able to handle as much weight or volume, so of COURSE the protocol lifting at maximum speed would yield better results – but you have no idea whether it was the bar speed itself that mattered, or whether it was simply the difference in intensity and volume.
2. In the bulk of the studies showing no difference in lifting fast vs. lifting slow, they were doing sets taken to failure, or close to failure. Going back to Henneman’s size principle, another application of it is that as the first fibers you recruit start fatiguing, you recruit larger and stronger fibers to take their place to keep producing force. Also, many of those studies weren’t volume-equated either. Additionally, regardless of what the cadence was SUPPOSED to be, when taking sets to failure, all your reps eventually end up being slow! So with these studies, the differences in ACTUAL bar speed weren’t substantial, and the real takeaway is that if you push yourself to failure, rep speed doesn’t matter as much.
But what if you don’t WANT to train to failure for all your sets, all the time (i.e. most of us)? Well, that’s where this study fills in some gaps.
Subjects:
24 men were recruited (4 dropped out), mostly in their early to mid 20s, and of normal height and weight (1.77 ± 0.08m, 70.9 ± 8.0kg). They were healthy and physically active, with 2-4 years “recreational” experience with the bench press. “Recreational” is a slippery term. Their 1rms averaged around 75kg to begin with – slightly more than 1x body weight. So it wasn’t the first time these guys had picked up a barbell, but they also weren’t elite athletes.
Protocol:
The subjects maxed at the beginning and end of the program to assess strength gains. Also, bar speed of all of their warmup sets was recorded (both groups were instructed to lift the bar as fast as they possibly could on all of their warmup sets) to see whether training fast or slow affected their force production capabilities.
They split the subjects into two groups. Half of them trained at max velocity (MaxV – controlled eccentric, and explosive concentric), and half of them trained at half velocity (HalfV – controlled eccentric, and 1/2 maximum bar speed for the concentric). They benched 3x per week for 6 weeks, then assessed results.
The way they made their weight selections for each day was *very* interesting. Prior research had found that average concentric bar velocity (how fast you can push the bar up) correlated very strongly with given 1rm percentages for bench press.
An average maximum bar speed of 0.79m/sec means you’re lifting about 60% of your 1rm, 0.70 m/sec is about 65%, 0.62m/sec is about 70%, 0.55m/sec is about 75%, and 0.47m/sec is about 80%.
| Average concentric velocity (m/sec) | Percentage of 1rm |
| 0.79 | 60 |
| 0.7 | 65 |
| 0.62 | 70 |
| 0.55 | 75 |
| 0.47 | 80 |
To make sure they were using, say, 75% of a subject’s ACTUAL 1rm for the day, rather than 75% of their initial 1rm (which would become outdated as they got stronger over 6 weeks), the researcher would have the subject lift each warmup rep as fast as possible, until their average concentric bar speed was 0.55m/sec. That would be their working weight for the day.
(As an aside, a common knock against percentage-based programs is that you have a harder time accommodating good days and bad days. As your strength fluctuates, 80% of your all-time PR may not actually be 80% of your actual strength for the day. Using bar speed as a way to approximate percentage of 1rm may be a smart way to account for daily fluctuations in a percentage-based program)
So, on 75% day, the people in the MaxV group would warm up, find the heaviest weight they could lift at .55m/sec, and do the assigned reps for the day. The HalfV group would warm up, find the heaviest weight they could lift at .55m/sec, and do the assigned reps for the day, but with an average concentric velocity of ~0.27m/sec, with visual and auditory feedback from a screen in front of them letting them know if their cadence was too fast or too slow.
There were 48-72 hours between training sessions.
On week 1, they did 3 sets of 6-8 with 60% each day, eventually progressing to (decreasing volume, increasing intensity – kosher linear periodization) 3-4 sets of 3-4 reps on week 6.
The study was impressively well-controlled. Here’s a great little line: “Sessions took place under supervision of the investigators, at the same time of day (±1 h) for each participant and under constant environmental conditions (20°C, 60% humidity).”
Time of day matters because circadian fluctuations in hormones like testosterone and cortisol may affect the training outcomes. Additionally, heat and humidity can affect performance – if it’s too hot and humid you’re more apt to fatigue because of thermal stress or dehydration, and if it’s too cold you can have a harder time getting warm and performing well. Studies like that are *supposed* to control for environmental factors, but many don’t (or at least they don’t explicitly say that they did).
Along with the training study, the researchers did another study with different subjects to assess metabolic effects of lifting with different bar speeds. In this study, subjects came in, had their blood drawn, performed one of 6 routines (3×8 @60% with MaxV or HalfV, 3×6 @70% with MaxV or HalfV, and 3×3 @80% with MaxV or HalfV), and had their blood drawn again to assess lactate and ammonia concentrations.
Additionally, fatigue was assessed based on changes in the heaviest load the subjects could move at an average velocity of 1.0 m/sec pre-workout vs. post-workout
Results:
Before the training, there were no significant differences between the MaxV and HalfV groups.
Average concentric speed WAS faster for MaxV, as you’d expect (0.58 ± 0.06 vs. 0.32 ± 0.03 m/sec)
HalfV spent more concentric time under tension (360.9 ± 19.2 vs. 222.8 ± 21.4 sec)
In every single category, MaxV saw basically twice the gains of HalfV
1rm bench press: +18.2% vs. +9.7%
Average velocity with weights they could move faster than 0.8 m/sec at both the beginning and end of the study: +11.5% vs. +4.5%
Average velocity with weights they could move slower than 0.8 m/sec at both the beginning and end of the study: +36.2% vs. 17.3%
In the metabolic study, there was actually a larger rise in lactate in the MaxV protocol vs. the HalfV protocol for both the 60% and 70% workouts, and fatigue (as assessed by the heaviest load they could move at a set speed) was greater in MaxV than HalfV on the 60% workout (7.6% vs. 1.4%), with a trend (that didn’t reach significance) toward more fatigue with the 70% workout as well (7.1% vs. 3.9%).
Now, take the lactate and fatigue data with a grain of salt – both protocols reached pretty moderate levels of lactate (we’re not talking about the metabolic difference of a heavy triple vs. a max set of 20 reps) that may not make a meaningful difference, and the standard deviations for fatigue were pretty large. They’re interesting trends to see, but any tentative conclusions drawn from them need to be even more tentative than usual.
There were no ammonia differences for any of the protocols.
Breaking is all down:
So, lifting the bar faster means more gains, and it makes you more explosive with lighter weights too? Sweet.
Not so fast.
Remember the issues with past research? This showed that when you equate for training volume and intensity and when you’re not training to failure, lifting faster may produce superior gains in maximal strength.
Additionally, the improvements in bar velocities with concrete loads doesn’t necessarily mean faster training makes you faster. If you’ll notice, the degree of improvement in bar velocity was pretty similar to the degree of improvement in 1rm strength.
Essentially, let’s say you bench 300. 50% of your 1rm is 150. If you get your bench up to 400, you’ll almost certainly be able to move 150 faster than you could when you benched 300. But will you move 200 faster than you used to move 150? Maybe, maybe not, but this study at least seems to indicate that it wouldn’t have to do much with whether you were training fast or slow – the larger gains seen in the MaxV group were with absolute loads, not loads relative to their new 1rms. The biggest takeaway is that being able to pick up heavier things makes it easier for you to move lighter things faster.
Another interesting thing about the improvements in velocity: For both groups, larger gains were seen in bar speed for heavier weights (ones they moved slower than 0.8 m/sec; 17.3-36.2% improvement) vs. gains in bar speed for lighter weights (ones they moved faster than 0.8 m/sec; 4.5-11.5% improvement). This has implications for pure power athletes. Getting stronger DOES help you produce more power, but it’s not highly specific. Lifting heavy things has a much higher carryover for lifting heavy things fast than it does for lifting light things fast.
So will you be able to throw a shot put further by increasing your bench, or be able to jump higher by increasing you squat?
Absolutely! To a point… After that time, training specificity becomes a bigger concern, and the carryover you get from producing force against something really heavy (training for an 800 pound squat or an 600 pound bench press) becomes increasingly less if your goal is to be able to produce a lot of force against something relatively light (your body or a 16 pound ball). This is an aspect of training specificity people don’t talk about quite as much. Training is specific to the muscles and movements you train, sure, but it’s also specific to the velocity you train with.
Going back to fatigue and lactate for a moment – more fatigue and lactate accumulation with the MaxV protocols may indirectly indicate a larger reliance on fast twitch fibers (as Henneman’s Size Principle would lead you to expect). Fast twitch fibers are more fatiguable than slow twitch fibers, and they rely more on glycolytic energy systems. However, the differences between the two protocols were really pretty minor in both these regards, so an indirect conclusion based on shaky foundations shouldn’t be something you put TOO much confidence in to account for the difference in training effects.
One thing I really loved about this study was that it actually recorded average velocities and concentric time under tension. TUT has been preached by some as a driving force in strength and hypertrophy gains. However, the HalfV protocol had substantially more TUT than the MaxV protocol, but it produced substantially worse results. Perhaps TUT should be amended from “time under tension” to “time under maximal tension” – how much time you spend actually moving the weight with as much force as possible.
Of course, that runs counter to the pretty little 4 number notations people like to use (3-1-3-0 would mean 3 second eccentric, 1 second pause at the bottom of the rep, 3 second concentric, and 0 second pause at the top before the next rep). This study seems to suggest that for maximum strength gains, you may dictate a certain cadence for the eccentric, and time at the top and bottom, but the concentric should be completed as fast as possible.
Now, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a time and place for controlled concentrics – learning. If someone has poor awareness or is trying to fix a technique flaw, slowing down the concentric while focusing on appropriate cues can help reinforce proper technique. If someone can’t perform a movement properly slowly (weightlifting aside), they probably aren’t going to be able to perform it properly at maximal velocity. You can also use controlled concentrics if you want to practice a movement for the day, but want to employ a means of naturally limiting how much weight you can use for the exercise. However, for most lifts, most of the time, it’s probably most beneficial to lift the move the load as fast as possible.
One last thing to point out from this study: you DON’T constantly have to train to failure or close to failure if you want to get strong. Sets of 3 at 80% (an ~8rm weight) or sets of 6 at 60% (a ~12-15rm weight) aren’t going to be incredibly difficult. But the MaxV group averaged gains of about 30 pounds on their bench in 6 weeks – not too shabby! The frequency in this study (benching 3x per week) was fairly high, and the weekly volume (36-60 reps between 60-80%) was fairly high too considering the strength and experience of the trainees. However, I’d wager than none of their sets pushed them within a rep or two of failure. Total training volume is more important than running yourself into the ground every set.
Wrap-up
When not training to failure, moving the bar as fast as possible probably produces better gains than intentionally slowing your rep speed.
When you’re constantly training to failure, it may not matter quite as much. However, you DON’T constantly have to train to failure to get stronger.
Moving heavy things as fast as possible improves your ability to move heavy things fast much more than it improves your ability to move light things fast.
You can use bar speed as an indicator of your strength day-to-day. You can use this knowledge to adapt a percentage-based program to fluctuations in strength day-to-day and (hopefully) improvements in strength over time without having to max in the gym regularly.
Share this on Facebook and join in the conversation
• • •
Next: Complete Guide to Bar Speed Trackers →
Band-Resisted Pushups = Bench Press for strength gains? Plus, how useful is EMG? →
James R says
Very interesting. I’ve always held onto the thought that a slow bench was actually the key to faster gains. Does the study mention anything about lowering speed? I imagine lowering the bar slowly and raising it quickly would have some interesting results
Greg Nuckols says
I doubt a slow eccentric would really matter for strength development, but may be better for hypertrophy. But for both, a fast concentric is likely best.
Larry says
I could see a potential flaw in this study. They were using bar speed as a metric for how much they should lift each day, and then having the MaxV lift at that .55m/s while the HalfV lifted at half that. Then the next day they would come in, warm up until they hit .55m/s and then use that weight.
But the MaxV people are training to lift faster so obviously when it comes time to set your working weight for the day they are going to get to a higher weight than the HalfV group. Then since they are using a higher weight they will make more gains.
I wonder if they asked the HalfV people whether they felt like they could have lifted more weight. It seems like if I can bench 175 at .55m/s but then you make me train at .27m/s for a set amount of reps, I’m not going to be fully exahusted. It just comes back to the force equation at the beginning, I’m over here benching 175lbs 3×6 at .27m/s and MaxV is benching 175lbs 3×6 at .55m/s. Therefore in their workout they are being forced to generate more force and will have better gains.
An interesting question would be, let the HalfV group up the weight or reps (or have one group up weight and one up reps) to the point where they are exhausted lifting at half speed. So then it becomes, is it better to lift 3×6 175lbs at .55m/s or 3×6 200lbs at .27m/s or 3×12 175lbs at .27m/s which is a legitimate dilemma to have. Should I lift something near my max but lift it slowly or should I lift something I can get good barspeed with, or should I lift slowly but double my volume?
This test seems like the artificially held back the HalfV group. If I can move 175lbs at .55m/s but you make me train at .27m/s of course I’m not going to make the same gains, you’re forcing me to slow down.
Thoughts?
Greg Nuckols says
For both groups, the bar speed with submaximal weights increased proportionately with improvements with 1rms. So it seems that the MaxV group would be choosing heavier working weights each day because they were actually gaining strength at a greater rate, not because their bar speed with submaximal %s increased more than it did for the halfV group.
BK says
I too was wondering about the following part of Larry’s comment/question: “So then it becomes, is it better to lift 3×6 175lbs at .55m/s or 3×6 200lbs at .27m/?” IE: lighter/faster vs heavier/slower, for strength?
Thoughts?
Greg Nuckols says
The key point is just to lift every rep as fast as possible. That’ll naturally be faster for lighter weights, and slower for heavier weights. Acutely, the heavier work would probably lead to better strength gains, but long-term as long as you’re using a periodized plan that includes heavier work prior to testing, it shouldn’t matter too much.
Bk says
????
Kris says
Hi Greg,
This data is very interesting but Im guessing it is only useful with bench pressing and not squatting for example? Do you know if there has been any similar studies performed with squatting?
Would this be similar to what Louie Simmons uses at west side as a part of his dynamic day by trying to maximise the speed of the eccentric portion of this lift (or in his case overspeed eccentrics) to maximise kinetic energy for the concentric portion of the lift?
Thanks in advance.
Greg Nuckols says
I’d assume it’s generalizable to other movements as well.
Carlos Ramos says
,On week 1, they did 3 sets of 6-8 with 60% each day, eventually progressing to 3-4 sets of 3-4 reps on week 6.”
Do we know what percentage they were using on week 6?
Greg Nuckols says
yep. The whole routine is laid out in the linked study
Dan says
So fast concentric is best for hypertrophy and strengh ? I was slowing bar down and pressing faster as much as I can. My technique is invalid no longer? is it wrong?
Greg Nuckols says
For strength, yes. For hypertrophy, it doesn’t matter all that much.
gdr666 says
Sounds a lot like Jay Schroeder. He always thought that “speed kills”. He believed that
if there is enough speed and volume that one can use almost any weight for strength
increases. I wonder if there has been any experiments using a “light” weight for strength
increases on “advanced” strength athletes (olympic lifters and/or powerlifters) but only on
“strength” exercises like the squat. A weakness of routines exercises that use “speed” is
perhaps the gains in the “yielding” regime don’t keep pace. In any case here’s another
case of moderate tempo winning out (i believe the lack of eccentric strength is the cause).
Brandon
http://www.sportivnypress.com/2014/the-rate-of-increase-in-leg-strength-depending-on-the-tempo-of-performing-squats-3/
Greg Nuckols says
I wonder how that would have been different if they JUST manipulated the concentric speed, and had the eccentric speed fixed.
Wazzup says
Finally got around to reading this.. nice study, great article. Any new insights NOT to give this a shot the next couple of weeks ?
Greg Nuckols says
not that I’ve seen!
Jack Blake says
Interesting study. Do you have any advice on how to push yourself harder/train to failure more in a home gym without a spotter?
Greg Nuckols says
You can just bench out of a power rack and put the pins below the level of your chest but above the level of your throat.
Cody says
I’ve also found paused bench to be very helpful for training speed, as well as in lifting safely without a spotter. As opposed to touch and go, I’m very aware if I have another rep in me (or not) with paused reps. It almost sounds counter intuitive, but I’ve gained a lot of confidence by pausing each rep.
Brandon Green says
Hello
Excellent article. I do recall that when i was lifting with Jay Schroeder that i spent the first 6
months lifting 60-80% of 1rm as fast as possible each and every rep. He told me that when i
had enough speed i could go heavy and i when i did the bar accelerated and i made excellent gains.
I do recall two Soviet studies on bar speed. On was by Lelikov and Saxonov in 1976. In this one moderate
speed won the day. It could be (in my mind) that moderate tempo is the body’s “default” tempo and even
though studies show that the energy cost was the about the same for all the tempos it’seems to me that moderate speed can be used for a “rest” day. The other study found that after 45 sessions that ALTERNATING tempos was the most effective and “blew away” the others. I do recall that a study done on
Edward Sarul (the shotputter and gold medalist in the World Champioships 1983). It was found that his speed of lifting had a very profound effect on his shot put results ( he was much weaker in the bench press
than his “peers” ( the other world class shot-putters).
http://www.sportivnypress.com/2014/the-rate-of-increase-in-leg-strength-depending-on-the-tempo-of-performing-squats-3/
http://www.just-fly-sports.com/adapt-or-die-part-i-speed-in-strength-training/
http://www.nasgaweb.com/forum/strength-power-and-speed-in-training_topic6165.html
Greg Nuckols says
I’ve seen those first two studies referenced before, but I’ve never actually seen them. I’ve even had Russian friends search Russian databases for me, and they haven’t found them either. I’d really love to get my hands on them because they sound interesting.
Dunkman says
Excellent article as always. A thought occurred to me after reading this a second time – could this be all or in part the result of neuromuscular adaptation? If the intent to move the weight as fast as possible is being applied by the lifter, it seems possible to me that your nervous system might respond using a different firing pattern than the moderate pace, governed more strictly by the size principle. Just a thought.
Greg Nuckols says
Yep, I think that would be the main thing. The size principle would still apply, but you could cut down on latency (how long it would take a activate basically the entire MU pool)
Dunkman says
Very helpful way of looking at it. Thanks again.
Sara says
What if you’re a female training for aesthetics?
Greg Nuckols says
There was actually a recent study showing that slower ECCENTRICS were a little better for hypertrophy than faster eccentrics, but I still think moving the concentric as fast as possible is typically a good idea.
Dominick says
I can testify to the fact that this approach also (not surprisingly) works for the strict clean & press. I used to be stuck at a max of 185 in this lift, grinding out triples at 160 or 165 three times a week. I got my max moving up once I started to train Sheiko style: 3x/week for numerous sets mostly between 60 and 80%. My max press went up from 185 to 210 within a few months.
There is not a lot of stuff written about the clean & press, as it is no longer an Oly lift. My 210-lb max may have me think that I’m at a lower level* than I actually am: although I weigh 260, I strict press more overhead than all these guys could bench at the END of the study! This leads me to think that my press would benefit from a more advanced approach (i.e. increasing the frequency, volume and/or intensity, using overloading lifts like the push press, training the snatch to beef up the rear delts and upper back, etc.). Great post! Many thanks, Greg!
*Back in the 1940’s, someone training in a real gym had to press 200+ to be considered a true “barbell man”; to clean and press 200 is a goal that any man in good health can reach. Men weighing less than 200, especially the smaller guys, were highly regarded if they could clean and jerk 200. If I was training back then, I’d be a very big guy and the coach would be pushing me to hit 250 and 270 (and eventually 300+).
Miller says
Another great article – I’m slowly reading back through all of them but its taking a few…
I am interested in the comments re how the initial loads were selected and the effect this would have on the slower lifters. It would have been nice if the study had included a RPE for the groups or some other method of gauging expended effort at the end of each set. If a control group had done the slow lift to technical failure, past studies indicate they would have had the same gains as the fast lifters. Either way the amount of work done was not the same, even though loads and set/rep ranges were identical. And then what happens if the slow group drops their velocity way down, instead of half speed how about 1/10th?
I recall max power is generated at something like 30% of the fastest contraction the muscle can make with no load. I wonder how these lifting speed correlate to that and if maybe a working speed/load couldn’t be arrived at (daily even) based on a fast warm-up set with no load.
Thanks again
Greg Nuckols says
“Either way the amount of work done was not the same, even though loads and set/rep ranges were identical.”
How do you figure?
Miller says
work = force x distance
force = mass x velocity
By moving the same weight the same number of times but at unequal speeds, you vary the amount of work being done. Faster = more work being done if all else is the same.
I’m not a physics major, but I’m sure there’s a formula that could be used to figure out how much more weight should be added to the slow group.
There has to be a break point where TUL with the same weight probably causes more muscular tension if you slow waay down (muscular activity not being as tidy as an equation), but I’m not sure the speeds used fall into that category. Even a subjective report from the participants for RPE would have been nice. I find it hard to believe with the size of the differences between groups that the slow group felt very fatigued after their sessions.
Greg Nuckols says
Work is also change in energy. The potential energy of the bar when it’s held at lockout and when it’s on the chest is the same for every rep, so I’m pretty sure work accomplished to move it between those two points is the same.
Miller says
Your logic sounds good, but that’s where the velocity difference kicks in as a multiplier.
If they’d used the max load the slower lifters could do in allotted time as the working weight for both groups for the day, the faster cadence folks mightn’t have even been able to hit their mark.
And I’m still wondering what your thoughts might be if a third group performed at .05 m/s.
Again, thanks for doing all this work and for entertaining my minimally informed questions.
Greg Nuckols says
After accelerating to a high velocity, the bar needs to decelerate again, so with high velocity, you have a period of high force output (high acceleration) and a period of low force output (high deceleration), compared to lower peak forceout, but high minimum force output with lower velocities. I’m like 95%+ sure that work is either the same, or at most trivially different.
If a third group went super duper slow, I think their strength gains would be even smaller.
Adrian says
you lost me at
force = mass x velocity (this is momentum)
force = mass x acceleration
Miller says
I lost myself on this one.
Was trying to illustrate how the amount of work being done was not the same. Slow group would have need heavier load to produce equivalent force to the faster group.
“force = mass x acceleration”
work = force x distance
Miller says
Last thought, two identical sportscars – one runs a quarter mile in 8 seconds and one runs it in 16. Which one has used more gas?
Or better – sportscar vs sedan, identical vehicle weights. How much HP needed to drive that load to 8 second 1/4 mile, how much HP needed to do it in 16 seconds?
Greg Nuckols says
I don’t know about sports cars, but if distance traveled is the same, calorie expenditure is the same in humans, regardless of how fast you’re running.
Miller says
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
At least in this study, the difference is notable. Walking vs running one mile you’d have to go about 30% further to burn the same calories at the slower cadence.
Among running circles I’ve come across this formula a few times, though not sure of its pedigree.
For running: Weight in pounds times .62 times distance in miles = calories burned
For walking: Weight in pounds times .30 times distance in miles = calories burned
Not only is the number of calories higher, the EPOC deficit is higher and presumably also production of metabolites that spur muscle growth.
Greg Nuckols says
That’s why I specified “no matter how fast you’re running.” Running burns more calories than walking because more vertical force has to be put into the ground per stride. But running a mile in 15 minutes burns just as many calories as running a mile in 5 minutes.
Miller says
Ahh, I see where my POV is flawed. I’m not describing the amount of work being done but the difference in amount of power needed. Power = work/time. Either way, more weight would be needed to balance the slower rate of work being done.
You can see the difference just looking at the way the study was designed – the load for the higher cadence HAD to be established by the up tempo group. If the slow tempo group had set the day’s working load, the faster group would have been unable to lift it in the required time, clearly a difference in amount of energy needed right off the bat, however it is expressed.
If they had each group test 1RM at their working cadence, and then do the same number or reps/sets with a given value of their respective %RM, we’d have a much closer outcome if not the reverse. But the slower group would be moving more weight.
My takeaway would be if you are not training to failure and have a restricted amount of weight at your disposal – using a faster cadence gives better results with the same number of sets/reps.
Greg Nuckols says
“My takeaway would be if you are not training to failure and have a restricted amount of weight at your disposal – using a faster cadence gives better results with the same number of sets/reps.”
That’s exactly what the article says man. Regardless of the weight being used, just try to move every rep as fast as possible
Ken Gack says
Coming from a powerlifter’s perspective:
The article states that training to failure will also recruit the fast twitch fibers which are slower to engage, and should produce similar results. However, as a powerlifter, I want to engage all the muscle fibers now, at the start of the lift. If I’m performing a max effort lift, and the fast twitches are engaged as the slow twitches fail, my net gain is zero, right? If I engage everything immediately, I lift more.
That basic heuristic would seem to align with this study, wouldn’t it? As a powerlifter most movements should be done at max velocity, unless as noted, you are targeting a specific function or issue.
Greg Nuckols says
“That basic heuristic would seem to align with this study, wouldn’t it? As a powerlifter most movements should be done at max velocity, unless as noted, you are targeting a specific function or issue.”
yep!
Although I don’t think you reached the conclusion for the right reasons. If you’re performing a max effort lift, you’re going to engage all of your motor units from the start, regardless of your intended velocity in training.
Harry says
This may be overly tangential, but how do these results compare with the slow exercise movement of Dr. Doug McGuff?
Greg Nuckols says
For strength, slow movements are inferior. For hypertrophy, speed of execution probably doesn’t matter (assuming you’re training near failure).
Harry says
Thanks for the speedy response Appreciate ya.
Sharon Williams says
Hi, the post seems quite resourceful and I must thank you for the efforts. However, I’m wondering if you could offer some details about the Wrap-up, you could explain it more. I would love to get it as I intend to introduce a new hub of information to our website Fitting Guy Thanks!
Greg Nuckols says
What specific questions do you have?
Otavio says
What a coincidence. I’ve been, in the last 2 months or so, retraining my bench after doing only dips for a while. Then, I’ve made as a priority lifting the bar as fast as possible and not going further with either weight or reps until being sure that bar speed would not be compromised. I went from a 3 second pause with 80kg for 2 reps to a 3 second pause with 100kg for 2 reps. Now, I’m transitioning slowly to regular pause bench sets, but keeping the same principle of not compromising bar speed. Ironically, my 3 second pause bench has been easier after that, lol.
Keep up the great work!
Alex Z says
I think there was a mistake here?:
“The fast twitch muscle fibers – the last ones you recruit – are the ones most prone to hypertrophy, so lifting faster = more fast twitch fibers used = more strength and size gains.”
Dr. Brad Shoenfields findings seam to conclude that fast twitch muscle fibers are half (50%) as hypertrophic as slow twitch… What’s going on?
Greg Nuckols says
What findings? Brad’s lab doesn’t do biopsies and look at fiber-specific hypertrophy, as far as I’m aware.
Justin says
Hey Greg,
What exactly is rate of force development in layman’s terms and how can i test if im a strength type training responder or a power type training responder?
BtW, thanks for the free MASS copy. Looking to subscribe soon.
Greg Nuckols says
Rate of force development is what it sounds like. It’s the rate at which you can increase force output. For example, if two people deadlift 500lbs, if individual A starts pulling on the bar as hard as possible and it takes half a second for the bar to break off the floor, and individual B starts pulling on the bar as hard as possible and it takes a quarter second for the bar to break off the floor, individual B developed 500lbs of force at twice the rate of individual A.
As for testing, all you can really do is try and see. Just plain old troubleshooting.