CBS Saturday night at 8pm: "48 Hours Investigates" will feature some diet and fitness reports, including a look at this slow-motion weight training protocol. (It is exactly Ken Hutchins' SuperSlow program, but with marketing.) If your Sat. night social life is as boring as mine, this program might be worth tuning in to. This slo-mo method of weight training has been very effective for me and other Zoners. But I expect to see a pessimistic slant. (Listen for the words "radical", "unsafe", "possibly dangerous", "unproven". Look for a counter-point comment from the Heart Association and maybe a representative from Bally's--if not Kenneth Cooper himself.)

On the SuperSlow website, it is stated: "A professionally supervised SuperSlow exercise program will produce better results in only six weeks than most other programs are capable of producing in two or more years." Since "most" weight training programs can easily produce 20 lbs. of muscle in two years, does this mean that SuperSlow can produce more than 3 lbs. of muscle per week?

BrianG wrote:[quote:5c2619f209]On the SuperSlow website, it is stated: "A professionally supervised SuperSlow exercise program will produce better results in only six weeks than most other programs are capable of producing in two or more years." Since "most" weight training programs can easily produce 20 lbs. of muscle in two years, does this mean that SuperSlow can produce more than 3 lbs. of muscle per week?[/quote:5c2619f209] Good point, (though I question the word "easily"). It's doubtful any plan could add 20 lbs in 6 weeks, but even moreso if it includes a cardio program. Keep in mind ALL the benefits of weight training: bone density, increased HDL, vascular efficiency (however we define and measure that), lower resting heart rate, better defense against injury...not just bulking up your guns and pecs. A lucky minority of the population are able to keep growing muscle tissue indefinitely by working out; the rest of us hit a genetically determined size limit no matter how hard we exercise. S-S is, like the Zone, for the regular people who seek the fastest route to overall health. Also, Brian, the line you quoted does not appear on the S-S Dot Com website, but is taken from O.P.T. ([url]http://www.optforfitness.com/[/url]). Please give your assertions proper citation and your quotations their actual source. Such irresponsible posting is downright plagiaristic and should not be tolerated by the moderators.

[quote:14046ee399] Also, Brian, the line you quoted does not appear on the S-S Dot Com website, but is taken from O.P.T. ([url]http://www.optforfitness.com/[/url]). Please give your assertions proper citation and your quotations their actual source. Such irresponsible posting is downright plagiaristic and should not be tolerated by the moderators.[/quote:14046ee399] No, that statement appears on the SuperSlow.com website: http://www.superslow.com/exercise_s...frame.html Click on "Effective"

I stand corrected. That branch has no link from the main page. Looks like you've been reading, Brian.

This is an excerpt from the article "Exercise and Fat Loss" by SuperSlow Master Instructor Dan Carter (www.superslowofscottsdale.com): [i:802106f4c5]"Running, a popular form of so called calorie burning activity, requires approximately 300 calories per mile. But wait! About half of these calories represent basal metabolism! The average individual burns about 150 calories at complete rest! Therefore running increases calorie demand not by 300 per mile, but 150 per mile!"[/i:802106f4c5] According to Mr. Carter's claims here, if you run at a pace of 8:00 per mile, then your basal metabolic rate is [b:802106f4c5]1125 calories per hour or 27,000 calories per day....![/b:802106f4c5] If this is a SuperSlow Master Instructor, then I sure feel sorry for the Level-1 and 2 instructors he's responsible for certifying.

[quote:7e2685a0f8]Running, a popular form of so called calorie burning activity, requires approximately 300 calories per mile. But wait! About half of these calories represent basal metabolism! The average individual burns about 150 calories at complete rest! Therefore running increases calorie demand not by 300 per mile, but 150 per mile!" According to Mr. Carter's claims here, if you run at a pace of 8:00 per mile, then your basal metabolic rate is 1125 calories per hour or 27,000 calories per day....! [/quote:7e2685a0f8] ? Maybe I'm just having a brain fart here, but where are you getting the 1125 calories per hour and the 27,000 calories per day. I'm not following.

That is a mistake. It should read that running on average burns 300 calories per [i:dab8f85cdb]hour[/i:dab8f85cdb]. (that's including the 150 calories per hour from the average basal metabolism.) The point is that running, or any other 'aerobic' activity, or even weightlifting for that matter, does not really burn many calories while you are performing the exercise. Rather, fat is burned when you are at rest, when your body repairs itself. Carter's contention is that it is incorrect to think of exercise in terms of burning a certain number of Calories. The benefits of exercise are to increase our basal (resting) metabolic rate, and this is best accomplished by building some muscle tissue.

Now that I can agree with, Adam! No wonder it wasn't making sense, 300 per hour and 300 per mile are very different! Thanks for clarifying!

[quote:ac65954eee] Rather, fat is burned when you are at rest, when your body repairs itself. Carter's contention is that it is incorrect to think of exercise in terms of burning a certain number of Calories. The benefits of exercise are to increase our basal (resting) metabolic rate, and this is best accomplished by building some muscle tissue.[/quote:ac65954eee] This is false though; muscle actually burns very few calories at rest. Carter and McGuff both state that each pound of muscle burns about 100 calories per day, which is completely ridiculous... the actual number probably more like 5-10.

I'll still favor the authority of someone with an MD or a PhD over someone whose expertise appears as the word "probably".

I say "probably" because there is no generally accepted figure, and it would be impossible to calculate anyway....... but common sense should tell you that 100 calories per pound of muscle mass is waaaaaaaay too much. Think about it: if muscle burns 100 cal/lb. daily, and your BMR was 2000 cal/day, then you would have LESS than 20 lbs. muscle on your body (much less actually, because muscle tissue only represents a fraction of your total BMR).

RE: HOW MANY CALORIES DOES ONE POUND OF MUSCLE BURN? I read several studies including the following that state each pound of muscle burns 37.5 pounds of fat. http://www.spineuniverse.com/displa...le870.html

Thanks for the link. I think this is the passage you meant: [quote:31c107abd8]At the end of the program, follow-up tests revealed that each trainee built calorie-burning muscle: on average approximately one-half pound per week, or 3 pounds in six weeks. Each pound of muscle added raised a person's basal metabolic rate by 37.5 calories per day. This was in addition to the calories burned during workouts. [/quote:31c107abd8] - C.

[quote:6edf6f031f]At the end of the program, follow-up tests revealed that each trainee built calorie-burning muscle: on average approximately one-half pound per week, or 3 pounds in six weeks. Each pound of muscle added raised a person's basal metabolic rate by 37.5 calories per day. This was in addition to the calories burned during workouts.[/quote:6edf6f031f] Yes that was the passage from the link. I thought readers would prefer to see the whole article. It's actually a bit discouraging to learn how few calories each pound of muscle burns.And If cardio only burns approx 150 calories after deducting the base metabolic rate, that's not so great. And if after weight lifting and/or cardio, the calories you burn post work out are limited, it really comes down to eating a lot less. Oh well . . . I don't mind eating less but I would like to think I'm burning more fat with exercise than it appears is possible. It just seems that a low calorie diet is the key and exercise contributes to where the fat is lost and where muscle is put on. But it does not appear I can eat that much more as I gain muscle. Am I wrong? I am trying to lose about 10 pounds. Also if I am able to estimate my body fat percentage, do you know how I calculate how many muscles I have that will allow me to burn that measly 37.5 calories each per day? Thanks, Rosebud

[quote:362cadffae="rosebud101"]RE: HOW MANY CALORIES DOES ONE POUND OF MUSCLE BURN? I read several studies including the following that state each pound of muscle burns 37.5 pounds of fat. http://www.spineuniverse.com/displa...dffae] Ellington Darden has achieved some remarkable fat-loss results with his programs, but that's not a real study on the metabolic rate of muscle tissue. The 37.5 cal/day figure was probably calculated based on the the amount of calories consumed per day and the amount of muscle gained and fat lost, which is a very crude method Also, even if muscle tissue does not burn very many calories at rest, the process of synthesizing new muscle tissue does increase metabolic rate. I don't think Darden took that into account when he calculated that figure.

Just for the heck of it, I bought [u:ec3f71e97c]Power of Ten [/u:ec3f71e97c]and have performed two work outs so far. However, in my research of SuperSlow (SS), I came across the limited studies comparing traditional training (TT) with (SS) and found the results of the studies (I could only find three!!) a bit discouraging: Take a look at: [quote:ec3f71e97c]Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1e97c] In the above study, sedentary women 19 to 45 were compared - SS vs. TT. The traditional training increased strength and mass considerably more than SS. And the aerobic benefits of TT were significantly better than SS. Also take a look at this article that describes two other studies: [quote:ec3f71e97c]http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Articl...1e97c] Again the studies only included sedentary trainers. And only the group in ages 55-80 achieved more muscle with SS. The younger sedentary trainers achieved poor results. My concern is two fold. First of all, I'm not sedentary. So have there been documented studies comparing SS with TT for fit trainers. So far, if you look only at studies, SS works only for older sedentary women. I really am anxious for a response. I don't want to waste my time. Thanx SS experts, Rosebud

Unfortunately, both methods were performed 3x/wk. If it can be argued that the slower repetitions resulted in continuous tension throughout the set and greater inroads into recovery ability, than its possible that the slower-rep group may not have been provided with adequate recovery.

[quote:85e842733f]Unfortunately, both methods were performed 3x/wk. If it can be argued that the slower repetitions resulted in continuous tension throughout the set and greater inroads into recovery ability, than its possible that the slower-rep group may not have been provided with adequate recovery.[/quote:85e842733f] Scott, that's a good point. And there also other flaws in the limited 3 studies I found. No studies compare NON sedentary groups. And I still would like more studies done proprerly with the advocated SS methods of 1 or 2x wk exercising to failure and [b:85e842733f]with Non sedentary people in all age groups. [/b:85e842733f] Do you practice SS? Do you or anyone you know see better results than with traditional training? Thanx, Rosebud

A big problem here: what is "traditional training"? Most people in the conventional gym setting do not train in any organized/systematic fashion; rather they just do whatever they feel like or copy others around them. So how can that be pinned down as "traditional"? Furthermore, the protocol that is commonly employed by bodybuilders for muscle mass gains is very different from the protocol used by strength athletes for improving maximal strength (i.e. 1-rep max). From my perspective, there is no such thing as "traditional" training. Studies need to be very specific about the protocols they are comparing, because a study only proves exatcly what it demonstrates... for example, if a study shown that SuperSlow improves strength more than doing 3 sets of 10 reps @ 202 tempo (two seconds up, two seconds down), then you can only conclude that SS is superior to that specific protocol. You cannot conclude that SuperSlow is superior to, say, 5 sets of 3 reps @ 101 tempo, which is very different.

[quote:93a3971a82]Studies need to be very specific about the protocols they are comparing, because a study only proves exatcly what it demonstrates... for example, if a study shown that SuperSlow improves strength more than doing 3 sets of 10 reps @ 202 tempo (two seconds up, two seconds down), then you can only conclude that SS is superior to that specific protocol. You cannot conclude that SuperSlow is superior to, say, 5 sets of 3 reps @ 101 tempo, which is very different.[/quote:93a3971a82] Can you clarify Brian? If SS improves strength, does it not produce some muscle mass also? I am not seeking huge muscles, but I would like to add some muscle definition.. Have you seen studies regarding this? And do you perform SS? If so, have you increased your muscle mass in addition to strength? And finally, if you have a chance, could you read my SS protocol in the HELP discussion? I'm having real problems limiting my SS exercises to 5 or 6 as you will see in my discussion. Thanks, Rosebud

[quote:3d79d2b97e] Can you clarify Brian? If SS improves strength, does it not produce some muscle mass also?[/quote:3d79d2b97e] Any sufficiently intense lifting method produces improvements in both strength and muscle mass, but most protocols are geared more toward one than the other. Contrary to popular belief, muscle hypertrophy (growth) does not necessarily lead to strength gains, because the strength and overall size of a muscle cell are affected by different organelles within the cell. [quote:3d79d2b97e] I am not seeking huge muscles, but I would like to add some muscle definition..[/quote:3d79d2b97e] Muscle definition mostly has to do with the amount of subcutaneous fat covering the muscles, not the qualities of the muscle itself. If you want definition, you have to focus on losing fat. [quote:3d79d2b97e]And do you perform SS? If so, have you increased your muscle mass in addition to strength?[/quote:3d79d2b97e] No, I do not perform SS. I've tried it a few times with various exercises, and I did not find it to be any better at producing inroad than the fast-tempo lifting that I usually perform. The main difference was that I was able to perform less repetitions using a given weight with SS, which I attribute simply to the much longer tension time per rep and NOT superior loading.

[quote:c422df5ccc]I do not perform SS. I've tried it a few times with various exercises, and I did not find it to be any better at producing inroad than the fast-tempo lifting that I usually perform. The main difference was that I was able to perform less repetitions using a given weight with SS, which I attribute simply to the much longer tension time per rep and NOT superior loading.[/quote:c422df5ccc] I was unable to respond sooner since I was out of town. Based on my current research, SS scores poorly compared to traditional training. (sorry, Brian, I know traditional means various methods but for now just take a look at some of the research I found). The study, [i:c422df5ccc]Super slow weight training: Does super-slow training build super-strong muscles?[/i:c422df5ccc] refers to research by the [i:c422df5ccc]Journal of Applied Physiology[/i:c422df5ccc]. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sup...ining.html Also I found a great debate in an HIT Yahoo chat room comparing SS and other forms of resistance training. I think some of the debate validates the prior study: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/grou...5?source=1 The only reason I'm trying SS for now is to save time and prevent injury. All I really want to do is to preserve the muscle mass I have as I lose 10 pounds. So I will continue to pursue aerobic work outs, but I will wait 24 - 48 hours after an SS to work out aerobically and never perform aerobic activity on the same day as I do SS. I will probably do interval training since it seems to be most effective for the expenditure. (15 sec of high intensity followed by about 30 sec of low intensity). Here is some research on concurrent training that I found useful: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/1031.htm

I read the Journal of Applied Psychology study on SuperSlow, and they need to stick to psychology. It's preposterous that someonc can't lift more than 25% of their 1RM 8 times. I can lift almost 80%. With such faulty premises, it's not wonder they came up with such bogus conclusions. Not to fault you, Rosebud101, or be snippy. This study proves just one thing. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

OK, so I can't read. It's Journal of Applied Physiology, not Psychology. No wonder it made no sense! But their numbers are still crazy-small, and I still say they should be able to lift more weight. I can't read, but I can do arithmetic. :twisted: