Oh and Doc, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at how twisted this thread has become. The only interest I have in this conversation is rep speed/tempo as it pertains to particular goals.

In that light, I don't believe there to be one particular tempo that's ideal for all goals. Training specificity applies to all aspects of training, including rep tempo.

In general though, whatever that means, controlled eccentrics and fast concentrics make a lot of sense given motor unit activation and eccentric stress in relation to hypertrophy.

Training for... what?

If you're talking, say powerlifting, is it? All those guys do is grunt and fart and try to lift as much as possible, so is speed critcal?

If you're just doing general conditioning, then you can lighten the load and loosen up your form a bit and pick up the pace.

For putting on mass, well it becomes a personal thing. Finding out what works best for you. Trial and error I guess. Keep a log, find out what works. Change the variables if you aren't getting results.

I thought I was of the opinion that lifting "slow" (and heavier) was better for caloric expenditure (and hypertrophy)?

I hope she elaborates.

(I see you snuck a reply in while I was typing this reply).

BTW, as you know, it's amazing how a simple question can be taken in so many different ways. Just look at the endless " discussions" that have ensued from what seems like a simple question; "is a calorie a calorie?"

I'm not sure how you're confused. I'm the one who brought up the need for context.

Now here you are asking for context.

Regardless of context, rep speed is a critical factor in all training, have it be for strength, fat loss, power, hypertrophy, etc.

It applies to all, not in the same exact way, but nonetheless, it's a factor of programming that needs to be considered in each.

And yes, context is needed if we're going to have a meaningful conversation.

In their training or in their competition lifts?

In training, it most certainly is. Not sure how many powerlifters you've trained with or know, but the ones who are good most certainly factor in things like rep tempo to elicit certain responses from their training.

In competition, it's about moving the bar as fast as possible, which ends up being quite slow since the weight their using is their 1rm. In this latter case, of course their not worried about rep speed since it's not part of what's needed for a 'good lift' in a meet.

But I believe we're talking about training here, not competition.

You mean for a metabolic effect?

If so, I would agree, although this has it's limits given the popularity of thins like crossfit where you see people atrociously screwing up form on high rep olympic lifts.

I would tend to agree, within a very narrow range however.

But here we are again without a definition from you of what constitutes fast and slow reps in your mind.

Regardless of how we define fast/slow, would you not agree that controlled eccentric (at least 2 seconds) and fast concentric (moving the bar as fast as you can with good form, even if actual bar speed is slow given the load) is optimal in most instances for the goals of strength/hypertrophy?

Have you looked at the data regarding eccentric loading on hypertrophy?

Or again, what are your thoughts regarding intensity relative to motor unit recruitment? And once answered, would you not agree that more motor units recruited = more fibers getting stronger/bigger assuming progression and adequate energy?

I think if we had definitions of slow/fast in place, there would be no confusion. Maybe if you answer my questions above, we'll be on the same page. Then again, maybe not.

I sort of moved on from the OP. I doubt the trainers she/he communicates with would even be able to comprehend such details to be honest.

Haha.

That's why it's very important to frame a discussion with definitions.

We both know resistance training can be applied in a multitude of ways. I suppose the only way to have a meaningful discussion is to say:

Goal = X

Training should be Y for optimal results of X.

Right now we're throwing around a lot of generalities. I'll stand by my original notion though that for optimal strength/hypertrophy, progressively lifting with the above in mind (see my repeated mention of eccentric/concentric tempos) is optimal.

And is it just me or is this conversation making me stupider than I already am?

To be honest both ways are just as good as each other it all comes down to which way you would prefer to do. i personaly enjoy slow lifting doing both arms at the same time this way i have found to be the most benifital for me and have already seen results in 3 weeks, i don't use over the top heavy weights 2x 8 - 10 kg. and hardly ever touched the machines as i find that they are to restrictive.

i did an experiment with 3 of my mates from the gym on fast and slow lifting with machines and free waights, Dan has been doing slow waights, john has been doing fast waights and i have been doing an all rounder fast and slow in the same exersise.

John was propper skinny with little to no musscle and in the 2 month exepriment he has gained 1 1/2 stone in musscle, this showed on his body as well.

Dan tho hasn't put on much musscle waight we found that he could lift a much higher amount of waight then we could.

as for me i gained in musscle waight and it shows but also i can lift a higher waight for longer then John but not as much as Dan.

In my oppinion i find doing an all-rounder the best option if you like to be toned & strong but not heavly musscled...

this is just my oppinion...

Have you read this entire thread?

If so, I'm surprised you're missing the part about the necessity of context when discussing rep speed. What you prefer plays little role in the actual adaptation to the varying stresses you can impose on the body.

Said stress must be specific to the quality you're trying to improve. For instance, if you're trying to improve the rate of force development (which most any athlete should desire), just b/c your preference is lifting slow in general doesn't mean it's the right thing to do given the adaptation you're hoping to obtain (increase rate of force production).

You're only training arms?

Experiments like this don't really mean much of anything b/c there's no control. People can succeed or fail in spite of what variable you're testing when nothing is controlled in the "experiment."

Muscle development has more to do with energetic state, time under tension, and progressive overload than anything else.

OK, trying to bring this thread back to reality...

My brother and I both lift weights, but we have very different fitness goals.

His goal is to "bulk up" and get "bigger". He doesn't want big muscles, but he wants his muscles to be bigger. He is tall and pretty lean naturally.

My goal is to preserve or increase lean muscle mass and create "definition" but not "bulk" and also to be stronger overall.

He goes to the gym and lifts weights; I don't know the specifics of his routine and diet but so far, it is not working for him. We do not live or work close to each other so we don't go to the gym together.

I go to the gym and use both free weights and machines, focusing on one or two specific areas at a time (one day I focus on chest & shoulders, another day I focus on arms & back, another day I focus on legs & butt, etc). Once a week I take a 50-minute "lift" class where we do a lot of reps but we cycle through them, lifting the weight for 3 counts and lowering it in 1, then lifting it for 2 counts and lowering it in 2, then lifting it in 1 count and lowering it for 3, etc. I find this class very challenging but I can usually keep up in reps, though I have to use lighter weights than I normally use at the gym if I'm lifting by myself. The class works arms, shoulders, chest, back, thighs, butt, etc. I couldn't name each lift that we do, I don't know the names for them. I'm also usually sore for 2-3 days after I do this class.

Basically my questions are this...is my routine going to help me achieve my goals, and if not, what can I do differently? Also, what advice can I give my brother? He sees my success with weight loss and assumes that I know more about fitness than I actually do; I don't want to give him advice myself because I honestly don't know the answers to his questions.

Thanks.

Back to reality?

The discussion has been based solely on the title of this thread. What's fake about it?

.

He should rid any notion he has in his mind about getting too big for his liking.

It's not going to happen.

I suspect there are light misconceptions backing this statement.

You don't tone.

A muscle either grows or it doesn't. It's really that simple.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, and if that's the case... I apologize.

I would need a ton of information beyond what you've provided if I were going to help him. But if you mean it's not working in the sense that his muscles aren't getting bigger, my guess would be:

1. He's not eating enough

2. He's not focusing on progressive overload

3. He's not consistent enough

In that order.

I'm not a fan of body part splits like this for various reasons. What made you go with something like this?

This is a hybrid of cardio and weight training.

It's in place predominantly for calorie expenditure.

Your goal from what I gather is to preserve muscle while losing fat. Your resistance training routine could definitely stand some change but sure, it will help you maintain muscle... assuming you're eating adequate amounts of protein too.

If I were you, I'd focus on a full body routine instead which would give your muscles exposure to stress more frequently.

See above.

Say what?

That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

You'd have to take it up with him; that is an exact quote.

I was going to say the same thing, Doc, lol.

But I'm assuming he's one of those skinny guys who for whatever reason believes getting to look like arnold is simple so although he wants somewhat larger musculature, he doesn't want to be huge.

Yeah, that's kind of what he thinks. He's an MBA, he doesn't know shit about fitness. And I know only slightly less than shit, so I don't want to tell him what he should/should not be doing.

Well I'd put money on his problem coming from one of the three things I mentioned above.

I think I will tell him to find a personal trainer.

As for me focusing on different areas of the body each day...when I first started working out, I'd get sore all over if I lifted all over. This way I could restrict the soreness to one area. Made sense at the time!

about a year ago - one of the diet/fitness books of the moment (probably pimped by Oprah) was the 12 second sequence by Jorge Cruise (the same guy who developed the 3 hour diet

His weight lifting concept was that every movement should be 10 seconds up - hold for 2 then 10 seconds down - his theory was that it took momentum out of the picture and forced muscles to do all the work...

Careful with that... many trainers are horrible. There are some good ones and you might try searching the forums using the key word "personal trainer" or something to find threads regarding how best go about picking one.

I wouldn't let the prospect of soreness be the determining factor of how frequently you train various body parts. Like I said, if I were you I'd be doing something like a full body routine 2-3 times per week.