slow vs fast rep speed and biceps hypertrophy

[TPT]

so does rep speed matter when concerned about muscle strength, hypertrophy, and damage?

should we emphasize concentric or eccentric contractions?

well shepstone et al. (2005) examined the effects of rep speed on muscle hypertrophy using multiple outcomes. "fast" and "slow" lengthening (eccentric contractions) of biceps brachii were used to observe changes in strength, cross sectional area, specific muscle fibers, and mixed muscle myo. muscle biopsies of the biceps were taken pre and post training.

type i fiber increased for both fast and slow speeds.
type iia and iix fibers increased for both speeds but, increases in cross sectional area were significantly increased for fast speeds.

strength increased regardless of velocity but larger strength was measured for fast eccentric contractions.

also, protein remodeling was examined to understand the greater hypertrophy in eccentric fast contractions. z band disruption was signficantly greater for fast reps. z band disruption is an indicator of muscle "damage" and fiber remodeling.

of course this is what we want to hear when training. greater protein synthesis would result in greater muscle hypertrophy.

ok, the take-to-the-gym message is:
use eccentric contractions with heavy loads for strength and hypertrophy,
vary rep speed to include decreased time under tension (e.g., ~2-3 sec) during eccentrics.

do you guys get better results with varying rep speed and emphasizing eccentrics?


Short-term high- vs. low-velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men

Tim N. Shepstone,1 Jason E. Tang,1 Stephane Dallaire,1 Mark D. Schuenke,2 Robert S. Staron,2 and Stuart M. Phillips1

1Exercise and Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and 2Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
Submitted 16 September 2004 ; accepted in final form 29 December 2004
We performed two studies to determine the effect of a resistive training program comprised of fast vs. slow isokinetic lengthening contractions on muscle fiber hypertrophy. In study I, we investigated the effect of fast (3.66 rad/s; Fast) or slow (0.35 rad/s; Slow) isokinetic high-resistance muscle lengthening contractions on muscle fiber and whole muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of the elbow flexors was investigated in young men. Twelve subjects (23.8 ± 2.4 yr; means ± SD) performed maximal resistive lengthening isokinetic exercise with both arms for 8 wk (3 days/wk), during which they trained one arm at a Fast velocity while the contralateral arm performed an equivalent number of contractions at a Slow velocity. Before (Pre) and after (Post) the training, percutaneous muscle biopsies were taken from the midbelly of the biceps brachii and analyzed for fiber type and CSA. Type I muscle fiber size increased Pre to Post (P < 0.05) in both Fast and Slow arms. Type IIa and IIx muscle fiber CSA increased in both arms, but the increases were greater in the Fast- vs. the Slow-trained arm (P < 0.05). Elbow flexor CSA increased in Fast and Slow arms, with the increase in the Fast arm showing a trend toward being greater (P = 0.06). Maximum torque-generating capacity also increased to a greater degree (P < 0.05) in the Fast arm, regardless of testing velocity. In study II, we attempted to provide some explanation of the greater hypertrophy observed in study I by examining an indicator of protein remodeling (Z-line streaming), which we hypothesized would be greater in the Fast condition. Nine men (21.7 ± 2.4 yr) performed an acute bout (n = 30, 3 sets x 10 repetitions/set) of maximal lengthening contractions at Fast and Slow velocities used in the training study. Biopsies revealed that Fast lengthening contractions resulted in more (185 ± 1 7%; P < 0.01) Z-band streaming per millimeter squared muscle vs. the Slow arm. In conclusion, training using Fast (3.66 rad/s) lengthening contractions leads to greater hypertrophy and strength gains than Slow (0.35 rad/s) lengthening contractions. The greater hypertrophy seen in the Fast-trained arm (study I) may be related to a greater amount of protein remodeling (Z-band streaming; study II).
muscle damage; time under tension; Z-band disruption

[Frosty]

When I was working with you to find an effective biceps brachii killer I played with the tempo and the faster eccentrics definitely help. I've been doing 2 second eccentrics and it never fails to trash my biceps with the lift we came up with.

[TPT]

When I was working with you to find an effective biceps brachii killer I played with the tempo and the faster eccentrics definitely help. I've been doing 2 second eccentrics and it never fails to trash my biceps with the lift we came up with.



what other muscles can we use the same techniques? quads have been used for similar studies using seated knee extensions. what would you do?

right now fast eccentrics are quite novel and of course counterintuitive. we've been "trained" to believe greater time of tension like slow concentric or eccentric contractions are most effective. time will tell. well more so- research will tell.

already, more and more studies on eccentric contractions are coming out to show that it is one of the most important variables in muscle hypertrophy and damage.

[Frosty]

Well just using instinct with training what seems to produce the best results for me is using reps in the 3-6 range and I tend to use quick eccentrics and concentrics for most lifts. Not sure why but it "feels right" and I get a lot stronger especially the more volume I use (lots of sets for compounds with low reps).

[Frosty]

By the way, in terms of hypertrophy I know time under tension IS important. So how can you have higher rep speed and get enough TUT? Do more sets! Pretty simple, and it's easier to do more sets when you don't do slow eccentrics because it causes less muscular damage. This would allow for good strength gains as well as more hypertrophy. Me personally I love lower reps for many sets to gain mass and strength. It's what works best overall for my body at least.

[GrayBull]

What's the point of doing more sets with a fast eccentric if you can get more muscular damage in fewer sets with a slower lengthening portion?

[Frosty]

What's the point of doing more sets with a fast eccentric if you can get more muscular damage in fewer sets with a slower lengthening portion?

Higher weight used and better strength gains with a faster eccentric. If you can use more weight, that, too will assist in hypertrophy since hypertrophy is basically (TUT)*(load).

[TPT]

By the way, in terms of hypertrophy I know time under tension IS important. So how can you have higher rep speed and get enough TUT? Do more sets! Pretty simple, and it's easier to do more sets when you don't do slow eccentrics because it causes less muscular damage. This would allow for good strength gains as well as more hypertrophy. Me personally I love lower reps for many sets to gain mass and strength. It's what works best overall for my body at least.


yes, time under tension is important. the challenge is how much? as i mentioned earlier- fast eccentrics seem to cause more muscle damage!? i know strange right? we might have a paradigm shift occuring as we speak.

we"ll have to examine closer the other variables that youve suggested including the load/weight and rep range and their relationship with eccentrics.

the following are some research suggesting greater muscle "damage" and other variables important to hypertrophy such as elevated protein synthesis. ill summarize them in a bit.

Greater Muscle Damage Induced by Fast Versus Slow Velocity Eccentric Exercise

D. Chapman1 (http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2005-865920#A409-1), M. Newton1 (http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2005-865920#A409-1), P. Sacco1 (http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2005-865920#A409-1), K. Nosaka1 (http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2005-865920#A409-1)1 School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia<H3>Abstract</H3>Debate exists concerning the effect of contraction velocity on muscle damage, and few human studies have yet to address this issue. This study examined whether the velocity of eccentric exercise affected the magnitude of muscle damage. Twelve untrained subjects performed a series of slow velocity isokinetic eccentric elbow flexions (SV: 30° · s-1) of one arm and a fast velocity exercise (FV: 210° · s-1) of the other arm, separated by 14 days. In order to standardise the time under tension (120 s) for the two conditions, the number of muscle actions for SV was 30 and 210 for FV. Criterion measures consisted of maximal voluntary torque for isometric, concentric (4 velocities) and eccentric contractions (2 velocities), range of motion (ROM) and relaxed elbow joint angle (RANG), upper arm circumference, muscle soreness and plasma creatine kinase (CK) activity. Measures were taken before, immediately after, 0.5 hour and 24 - 168 hours (240 hours for CK) after each eccentric exercise protocol, and changes in the measures over time were compared between FV and SV by two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Both protocols resulted in significant decrements in isometric and dynamic torque (p < 0.01), but FV showed significantly (p < 0.05) greater reductions over time (∼ 55 %) and a slower recovery compared to SV (∼ 30 %). Significantly (p < 0.05) larger decreases in, and delayed recovery of, ROM and RANG were evident after FV compared to SV. FV had significantly (p < 0.05) larger increases in upper arm circumference and soreness compared to SV, and peak plasma CK activity was 4.5-fold greater (p < 0.05) following FV than SV. These results suggest that, for the same time under tension, fast velocity eccentric exercise causes greater muscle damage than slow velocity exercise in untrained subjects.
<H3>Key words</H3>Force-velocity relationship - range of motion - muscle soreness - creatine kinase - elbow flexors




Myofibrillar and collagen protein synthesis in human skeletal muscle in young men after maximal shortening and lengthening contractions

Daniel R. Moore,1 Stuart M. Phillips,1 John A. Babraj,2 Kenneth Smith,2,3 and Michael J. Rennie2,3

1Department of Kinesiology, Exercise Metabolism Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 2Division of Molecular Physiology, University of Dundee, Dundee; and 3University of Nottingham Graduate Medical School, Derby City Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom
Submitted 20 August 2004 ; accepted in final form 23 November 2004

We aimed to determine whether there were differences in the extent and time course of skeletal muscle myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle collagen protein synthesis (CPS) in human skeletal muscle in an 8.5-h period after bouts of maximal muscle shortening (SC; average peak torque = 225 ± 7 N·m, means ± SE) or lengthening contractions (LC; average peak torque = 299 ± 18 N·m) with equivalent work performed in each mode. Eight healthy young men (21.9 ± 0.6 yr, body mass index 24.9 ± 1.3 kg/m2) performed 6 sets of 10 maximal unilateral LC of the knee extensors on an isokinetic dynamometer. With the contralateral leg, they then performed 6 sets of maximal unilateral SC with work matched to the total work performed during LC (10.9 ± 0.7 vs. 10.9 ± 0.8 kJ, P = 0.83). After exercise, the participants consumed small intermittent meals to provide 0.1 g·kg–1·h–1 of protein and carbohydrate. Prior exercise elevated MPS above rest in both conditions, but there was a more rapid rise after LC (P < 0.01). The increases (P < 0.001) in CPS above rest were identical for both SC and LC and likely represent a remodeling of the myofibrillar basement membrane. Therefore, a more rapid rise in MPS after maximal LC could translate into greater protein accretion and muscle hypertrophy during chronic resistance training utilizing maximal LC. eccentric; concentric; resistance exercise; z-band streaming

[TPT]

Higher weight used and better strength gains with a faster eccentric. If you can use more weight, that, too will assist in hypertrophy since hypertrophy is basically (TUT)*(load).


exactly. use more weight.

[Frosty]

Hmm, well actually if makes sense if you think about it. A faster eccentric puts a higher load on the muscle fibers to decelerate it. So I guess you wouldn't need additional sets??

[TPT]

Hmm, well actually if makes sense if you think about it. A faster eccentric puts a higher load on the muscle fibers to decelerate it. So I guess you wouldn't need additional sets??


yes, thats what im thinking as well. volume is important just like all the other variables previously mentioned- it causes muscle "damage." research still hasnt told us how much volume to use though. this is more complex than the stereotypical "volume vs. hit" arguement again. we're gonna go more sophisticated. lol.

even if we do end up preferring fast eccentrics with large loads for muscle hypertrophy- how much volume of this would be necessary? thats tough to answer considering their is limit to how much we want our muscles "damaged" and attenuating "overtraining."

[Frosty]

Well one thing I think you could appreciate is how I feel on volume.

To me the body is a biological organism that adapts to stressors put on it given that it isn't overwhelming and that it has enough time, rest, and nutrients to adapt. However if you took 10 untrained subjects and put them up against certain amount of physical stress, some would handle it fine and others would overtrain even if all other variables were the same. Heck look at Navy Seal training that weeds out the weak and leaves the guys that can handle tremendous physical stress.

With that said I believe in progressively increasing training volume as you adapt over time. And I mean years. Olympic weight lifters are a good example of this, with supposedly drug-free guys handling mind-boggling volume and intensity. But the key is they built that up over many years progressively.

So if you have two guys training from the same start point for 5 years, who do you think is going to be bigger? The guy that is still doing 5x6 once a week or the guy that is now doing 10 sets of 6 3 times a week? Hypertrophy = TUT*load, remember, so the guy doing much more volume is going to have a much greater hypertrophy stimulus.

So you can start at any arbitrary volume point that you feel you can recover from, note results, and gradually increase volume noting results and making sure your body can handle it. This is just my idea of what I think works, but it's just my opinion.

[Frosty]

Okay the Rapist sorry for the long-winded post. My point I was getting at is that I don't think it's possible to come up with the ideal volume range just by looking at different factors. I think you could get a general conservative number and go from there.

However I do think with these types of workout a deload every 3 weeks is a good idea. Cutting back the sets by 40-60% for the week would help your body recover and then you go back into the heavier volume to get a good stimulus.

If strength continues to go up, that's a great sign that it's not too much. If you're gaining weight, another good sign. The first indicator would just be mood and desire to train. If your mood is starting to go to shit and you don't want to train, then that's an early warning sign of overtraining. Now if this is just starting slightly after 2 weeks the deload week should help with this, but if not then the overall workload is too much. I believe sleep is also an indicator of volume....if you have a lot of trouble staying asleep I would look at other variables as well and consider the overall training volume you have. You could cut back on volume or perhaps increase calories depending on what's going on.

[TPT]

Well one thing I think you could appreciate is how I feel on volume.

To me the body is a biological organism that adapts to stressors put on it given that it isn't overwhelming and that it has enough time, rest, and nutrients to adapt. However if you took 10 untrained subjects and put them up against certain amount of physical stress, some would handle it fine and others would overtrain even if all other variables were the same. Heck look at Navy Seal training that weeds out the weak and leaves the guys that can handle tremendous physical stress.

i agree. the organism does adapt and bodybuilding is an elegant example of adaptation. ten subjects would show variabilty in adaptation though within the data you would discriminate trends to showcase "rules." these rules show predictability in cause and effect. we respect the function of the individual, outliers, and "averages." outliers should be discrimated as genetic misfits- if you will. a response of "it depends" is just too easy of an answer to give at times.

With that said I believe in progressively increasing training volume as you adapt over time. And I mean years. Olympic weight lifters are a good example of this, with supposedly drug-free guys handling mind-boggling volume and intensity. But the key is they built that up over many years progressively.

and i suspect they greatly overtrained since the concept of greater recovery is still novel to some athletes.

So if you have two guys training from the same start point for 5 years, who do you think is going to be bigger? The guy that is still doing 5x6 once a week or the guy that is now doing 10 sets of 6 3 times a week? Hypertrophy = TUT*load, remember, so the guy doing much more volume is going to have a much greater hypertrophy stimulus.

the conceptual formula of time under tension multiplied by load equalling hypertrophy is largely antiquated and inaccurate. we have to examine many more variables than the two. but, i will say- all things being equal and the choices you provided- i would select the 10 sets of 6 a few times a week.

So you can start at any arbitrary volume point that you feel you can recover from, note results, and gradually increase volume noting results and making sure your body can handle it. This is just my idea of what I think works, but it's just my opinion.



yes, i agree. and reduce volume if necessary.

[TPT]

Okay the Rapist sorry for the long-winded post. My point I was getting at is that I don't think it's possible to come up with the ideal volume range just by looking at different factors. I think you could get a general conservative number and go from there.

However I do think with these types of workout a deload every 3 weeks is a good idea. Cutting back the sets by 40-60% for the week would help your body recover and then you go back into the heavier volume to get a good stimulus.

If strength continues to go up, that's a great sign that it's not too much. If you're gaining weight, another good sign. The first indicator would just be mood and desire to train. If your mood is starting to go to shit and you don't want to train, then that's an early warning sign of overtraining. Now if this is just starting slightly after 2 weeks the deload week should help with this, but if not then the overall workload is too much. I believe sleep is also an indicator of volume....if you have a lot of trouble staying asleep I would look at other variables as well and consider the overall training volume you have. You could cut back on volume or perhaps increase calories depending on what's going on.

you aint right. lmao.

anyway, we have to try and come up with that "conservative number" even though its so difficult with the multitude of variables. the reduction in volume is smart especially if your recovery is not optimal. we just dont grow without enough rest. so the challenge is not just discriminating the amount of optimal volume of traing but the optimal time of rest and recovery. they are functionally related.

a big problem of bodybuilders is that they arent discriminating symptoms of overtraining as you suggested. we are so stuck on a speicific regiman of say- four times a week no matter what. when we might need to drop to two times a week because youre symptomatic of overtraining.

[Frosty]

I'm sure you could come up with some general numbers to start with....could it be normal guidelines? Like 10x3, 5x6, 5x5, etc? Then adjust from there by paying attention to variables?

[TPT]

I'm sure you could come up with some general numbers to start with....could it be normal guidelines? Like 10x3, 5x6, 5x5, etc? Then adjust from there by paying attention to variables?


these guidelines that we're trying to find can merely- guide us. while we monitor their effects on our outcomes, our evidence-based rules tell us how to adjust because of all the different variables we have to recognize.

in many instances i stay out of the arguements of volume vs hit or multi set vs single set because the arguments are inherently arbitrary. they are usually only useful for beginners or an initial guidline as we've suggested already. e.g., the argument for volume vs hit is somewhat juvenile because we're comparing variables across different dimensions. it doesnt make sense though at times still entertaining.

[Klaus Urine]

The faster the eccentric, the greater the force to overcome at the bottom of the movement. It's always seemed logical to me that this would be a good thing.

[TPT]

yes. eccentric contractions decelerate the external load with counter forces generated by muscles. thus, we have to be strong enough to "control" the load.

the quandry is that we are stronger eccentrically than concentrically though use the same weight in any one exercise and working set. so we likely require different loads for eccentric versus concentric contractions for maximum hypertrophy.

[radrmd216]

Have you guys ever tried DC training or know the principles of it. The goal is to lift more weight over time thus causing the muscle to hypertrophy to adapt to the stress. Anohter principle is to use slow eccentric and fast concentrics, almost like what a sring looks like when someone tried to push it down and then lets go. The main thing about dc training is that a lifter causes enough damage to the muscle so that it has to hypertrophy while the muscle can recover within 4-5 days. Do any of these principes seem logical or plausable in regards to muscle hypertrophy or strength gain.

I think slow eccentrics might be good for some people becuase they use too much weight thus uses too much momentum to lift the weight. A slower eccentric might make the lifter use less weight cuasing the muscle to lift the weight rather than muscle and momentum. These are just some ideas, I would like to see what you guys think.

[TPT]

wow. back in 1983 a paper on the effects of rep speed was published with similar implications of what has been discussed previously.

elbow torques during arm curls were dependent on fast repetitions such as less than 2 sec.

i havent appraised this article so discretion should be taken on its validity.
however, i am still interested in how slower rep speeds have become so popular.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1983&issue=15010&article=00012&type=abstract
Effects of lifting rate on elbow torques exerted during arm curl exercises

HAY, JAMES G.; ANDREWS, JAMES G. and; VAUGHAN, CHRISTOPHER L.





Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the resultant joint torques exerted during similar arm curl exercises performed at slow, medium, and fast rates of lifting using a barbell and a weight machine. Three men experienced in strength-training performed lifts under nine different conditions of load and rate of lifting. The resultant torque at the elbow was determined for one trial under each condition. The following conclusions appear to be warranted:


1. For the seated arm curls performed with a barbell, the resultant elbow torques, exerted at all but the extremes of the range of motion, were independent of the rate of lifting. For arm curls performed with a Universal weight machine, the elbow torques required to lift a given load were independent of the rate of lifting except when the duration of the lift was less than 2 s.

2. Inertial effects were greatest at fast lifting rates and declined asymptotically as the rate of lifting decreased.

3. Because the form of the results for all three subjects was essentially the same despite pronounced differences in the subjects&apos; heights and weights, conclusions based on an analysis of the performances of any other subjects experienced in weight training would probably be the same as those reached in the present study.

If it is accepted that muscular strength can best be increased by repeatedly requiring the muscles to produce forces close to the maximum of which they are capable, as the Overload Principle states, the results obtained in this study also suggest that:

1. For a given load, a fast rate of lifting is likely to yield a slightly better rate of strength development than slower rates of lifting.

2. Neither of the two pieces of equipment used in the study is inherently superior to the other in terms of strength development.

(C)1983The American College of Sports Medicine

[TPT]

here was another article looking at the efects of rep speed of barbell squats on different outcome measures.

morrisey et al. (1998) used two groups of women: the fast group squated for 1 sec. in ascent/ 2 sec. in descent and the slow group squated for 2 sec. in ascent/ 2 sec. in descent. they trained for 7 weeks using 3- 8 rep max sets. interestingly, the experimenters measured along dimensions of functional generality.

the fast group showed increased knee peak velocity, total body vertical and absolute power during long jumping. these results suggest applications to those athletes who require explosive behaviors.

as far as strength measures, the fast group showed increased strength at faster isokinetic velocities. these results make sense as far as specificity of training.

so exercises or training at different speeds may have effects on functional or sporting activities as well as just strength.


http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract

Early Phase Differential Effects of Slow and Fast Barbell Squat Training

Matthew C. Morrissey (http://ajs.sagepub.com/search?author1=Matthew+C.+Morrissey&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), ScD PT* (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#aff-1),
Everett A. Harman (http://ajs.sagepub.com/search?author1=Everett+A.+Harman&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), PhD† (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#aff-2)‡ (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#corresp-1),
Peter N. Frykman (http://ajs.sagepub.com/search?author1=Peter+N.+Frykman&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), MS† (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#aff-2) and
Ki Hoon Han (http://ajs.sagepub.com/search?author1=Ki+Hoon+Han&sortspec=date&submit=Submit), EdD† (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#aff-2)
+ (http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/2/221.abstract#) Author Affiliations

*Department of Health Sciences, Sargent College of Allied Health Professions, Boston University, Boston
†Military Performance Division, United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, Massachusetts

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Everett A. Harman, PhD, Military Performance Division, USARIEM, Natick, MA 01760-5007

Abstract

To examine the importance of resistance training movement speed, two groups of women (24 ± 4 years, 162 ± 5 cm, 59 ± 7 kg) squatted repeatedly at 1) 2 seconds up, 2 seconds down (slow, N = 11); or 2) 1 second up, 1 second down (fast, N = 10), doing three warm-up sets and three eight-repetition maximum sets, three times per week for 7 weeks. Tests included force platform and video analysis of the vertical jump, long jump, and maximum squat, and isometric and isokinetic knee extensor testing at speeds from 25 to 125 deg/sec. The groups improved similarly in many variables with training but also showed some differences. In the long jump, the fast group was superior in numerous variables including knee peak velocity and total-body vertical and absolute power. In the vertical jump, fast training affected the ankle and hip more (e.g., average power), and slow training mostly affected the knee (average torque). In isokinetic testing, the fast group improved strength most at the faster velocities, while the slow group strength changes were consistent across the velocities tested. Although both slow and fast training improved performance, faster training showed some advantages in quantity and magnitude of training effects.

[Sledge]

This is all great stuff guys. Thanks

[UnfinishedBusiness]

Guys, I am really dumb, sorry.

So is this saying that I should use fast repetitions for bicep work?

My biceps never FN grow, they SUCK and I have always used a more controlled lower squeezing rep.

Should I be using faster reps for bigger biceps?

Again, sorry for being so dumb.

[Frosty]

Guys, I am really dumb, sorry.

So is this saying that I should use fast repetitions for bicep work?

My biceps never FN grow, they SUCK and I have always used a more controlled lower squeezing rep.

Should I be using faster reps for bigger biceps?

Again, sorry for being so dumb.

With help from ThePhysicalTherapist I'm now stimulating my biceps well. I've come to two different types of curls and I use a fast tempo. Could never get my biceps sore before but now I do.

[UnfinishedBusiness]

With help from ThePhysicalTherapist I'm now stimulating my biceps well. I've come to two different types of curls and I use a fast tempo. Could never get my biceps sore before but now I do.

I have always been told slow controlled reps for arms, with contractions at both ends of the ROM.

Lets just say since my arms suck, IT HAS NOT WORKED!

Interesting, I am going to give it a shot!

Can someone explain this eccentric/concentric business to me? I did a google search and I am more confused than before.

It seems like eccentric is the negative and the concentric is the positive?

[Frosty]

It seems like eccentric is the negative and the concentric is the positive?

Correct!

[jwy5034]

I have used both fast and slow tempo in the past and according to my workout journal and my mirror, I've gained more size and strength when I lifted heavy and fast (1s eccentric 1s concentric for 6-8 reps vs slow eccentric + fast concentric (3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric) for 12-15 reps. So I decided to lift only fast and heavy, but I quickly started to over train.
I'm still confused about what's best for me, but right now I am using periodization 3 weeks of 12-15 reps 3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric followed by 3 weeks of 4-6 reps 1s eccentric and 1s concentric. I've been debating on whether to use the same 1s eccentric and 1s concentric with my accumulation phase for 12-15 reps (I would be able to handle more weight).
The more I research, the harder it is to decide since respectable authors have completely different opinions when it comes to rep speed. Some say slowing down the eccentric elicits more hypertrophy by causing more stress on the muscles, but others argue that you recruit the most motor units lifting fast and controlled. They say that slow rep speed may be beneficial for newbies, but advanced lifters mostly have to perform high reps to make progress.
Sorry I am all over the place here because I'm confused and frustrated with my lifting. My question is... should I use a slower rep scheme when I do higher reps (like Im doing now) or should i use the same tempo in my higher reps as my tempo in my heavy low reps (fast 1s eccentric and 1s concentric).

[TPT]

I have used both fast and slow tempo in the past and according to my workout journal and my mirror, I've gained more size and strength when I lifted heavy and fast (1s eccentric 1s concentric for 6-8 reps vs slow eccentric + fast concentric (3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric) for 12-15 reps. So I decided to lift only fast and heavy, but I quickly started to over train.
I'm still confused about what's best for me, but right now I am using periodization 3 weeks of 12-15 reps 3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric followed by 3 weeks of 4-6 reps 1s eccentric and 1s concentric. I've been debating on whether to use the same 1s eccentric and 1s concentric with my accumulation phase for 12-15 reps (I would be able to handle more weight).
The more I research, the harder it is to decide since respectable authors have completely different opinions when it comes to rep speed. Some say slowing down the eccentric elicits more hypertrophy by causing more stress on the muscles, but others argue that you recruit the most motor units lifting fast and controlled. They say that slow rep speed may be beneficial for newbies, but advanced lifters mostly have to perform high reps to make progress.
Sorry I am all over the place here because I'm confused and frustrated with my lifting. My question is... should I use a slower rep scheme when I do higher reps (like Im doing now) or should i use the same tempo in my higher reps as my tempo in my heavy low reps (fast 1s eccentric and 1s concentric).


any takers on this?

[Luffers]

I have used both fast and slow tempo in the past and according to my workout journal and my mirror, I've gained more size and strength when I lifted heavy and fast (1s eccentric 1s concentric for 6-8 reps vs slow eccentric + fast concentric (3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric) for 12-15 reps. So I decided to lift only fast and heavy, but I quickly started to over train.
I'm still confused about what's best for me, but right now I am using periodization 3 weeks of 12-15 reps 3-4s eccentric and 1s concentric followed by 3 weeks of 4-6 reps 1s eccentric and 1s concentric. I've been debating on whether to use the same 1s eccentric and 1s concentric with my accumulation phase for 12-15 reps (I would be able to handle more weight).
The more I research, the harder it is to decide since respectable authors have completely different opinions when it comes to rep speed. Some say slowing down the eccentric elicits more hypertrophy by causing more stress on the muscles, but others argue that you recruit the most motor units lifting fast and controlled. They say that slow rep speed may be beneficial for newbies, but advanced lifters mostly have to perform high reps to make progress.
Sorry I am all over the place here because I'm confused and frustrated with my lifting. My question is... should I use a slower rep scheme when I do higher reps (like Im doing now) or should i use the same tempo in my higher reps as my tempo in my heavy low reps (fast 1s eccentric and 1s concentric).

I would follow Joe Defranco's advice as per the WS4SB routine and do a 1-2 second eccentric, and a 1 second concentric. Its a solid program that has given excellent results for lots of lifters including some of my clients.

[Frosty]

Sorry I am all over the place here because I'm confused and frustrated with my lifting. My question is... should I use a slower rep scheme when I do higher reps (like Im doing now) or should i use the same tempo in my higher reps as my tempo in my heavy low reps (fast 1s eccentric and 1s concentric).

Given the nature of the biceps in general (and which you seem to have confirmed is true for you based on training), I would say try the faster controlled tempo. From what I gather, due to the high fast twitch nature combined with involving the brachialis more with slower eccentrics, it just seems to make sense to use a faster tempo regardless of the reps. Higher loads and higher speed for better recruiting the higher threshold motor units, and the faster eccentric to make sure you're training the biceps brachii more and the brachialis less.

Just my opinion, but I'd like to hear TheRapist's opinion as well.

Although, I do have to ask what you mean by "over train." This isn't a well defined term. I also am not convinced that "overtraining" as the term is used by many people is not inherently a bad thing. It can be used to your advantage to make gains or bust through plateaus. It all depends on how you structure your training and rest.

[juggernaut]

I've noticed that applying a heavy set of 4x5 then a medium of 2x8-12 have responded well in the biceps.