Something a bit less than however you wish to define ' fat tempo ' I suppose.

I assume that tempo would be defined in terms of time - i.e seconds of duration for each part of a complete rep.

I agree that there is a difference in how fast it takes to execute a fast tempo vs a moderate tempo - I'm simply not aware of anything to suggest that for most gym rats the difference between the 2 - moderate/fast pace - will lead to any ' significant ' differences in outcomes.

The visual aspect is irrelevant IMO.

At the end of the day, do you think will see any significant differences to your strength and or mass over a month or so if those times are lengthened by say a .5 second or 1 second etc. here or there ?

If that's what you want and can do - go for it.

Have you even tried explosive training, or low tut training? I have yet to meet anyone (who I KNEW was doing it correctly) that it didn't help. It doesn't seem like Karky is talking about likelihoods, because obviously you're more likely to have less than perfect form lifting fast. But you're more likely to have less than perfect form lifting too heavy, does that mean you should stay light all the time? No way, go as heavy as possible WHILE STILL MAINTAINING FORM (<-What Karky has said several times).

EDIT**

"I assume that tempo would be defined in terms of time - i.e seconds of duration for each part of a complete rep."

Then that would vary person to person, muscle to muscle, weight to weight, exercise to exercise, rep to rep; which would make it impossible to measure or record. A 2 second concentric would be much faster on say a squat then it would on a wrist curl, because of the exercise, meaning that a set time would be a rather poor marker of fast. 'Fast' is subjective, if you're moving the weight as fast as you can while still maintaining good form, that's defined as fast.

Probably. And if you could have an edge at all why not take it. I mean if you knew you would grow more, .1% or 50%, from one more rep on one set you'd do it right? Between pwo shakes, creatine, and explosive training (things you said were so small) I'm sure you're notice a good difference. I know certain pwo shakes (protein/carb) have shown to give an additional 5% strength increase over sugar water alone.

Guess it depends if your goal is......... to grow more, grow as fast as you can, grow in the most optimal way possible ? - then I suppose .1 % makes sense. The again, HIIT optimizes fat loss at a per calorie level, and post workout shakes may or may not optimize the utilization of various nutrients but it doesn't mean everyone should opt for HIIT or take a shake after a workout.

In a nutshell, it depends on what your training goals are and if you want or need the most optimal approach to training and nutrition.

The issue is whether there is a significant difference between options and whether the optimal approach is always needed. Take your PWO for example. If you only train every 24 hours, and your PWO shake is only for glycogen replacement purposes does it really matter whether you have that shake within 20 minutes of working out ? Probably not - you'll likely top up your glycogen stores within 24 hours either way. Or your PWO with it's fast acting carbs to boost protein absorption - does it matter if that carb has a GI score of 75 or 85 or 95 ? Likely it won't make any significant difference in how much or fast you build muscle.

And for that matter if after choosing every optimal approach you have available to you it means you can add 10 pounds of muscle in " x weeks " VS adding 10 pounds of muscle in " x + 4+++++ weeks " by not opting for every optimal approach...there is no reason not to adopt the latter approach if it suits your needs.

If you don't just train as a hobby: taking a less than optimal approach is just idiodic, sorry if that sounds mean, it is.

You don't NEED the optimal approach, but you don't NEED to lift, you don't NEED to eat excess protein. If you want to grow, you do.

PWO shakes/meals are multi purpose, the timing has more to do with protein timing and absorbtion; see next post about carbs.

Most peoples' goals aren't solely to 'build muscle'. Most want to maintain a low/respectable bf% which is why we choose carbs with a better GI score throughout the day and a 'worse' GI score pwo.

And there is no reason to not adopt the former if it makes no difference since you're already pushing the weight, just push faster. That simple.

Actual time of the lift, as many people have stated, and as I tried to state, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, whether it takes you 2 seconds or 10 seconds does not matter it's all about the explosive power you are attempting to use.

Yay! Finally a point I can prove you wrong on using commonly accepted and proven knowledge.
Ok, fast twitch fibers are larger than slow twitch fibers. If you could isolate muscle fibers you would still choose to exercise both slow and fast twitch, but you will see larger gains with those fast twitch muscle fibers.
Research:
Welcome to Techno Fitness Ltd.
Slow and Fast Twitch Fibers
Now back onto your point about tempo and moderate/fast pace not leading to significant gains.
TeenBodybuilding.com - Shane Giese - Slow & Fast Twitch Muscle Fibers.
"They are ideally suited for fast bursts of power" - I'm not pointing you necessarily to the article but the references at the bottom which back up this guy's research.
So we can put two and two together, fast twitch fibers give you big gains, and the best way of exercising them is using fast bursts of power.

If we are referring to strength then fast bursts of power is also beneficial.
Periodization Training For Sports - Google Book Search
"Only a high speed of contraction performed against a maximum load will rapidly recruit the fast-twitch fibers and result in increased maximum strength" And seeing as you are recruiting these fibers more rapidly there is more chance of causing micro-tears and therefore building muscle.

Back to my point about tempo not mattering, the article above also says:
"Slow-velocity strength training can improve high-velocity strength [Type II fibers] if the athlete atemps to move the weight as quickly as possible (Behm and Sale, 1993"

As several people have said, tempo/pace/speed what ever you want to call it accounts for nothing, it's about moving the weight as quickly as possible. So if you are only using a moderate tempo/pace/speed and you're not moving it as fast as possible then you are not as rapidly recruiting Type II fibers.

Re-read my post, in particular this line:
"It's not the speed at which the weight goes up and down visually"


Yes, above articles. To summarize, fast-twitch type II fibers = bigger, faster movements = recruited more rapidly, recruited more rapidly = more tears, more tears = muscle building as well as strength building. All scientifically proven in the research quoted or subsequent links.

Now, I have no problem with people voicing their opinion, free speech is great!
However, I don't like people posting unfounded and frankly rubbish non-sense.
Feel free to go out and research this to try and prove me wrong but if you're just going to do your usual and quote and simply post your own foundation less opinions then it could confuse some newcomers to the sport on how to train.

Also, I'd like to point out that in all the articles, form is paramount and they only take about moving the weight as fast as possible while maintaining strict form.

Please don't take my thread to be argumentative in anyway or an angry response, it's just I'm a lawyer, it comes natural to me .

As I said before, people train for different reasons and toward different goals. There are many approaches one can take to reach the exact same goal. And granted, some approaches are more optimal than others - but that is a subjective issue ( as to what is optimal for someone ) as much as anything else.

But, the suggestion that opting not to choose the most optimal approach - for whatever reason - is idiotic...is in and of itself..... idiotic IMO.

Many approaches can reach the same goal - some simply do it in a more optimal manner than others - people simply choose the approach that works for them. And, some are more optimal than others.

Correct - if you want muscles to grow you need to train properly. And you need a bit of extra protein and more carbs - and adequate fat - as well. There are optimal ways to achieve this and less optimal ways to go about it.

Actually, the timing of PWO shakes / nutrition also has to do with the rate of glycogen replacement ( as I mentioned ) which is optimized immediately after a workout. And although this is an optimal way to replace glycogen ( if that was your sole concern ) in most cases it isn't something most gym rats need to do. In this case, though it is optimal, it really provides no significant benefit because glycogen stores will usually get topped up in adequate time without it.


If you say so.

I don't think hi GI carbs make you fat - I think calorie surpluses ( beyond what your body requires each day ) do.

My comment was a generic one - it wasn't directed at the issue of tempo alone.

to the topic starter:i always go as fast as i can on the push and controlled on the way back to the starting position

plane of motion is part of propper form, but propper form is more than that. And if me and you both had perfect form on the squat, I bet my bar would move a bit different than yours, mainly because I have pretty long femurs.

when I say "lift fast" I mean "as fast as you can while keeping form 100%" I just can't be bothered to type that long sentence every time I say it. And you say that your hocky players form is more likley to get compromised if they lift as fast as possible while maintaining good form.. that's impossible. Because this "fast" speed is NOT suppose to be so fast that form can get compromised because of it. I feel like a broken record here.

And about the studies, the myth got debunked, but there were people who already knew. But those people diden't write articles about stuff, they were busy training. It's the same thing with the high frequency training that has kind of taken off latly. Strongmen have done that for years. Even before bodybuilders popularized the body part split. And we are still trying to debunk that notion. While alot of strenght athletes were probobly laughing all through the 60's

And you keep saying that different people choose different paths, and that the moderate tempo path works for you. While it's true that training is highly subjective, I like the quote "Training is not a religion, it's a science"
Some thins are simply better for the lot of us because the human body has the same functions.

I know ......plane of motion was just one aspect of an ' ideal orientation ' I cited.

Perhaps, but regardless of height, the generic guidelines ( you need to stay within ) to perform a squat in an ' ideal orientation ' remain pretty the same for virtually everyone - except perhaps for extreme body types.

I know ...you keep saying that ....I get it.


No it's not.

What I said was " as players do exercises more quickly, form and control has a tendency to suffer. Not in all cases mind you, but more often than in cases of slow or moderate reps " We simply saw more bad form when they were focusing on doing reps " as fast as they can " - they thought they were doing it " as fas as they can in good form " - but in fact they weren't.

Not sure why you keep repeating yourself - I get it - I already told you I agree with you

If you say so.

Whatever - but I'm not discussing high frequency training - it's not relevant to my point.

I agree - the best way to optimize training and to try and separate myth from reality - is science IMO.

Let's face it, the reason so many lifters get so obsessed about things like scarfing down protein, taking creatine, taking PWO shakes, taking hi GI carbs in that PWO shake, doing HIIT etc. etc. almost always stems back to scientific studies that endorse these things and validate them.

That's why isn't good enough simply to say that fast tempo yields significant gains in strength and mass - science has to test this theory with studies to see if this notion is valid or not.

I mean that my body and your body are very simular in how it works. How new protein is made, etc, etc.

I just mentioned the HFT thing as an example.

And I think you're wrong about that scientific studies is why people do what they do. Sure, for some, it is. However, all your examples are about diet, which is a very different thing from training. If you take for example HFT (as mentioned) training with high intensity (not the famous HIT, but doing reps with 90% and above, singles, doubbles, tripples etc), compound movements, etc. was popular and used by many way before any research backed it up.
There is enough experience going around to say that lifting fast works like a charm, it's actually not a very new thing.
The problem with training is that in the "body building" period, when training was popularised and comertialised, it was the body building methods that were on display. Not the weird people lifting heavy rocks and throwing weird stuff around. And now, when science is debunking all those myths commertial bodybuilding brought with them, people think that it's new stuff. Alot of people seem to think that, FBWs, fast reps, etc, is new stuff that came after the bodybuilding era due to science. That's not the case, people have known for ages, just not the general population, because before the bodybuilding era,
people who did strenght sports were weird. (this is really an aside since it's not really what the discussion is about, but it's a point I've been wanting to make for a long time)

And if your players who loose propper form, even though they think they are not, are simply not doing it correct, and using too much speed. And thus not folloing the general advice, even though they think they are.

I would say it does.

Taking only 1 or 2 seconds to lift a weight up is different ( in terms of it's impact on your body's response ) than taking 6-8+ seconds - just ask Karky !

Nice try.

But none of the above has anything to do with what my point was.

Good read though.

I have no issue with any of this. In fact I never claimed otherwise.

Again, I have no issue with any of this. I never claimed otherwise


Why would I try and prove you wrong ? I don't disagree with any of the links you provided. I fact, most of it makes a lot of sense.

Agreed.

We won't hold that against you.

My point is, it isn't good enough to follow a practice simply because you ' think ' it's doing what you think it is. That is training based on anecdotal evidence. It has it's place - but if you want to say a claim is a fact - you have to go a step further.

For example, if you think - that all other things being - you will gain more lean muscle mass by taking 3 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight than 1 gram, you have to have a theory that supports that notion and then be able to test it to see if it is valid.

And, as I said before - on PWO shakes. The reason almost every gym rat on this forum is so obsessed with PWO shakes is that science has shown ( in studies ) that it optimizes the absorption and replenishment of nutrients - i.e why do you think gym rats are so obsessed with having dextrose, malodextrin etc. etc. in their PWO shake ? Science is also behind tempo theory or HIIT theory and on and on - it al gets back to science. In fact, your very endorsement of fast tempo training is entirely due to the findings of scientific research.

karky - do you have a PWO shake right after a workout ? Do you have any idea how many grams of carbs / protein is in it and what type of carb ( hi GI ? ) it is ? And if the answer is yes - WHY do you take a PWO shake so soon after a workout ?

Diet was simply used to illustrate the role of science - nothing more.

People can say what they want - to make it a valid claim - you should be able to back it up with science.

Agreed - it's irrelevant.


Agreed.

I take a PWO, dunno the exact ammount of what. I don't take it because of scientific evidence, because most scientific evidence supporting PWO shakes are done when the subjects train in a fasted state, which is not realistic. I diden't want to bring this up, because you just use it as an example, and attacking examples have no point, since I get the example and agree with it.

And there are studies that support fast lifting, but I dont have any here, but I belive links have been provided with names of the studies in case you wanted to look at them. And I don't think everything has to be backed up by science, becuase if it has to, then we will never get further than science allows us, and science will hold us back.

anecdotal evidence does have a high place when it comes to training. If something has worked for thousands of different people, why should you be so different? Though I do agree, anecdotal evidence can be quite annoying, and often very wrong. But the thing about this is that it is also scientificly supported, and the knowledge about how the nervous system works with regards to fast training is there.

And in every thread you always ask for scientific evidence, but you never provide any for your own claims.

I could say "do you have scientific evidence that says the earth is round?"
If you don't provide any, that doesn't mean the earth is shaped like an elephant.

And also, scientific studies aren't always correct. You can support just about any claim within reason with a scientific study.
In addition, some studies are just crap, in order to evaluate if the study can really be used as proof, one has to read the entire thing, and often, to get acces to full studies, you have to pay.

The why DO you take it ?

If I recall correctly, in some of your earlier posts, you have mentioned a post workout " window ' ( in the context of PWO ) - i.e within 30 minutes or so of your workout- as the best time for PWO nutrition. Perhaps the " window " is the the reason you take a PWO ?

In any event, the ' window ' was discovered by science

Fair enough


Again, fair enough


If you claim something is a fact - I think you do IMO.

I never claimed it wasn't.

Actually, what I'm saying is that if people claim ( anecdotally ) a certain protocol yields significant results, then you need science - i.e scientific evidence - to determine if the claim has any validity

If you have scientific evidence - you present it. If you don't, you can't support your claim. Correct.


That is why they are published in an academic journal and subject to peer review.

That's what scientists do.