Attenuated Kinetic and Kinematic Properties During Very Slow Tempo Versus Maximal Velocity Resistance Exercise
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Advances in Sports and Physical Education
Abbreviated Key Title: J Adv Sport Phys Edu
ISSN 2616-8642 (Print) |ISSN 2617-3905 (Online)
Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Journal homepage: https://saudijournals.com
Original Research Article
Attenuated Kinetic and Kinematic Properties During Very Slow
Tempo Versus 1Maximal Velocity
2
Resistance
3
Exercise
2* 4 5
Patricia R. Dietz Parsons , Andrew C. Fry , Trent J. Herda , Dimitrije Cabarkapa , Michael T. Lane , Matthew J. Andre
1
Health and Human Performance Department, Wartburg College, Waverly, IA, USA
2
Jayhawk Athletic Performance Laboratory, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
3
Neuromechanics Laboratory, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
4
Exercise and Sport Science Department, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA
5
School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
DOI: 10.36348/jaspe.2021.v04i06.002 | Received: 03.05.2021 | Accepted: 08.06.2021 | Published: 25.06.2021
*Corresponding author: Dimitrije Cabarkapa
Abstract
Purposely slow velocity resistance exercise (i.e., 10 sec concentric and 10 sec eccentric), sometimes called slow tempo, is
a popular training method, but limits the loads that can be lifted (e.g.,Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
2003). Numerous proposed benefits for SLOW increases the amount of work being performed
resistance exercise can be found in the lay literature, (Brzycki, 1995). During SLOW resistance exercise, the
including potential improvements in strength, bone amount of time is increased, but the amount of
density, cardiovascular efficiency, flexibility, resistance mechanical work is likely to decrease since mechanical
to injury, improved blood pressure, as well as decreased work is a product of force produced and the distance
body fat (Brzycki, 1995; Westcott et al., 2001). In one moved (Knuttgen & Kreamer, 1987; McGinnis et al.,
of the recently conducted studies, Wilk et al. (2018) 2005). During both SLOW and MAX resistance
found that SLOW resistance training had the highest exercise, as long as the exercises are the same, the
time under tension and lowest training volume when distance moved should be similar, if not equal.
compared to medium and regular exercise tempos. However, the forces likely differ between the two
Additional claims include physiological changes such protocols due to the lower acceleration during SLOW
as increased muscular endurance for daily functions and resistance exercise (Schilling et al., 2008).
enhanced sport performance (Brzycki, 1995; Hunter et
al., 2003; Westcott, 1999). Regardless of the exact Previous research has demonstrated that, when
tempo, few scientific data are available concerning the SLOW resistance exercise was compared to a MAX
biomechanical properties of this type of training (Keeler lifting protocol, the VO2, heart rate response, and
et al., 2001; Schilling et al., 2008). energy expenditure was comparable or higher for the
MAX protocol (Hunter et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2011;
Several biomechanical claims for SLOW Mazzetti et al., 2011; Wickwire et al., 2009). In
resistance exercise have been challenged (Schilling et addition, post exercise lactate concentrations were
al., 2008). For the purposes of this paper, maximal almost two times greater for MAX resistance exercise
velocity (MAX) resistance exercise will be defined as compared to SLOW resistance exercise (Hunter et al.,
training where the resistance is moved either as rapidly 2003). One study on the endocrine responses to two
as possible or attempts are made to move the resistance different SLOW resistance exercise protocols reported
quickly (i.e., typically ≤ 1 sec concentric and ≤ 1 sec few differences in the measured hormones (Headley et
eccentric phases). Proponents of SLOW resistance al., 2011). However, it should be noted that both
exercise claim the force one produces is increased velocities used were SLOW when compared to
during SLOW training because momentum is decreased expected velocities for the loads used (González-
compared to MAX exercises (Brzycki, 1995; Westcott, Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Mann, 2016). Since
1999). The argument is that during a MAX resistance MAX resistance exercise produces greater energy
exercise, momentum is increased at the beginning of the expenditure than SLOW resistance exercise, it may be a
repetition, supposedly allowing the weight to contribute more beneficial protocol for body mass control (Hunter
to the movement and reducing the effort throughout the et al., 2003). In a different study, SLOW resistance
full exercise range of motion (Brzycki, 1995; Hatfield exercise with untrained women has been shown to
et al., 2006; Hunter et al., 2003; Westcott, 1999). improve muscular strength and muscular endurance, but
However, it must be noted that Newtonian physics not to a greater extent than MAX strength training
defines force as a product of mass and acceleration, and (Rana et al., 2008). It has also been reported that
momentum as a product of mass and velocity, which SLOW resistance training resulted in greater strength
means increasing force requires increasing momentum increases when compared to MAX training, however,
(McGinnis, 2005, Schilling et al., 2008). Another different methods of strength testing were used for each
supposed benefit of SLOW resistance exercise is an group, thus drawing into question the results (Westcott
increase in power due to the purported increase in force et al., 2001). Although many of the claimed
(Westcott, 1999; Westcott et al., 2001). In actuality, a characteristics of purposely SLOW resistance exercise
reduction in velocity would require a considerable seem to disagree with basic biomechanical principles,
increase in force magnitudes in order to increase the there are few studies that have directly examined the
resultant power (McGinnis, 2005; Schilling et al., kinetic characteristics of this type of training (Hatfield
2008). During SLOW resistance exercise, each et al., 2006; Headley et al., 2011; Schilling et al.,
repetition, and each set require a longer duration to 2008). Based on basic Newtonian physics, it is
complete. The increased duration of time may increase hypothesized that when compared to a commonly used
the perceived difficulty of the exercise, sometimes resistance exercise training protocol, SLOW resistance
known as effort. Some refer to this as ―the intensity exercise will produce lower forces and powers, but the
stimulus‖ which is related to the degree of effort entire session will produce identical mechanical work
required (Schilling et al., 2004). It should be noted, and impulse. Thus, the purpose of the present study was
however, that the relative load for resistance exercise is to analyze the kinetic and kinematic properties of
often used to describe an exercise’s intensity (Fry, SLOW and MAX resistance exercise training sessions.
1999; Fry, 2004). For SLOW training, the load must be
reduced as the velocity is purposely decreased. METHODS
Therefore, SLOW training is not high intensity training Subjects
by the generally accepted definitions (Fry, 2004). It has Five healthy, currently resistance-trained men,
also been claimed that SLOW resistance exercise who were familiar with the high-bar parallel barbell
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 144Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
squat and barbell bench press, served as subjects concentric phase tempo with no rest between
(X±SD; age=25.8±3.3 yrs, height=1.76±0.07 m, body repetitions. Rest intervals were 2 min between
mass (BM)=92.7±18.7 kg). All subjects were tested for exercises. This protocol was based on prior studies
1 repetition maximum (1RM) for both the bench press (Hatfield et al., 2006; Hunter et al., 2003; Keeler et al.,
(1RM=122.0±29.1 kg; 1RM/BM=1.38±0.23 kgkg-1) 2001), as well as recommendations from proponents of
and the squat (1RM=165.0±46.0 kg; 1RM/BM= SLOW training (Brzycki, 1995; Hutchins, 1992;
1.79±0.42 kgkg-1) exercises (Kreamer et al., 2006). All Westcott, 1999). The MAX resistance exercise protocol
subjects provided informed consent as approved by the consisted of 3 sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM loads with 1
University Human Subjects in Research Committee. min rest between sets and 2 min rest between the squat
and bench press exercises, as is commonly
Procedures recommended for resistance training for fitness
The present study used a repeated-measures (Beachle & Earle, 2008; Fleck & Kramer, 2014). For
randomized cross-over design to compare the the MAX resistance exercise session, subjects were
biomechanical characteristics of a SLOW resistance instructed to perform each repetition at a volitionally
exercise protocol with a MAX resistance exercise controlled eccentric velocity, and maximum concentric
protocol. Each subject performed two testing sessions in velocity.
random order; a MAX resistance exercise protocol and
a SLOW resistance exercise protocol. Data collection Dependent Variables
occurred over a three-week period, with testing Position (m), time (s), and force (N) variables
occurring during the same time of day for each session were directly measured for both the concentric and
(16:30-19:00 hrs) to avoid possible diurnal changes in eccentric phases for all sets and repetitions for both
strength levels (Kreamer & Ratamess, 2005). Subjects exercise protocols. The first derivative of position was
were asked to refrain from eating three hours prior to used to calculate barbell velocity (ms-1), whereas
testing and to avoid a strenuous workout 48 hrs prior to distance moved (m) was determined from position.
testing. To increase external validity, both resistance Additional calculations were used to determine
exercise training protocols were selected to replicate repetition power (W; force x velocity), total training
commonly performed protocols for both types of session mechanical work (J; force x distance), and
resistance exercise, rather than to equate training impulse (Ns; average force across repetition x time).
session volume. For each subject, values for all repetitions were
averaged. Finally, the time under tension (sec) for the
For each exercise protocol, barbell position entire training session was the sum of times for all
was monitored using a ceiling-mounted Uni-Measure concentric and eccentric phases of all repetitions
linear position transducer (Corvallis, OR, USA) with a performed.
wire cable connected to the barbell. Ground reaction
forces were determined with a uni-axial force plate STATISTICAL ANALYSES
(Rough Deck, 0.91 m x 2.44 m, Rice Lake Weighing Dependent t-tests determined differences
Systems, Rice Lake, WI, USA). The forces included between SLOW and MAX sessions for each of the
each subject’s body mass. When performing bench dependent variables. Hedge’s g was used to measure the
press exercises, the bench was placed completely on the effect sizes between the means. Significance was set a
force plate, and the subjects constantly maintained five priori (α=0.05). All data are reported as means, standard
points of contact. The force due to the bench was deviations, and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical
subtracted from the value of the ground reaction force. software SPSS 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was
All data were sampled at 1000 Hz using a 16-bit used for data analysis. Based on anticipated large
analog-to-digital converter and a Biopac data differences for force and power from previous related
acquisition system (MP150, Biopac Systems, Inc., research (Hatfield et al., 2006), our sample size was
Santa Barbara, CA, USA). A Chronomix digital adequate and statistical power was 0.95.
electronic timer (NewChron Associates, Walnut Creek,
CA, USA) was used as an audio and visual cue to RESULTS
maintain the prescribed lifting tempo for the purposely Numerous significant differences were
SLOW resistance exercise, and to monitor the inter-set observed between SLOW and MAX conditions for both
and inter-exercise rest intervals for both sessions. the squat (Table 1) and the bench press exercises (Table
2). The SLOW protocol took significantly more time to
The SLOW training used 28% of 1RM loads complete the exercises compared to MAX resistance
for the squat, followed by the bench press exercise, as exercise for both concentric and eccentric phases
suggested from previous slow tempo resistance exercise (Tables 1 and 2). The eccentric and concentric
studies and pilot work in our laboratory that indicated displacement measures were not significantly different
this intensity was the maximum that could be lifted for between the two protocols which demonstrate the range
10 repetitions (Hunter et al., 2003; Keeler et al., 2001; of motion (ROM) for the exercises remained the same.
Wickwire et al., 2009). The SLOW protocol also used 1 The concentric and eccentric mean forces and powers
set of 10 repetitions at a 10 sec eccentric phase, 10 sec
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 145Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
were significantly greater for the MAX session for both compared to the MAX session (Figure 1). Mechanical
the squat (Table 1) and bench press (Table 2). When work was significantly less in the SLOW session in
comparing the entire session for both protocols (squat contrast with the MAX session (Figure 2). Impulse was
and bench press analyzed together), the SLOW session also significantly lower during SLOW compared to
had significantly greater time under tension (TUT) MAX (Figure 3).
Table-1: Comparison of squat kinetic and kinematic variables between purposely slow velocity (SLOW) and
maximal velocity (MAX) resistance exercise (X±SD [95% CI]).
Squat Variables SLOW MAX p-value Effect Size
-1 -0.028±0.085 -0.715±0.069
Eccentric Mean Velocity (ms )Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
Fig-1: Comparison of total time under tension (sec) for all training sessions for both slow tempo and maximal velocity
resistance exercise protocols (X±SD; *pPatricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
DISCUSSION increase the momentum. Another claim for SLOW
Kinetic and kinematic properties of the SLOW resistance exercise is that it produces more muscle
resistance exercise protocol were significantly different power (Westcott, 1999). Power is defined as the product
from the MAX protocol. Both SLOW and MAX of force x velocity (McGinnis, 2005; Schilling et al.,
resistance exercises exhibit identical movement patterns 2004). Therefore, if force is low and velocity is low, the
except for lifting velocity. However, some of the resultant power will also be low. The results from the
biomechanical arguments used to support the use of present study clearly demonstrate significantly lower
SLOW resistance exercise are not correct. Since power production during the SLOW protocol compared
momentum is defined as mass x velocity, SLOW to the MAX protocol.
resistance exercise reduces momentum. Additionally, in An interesting finding of this study is that
SLOW resistance exercise the load is reduced although the SLOW protocol had greater TUT, the
(McGinnis, 2005), resulting in lower levels of force MAX protocol produced significantly greater values for
(Schilling et al., 2008). It should be noted that the the more commonly used biomechanical measures of
velocities observed for the MAX resistance exercise work and impulse. While many proponents of
protocol were in the expected range for the loads used, intentionally slow velocity resistance exercise advocate
whereas the SLOW group used considerably lower the importance of greater TUT (Brzycki, 1995;
velocities than what is possible for their respective Hutchins, 1992; Smith, n.d.; Westcott, 1999; Westcott
intensity (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; et al., 2001; Winnett & Carpinelli, 2001), this measure
Mann, 2016). In the present study, the MAX protocol completely ignores the actual muscular forces and
included 3x10 repetitions at 70% 1RM for the squat velocities produced and distances the resistance is
followed by 3x10 repetitions at 70% 1RM for the bench moved during the exercise. Since mass, force (mass x
press. The SLOW protocol included 1x10 repetitions at acceleration), velocity, acceleration, distance and time
28% 1RM for the squat followed by 1x10 repetitions at are contributing factors to work and impulse, it is
28% 1RM for the bench press. All the following points suggested that these may be more valuable variables to
of discussion are based on comparing these two monitor during resistance exercise training sessions. If
commonly prescribed protocols. these measures are adopted, then the value of a
particular resistance exercise training protocol would
Despite the obvious biomechanical not be determined solely by the TUT.
differences, claims are still made as to why SLOW
resistance exercise should be preferred over MAX It has been argued that SLOW resistance
resistance (Westcott, 1999). One is that SLOW exercise is an effective way to train athletes (Brzycki,
resistance exercise creates longer periods of muscle 1995; Carpinelli et al., 2004; Hutchins, 1992). It should
tension, also known as time under tension. The second be noted that many athletic movements require strength,
is that more muscle force is produced at slow speeds power, and speed. A SLOW resistance exercise training
(Westcott, 1999). However, it should be noted that as session such as used in the present study requires lifting
shown in the present study, the low relative intensity of external loads between 25-50% 1RM (Hunter et al.,
the SLOW resistance exercise produces less muscle 2003; Keeler et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2011; Rana et al.,
force due to the small mass that could be used, and the 2008; Wickwire et al., 2009). In sports where high
low levels of acceleration purposely produced. The power, strength, and speed is required, athletes need to
concept that SLOW training produces greater force are be able to produce high levels of muscle force and
based on commonly reported force-velocity curves power, and high contraction velocities. If SLOW
derived from isokinetic data (Schilling et al., 2004). resistance exercise is the only form of resistance
The validity of this interpretation of a force-velocity exercise the athlete performs, then they are not training
curve requires a maximal effort contraction, not a in a manner designed to enhance strength, power, or
submaximal velocity contraction such as used in SLOW speed (Zatsiorsky et al., 2020).
resistance exercise (Schilling et al., 2004). The present
study clearly demonstrated that, due in part to each Another reason suggested for using SLOW
repetition lasting longer; the relative intensity was so resistance exercise is that it supposedly produces less
low that the forces remained low. Another argument muscle damage while performing the same amount of
used to promote SLOW resistance exercise is that low work (Westcott, 1999). Conversely, more recent lay
velocities reduce the momentum of the load (Westcott, literature has claimed increased muscle trauma is a
1999). Although this statement is true, as observed in desired benefit of slow tempo resistance exercise
the present study, it has been clearly demonstrated that (Smith, n.d.). Mechanical work is defined as force x
greater increases in momentum are necessary for distance (McGinnis, 2005), and if force is low and
greater levels of force (McGinnis, 2005; Schilling et al., distance remains the same as in the present study, the
2004). Since force= mass x acceleration, and total amount of work will be low. The present study
momentum= mass x velocity, and the external load demonstrated the MAX protocol produced significantly
being lifted remained constant throughout the exercise, more work than the SLOW protocol. This suggests that
then the only way to increase the force produced is to although SLOW resistance exercise is challenging to
increase the acceleration (and the velocity), and thus perform, it results in considerably less mechanical work
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 148Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
when compared to MAX resistance exercise. Although (pp. 149-162). New York, NY: Kluwer
never scientifically studied to the authors’ knowledge, it Academic/Plenum Publishers.
stands to reason that if differences exist for muscle Fry, A. C. (2004). The role of resistance exercises
tissue disruption between both types of training, it may intensity on muscle fiber adaptations. Sports
be due to differing amounts of mechanical work. We Medicine. 34(10), 663-679. doi:10.2165/00007256-
acknowledge that our sample size was not large, 200434100-00004
however, where significant differences were identified González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L.
the magnitude of dissimilarities was so large that (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading
statistical power was adequate. Further research is intensity in resistance training. International
required to confirm this reasoning. Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347-352.
doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248333
CONCLUSION Greer, B. (2005). The effectiveness of low velocity
In conclusion, SLOW resistance exercise (superslow) resistance training. Strength and
produces less velocity, force, mechanical work, and Conditioning Journal, 27(2), 32-37.
power when compared to MAX resistance exercise. Hackett, D. A, Davies, T. B., Orr, R., Kuang, K., &
However, the total amount of time under tension was Halaki, M. (2018). Effect of movement velocity
greater with the SLOW resistance exercise compared to during resistance training on muscle-specific
the MAX protocol for the entire training sessions. hypertrophy: a systematic review. European
Thoughtful consideration of all factors should be made Journal of Sport Science, 18(4), 473–482.
when designing a resistance training program. It is doi:10.1080/17461391.2018.1434563
likely that SLOW resistance exercise may play a role in Hatfield, D. L., Kraemer, W. J., Spiering, B. A.,
some resistance exercise programs. However, based on Häkkinen, K., Volek, J. S., Tomoko, S.,
training specificity principles, if the primary goal of a Spreuwenberg L. P. B., Silvestre, R., Vingren, J.
resistance exercise training program is to improve L., Fragala, M. S., Gómez A. L., Fleck, S. J.,
muscular force and power, or it is to perform greater Newton, R. U., & Maresh, C. M. (2006). The
amounts of work, than MAX resistance training impact of velocity of movement on performance
methods would be preferred. factors in resistance exercise. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 760–766.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS doi:10.1519/R-155552.1
The authors would like to thank Michael A. Headley, S. A., Henry, K., Nindl, B. C., Thompson,
Cooper for assisting with the data collection. B. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Jones, M. T. (2011).
Effects of lifting tempo on one repetition maximum
REFERENCES and hormonal responses to a bench press protocol.
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (Eds.). (2008). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
Essentials of Strength and Training and 25(2), 406-413.
Conditioning (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bf053b
Kinetics. Hunter, G., Seelhorst, D., & Snyder, S. (2003).
Brzycki, M. (1995). A Practical Approach to Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses
Strength Training (4th ed). Indianapolis, IN: to super slow vs: traditional resistance training.
Masters Press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
Carpinelli, R. N., Otto, R. M., & Winett R. A. 17(1), 76-81. doi:10.1519/00124278-200302000-
(2004). A critical analysis of the ACSM position 00013
stand on resistance training: insufficient evidence Hutchins, K. (1992). Superslow: The Ultimate
to support recommended training protocols. Journal Exercise Protocol (2nd ed). Casselberry, FL: Media
of Exercise Physiology Online, 7(3), 1-60. Support.
Davies, T. B., Kuang, K., Orr, R., Halaki, M., & Keeler, L., Finkelstein, L., Miller, W., & Fermhall,
Hackett D. (2017). Effect of movement velocity B. O. (2001). Early-phase adaptations of traditional
during resistance training on dynamic muscular speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength
strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals.
Sports Medicine, 47(8), 1603-1617. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0676-4. 15(3), 309-314.
Fleck, S. J., & Kramer, W. J. (2014). Designing Kim, E., Dear, A., Ferguson, S. L., Seo, D., &
Resistance Training Programs (4th ed) Champaign, Bemben, M. G. (2011). Effects of 4 weeks of
IL: Human Kinetics. traditional resistance training vs. superslow
Fry, A. C. (1999). Overload & regeneration during strength training on early phase adaptations in
resistance exercise. In: M. Lehmann, J. M. strength, flexibility, and aerobic capacity in
Steinacker, & U. Gastmann (Eds.) Overload college-aged women. Journal of Strength and
performance incompetence & regeneration in sport Conditioning Research, 25(11), 3006-3013.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318212e3a2
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 149Patricia R. Dietz Parsons et al., J Adv Sport Phys Edu, Jun, 2021; 4(6): 143-150
Knuttgen, W. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (1987). Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D. I., & Krieger, J. W.
Terminology and measurement in exercise (2015). Effect of repetition duration during
performance. Journal of Applied Sport Science resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a
Research, 1(1), 1-10. systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2005). Medicine, 45(4), 577-585. doi:10.1007/s40279-
Hormonal responses and adaptations to resistance 015-0304-0
exercise and training. Sports Medicine, 35(4), 339- Smith, J. (n.d). Tempo training to build size and
361. doi:10.2165/00007256-200535040-00004 strength.
Kraemer, W. J., Fry, A. C., Ratamess, N., & Westcott, W.L. (1999). The case for slow weight-
French, D. (1995). Strength testing: development training technique.
and evaluation of methodology. In: P. J. Maud & Westcott, W.L., Winett, R. A., Anderson, E. S., &
C. Foster (Eds.) Physiological Assessment of Wojcik, J. R. (2001). The effects of regular and
Human Fitness (pp. 119-150). Champaign, IL: super slow repetitions on strength. Journal of
Human Kinetics. Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 41(2), 154-
Mann, J. B. (2016). Developing Explosive 158.
Athletes: Use of Velocity Based Training in Wickwire, P. J., McLester, J. R., Green, J. M., &
Training Athletes. Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athlete Crews, T. R. (2009). Acute heart rate, blood
Concepts. pressure, and RPE responses during super slow vs.
Mazzetti, S., Wolff, C., Yocum, A., Reidy, P., traditional machine resistance training protocols
Douglass, M., Cochran, M., & Douglass, M. using small muscle group exercises. Journal of
(2011). Effect of maximal and slow versus Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 72-79.
recreational muscle contractions on energy doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181854b15
expenditure in trained and untrained men. Journal Wilk, M., Golas, A., Stastny, P., Nawrocka, M.,
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 51(3), Krzysztofik, M., & Zajac, A. (2018). Does tempo
381-392. of resistance exercise impact training volume?.
McGinnis, P. M. (2005). Biomechanics of Sport Journal of Human Kinetics, 62(1), 241-250.
and Exercise (2nd ed) Campaign, IL: Human doi:10.2478/hukin-2018-0034
Kinetics. Wilk, M., Tufano, J. J., & Zajac, A. (2020). The
Rana, S. R., Chleboun, G. S., Gilders, R. M., influence of movement tempo on acute
Hagerman, F. C., Herman, J. R., Hikida, R. S., neuromuscular, hormonal, and mechanical
Kushnick, M. R., Staron R. S., & Toma K. (2008). responses to resistance exercise—a mini review.
Comparison of early phase adaptations for Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
traditional strength and endurance, and low 34(8); 2369-2383.
velocity resistance training programs in college- doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003636
aged women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Winnett, R. A., & Carpinelli, R. N. (2001). Review
Research, 22(1), 119-127. of potential health related benefits of resistance
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f30e7 training. Preventive Medicine, 33(5), 503-513.
Schilling, B., Falvo, M., & Chiu, L. (2008). Force doi:10.1006/pmed.2001.0909
velocity, impulse-momentum relationships: Zatsiorsky, V. M., Kraemer, W. J., & Fry, A. C.
implications for efficacy of purposefully slow (2020). Science & Practice of Strength Training
resistance training. Journal of Sports Science and (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Medicine, 7(2), 229-304.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 150You can also read
