SUPERSLOW TRAINING IS NO BETTER THAN TRADITIONAL RESISTANCE TRAINING IN FMEALES
Kim, E., Dear, A., Ferguson, S. L., & Bemben, M. G. (June 03, 2010). Traditional resistance training versus SuperSlow strength training on strength, flexibility, and aerobic capacity in females. Presentation 2081 at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; June 2-5.
This study compared the effectiveness of SuperSlow resistance training to traditional resistance training on measures of strength, estimated aerobic capacity, and flexibility in college-aged females (N = 35). Ss were randomly divided into three groups: SuperSlow resistance training (N = 14), traditional resistance training (N = 13), and control (N = 8). The two exercise groups trained for 20-30 minutes each session, three times per week for four weeks. Workouts consisted of five exercises: shoulder press, chest press, leg press, low row, and lat pull down. The SuperSlow group completed one set of each exercise at 50% 1 RM until momentary failure with a 10-second concentric phase and a 10-second eccentric phase. The traditional group completed three sets of eight repetitions at 80% 1 RM for each exercise. Outcome measures were assessed at the beginning and end of the training period and included sit and reach flexibility, estimated maximal oxygen uptake, and 1 RM strength measures for each exercise.
There were no baseline differences between the groups. Body weight did not change for any group, however flexibility and estimated VO2max improved significantly in the two training groups. All 1 RM strength tests had significant trial and group improvements following the exercise protocols. There were no changes in the control group strength values.
Implication. SuperSlow resistance training is no more effective at changing common strength and flexibility measures and estimated aerobic capacity than traditional resistance training.
Return to Table of Contents for this issue.