Originally posted by Marso70
More important than reps per set is in fact the time under load to which the muscle is exposed to. So based on 10-12 reps if we assume they are lifting with good form at a 2/2 cadence (unlikely but let;s assume anyway) 12 reps @ 4 seconds is 48 seconds of load which would fall into an acceptable time frame. bear in mind that different fibers types have different fatigue rates and therefore need different load times. fast twitch are the ones' most responsible for growth and an OPTIMUM time frame is about 40-90 seconds of load time. what cadence and rep guidline you use is up to you, I do 4-5 reps @ a 10/5 cadence or what is known as super slow and it more than works for me.
Here we go again with this super slow nonsense. You may be satisfied with the gains you make from doing your reps like that, but I'm not and I'm sure a majority of the other people here who are going for mass & strength wouldn't be either.
Why you want to do your reps like that is beyond me. I've already said previously there's a scrawny guy at my gym doing the same exact thing. He's definitely not getting any bigger and not having much strength gain.
I don't think his genetics are much different than yours or mine. Maybe the routine isn't a "perfect match" for him, but if super slow was half of what you're claiming it to be, I'm sure he would be making a lot more progress & all of us would be doing it for mass. Its been tried & tested by some of us here already. Very few people would make any notcieable gains from super slow & those that do are probably genetically "gifted" & would gain a LOT more by doing the reps normally in low volume sets with heavier weight. What more proof do you need?
All it takes is a little common sense to know that the more weight you lift in your set scheme, the stronger you're going to get, which will promote more muscle growth. Hypothetically speaking, if we were both generally able to lift the same amount of weight, and you went super slow for 6 months while I did a low volume set routine with heavier weight, I guarantee you that in the end, I would've increased the amount of weight on all of my exercises a lot more. Not to mention, my 1-rep max would be much greater. On the other hand, say at the end you were benching 200 lbs super slow while I was doing 250 lbs "normal". More than likely, I'm not going to be able to super slow 200 lbs for 4-5 sets, while you won't be able to do 250 lbs normally for 4-5 sets.
I'm just making these figures up and by far they're not 100% accurate, but I'm just using them to illustrate that as more & more time goes on, the strength gain difference/gap between someone doing super slow & someone doing normal reps is going to keep growing. Basically, you're going to be able to handle MORE WEIGHT FOR A LONGER DURATION than me while I'll be able to lift HEAVIER WEIGHT THAN YOU FOR A SHORTER DURATION. Who's going to be putting on more mass? Certainly not you. Super slow is more about muscular endurance & less about strength & mass.