Super Slow: An E.A.T.S. Opinion

Super Slow (S.S.) training, as trademarked by Ken Hutchins of Alta Monte, Florida has evolved over the last 20 plus years into a plethora of scientific specifications for proper exercise. The study, theorization, and application of scientifically-based exercise protocol has been the mission of what is now know as the Super Slow Guild; yet hasn't this also been the mission of most every other exercise prescribing fraternity? As any halfway serious fitness guru is fully aware, this is sadly not the case, and beyond that, is all but completely absent in some organizations. But what makes Super Slow unique? What are its controls?

By way of comparison, Super Slow Training is nearly the stark contrast of most popular Weider-style, high volume training applications that find their way into the hands of novice weight lifters through popular fitness magazines. However, as a H.I.T. proponent (lets go ahead and get the innate bias out of the way), we will look at it in the shadow of classic H.I.T. theory. According to Dr. Doug McGuff of Ultimate Exercise in Seneca, South Carolina, there are four basic pillars of Super Slow:

1. High Intensity

2. Brief Workouts.

3. Infrequent Workouts

4. Precise Record Keeping

At first glance it appears nearly identical to the H.I.T. elements made so popular by Mr. Hutchins' former boss and exercise icon Arthur Jones, yet a closer look reveals a particularity to detail unparalleled in any other form of fitness training.

Basically, S.S. trainers have taken the "small things" of exercise protocol and emphasized them as essential to proper exercise. Such commitment to technique, atmosphere, safety, and recovery demands respect, yet this level of adherence is highly impractical to anyone anywhere other than a S.S. facility. These facilities are truly unique. No pictures on the wall, no plants, no music, and temperature zealously maintained at 65 degrees, and rarely if ever more than one client in the exercise room at a time. All S.S. trainers are sharply dressed in shirt and tie, some even wearing jackets and sport coats to deal with the cool temperatures. The idea here is to create an atmosphere in contrast to the common health club and its many distractions. In addition, it is believed that the general behavior of an individual pushing his/her body to its metabolic limits is not exactly social, and the overall comfort of the client is a major priority. Having personally participated in several S.S. workouts in a S.S. facility, I can vouch for the arduous concern for detail. Every phase of every movement is closely monitored and coached, Lamaze-style breathing is taught as an essential standard to prevent Valsalva, and Momentary Muscular Failure is the goal of every set. Some may feel this is overboard or too radical. Some may appreciate the strong desire to create the ultimate exercise environment. Either way, for sheer content and physiological accuracy, S.S. deserves serious consideration.

The late Mike Mentzer, one of the foremost H.I.T. pioneers, in the July 2000 issue of Ironman magazine referred to the results rendered from training in a S.S. facility as "nigh on spectacular all the way till you actualize the upper limits of your muscular potential." He goes on to recommend the facility owned by Dr. Doug McGuff, who in my opinion is the most prolific writer and thinker among the academically decorated S.S. aficionados. If you are familiar with Mr. Mentzers' stance on training, you will have to agree that he was certainly a form of zealot, and surely saw himself as a bit of a prophet among hypocrites. He is often highly vocal with his criticism surrounding the Personal Training Industry and its many "flaws". Given this characteristic, as well as his contribution to the H.I.T. template to which we at E.A.T.S. have greatly benefited, I find it noteworthy that S.S. training and facilities made it through the laser-eye cynicism with a passing "A". Among the other great minds of exercise protocol who welcome S.S. for its content are Wayne Westcott and Ellington Darden. Any casual glance at Dr. Darden's website www.classicx.com demonstrates his level of respect for the S.S. protocol, and Mr. Westcott is quoted as saying "the product is great, but the process is painful" in the December 9, 2001 issue of The New York Times Magazine article Super Slow Exercise . Many other people have been taking a look at S.S. as of late, and according to an article by Bob Calandra entitled "Lift Slow to Get Fit Fast", posted on WebMD, the likes of Brad Pitt are among the participants. But where is the scientific evidence? As with any study, it is possible to skew just about any one or combination of about 1,000 different variables to make the data say what you would like. In regards to S.S. studies, the likelihood of finding flawed data is elevated because there simply aren't many PhD's who are certified and entirely educated in the protocol to perform it properly. The other side of this blade is the notion that any and all data that emerges from the S.S. camp is inherently biased. Nonetheless a 13 week study in which 21 subjects performed a 9 exercise S.S. style workout 3 times a week, and another group of 21 performed the traditional three set -style training, yielded interesting results. The study showed that each group increased in strength and muscular hypertrophy at an equal rate. So, according to this study, if nothing else, S.S. is apparently as good as traditional methods (This also assuming strength and hypertrophy gains are your specific need). The June 2001 issue of The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness houses another interesting study. This study, conducted by well-known scholars in the field, was held at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts. Two simultaneous studies were conducted with untrained men and women on a protocol of 2-3 bouts per week for 8-10 weeks on a 13-exercise Nautilus circuit, and of course, one set of each exercise. Some of the participants adhered to a lifting cadence of a S.S. nature of 10 second positives followed by a 4 second negative lifting phase. The other participants followed a 2-1-4 lifting phase cadence (2 seconds to lift, 1 second pause, and 4 seconds to lower). The results of both of these studies showed that the S.S. participants experienced a nearly 50% greater increase in strength, and this for both men and women. Contrary to popular belief, there have been quite a few studies done to compare S.S. with traditional weight training methods; however, the variance from one study to the next is simply too great to make any concrete conclusions. Only time will tell if S.S. will be a fruit bearing tree.

So, as I'm sure you're all wondering by now, how does S.S. fit into E.A.T.S.? Simply stated, we agree with its principles and respect its contribution to exercise science, yet refrain from isolating ourselves to one form of training. The truth is S.S. works, but it's not all that works. In addition, we cater in large part to athletes. Athletes must be trained in conditioning and "sport-specific" protocols (I am hesitant to use this term, as it is often improperly applied), to help them reach their goals, which are of a more narrow direction than overall physical fitness. Train with E.A.T.S., however, and you will experience many of the proven physiological benefits of the most productive strength training methods available!

Mat Borger, C.P.T.