Author Topic: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail  (Read 2975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edmon171

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« on: April 19, 2014, 02:48:06 am »
Dr. Michael Eades has been promoting this theory that you can do a quick full-body workout in 30 minutes using lighter weights and doing only one set to failure on each exercise. The trick is to use super-slow motion reps, something like 10 seconds up and 10 seconds down and taking 3 seconds before starting each motion to create tension and activate the whole muscle. He gives some explanation about inertia and activating all of the different muscle fiber types.

I gave this thing a try and it was a miserable failure. And I really gave it a good shot, used a metronome and everything. I did it twice a week as recommended, took me about 45 minutes because I'm in a home gym and had to move weight plates around and such. I let this scam stall my progress completely for 5 months before I called it quits.

Now I still believe there is some validity in slow motion to minimize inertia, but if you ask me, 20 second reps is just unnecessary and certainly doesn't excuse you from doing a few more sets and taking the proper time to do a good thorough workout.

Has anyone else tried this or have any comment on this theory?
My basic health philosophy:

1. If it is advertized on TV, don't touch it.
2. If it is recommended in the news, do the opposite.
3. If it makes most people afraid, it might be good for you.

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2014, 07:06:30 am »
I googled Dr. Eades blog on this workout and the first thing I noticed is that it's for boomers (older people).

I qualify as a boomer, and I do a workout with a similar approach, which definitely accommodates some of the older-person changes I have experienced. For me, this style of exercise makes it possible for me to keep active - move joints, stay strong - whereas it might not be a good fit for your abilities.  Save it for if/when you feel that a faster pace is starting to cause strains or injuries.

While I didn't read the book, I can only imagine that the "once-a-week" feature is aimed at people who aren't willing to move every day and want to buy a book to justify their inertia. There is some basis for working out once-a-week-to-failure, but I don't think it is reflective of the natural movement pattern of a person my age. If this workout is all an older person does beside work the remote control, it isn't enough.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,804
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2014, 09:20:04 am »
I agree slow movement may have more benefits for older people who are not as able to recover from injuries that more fast paced hard core work outs often cause.

I believe a combination of different movements and exercises ranging from (low and slow) to (fast and heavy )would give a more optimal workout. Than just one approach or the other.

There are some benefits to going slow. By having to consciously focus more on maintaining a slow pace, it can teach you a higher degree of muscle control. It may also give the secondary stabilizer muscle groups a better work out.

A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline edmon171

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2014, 07:44:11 pm »
yes, I agree the book seemed to be trying to sell the older crowd on getting back in the gym, but I was hoping the studies he cited would apply more universally and have more correlation to his specific recommendations than they turned out to. I suppose I too am guilty of looking for an excuse not to don my sneakers every morning.

I was also thinking of trying combining different movements, weights, speeds, and reps into my workouts, but I'm having a hard time engineering a solid plan that will cover everything but not take more than 2 hours. Being well adapted to ketosis keeps me from getting tired in the gym, but usually around 2.5 hours my muscle strength bottoms out and I'll have to stop. Which is still much better than when I was glycogen dependent. I would run out of steam, lose strength, and be full of lactic acid soreness at about 1.5 hours.
My basic health philosophy:

1. If it is advertized on TV, don't touch it.
2. If it is recommended in the news, do the opposite.
3. If it makes most people afraid, it might be good for you.

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2014, 11:07:43 am »
Completely static holds (not slow-motion) are very good for building tendon strength, which is important to help avoid damaging tendons when lifting very heavy weights.

Offline edmon171

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Eades' super-slow lifting theory -fail
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2014, 04:43:00 am »
Completely static holds (not slow-motion) are very good for building tendon strength, which is important to help avoid damaging tendons when lifting very heavy weights.

Interesting, I always wondered why people did this. I figured it was to strengthen the secondary stabilizer muscles. I have problems with shoulder injury when I progress to heavier weights, I will have to try this out.
My basic health philosophy:

1. If it is advertized on TV, don't touch it.
2. If it is recommended in the news, do the opposite.
3. If it makes most people afraid, it might be good for you.