EFFECTS OF 4 WEEKS OF TRADITIONAL RESISTANCE TRAINING VS.

SUPERSLOW STRENGTH TRAINING ON EARLY PHASE ADAPTATIONS IN STRENGTH, FLEXIBILITY, AND AEROBIC CAPACITY IN COLLEGE-AGED WOMEN
EONHO KIM, ALEXIS DEAR, STEVEN L. FERGUSON, DONGIL SEO,
AND

MICHAEL G. BEMBEN

Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

ABSTRACT
Kim, E, Dear, A, Ferguson, SL, Seo, D, and Bemben, MG. Effects of 4 weeks of traditional resistance training vs. superslow strength training on early phase adaptations in strength, exibility, and aerobic capacity in college-aged women. J Strength Cond Res 25(11): 30063013, 2011This study compared SuperSlow resistance training (SRT) to traditional resistance training (TRT) during early phase adaptations in strength, aerobic capacity, and exibility in college-aged women. Subjects were randomly assigned to SRT (n = 14); TRT (n = 13); or control (CON; n = 8) groups. To equalize training times, TRT trained 3 times per week for 25 minutes each session, whereas SRT trained twice a week for 35 minutes each session. Both groups trained for 4 weeks, whereas the CON group maintained normal daily activities. Workouts consisted of 5 exercises: shoulder press, chest press, leg press, low row, and lat pull down. The SRT group completed 1 set of each exercise at 50% 1RM until momentary failure with a 10-second concentric and a 10-second eccentric phase. The TRT group completed 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 80% 1RM for each exercise, with 4 seconds of contraction time for each repetition. Groups were statistically similar at baseline. There was a signicant (p # 0.01) time main effect for exibility with the greatest improvements occurring for the training groups (SRT 14.7% and TRT 11%). All strength tests had signicant (p # 0.01) time main effects but no group or group by time interactions. Both training groups had large percent improvements in strength compared to CON, but the large variability associated with the SRT group resulted in only the TRT group being signicantly different from the CON group. In conclusion,
Address correspondence to Eonho Kim, eonkim@ou.edu. 25(11)/30063013 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association

percent improvements were similar for the TRT and SRT groups, but only the TRT group reached statistical signicance for the strength improvements, and both groups were equally effective for improving exibility.

KEY WORDS weight training, contraction speed, early phase

adaptation

INTRODUCTION

he benets of traditional high-intensity resistance training programs for a variety of populations has been well documented (2,3,7,9,11,13,1517,24). One important factor for a successful resistance training program, at any age or level of physical tness, is an appropriate program design (2,15,16). Many researchers have investigated different types of resistance training protocols for improving muscle strength and muscle mass, although most programs typically alter the intensity or frequency of training rather than the speed of contractions (8,20). Progressive resistance training is also used in conditioning and rehabilitation programs after injury in an attempt to return to normal function in the shortest time possible. Despite this, potential safety issues have been raised about the application of the high forces required for resistance training in a rehabilitation setting (24). Improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy depend on training volumes as calculated by the load lifted multiplied by the number of repetitions and sets (10,16); however, a novel approach to altering training volume could involve the differences in the length of time that the muscle is under tension when lifting with prolonged concentric and eccentric contraction times compared to traditional training cadences. SuperSlow resistance training (SRT) has recently been introduced as a way to improve several general tness parameters such as muscular strength, exibility, and aerobic capacity with lower intensity training loads that might be more effective for rehabilitation programs or for novice weight trainers, less training days, and prolonged contraction

3006

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

times (4,6,14,26). One objective of SRT is that the tension purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of developed in the muscle during training is accomplished by SRT to TRT during early phase adaptations in strength, low-velocity movements during prolonged contraction aerobic capacity, and exibility in college-aged women. We times. SuperSlow resistance training may offer an effective hypothesized that both programs would be equally effective training method for middle-aged and older adults to increase during the early phase improvements in strength but that the muscular strength and improve their overall tness in a safer SuperSlow program might be better for improving aerobic and quicker environment compared to traditional high-load capacity and exibility. resistance training programs. Keeler et al. (14) trained 14 METHODS women for 10 weeks using SRT or traditional resistance training (TRT). Participants in both groups had signicant Experimental Approach to the Problem strength gains, but the SRT group had a 15% increase in 1 Subjects in both TRT and SRT groups participated in 4 weeks repetition maximum (1RM) muscular strength from pre to of supervised training. In an attempt to equalize training times, posttesting compared to a 39% increase in the TRT group. the TRT group trained 3 times per week for about 25 minutes Contrary to these ndings, Westcott et al. (26) reported each session (for a total of 75 minutes per week), whereas SRT superior adaptations with SRT in both men and in women group trained twice per week for about 35 minutes each compared to TRT. Both groups performed 810 weeks of session or about 70 minutes per week. Both groups completed a 13 exercise Nautilus circuit training program, performing the same exercises; chest press, lat row, shoulder press, lat pull one set of each exercise. The SRT group had a 50% greater down, and leg press. The TRTgroup completed a traditionally increase in strength for both men and women compared to based strength program that incorporated 3 sets of 8 the TRT group with mean increases ranging from 10.9 to repetitions at 80% of 1RM for each exercise with 2-second 12 kg for the SRT group and 7.1 to 8 kg for the TRT group. concentric and eccentric phases. One-minute rest periods One limitation of this study was the different methods used separated each set and each of the different exercises. If to assess strength dependent on the training program, with subjects completed all the required repetitions during the TRT group being tested with a 10RM, whereas the SRT a workout, loads were progressively increased to maintain group was tested with a 5RM. the same relative intensity (80% 1RM) throughout the 4 Besides the obvious importance of muscle strength, aerobic weeks. The SRT group performed the recommended procapacity and exibility are also important tness parameters tocol of only 1 set of each exercise until momentary muscular that need to be considered by everyone, from recreational fatigue with 10-second concentric and eccentric phases at participants to athletic populations. Resistance training has 50% of 1RM. As the subjects in the SRT increased their occasionally been reported to have cardiovascular benets strength, the number of repetitions also increased over the (25); however, resistance training is not typically viewed as 4-week period. One minute of rest separated each different a means for improving aerobic capacity. The SuperSlow exercise. The control (CON) was asked to maintain their training philosophy has implied that this type of training will normal daily activities over the same 4-week period. not only improve muscular strength but also improve aerobic capacity and joint exibility; however, the paucity of studies Subjects investigating the SuperSlow technique makes it difcult to The study was approved by the institutions Human Subjects support claims regarding improvements in strength, exibilInstitutional Review Board. All subjects were informed of the ity, and aerobic capacity (1214). procedures, risks, and benets and signed an informed consent The importance of early phase adaptations after resistance document before participation. The subjects had not been training has been investigated in several studies involved in any regular exercise program (resistance or aerobic) (1,7,9,18,19,23). General ndings indicate that early improvefor at least 6 months before involvement in this training ments are usually neural in nature (better motor unit coordination and increased ability to recruit high threshold musTABLE 1. Subject descriptive data and baseline measures.* cle bers) with muscle hypertrophy lagging behind. There Variable TRT (n = 13) SRT (n = 14) CON (n = 8) has been little research comAge (y) 20.8 6 0.8 19.5 6 0.3 21.5 6 0.8 pleted that could document Height (cm) 170.3 6 2.2 163.0 6 1.6 167.6 6 2.1 and compare the early phase Weight (kg) 72.3 6 3.6 64.9 6 3.9 62.6 6 3.3 adaptations that might be as*TRT = traditional resistance training program; SRT = superslow resistance training sociated with a resistance trainprogram; CON = control group. ing program using prolonger Values are given as mean 6 SE. contraction times and lower intensity loads. Therefore, the
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 |

3007

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

3008

Short-Term Training Adaptations Based on Contraction Speed

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TABLE 2. Training results.* TRT (n = 13) Variable Flexibility (cm) _ VO2max (mlkg21min21) SP (kg) CP (kg) LP (kg) LR (kg) LPD (kg) Pretest 33.3 6 2.2 38.6 6 2.2 32.8 6 1 33.2 6 1.6 111.2 6 7.0 41.3 6 1.9 43.5 6 2.7 Posttest 36.1 6 1.7 40.1 6 2.1 38.7 6 1.7a 40.6 6 1.4a 137.4 6 7.2a 51.4 6 2.2a 53.3 6 2.8a SRT (n = 14) Pretest 33.9 6 2.4 46.8 6 3.2 30.6 6 1.9 28.7 6 1.6 97.4 6 4.3 37.7 6 2.1 38.6 6 1.9 Posttest 37.3 6 1.7 49.3 6 3.4 33.5 6 2.0ab 33.3 6 2.4ab 111.7 6 5.2ab 44.6 6 2.2ab 44.8 6 2.6ab CON (n = 8) Pretest 32.8 6 2.8 40.6 6 1.7 27.0 6 2.2 25.8 6 2.3 92.6 6 620 35.2 6 2.5 36.9 6 3.3 Posttest 33.2 6 2.8 42.7 6 1.8 27.7 6 2.8b 27.8 6 2.5b 98.9 6 8.0b 38.0 6 2.8b 37.3 6 3.3b Time Group G3T Time Group G3T Time Group G3T Time Group G3T Time Group G3T Time Group G3T Time Group G3T ANOVA p 0.002 0.750 0.150 0.090 0.044 0.920 0.001 0.032 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.022 0.001 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.037 0.027 0.001 0.021 0.001 Power 0.90 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.60 0.06 1.00 0.66 0.92 1.00 0.81 0.71 1.00 0.81 0.92 1.00 0.63 0.68 1.00 0.71 1.00

TM

*SP = shoulder press; CP = chest press; LP = leg press; LR = low row; LPD = lat pull down; TRT = traditional resistance training program; SRT = superslow resistance training program; CON = control group; ANOVA = analysis of variance. Values are given as mean 6 SE. Means with different letters (a, b) are signicantly different from each other (p , 0.05).

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

Figure 1. Pre and posttraining 1RM (repetition maximum) for each group (STR, TRT, CON): (A) shoulder press, (B) chest press, (C) leg press, (D) low row, and (E) lat pull. Means with different letters are signicantly different from each other (p # 0.05).

intervention. Thirty-ve healthy college-aged women (20.5 6 0.4 years) volunteered to participate in the study. The subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups: SRT (n = 14); TRT (n = 13); and CON (n = 8). Sample sizes that could achieve a statistical power of 80% were determined a priori based on

the effect size of about 0.9 for strength changes that were reported in a previous publication (10).
Procedures

One Repetition Maximum Strength Testing. Participants had their muscle strength assessed by standard 1RM tests by

TABLE 3. Percent changes following training.* Variable Flexibility (cm) _ VO2max (mlkg21min21) SP (kg) CP (kg) LP (kg) LR (kg) LPD (kg) TRT (n = 13) 10.9 6 22.8 5.1 6 15.4 18.8 6 8.6a 23.7 6 13.2a 25.4 6 16.5a 25.0 6 11.6a 24.2 6 16.2a SRT (n = 14) 14.7 6 16.8 5.8 6 15.1 10.4 6 14.9ab 20.2 6 29.9ab 14.9 6 11.4ab 18.3 6 19.6ab 16.8 6 18.4ab CON (n = 8) 1.5 6 5.6 6 1.7 6 8.4 6 6.8 6 8.1 6 1.0 6 4.9 9.7 8.7b 9.5b 10.1b 5.9b 2.7b ANOVA p 0.26 0.99 0.009** 0.008** 0.012* 0.276 0.050*

*SP = shoulder press; CP = chest press; LP = leg press; LR = low row; LPD = lat pull down; TRT = traditional resistance training program; SRT = superslow resistance training program; CON = control group; ANOVA = analysis of variance. Values are given as mean 6 SD. *One-way ANOVA P-value (p # 0.05). **One-way ANOVA P-value (p # 0.01). Means with different letters (a, b) are signicantly different from each other (p # 0.05).

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 |

3009

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Short-Term Training Adaptations Based on Contraction Speed

trained testers. Participants warmed up for 510 minutes on a stationary bicycle followed by a whole-body stretching routine. Subjects were then familiarized with each of the resistance machines by performing 810 repetitions of a light load (;50% of predicted 1RM) at a voluntary cadence but always with proper form. After 1-minute rest, participants lifted a load (;80% of estimated 1RM) through the full range of motion. After each successful lift, the weight was increased until a failed attempt occurred. One-minute rest periods were given between each attempt and the 1RM was determined within 5 total attempts. Five minutes of rest separated the different 1RM tests (shoulder press [SP], chest press, leg press [LP], low row [LR], and lat pull down). Submaximal Cycle Ergometer Testing. After adjusting seat height to accommodate each subject, aerobic capacity was estimated with a 6-minute submaximal Astrand-Rhyming bike test (22) in which heart rate did not exceed 160 bmin21 (Polar heart rate monitor, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). Maxi_ mum aerobic capacity (VO2max) was estimated from nal heart rates obtained after completing the protocol on a standard cycle ergometer (Monarch 828, Varberg, Sweden). Flexibility Testing. Flexibility was assessed by a sit and reach test to assess lower back and hamstring exibility. Participants removed their shoes and placed their heels against the back of the exibility box with legs stretched out straight. Subjects then reached forward with arms and hands stretched out as far as possible and held that position for 3 seconds. The tester recorded the effort in centimeters for each of 3 trials with each trial separated by 1 minute of rest.
Statistical Analyses

Data are presented as mean 6 standard error (SE) for all variables. Potential baseline differences between the 3 groups (TRT, SRT, and CON) were evaluated with a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Percent changes between baseline and posttesting were also evaluated with a 1-way ANOVA. A 1-way ANOVA with repeated-measures was used to evaluate the main effects of group (TRT, SRT, and CON) and time (pre and post) and any interaction effects (group 3 time). If there was a signicant group effect, post hoc testing was performed using Bonferronis least signicant differences test. Training volumes (load 3 reps 3 sets 3 contraction time) for the 2 groups were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA (time main effect: rst training session vs. last training session; group main effect: SRT vs. TRT; and time 3 group interaction). Statistical signicance was set at p # 0.05 for all statistical comparisons and SPSS v.17 was used to perform the analysis.

RESULTS
There were no statistically signicant baseline differences in age and body weight; however, the SRT group was signicantly shorter (p , 0.05) than the other 2 groups (Table 1). All 3 groups were statistically similar for all other

parameters of interest which included exibility, aerobic capacity, and 1RM strength measures (Table 2, pretest data). Table 2 contains the baseline (pretest) and posttest training data for all 3 groups and the results from the repeated measures analyses. There was a signicant time main effect for exibility (p # 0.002) with posttraining values being signicantly better than baseline, but there was no signicant main effect for group or no signicant interaction between group and time. _ There was a signicant group main effect for VO2max (p # 0.044) with SRT being greater than TRT; however, there was no training effect because time was not a signicant main effect (p = 0.09), and there was no signicant group by time interaction (p = 0.92). The small but signicant difference between the 2 training groups following the repeated-measures ANOVA can be probably explained by the nonsignicant but higher baseline values for aerobic capacity in the SRT group. There were signicant group by time interactions (p # 0.001 to p # 0.027) for each measure of strength. Additionally, there were signicant main effects for both time and group for each of the strength measures (p # 0.001 to p # 0.037); however, post hoc analysis revealed that only the TRT group was signicantly different from CON (Table 2 and Figure 1). The 1-way ANOVA results that examined the percent changes from baseline for the 3 groups (Table 3) determined that there were no group differences for exibility (p = 0.26) _ or VO2max (p = 0.99), even though the percent changes for exibility for the 2 training groups appeared to be much larger than the CON group (TRT: 10.9%, STR: 14.7%, and CON: 1.5%). There were signicant group differences for 4 of the 5 strength measures (SP: p # 0.009; lat pull: p # 0.008; LP: p # 0.12) and LR: p # 0.05). Surprisingly, there was no signicant group difference for LR (p = 0.28) even though there were obvious differences in the percent change values between the 3 groups (TRT: 25.0%, SRT: 18.3%, and CON: 8.1%). Post hoc analyses indicated that the TRT group had similar percent changes as the SRT group, but only the TRT group was statistically different from the CON group. Obviously, subjects in both groups did not have the same 1RM values for the different exercises at baseline, although the groups were all statistically similar. Training volumes for the 2 groups were calculated in the following manner: load (kg) 3 reps 3 sets 3 contraction time (s). The average total training volume on the rst day of training for both groups was approximately 36,000 kgs for the SRT group and about 44,000 kgs for the TRT group. Interestingly, the training volumes increased in a very similar fashion for both groups as a result of the 2 different training protocols, because the volumes on the last day of training were about 46,000 kgs for the SRT group and about 53,000 kgs for the TRT group. Statistically, there was a signicant time and group effect for training volume but no signicant time by group interaction. In other words, the TRT group had a signicantly greater training volume than the SRT group (p # 0.017), and

3010

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

both groups increased their training volumes over time (p # 0.001).

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

DISCUSSION
This study aimed to determine the differential effects of SRT and TRT on measures of strength, aerobic capacity, and exibility in untrained, healthy college-aged women. The data from this study indicated that SRT and TRT groups achieved numerically similar improvements in strength; however, because of large intersubject variability in responses to SRT, only the TRT group achieved statistical signicant improvements compared to the CON group. These results are in conict with results from a previous study that reported greater improvements for the SRT group compared to TRT (26). Shilling et al. (21) reported that traditional speed exercise produced superior peak and mean propulsive forces compared to slow speed exercise; however, the time under tension in slow speed exercise was higher than in traditional speed exercise. These observations may offer an explanation as to why the SRT group can increase muscular strength (more time under tension) but that the absolute changes are larger for the TRT group (greater overall forces); however, more studies needed to better understand how the basic mechanical features of these 2 different styles of resistance training such as muscle force, peak velocity, and time under tension, have on the various measures of tness (strength, exibility, and aerobic capacity). Very few studies have investigated velocity-specic training and those that have present conicting results. Morrissey et al. (19) reported that both slow and fast training improved muscular strength after 7 weeks of training, and there were differences based on muscle group location. From this study, the training for the slow training group was superior to that for the fast group in average torque production at the knee, whereas the average power output for the fast group was superior to that of the slow group at the ankle and the hip (19). Chapman et al. (5) reported more muscle damage during fast-velocity exercise compared to slow-velocity exercise, even though the differences were small. It is interesting to note that fast-velocity training is often reported to be better for improving range of motion and isometric changes but usually also involves greater muscle damage as evidenced by higher plasma creatine kinase concentrations and greater muscle soreness compared to slow-velocity training (5). The results from these studies indicate that many considerations should be made before designing a training program. Because most sports rely on power and high-velocity strength, the SuperSlow method of training may not be the most appropriate training regimen and further studies are needed to clarify the mechanisms associated with velocity-specic training. The signicant main effect of time for each measure of muscular strength indicates that the groups increased muscular strength over the short 4-week period of training. Obviously, the greatest percent improvements occurred for

the 2 training groups, although there was substantial variability in the improvements for the group members. The improvements in strength during this short training period are most likely because of improved neural activation of muscle rather than muscle hypertrophy. Moritani and deVries (18) were able to demonstrate improvements in strength after the rst 2 weeks of a resistance training program and that the changes were because of enhanced neural activation of muscle, rather than because of muscle hypertrophy. Thus, the rst factor that inuences muscular strength gain in untrained subjects is neural activation. The greater increases in strength for the TRT may also be partly explained by the greater training volume that was experienced by this group compared to the SRT group. Theoretically, based on the design of this study, the training volumes for the 2 groups should be reasonably similar if 1RM values were the same at baseline for each group. The training volume for the TRT group can be calculated as 80% 1RM loads, 3 sets, 8 reps, 4 seconds per rep, and 3 times per week when compared to the SuperSlow training group (50% 1RM loads, 1 set to failure, 20 seconds per rep, 2 times per week). For example, if the 1RMs for subjects in the 2 training groups were identical, that is, 50 kg for a given exercise, then the training volume for the subject in the TRT group would be approximately 3,840 (kgs)d21 (40 kg [80% 1RM] 3 8[reps] 3 3[sets] 3 4[seconds per rep]) or 11,520 kgs after 3 sessions during the week. On the other hand, the subject in the SRT group would have a training volume of approximately 4,000 (kgs)d21 (25 kg [50% 1RM] 3 8[reps] 3 1[set] 3 20 seconds per rep]) or about 8,000 (kgs) wk21 (2 training sessions). In fact, the volume of exercise on any given day would be higher for the SRT subject, but the fact that the TRT subjects trained an extra day per week resulted in a greater weekly training volume. Our ndings of a lower training volume for the SRTgroup are similar to the ndings of Hatled et al. (10) who also reported a signicantly lower number of repetitions and lower training volume for a group of 9 men who either performed exercises at 60% 1RM very slowly (20-second contraction periods) when compared to exercises performed at 80% 1RM with a self-selected volitional contraction period. Results from this study indicated that SRTor TRTenhanced exibility (14.7% for the SRT group and 11% for the TRT group) despite traditional concerns that resistance training may decrease joint exibility. Similar improvements were reported by Faigenbaum et al. (7) who compared the effects of a 6-week training period of combined plyometric and resistance training or resistance training alone on joint exibility. Caterisano et al. (4) reported that SRT improved body composition but did not report an increase in maximal aerobic capacity after training. Keeler et al. (14) also failed to demonstrate any improvements in aerobic capacity after SRT. The ndings from the current study support both of these previous studies because the small improvements in aerobic capacity (about 5%) were similar for all 3 groups and may be a function of repeated testing and learning effects.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 |

3011

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Short-Term Training Adaptations Based on Contraction Speed

A limitation of this study was the large variability associated with each improvement demonstrated by both training groups. The relatively large percent improvements observed in both training groups compared to the CON group did not always result in statistically signicant group differences because of the variability observed in the different groups. Another limitation was the fact that male subjects were not included in this study, which limits the ability to generalize the ndings. Further work investigating the effectiveness of SRT based on gender and age is recommended, because older adults might be the best beneciaries from this type of training with less chance for injury because of the lighter loads and fewer training days. Additionally, the inclusion of variables that would indicate velocity-specic adaptations might provide more information on the mechanisms of slow-speed resistance training. In conclusion, even though both the SRT and TRT groups had similar improvements, the large intersubject variability in response to SRT resulted in only the TRT group demonstrating a statistically signicant training stimulus for increasing muscular strength. No changes were observed between groups with respect to exibility, with equal changes being observed across time for all groups. In addition, no changes were observed after 4 weeks of training with respect to estimated aerobic capacity.
and body composition in college-age males. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 373, 2003. 5. Chapman, DW, Newton, MJ, McGuigan, MR, and Nosaka, K. Effect of slow-velocity lengthening contractions on muscle damage induced by fast-velocity lengthening contractions. J Strength Cond Res 25: 211-219, 2011. 6. Chapman, DW, Newton, MJ, Sacco, P, and Nosaka, K. Greater muscle damage induced by fast versus slow velocity eccentric exercise. Int J Sports Med 27: 591598, 2006. 7. Faigenbaum, AD, McFarland, JE, Keiper, FB, Tevlin, W, Ratamess, NA, Kang, J, and Hoffman, JR. Effects of a short-term plyometric and resistance training program on tness performance in boys age 12 to 15 years. J Sports Sci Med 6: 519525, 2007. 8. Gossard, D, Haskell, WL, Taylor, CB, Mueller, JK, Rogers, F, Chandler, M, Ahn, DK, Miller, NH, and DeBusk, RF. Effects of low-and high-intensity home-based exercise training on functional capacity in healthy middle-age men. Am J Cardio 57: 446449, 1986. 9. Hakkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, and Kallinen, M. Neuromuscular adaptations and serum hormones in women during short-term intensive strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 64: 106111, 1992. 10. Hatled, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Hakkinen, K, Volek, JS, Shimano, T, Spreuwenberg, LPB, Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Gomez, AL, Fleck, SJ, Newton, RU, and Maresh, CM. The impact of velocity of movement on performance factors in resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 20: 760766, 2006. 11. Holm, L, Reitelseder, S, Pedersen, TG, Doessing, S, Petersen, SG, Flyvbjerg, A, Anderson, JL, Aagaard, P, and Kjaer, M. Change in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity. J Appl Physiol 105: 14541461, 2008. 12. Hunter, GR, Seelhorst, D, and Snyder, S. Comparison of metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 17: 7681, 2003. 13. Johnston, RE, Quinn, TJ, Kertzer, R, and Vroman, NB. Strength training in female distance runner: Impact on running economy. J Strength Cond Res 11: 224229, 1997. 14. Keeler, LK, Finkelstein, LH, Miller, W, and Fernhall, B. Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. J Strength Cond Res 15: 309314, 2001. 15. Kraemer, WJ, Deschenes, MR, and Fleck, SJ. Physiological adaptations to resistance exercise. Implications for athletic conditioning. Sports Med 6: 246256, 1988. 16. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and exercise prescription Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674688, 2004. 17. Lemmer, JT, Hurlbut, DE, Martel, GF, Tracy, BL, Ivey, FM, Metter, EJ, Fozard, JL, and Fleg, JL. Age and gender responses to strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 15051512, 2000. 18. Moritani, T and deVries, HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58: 115130, 1979. 19. Morrissey, MC, Harman, EA, Frykman, PN, and Han, KH. Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. Am J Sports Med 26: 221230, 1998. 20. Paddon-Jones, D, Leveritt, M, Lonergan, A, and Abernethy, P. Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in human: The inuence of contraction velocity. Eur J Appl Physiol 85: 466471, 2001. 21. Shilling, BK, Falvo, MJ, and Chiu, LZ. Forcevelocity, impulse momentum relationships: Implications for efcacy of purposefully slow resistance training. J Sports Sci Med 7: 299304, 2008. 22. Siconol, SF, Cullinane, EM, Carleton, RA, and Thompson, PD. _ Assessing VO 2 max in epidemiologic studies: Modication of the AstrandRhyming test. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 335338, 1982.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This investigation sought to determine the effects of slowvelocity and fast-velocity resistance training on muscle function parameters in untrained college-aged women. When initiating a resistance training program, lifting lighter weights at a slower pace might be an attractive option for certain individuals while adapting to a new training stimulus; however, the variability in responses to SRT resulted in only the TRT group achieving statistically signicantly increases in strength compared to CONs. This study does not support the efcacy of SRT for increasing muscular strength.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The results of this study do not constitute endorsement of any product or training program by the authors or the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

REFERENCES
1. Abe, T, DeHoyos, DV, Pollock, ML, and Garzarella, L. Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 174180, 2000. 2. American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364380, 2002. 3. Anderson, LL, Anderson, JL, Magnusson, SP, and Aagaard, P. Neuromuscular adaptations to detraining following resistance training previously untrained subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol 93: 511518, 2005. 4. Caterisano, A, Blount, P, Greer, B, Fletcher, B, Famer, J, Kyriakos, D, and Stewart, P. The effect of superslow training on aerobic capacity

3012

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

23. Staron, RS, Karapondo, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Gordon, SE, Falkel, JE, Hagerman, FC, and Hikida, RS. Skeletal muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women. J Appl Physiol 76: 12471255, 1994. 24. Taylor, NF, Dodd, KJ, and Damiano, DL. Progressive resistance exercise in physical therapy: a summary of systematic reviews. Phys Ther 85: 12081223, 2005.

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

25. Vincent, KR, Braith, RW, Feldman, RA, Kallas, HE, and Lowenthal, DT. Improved cardiorespiratory endurance following 6 months of resistance exercise in elderly men and women. Arch Intern Med 162: 673678, 2002. 26. Westcott, WL, Winett, RA, Anderson, ES, Wojcik, JR, Loud, RL, Cleggett, E, and Glover, S. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 41: 154158, 2001.

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2011 |

3013

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.