See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305676699

Resistance training with slow speed of movement is better for hypertrophy and
muscle strength gains than fast speed of movement

Article  in  International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology · July 2016

CITATIONS READS

19 13,042

7 authors, including:

Paulo Eduardo Pereira Yuri Motoyama

Universidade Federal de São Paulo Universidade Federal de São Paulo
21 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gilmar Esteves Kelvin Tanaka

Universidade Federal de São Paulo Universidade Federal de São Paulo
12 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Effects of Acute Calcium Lactate Supplementation on Endurance Performance in Collegiate Cycling Athletes View project

Evaluation of the effects of weight vest training in endurance runners: analysis of physiological and performance markers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paulo Eduardo Pereira on 27 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology
2322-3537 www.ijaep.com
Vol.5 No.2
Received: January 2016 , Accepted: May 2016, Available online: July 2016

Resistance training with slow speed of movement is better for hypertrophy and
muscle strength gains than fast speed of movement.

Paulo Eduardo Assis Pereira1,2, Yuri Lopes Motoyama1, Gilmar Jesus Esteves1,2, William Carlos Quinelato1,
Luciano Botter1, Kelvin Hiroyuki Tanaka1, Paulo Azevedo1,3.
1Group of Studies and Research in Exercise Physiology, Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil
2Group of Studies in Sciences Physical Education, Praia Grande College, Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil
3Department of Human Movement Science, Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil

ABSTRACT:
Repetition speed is an important variable during resistance training. However, the effects of
different speeds on the muscular strength and hypertrophy in isotonic resistance training are not
clear. The study compared fast speed with slow speed of isotonic resistance training on muscular
strength and hypertrophy in well-trained adults. Twelve healthy adults were randomly assigned
into two groups: fast speed (FS) and low speed (SS). Muscle hypertrophy was measured by an
ultrasound examination of the cross-sectional area of the brachial biceps muscle. Muscular
strength was verified by 1 RM test. To check the possible differences in strength and
hypertrophy between pre and post training and between groups there were compared by two-way
ANOVA for repeated measurements and the effect size (ES) was calculated. Improvement in the
cross-sectional area (P=0.019) and muscular strength (P=0.021) in the SS group between pre and
post training was verified. The SS group had bigger effect sizes than FS group for hypertrophy
and strength from pre to post training. SS training was more effective to improve hypertrophy
and muscle strength in well-trained adults.
KEY WORDS: strength training, isotonic contraction, muscle strength
.
INTRODUCTION variables manipulation, such as: load, volume,
Hypertrophy and muscular strength are two exercise order, exercise selection, rest between
common goals in resistance training. Optimal sets and amplitude of movement [1]. One
hypertrophy and strength response depend on training variable that is often neglected and is

Copyright© Asian Exercise & Sport Science Association (AESA). www.aesasport.com

 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)
essential to achieve the goals established is the the brachial biceps to check the cross-sectional
repetition speed [2, 3]. area, underwent tests of 1 repetition maximum
(1RM) and both groups had 2 weeks of
Repetition speed alters important factors familiarization with the speed execution of
involved in hypertrophy and strength training, under the guidance of a physical
development, like time under tension, educator. After 12 weeks of resistance training
metabolic and hormonal response, and muscle the volunteers were again subjected to an
activation [4]. Thus, the adequate manipulation ultrasound of the biceps brachial and remade
of speed of each repetition may maximize the 1 RM tests. The present study is in
hypertrophy and strength responses to accordance with the standards of the Helsinki
resistance training. Declaration (2008) and approved by the ethics
Despite the importance of repetition speed, committee of Federal University of São Paulo.
the effects of different repetition speed on
muscular strength and hypertrophy in isotonic Subjects
resistance training are not clear, since many Twelve healthy adults were randomly
studies have used the isokinetic exercise [3, 5- assigned in the FS and SS groups (Table 1).
7]. The inclusion criteria established for
Studies assessing the adaptations promoted by participation of the subjects in the study were:
strength training performed at different speeds resistance training time equal to or greater than
of repetitions in isokinetic exercise found that twelve months; the absence of diseases that
fast speed provides greater strength gains and compromise the health of the subjects; use of
muscle hypertrophy than the slow speed [5-7]. any type of sports supplement or anabolic
In opposite, with slow speed the muscles stay agents; absence of aerobic training.
more time under tension, which is important for
hypertrophy and strength gains [8]. Then, Body Composition
studies are needed using isotonic resistance The subjects were submitted to the assessment
training, since it is the most common type of of total body mass (kg), fat mass (kg) and body
resistance training. Furthermore, the cost is fat percentage by means of skinfolds. The
generally more feasible when compared with protocol was used according to the proposed by
isokinetic equipment. In addition the response Jackson and Pollock [9].
of different repetition speed in trained subjects
is not clear. Knowing that this population is Evaluation of maximum strength
highly adapted to training stimulus and Maximum strength was evaluated through the
consequently have low trainability. It is 1RM test. Before starting the 1RM test all
necessary to know what the best strategies to subjects performed a specific muscular warm-
reach their goals are. up composed of 20 repetitions with load of
Therefore, we aimed to compare distinct 40% to 50% of the subjective perception of
repetition speed of isotonic resistance training effort. After the warm up the 1RM test started.
on hypertrophy and muscular strength in The initial load was estimate through the
subjects with experience in resistance training. perceived exertion of the subject based on the
training loads before the study. The 1RM test
METHODS was execute for Scott curl with bar. A
Experimental design maximum of five attempts were executed out
This is a randomized controlled clinical study. with increasing loads, and five-minute intervals
Twelve men were randomly assigned to groups: between retries. The 1RM test was remade after
the Fast Speed (FS) or Slow Speed (SS). Before 12 weeks of training with the same parameters
the beginning of the resistance training all used at the beginning of the program to
subjects performed an ultrasound assessment of determine the strength gains.

38
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com
 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)
phase, 1s in the eccentric phase and 0s in the
Transverse section area transitional phase from the eccentric to the
Thickness of biceps brachial muscle was concentric phase (1010). The SS group
measured before and after 12 weeks of training performed the repetitions with 1s in the
by ultrasound. The thickness of biceps brachial concentric phase, 0s in the transitional phase
was measured between the external muscle from the concentric for the eccentric phase, 4s
boundary and the definitive band of connective in the eccentric phase and 0s in the transitional
tissue that runs longitudinally down the middle phase from the eccentric to the concentric phase
of the muscle. This measure was made 5 cm (1040).
from the right-hand edge of the image (i.e., 6–7
cm proximal to the crease of the elbow). The Statistical analysis
ultrasound system used was the Toshiba Xario For the data presentation, a descriptive
(Toshiba, Tokyo, Japan), with an electronic statistics (mean ± standard deviation) was used.
linear array probe of 12 MHz frequency, to ANOVA for repeated measured was used to
determine the cross-sectional area. With the verify possible differences in strength and
transducer coated with water-soluble gel, hypertrophy gains between time and groups.
ultrasound probe was oriented transverse mode The Mauchly’s sphericity test was applied and
with regard to location, and the images were correction, when necessary, was made by
recorded with the subjects sitting with the right Greenhouse-Geissenger. Significance P-level
arm slightly flexed and totally relaxed, with the ≤0.05 was accepted. When the F test was
forearm fully supported on the right thigh. significant, complement analysis by
All evaluations were conducted in the same Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests was
time of day and the participants were instructed made.
to hydrate themselves normally 24hrs before The Hedge’s g approach was used to calculate
the tests. At all times, the same researcher, a effect size (ES) and data was shown with their
physician with experience in ultrasound, respective 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [10].
performed the measurements. Effect size was classified according to the scale
proposed by Rhea [11].
Training Protocol
The training had 12 weeks, 2 times a week,
always respecting minimum 48-hour interval STATISTICAL RESULTS
between stimuli. The subjects were instructed No significant differences (P≥0.05) were
to perform 3 sets of 8 repetitions maximum, if observed in the sample characteristics before
the subject made less than 8 reps or more than 8 training between FS and SS groups (Table 1).
reps, the weight load was adjusted the next Comparisons pre and post training and
training session. The training consisted of Scott between groups for the cross-sectional area and
curl exercise. Rest interval between sets was of maximum repetition on the Scott curl are
two minutes. shown in Table 2. There was a difference
The speed of the repetition of movement was between the SS group moments of pre and post
different between the groups. The FS group training in cross-sectional area (P = 0.019) and
performed repeating the following cadence: 1s strength (P = 0.021).
in the concentric phase, 0s in the transitional The ES was greater for the SS group than FS
phase from the concentric for the eccentric group for CSA and 1RM test (Table 3).

Figure 1. Demo Should be in image format.

39
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com
 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)

DISCUSSION FS for hypertrophy and muscular strength

gains. By ES it is possible to check the changes
We verified the influence of repetition speed
caused by the same treatment in independent
during isotonic resistance training to induce
groups or different treatments within the same
hypertrophy and muscular strength in well-
group, allowing the verification of the
trained men. No differences were verified in
effectiveness of each method to be determined
hypertrophy and muscle strength between FS
[12]. These results show us the superiority of
and SS groups. The ES was bigger to SS than to
40
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com
 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)
SS to improve hypertrophy and muscle (traditional powerlifting training) [2, 13, 20] or
strength. training with lower loads lifting as fast as
possible can both develop strength [17-19].
The improved hypertrophy in SS group could Then strength can be increased through
be explained by a longer time under tension, different mechanisms. The SS group had a
especially with a slower eccentric phase [13]. It slower repetition length that favored muscular
causes higher muscular tension, with a higher hypertrophy and as a consequence, strength
stress on a small number of active fibers, development. On the other hand, the velocity
leading to greater muscle damage (especially used by FS group did not provide either the
fast twitch fibers, that are more hypertrophy most adequate stimulus for increased
prone) [13]. This promotes greater activation of hypertrophy or strength through neural
satellite cells, which are related to muscle enhancement, as evidenced by the results. A
hypertrophy [14, 15]. A longer time under repetition length “as fast as possible” could
tension also increases acute mitochondrial, have provided better stimulus for neural
sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar protein synthesis adaptations that would lead to greater strength
after resistance exercise, stimulating levels post training, even in the short term [21].
hypertrophy response [8]. Furthermore, a An optimal approach for enhanced resistance
longer time under tension promotes compressed training responses is periodization, with
blood vessels for a longer period of time that variations in training variables, allowing
leads to vascular occlusion and metabolic continuous training adaptations [20, 22]. Thus,
stress, contributing to the increased despite a greater response in muscle
hypertrophy response [14, 15]. Therefore, hypertrophy in SS group, training could involve
controlled repetitions with slow eccentric phase faster repetition length too, with less priority.
promotes greater muscular hypertrophy, in a This type of training have important
balance between significant metabolic stress hypertrophy mechanisms too, leading to higher
and muscle tension [13]. muscle activation and lactate increases [4].
This increase in hypertrophy in SS group can Higher concentration of lactate can make
explain the greater strength response post regulate protein synthesis go up through
training from this group, since muscle increased cell swelling and mediate anabolic
hypertrophy plays an important role in strength hormones and cytokines elevations [13].
development, in conjunction with neural Moreover, hormonal and metabolic responses
adaptations [16]. These neural adaptations, like are similar within moderate velocity range [22].
higher firing frequency and motor unit Then, a variety of repetition length could be
synchronization, increases strength and can be used to develop hypertrophy and strength [20].
best developed in well trained individuals This range of different velocities can be
through training with both faster (lifting as fast assigned to untrained individuals too [20]. A
as possible) [17-19] and slower accelerations wide range of repetition length works well for
(unintentional slow) [20]. Unintentional slow untrained individuals [20, 23] with similar
velocity is present in repetitions in which either results between fast and slow repetition length
a heavy load or fatigue is responsible for the [24]. This variety of positive responses by
repetition length [20]. different repetition length can be explained by
The concept of “move as fast as possible the high trainability of untrained subjects. Thus,
independent of the resistance” can benefit both fast and slow velocity results in strength
strength development [21]. Knowing that and hypertrophy. Strength is developed more
strength can be defined as the product of mass quickly through a rapid starting period of neural
times acceleration [22], an individual can adaptation (first weeks) and hypertrophy
develop strength through increases in both increases more after this initial period [25].
variables of the equation. Thus, training with
high loads and unintentional slow speed
41
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com
 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)
In summary, no differences were found
between groups for hypertrophy and muscular
strength. However, the effect size for SS is
greater than FS, pointing to a greater
effectiveness of slow muscular actions for
induction of muscular strength and
hypertrophy. Thus, we conclude that SS
training is more effective to improve
hypertrophy in well-trained adults.
Consequently, this causes an increase in
strength levels, which can be developed
through different mechanisms and repetition
lengths. Finally, variety of stimulus in
periodization is needed to optimize resistance-
training programs.

42
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com
 SLOW SPEED IS BETTER IN RESISTANCE TRAINING VOL. 5 (2)

REFERENCES
1. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2009;41(3):687.
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2015;45(4):577-85.
3. Pereira MI, Gomes PS. Movement velocity in resistance training. Sports Medicine. 2003;33(6):427-38.
4. Lacerda LT, Martins-Costa HC, Diniz RC, Lima FV, Andrade AG, Tourino FD, et al. Variations in Repetition Duration and
Repetition Numbers Influence Muscular Activation and Blood Lactate Response in Protocols Equalized by Time Under Tension. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016;30(1):251-8.
5. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga E, González-Badillo J. Effect of movement velocity during
resistance training on neuromuscular performance. International journal of sports medicine. 2014;35(11):916-24.
6. Morrissey MC, Harman EA, Frykman PN, Han KH. Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. The
American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1998;26(2):221-30.
7. Farthing JP, Chilibeck PD. The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. European
Journal of Applied Physiology. 2003;89(6):578-86.
8. Burd NA, Andrews RJ, West DW, Little JP, Cochran AJ, Hector AJ, et al. Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise
stimulates differential muscle protein sub‐fractional synthetic responses in men. The Journal of physiology. 2012;590(2):351-62.
9. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. British Journal of Nutrition. 1978;40(03):497-
504.
10. Berben L, Sereika SM, Engberg S. Effect size estimation: methods and examples. International journal of nursing studies.
2012;49(8):1039-47.
11. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2004;18(4):918-20.
12. Koopmans LH, Owen DB, Rosenblatt J. Confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation for the normal and log normal
distributions. Biometrika. 1964;51(1/2):25-32.
13. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2010;24(10):2857-72.
14. Lieber R, Friden J. Selective damage of fast glycolytic muscle fibres with eccentric contraction of the rabbit tibialis anterior. Acta
Physiologica Scandinavica. 1988;133(4):587-8.
15. Stauber WT. Eccentric action of muscles: physiology, injury, and adaptation. Exercise and sport sciences reviews. 1988;17:157-85.
16. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise. Sports Medicine. 2006;36(2):133-49.
17. McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The effect of heavy-vs. light-load jump squats on the development of
strength, power, and speed. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2002;16(1):75-82.
18. Padulo J, Mignogna P, Mignardi S, Tonni F, D’ottavio S. Effect of different pushing speeds on bench press. Int J Sports Med.
2012;33(5):376-80.
19. Loturco I, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, Tricoli V, González-Badillo JJ. Training at the optimum power zone produces similar
performance improvements to traditional strength training. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2013;12(1):109-15.
20. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position
stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2009;41(3):687-708.
21. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power. Sports medicine. 2011;41(1):17-38.
22. Headley SA, Henry K, Nindl BC, Thompson BA, Kraemer WJ, Jones MT. Effects of lifting tempo on one repetition maximum and
hormonal responses to a bench press protocol. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2011;25(2):406-13.
23. Westcott W, Winett R, Anderson E, Wojcik J. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. Journal of
sports medicine and physical fitness. 2001;41(2):154.
24. Young WB, Bilby GE. The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and
hypertrophy development. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 1993;7(3):172-8.
25. Moritani T. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. American Journal of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation. 1979;58(3):115-30.

43
International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology www.ijaep.com

View publication stats