The Hahn/Eades program.

Just wondering what you think of it.

If you do a search in the exercise forum there are several threads about Slow Burn, including an active thread called "Slow Burn Accountability" I believe.

is that where you lift resistants slowly?

I use slow burn every few weeks for a few weeks to keep my body guessing. I find that I do 2 sets per exercise instead of 1 set which is recommended to get a better effect. It also helped me keep my reps slowish (compared to most others in the gym) when I'm doing normal workouts. I recommend you try it out and see what you think. I have to take an extra day or two off when I do those workouts cause they tear into me pretty good.

I've used this method of training 10-15 years ago and I don't see any real advantage to it. Do it if you want and discover for yourself how it works for you.

3 workouts in the last 8 days. I am getting pretty impressive results! Its nice also because I can do it at home while my gym is closed for renovation.

Its the toughest workout I've ever done, especially mentally. I will probably end up cycling this into my normal routine as I don't think I can hack just doing this - its really grueling! Plus I'm stoked to discover how much more I can lift in a regular workout once the gym opens.

Generally speaking - skip it. There is no real advantage to working out this way - ESPECIALLY on mostly machines as advocated by the book (in a gym scenario). Anything will work for at least a couple of weeks. If you are new to lifting you'll see some great results no matter what you do, but it's best to follow programs that advocate multiplanar, multijoint movements using dumbbells, barbells, kettlebells, body weight and cables.

For the purpose of fat loss, performance and maximal muscle recruitment, stick with a bit more volume and the aforementioned implements.

There is much faulty logic in the slow burn system - go with something much less myopic.

I recommend new rules of lifting (or new rules of lifting for women) by Shuler/Cosgrove
Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe
Maximum Strength by Eric Cressey

I tend to agree that free weights are superior. I usually do a mix at the gym. But I'm at home now, so machines are not an option.

When you say there is no advantage, on what do you base that? Your experience? What you've read? Scientific studies?

The studies that I am aware of either show superslow to be greatly superior or no different than volume training in increasing strength (2 of each). The studies that show no difference seem to be designed poorly (lifting only 50% of 1 rep max in the superslow group). The protocol in the slow burn book is also a little different than the usual superslow in that SS is 10 seconds up 4 seconds down, whereas SB is 10/10.

All I can say is that I have been working out for over 5 years and have read about a dozen different strength training/bodybuilding books. I consider myself an intermediiate/beginner. I have never has these kind of results doing volume training on machines or free weights. It may be due to a temporary challenge that I could get used to. Frankly, I don't think I could only work out this way as it is not a lot of fun! But I think it lives up to the advertising of quick and effective!

Just MHO. YMMV. Yada yada yada...

Btw my wife has put up with checking my biceps for years now. She's completely bored and annoyed whenever I say "Check this out." After 2 slow burn workouts I finally got her to check and after a perfunctory squeeze she went "Whoa!"

That's enough proof for me.

I did Slow Burn and the related "Power of 10" (which in my opinion has better home and bodyweight options). I enjoyed my time with them.

Like any protocol, after I got good at it, and the stronger I got, the more the gains slowed down. I was a beginner when I started.

When I asked at fitness school about the slow protocol the instructors said when you look across all fitness levels and all protocols it is not superior to everything, but it is good for certain populations and fitness levels (like beginners and middle-aged where it was originally tested).

Personally another reason I liked it as a superobese beginner is it minimizes inflammation, unlike "moderate or higher cardio".

I haven't read "New Rules of Lifting" so don't know if they mention the effects of their recommendations on inflammation and cortisol for the obese who already have those issues going on. But a "Slow Burn" protocol is favorable for those things.

Maybe I like it since I'm obese and middle-aged! lol

ha ha me too!

I'm basing my contentions on a combination of science, practical experience and empirical evidence. Before I even get into studies, here's all the proof you'll need;

Number of top athletes produced by HIT/slow training: None of them
Number of athletes produced by volume/explosive training: All of them

If we look at trials, there aren't many well-conducted studies on the subject comparing slow vs. fast but I'll share what evidence we do have.

Westcott produced a study that showed superiority of slow tempo training in one study, however the study was poorly conducted and has never been replicated.

In fact Keeler et. all conducted a study that showed vastly superior strength gains in the traditional speed group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum

In terms of metabolic effects and body comp, traditional training reigns supreme once again. Net energy expenditure was 45% greater in the traditional training group than that of the slow tempo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum

There are other studies that show better peak power and greater gains in hypertrophy and z-line streaming (a measure of protein re-modelling) with traditional vs. slow training.

For other nails in the coffin, here is a meta-analysis that looks at HIT vs. traditional volume. Not good news for the HIT peeps. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

A friend of mine has a review being published in less than a month - the most comprehensive one to date on the subject. Again, not good news if you are a HIT proponent. I'll post it when it becomes available.

Bottom line, if you think that the evidence favors HIT/slow tempo - you've been fed a steaming pile of ostrich poop.

Exercise science is dominated by athletics.

When studies are done with non-athletic goals in mind, then I might sit up and take notice. As is true of the slow protocols. I do want strength capacity period. That can be done by a number of ways. Don't care about hypertrophy! Don't care about explosiveness or x-streaming or energy expenditure!

Then I recommend you look at the studies I posted - none of the participants are athletes.

I agree that strength can be achieved in a variety of ways - especially in the early going. If, however you are looking for a more effective way in which to reach this goal, the slow burn method is far from optimal compared to other methods.

Essentially you want to look for a more well-rounded program than what slow burn offers. You want to include exercises that emphasize postural development and mobiliy (which SB does not address from what I've seen). You want to be able to correctly execute bigger lifts - which have better carry-over to daily movement and more applicability.

That is why I recommended the books I did - they address these things and do not follow such a myopic view of how strength training should be done.

Good point, muscle strength is not the whole enchilada. I never did Slow Burn to the exclusion of everything else. I've done mobility for years and am a big fan of Anatomy Trains and the tensegrity notion of balance.