Does whole-body slow, no-relaxation lifting at ~55-60% 1RM work?

Tanimoto and colleagues asked whether the slow, no-relaxation style (LST) that grew the quadriceps in their knee-extension trial (REF-1171) works as a whole-body programme. Thirty-six healthy young men without resistance-training experience were assigned to LST, heavy normal-speed training (HN) or a sedentary control group (12 each).

The training groups did five exercises (vertical squat, chest press, lat pull-down, abdominal bend, back extension), three sets each, twice a week for 13 weeks. LST used about 55-60% 1RM with 3 s lifting and 3 s lowering and no relaxing phase; HN used about 80-90% 1RM at 1 s up, 1 s down, 1 s relaxed; both used an 8RM load.

LST raised summed muscle thickness at six sites by 6.8 ± 3.4% and summed 1RM over five exercises by 33.0 ± 8.8%; HN raised them by 9.1 ± 4.2% and 41.2 ± 7.6%. The control group did not change. The authors conclude that whole-body LST is as effective as heavy training; the abstract gives no LST-vs-HN test, and the point estimates are about a quarter lower for LST.

How this relates to the Russian static-dynamic method: a whole-body version of the closest tested form: ~55-60% 1RM, 3 s up / 3 s down, no relaxation between reps, 8RM sets (about 48 s per set at 6 s per rep, our calculation), three sets per exercise. Range of motion, rest between sets and whether every set reached failure are not in the abstract. No oxidative, mitochondrial or capillary measure.