REF-1174 · Watanabe et al., 2013 · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · Paper · PubMed

Does slow, no-relaxation lifting at 50% 1RM build muscle after 60?

In 35 adults aged 59-76, 12 weeks twice weekly raised thigh muscle thickness and knee strength; normal speed at that load added little size. Abstract only.

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on non-athletes

Watanabe and colleagues tested whether the slow, no-relaxation lifting style (LST) developed in young men also grows muscle in older people when the load is held constant.

Thirty-five men and women aged 59-76 were randomly assigned to knee extension and knee flexion at 50% of 1RM, either LST (3 s eccentric, 3 s concentric, 1 s isometric, no rest between repetitions) or normal speed (1 s concentric, 1 s eccentric, 1 s rest between repetitions), twice a week for 12 weeks (2 weeks of preparation and 10 weeks of intervention).

LST significantly increased thigh muscle thickness and isometric knee extension and flexion strength. Normal-speed training also improved strength significantly but had only a limited effect on muscle size. The authors conclude that LST is effective for gaining muscle mass and strength even in older people.

How this relates to the Russian static-dynamic method: the closest tested form in older adults: the load is fixed at 50% 1RM in both groups, so the comparison isolates the slow, no-relaxation style (with whatever change in effort it brings) against intermittent normal-speed lifting. Sets, repetitions, rest between sets, range and failure are not in the abstract. No oxidative, mitochondrial or capillary outcome.

Protocol

Participants: 35 men and women aged 59-76 y, randomly assigned to two groups; group sizes, sex split and training history not given in the abstract.
Exercises: knee extension and knee flexion.
Load: 50% 1RM in both groups.
LST: 3 s eccentric, 3 s concentric, 1 s isometric, no rest between repetitions.
Normal speed (LN): 1 s concentric, 1 s eccentric, 1 s rest between repetitions.
Frequency and duration: twice a week for 12 weeks (2-week preparation, 10-week intervention).
Sets, repetitions, rest between sets, range, failure: not stated in the abstract.
Outcomes: thigh muscle thickness; isometric knee extension and flexion strength.

Key Results

Outcome (12 wk)LST, 50% 1RM slow, no relaxationLN, 50% 1RM normal speed
Thigh muscle thicknesssignificant increaselimited effect (per the authors)
Isometric knee extension strengthsignificant increasesignificant improvement in strength
Isometric knee flexion strengthsignificant increasesignificant improvement in strength
Numbers and between-group testsnot in the abstract

Mechanisms

Not measured (in the abstract): no EMG, oxygenation or blood measures are reported.
Authors' interpretation (from the group's earlier work, [REF-1171]): continuous tension restricts blood flow and creates a hypoxic, metabolite-rich environment that supports growth at a light load.
Inference: at a fixed 50% 1RM, slow no-relaxation repetitions probably also brought sets closer to failure than normal-speed repetitions, so effort is a likely part of the difference (REF-677).

Practical Application

Does slow, no-relaxation lifting at 50% 1RM build muscle after 60? In 35 adults aged 59-76, 12 weeks twice weekly raised thigh muscle thickness and knee strength; normal speed at that load added little size. Abstract only.
For masters athletes who avoid heavy loads, a slow, continuous-tension style at about half of 1RM is a reasonable way to add thigh muscle; it is not shown to beat heavy training, which this trial did not include.
Strength from the light normal-speed group shows that some gain comes without growth; if size is the goal, the slow, harder style did more here.
Endurance benefits were not studied; for masters endurance athletes the base's strength defaults remain heavy, low-repetition work where tolerated (SYNTH-43, SYNTH-44) — the base's synthesis.

Limitations

Read from the abstract only; a free publisher PDF is listed (bronze open access) but could not be retrieved on 2026-10-16.
No numbers, group sizes, dropouts or between-group statistics in the abstract.
No heavy-load comparison group; sets, repetitions and proximity to failure unknown.
Older non-athletes; two machine exercises.
Funding: PubMed indexes the paper as "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't" (the funder is not named in the record). Conflicts of interest: not stated.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(from the abstract) — parallel RCT with 35 (rubric B+: 20-39); no numbers, dropouts or between-group statistics in the abstract