REF-1175 · Usui et al., 2016 · International Journal of Sports Medicine · Paper · PubMed

Does slow, no-relaxation squatting make you more powerful?

In 16 young men, 8 weeks of 50% 1RM squats at 3 s down / 3 s up grew the quads 6-10% and squat 1RM 10%; jump height and leg power did not change significantly.

Blimited evidenceMeasured on non-athletes and recreational people

Usui and colleagues tested the prediction that slow, constant-tension squats (LST) would build size and strength but not power. Healthy young men squatted at 50% of 1RM, either LST (3 s lowering and 3 s lifting without a pause, n = 9) or normal speed (1 s lowering, 1 s lifting with a 1-s pause, n = 7), 10 repetitions per set, 3 sets a session, 3 sessions a week for 8 weeks.

The normal-speed group changed nothing. The LST group increased quadriceps muscle thickness by 6-10%, isometric hip extension torque by 18% and squat 1RM by 10%, but not isometric knee extension torque, lifting power from a squat position, the rate of EMG rise in the knee extensors during that lift, leg extension power or vertical jump height.

The authors conclude that LST can increase muscle size and task-related strength but has little effect on power in fast, explosive movements.

How this relates to the Russian static-dynamic method: the closest tested form for the squat: 50% 1RM, 3 s down / 3 s up, no pause or relaxation between reps, a fixed 10 repetitions (about 60 s per set, our calculation), 3 sets. Whether sets reached failure, the rest between sets and the squat depth are not in the abstract. No endurance, mitochondrial or capillary outcome.

Protocol

Participants: healthy young men; LST n = 9, LN n = 7; "assigned" to groups.
Exercise: squat.
LST: 50% 1RM, 3 s lowering and 3 s lifting without pause.
LN: 50% 1RM, 1 s lowering and 1 s lifting with a 1-s pause.
Volume: 10 repetitions per set, 3 sets per day, 3 days a week, 8 weeks; fixed repetitions, not stated as to failure.
Rest between sets, depth: not stated in the abstract.
Outcomes: quadriceps muscle thickness; isometric hip extension and knee extension torque; 1RM squat; lifting power from a squat position with rate of EMG rise (RER) in the knee extensors; leg extension power; vertical jump height.

Key Results

Outcome (8 wk)LST, 50% 1RM slow (n = 9)LN, 50% 1RM normal speed (n = 7)
Quadriceps muscle thickness+6-10% (P < 0.05)no change
Isometric hip extension torque+18% (P < 0.05)no change
1RM squat+10% (P < 0.05)no change
Isometric knee extension torqueno significant changeno change
Lifting power from squat positionno significant changeno change
Rate of EMG rise (knee extensors)no significant changeno change
Leg extension powerno significant changeno change
Vertical jump heightno significant changeno change

Mechanisms

Measured: muscle grew and slow-task strength rose without a significant change in the rate of EMG rise (RER) or power output (n = 9; no effect sizes in the abstract).
Authors' interpretation: gains are task- and velocity-specific; slow, tonic training does not train the rapid activation that explosive movement needs.
Inference: a 10-repetition set at 50% 1RM with a 6-s repetition is likely near failure while 10 fast repetitions at the same load are far from it, so effort, not just tempo, separates the groups (consistent with REF-677, REF-678).

Practical Application

Does slow, no-relaxation squatting make you more powerful? In 16 young men, 8 weeks of 50% 1RM squats at 3 s down / 3 s up grew the quads 6-10% and squat 1RM 10%; jump height and leg power did not change significantly.
Use the static-dynamic style for muscle, not for sprint or jump power. For power, the base's evidence favours heavy or fast-intent work and plyometrics.
The same light load lifted quickly for 10 reps changed nothing, and those sets were probably far from failure (our inference), so if you go light, effort has to be high.
For endurance athletes who need sprint or climbing punch, heavy, explosive-intent strength work is the base's default (SYNTH-43, SYNTH-44); that is the base's synthesis, not this paper's.

Limitations

Read from the abstract only; the article is closed access (publisher page checked 2026-10-16).
Sixteen men in unequal groups (9 and 7); the abstract says "assigned" (PubMed indexes it as an RCT); no heavy-load comparison group.
A null result for power in 9 men is not proof of no effect; no numbers or confidence intervals for the null outcomes are in the abstract.
Funding and conflicts of interest: not stated in the abstract.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(from the abstract) — parallel trial with 16 (9 + 7; rubric B: <20); allocation described as "assigned" in the abstract, although PubMed indexes the paper as a Randomized Controlled Trial; B either way at n=16