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.
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
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 torque | no significant change | no change |
| Lifting power from squat position | no significant change | no change |
| Rate of EMG rise (knee extensors) | no significant change | no change |
| Leg extension power | no significant change | no change |
| Vertical jump height | no significant change | no change |
Mechanisms
Practical Application
Limitations
How this entry was checked and changed
(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