Evaluate these claims by SuperSlow workout salesman?

Factual Questions
1

My wife is interested in the SuperSlow exercise plan.

It’s some kind of slick-looking franchise. which I find off-putting.

If I understand it right, they promise that “slow” exercise “doesn’t let you use momentum to keep moving, and requires constant effort” so you can get a lot more fitness in very little time…2x a week for 20 minutes for “total body fitness.”

It sounds from her description like slow resistance-based strength training.

I understand that slow constant effort might be more efficient per unit of time than, say, exercises where you are swinging body parts and using momentum or elastic tendons to do part of the work…but it seems unlikely to me that it’s so much more efficient that a few minutes here and there replaces all other exercise.

Also, it does not appear to be aerobic. Is strength training really substantially better than aerobic exercise for weight loss?

Apparently the person who demonstrated their system said that you build up muscle, and “muscle burns calories when you’re moving, but fat doesn’t.” That may be true, but it seems to me that moving 100 pounds 50 feet requires the same energy output regardless of the composition of those pounds, according to the laws of physics.

Are these claims unreasonable within the laws of physics and/or biology? Can you really do non-aerobic exercise a few minutes twice a week and be fitter faster than longer sessions of other exercise? Does it really get that much more done? Or is this snake oil?

They say the trainer will work with the client one-on-one and even “writes down everything you eat.”

They want to charge her $395.00 initially and $295.00 per month thereafter.

I said “that’s a car payment…maybe a car payment AND a gym membership if you shop around carefully,” and suggested she herself could write down what she eats on a spiral notebook for free. This did not win me any points.

Is this the long-awaited miracle cure for what ails America, or pure snake oil, or something in-between?

2

I sometimes do very slow lifts as a change of pace(;)) from my regular workout but I don’t see it as a major improvement just something different.

At $295/ month, I would say snake oil. Do the regular lifts but 2-3 reps very slow instead of 8-12.

Check out this page(about half way down the page-SuperSlow) and the entire site.

The overall advantage of gaining muscle is that you burn more calories around the clock not just when you’re moving.

3

Just to add… the gym I go to costs 249/year, nothing fancy, lots of machines and free weights, treadmills, ellipticals, etc.

I could bench 315 while I was training to ride a century on my handcycle.

There are no miracle systems, just hard work and perseverance.

4

Even if it were a miracle cure, for $300 a month it wouldn’t be worth it.

5

I’m sure it’d work for awhile. But your body always takes the line of least resistance. Eventually your body would get used to the slowness and you’d have to change tactics. When this would occur is anyone’s guess, as it’s an individual thing.

There’s nothing I see that you couldn’t get on your own. But hey, nothing is as important as your body and as long as your wife follows it, it’s not a waste of money.

But it’s not a “forever” type thing.

6

Muscle growth can be correlated to the amount of time that the muscle is under tension. So doing two slow reps can equal the muscle growth of 12 quick reps. But of course the 2 slow reps take the same amount of time as the 12 quick reps. :slight_smile: So there is no time savings.

It is very difficult to contol your weight with exercise. It is insanely easy to eat an extra 500 calories but to burn that off you have to jog for 45 mins.

Any of the reputable weight lifting websites will tell you that to lose weight you have to control your calorie intake.

There’s no easy way to do it. It takes hard work no matter what.

7

Super slow exercise is one of those fads that pops up with huge promises, dies out after everyone realizes it can’t deliver, and then re-emerges once enough time has passed that people have forgotten about the last time.

8

So true.

I am guessing the OP’s wife wants to lose weight. For the average person, exercise won’t do much for weight loss. To lose weight she must make a permanent change in her diet. She needs to eat fewer calories. The best place to start is by not consuming fried and other fat laden foods.

9

As the others said, exercise isn’t going to dramatically increase weight loss in any case - need to cut calorie intake for that. The best use of exercising while dieting is make sure that the weight you do lose is more fat, and less muscle. Otherwise, the tendency is for someone to add fat when gaining weight, and lose muscle when losing weight. Strength training is better for this than aerobics.

10

Sailboat, check your PMs. I gotta get to the office!

11

I am skeptical that twice a week for 20 minutes at a time is going to totally remake your body. It’s true that muscle burns energy even at rest, but that does not mean all you need is two workouts a week to look like the models in the ads. Losing fat requires that you burn up more calories than you take in. And you aren’t going to get much cardiovascular benefit from that kind of workout.

Sort of, but not exactly. Moving 100 pounds 50 feet in two seconds takes more power than moving 100 pounds 50 feet in four seconds.

When you practice doing super-slow reps, you get better at doing super-slow reps. Therefore you are going to get relatively less improvement at doing normal motions. If you do, for instance, a biceps curl super-slow, you are spending much more time with your arm bent at an advantageous angle so that the force necessary in the top third of the movement is that much less. You will also get that much less practice for motions in which you need to contract the biceps quickly - as in, say, tennis or arm-wrestling, or, come to think it it, almost anything. The ability to contract a muscle very slowly is just not that useful. Therefore, it would tend to be less likely that people would have evolved so that they would easily gain the ability to move very, very slowly. And so this kind of training is that much less likely to be beneficial.

This means, almost automatically, that this is very over-priced personal training with a gimmick.

General rule of thumb is that, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Regards,
Shodan

12

I’m aware of two types of muscle growth. One, you build more fibers. Two, you swell those fibers with blood, nutrients, and cell contents.

The first type can be obtained by using weights heavier than is easy; the kind where your brain says “too much!” but you can do it anyway. You want your muscle to tell your body “Uh…! Little help over here?!” For this, it doesn’t matter how many times you do it. A few is good, more is better (until you injure yourself, of course).

The second type, you can acheive by lifting many times. The point is to burn up all the ATP in the muscle, then keep going so that your blood and mitochondria can’t keep up with demand. This will demand your body to stuff the fibers with more mitochondria, blood, nerves, et al.

Your super-slow exercises are good at the second kind. It’s designed to make your muscles really, really tired. You’ll definitely bulk up from these exercises, no doubt about that, but not at 40mins a week. And $300 a month? Are you kidding me? Do you have “sucker” tattooed on your forehead?

13

Why is Ken Hutchins, the founder, so fat?

Two words: money pit.

14

as Shodan said earlier, I think what this is is overpriced personal training. It doesn’t seem to have sufficient additional benefits to warrant the additional charges (over a regular gym membership) other than you seem to get personal attention from a trainer. But how much would that cost for you to get independently?

15

IDK, but I’d bet you’ll also find that the “Trainer” is on commission, and will be trying to upsell her on something nearly every time they talk.