How Slow Should You Go? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Resistance Training Repetition Tempo on Muscle Hypertrophy

Abstract Enes, A, Piñero, A, Hermann, T, Zamanzadeh, A, Hennessy, T, Montenegro, D, Parnell, C, Jia, A, Weitzman, T, Wolf, M, Korakakis, PA, Swinton, PA, and Schoenfeld, BJ. How slow should you go? A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training repetition tempo on muscle hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 39(12): 1331–1339, 2025—We systematically searched the literature for interventions that compared different resistance training tempos for eccentric (ECC) or concentric (CON) actions. We estimated pre-/poststudy changes and between-condition differences in lean/muscle mass for healthy adults, restricting inclusion to studies that controlled all other training variables. Hierarchical meta-analyses were conducted within a Bayesian framework, with change estimates made within groups, and the primary emphasis placed on pairwise differences between dichotomously coded slower (repetition time: 1.7–4.5 seconds, averaging ∼3.5 seconds) and faster (repetition time: 0.3–2 seconds, averaging ∼1 second) interventions. When combining data across all 14 included studies (4 CON and 9 ECC manipulated interventions, 1 for both in a cross-over design), meta-analyses of within-group changes showed similar pooled effects for faster (0.43 [95% CrI: 0.29‒0.58]) and slower tempos (0.34 [95% credible interval (CrI): 0.22‒0.47)]. Meta-analyses of pairwise differences across the same studies showed central estimates that trivially favored faster over slower tempos (pooled mean = 0.09 [95% CrI: −0.04 to 0.22]), with a low probability that the between-condition effect size was at least small ( p = 0.450), medium ( p = 0.001), or large ( p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of pairwise differences stratified by muscle action type (ECC or CON), body region (upper or lower body), and training to failure (yes or no) generally produced trivial to small effects, although the certainty of estimates varied across analyses. In conclusion, resistance training tempo appears to have minimal overall effect on muscle hypertrophy, with potential differences emerging under specific conditions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2025-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000005302
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How Slow Should You Go? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Resistance Training Repetition Tempo on Muscle Hypertrophy

Brad J. Schöenfeld, Milo Wolf, Alec Piñero, Alysson Enes et al.
1 citations
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Sports Performance and Training
1.72
article

How Slow Should You Go? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Resistance Training Repetition Tempo on Muscle Hypertrophy

Brad J. Schöenfeld, Milo Wolf, Alec Piñero, Alysson Enes, Patroklos Androulakis‐Korakakis, Paul Alan Swinton, Tom Hermann, C. J. Parnell, Arman Zamanzadeh, Albert Jia, Tran Hennessy, Tami Weitzman, Daniel Montenegro
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Enes, A, Piñero, A, Hermann, T, Zamanzadeh, A, Hennessy, T, Montenegro, D, Parnell, C, Jia, A, Weitzman, T, Wolf, M, Korakakis, PA, Swinton, PA, and Schoenfeld, BJ. How slow should you go? A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of resistance training repetition tempo on muscle hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 39(12): 1331–1339, 2025—We systematically searched the literature for interventions that compared different resistance training tempos for eccentric (ECC) or concentric (CON) actions. We estimated pre-/poststudy changes and between-condition differences in lean/muscle mass for healthy adults, restricting inclusion to studies that controlled all other training variables. Hierarchical meta-analyses were conducted within a Bayesian framework, with change estimates made within groups, and the primary emphasis placed on pairwise differences between dichotomously coded slower (repetition time: 1.7–4.5 seconds, averaging ∼3.5 seconds) and faster (repetition time: 0.3–2 seconds, averaging ∼1 second) interventions. When combining data across all 14 included studies (4 CON and 9 ECC manipulated interventions, 1 for both in a cross-over design), meta-analyses of within-group changes showed similar pooled effects for faster (0.43 [95% CrI: 0.29‒0.58]) and slower tempos (0.34 [95% credible interval (CrI): 0.22‒0.47)]. Meta-analyses of pairwise differences across the same studies showed central estimates that trivially favored faster over slower tempos (pooled mean = 0.09 [95% CrI: −0.04 to 0.22]), with a low probability that the between-condition effect size was at least small ( p = 0.450), medium ( p = 0.001), or large ( p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of pairwise differences stratified by muscle action type (ECC or CON), body region (upper or lower body), and training to failure (yes or no) generally produced trivial to small effects, although the certainty of estimates varied across analyses. In conclusion, resistance training tempo appears to have minimal overall effect on muscle hypertrophy, with potential differences emerging under specific conditions.

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchVol. 39(12)
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (BR), Lehman College (US), Robert Gordon University (GB), Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Sports Performance and Training
1.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.