^ Jump up to: a b Cooney GM, Dwan K, Greig CA, Lawlor DA, Rimer J, Waugh FR, McMurdo M, Mead GE (September 2013). "Exercise for depression". Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9 (9): CD004366. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004366.pub6. PMID 24026850. Exercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.
I bought this book many years ago and for a while believed that SuperSlow (TM) was the ultimate training protocol. Now I believe that it is just one of many effective training techniques. I also believe that if Hutchins would combine SuperSlow with undulating periodization, also refered to as nonlinear periodization by Fleck & Kraemer in their book Optimiizing Strength Training, he could get many more converts. Charles Poliquin is of the opinion that for advanced trainees using the same loading (percentage of 1RM) will have a plateau effect within six workouts. So, insead of using SuperSlow only for moderate weights, workouts can be alternated using heavier weights with fewer reps per set in one workout and moderate weights in the next workout. The use of heavy weights requires more than one set though. It seems that no matter what training speed one uses there seems to be a minimum amount of work to achieve a training effect. I tried SuperSlow with undulating periodization as an experiment and made good progress for several weeks. I still use SuperSlow for about 20% of my workout, but also have discovered that maximal static holds are very effective too. I know that there are those who advocate training fast, but even Fleck and Kraemer recommend that speed or power workouts make up less than half the training time. Besides, if speed and rate of force development are important, then free weighta really aren't the best option. Isokinetic machines (Minigym), springs, jump bands, and marine pushups, medicine balls, modified Smith machines, some bodyweight exercises, etc. are better choices. Hutchins' book might be overkill if you just want the rudiments of SuperSlow. I kept mine for a while as a historical document. It still might be an interesting purchase just to read from the master himself. The bottom line, I think, is that SuperSlow can be very effective for building strength and size. SuperSlow has its detractors and it's not the only game in town. I'd really like to see Hutchins add undulating periodization to SuperSlow. I'd also like to see some rigorous studies comparing SuperSlow to other protocols. Most studies so far have been flawed. Some people will not like SuperSlow -- especially as a steady diet, but for a lot of others I think it is worth a trial. Training can get boring. A few Superslow sets can add variety.
(3) Recovery Phase (<60% HRR). Postural control and spine mobility exercises in a quadrupedal position with the platform support, exercises of static balance over either 4 or 2 supports, eyes either open or closed, and with core muscle activation. The latter phase also included various poststretch exercises to restore the preexercise muscle length.
Rep schemes remain in the hypertrophy range this week, but overall volume increases by adding more sets to individual exercises: up to five sets per move for larger bodyparts, and even 10 sets of calf raises on Thursday. This bump in volume will ensure that your muscles are overloaded sufficiently to continue the growth they’ve already begun experiencing in the first three weeks. Completion of this four-week program now entitles you to go to the next stage.

Hormonal responses to the two exercise bouts are presented in fig 4A–D. Visual inspection led to the conclusion that there are no differences in relative cortisol response between the NFO and the OTS group. ACTH, PRL and GH responses are higher in the NFO group compared with the OTS group, especially in the second exercise bout. However, the SE of GH in the NFO group was probably too large to draw clear conclusions. Indeed, the main effect of group gave an F ratio of F1,7=1.4 for GH. For ACTH and PRL, F ratios were F1,7=5.1 and F1,6=14.7, both significant at p<0.05, confirming larger responses for the NFO group. Visual inspection led to the conclusion that this larger response was much more pronounced after the second exercise bout. Indeed, parametric results pointed in the direction of an interaction effect between test and group for ACTH and PRL (F1,7=4.1; p=0.084; F1,6=4.0; p=0.092).
The Alfredson protocol for Achilles' tendinopathy is actually two separate exercises.  To perform the exercises, you must have a small step or curb on which to stand.  Be sure to check in with your doctor or physical therapist to ensure that it is safe for you to exercise and that you are performing the exercises correctly.   Here is how you perform the Alfredson protocol:

Rake those leaves. Raking is already an excellent calorie-burning activity, so do it! Raking is not only great for your yard and lawn, but also for your body. Because your core (your back and abdomen) has to work to stabilize your body while your arms are maneuvering the rake, raking is good exercise for both your arms and core. Weirdly, there's a page all about raking as a workout, which you can read here.
In 1890, English-born American physician Edwin Checkley published ‘A Natural Method of Physical Training’ in which he presented his MMB philosophy. Checkley’s exercise method was non-competitive, did not encourage physical or mental exhaustion, and did not require equipment. The aim was ‘to feel naturally light and strong and to have an effective body.’9 Checkley E. A natural method of physical training. New York (NY): William C. Bryant & Co.; 1890. [Google Scholar] Checkley expressed his dismay toward the vigorous and ‘unnatural’ athletic training methods utilized in the gymnasiums at the time, as well as toward the new mechanized ‘muscle-molding schemes’ he referred to as ‘straining’ more than ‘training.’ He criticized the ethics of aggressive performance-enhancing gymnastic and athletic training techniques claiming they were not natural, therefore harmful for the body and mind. In comparison, Checkley described animals in nature that sustain a lifetime of health, fitness, and beauty by performing seemingly effortless movements on a regular basis.9 Checkley E. A natural method of physical training. New York (NY): William C. Bryant & Co.; 1890. [Google Scholar] Perhaps ironically, Checkley’s philosophy and exercises famously ‘converted’ Alan Calvert, the weightlifting pioneer who founded the Milo Bar-bell Company in 1902 and started Strength Magazine in 1914 (Figures 1, 2).12 Beckwith KA. Building Strength. Alan Calvert, the Milo bar-bell company, and the modernization of American weight training; PhD thesis. Austin: The University of Texas; 2006. [Google Scholar]
KE MVCs were performed at 60, 100 and 140 deg/s. Testing was performed pre-exercise (pre, average of all three sessions pre-exercise values), shortly after exhaustion (13 ± 4 s after exhaustion), 20 s following exhaustion test (P20) and 40 s following exhaustion test (P40). As pre-exercise values for the EMG RMS RF at 60 deg/s differ between sessions (P = 0.038), its time course was not analyzed. Planned comparisons failed to demonstrate significant difference between means for EMG RMS RF at 140 deg/s. VL, Vastus Lateralis muscle; RF, Rectus Femoris muscle; VM, Vastus Medialis muscle, KE, knee extensor muscles (sum VL, RF and VM). Data are presented as mean (SD).

Exclusion criteria included major diseases or conditions such as severe heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, obesity, osteoarticular pathology, and neurological disease. Criteria were evaluated on the basis of clinical history, resting ECG, and physical examination. Participants maintained their lifestyles and were instructed not to take part in any other physical programs throughout the study. At the time of the initial design, the study consisted of a 12-week randomized controlled trial with a frequency of 3 times a week, 36 sessions in all, ending with a new assessment of their wellness and the potential persistence of the results on functional/physical capacities.