Lat Pulldown & Pull-Up Tempo: Evidence-Based Prescriptions

Tempo prescription on the lat pulldown and the pull-up family is shaped by a relationship the deadlift family does not share, the two lifts are not biomechanically equivalent variants but a progression-gated pair. The pulldown is the open-chain proxy for a movement many lifters cannot yet perform, and the pull-up is the closed-chain target the pulldown leads to. The evidence base on tempo for this pair is uneven: moderate on the pulldown, thin to non-existent on bodyweight pull-up tempo. This page is honest about both.

• Lat pulldown: default tempo 3-0-1-0 or 4-0-1-0 for hypertrophy. The lift fires the latissimus dorsi at activation levels statistically equivalent to the chin-up (Doma, Deakin & Ness 2013), but body-sway, scapular control, and grip endurance are eliminated by the seated thigh-pad fixation, making slow eccentrics far more tolerable than on the pull-up.
• Pull-up: the strongest single tempo prescription on the page is the eccentric-only "negative" pull-up, anchored on Nuzzo et al. (2023) meta-analytic eccentric-to-concentric strength ratio of 1.41. A lifter who cannot complete one concentric pull-up can almost always control a 5-second descent. This is the backbone of every credible pull-up progression.
• Critical evidence gap: there are essentially no peer-reviewed RCTs comparing tempo conditions on bodyweight pull-ups. Specific pull-up tempo prescriptions on this page are extrapolated from lat pulldown literature, the eccentric strength ratio, and well-documented practitioner conventions (Steven Low, StrongFirst, Poliquin lineage). We flag this honestly throughout, with the largest disclosure in section 10.

Why the lat pulldown and the pull-up need different tempo strategies

The two lifts share a target muscle but not a mechanical event. Doma, Deakin and Ness (2013) compared chin-ups and lat pulldowns for normalized EMG of biceps brachii, triceps, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, rectus abdominis, and erector spinae plus kinematics of back, shoulder, and the C7 vertebra. Their headline finding: biceps brachii and erector spinae activation and shoulder/C7 kinematics were significantly greater during chin-ups than during lat pulldowns at matched relative load (p < 0.05). But latissimus dorsi activation showed no statistically significant difference between the two during the concentric phase. This is the central justification for treating the pulldown as a lat-loading proxy: the lats fire either way, but the stabilizer and trunk demand is meaningfully higher on the pull-up.

Youdas et al. (2010) measured surface EMG during pull-up, chin-up, and a rotational pull-up variant in 25 trained subjects and reported lat activation in the chin-up at 117-130% MVC, biceps at 78-96% MVC, lower trapezius at 45-56%, and pectoralis major at 44-57%. The pattern is consistent with Doma's: the lats are very high activators in either grip; the differences between pull-up variants live in stabilizers and elbow flexors, not in lat magnitude.

The mechanical reason for the divergence is open- versus closed-chain configuration. In the pulldown the torso is fixed by the thigh pad and the bar translates; in the pull-up the hands are fixed on the bar and the body translates. Closed-chain exercises typically produce greater motor unit recruitment of stabilizers because the body must be controlled in three-dimensional space against gravity. Practical translation: a lifter can lat-pulldown 80-90 kg yet not perform a single bodyweight pull-up at 75 kg of bodyweight. The missing capacities are not lat strength, they are grip endurance, scapular control, body sway control, and abdominal/erector bracing, all eliminated by the pulldown's seated configuration.

This single distinction governs tempo prescription on the two lifts. The pulldown forgives slow eccentrics because the seated position eliminates the fatigue limiters that compromise pull-up form. The pull-up does not forgive slow eccentrics in the same way, long sets at slow tempo are forearm-flexor-bound and risk fatigue-induced scapular dyskinesis. The evidence-anchored move is to load slow eccentrics on the pulldown for hypertrophy, and to use eccentric-only negatives on the pull-up for progression rather than continuous slow tempo within a set.

Grip width is a tertiary variable on both lifts. Lusk, Hale and Russell (2010) showed pronated grip elicits roughly 9% greater latissimus dorsi activation than supinated grip on the pulldown, with no meaningful difference between wide and narrow within pronated. Andersen et al. (2014) measured 6RM strength across narrow, medium, and wide pronated grips in trained men: narrow (80.3 ± 7.2 kg) and medium (80 ± 7.1 kg) were equivalent, and wide (77.3 ± 6.3 kg) was significantly weaker (p=0.02). EMG was similar across all three. The conservative default is medium-width pronated, roughly 1.5 times biacromial width.

Tempo notation on this page uses the four-digit eccentric–pause–concentric–pause convention Charles Poliquin codified. The reading order is fixed across all variations; for the conceptual background see the four-digit tempo notation guide.

Lat pulldown tempo prescriptions

The lat pulldown is one of the cleanest applications of the established tempo-and-hypertrophy literature. The seated configuration removes the limiters that compromise free-weight tempo work, and the lengthened bottom position is naturally aligned with the strongest hypertrophy-by-ROM evidence. Confidence reflects how directly the evidence applies, high when meta-analytic or RCT data supports the prescribed conditions, moderate when extrapolated from related exercises, low when the row rests on coaching convention.

The general-hypertrophy row at 3-0-1-0 sits inside the strongest single piece of evidence in the tempo literature: Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger's (2015) systematic review and meta-analysis of repetition duration, which established that rep durations between 0.5 and 8 seconds produce equivalent hypertrophy when sets approach failure. A 3-0-1-0 tempo at 6-10 reps yields 24-40 seconds of TUT, comfortably inside the productive band and consistent with Wilk, Zajác and Tufano's (2021) recommendation of slower eccentric paired with faster concentric.

The lengthened-position row at 4-0-1-0 exploits the second-strongest evidence base. Pedrosa, Lima, Schoenfeld et al. (2022) demonstrated that partial range of motion training elicits favorable hypertrophy gains when carried out at long muscle lengths, and Maeo et al. (2022) found triceps brachii hypertrophy was substantially greater after elbow extension training in the overhead position (19.9% growth) compared to the neutral position (13.5%) over the same 12-week intervention. The bottom of a lat pulldown places the lat in a fully lengthened state, humerus overhead, scapula upwardly rotated, and a 4-second eccentric forces the lifter to spend time there. Slow eccentric loading at long muscle length is the broader principle this row instantiates.

The strength-transfer row at 4-0-X-0 reflects the velocity-based literature. Sánchez-Moreno et al. (2020) found that intent-driven concentric speed preserves power adaptations across an 8-week pull-up training intervention. The X (maximal concentric intent) pairs naturally with a controlled 4-second eccentric to load both ends of the force-velocity curve.

The connective-tissue row at 5-0-1-0 sits at the upper edge of Schoenfeld's 8-second equivalence ceiling but stays inside it. Roig et al. (2009) meta-analytic evidence on eccentric resistance training supports slow eccentrics for tendon and connective tissue adaptation specifically, useful for shoulder-cranky lifters or those returning from elbow tendinopathy. Note that the volume-and-maintenance row at 2-0-1-0 uses Androulakis Korakakis et al. (2025) as anchor: the most recent meta-analysis on tempo and hypertrophy found tempo has minimal overall effect on hypertrophy magnitude, which makes 2-0-1-0 fully defensible for trained lifters who want to bank volume without front-loading TUT.

Pull-up tempo: the phase-gated progression model

The pull-up does not have a single tempo prescription, it has a phase-gated progression. A lifter who cannot perform one strict pull-up needs different tempo prescriptions than a lifter performing 8+ reps with bodyweight. The progression model below organizes the evidence around capability, not around tempo abstraction.

The Phase 0 rows handle the case where a strict pull-up is not yet possible. The lat pulldown carries the hypertrophy and lat-strength burden; active scapular pulls and dead hangs build the bottom-position capacity that Folland et al. (2005) showed is angle-specific (isometric strength gains carry roughly 20-45 degrees around the trained angle). Li et al. (2025) provided the only direct transfer RCT in the literature: an 8-week lat pulldown training intervention produced significant improvements in both lat pulldown peak force and bodyweight pull-up endurance. The lat pulldown alone moves the needle; pairing it with negatives accelerates the timeline.

The Phase 1 transition is gated by the ability to control a 5-second eccentric pull-up through full ROM. Once the lifter can negative cleanly, the eccentric-only protocol (described in detail in the next section) becomes the highest-leverage prescription on the page. Phase 1 also extends the lat pulldown into 4-0-1-0 for lengthened-position emphasis, the bottom of the stroke is exactly the lat-stretched position the hypertrophy literature points to.

The Phase 2 transition is gated by the first clean concentric pull-up. The prescription becomes tempo strict pull-ups at 3-0-1-0 for low reps (1-3) with the lat pulldown continuing as supplemental hypertrophy work. Phase 3 introduces volume on the strict pull-up itself (3-5 reps per set) and adds light weighted exposure once the lifter can clear 5+ strict reps consistently.

The Phase 4 transition is the one with the strongest direct RCT evidence. Sánchez-Moreno, Cornejo-Daza, González-Badillo and Pareja-Blanco (2020) ran an 8-week pull-up training RCT in 29 strength-trained men comparing VL25 (stop the set at 25% velocity loss) against VL50 (stop at 50% velocity loss). Both groups improved; VL25 produced equal endurance gains and superior power preservation. The Phase 4 prescription, 2-0-X-0 with VL25 stop, is the only row on this entire page that rests on an RCT directly testing the prescribed conditions on the prescribed lift. The tempo-notation explainer covers what each digit prescribes.

The eccentric-only pull-up: the strongest single prescription on this page

This section gets its own placement because the prescription it describes is the most evidence-anchored individual recommendation Repko publishes on the upper-body pull family. The mechanism is clean, the meta-analytic support is top-tier, and the practical leverage for lifters stuck below their first pull-up is unmatched.

The fundamental rationale is the eccentric-to-concentric strength ratio. Nuzzo, Pinto, Nosaka and Steele (2023) published a meta-analysis of 1,516 ratios across 12,546 individuals in 335 studies. The pooled estimate was 1.41 (95% confidence interval 1.38-1.44), with upper-body (1.42) and lower-body (1.40) values nearly identical. The ratio increases with movement velocity. Translation: human muscle can on average lower roughly 41% more load than it can lift, eccentrically, across joint actions and populations. This is not a minority finding from a single study; it is the most precise current synthesis of a relationship that has been documented since Hortobágyi and Katch (1990) reported eccentric capacity exceeding concentric capacity in elbow flexion and extension at every velocity tested.

Apply that ratio to the pull-up: a lifter who cannot complete one concentric pull-up, meaning they cannot produce 100% of their bodyweight in concentric pulling force, can on average produce roughly 141% of their bodyweight in eccentric pulling force. That is exactly the territory in which a 5-second descent is controllable. Coaches have used this empirically for decades; Nuzzo's meta-analysis is the best current evidence for why it works.

The training-effect evidence is correspondingly strong. Roig et al. (2009) systematic review and meta-analysis of eccentric versus concentric resistance training found that when intensity was matched in the eccentric condition, eccentric training produced superior gains in eccentric strength and at minimum equivalent gains in concentric and isometric strength. The asymmetric capacity of the eccentric phase means a lifter performing eccentric-only training is loading proportionally heavier than they could in a concentric-emphasized program, which translates into the strength differential Roig documented. Schoenfeld, Ogborn, Vigotsky, Franchi and Krieger (2017) meta-analysis on contraction mode for hypertrophy specifically found a small effect-size edge for eccentric over concentric that did not reach robust statistical significance across all subgroups, so the page should not overstate "eccentric is better for size." It is at minimum equal, and on strength it is favored.

The standard prescription synthesizes the meta-analytic foundation with practitioner protocol from Steven Low's Overcoming Gravity (2nd ed., 2016), the most-respected document in calisthenics progression. Low's archetypal protocol for eccentric pull-up work is "L-Pull-up Eccentrics: 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps with 7-second eccentrics," which sits inside Schoenfeld's 8-second equivalence ceiling and exploits the ECC:CON capacity gap. Repko's working prescription:

• 3-5 sets × 3-5 reps
• 5-8 second eccentric (notation: 5-0-X-0 to 8-0-X-0; the X is for the get-to-top motion, not a pulled rep)
• Get to the top by jumping or stepping up, this is not a concentric attempt
• 2-3 minutes rest between sets
• Cap at 8 seconds per descent, longer eccentrics fall outside Schoenfeld's hypertrophy equivalence band and risk fatigue-induced scapular dyskinesis

The progression rule is simple. When a lifter can perform 3 clean controlled descents at 5 seconds, extend to 6 seconds. At 6 seconds clean for the prescribed sets, extend to 7. At 7-8 seconds clean for prescribed volume, the lifter is typically a few weeks from a first concentric pull-up. The transition to Phase 2 in the previous table is gated on the appearance of that first concentric rep, not on hitting an arbitrary descent duration target.

The Schoenfeld ceiling and the Androulakis Korakakis 2025 honest concession

The tempo-and-hypertrophy literature has shifted meaningfully in the last decade, and the page is not honest if it cites only the older sources. Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger's (2015) meta-analysis remains the upper bound: rep durations between 0.5 and 8 seconds produce equivalent hypertrophy when sets approach failure, and durations longer than roughly 10 seconds appear inferior. Effort, not cadence, drives the response. This is the foundational claim that all tempo prescription on the lat pulldown rests on.

Wilk, Zajác and Tufano (2021) reviewed the tempo literature in Sports Medicine and recommended rep durations of approximately 3-8 seconds with a slower eccentric and faster concentric for hypertrophy goals. Their explicit caveat is the most quoted line in the entire review: “Deliberate manipulation of movement tempo may not be possible when exercises are performed with heavy loads.” That caveat applies more strongly to barbell deadlifts than to lat pulldowns, the pulldown is a single-joint upper-body lift in a seated configuration, where deliberate tempo control is preserved through much higher percentages of 1RM than on the barbell side.

The 2025 update from Androulakis Korakakis, Wolf, Coleman, Burke, Piñero, Mohan, Refalo, Swinton and Schoenfeld is the most important single citation for honesty on this page. Their systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that resistance training tempo has minimal overall effect on muscle hypertrophy, with potential differences across body region and contraction type. The page must concede this directly: for hypertrophy magnitude alone, tempo is a minor lever. Tempo's productive role on the lat pulldown is in skill development, scapular control, eccentric loading for connective tissue adaptation, and progression-gated capacity-building, not in producing demonstrably greater muscle growth than a faster cadence at matched volume. The 4-0-1-0 lengthened-position prescription wins on lengthened-state mechanism (Pedrosa 2022; Maeo 2022), not on the tempo number itself.

Lengthened-position emphasis on the lats

The body of evidence supporting hypertrophy at long muscle lengths has converged sharply over the last five years. Pedrosa, Lima, Schoenfeld et al. (2022) published a systematic review showing partial range of motion training elicits favorable hypertrophy improvements when carried out at long muscle lengths. Across head-to-head studies, training at longer muscle lengths produced equal or greater hypertrophy than full ROM in 4 of 5 published trials by 2023, with a continuing accumulation of trained-population evidence in 2024 and 2025.

The mechanism is most cleanly demonstrated in Maeo et al. (2022): triceps brachii hypertrophy was 19.9% in an overhead-position group versus 13.5% in a neutral-position group across the same 12-week intervention. Same volume, same intensity, the difference was the muscle length at which work was performed. The lengthened position produced more growth.

The bottom of a lat pulldown places the latissimus dorsi in fully overhead, fully scapula-upward-rotated, fully lengthened position. The same is true at the top of the dead hang on a pull-up bar, arguably even more so, because the pull-up's hanging start has no thigh-pad fixation to compress the scapular position. The lat pulldown and pull-up family are intrinsically lengthened-position exercises for the lats, and a tempo prescription that demands the lifter spends time at the bottom (4-0-1-0 with full extension or 3-1-1-0 with bottom pause) exploits the strongest current hypertrophy mechanism.

The minority dissent is worth flagging: Brookbush Institute's vote-counting review of 13 ROM studies noted that 4 studies showed full ROM increased cross-sectional area significantly more than partial ROM. The dominant evidence (Schoenfeld, Wolf, Kassiano, Pedrosa) supports the lengthened position; the minority is not zero. The practical takeaway is unchanged: full ROM through the lengthened position is the strongest move, do not shorten the bottom of the stroke to chase numbers.

Common errors specific to the lat pulldown and pull-up

Six prescription errors recur in commercial fitness writing about lat pulldown and pull-up tempo. Each is grounded in a specific evidence-based limit.

Body lean and momentum cheating on the pulldown

Pulling the bar to the chest by leaning back transfers load from the lats to the spinal erectors and biceps. Snyder and Leech's (2009) cuing study demonstrated that voluntary lat focus increases lat activation; conversely, momentum-based pulldowns reduce lat-specific loading. The fix is mechanical, not motivational: the thigh pad is set tight enough that lean is impossible, and the bar travels to mid-clavicle, not beyond.

Behind-the-neck pulldown variant

Sperandei et al. (2009) found behind-the-neck lat pulldown reduced LD activation compared to the front variant and increased shoulder injury risk through external rotation strain at end range. This is the rare row in commercial coaching writing where the evidence is unambiguous: front is better, behind-the-neck offers no advantage and adds injury risk. There is no reason to prescribe it.

Kipping pull-ups treated as strict pull-up tempo work

Williamson and Price (2021) measured lat activation during the kipping concentric phase at significantly lower levels than strict pull-ups (p < 0.02, Cohen's d = 1.2). The butterfly variant showed even lower eccentric lat activation (p < 0.01, d = 1.4). Snarr et al. (2015) corroborated 10-22% lower MVC across muscles in kipping versus strict. Kipping is a different exercise, not a tempo variant of the pull-up. Tempo prescription on this page applies to strict pull-ups only.

Partial reps that miss the dead hang

Stopping short of full extension at the bottom forfeits the lengthened-position stimulus that Pedrosa 2022 and Maeo 2022 demonstrate is hypertrophy-optimal. Prinold and Bull (2016) added a separate concern: high arm elevation during pull-ups reduces sub-acromial space, with wide-grip and reverse pull-ups demonstrating kinematic patterns linked to increased impingement risk. The fix is to reach the dead hang at the bottom (full lengthened position) but to use a moderate grip width (~1.5x biacromial, not wide) to preserve sub-acromial clearance.

Long sets at slow tempo on the pull-up (grip endurance bottleneck)

The pull-up loads grip endurance in ways the lat pulldown does not. A 4-0-1-0 set of 8-10 reps on the pulldown is forearm-fatigue-tolerable; the same prescription on the bodyweight pull-up frequently fails on grip well before the lats are stimulated. This is the central reason the page recommends slow eccentric loading on the pulldown for hypertrophy and reserves slow-tempo work on the pull-up for the eccentric-only negative protocol, where the lifter performs only the descent, then steps off and rests grip before the next rep.

Fatigue-induced scapular dyskinesis from late-set volume

Joshi, Thigpen, Bunn, Karas and Padua's Journal of Athletic Training work on shoulder kinematics under fatigue documented increased scapular upward rotation and delayed lower trapezius activation when external rotators reached failure. Late reps of high-volume slow-tempo pull-up sets risk this same dyskinesis pattern. Cap volume; prioritize quality reps over count. If form deteriorates during a set, the set is over, subsequent reps train the broken pattern.

Frequently asked questions

What's the best tempo for lat pulldown?

The general default is 3-0-1-0 or 4-0-1-0, Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger (2015) set the equivalence band at 0.5-8 seconds per rep, and Wilk, Zajác and Tufano (2021) recommend a slower eccentric paired with a faster concentric for hypertrophy. The 2025 Androulakis Korakakis meta-analysis tempers the claim: tempo has minimal overall effect on hypertrophy magnitude. Tempo's productive role on the pulldown is skill development, scapular control, and connective tissue tolerance, not size per se.

Should I do negative pull-ups if I can't do a regular one?

Yes, this is the strongest single prescription on the page. Nuzzo et al. (2023) meta-analysis of 12,546 individuals across 335 studies pegged the eccentric-to-concentric strength ratio at 1.41 (95% CI 1.38-1.44). A lifter who cannot complete one concentric pull-up can almost always control a 5-second descent. Standard prescription: 3-5 sets × 3-5 reps with 5-8 second eccentric, jump or step-up to top, 2-3 minutes rest.

Will lat pulldown training give me my first pull-up?

Likely, with caveats. Li et al. (2025) ran an 8-week RCT of lat pulldown resistance training and found significant improvements in both pull-up endurance and pulldown peak force. This is the only direct transfer RCT in the literature. The popular "lat pulldown 1RM at 80-90% bodyweight predicts first pull-up" rule is practitioner heuristic, Sperandei (2016) supports the strength-to-mass correlation but does not validate this specific threshold. Pair the pulldown with eccentric-only pull-up negatives.

How wide should my grip be on the lat pulldown?

It barely matters for lat activation. Andersen et al. (2014) measured 6RM strength across narrow, medium, and wide pronated grips, wide was significantly weaker (77.3 kg vs ~80 kg) but EMG was similar across all three. Lusk et al. (2010) showed pronated grip elicits roughly 9% greater lat activation than supinated; grip width within pronated had no meaningful effect. Default to medium-width pronated (~1.5× biacromial); skip behind-the-neck, Sperandei (2009) flagged it for reduced LD activation and shoulder injury risk.

Are kipping pull-ups as good as strict pull-ups for tempo work?

No, they are a different exercise. Williamson and Price (2021) measured significantly lower lat activation in the kipping concentric phase (p < 0.02, d = 1.2) and lower butterfly eccentric phase (p < 0.01, d = 1.4) compared to strict pull-ups. Snarr et al. (2015) corroborated 10-22% lower MVC across muscles. Tempo prescriptions only apply to strict pull-ups; kipping is a CrossFit-context power skill, not a tempo training tool.

Can I build muscle with just lat pulldowns and skip pull-ups entirely?

Yes. Doma, Deakin and Ness (2013) found no statistically significant difference in latissimus dorsi EMG between chin-ups and lat pulldown during the concentric phase. The 2025 Androulakis Korakakis meta-analysis showed tempo plays a minor role in hypertrophy magnitude regardless of exercise variant. The pull-up's advantage over the pulldown is in stabilizers, scapular control, and grip endurance, not lat growth. Repko's tempo timer enforces every digit of the prescription so you can train without counting in your head. Try Repko free.

The honest gap: what we don't know

The pull-up is the most evidence-thin of the three exercises Repko has covered in tier 3 to date. The lat pulldown side of the page rests on a credible meta-analytic backbone (Schoenfeld 2015; Wilk 2021; Androulakis Korakakis 2025) plus EMG-and-strength studies (Andersen 2014; Lusk 2010). The pull-up side does not.

Specifically: there are essentially no peer-reviewed RCTs comparing different tempo prescriptions on bodyweight pull-up training. The literature on pull-ups is dominated by EMG comparisons (Doma 2013; Youdas 2010; Williamson 2021), velocity-based intensity manipulation (Sánchez-Moreno 2017, 2020), and one direct-transfer RCT from a different exercise (Li 2025, lat pulldown improving pull-up reps). The specific tempo prescriptions on this page, 3-0-1-0 for tempo strict, 2-0-X-0 for weighted, are extrapolations from the lat pulldown literature, the eccentric strength ratio (Nuzzo 2023), and well-documented practitioner conventions. They are defensible inside that evidence base; they are not RCT-validated for the specific tempo numbers.

Three coaching heuristics that recur in commercial pull-up writing rest on no peer-reviewed primary source and the page flags each explicitly. The "10-second hold equals one rep" programming shorthand is practitioner folklore (StrongFirst, GMB, Steven Low lineage) with no direct empirical validation. The "lat pulldown 1RM at 80-90% bodyweight predicts first pull-up" threshold is a strength-to-mass correlation that Sperandei et al. (2016) supports directionally but does not validate at that specific number. The popular "eccentric is better than concentric for hypertrophy" claim is disputed: Schoenfeld 2017 found a small ECC edge that was not statistically robust, and Alves et al. 2025 in JSCR reported similar hypertrophy between contraction modes overall in healthy adults, with eccentric favored only in upper-limb muscles, shorter interventions, and isokinetic protocols. The page does not overclaim eccentric superiority for size.

What this means in practice: the lat pulldown prescriptions on this page are evidence-anchored. The phase-gated pull-up progression model is biomechanically and meta-analytically defensible. The eccentric-only negative protocol rests on the strongest single evidence base on the entire page (Nuzzo 2023's 1.41 ratio is meta-analytic gold). The specific tempo numbers on the strict pull-up rows of the phase table sit inside ranges that the broader literature supports, but their precise selection is coaching judgment, not RCT-derived precision. Honest content acknowledges this; commercial "best pull-up tempos" content does not. Repko's position on the pull-up family is the conservative, evidence-anchored one: prescribe by phase, by capability, and by load tolerance, and refuse to overstate what the literature actually shows.

Closing

This page is part of Repko's tempo training cluster: the four-phase tempo guide covers the framework, eccentric training covers the slow-lowering literature this page leans on heavily, and tempo notation explained covers the language. The sibling exercise deep-dives on front squat tempo prescriptions for the squat side, deadlift and Romanian deadlift tempo prescriptions for the posterior-chain side, bar muscle-up and negative tempo prescriptions for closed-chain advanced calisthenics, and side plank and McGill Big 3 tempo prescriptions for static-isometric spine endurance extend the tier-3 cluster. For background on why this app exists and who built it, see the about page. Repko's tempo timer enforces every digit of the prescription so you can train without counting in your head.