I completely agree that learning music (or martial arts) at a slow pace is an excellent idea.  I'm a semi professional harmonica player, and that's the way I learn new material.  If you're into the blues, here's a taste....

http://tinyurl.com/6ph4ge


Not sure what any of this has to do with super slow weight lifting, but what the heck.....

OK, here's more info on the super slow protocol.
Take a look at both sides, and decide for yourself.  Based on this evidence, and just plain common sense, I won't getting into super slow any time soon.... 


The Keeler study which consisted of 14 sedentary women with an average age of 32.8 ± 8.9 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to either a superslow group (6 subjects) or a traditional training group (8 subjects). 
 

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/superslow.html

"The results for the chest press indicated that the traditional group improved by an average of 26 lbs compared to the superslow group improving by an average of 9 lbs. It was concluded that traditional training is superior to that of superslow strength training for improving strength as assessed with the 1-RM for the initial phase of strength training in sedentary women."

More..

Munn et al found that 3 sets of exercise produce twice the strength increase of one set in the early phase of training, and that training fast produced greater strength increases than training slow. However, they found no additional benefit of training with both three sets and fast contractions. The study involved 115 healthy, previously untrained subjects training 3 x week for 6 weeks with a target rep range of 6-8RM:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=//

Neils et al compared super slow and traditional speed training, and found similar results in both groups save for superior gains in peak power in the traditional speed group:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Hatfield and Kramer found that slow lifting speeds reduced the number of reps able to be performed with a given weight, while higher lifting speeds allowed for greater peak force and power generation. While Hahn issues unfounded allegations about the integrity of these researchers, their findings support what anyone who has ever tried to lift a heavy weight in 'super slow' fashion would have observed first hand.

Accentuate the Negative?

Research comparing eccentric- and concentric-only training indicates that the eccentric (negative) portion of a lift is critical in facilitating hypertrophy gains. Concentric only regimens deliver less muscle mass gains than eccentric only routines.

Traditionally, many trainers (even those who care little for super slow training) have advised their clients to perform the negative in a slower-than-usual fashion. Recent research indicates that this advice is in need of a rethink.

Shepstone et al took healthy young men and made them train one arm with fast isokinetic eccentric contractions, the other with slow contractions. They found greater hypertrophy and strength gains at 8 weeks in arms trained with fast isokinetic eccentric contractions than with slow contractions:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/1768

Fast Lifting May Make For Stronger Bones

Weight training is commonly recommended to older adults as means for combatting bone loss and osteoporosis. Stengel et al assigned osteopenic postmenopausal women to weight training programs that involved either slow lifting or fast lifting. The program consisted of twelve-week intervals of periodized high-intensity training [70–90% 1-repetition maximum (1 RM)] intermitted with 4–5 wk of lower training intensity (50% 1 RM).

The only difference between the two groups was the movement velocity. The training protocol specified a 4-s concentric, 4-s eccentric sequence in the slow lifting group and a concentric fast/explosive, 4-s eccentric sequence in the fast lifting group.

At 12 months, the fast group maintained bone mineral density at the spine and the total hip while the slow group lost significantly at both sites. The researchers concluded "These findings suggest that power training is more effective than strength training in reducing bone loss in postmenopausal women."

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/1/181

Similar findings were observed after 2 years of follow up:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/10/649

Mark