Not even what I write here.

But, at least read what I write when I am reviewing fitness and health literature because sometimes I have something valuable to say.

Earlier this month a press release came across the fitness medium espousing the benefits of high-speed contractions during strength exercise compared to slower, more sustained contractions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606103752.htm

But I looked up the original research article, or at least its abstract, and found this:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/120/11/1364

Now, what’s the big deal here?

Simply, the first does not give us enough details to determine the value of the actual study. Therefore it may be misleading, even to pros but especially to the lay public.

If you would note, the first gives the impression that we’d be better off lifting fast. The second describes the method of study, which was to use isometric contractions. Not that isometrics are bad but they tend not to be how we train for strength or power.

Thus, reading the actual abstract of the study shows us the impracticality of training based on the conclusions vs insight into how we should train for strength.

The bottom line is, you must have a ‘resistance’ that provides and ‘overload’ sufficient to force the muscles to adapt according to the ‘specific’ goals of the lifter. If you want pure strength, lift heavier; for muscle endurance and tone, lift lighter; and for power or speed, lift real heavy as fast as possible (which will be slow) or a moderate weight as fast as possible (safely, which can be risky.)