Each morning I've been doing the following:

1 minute pushup (15 second hold in 4 points in the move, 1 near top, 1 at mid-range, 1 at bottom just off floor, 1 in mid range on way up)

1 minute pullup (actually I'm not there yet, I take 15 seconds up and then 15 down)

1 set hindu squats at normal speed (30ish right now)

repeat

the superslow pushups/pullups have increased my max numbers slightly over where I started a month ago when I was doing normal cadence moves.  If anyone wants to try something new I think you'll be amazed at the results of the superslow bodyweight moves.

truthfully the squats are the killer for me.  I've done pushups and pullups for a few years in every way imaginable, so it takes a lot to get me sore in that area, though it can happen for sure.  Many people are unaware of the role the lats actually play in pushups, so I'm most likely to get sore under the arms rather than the chest.  I also probably lay off up to two days a week, this seems to feel right.  Some days I'll start with this routine, maybe not do it again until bedtime the next night.  It is bare bones for sure, but saves a lot of time and I've lost no strength I can see.  Also, on the pullups I keep the knees tucked up and twist from side to side going up and down, this gives me a great ab workout within the pullup. 

That doesn't exactly count as evidence when I asked for evidence to back up your statement that "1 hour / day is the minimum amount of exercise to stay fit. "

Tabata exercises have shown marked improvement in peoples fitness and body fat percentages with only 14 minutes a day.

I don't think his workout cuts it, but nor do I agree with the idea that an hour a day is the minimum amount necessary.

So you withdraw your statement that "1 hour / day is the minimum amount of exercise to stay fit. " ?

i have been averaging about 2 - 3 hours a day during the periods of my life when i was in my best shape.

wow, you must be one narcissistic dude.  When you are an adult with a family, 2-3 hours is very selfish.  I am 42 and have tried many things over my life, started lifting at 13.  Based on observation and results, I have arrived at a program that works for me.  You seem very quick to jump on anyone's ideas other than your own as being total crap.  I'm guessing you spend much time alone...by choice of course.

this routine is no good.  post pics of your body if you want to prove me wrong.

I offered this routine to others and advised they try it and judge the results.  You have not tried it, and I have no interest in you or "proving" anything to you.

also you need to add some ORGANIC forms of exercise like RUNNING or SWIMMING ( preferably both ).

Says who?  "organic" exercise? As an organism, any exercise I do is organic.  If you honestly believe 1 hour a day is the minimum exercise a person needs, and they should also run AND swim, I hope you are a very young person who has not wasted too many years under that notion.  Also, please don't use Arnold as any type of fitness example, the guy was juicing the 'roids out the A**.  How "organic" is that?  Same goes for Armstrong.

I wasted probably ten years lifting for at least one hour 3 times a week.  I got better at lifting.  Big deal.  I also do dips in superslow mode.  I can crank out 10 one arm pushups (not bragging, or I'd lie and say 20), my shoulders are strong enough.

high intensity such as power cleans could be as little as 1 minute per day.

How is that significantly different from a pushup that takes 1 minute?  A power clean involves momentum and ligament involvement (both of which detract from real muscle involvement).  Go do a 1 minute pullup and compare this with your power clean.

all evidence seems to point to the fact that 1 hour / day is the minimum amount of exercise to stay fit.

Arnold used to work out 6 hours a day, Phelps swims 5 hours a day, Armstrong cycles 5 - 6 hours a day. 

The amount of time spent isn't really an accurate way to measure training. Workload is the only thing that matters. Most people spend an hour or more at the gym and do virtually nothing.

All I will say about super slow training is that, at best, it's dis-functional.

Quote from: Wlfdg on July 06, 2010, 11:56:40 AM

All I will say about super slow training is that, at best, it's dis-functional.

It will certainly train endurance, if nothing else. You believe it does more harm than good? Why would a super-slow pushup be a bad thing, when static pushup holds are a valid progression for people who can't do pushups?

There are far better ways to train endurance.

Our bodies are designed to move loads as quickly as possible. To recruit as many motor units as we possibly can.

Super slow training recruits slow twitch fibers to do the work of fast twitch fibers.
This is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.
Will it get the job done? Eventually, yes.
Is it the right tool for the job. Not even close.

Super slow and static are different neuro-muscular functions. Doing static holds is a stepping stone. Once the ability to do a push up is developed the trainee should focus on doing push ups as fast as possible. Then as many as possible as fast as possible.