Tension VS Volume Increase

[noah]

Does this workout approach sound like it might work, or is it complete silliness?

Taking the number that is WEIGHT * SETS * REPS, using it as some sort of 'total work' indicator per workout, and trying to make sure it always increases from workout to workout. So in this case, one could increase the weight but keep the other factors the same, or keep the weight the same and increase the reps, and/or increase the sets. Perhaps both are used, sometimes the weight is increased, sometimes the reps / sets are, but that total number always goes up from workout to workout.

One question I had about the 'standard' HST procedures is whether the jump from 15s to 10s, or from 10s to 5s, represents an increase in the 'factors that matter' for stimulating muscle growth. For example, it seems to me that 10s with higher weight *might* be 'less work' than 15s with lower weight, depending on the actual numbers.

Any merit to looking at it in this way, or does increasing tension simply matter more, regardless of reps / sets?

 

[savagebeast]

One of the fundamental principles behind HST is that tension, not X sets or Y reps or Z total work done, is the main signal for hypertrophy. IMO, programs recommending an increase over time in total work done, i.e. sets x reps x weight, are based on pseudo-mathematical thinking, not real science and research.

Quote[/b] (noah @ April 12 2005,1:09)]For example, it seems to me that 10s with higher weight *might* be 'less work' than 15s with lower weight, depending on the actual numbers.

The important thing is that you are increasing the weight. As long as your volume is sufficient, it does not matter whether it is greater than your volume during the 15s. However, some people prefer to keep a relatively constant level of total work throughout the cycle. This usually takes the form of 1 set for the 15s, 2 for the 10s, and 3 for the 5s. But keeping total work done constant is not a requirement in HST.

Quote[/b] (noah @ April 12 2005,1:09)]Any merit to looking at it in this way, or does increasing tension simply matter more, regardless of reps / sets?

Tension simply matters more, so long as you have sufficient TUT (Time Under Tension).

 

[MrNasty]

Here is what I do ....

Aside from the progression in load, which is implied, I also keep track of every rep performed. The following workout, I try to beat that previous rep count by 2 reps - thus causing more TUT each WO. I completely through 15's, 10's, & 5's out the window ... although I still use the loads for the given rep count. Just about everytime I begin to hit a platue on rep increases the load increase and I have to start all over.

I LOVE IT!

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

Quote[/b] ]
One of the fundamental principles behind HST is that tension, not X sets or Y reps or Z total work done, is the main signal for hypertrophy. IMO, programs recommending an increase over time in total work done, i.e. sets x reps x weight, are based on pseudo-mathematical thinking, not real science and research.

Keeping sets x reps x weight constant is a recommendation in the book that explains how to optimize HST. I guess that recommendation must be based on some research too.

The way I look at it, decreasing the volume is not so bad as long as the total volume doesn't become too low and the decrease is not too big.

Going from 40 total reps to 25 reps throughout a cycle may be fine, but going from 10 reps to 5 may be too much of a decrease.

I tend to think like this because the effect of the load saturates relatively quickly with the volume. Doing 25 reps or 40 is unlikely to make a lot of difference, but 5 instead of 10 yes, because you are in a range of volume where the effect of volume is more linear.

 

[savagebeast]

Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ April 13 2005,6:12)]Keeping sets x reps x weight constant is a recommendation in the book that explains how to optimize HST. I guess that recommendation must be based on some research too.

The way I look at it, decreasing the volume is not so bad as long as the total volume doesn't become too low and the decrease is not too big.

Going from 40 total reps to 25 reps throughout a cycle may be fine, but going from 10 reps to 5 may be too much of a decrease.

I tend to think like this because the effect of the load saturates relatively quickly with the volume. Doing 25 reps or 40 is unlikely to make a lot of difference, but 5 instead of 10 yes, because you are in a range of volume where the effect of volume is more linear.

I'm not saying that there is no benefit to maintaining or increasing total work done, just that tension is more important provided that you have enough TUT to make that load effective.

I just remember having seen some programs a while ago recommending that you multiply sets x reps x weight and make sure this number goes up every workout. That was the only guideline. To me, this sounds more like a program based on some guy's "nifty" idea than a program based on scientific research and physiological principles. These are the types of programs that I was referring to with my "pseudo-mathematical", not science-based comment.

There's nothing wrong with keeping total work constant or increasing it. I was just saying that it's not required (again, provided that TUT is sufficient).

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

So we agree basically. The question is however, what is considered the minimum TUT? Does one set of 5 reps for instance give sufficient TUT? Or should there be a minimum like 20 reps or so?

In other words, after how many reps is increasing the volume becoming counter productive?