Time under tension - how important?

dax07 said:
Just jumping in here for a second.. According to Martin Berkhan (creator of leangains.com) it is definitely possible to bulk and cut at the same time (recomp).
+20% TDEE on lifting days, -20% TDEE on rest days. Your macros have to be in check (you can find the protocol for leangains easily) the fasting window needs to be consistent. Martin claims to be all natural, and from looking at his before pic he definitely doesn't have better than average genetics. He used to be decently fat, and now is always like 7% bf or less and pretty damn big too. It is kinda foolish to totally discredit the idea of bulking and cutting at the same time. Do you really understand human physiology that well that we can roll out the possibility of it working? I believe much of the research Martin has done has helped many and I believe his advice and his leangains protocol when either bulking, cutting or recomping is sound.
I always use leangains now. (mainly the slow bulk) and I always use HST. My results are amazing, I am 21 years old, stronger than the juice heads in my gym (on a lb for lb basis) 8% bodyfat at the moment and my weight was up to 200lbs at 5'10" before I lowered my caloric intake and lost a decent amount of water and glycogen weight.
Martin always calls for a negative energy balance on non lifting days, even when following his bulking protocol it is set at a -10% TDEE on a rest day and +40% TDEE on lifting days. He has many clients that have had great success, and myself and my best friend have had nothing but great results. Leangains for how to eat and HST for how to train. Perfect harmony for optimal gains / body composition in my opinion. Just because a few people discourage this approach doesn't mean it is invalid. But, I do believe that one should focus more on either cutting or bulking because recomping is more for when you are looking for very slow gains in muscle and very slow losses with fat. But I will never do a traditional bulking or cutting plan after experiencing leangains.
Click to expand...

I agree. The body is not adapted to add muscle ONLY during long feasting periods...that is ridiculous. The human body can add muscle when the opportunity strikes, meaning a caloric surplus for a day or so after intensive muscular exercise. The body is much more adaptable than we give credit, and can add muscle very quickly... a short burst of anabolic calories, followed by a short period of more restricted calories....like LEANGAINS, or other similar Recomp methods is well within scientific bounds to work. If we could only add muscle during long bulking periods, then we'd be fucked, as the human species would have never survived to present day.
 
A fat person, of any age, does not need to bulk to add muscle. He can "cut" and gain muscularity and leanness.

But I am confused as to how this has anything to do with TUT! But I agree that total TUT per muscle group is much more relevant than a single rep's or even a single set's TUT although some "science" has indicated that slower eccentric movements may be beneficial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old and Grey said:
Actually I find your analogies rather creative and amusing at times. I can certainly see how you came up with the "balloon with a hole in it" one. :)
Click to expand...

Actually I shamelessly stole the analogy from Brad Pilon :)
http://bradpilon.com/weight-loss/simple-metabolism-analogy/

He has a few more of the kind, and all are fairly logical.

But I too have analogies of my own! The most recent one:
Saying that "we can only grow muscle while eating at a surplus" is the same as saying "we can only allow a wounded/cut finger to heal by eating at a surplus".
 
Last edited:
That analogy is garbage.


Amusing to O&G perhaps, but fatally flawed nonetheless.


BTW, why did you abandon lean gains as a protocol so quickly if you are so zealously convinced of its merits?
 
AlexAustralia said:
BTW, why did you abandon lean gains as a protocol so quickly if you are so zealously convinced of its merits?
Click to expand...

I'm not using any protocol to the letter. What I have been using for like 8 months is LG 16/8 window (or 14/10 for social reasons to go to the gym earlier :D), and mostly eating at fixed times. But I'm not using Martin's macros or dietary advice (+20%/-10% and all that), since I'm not calculating calories, or his RPT training style as shown, preferring higher rep work. My exercise style is actually a mix of heavy partials, heavy full ROM, and higher rep full ROM. Tom Venuto actually cites several different sources, who have concluded that due to heaviest loads partial reps are beneficial for full ROM 1-5RM strength increases, which I have noticed independently in my own training. Partial 300kg x5 leg press helped me up my full ROM to 240kg x 10 (now 175 again :)), full shrugs were 140x10 last time, leg curls also look promising - 16 plate partials already, 15 full. Strength gains are quick to train and lose, and it's a process independent of muscle growth. But I'm still experimenting.
 
Old and Grey said:
But I agree that total TUT per muscle group is much more relevant than a single rep's or even a single set's TUT although some "science" has indicated that slower eccentric movements may be beneficial.
Click to expand...

I already wrote a reply on the original topic a while ago but it doesn't appear because after I posted it, I got the message that it needs to be approved by a moderator first. I suppose because it contained links.
 
On the other side of the spectrum, quite many guys think that high volume / high rep / moderate load bodybuilding style training is optimal for growth. They go so far as not locking out their pushing / pulling movements to provide continuous load on the muscle (without allowing it to rest even for a fraction of a second), which is very demanding metabolically, requires you to decrease the weights being lifted, isn't naturally optimized for strength gains, but is better for muscle growth. Go figure.
 
isn't naturally optimized for strength gains, but is better for muscle growth
Click to expand...

Where is the proof of this statement?

Or are you just repeating an opinion held by the practitioners of this style?
 
Yup. And Tom Venuto also mentions it on the link above. Quite frankly gaining in strength the way I did in the last cycle can't be the best natural way to add the miniscule size gains that come along with it (more on that in my log shortly). Maybe the guys that swear by traditional bodybuildish higher rep/higher volume hide the fact that they're "on", maybe not. There are so many contradicting facts out there. Another research claims that 1 set of 8-12 reps per bodypart until failure done 3 times per week is enough even for experienced lifters. Go figure.
 
Rihad, the research report you referenced is one of the most important studies ever published. People who claim to not have enough time to work out or end up doing 20 sets of one body part per day would benefit from giving the results of that study a go for a period of time. However, there really are such animals as gym rats that are as addicted to going to the gym as heroin users are to the high produced. I just wish the researchers had also had a 3rd and 4th group that trained the same way but only once per week. Other studies have done that but it would have been nice to have it all in one study. A 5th group working out 5 times or more per week with just one set would have also been nice.

The program I am starting today (after a 3 week SD...1 week sick with bronchitis and 2 weeks vacation) follows that logic but using progressive load and adding in 2 quick myo reps at 1/3 of the original number of reps "just in case." :) It will not add significantly to the total time spent per workout. Frequency will be a minimum of 4 times per week and more if time and my muscles allow it. To compensate for the CNS fatigue caused by the myo reps, I will take 5-7 days off every third or fourth week...not a true SD but a CNS recovery break. The original study did not take any CNS breaks even though they went to failure each set so I may be being overly cautious here. However, my age is also considerably higher than the test group average. Besides, breaks keep my enthusiasm up. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HST_Rihad said:
...I have been using for like 8 months is LG 16/8 window (or 14/10 for social reasons to go to the gym earlier :D), and mostly eating at fixed times. ...
Click to expand...
8 months is a pretty good amount of time, what's the pros and cons of what you are doing?
 
HST_Rihad said:
There are so many contradicting facts out there. Another research claims that 1 set of 8-12 reps per bodypart until failure done 3 times per week is enough even for experienced lifters. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's absolutely true - there actually are a lot of contradicting results from studies regarding weight lifting and strength gains as well as hypertrophy. One meta-study from 2007 came to the conclusion that there is "insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training."

However, what also matters a lot to me is the time investment to hypertrophy gains ratio, so even if different training regimens yield the same final results, I will go for the one that takes the least time. I am definitely not one of those gym rats who are almost addicted to going to the gym. I have got lots of other things to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top