TUT vs Workload

P

Peak_Power

New Member
Who here thinks that TUT (time under tension) is bunk?

I've recently come to the understanding that what we thought of as TUT (doing more reps to get your TUT up) is actually doing more work with a given load, ie. more workload, and that's what stimulates more growth.

My question then would be is TUT an acceptable Hypertrophy variable, in the sense that doing x reps with y weight will induce more microtrauma by doing the reps slowly up and down, as opposed to explosive up and controlled down (same workload, different TUT).

My thinking is that the slower reps will induce more fatigue (endurance), but negligable microtrauma, especially since you can lift heavier weights with a faster, explosive up tempo. So with slow TUT it maybe fatigue/burn which you feel as pain, as opposed to mechanical load induced microtrauma.

btw these thoughts were stimulated from reading this article, http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459509
 
Yes, that MST thread's a great ride. Hold on to yer seatbelt...
 
I personally find strain,load, and microtraum..... I find strain, load....... I find zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
biggrin.gif
 
Im not sure TUT is bunk or not?

I just know from expierence that when I got injured I was forced to lower the amount of weights and use better form...and I grew big time.

However that was after a 8 week SD??? So not sure how much that played into the equation.

None the less I grew for about a year straight going slow?

Answer to your question in my opinoin?...I still dont know?
rock.gif
 
TUT is definitely not bunk, it has its place in training and if used correctly can lead to great gains IMO.
biggrin.gif


For a normal HST program I'd use from longuish sets with 15's, thorugh to shorter sets with 5's as the weight gets heavier, IMO this leads to the best hypertrophy, one must be quite disciplined however to use it appropriatelly.

Just my two cents worth...if it's worth
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Nov. 30 2006,03:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For a normal HST program I'd use from longuish sets with 15's</div>
Well that's my point, that TUT is for endurance and lactic acid build up (purpose of 15s), and doesn't affect hypertrophy as long as workload (weight+volume+frequency) is the same.

Ie. doing 100kgx5repsx3setsx3per week is will be the same growth if you pump them out fast or if you do them consciously slowly.

Agree/Disagree?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ie. doing 100kgx5repsx3setsx3per week is will be the same growth if you pump them out fast or if you do them consciously slowly.

Agree/Disagree?</div>

Disagree, basically because I believe if this is not your 5 RM or even 2 RM, you should rep out as slow as possible to increase sarcomere activation.

Here's why I think so:

Doing ten reps at a very fast tempo will have a much different training effect than doing ten reps using a slow, controlled rhythm.

These concepts helped gym enthusiasts around the world stimulate more muscle growth simply because they were now moving away from the 5 to 10 second sets onto more productive hypertrophy protocols. It also gave the average trainee more choices. As long as each set would last 40 to 70 seconds, you'd stimulate a lot of hypertrophy gains.

TUT and tempo training are also not very well suited for maximum strength lifting. Who in his right frame of mind would use tempo (counting rep speed) when attempting near-maximal and maximal weights? Not only is it unproductive to do so, it's dangerous!
Furthermore, as the weight gets heavy, it becomes harder and harder to maintain a certain lifting speed. At some point you just push against the damn thing hoping it'll rise up! Tempo is probably the last thing on your mind at this point!

This is part of the reason why TUT and tempo training have fallen out of favour among strength athletes around the world. However, I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water! There's a form of TUT training that's highly effective and applicable for athletes: timed sets.

I think Christian is on to somethning here, however I know this is bound to start creating controversy here as usual
laugh.gif
but this may just be another learning curve for me
wink.gif
 
I think you have misconceived TUT
If we look at the glossary of terms,
Duration (TUT, TUL)- The number of sets or number of exercises, specifically for each muscle group. Duration may also include number of repetitions.

Therefore TUT would reflect volume to a degree, which obviously affects hypertrophy
Click to expand...
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think you have misconceived TUT</div>

Who did?

TUT - Time Under Tension / TUL - Time Under Load, both mean the same = Total time under a specific load or weight, whether it is one rep or 10 thus making up a set.
 
I dont know how to prove it.

But I am sure TUT is a good thing...as long as you are not using a soup can for side raises.

So lets use a real world example to see if I am right.

Take side raises with dumbell.

I would think you are better to use almost a straight arm form with 15 pound dumbells and really squeeze the top contraction of the rep, (pause) and slowly lower the weight......INSTEAD of.

Using a 25 pound dumbell not being able to use almost straight arm form.....not being able to pause and squeeze....but instead using a fast motion to try to get all your reps???

I would think the first option would be better and less injury free....hence proving somewhere along the lines that TUT is good?

Did that make any sense???
 
''doing 100kgx5repsx3setsx3per week is will be the same growth if you pump them out fast or if you do them consciously slowly.

Agree/Disagree?''

Bryan posted a study, 2 groups, one had a longer TUT but the group doing the reps explosively saw more hypertrophy. Although I'm not sure if both groups used the same load....

I think anytime you are artificially slowing the tempo you are limiting the weight you can use, which is bad. As fausto said
biggrin.gif
 
If we're talking about rep speed i just read an article on something similar to this that was intresting:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In the most recent study to compare fast and slow training, a group of 12 untrained men exercised both arms three days per week for eight weeks [7]. The men trained one arm using a fast velocity, while they did the same number of repetitions for the other arm at a slow velocity.

Type I muscle fibers increased in size by an average of 9% with no significant differences between fast or slow training. The change in fiber area after training for the type II fibers was greater in the fast-trained versus the slow-trained arm.

Although there was no significant difference between the degree of growth in the fast and slow arms, there was a strong trend toward the fast-trained arm having greater hypertrophy than the slow-trained arm

Researchers from the University of Saskatchewan report similar results [1]. They looked at the effect of eccentric and concentric training at fast (180 degrees per second) and slow (30 degrees per second) velocities on muscle growth in a group of 24 untrained men and women.

Fast eccentric training led to greater overall muscle growth (13% increase in thickness) than slow eccentric training (7.8% increase in thickness). Eccentric training at both fast and slow velocities led to greater muscle growth than concentric training. The gains in muscle size mirrored changes in force production, which were also greatest during the fast eccentric movements.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....2756571
(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract

While the research on fast eccentrics is interesting, these studies all used untrained subjects training with isokinetic machines. We don't know if trained individuals using conventional training equipment (barbells, dumbbells and fixed resistance machines) will get the same results.
However, there's very little evidence to show that taking four seconds to complete the eccentric part of every repetition offers any significant benefit compared with faster (2-3 seconds) movement speeds. For most training goals, I recommend spending approximately 1-2 seconds on the concentric phase and 2-3 seconds on the eccentric phase of each exercise.
</div>
 
TUT has to be important or nobody would bother lifting anything!
biggrin.gif


Do we not now know that one of the best ways to trigger hypertrophy is to load a muscle constantly? That's maximum TUT at maximum frequency, but if you did that your poor old CNS would pack up under the constant strain leaving you incapacitated (assuming the loading was high enough).

So managing fatigue plays an imporatant role if you want to use relatively high frequency which we do under HST.

If you use a weight that you can control strictly you are ensuring that less momentum is involved during the motion and therefore a more even strain is applied to the muscle for longer. If you used a looser form and the reps were faster then there might be a higher strain for a shorter time as the weight is accelerated during the exercise.

Whichever way you train you would need to be consistent if you were going to measure progress. That way you can find out what works best for you ie. how many sets and how many reps?

Assuming loads were reasonably light (say around 60% 1RM) then someone who performed reps slowly and deliberately might find that they need to do fewer sets than if they performed them more rapidly. I think this might be why some folks like to do 2 sets during 15s and for others one is ample. There could be little difference in TUT between the two.

This is where it gets difficult to measure work done. If you were to take a slow rep cadence to the extreme the weight would appear to be still. If you hold a weight in an isometric contraction how much work are you performing? The normal definition for work done is force x distance but in this case the weight is not moving perceptibly. So are you not doing any work? Well, the load has potential energy and if you looked inside your muscles at the cellular level then there would definitely be energy transfer going on. So work is being done as force is being created by your muscles in order to hold the weight still. But how do you measure it? We can only use time (unless someone else has a better idea?).

So if you held a weight still for 10 seconds and then next time for 20 seconds you would have performed twice as much work the second time. But how can we compare work done under a static contraction to work done using normal reps? I don't know?? Time under load seems like one way but they are obviously going to have very different effects on the muscles involved.

My take on it, then, is that however you perform your reps try to be consistant so that you can compare progress in a more meaningful way which will help you figure out what works best for you.

Any thoughts on this?
rock.gif
 
''My take on it, then, is that however you perform your reps try to be consistant so that you can compare progress in a more meaningful way which will help you figure out what works best for you.''

Nice thoughts lol, however when your working with near max loads, I just concentrating on lifting it!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(style @ Dec. 01 2006,15:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nice thoughts lol, however when your working with near max loads, I just concentrating on lifting it!  
biggrin.gif
</div>
Amen to that!
biggrin.gif
 
TUT and Volume for all practical lifting purposes are really not so different.
I think doing 10 reps with your 10rm would be more beneficial than doing one super-slow reps with the same load.....even though TUT may be the same, volume of work would be higher for the 10 reps.

TUT and volume are closely related and are both important, but to answer the original question: Yes, it is better to count total workload (loadxsetsxreps)than to try and count how long each rep takes and stuff like that! Lol made some good points regarding this.
 
And as JonnyH pointed out:
slower than normal reps are not good for hypertrophy. Muscles are made to move things as fast as possible by exerting Force...by slowing a rep down, you are exerting less Force and this not a positive thing, it will more than offest the fact that there is more time under tension, because with faster reps, there is more INTENSITY OF TENSION which is even more important than TIME UNDER TENSION.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top