TUT vs Workload

Yeah, I agree with Sci. Particularly true for lighter loads. If you are able to accelerate a load more quickly to get it moving, you must be applying a higher force to it so there must be more tension for that part of the rep. But, as style pointed out, once the loads are over 80% or so of your 1 RM you just lift it as best you can.
 
My pointis if you care to use HST properly you would vary your TUT with load as it increases, a very slow rep cadence = strength, a median one = some strength and some hypertrophy,a fast one = best hypertrophy, you get the get the best of all 3 worlds!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Dec. 02 2006,14:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My pointis if you care to use HST properly you would vary your TUT with load as it increases, a very slow rep cadence = strength, a median one = some strength and some hypertrophy,a fast one = best hypertrophy, you get the get the best of all 3 worlds!
wink.gif
</div>
Where did you get that info. Fausto?  That seems totally wrong to me.

sorry, didn't realize you were joking for a second there.....
biggrin.gif
blush.gif
 
<div>
(style @ Nov. 28 2006,12:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I personally find strain,load, and microtraum..... I find strain, load....... I find zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
biggrin.gif
</div>
Yep I fell asleep as well
rock.gif
 
<div>
(style @ Dec. 01 2006,08:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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
</div>
HA! This is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks guys you can go back to sleep now.
 
Let us go on a little, for those who don't really want to snooze
laugh.gif


From the HST- FAQ e-book:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
15. How many sets and how to determine it

As far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned, high duration of load is best. The cellular signals that are initiated by strain on the structural and contractile proteins of the cell are increased as time under load increases. If it weren't for the involvement of fatigue in performing the actual reps and sets, you would be better off doing tons of sets and reps.

HST uses lower numbers of sets because the muscle is trained much more often. So, the muscle isn't actually loaded for less time, its just that the loading is more evenly spread out over time to keep the signal more constant. If there are any factors that allow a person to do more sets per workout, he/she should do them.

From what other research there is on the time course of genetic expression in response to overload, it is clear that we don’t even come close the amount of time needed to elicit the greatest hypertrophic effect. But what are you going to do? We have to lift the weight and lower it over and over in order to overload the muscle.

From the overload research, I personally feel longer time under tension is better.

But you have to balance that with CNS fatigue, and absolute load.

More sets with heavier weight is better than fewer sets with less weight. But there is a limit to our exercise tolerance. So you have to figure out a way to get as much loading of the muscle as you can, as often as you can, and still be able to constantly increase the load over time, without burning out or getting injured.

Keep in mind that HST does not dictate that the total volume (i.e. number of sets per body part) over the course of the week should be lower than what a person is accustomed to using with traditional routines.

HST only advises that the volume be evenly distributed over more workouts in the same time period. So if you are used to doing 9 sets for back on &quot;back day&quot; using a traditional routine (e.g. training each body part once per week), HST would have you do 3 sets at a time for 3 different workouts.</div>

Ok...there is some stuff on TUL or TUT as you would have it, mixed with training volume and the spread of it, also Kudus to Max-stim for managing fatigue
cool.gif


Further on it says:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">15.1. Time under load (TUL) - how much does it matter when loads are increasing

People often make the mistake of overthinking this. It doesn't take much time for a given (effective) load to trigger signals inside muscle cells to start growing. In a sufficiently deconditioned muscle, only 1 set of 10-12 reps is sufficient to cause measurable anabolic changes.

However, the more you train, the more resistant your muscle becomes to the training stimulus. We've know this for years, and recently we have some good research to demonstrate it by measuring signaling molecules in trained and untrained exercisers after a single bout.

So, the first solution to the problem of becoming resistant to the lifting stimulus is to create a more potent stimulus by lifting more weight. You can do this until you reach your strength limits.

Another solution is to lift the same amount of weight a bit longer by doing more sets and/or reps. This works to a point, but soon (2-3 weeks) will fail to produce growth once again.

The problem arises when guys continue to increase volume because they are at their strength limit. This begins to drain the CNS and recovery takes longer and longer. Eventually, they have to rest so long between training each bodypart that they are unable to produce consistent gains...the stimulus is just too infrequent.

I won’t go into just how deep the misinformation and misunderstanding runs in bodybuilding. Suffice it to say, VERY few people who are serious about lifting understand how muscle grows and how best to train for growth.

They have some idea of course, but there is enough doubt in their minds that they continually change their methods in hopes that it will work better. Eventually, they will experience gains once in a while, but because they do not understand the true cause and effect of those gains, they misattribute the gains to something else, usually something coincidental to the period during which they made gains.

This leads to all kinds of false notions about what works and what doesn’t.

In HST, the reason volume tends to decrease as load increases, is to spare the CNS and allow more frequent training. It has NOTHING to do with what people call periodization.

If a young guy can handle 2-3 sets during the 5’s, and still feel good for the next workout, go for it! Unfortunately, most guys can’t do this, and they experience dramatic results nonetheless with 1 or 2 sets.

The gains they might experience by doing one more set would most likely not be noticeable as long as frequency is high, anyway.

I can't really tell you how you should feel after a set. If your muscle is resistant to growth, you will have to do a little more to get it to grow, and hence, you will feel more tired.

However, if your muscle is sensitive to the training stimulus, you can do less and still grow and hence you will not feel nearly as tired after an effective workout.

I would suggest that you try to do 2 sets during the 5s if you don't &quot;feel&quot; much from doing only 1 set. I do 2 sets on the basic movements and then I might throw in another exercise of 1 or 2 sets (depending on the muscle group) just to top things off.

Many people will also be stronger on the second set than on the first set of 5s. For this reason a second set of the same exercise would also be recommended.</div>

now...on this particular point:

Another solution is to lift the same amount of weight a bit longer by doing more sets and/or reps. This works to a point, but soon (2-3 weeks) will fail to produce growth once again.

I personally feel that the same can be accomplished by controlling the velocity of the rep itself, and having tried stuff like one 120 second rep before, my strength was increased. Not that this is what I'd recommend, but slowing reps while handling light weight can have very good benefits.

Anyway I hope I haven't peeved anyone off....
laugh.gif
 
Not meaning to be disagreeable, but the old &quot;slow reps method&quot; has been beat to death from what I've seen. And most don't grow from it as well as from hitting heavy weights, hard.
After that, you have only the amount of sets to decide on. I wonder if I could have gone longer on 2 sets of the fives than 3, perhaps making more gains, but on the other hand, I went to 3 because 2 didn't 'feel' like a full workout.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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. </div>
I agree with Sci, too. What is really better, 10 reps and 3 seconds for each (30 seconds total), or 3 reps and 10 seconds for each (30 seconds total again). I believe the first option should be superior, both for hypertrophy and strength.

I have really thought about this a lot, the best idea I came up with is that the rep cadence should just ensure safety and nothing more. I do not believe that deliberately slowing down the rep can result in better hypertrophic results, because, as Sci mentioned, this severely limits the total work done. Maybe super slow reps could help with strength endurance, but I don't think they are optimal for hypertrophy.

Consequently, I do not pay much attention to the rep cadence. Instead, I emphasize the total work done, because, as I see it, this ensures sufficient TUT (total) AND total work, as opposed to sufficient TUT but limited work output (due to slowing down the reps).

Just my thoughts,
Dimitris
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Dec. 04 2006,16:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Slowing down the reps sure seems to be working for Drew Baye.  Oh wait...</div>
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
Hi guys this is my first post here. Iv been doing some research on the best general way to rep for maximum muscle stimulation and hypertrophy, not strength specific. My research has lead me to constant TUT and staying in an effective range of motion.
That pubmed study does throw things off a bit but is a bit unclear and confusing and goes against everything we ever thought we knew about bodybuilding.

It states-
Fast Negative has &gt;hypertrophy than a fast Positive and slow Positive, therefore a fast negative builds more muscle than any other part of the rep.

Slow Negative has &gt;hypertrophy than fast Positive, therefore again the negative(slow) wins out again as a greater stimulater of growth over a fast positive    
           
A slow negative did not have greater hypertrophy than a slow positive, but didnt specificly say the slow positive induced greater hypertrophy than a slow negative. Do we just assume it did ??

This theory really makes constant TUT very dificult and unrealistic to stand to reason. It almost bunks it if a fast positive is superior to a slow/slower concertric in regards to hypertrophy.

That brings up a question of is there any evidence to support the 40-70 second theory for builing muscle.  

I will bring something else to the table that hasnt been touched on because im still very interested in constant TUT, and that is that constant TUT recruits more muscle fibers.

Anyway its back to the drawing board for me. IMO I think a controled lowering under strict risitance without the exagerated slownes to increase TUT is the way to go. I dont think a fast lowering means taking the tension off or letting the weight fall or lower while resting the working muscle. I also dont think that one study is solid enough to change the text books.
 
<div>
(ForLife @ Dec. 05 2006,05:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IMO I think a controled lowering under strict risitance without the exagerated slownes to increase TUT is the way to go. I dont think a fast lowering means taking the tension off or letting the weight fall or lower while resting the working muscle.</div>
Exactly!
 
Sci

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">People need to visit the FAQ more often. This forum section has the most accurate information by far, yet is one of the least popular sections, since it is not a 'social' forum.</div>

Very much in line with what I was &quot;preaching&quot; anyways
wink.gif
 
TUT is based on studies that stated 8-12 reps per set is optimal for hypertrophy. The tempo used was 2 seconds for the consentric(positive or lifting), 4 seconds for the lowering (essentric). Therefore 40-70 seconds or TUT was later born based on the theory that 6 seconds per rep(workload) is needed so that 8-12 reps is the ideal rep range for hypertrophy.
Id like to see this study, without it we cant look at all the variables or how controled this study actually was. Does anybody have a link?

IMO I dont think that long a time under tension is required, seeing that new evidence shows a slow negative to be inferior to a faster one. I dont want to say TUT is bunked but at the second it just about is in my books. On the other hand you could hold the rep at the stretch point, so on a barbell benchpress that would be on the bottem of the movement. Then you could hold at the contraction point, which would be at the top of the rep with a bent elbow so not to lock out and your chest bears the weight(tension), and that will get your TUT up. But who wants to train like that, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top