Progessive overload

[Mike in NZ]

When you drop from 15 reps to 10 how does it still overload the muscle if you only add a bit more weight.

For eg, if you start your 15 rep cycle and then add 5Kg each workout to you hit 100% on workout 6 and then drop to 10 reps, but still increase only 5 Kg, how does this overload the muscle? You may be doing more weight, but because you are doing fewer reps hasn't the load on the muscle decreased?

 

[ruglayer09052000]

Quote[/b] (Mike in NZ @ Nov. 03 2004,6:25)]When you drop from 15 reps to 10 how does it still overload the muscle if you only add a bit more weight.
For eg, if you start your 15 rep cycle and then add 5Kg each workout to you hit 100% on workout 6 and then drop to 10 reps, but still increase only 5 Kg, how does this overload the muscle? You may be doing more weight, but because you are doing fewer reps hasn't the load on the muscle decreased?

I did my rep scheme at 10/7/5 2 sets of 10, 3 sets of 7, 4 sets of 5. That way my tonnage would go up each work out.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Mike in NZ @ Nov. 03 2004,5:25)]When you drop from 15 reps to 10 how does it still overload the muscle if you only add a bit more weight.
For eg, if you start your 15 rep cycle and then add 5Kg each workout to you hit 100% on workout 6 and then drop to 10 reps, but still increase only 5 Kg, how does this overload the muscle? You may be doing more weight, but because you are doing fewer reps hasn't the load on the muscle decreased?

As long as you increase the load you are progressively overloading the tissue, the amount of reps or Time you apply the load is what is changing, which is why many use more than one set once they pass their 15 rep max to keep the TUT consistent.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (Mike in NZ @ Nov. 03 2004,4:25)]...For eg, if you start your 15 rep cycle and then add 5Kg each workout to you hit 100% on workout 6 and then drop to 10 reps, but still increase only 5 Kg, how does this overload the muscle? You may be doing more weight, but because you are doing fewer reps hasn't the load on the muscle decreased?

Don't confuse fatigue with load. Fatigue is a neurological and metabolic mechanism. When you train with fatigue as your goal (e.g. MUST train to failure and feel like I've been mauled by a rabid bear before leaving the gym) the specific adaptation will be a limited increase in neurological efficiency (long story) and an increased metabolic capacity (specific to the metabolic pathway you've pushed).

What has heralded the introduction of "hypertrophy-specific" training is hypertrophy-specific research. For the first time we now have a clear (i.e. or clearer if you will) understanding of the mechanocytology of muscle cells. In other words, we are now aware of the pathways and structural components involved in load induced muscle growth.

These pathways and cellular components are sensitive to the mechanical forces that stretch and strain the tissue as you lift a weight. These forces are at work from the very first rep. Just because the weight "feels" heavier towards the end of the set, doesn't make it so. The tissue must support the same weight load from the very first rep to the last. Now, granted, there are issues involving just how many fiber/sarcomeres are active at any given moment as well as issues involving motor unit activity specific to concentric, eccentric, and isometric contractions. Nevertheless, for our purposes in the real gym, it is the ever-increasing load that will ensure continued growth over time.

 

[Brak]

It sounds like Bryan is saying that the amount of reps does not relate to load in the way that other programs (like power factor training, etc) would have you believe. And that inducing growth has to do mainly with increase the load regardless of how many reps are done. Lowering the amount of reps is simply a way to ensure a heavier load can be used.

So, if that is true, why does so much importance seem to be given to TUT. The thing I like about HSTs basic program was that Bryan said that only one set was required to induce hypertrophy and anything beyond the first effective set was simply burning calories. But since frequenting the boards, it seems as though it is almost standard procedure and accepted that everyone should be doing more sets as the rep ranges get lower. 1x15/2x10/3x5, etc.

Is TUT really as important some here are making it seem, or is it just that these people are stuck in their old modes and can’t seem to accept doing a single set of 5 reps?

Brak

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Brak @ Nov. 04 2004,3:58)]Is TUT really as important some here are making it seem, or is it just that these people are stuck in their old modes and can’t seem to accept doing a single set of 5 reps?
Brak

This quote from Bryan sums this up

Quote[/b] ]Now, you want to know how many sets you have to use to grow your muscles. If you understood the principles as outlined above you would already know the answer to that question. If you want research on the matter, mechanical-overload studies show that a muscle can be loaded for days to weeks without being unloaded and experience tremendous growth. So ask yourself, will any number of sets you could possibly do in one workout equal even 1 hour of constant load? So asking whether you should do 1 set or 2 sets isn’t really relevant unless you are simply interested in how to set up your routine. As far as muscle growth goes, the more time under tension the more potent the growth stimulus. Once again, if you understand the principles of hypertrophy, you should be thinking, “My CNS could never handle loading the muscle for even 30 minutes in one session and still allow me to train again in 48 hours.” So, you must find the amount of volume you can handle and still train effectively in 48 hours. For someone who isn’t conditioned, 1 - 2 sets per exercise (~3-6 sets/week) is sufficient to cause muscle growth. If you have been training for many years (5+) consistently then it might take more time under tension. This person will either need to take more time training in order to accommodate more sets per exercise, or split up their workout into two sessions and train either twice per day, or 6 days per week. This is how guys like myself, Blade, Boris, and others train. I have been training for over 25 years, and it takes a bit more strain and time to overcome years of RBE. Does this mean that the principles of load and time under load have changed for me, as opposed to the new guy? Absolutely NOT!

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (Brak @ Nov. 04 2004,2:58)]... why does so much importance seem to be given to TUT.
Is TUT really as important some here are making it seem, or is it just that these people are stuck in their old modes and can’t seem to accept doing a single set of 5 reps?
Brak

Well as Dan pointed out, TUT is important. It's fatigue that is less important than load and time. Now its hard to seperate time from fatigue, but it can be done. We do this by avoiding training to failure for the most part.

So, one way you can approach your HST cycle is to try to get the same number of total reps all the way through the cycle.

So you would go from 1 set of 10s, to 2 sets of 5s. That way the load increased and the TUT stayed the same. As Martha would say, "It's a good thing."

 

[Brak]

Excellent, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks Dan & Bryan.

So let me ask one more thing...if I do one set of 5 that lasts 20 seconds, then take a one or two minute break and do another set of 5 that lasts 20 seconds, can I reasonably say that muscle spent 40 seconds TUT? Or do all the recommendations saying you should subject a muscle to at least 30 seconds TUT assume and require that those seconds are all done as part of a single set?

Brak

 

[imported_dkm1987]

1. Actually the data shows more like 30 mins not seconds.
2. From my limited understanding it is cummulative, so two sets lasting 20 secs each even if they are spaced far apart is still 40 secs TUT per day.

Note: I believe Bryan mentioned this somewhere perhaps I am mistaken (old timers syndrome )

 

[Brak]

I was referring to something I saw somewhere else that was saying you should get at least 30 seconds or the workout was essentially worthless. And it went on to discuss how different TUTs work different muscle fibers and that you should workout some days where you only get 30 seconds, and other days where you get 90 seconds because that works different types of fibers, etc. I’m too lazy to go find it, furthermore I get the impression that it will turn out to be like most of the other things I have read…unsubstantiated tripe.

So, to discuss what you are referring to: 30 Minutes! “A muscle can be loaded for days to weeks without being unloaded and experience tremendous growth”. So whether I do 2 sets or 6 sets, aren’t these like grains of sand on a beach? Aren’t we comparing the effectiveness of filling a bucket with 2 drops vs. 6 drops? I guess I just need to keep reading this over and over: “So, you must find the amount of volume you can handle and still train effectively in 48 hours. For someone who isn’t conditioned, 1 - 2 sets per exercise (~3-6 sets/week) is sufficient to cause muscle growth” and if I notice I am not growing, just add a set.

Brak