Hmmm, going to failure 3 times per week is a lot. I tend to get into overtraining rather quickly when I go to failure too often. I generally don't do it more than once a week.
Time under tension - how important?
- Thread starter Gregor
- Start date
Hmmm, going to failure 3 times per week is a lot. I tend to get into overtraining rather quickly when I go to failure too often. I generally don't do it more than once a week.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
It has become a habit to try and eat at fixed times of day. It is believed that shortening your eating window allows to eat less overall (if you eat sensibly overall, of course), because it's much easier to not eat first thing in the morning when you mostly run on stored fat as fuel, than eat normally first thing in the morning, because then you're prone to have a hard time sticking to a caloric deficit overall. I've never had problems losing weight without LG, but I'm still using it because of some purported health benefits of a short fast, such as increased cellular cleansing, etc.
Good point. Since Sep. 3, the start of the cycle I just ended (yeah, longer than usual, I simply extended the 5's for the sake of dieting down), I lost half in inch in waist circumference, added 2.5 cm (1 inch) to chest, 0.4cm to arm (0.15 inches). I think I owe the 0.4cm increase in my arm not to the usual dynamic pushing/pulling movements, but to shrugging partials and simply holding the heavy weight in rack pulls, because 0.4cm is a fairly noticeable jump. This is my new gospel for today: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru21.htm
It simply backs up whatever I've come up with independently. My experience has been that partial leg presses increased full ROM strength; partial shrugs increased full shrugging strength, partial deads (i.e. rack pulls) increased DL strength. I'm definitely gonna try that partial 30-rep TUT thing for my biceps with a heavy load (but will still leave a set of proper full ROM movement after).
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Yes, but with a note: per my limited personal experience, the increase may only be equally substantial when the full ROM is also being trained ("may" is simply because this is the only setup I tried for a given exercise). I trained partials first, full ROM second during the same workout, but I wouldn't completely exclude the possibility that timing doesn't matter as long as both are trained.
I've also experienced a corresponding DL single increase without ever training it since June'12 (max RDL was 120x4 back then). Deads are thought to be at ~80% of rack pull loads. My 175 racks and 140 deads ratio is exactly 80%.
p.s.: rack pulls are practically just the upper portion of a DL movement, depends on how you do rack pulls / deads, really.
I've also experienced a corresponding DL single increase without ever training it since June'12 (max RDL was 120x4 back then). Deads are thought to be at ~80% of rack pull loads. My 175 racks and 140 deads ratio is exactly 80%.
p.s.: rack pulls are practically just the upper portion of a DL movement, depends on how you do rack pulls / deads, really.
Last edited:
In the "old days", we used to do an exercise involving partials called "21's" for biceps. We would first do 7 reps of full range curls, then 7 reps of the bottom 50% of the curl range and finally 7 reps of just the top 50% of the curl range. All non-stop. One set was all you could manage because of the lactic acid build up. Doing it on a preacher curl machine could bring tears to your eyes. A very efficient exercise when time is short and they seemed to help increase our strict curl rep maximums but were actually used primarily for hypertrophy. For unknown reasons we never seemed to perform 21's on anything but biceps.
Last edited by a moderator:
gbglifter
Member
I used to do 21´s for biceps too.
