Naturalman, i think the best reason for using tempo descriptions is comparison. If i do a bench press with 300lbs on a 5/1/1/1 tempo, it is obviously different than if i had done it on a 1/0/4/1 tempo. You cant accurately track your progress if your tempos are all different.
sig, I’m sure what your point was. Goldberg, how about the fact that you have lifted more weight or done more reps? I’ve searched around for awhile now, and the more I do the more I feel like tempo is one variable to dismiss.
Naturalman, you missed my point. If you did more reps with a faster tempo than you did last time, did you really do more work. Now if you keep everything else constant, and then increase the reps youve done something. I can only do 225 for about 12 reps on a 5/0/1 tempo, but if i increase my tempo i can easily get 20. so did i do more work because i went faster. I dont think so. I actually think i did more work going slower cause because the tension was greater. And i didnt use momentum to lift the weight. which is easy to do if you dont have a set tempo.
“If you did more reps with a faster tempo than you did last time, did you really do more work.” I think you just answered that. You not moved the weight faster, but you were able to do more reps. How do you get more tension with purposefully slow tempos? Attempting to move the weight quickly (despite actual speed of the bar) recruits more muscle fibers. Fibers contract or don’t. You can only recruit more fibers at once and/or summation. by purposefully slowing down the rep you are forced to use a rather suboptimal weight relative to the rep goal. This eguals less recruitment of fibers. Also, if your distracting yourself by counting tempo. How can you totally apply all your energy to the work at hand. I think what you meant to say is that the goal of counting tempo is to increase the time under tension into a specific energy system range. But, that still seems like a less desirable to way to do so.
naturalman - i don’t use the tempo method either, but from what i understand its’ rationale is two-fold. 1) it is an attempt at measuring the muscle’s total time under tension (i guess the longer the tempo when performing negatives the more benefit you get out of it). 2) it is an attempt at quantifying the amount of work being performed. the theory being that as long as your training is adequate and your diet is in order you should be stronger every time you return to the gym. your strength gain might not manifest itself right away with the adding of more weight, rather in your ability to push the same weight around more efficiently; therefore generating more total muscular output. an example is that a muscle operating at full capacity that can perform 3x10x120lbs. in 10 minutes is stronger than the same muscle operating at full capacity when performing 3x10x120lbs. in 15 minutes. i think a book was written about this type of training (power factor training?). i never really subscribed to this as it seemed to be too much of a hassle, and i was making too much progress with my training regimine at the time to ditch it for something new.
“If you did more reps with a faster tempo than you did last time, did you really do more work” Don’t you see the problem with that? Let’s say the first workout you did a set of ten while not counting tempo. Then, the next workout you found that you now are able to move the bar faster and do more reps. You would call that less work, I’d call it progress and add some more weight to bring the reps back down to ten.
I dont think we’re on the same page. I too do my concentric reps as fast as possible. Most of my reps are 5/0/1, 4/0/1, or 3/0/1. But if i do more reps on a 3/0/1 than on a 4/0/1 did i really get stronger. Maybe i did, maybe i didnt. But if i do more reps with the same tempo, then thats something i can hang my hat on. All your doing is controlling variables. If you dont control your variables, you cant trouble shoot your routine, diet, supplements, etc. And it doenst take too much energy to count my tempo. All i do is count 1 steamboat, 2 steamboat… in my head. Ive been doing it so long that its no longer something i even think about.
“1) it is an attempt at measuring the muscle’s total time under tension (i guess the longer the tempo when performing negatives the more benefit you get out of it). 2) it is an attempt at quantifying the amount of work being performed” If you want to to increase the time under tension, why do it with suboptimal loads? Why move a weight slowly thus recruiting less fibers, while trying to reach the coveted 20-70 second mark? Instead use the heaviest weight you can in good form and do as many reps as it takes to reach that TUT goal. And, no the two approaches won’t have the same effect. One benifit is that you get to focus much more on the work at hand; instead, of counting seconds off while checking and adjusting your speed during a rep to fit some tempo scheme. Not to mention that your nervous system will recruit more fibers. It what science shows that The TUT of a set is more important than than the TUT of the entire bodypart session? I would look again at Charely Staley “Thinking Man’s guide to sets and reps.” His article is refrenced with alot of science.
Oh ok Goldberg. Yeah, that does sound right now. I still don’t count negatives though. Instead, I just make sure to come down tight and never feel like I’m having to catch the bar before reversing. Unless of course I’m doing a power clean or something like that. Yeah, it’s not the tempo counting of the negative that concerns me so much as the counting of the concentric. Do you sometimes train the negative in a ballistic fashion?
John,
I am not really familiar with most of Mentzer’s works. What I wrote came mostly from memory. I did, however, scan his site when I read about his death.
I wrote what I wrote because I believe in taking what is useful and discarding the rest - not only with bodybuilding theories (and that’s what most of 'em are: THEORIES) but with most things in life. Mentzer’s stuff worked for some. Who cares (I certainly don’t) if it did not work for others? I have yet to find any relatively serious bodybuilder who is not STILL searching for the magic formula (which, btw, is different for everybody!) If Mike’s ideas provoked even one person to experiment and think for themselves, he was a success. I will quote Gironda again: Results are what count.
As far as your oinions about Ayn Rand. She was a brilliant leader in moral thought. She wrote about liberty and free markets. If you disagree with her, that is okay because she was all for freedom of thought and one's right to a free mind. Mentzer "brainwashed" by someone who stood up for freedom? Are you a socialist intellectual dilettante or something? I think you'll even find Arnold is on the right.
Yours in freedom to choose what you want to say and how you want to say it,
Harpo
Even though I may have slammed his Heavy Duty training system more than a couple times, I had nothing but the utmost respect for Mike Mentzer. ALong with Frank Zane, he was one of the few top guys who really was both intellectual and articulate, squashing the stereotype of the ‘dumb bodybuilder.’ I know that he had his troubles and personal demons, but who among us doesn’t? I hope he finds peace, wherever he may be now.