It is really very simple as regards the time necessary to keep muscles under tension in order to stimulate them.
Weightlifting is an anaerobic endeavor. Many years of empirical evidence shows clearly that full muscular exertion during anaerobic conditions, ie. sprinting, last at most 20 seconds. All have seen all-out 200 meters sprints where all sprinters slow at the conclusion of such an event due to muscular fatigue.
A mixture of anaerobic and aerobic processes are necessary after an anaerobic bursts of exertion. This process is usually referred to as the glycolytic cycle. The general consensus is this takes place primarily after anaerobic exertions until about 3 minutes. Thereafter, oxygen is needed to spin the Krebâs cycle to furnish ATP for further aerobic muscular exertion endeavors.
There is a mixture of fast and slow twitch fibers, therefore necessitating a glycolytic approach to stimulate the most muscle fibers.
A question avoided is variable resistance usage. During a repetition range of motion, the weak range (sticking point) gets hammered, as the stronger ranges of motion are underworked. This is even more true during the eccentric as the Titin moleculeâs elastic properties makes the stronger ranges starved for resistance. Thus the brilliance of Arthur Jonesâ cams for imposing variable resistance. Crammed machines seem ideal for 30/10/30.
So⊠based on all that, what is the optimum TUT?
According to Waterbury and others, 10 - 15 seconds recruits the fast twitch fibers which are not only responsible for strength, but build the most size.
Ah yes, so simple, ha ha .
Scott
Again If that were completely true then power lifter would have more muscle than bodybuilders.
You should check out Brad Schoenfeldâs stuff on this. He was involved in meta analysis of the subject, the conclusion of which there was little difference between rep durations of 0.5 to 8s when training to concentric failure. Interestingly, super slow, i.e. 10s rep came out worse.
More recently he also compared powerlifting style training to bodybuilding style training, i.e. 3 x 10 (90s rest) versus 7 x 3 (3m rest). Results were almost identical. The conclusion being there was no ideal set time under tension for maximum hypertrophy.
I believe the studies. But practical applications seem to show a different outcome.
That seems to be true at the pro level: pro bodybuilders are bigger than the best power lifters. With natural bodybuilders, it seems less obvious. Perhaps considerations other than training protocols account for this difference?
Note that, except for super heavyweight class (i.e., unlimited), power lifters have to limit body weight to the level required to make weight. So they have to become as strong as possible consistent with the amount of muscle mass that fits into their weight class. With bodybuilders, the objective is purely to build as much muscle as possible, limited mainly by the anti-anabolic effect of also needing to be unnaturally lean.
Also, because of the previous point, pro perhaps bodybuilders use more drugs than powerlifters, especially power lifters who might have to undergo drug testing.
I donât see any ⊠and youâre dead-nuts on with the last line. Theres a big difference between changing things up to keep stimulus fresh and over analyzing shit with âscientific studiesâ.
Probably why most people who train these days donât look like they train , they look like they just read about it. When I started training 36 years ago everybody that went to a gym LOOKED like they worked out ⊠even if they werenât into âbodybuildingâ , they looked like they lifted weights.
You canât say thatâs true anymore. I believe itâs due to training becoming so watered-down with trying to make it âacceptable and comfortableâ for the masses in the gym chains. Like anything else, mass market something and it goes straight to hell.
At work the other day the owner noticed I knew the customer and later asked where I knew him from. I told her I saw him in the gym every so often. Her immediate reaction was " The gym ? That skinny guy works out ! ? "
At the championship levels powerlifters are not even tested. They are just as nuts with the drugs. Lol. But I take your point. There is always a question when comparing natural and steroid response. I use them as an example because they are all genetic elite at the top of their game and potential.
Probably depended on the kind of gym you went to. If it was Ballyâs in the 1980âs, there would have been a lot of silly stuff going onâŠ
Assuming pro powerlifters and pro bodybuilders are genetically equal (superior to the average weight trainer) and using the same type and amount drugs , perhaps the bodybuilders just use more volume via higher reps.
Exactly. And higher reps would equate to more time under tension In Most cases
I think the reason why most gym goers donât look like they train at all is a combination of bad muscle building genetics and not training hard enough to produce meaningful results. Building muscle isnât really something that can be done passively unless youâre a generic elite. I think most people just arenât taking things seriously enough.
The optimum TUT improves your training goals
The price of social acceptance as a community, resulted in todayâs variety of gym goers. There has also been a timeshift re what is appreciated/wanted from strength training. Come to think of a similarity with tatoos.
When I started out in the iron game some 30 years ago, you only had hardcore (garage-) gyms to go to, where people had one goal - to build some serious muscle. Bodybuilding was an underground subculture even then, regarded with suspicion. Not without some truth in it, as the use of anabolic steroids flooded freely in these circles.
Fast forward til maybe late 90ties or early 00, and youâll notice the widespread growth of several gym chains - offering bread and spectacle for the masses. Most people not even interested in building muscle. The current ideal seem to be a lightweight fit version of an upper body? (And they even take small amounts of steroids to get there).
Something is wrong, but not that Iâm complaining. Each to his own. The larger gyms was/is better in many aspects (more machines, cleaner area). Also, there is easy accessability to training nowadays. I share the gym with runnerâs, functional trainers, crossfitters and the usual common man (many who just go to the gym for a flicker on the phone). Bodybuilding was - and still is - a minority principle. At least there seem to be greater acceptance for it today (if you donât get too big, that is).
My personal observation is that itâs virtually impossible to get too big, unless enhanced. I can even recall some photos of Arnold described as un-enhanced where he looked more normal.
Blockquote
Yeah, that was my point. Guys used to go to the gym because they wanted to build muscle ⊠a lot if not most today are going as a social thing. Have to say that the hardest people I see resistance training except for a few guys are the women. Rarely see them using bad form, not consumed with doing singles and triples with too much weight and use the phones less than the guys.
Thanks!
Personally I do not believe eccentrics are total answers in any form. Eccentrics cause muscle damage, involve the as-of-now untrainable elastic functionality of the molecule Titin, and use less ATP, thereby decreasing the cardiovascular training effect. Most powelifters and Olympic lifters now currently eschew eccentrics altogether.
Variable resistance is what the âMasterâ Arthur Jones decreed as setting Nautilus machines apart as the creme de la creme of exercise machines, ie. the Nautilus cam. This cam effect has never been fully studied, but I think untold strength gains along with size gains could be had by this phenomenon.
Arthur Jones started this variable resistance, as Pete Sisco used the Power Factor. SuperSlow thought they had answers to variable resistance with fall-off cams, but alas we are still stuck at the barbell. Old Dr. Ziegler was right about many things, including isometronic training.
Thank you for reading the 1st line!
Power lifters train the anaerobic alactic phosphagen system. The need not train the glycolytic system at all, along with the accompanying slow twitch muscle fibers.
Bodybuilding needs all the muscle fibers one can muster. Therefore, the glycolytic process would engage the fast twitch and slow twitch fibers enabling extra muscle mass and blood vessels. This training modality leads to poor athletic endeavors, and thus is highly disfavored training method among strength and conditioning coaches. It is really all too simple. S.A.I.D.