I think an issue that should be raised is also workout TUT, meaning how long was your muscle under tension in the time frame of your workout. 10 sets of a 5sec TUT may have a different effect that 2 sets of 25 sec TUT. I don’t know how or what importance that difference may bring though. Thoughts?
And also what if your sets had low TUT but you had so much volume of sets that your total TUT for the workout was quite high?
If we look to bodybuilders it seems as though their fast reps recruit a lot of motor units and their moderate to high reps 8-15 have a moderate amount of TUT. But their high volume of sets bumps that total TUT up for the workout.
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
That IS a tut issue. A rep issue is also a tut issue.
That is more increased density of a workout i think… say 4, 5 or 6 sets condensed into one with minimal break, only reducing the weight as the rest is so short it fails to replenish energy systems.
Increased tut? not really… same work in less time? density.
What you reckon?[/quote]
You could be right; for example, one could do sets of only 2 reps really heavy; and rest, do another set of 2 reps really heavy, rest, and keep going for however many sets one wanted in the heavy 2 rep range. Then, if one wanted to do mass sets of like 8 reps in the same routine; one would have to start all over again and do those sets as additional individual sets with resting again between each set. Obviously, this would take a long time.
However, like you are sort of hinting at; strip sets sort of combines all of these into one set; thus saving a lot more time by increasing the work density.
Never really thought about it before; but you do have a good point with the density factor and strip sets.
I’d be more inclined to pick a tempo you feel comfortable with and simply work on weight and rep progression. Trying to monitor rep tempo seems like a great way to distract yourself from putting in maximum effort. Thereby possibly limiting your progress.
I like rest-pause, warm up a whole bunch, then go heavy. Can’t go wrong there.
I think there is something to be said about when you “feel” a muscles has been worked enough with regard to tut or reps. I think this can vary a lot from person to person as well as what stage of training one might be at. I know for me, i can sort a tell when a muscle needs a little more or maybe not more without looking at the clock.
I have had days where 5 reps a set (doing a total of 5 sets) for bench was more than enough; however, today for example, that just didnt feel like enough so i did some strip sets. Had nothing to do with the clock or tut; i just felt good and felt like my chest needed more work.
I think the TUT junk has got to be the most sensless over used piece of confusion since “toning”
You cant quantify tension based on time. Its as simple as that.
Think of this.
If a set has a TUT of 60 seconds with 100lbs
And another set has a TUT of 60 seconds with 110lbs, then both have the same TUT but the second set has a much greater total tension.
You are likely to be able to produce nearly the same amount of total tension, if not much more by ignoring TUT all together. Think of tension as amount of tension per minute. If a set of 5 done explosively takes 15 seconds, then the amount of tension per minute would be 4 times this amount. Sure these are all arbitrary numbers because there is no way of quantifying tension, but thats just the point.
Even more useless than looking at total TUT is looking at tempo for an individual rep with TUT in mind. Numbers like 401 or whatever people prescribe only limit the “max tension” you can reach, and take away from the set itself. If your able to do 6 reps in 60 seconds, why not just do the reps faster and peform 20 reps done explosively in 60 seconds. You’ll create much more tension, and have the same TUT.
Its really a sensless topic.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
A while back I tried lifting for a timed set, meaning i didn’t worry about reps just lift for 60 seconds.
Some points I cam away from it
-
It is almost impossible to accelerate reps throught the entire 60 seconds, its not going to happen by the end my reps became very slow
-
the load needed is ridiculously low like 25%-30% of 1rm possibly because I was still trying to keep a piston like motion I guess if you wanted to start off with a slower motion throughout you could handle a little more load.
-
I could only do 2 working sets per muscle group like this, they took a whole lot out of me.
-
I don’t know if its a great training modality as your bread and butter, but they remind me a bit of a century set and could be used like one. See Thib’s HSS-100 for ways how. [/quote]
I quite often time my clients sets instead of counting reps. It allows the females to work in a harder/more intense range and think they are getting it easy as i drop them down to 30 seconds work from 60!!
The load is normal, but it is tempting to train for upto 2 mins, which is of course 30% or so of 1RM. But if you fail in 20-30 seconds, you got a decant 6-10 rep set there, especially if you have the client using a pretty slow tempo (usually the case - always fast on the conc. tho!)
I think your trouble was simply that you chose 60 secs, which is quite defifitely a musc. endurance/toning set.
Joe
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
And also what if your sets had low TUT but you had so much volume of sets that your total TUT for the workout was quite high?
If we look to bodybuilders it seems as though their fast reps recruit a lot of motor units and their moderate to high reps 8-15 have a moderate amount of TUT. But their high volume of sets bumps that total TUT up for the workout.[/quote]
Yeah!! great point! Maybe that is why my fast(ish) sets actually have a hypertrophic effect, as i do like a high volume of work.
So i wonder, if this is the case, if one uses the basic hypertrophy template of 8-12 reps/40-60 secs then what volume should acompany that to provide the optimum response.
And viceversa… so i wonder what to TOTAL TUT is supposed to be per exercise or more interestingly, per body part??
Is that even feasable?
Joe
[quote]ds77 wrote:
Joe Joseph wrote:
That IS a tut issue. A rep issue is also a tut issue.
That is more increased density of a workout i think… say 4, 5 or 6 sets condensed into one with minimal break, only reducing the weight as the rest is so short it fails to replenish energy systems.
Increased tut? not really… same work in less time? density.
What you reckon?
You could be right; for example, one could do sets of only 2 reps really heavy; and rest, do another set of 2 reps really heavy, rest, and keep going for however many sets one wanted in the heavy 2 rep range. Then, if one wanted to do mass sets of like 8 reps in the same routine; one would have to start all over again and do those sets as additional individual sets with resting again between each set. Obviously, this would take a long time.
However, like you are sort of hinting at; strip sets sort of combines all of these into one set; thus saving a lot more time by increasing the work density.
Never really thought about it before; but you do have a good point with the density factor and strip sets.
[/quote]
Well, thats the premise behind the 8x3 or 10x3 protocols, that strength ranges can produce a hypertrophic response IF the volume is high enough, CW says that the total number of reps of 24 is the optimal for growth whether that is 8x3 or 3x8.
Maybe so, but then what TUT does that correlate with? CW, if you want - chime in at anytime!
Joe
[quote]dankid wrote:
I think the TUT junk has got to be the most sensless over used piece of confusion since “toning”
You cant quantify tension based on time. Its as simple as that.
Think of this.
If a set has a TUT of 60 seconds with 100lbs
And another set has a TUT of 60 seconds with 110lbs, then both have the same TUT but the second set has a much greater total tension.
You are likely to be able to produce nearly the same amount of total tension, if not much more by ignoring TUT all together. Think of tension as amount of tension per minute. If a set of 5 done explosively takes 15 seconds, then the amount of tension per minute would be 4 times this amount. Sure these are all arbitrary numbers because there is no way of quantifying tension, but thats just the point.
Even more useless than looking at total TUT is looking at tempo for an individual rep with TUT in mind. Numbers like 401 or whatever people prescribe only limit the “max tension” you can reach, and take away from the set itself. If your able to do 6 reps in 60 seconds, why not just do the reps faster and peform 20 reps done explosively in 60 seconds. You’ll create much more tension, and have the same TUT.
Its really a sensless topic.[/quote]
All you are doing is agreeing with the point. TUT IS useless when viewed as a specific goal. As we see athletes like Dave Tate have fantastic hypertrophy responses with a very low (compared to generic standards) tut.
Whether the current tut is wrong or not (we seen to agree it is - and may be more a question of bodypart total time under tension to create a response) - i think it is ridiculous to claim that there is nothing to the tut theory, and that it is useless. I think it is well known that tension is important and the length of time that tension lasts is important. Thus why dante’s sets are quite so effective. A massively increased tension over time.
You however, may hold whatever view you like, but your feeble attempt to rubbish this whole thread followed by (*corrected)“Its really a *senseless topic.” really does make you seem like an ignored, spoiled kid.
If you deem this topic “senseless” then that is your prerogative, move along there is nothing to see here.
Thanks to everyone so far who has debated this question, it has been very informative and interesting, and you never know - if we find the specific ranges that a muscle needs to be under tension and for what time, ie. what times the whole muscle needs to be subjscted to varying tensions (2 mins at 80%1RM/360secs @87%1RM) - then we may just be able to find the specific tut that begins the hypertrophy process.
FN. It is not about tempo! it is about the time the muscle is under tension in total. Whether that is counted or not, it is still a fact… 
Joe
You’ll never find evidence as to the “perfect TUT”. That would be like finding a magic set/rep scheme that makes people big. Everyone is different, and all methods have their benefits if applied correctly.
Sure lifting near maximal weights only will not make you huge, ex. o-lifters, but combine this heavy lifting with more moderate reps, and even higher reps, and your covering all your bases.
My point about it being a sensless topic, is that you’ll never evidence to show that 2 minutes at 80% is optimal or 3 minutes at 70%. And if you do, this evidence will be short lived, because someone will find that 1 minute at 90% is “optimal”.
Lifting at different speeds, with different TUT’s has its place in all training plans. But for the most part, the key is to lift heavier weights more times. If extended sets, or pausing at the bottom of a rep leads to increases in poundages or workload then do it. If it merely gives you a burn, but doesn’t improve your lifts, then its likely a waste of time, or less than optimal at best.
Just the thoughts of a spoiled kid, LOL
lol! I think you may have fnished my thread with that!
I was just daydreaming - hoping i could come up with the holy grail i guess!!
You took it well, i appreciate that.
I think you are right, tut DOES have a place in exercise science, i do not think tempo does necessarily when it somes to counting… but i think it is necessary to vary the eccentric/conc. or pauses.
Maybe the holy grail is that variation is key… trouble is, i am bored with that one now - i want something different!! j/k!
You ARE right, the key is to lift heavier weight more times. And DC’s rest/pause allows the trainee to do that… then there is density, volume, intensity, AND tut!
I am still interested in this topic in that - i count my volume, under the exercise at the end of the day, i multiply the reps by the mean weight for an exercise and write the sum.
This allows me to have a solid volume/total weight lifted number that i have to beat for the next time, and allows me to work out what the minimum number of reps i need to achieve with a higher weight would need to be.
This is a variation on tut… not counting the total tension and total time the tension is in effect, but counting the amount of weight liften in its entirety for that particular exercise. It is useful to count one’s work, whether that is weight, volume, tut… and i want to find the common factor for at least one of those.
I mean, HOW did CW come up with that number of 24 wtotal reps for an exercise? Did he just pluck it ut of the air? From what i have read i think he has.
Here is a great link that got me started counting my volume/work completed.
The first point in the article is interesting in the volume/tut thing with his choice of total reps (where did that number come from?)
And the second point is the volme equations and is really good, interesting, accurate and useful. I use it even when doing max effort work.
http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/4_guaranteed_tips&cr=
Joe
I think total TUT is more important than set TUT when it comes to hypertrophy. Set TUT has more of an effect on strength.
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
(Remember i am always coming from a hypertrophy standpoint, not gaining strength)
I agree goya… that was the point of the thread… to see how much people use-or rate TUT methods. I mean, time under tension is better the longer it is, if all weights were created equal… but they are not.
So is it better to lift heavier(80%1RM+) for a shorter time than lighter(75%1RM-) for a longer time?
I would go with heavier… to a degree…
I am currently doing a strength program (sorry dc!) ill show you back thickness day.
Deads x6; 1-3 reps.
Rack pulls x4; 3-6 reps
DB Rows x3; 4-8 reps
T Bar Row x2; 6-9 reps.
Barbell Curls x3; 6-9 reps
Hammer Curls x3; 6-9 reps
So i didnt get a pump until DB Rows.
I did chest today, a much easier muscle to pump… no pump until the 3rd exercise (same layout, less sets).
So IS heavier for a shorter time better regardless, or is heavier for the longest time the best, a-la DC style rest/pause. You’d think heavier for the longest time - OBVIOUSLY!
BUT what about Tate? He lost the fat, and has a phenomenal body under there! He is a powerlifter. LOW LOW TUT, Heavy arse weights… Maybe my/our chase of the pump is a bit fucking pointless. What do you think Mr Tate?
I begun DC recently and i loved it, but due to changing goals and a new found love of strength PR’s i changed it before i could assess it at all… so i will be doing this strength/hypertrophy hybrid for quite some time and i hope to make some muscular gains from it - especially as i am gonna be blowing up in strength!!
Low to low/medium TUT, but high high intensity.
Also, when i say TUT i do not mean tempo. I mean the total time the weight is lifted up and down for the duration of a set, so i dont necessarily mean timing the rep speed - that was just for an example - all i mean is, do any of you believe that a muscle hypertrophies in a certain total time the muscle is under tension? ie. 40 - 60 seconds.
I dont think it is up for debate that TUT is a fact and IS a variable… but is it the be all and end all, and what ARE the TUT times?!
Joe[/quote]
Not really important but Dave Tate once trained and competed as a bodybuilder, he did this because he thought he needed more muscle to get his becnh over 500.
But who says heavy weights can’t cause muscle growth, heavier weights cause a higher rate of protein degradation than lighter weight but it can’t be sustained for as long.
If you train to get stronger you’ll be able to lift more weight, more weight means more protein degradation no matter the amount of reps you do, I believe the fastest wy to get stronger is through lower reps. I’ll usually use extremely low reps for my main movement and low to moderate volume for my supplemental and accessory work.
And lets not forget food if you’re lifting with enough intensity to cause a large muscle breakdown then you need food to repair it and make the muscle bigger.
I think the only thing TUT affects is work done by the muscle, if you slow down your tempo you make the set harder for the muscle but, it seems like it would just be better to add weight or reps instead of slowing down the tempo.
Side note: I’m still rather new to this so take what I say with a grain of salt. I also consider myself more of s atrength trainer than a bodybuilder.
Joe, im kinda like you. I like to figure out how things work.
You could always turn yourself into a guinea pig.
Important things to think of might be:
1.) Total TUT (concentric, isometric, eccentric) This is probably why people started the whole tempo thing.
2.) If total TUT is the main question, do you agree that lifting 10 lbs in 10 seconds, and 10lbs in 1 second are probably similar amounts of total tension, if anything the 1 second will have more tension. More force = more tension.
3.) Thus it might be good to look at tension density. How quickly your accumulating max tension.
- Which might get you back to quantifying tension, by density training.
5.) Enter EDT, and CW type training.
The main thing is you gotta keep weights between 50-100% for changes, really 65-95% would be better. Anything in this range will yield results if the optimal speed, and volume are used.