Question for Christian, and all others:
What does everyone think of the “time under tension” concept?
Must you do a repetition and take :40 to :70 seconds in order to make it as productive as possible? Or, is this concept overblown?
Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts!
I don’t think TUT completly determines the training effect, but i think it has its place in hypertrophy training.
I believe it can be used effectively. But i wouldn’t stand behind it and say in order to build size, you must have a TUT of 42 seconds per set.
If you’ve never worried about tempo and you’re doing any kind of bbing program, focusing on tempo will yield results. It shouldn’t be ignored.
However, if you’re doing powerlifting or something similar, then tempo per se really doesn’t matter.
i think tut is just like any other training technique, it is something that needs to be periodized to get the best effect.
I am beginning a study in the near future that will address this question as well as the usefulness of eccentric training protocols. I’ll keep you posted.
I notice when I make it a point to stick to set tempos…I see better results in term of hypertrophy, but like Char-dawg said…if you’re concentrating on speed or explosive work, than obviously TUT doesn’t come into play as much. It has it’s place in the grand scheme of things. Just depends on what your specific goals are.
To me, you should always lift the weight as fast as possible WHILE MAINTAINING perfect form.
It does seem like the science is behind TUT’. However, I have seen many very successful bodybuilders who do what CMC states in his post: “Lift the weight as fast as possible with perfect form”.
Would these same bodybuilders be even more successful using TUT? Perhaps the answer is to periodize as P-Dog suggests.
Thanks to all posters for their opinions. When I have used TUT it has seemed to work for a while. Like most programs as the body adapts you need to change, even if it is slightly.
With the exception of Charles Staley, who prescribes reps within a defined time window, most of the strength gurus I know still vote for a 211 or 21X tempo during strength work, except when using lighter loads for explosive strength (00X or 05X, etc.)
So when you see a guy pumping a huge weight up and down rapidly for 5 sets of 5 (really using the SSC), the dominant opinion among the experts is that doesn’t seem to be as effective for strength as 5 sets of 2 reps at 21X for the same load.
Brian,
Yes, Staley claims the following:
TUT
1-20 seconds, Speed strength/Maximal strength.
20-40 seconds, Maximal strength and hypertrophy.
40-70 seconds, Hypertrophy/muscle endurance.
How exactly did he come to these conclusions. Not that I doubt them, but would like to know how he derived this information.
Is this true or Another Scam to sell magazines?
Go to your nearest bridge.
Jump.
[quote]rundymc wrote:
Go to your nearest bridge.
Jump.[/quote]
[quote]rundymc wrote:
Go to your nearest bridge.
Jump.[/quote]
LOL!!! Yes! Very good.
I think it’s but one variable to play with. There will always exist different approaches along certain spectrums (ie. acceleration trainging vs TUT). Both have been used with great success by countless numbers of prominant coaches, athletes, and bodybuilders. Still, in my own opionion, having a muscle under tension that’s not ‘excessive’ in terms of actual stress (ie. physically straining to some degree), simply for a prescribed duration will not yield the results we’re obviously looking for.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think it’s but one variable to play with. There will always exist different approaches along certain spectrums (ie. acceleration trainging vs TUT). Both have been used with great success by countless numbers of prominant coaches, athletes, and bodybuilders. Still, in my own opionion, having a muscle under tension that’s not ‘excessive’ in terms of actual stress (ie. physically straining to some degree), simply for a prescribed duration will not yield the results we’re obviously looking for.
S[/quote]
Save your breath Stu, it was a ridiculous bump on an ancient thread, lol.
I can’t/don’t understand how these random people with like 2-3 posts keep bumping these threads, haha.
Lol, wow, I didn’t even notice… gotta start getting more sleep.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think it’s but one variable to play with. There will always exist different approaches along certain spectrums (ie. acceleration trainging vs TUT). Both have been used with great success by countless numbers of prominant coaches, athletes, and bodybuilders. Still, in my own opionion, having a muscle under tension that’s not ‘excessive’ in terms of actual stress (ie. physically straining to some degree), simply for a prescribed duration will not yield the results we’re obviously looking for.
S[/quote]
Ok so ancient thread lol but an interesting discussion and I’d like to see some of the experienced guys and coaches chime in.
I’m definately not one of those guys but my opinion is similar to stu’s.
One point I would like to make is that I think it is more important how much time under tension you get throughout a workout or even week rather than just x seconds per set.
Its interesting when you look at it like that most effective programs are very similar.
I also think it is definatley reliant on load as well, no point having slow tempo if the weight you have to use is excessivly light.
There might be something to be said for slow tempo high tut as far as improving the vasculature or puting metabolic stress on a muscle but as others have said I think this is only good for short blocks.
[quote]Doyle wrote:
I also think it is definatley reliant on load as well, no point having slow tempo if the weight you have to use is excessivly light.[/quote]
So in other words, it’s a pointless “variable” to be aware of 
IMO, these are the sort of things that distract a person from real progress…
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
So in other words, it’s a pointless “variable” to be aware of
IMO, these are the sort of things that distract a person from real progress…[/quote]
Truth