TUT vs Volume?

[Jdubin94]

So recently, after much research, I've come to the understanding that hypertophy is achieved in the 10-12 rep range whereas strength is targeted more in the low rep range. I do not want to debate this, even if you personally feel otherwise. That said, apparently, the whole 10-12 range, isn't so much about the number of reps in of itself, rather the time under tension that is achieved from this number. I think I've read a few times that to achieve maximum hypertrophy from a set, the set should be at least ~ 40 seconds. Many say that to reach this 40 seconds, slow eccentrics (negatives) should be done.


That said, I'm trying to now gain a deeper understanding of TUT vs Volume. So for example, let's say I was doing an exercise, 3x10. That's a constant. Now for each set, let's say I can do x amount of weight, with slow negatives, for 10 sets, reaching the 40 seconds. But by not doing slow negatives, let's say I could do ~1.3x weight, for 10 reps, but probably in a shorter amount of time. By doing 1.3x weight, I'm effectively doing more volume.

So my question in a nutshell is: Is it really important to achieve that 40 or seconds by doing slow negs, AKA high TUT, or better to have higher volume?

[zGwild]

Don`t worry about TUT.

[health4life24]

If you're trying to build muscle you should be utilizing all rep ranges. That includes all the way down to 1-3 reps. I don't care what people say, training in the 1-3 rep range and as high as 15+ reps is very effective in building muscle. Arnold himself was a big advocate of utilizing ALL rep ranges.

[Jdubin94]

If you're trying to build muscle you should be utilizing all rep ranges. That includes all the way down to 1-3 reps. I don't care what people say, training in the 1-3 rep range and as high as 15+ reps is very effective in building muscle. Arnold himself was a big advocate of utilizing ALL rep ranges.

I didn't really want to debate the rep range topic. Rather, for a rep range that I decide to go with, should I shoot for maximum TUT which would involve slow negatives, or should I shoot for maximum volume?

[Jdubin94]

Don`t worry about TUT.

So for a given rep range, you're advocating maximum volume ?

[zGwild]

Really it depends.

Depends on the whole setup of the program.

With out typing out a whole lecture I cant make it as clear as it needs to be so...

I would have you watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWmc...h6lbxsLcsypuYN

It will show what is most important to least important.

[Grizvok]

Most of what you've read and regurgitated is idiotic at best.

[Jdubin94]

Most of what you've read and regurgitated is idiotic at best.

You sure? Because my info isn't coming solely from some forum member like yourself who apparently thinks they know everything. It's a cumulation of many threads and well cited articles. But you have me curious. What do you think is so idiotic?

[Farley1324]

I didn't really want to debate the rep range topic. Rather, for a rep range that I decide to go with, should I shoot for maximum TUT which would involve slow negatives

Nope

[Grizvok]

You sure? Because my info isn't coming solely from some forum member like yourself who apparently thinks they know everything. It's a cumulation of many threads and well cited articles. But you have me curious. What do you think is so idiotic?

I've read plenty and watched tons of youtube interviews with top minds like Menno, Israetel, Krieger, Schoenfeld, etc and a lot of these concepts and figures you are throwing out as facts have literally NEVER been mentioned.

I also do a lot of reading of certain moderators posts like SuffolkPunch who studies this stuff more than both of us combined, and I can trust his stance on certain things.

To that effect, there is no evidence that slow eccentrics cause more hypertrophy. Does it potentially cause more muscle damage? Absolutely but excess muscle damage isn't really that important and is actually counter-productive in a lot of cases.

TUT is an antiquated notion. What is considerably more important is time under maximal tension as an indicator of growth oftentimes now just called "mechanical tension" which is why strength and hypertrophy are often VERY related because the amount of maximum tension on the muscle tissue is going to continue to increase as you continually get stronger. If you really believe in the concept of simple TUT then why work at weights above say 50% of your 1RM. Simply do super slow reps with light weight and gains galore if you really believe in TUT as the key to muscle hypertrophy.

However that ties into another concept you seem to have incorrect in that there are certain rep schemes (such as 20-25 reps to failure) and techniques like myo-reps that have shown to produce similar hypertrophy to something in the 8-12 rep range.

Progressive overload in general is looking more and more like the ultimate driver of hypertrophy which includes a lot of things like getting stronger and very importantly I think is the increase in overall volume from year to year. I think volume seems to really be a key point after you get past the stage where you are very easily putting weight on the bar from workout to workout and even from week to week. However, volume as it is usually defined is not that amazing (the definition being sets x reps x weight) since JUNK volume is absolutely a thing. By junk volume I mean doing like bench press with 40% of your 1RM for 20 sets of 10 or something dumb. Is your volume going to be relatively high? Sure but that volume is junk and isn't going to drive hypertrophy.

What's more than likely in my opinion given the certain rep range you are discussing is that it allows higher volumes with reasonable intensity levels and even less important hypertrophy drivers like muscle byproduct accumulation are present.

[Jdubin94]

Very informative... I agree that TUT alone isn't the driving factor. Your example of very high reps at low weight makes sense. That ties into what I've read about needing to use at least 70% of IRM to trigger hypertrophy. What I didn't fully understand from your post though is time under maximum/mechanical tension, and how that is far more important that simple total time.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.
For a constant number of reps, Let's say X=load T1= time under concentric tension= (constant) T2=Time under eccentric portion (seconds) , We have:
X(T1) + X(T2) = Y = Resulting hypertrophy

Scenario 1 (slow eccentric): X(T1) +X(3) = Yo
Scenario 2(Normal eccentric, higher load): 1.3X(T1) + X(1) =Y1

Although "resulting hypertrophy" is quite simplified, are you saying that Y1 would be greater than Yo? And if so, is it because the portion of concentric tension/loading plays a much bigger role in hypertrophe than the eccentric portion? To make an anlogy, concentric tension/loading can be viewed as the exams in school where has eccenrtric are homeworks? lol. In other words, you'd much rather do very well(heavier) on the exams(concentric) and poorly on homeworks(eccentric), than moderate on both, because exams have a much higher weight and thus play a much larger role on your overall grade(hypertrophy)?

[IronKrazy]

And I thought I had it bad when overthinking what's best to get to my goals. Jdub, just pick a program and get started dude. If I started with Starting Strength or another similar program that is 5x5 and at the age of 22 I would be a friggin beast by now at the age of 33. Because of how my life was when starting out, having to adjust the programs or schemes I chose and after 1.5 years I was able to squat 315lbs x1 (330lbs x1 with bad form) beltless, deadlift 405lbs beltless and bench 205lbs x1. If I started out young like you, stuck to a proper progression like SS, MadCows/Texas Method etc I can't even imagine what I might be able to hit at this point in time.

Like I say I didn't really have fuk-around-itis but I did have to adjust and adapt to my life to be able to lift. If you have the means, like unlimited time to eat, sleep and lift. Just pick a program and get going. Laying out and figuring out formulas to find short cuts is just an incredible waste of time.

[Jdubin94]

And I thought I had it bad when overthinking what's best to get to my goals. Jdub, just pick a program and get started dude. If I started with Starting Strength or another similar program that is 5x5 and at the age of 22 I would be a friggin beast by now at the age of 33. Because of how my life was when starting out, having to adjust the programs or schemes I chose and after 1.5 years I was able to squat 315lbs x1 (330lbs x1 with bad form) beltless, deadlift 405lbs beltless and bench 205lbs x1. If I started out young like you, stuck to a proper progression like SS, MadCows/Texas Method etc I can't even imagine what I might be able to hit at this point in time.

Like I say I didn't really have fuk-around-itis but I did have to adjust and adapt to my life to be able to lift. If you have the means, like unlimited time to eat, sleep and lift. Just pick a program and get going. Laying out and figuring out formulas to find short cuts is just an incredible waste of time.

I've been lifting for a long time.. Not trying to take short cuts. I'm just trying to hone my knowledge. The use of equations was to see if I understand the concepts correctly. Forgive me, I'm an engineer haha.

[IronKrazy]

Oh chit, ok my bad then lol. Well good luck on your quest for knowledge and finding easier ways for us to grow haha.

[SuffolkPunch]

To quote Dr "squat" Hatfield - it's not time under tension, it's time under maximal tension that counts.

In other words - always move the bar as fast as you can. If you want to increase the total time, you need to increase the weight or number of reps...

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sp...h-press-gains/

[Jdubin94]

To quote Dr "squat" Hatfield - it's not time under tension, it's time under maximal tension that counts.

In other words - always move the bar as fast as you can. If you want to increase the total time, you need to increase the weight or number of reps...

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sp...h-press-gains/

Well look who it is, Grizvok mentioned you haha. How does increasing weight increase time?

I don't really understand time under maximal tension. Can you try to understand my understandin from my previous post and tell me if I'm on the right track?

Also the article that you linked me too is predominantly about velocity of concentric portion. Barely talks about the eccentric portion.

[Farley1324]

I try to keep two things in mind when a topic like TUT comes up

-Work done
-Intensity at which work is done


Deciding to do a rep slow, or really slow, does not result in any additional work being done.

The intensity (defined as %1RM) at which any work is done is a significant factor, with work done at a higher intensity being much more meaningful/stressful than work done at a lower intensity.

[SuffolkPunch]

Well look who it is, Grizvok mentioned you haha. How does increasing weight increase time?

I don't really understand time under maximal tension. Can you try to understand my understandin from my previous post and tell me if I'm on the right track?

The stronger you are the more peak force you can apply to the bar. If you apply maximum possible force available to you, the bar will accelerate (F=ma) at the greatest possible rate. The distance the weight has to travel determines how long it takes to complete the up part of 1 repetition.

Of course increasing the mass will decrease the acceleration and therefore increase the time.

If you deliberately slow the speed of a rep, you are not using peak force, therefore the rep is not comparable with a rep where you are using more force. Hypertrophy is influenced by tension primarily so it's false to add up time spent doing sub maximal repetitions.

[DCSpartan]

Stuff like TUT is great when you are an advanced strength athlete and you want to stimulate more muscle growth without tearing up your joints so much.

Beginners and Intermediate lifters (of which OP and almost all of us are) are better off just increasing load and volume.

[Jdubin94]

I try to keep two things in mind when a topic like TUT comes up

-Work done
-Intensity at which work is done


Deciding to do a rep slow, or really slow, does not result in any additional work being done.

The intensity (defined as %1RM) at which any work is done is a significant factor, with work done at a higher intensity being much more meaningful/stressful than work done at a lower intensity.

Hmm your talk of "work" has sparked the inner physics in me. I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. Work = Force * Distance. For a constant weight on a bar, the force one outputs when lifting it, may not be the same. The faster one accelerates the bar, the more force they are outputing, at least for the concentric portion. So while I do think that if one was to lift that bar at a slower rate, it would cause more damage to the fibers in a way, I guess work done would be the driving factor here.

For the eccentric portion, by doing it slowly, one is doing more work than just dropping it, because you're now applying a force over a distance. However, as I think I'm beginning to understand correctly, the extra work done in this portion, is not as much as the additional work that could have been done in the concentric portion, had we not done a slow concentric. Hence, Time under maximal tenstion.

[Farley1324]

Hmm your talk of "work" has sparked the inner physics in me. I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. Work = Force * Distance. For a constant weight on a bar, the force one outputs when lifting it, may not be the same. The faster one accelerates the bar, the more force they are outputing, at least for the concentric portion. So while I do think that if one was to lift that bar at a slower rate, it would cause more damage to the fibers in a way, I guess work done would be the driving factor here.

For the eccentric portion, by doing it slowly, one is doing more work than just dropping it, because you're now applying a force over a distance. However, as I think I'm beginning to understand correctly, the extra work done in this portion, is not as the additionaly work that could have been done in the concentric portion, had we not done a slow concentric. Hence, Time under maximal tenstion.

You are applying force over the same distance either way. Moving the same load/resistance, the same distance. Power changes, with a faster rep exhibiting more power.

I'm assuming full and equal range of motion for normal speed reps (maximum bar speed with complete control is probably the standard) and intentionally slower reps.

[Jdubin94]

How does that equate to more work being done on a slow rep?

Re-read the 2nd paragraph. I understand that for the concentric, slower does not induce more work.

[Farley1324]

Re-read the 2nd paragraph. I understand that for the concentric, slower does not induce more work.

I edited to get to it

'You are applying force over the same distance either way. Moving the same load/resistance, the same distance. Power changes, with a faster rep exhibiting more power.

I'm assuming full and equal range of motion for normal speed reps (maximum bar speed with complete control is probably the standard) and intentionally slower reps.'


How does moving the same load the same distance, but slower, equate to more work? I don't see time as a variable in the definition of work.

[Jdubin94]

The stronger you are the more peak force you can apply to the bar. If you apply maximum possible force available to you, the bar will accelerate (F=ma) at the greatest possible rate. The distance the weight has to travel determines how long it takes to complete the up part of 1 repetition.

Of course increasing the mass will decrease the acceleration and therefore increase the time.

If you deliberately slow the speed of a rep, you are not using peak force, therefore the rep is not comparable with a rep where you are using more force. Hypertrophy is influenced by tension primarily so it's false to add up time spent doing sub maximal repetitions.

This all makes perfect sense to me. But again, like with the article, this is all in regards to the concentric portion of the lift. What about the eccentric portion?? I think I'm not beginning ot understand it correctly but no one has validated it for me yet haha.

If I'm doing slow eccentrics, that doesn't mean I'm not accelerating the bar as quickly as possible for the concentric portion. Assume I am. But what it does mean is that to achieve a certain number of reps, the loading on the bar would have to be slightly less than if I wasn't doing slow eccentrics. But by lowering the bar slowly, you ARE adding work to your set. But is everyone here essentially saying that the added work from the eccentric portion doesn't amount to the extra work that COULD HAVE been done by adding more weight to the bar, had I not done the slow eccentrics?

[Jdubin94]

I edited to get to it

'You are applying force over the same distance either way. Moving the same load/resistance, the same distance. Power changes, with a faster rep exhibiting more power.

I'm assuming full and equal range of motion for normal speed reps (maximum bar speed with complete control is probably the standard) and intentionally slower reps.'


How does moving the same load the same distance, but slower, equate to more work? I don't see time as a variable in the definition of work.

Work is a function of Force. Force is a function of accerlation. Accerlation is a function of time. When you're going against gravity (i.e concentric) , faster time a:b = more acceleration = more force = more work, for a constant load of course. Now when going with gravity (i.e eccentric), the opposite applies, that is: slower time a:b = more force. Asside from all of the physics terms, it's quite simple. When you lower the bar slowly during the eccentric portion, you're exerting a force to prevent the bar from falling. You're not just letting the weight drop freely. Hence, one is doing work.

That said, I think I'm beginning to understand why work done in the eccentric isn't as impactive as work done in the concentric. But no is yet to validate my reasoning haha.

[SuffolkPunch]

You still have to apply force to control the eccentric portion. Motor units within the muscle will still be firing to achieve that. So metabolic fatigue (which is a component of hypetrophy) will still be accumulated. HOWEVER, actual clinical research into different eccentric protocols have not been very conclusive in their findings. Hence Greg Nuckols' recommendation that the eccentric should be under control but not deliberately slowed (because it might take energy away from doing more coencentric repetitions).

The problem with muscle training is that it doesn't respond linearly to the inputs. You can train for years doing plenty of work but not achieve much muscle growth because you didn't push hard enough to break the body's natural tendancy for homeostasis. Think threshold effects more than dose-response effects. It's likely that eccentric work falls below the threshold of influence for hypertrophy in well trained individuals.

[Farley1324]

You still have to apply force to control the eccentric portion. Motor units within the muscle will still be firing to achieve that. So metabolic fatigue (which is a component of hypetrophy) will still be accumulated. HOWEVER, actual clinical research into different eccentric protocols have not been very conclusive in their findings. Hence Greg Nuckols' recommendation that the eccentric should be under control but not deliberately slowed (because it might take energy away from doing more coencentric repetitions).

The problem with muscle training is that it doesn't respond linearly to the inputs. You can train for years doing plenty of work but not achieve much muscle growth because you didn't push hard enough to break the body's natural tendancy for homeostasis. Think threshold effects more than dose-response effects. It's likely that eccentric work falls below the threshold of influence for hypertrophy in well trained individuals.

Interesting