Gregg Gillies - Why Everyone Is Wrong About Reps!

[webmaster]

There are some problems with this general thinking. First, muscles don't count reps, so these numbers could be completely different for someone who takes 10 seconds to complete one rep, compared to someone who takes 2 seconds for each rep.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/greg8.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

so are u saying we should count how long it takes to do the set ..and not count the reps??
...crazy, ill try it though

[str8flexed]

it's all about the time the muscle is under the tension, and of course the amount of tension placed on it.

[lucubration]

Originally posted by Unregistered
so are u saying we should count how long it takes to do the set ..and not count the reps??
...crazy, ill try it though

He's not saying that; merely that time under load be taken into consideration as an important factor/variable.

[Arihant]

Good article

Interesting article. There are various opinions on this. Charles Poliquin, arguably the world's most successful strength coach, believes TUT is a very important factor in muscle building, but some of the young gurus such as Chad Waterbury believe it has no relation to muscle growth. He likes short powerlifting type sets, and believes if you do enough of them you will grow.
What's the truth?

[Tyciol]

Originally Posted by deanosumo

Interesting article. There are various opinions on this. Charles Poliquin, arguably the world's most successful strength coach, believes TUT is a very important factor in muscle building, but some of the young gurus such as Chad Waterbury believe it has no relation to muscle growth. He likes short powerlifting type sets, and believes if you do enough of them you will grow.
What's the truth?

The truth is there's no conflict here, Chad Waterbury's preference for less reps translates to a preference for less TUT with more resistance (or more training sessions through more frequent sets/training days. It doesn't change that measuring his high-weight sets with TUT instead of reps would work just as well.

The only difference is, you still need to do at least one rep so it will hit the muscle throughout the motion that you're targetting. If you're changing a 20-rep exercise that takes 80 seconds (4 seconds a rep) into a 5 rep exercise in the same time (16 seconds a rep) then it isn't too complicated. On the other hand, if you're only doing something like 5 reps, it's harder to figure the TUT and to do less reps with it so that it's even throughout.

Another difference with comparing rep counts to TUT counts is the varying portions of the exercise. Rep counts can emphasize more on concentric by nearly dropping the weight on the way down (not something I like, but a lot of people do it with deadlifts). Slower lifting also means you can't utilize the stretch reflex to push out of the hole. Slower reps also mean you won't be as explosive, though you'll probably have better static holds throughout than a momentum lifter.

[lucubration]

Originally posted by deanosumo
Interesting article. There are various opinions on this. Charles Poliquin, arguably the world's most successful strength coach, believes TUT is a very important factor in muscle building, but some of the young gurus such as Chad Waterbury believe it has no relation to muscle growth. He likes short powerlifting type sets, and believes if you do enough of them you will grow.
What's the truth?

The truth is imo, whatever works for YOU.

[str8flexed]

Originally posted by deanosumo
Interesting article. There are various opinions on this. Charles Poliquin, arguably the world's most successful strength coach, believes TUT is a very important factor in muscle building, but some of the young gurus such as Chad Waterbury believe it has no relation to muscle growth. He likes short powerlifting type sets, and believes if you do enough of them you will grow.
What's the truth?

well in a round about way... if you do many short powerlifting sets you are increasing TUT (many short sets= time under tension of a few higher rep sets)

-Layne

[JamesBarlow]

Originally posted by str8flexed
it's all about the time the muscle is under the tension, and of course the amount of tension placed on it.

Taken to an extreme, TUT can be sent through the roof with something like Static Contraction Training.

Most here, I think youself included, don't think this is good or effective method of training.

Is there a middle ground between TUT and work performed we should be shooting for?

[str8flexed]

I think if you are going for pure hypertophy you need to use all rep ranges between 2 and 20 in order to maximize the benefits of each.

For example, for quads something like

Squats
1st set- 2-5 reps
2nd set-2-5 reps
3rd set- 4-6 reps

hack squat
1st set- 5-8 reps
2nd set- 6-10 reps

leg extension
1st set- 9-12 reps
2nd set- 12-20 reps

I would use isolation exercises for the longer TUT sets as with 20 rep compound exercises such as squats, you will tend to tire out before your muscles approach their maximum level of fatigue due to a very high oxygen debt.

-Layne

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by webmaster
There are some problems with this general thinking. First, muscles don't count reps, so these numbers could be completely different for someone who takes 10 seconds to complete one rep, compared to someone who takes 2 seconds for each rep.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/greg8.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

I agree, and have been doing this since I started training. Actually I read that you should lift the weight as fast as possible, which shouldn't be very fast (longer than 2-4 seconds), or the weight you are using is too light.

Generally I stay in the 6-10 rep range for most muscle groups, and the TUL is around 45-60 seconds. I might perform the early reps a little faster, and the later reps a little slower. That last rep can take 10 seconds or more to complete (for me).

I have never understood or saw any reason in (what I refer to as) "The Flapping Method". You are not trying to fly, and I've never understood the high-rep speed. Not only is in ineffective, but it encourages poor form.

I say, good article.

[jmack93]

Originally posted by JamesBarlow
Taken to an extreme, TUT can be sent through the roof with something like Static Contraction Training.

Most here, I think youself included, don't think this is good or effective method of training.

Is there a middle ground between TUT and work performed we should be shooting for?

Yeah, notice that wherever Mike Mentzer gets mentioned, Static Contraction comes up...

TUT is exactly what SCT aims and measures for. But check out Maximum Contraction Training. Mentzer, and later John Little, realized that to stimulate the most fibers in a muscle, it needs to have maximally contracted - only in this position will all fibers have contracted, and therefore will bear some of the load and get stimulated to grow. This is *similar* to the "strong-range" recommendation of SCT and PFT, but different in implications for exercises like lat pulldowns.

What's interesting about MCT, in contrast with this article, is Little has found that you can stimulate growth with a max contraction of as little as 1 to 6 seconds. He does recommend beginners start out in the 60 second range, and then progressively decrease hold times and increase load. But it makes me wonder, would holding less weight for 50 to 90 seconds (as the article would imply to do) stimulate more or less growth than holding more weight for 1 to 6 seconds?

In my experience, I'd say it depends somewhat on conditioning, but nonetheless, I don't know if comparitive studies have been done.

What I do know is that muscle only grows from overload by sufficient intensity, and that the muscle could care less about whether you're taking advantage of leverage or using synergists. So to get the most overall overload from the least absolute load, you should use isolation movements with loads sufficient to overload the muscle at its maximally contracted point in a short period of time, whether that's 1 second or 90. This reduces the assitance from synergists, stimulates as many fibers as possible as much as possible in as short as possible.

Beyond that you're doing nothing but burning calories and begging for cumulative CNS fatigue, as far as I know.

[Tyciol]

Originally Posted by jmack93

TUT is exactly what SCT aims and measures for.

While TUT is measured (since you can't really have reps with isometrics), high TUTs don't seem to be the goal, more like, something you hit to keep duration constant press to press, so you can up the weight.

Originally Posted by jmack93

But check out Maximum Contraction Training. Mentzer, and later John Little, realized that to stimulate the most fibers in a muscle, it needs to have maximally contracted - only in this position will all fibers have contracted, and therefore will bear some of the load and get stimulated to grow. This is *similar* to the "strong-range" recommendation of SCT and PFT, but different in implications for exercises like lat pulldowns.

The theory does seem quite solid. What is optimal still something to think about though. For example, MCT leg extension versus full RoM leg extension. While MCT certainly places more stress on tissues recruited at the top, using a larger RoM would prefentially hypertrophy the muscles that can be used in the quadricep's stretched position. I'd think that would also be a valuable thing to train, as we can not always be in a stretched position. In terms of usable strength, moving through space teaches the muscles to be able to contract through various fibril overlaps, and teaches the muscle how to continue contracting while switching between them. Pavel Tsatsouline has sort of an opposite thing, 'loaded stretching', where the muscle is stressed primarily in it's stretched position. I can't remember what the purpose of it was, possibly safety to avoid damage from ballistic stretches.

In comparing SCT with MCT, I really don't see why MCT would build more muscle than SCT. The difference is, SCT uses movements where you bear weight on the bones. MCT uses movements that take bone-bearing as much out of the equation as possible. Because of this, SCT would require a lot more resistance to stimulate muscle on the same level, ie, you will always leg press more than you leg curl. Assuming equal levels of muscular stimulation in the quadriceps, I'm thinking that the leg press, due to bearing a lot of weight on the bone, would be more beneficial for training for bone density increases.

In terms of fibre stimulation, there would be some differences due to the nature and leverage of the exercise, but since SCT uses the strongest position, it tends to be quite close to max-contraction anyway (though not fully, since it avoids going to lockout. At lockout in SCT exercises the muscular exertion would decrease since nearly all is supported by bone, whereas in MCT due to leverage, the force is perpendicular to the bone.

In describing this I'm only picturing pushing exercises. Actually, I'm pretty sure in pulling exercises that SCT and MCT would be exactly the same, since pulling exercises do not utilize the skeleton to bear weight, they are purely muscle. Since in pulling you are in effect, resisting forces from pulling your skeleton apart, they'd seem ligament-dominant, if anything.

Some of the negative things regarding the knee joint in leg-extension also worry me about it's incorporation into MCT. Those reports about knee damage might be exclusive to full-ROM leg extensions though, as they weren't done at the top using the MCT method, so consulting an expert would be could to alleviate those fears.

Originally Posted by jmack93

What's interesting about MCT, in contrast with this article, is Little has found that you can stimulate growth with a max contraction of as little as 1 to 6 seconds. He does recommend beginners start out in the 60 second range, and then progressively decrease hold times and increase load. But it makes me wonder, would holding less weight for 50 to 90 seconds (as the article would imply to do) stimulate more or less growth than holding more weight for 1 to 6 seconds?

In my experience, I'd say it depends somewhat on conditioning, but nonetheless, I don't know if comparitive studies have been done.

What I do know is that muscle only grows from overload by sufficient intensity, and that the muscle could care less about whether you're taking advantage of leverage or using synergists. So to get the most overall overload from the least absolute load, you should use isolation movements with loads sufficient to overload the muscle at its maximally contracted point in a short period of time, whether that's 1 second or 90. This reduces the assitance from synergists, stimulates as many fibers as possible as much as possible in as short as possible.

Beyond that you're doing nothing but burning calories and begging for cumulative CNS fatigue, as far as I know.

I would think that lower-duration exercises (with less intensity) would cause hypertrophy more in the slow-twitch fibres (along with possible increases in size due to sarcoplasm expansion, and glycogen storage increase, if that can occur) whereas lower-duration higher-intensity would cause more hypertrophy in the fast-twitch fibres.

What causes better hypertrophy would vary based on genes and current fibre composition. Ideally training both is good, though some prefer to limit overall hypertrophy by focusing exclusively on gains gained through one form of training (usually strength training) to gain that attribute without the work required for and bulk resulting from training emphasized on the opposite of the spectrum.

[user178944]

hmm wow

good find/post