RANT: R.I.P. Tyrbolift

[W8isGR8]

Then you run into "quality" of TUT. I can't think of one example where TUT itself provides ANY valuable information. Some of worst "size" building exercises have the most TUT. Actually, they tend to (cable isolation exercises, cammed machines). And the best size builders tend to have the LEAST TUT. Shrugs, Rows, Wide Chins, BP, Overhead presses, Dips, Calf raises, *O-LIFTS*.

As I said, it reminds me of the "total tonnage lifted" (for bodybuilders), or the total reps (3 x 10 = 10 x 3) nonsense. Taking a number correlated with workouts, then ascribing some kind of causality to it.

BRB, doing super slo-mo with a nautilus pullover for massive liz-atts. Then cable crossovers with a 2 week positive and a 4 week negative for "gladiator" pecs.

I missed you

[BluntD]

Word up Blunt

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Defiant1 again."


I haven't been able to rep anyone in this thread for the past 5 years. Stupid website. Good to see you around man, hope all is well.

[GeneralSerpant]

The biggest issue I have with higher rep training is feeling like the first 90% of the reps in the set feel worthless and you're just waiting for the metabolic fatigue to set in. I would prefer a drop set/back-off set where you take a heavy weight to induce muscle failure and follow up with a lighter weight for metabolic fatigue. In my head it seems to be the best of both worlds.

That's how I feel about my pushup training for the most part. My lateral raises though keep everything really attentive.

[Dominik]

What often gets left out of these bodybuilding specific discussions regarding failure, etc. is the importance of targeting strength gains to continue driving hypertrophy.

Let's say you're pressing 100lb DBs for sets of 8-10 and an all out set to failure of 15 reps. You'll reach a point where strength stalls and you either stop adding reps/sets or start going backwards. Squeezing out 20 reps isn't going to magically unlock more size and doing more sets won't achieve much nor will increasing frequency. You've hit the wall.

Unless you've got exogenous test coming in or you're shoveling the food in like a strongman I'd be willing to wager as a natty you're going to struggle to even "maintain" a significant amount of muscle without getting stronger. The body has little interest in hanging on to slabs of muscle once you've forced an adaptation. It wants homeostasis and skinny fat is more than likely where it wants you to be lying on a sofa watching football. The goal posts are always moving so you've got to be pushing for more while still allowing for accumulated fatigue to dissipate with some kind of deload protocol.

So given adequate volume, rest, and nutrition you'll surely see greater chest gains pressing 110+ — for equivalent volume — than 100. As you increase the load you'll need to manage fatigue and also avoid injury. Picking up 110, 120, etc. and immediately going to failure as a driver for more size isn't something I'd recommend. I'd be suggesting multiple sets a few reps shy of failure with the heavier weight. Programmed correctly on the right diet with healthy T levels it won't be long before the 100s feel light and you're now cranking out similar volume with 110~. Now your chest will start growing again.

I highly doubt someone is going to be lifting the same weights year round and maintaining 100% of the muscle they've built unless something exogenous is playing a role in maintaining it. Plenty of older guys on TRT would fit this bill. If you're natty you're going to need some kind of strength programming to keep those gains. No amount of pounding away with perfect "mind-muscle connection" form using the same resistance is going to achieve that. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Anyway that's how I've always approached it. I use strength training in a lower rep range to minimize fatigue and allow for more volume (and practice) with heavier loads which then allows me to use more weight in a higher rep range and for more sets targeting hypertrophy. Approaching failure with a heavy weight is redlining the engine. It's nice to test rep maxes but doing so too frequently increases the risk of injury. I prefer to spend most of my time in the sweet spot around 80%.

Of course some people just enjoy being in the gym lifting for how it makes them feel, they don't care about maintaining every ounce of muscle tissue or even piling on more, do not want to roll the dice pushing for more as they age and getting hurt — or are managing long-term injuries — and can happily disregard everything I just said.

/2 cents

[Dominik]

Seeing all these 2004-2007 join dates. The good old days.

[Orlando1234977]

Then you run into "quality" of TUT. I can't think of one example where TUT itself provides ANY valuable information. Some of worst "size" building exercises have the most TUT. Actually, they tend to (cable isolation exercises, cammed machines). And the best size builders tend to have the LEAST TUT. Shrugs, Rows, Wide Chins, BP, Overhead presses, Dips, Calf raises, *O-LIFTS*.

As I said, it reminds me of the "total tonnage lifted" (for bodybuilders), or the total reps (3 x 10 = 10 x 3) nonsense. Taking a number correlated with workouts, then ascribing some kind of causality to it.

BRB, doing super slo-mo with a nautilus pullover for massive liz-atts. Then cable crossovers with a 2 week positive and a 4 week negative for "gladiator" pecs.

I think you're missing the point most people make when describing tut. Going slow of course negates the concept. But as you said, 3x10 is not the same as 10x3, outside of tut, why? tut doesn't have to be constant, when a fiber is on the shelf, the concept works. Like training to failure, science isn't going to negate what bodybuilders have known for years.

[VoxExMachina]

Seeing all these 2004-2007 join dates. The good old days.

Now all that's needed is the football talk.

[Defiant1]

I think you're missing the point most people make when describing tut. Going slow of course negates the concept. But as you said, 3x10 is not the same as 10x3, outside of tut, why? tut doesn't have to be constant, when a fiber is on the shelf, the concept works. Like training to failure, science isn't going to negate what bodybuilders have known for years.

It's not that I'm missing it. It's that the concept (TUT) doesn't really mean anything without a bunch of other context added to it. As I stated initially, like size, "TUT has no virtue of its own".

And in terms of "missing it".... you are saying that going slow negates the concept of TUT? Almost every example of TUT being used talks about slowing the movement down to increase TUT. A casual "Google" will reveal this. I have yet to see anyone qualify the definition of TUT with the disclaimer of "assuming maximum rep speed".

As proof, give me an example of using TUT where TUT itself is a singularly causal factor of anything beyond ex post facto description masking as explanation? You won't be able to do it without a bunch of qualifiers.

[Defiant1]

What often gets left out of these bodybuilding specific discussions regarding failure, etc. is the importance of targeting strength gains to continue driving hypertrophy.

Let's say you're pressing 100lb DBs for sets of 8-10 and an all out set to failure of 15 reps. You'll reach a point where strength stalls and you either stop adding reps/sets or start going backwards. Squeezing out 20 reps isn't going to magically unlock more size and doing more sets won't achieve much nor will increasing frequency. You've hit the wall.

Unless you've got exogenous test coming in or you're shoveling the food in like a strongman I'd be willing to wager as a natty you're going to struggle to even "maintain" a significant amount of muscle without getting stronger. The body has little interest in hanging on to slabs of muscle once you've forced an adaptation. It wants homeostasis and skinny fat is more than likely where it wants you to be lying on a sofa watching football. The goal posts are always moving so you've got to be pushing for more while still allowing for accumulated fatigue to dissipate with some kind of deload protocol.

So given adequate volume, rest, and nutrition you'll surely see greater chest gains pressing 110+ — for equivalent volume — than 100. As you increase the load you'll need to manage fatigue and also avoid injury. Picking up 110, 120, etc. and immediately going to failure as a driver for more size isn't something I'd recommend. I'd be suggesting multiple sets a few reps shy of failure with the heavier weight. Programmed correctly on the right diet with healthy T levels it won't be long before the 100s feel light and you're now cranking out similar volume with 110~. Now your chest will start growing again.

I highly doubt someone is going to be lifting the same weights year round and maintaining 100% of the muscle they've built unless something exogenous is playing a role in maintaining it. Plenty of older guys on TRT would fit this bill. If you're natty you're going to need some kind of strength programming to keep those gains. No amount of pounding away with perfect "mind-muscle connection" form using the same resistance is going to achieve that. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Anyway that's how I've always approached it. I use strength training in a lower rep range to minimize fatigue and allow for more volume (and practice) with heavier loads which then allows me to use more weight in a higher rep range and for more sets targeting hypertrophy. Approaching failure with a heavy weight is redlining the engine. It's nice to test rep maxes but doing so too frequently increases the risk of injury. I prefer to spend most of my time in the sweet spot around 80%.

Of course some people just enjoy being in the gym lifting for how it makes them feel, they don't care about maintaining every ounce of muscle tissue or even piling on more, do not want to roll the dice pushing for more as they age and getting hurt — or are managing long-term injuries — and can happily disregard everything I just said.

/2 cents

You bring up a good point. Where the "rubber meets the road", and you can't fake progression (strength sports), "failure" training is passe'.

Now strength sports aren't bodybuilding, of course, but progression is certainly a part of bodybuilding, and one can progress more when leaving a few in the tank in favor of a higher volume.

[Defiant1]

Now all that's needed is the football talk.

Like everything else that is ruined too.

[Defiant1]

Oh...why is this thread called "RIP Tyrbolift"?

[Defiant1]

I missed you

in the Biblical sense?

[im2manly]

Oh...why is this thread called "RIP Tyrbolift"?

Unfortunately, Ty passed away. He was a great guy, and his passing is our collective loss. Miss that guy greatly.

[Defiant1]

Unfortunately, Ty passed away. He was a great guy, and his passing is our collective loss. Miss that guy greatly.

Yikes. Since the titles are usually sarcastic I expected that not to be the case.

What happened to him? He was a great guy.

[im2manly]

Yikes. Since the titles are usually sarcastic I expected that not to be the case.

What happened to him? He was a great guy.

Yea, I understand. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was a heart attack

[Dominik]

but progression is certainly a part of bodybuilding

To maximize results it certainly should be. Focusing purely on strength won't be ideal either because weak points develop and form that is suited to moving the heaviest loads isn't necessarily going to be optimal for bodybuilding. It's all about finding the right balance.

[Defiant1]

Yea, I understand. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was a heart attack

Very sad.

[Mark1T]

Oh...why is this thread called "RIP Tyrbolift"?

Tyrbolift was a great friend in the O35 section, too. He is missed.

Great to see you, Defiant.

[Defiant1]

Tyrbolift was a great friend in the O35 section, too. He is missed.

Great to see you, Defiant.

Thanks man! Great to see you!

[Orlando1234977]

Almost every example of TUT being used talks about slowing the movement down to increase TUT. A casual "Google" will reveal this. I have yet to see anyone qualify the definition of TUT with the disclaimer of "assuming maximum rep speed".

Probably because your google search is skewed to show HIT concepts based on past searches from the days of arguing HIT tribalists ha ha
Most gym rats known it's just another rough instinctive way to measure a set.

Now all that's needed is the football talk.

I wish I was involved in gutting a team for the trade of Rodgers.

[Defiant1]

Probably because your google search is skewed to show HIT concepts based on past searches from the days of arguing HIT tribalists ha ha
Most gym rats known it's just another rough instinctive way to measure a set.

Lol. I realized what you said. I took it 100% seriously initially so my bad. I missed the first part. I'll leave my reply though because it is awesome.

TUT is not a HIT concept. TUT is relatively new in terms of the "term". Super slo-mo was not about "TUT", it was about eliminating momentum so the muscle had to do all the work (in theory). The "TUT" was a RESULT, not a CAUSAL factor. And HIT sure as hell wasn't about maximizing TUT.

Casual glance, not ONE result involved HIT

But, again, how would you use TUT in planning your workouts in a way you could describe to someone else that would make sense? Vs. Load (which CREATES conditions), or Volume (which, again, creates conditions). TUT describes what has happened. But if I say "I use a TUT of 60 seconds per set" that means zero.


Edit: By the way, if you want to say "constant tension", I'm all for it. But that concept is not new. Hell, there is a "Weider Continuous Tension" principle. And it has a specific meaning targeting a specific effect.

also:

[Orlando1234977]

What often gets left out of these bodybuilding specific discussions regarding failure, etc. is the importance of targeting strength gains to continue driving hypertrophy.

Let's say you're pressing 100lb DBs for sets of 8-10 and an all out set to failure of 15 reps. You'll reach a point where strength stalls and you either stop adding reps/sets or start going backwards. Squeezing out 20 reps isn't going to magically unlock more size and doing more sets won't achieve much nor will increasing frequency. You've hit the wall.

Unless you've got exogenous test coming in or you're shoveling the food in like a strongman I'd be willing to wager as a natty you're going to struggle to even "maintain" a significant amount of muscle without getting stronger. The body has little interest in hanging on to slabs of muscle once you've forced an adaptation. It wants homeostasis and skinny fat is more than likely where it wants you to be lying on a sofa watching football. The goal posts are always moving so you've got to be pushing for more while still allowing for accumulated fatigue to dissipate with some kind of deload protocol.

So given adequate volume, rest, and nutrition you'll surely see greater chest gains pressing 110+ — for equivalent volume — than 100. As you increase the load you'll need to manage fatigue and also avoid injury. Picking up 110, 120, etc. and immediately going to failure as a driver for more size isn't something I'd recommend. I'd be suggesting multiple sets a few reps shy of failure with the heavier weight. Programmed correctly on the right diet with healthy T levels it won't be long before the 100s feel light and you're now cranking out similar volume with 110~. Now your chest will start growing again.

I highly doubt someone is going to be lifting the same weights year round and maintaining 100% of the muscle they've built unless something exogenous is playing a role in maintaining it. Plenty of older guys on TRT would fit this bill. If you're natty you're going to need some kind of strength programming to keep those gains. No amount of pounding away with perfect "mind-muscle connection" form using the same resistance is going to achieve that. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Anyway that's how I've always approached it. I use strength training in a lower rep range to minimize fatigue and allow for more volume (and practice) with heavier loads which then allows me to use more weight in a higher rep range and for more sets targeting hypertrophy. Approaching failure with a heavy weight is redlining the engine. It's nice to test rep maxes but doing so too frequently increases the risk of injury. I prefer to spend most of my time in the sweet spot around 80%.

Of course some people just enjoy being in the gym lifting for how it makes them feel, they don't care about maintaining every ounce of muscle tissue or even piling on more, do not want to roll the dice pushing for more as they age and getting hurt — or are managing long-term injuries — and can happily disregard everything I just said.

/2 cents

Not that your way is wrong of course, but to clarify, the reason people train at or close to failure for some sets in the moderate rep range isn't exclusively for the size benefits (as failure isn't needed for size of course), but in addition, it's another strength training method, allowing you to use those heavier weights. Take another read through chpt 4 of Science and Practice of Strength Training.

[GeneralSerpant]

And that's wehn you start makin' the big bucks around here.

[W8isGR8]

What often gets left out of these bodybuilding specific discussions regarding failure, etc. is the importance of targeting strength gains to continue driving hypertrophy.

Let's say you're pressing 100lb DBs for sets of 8-10 and an all out set to failure of 15 reps. You'll reach a point where strength stalls and you either stop adding reps/sets or start going backwards. Squeezing out 20 reps isn't going to magically unlock more size and doing more sets won't achieve much nor will increasing frequency. You've hit the wall.

Unless you've got exogenous test coming in or you're shoveling the food in like a strongman I'd be willing to wager as a natty you're going to struggle to even "maintain" a significant amount of muscle without getting stronger. The body has little interest in hanging on to slabs of muscle once you've forced an adaptation. It wants homeostasis and skinny fat is more than likely where it wants you to be lying on a sofa watching football. The goal posts are always moving so you've got to be pushing for more while still allowing for accumulated fatigue to dissipate with some kind of deload protocol.

So given adequate volume, rest, and nutrition you'll surely see greater chest gains pressing 110+ — for equivalent volume — than 100. As you increase the load you'll need to manage fatigue and also avoid injury. Picking up 110, 120, etc. and immediately going to failure as a driver for more size isn't something I'd recommend. I'd be suggesting multiple sets a few reps shy of failure with the heavier weight. Programmed correctly on the right diet with healthy T levels it won't be long before the 100s feel light and you're now cranking out similar volume with 110~. Now your chest will start growing again.

I highly doubt someone is going to be lifting the same weights year round and maintaining 100% of the muscle they've built unless something exogenous is playing a role in maintaining it. Plenty of older guys on TRT would fit this bill. If you're natty you're going to need some kind of strength programming to keep those gains. No amount of pounding away with perfect "mind-muscle connection" form using the same resistance is going to achieve that. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Anyway that's how I've always approached it. I use strength training in a lower rep range to minimize fatigue and allow for more volume (and practice) with heavier loads which then allows me to use more weight in a higher rep range and for more sets targeting hypertrophy. Approaching failure with a heavy weight is redlining the engine. It's nice to test rep maxes but doing so too frequently increases the risk of injury. I prefer to spend most of my time in the sweet spot around 80%.

Of course some people just enjoy being in the gym lifting for how it makes them feel, they don't care about maintaining every ounce of muscle tissue or even piling on more, do not want to roll the dice pushing for more as they age and getting hurt — or are managing long-term injuries — and can happily disregard everything I just said.

/2 cents

100% the best progress came from keeping a logbook and trying to get stronger across the board.

1- It forces consistency, which is easy to go out the window if you always just "play by feel"
2- It forces progression, or at least the attempt at it.....which keeps you from selling workouts short

[W8isGR8]

Also, if Charles Poliquin was such a genius, why was he always training obscure sports teams, like german women's biathlon and not some NFL or hockey team?

[Orlando1234977]

Seeing all these 2004-2007 join dates. The good old days.

Going back several pages, GS is the newest of the lot with a join date over a decade ago. We don't do well attracting the youngsters nowadays lolma Hopefully we can keep the training talk for a few more pages.

[ZoranM]

Boring. Serious BB talk.

Talk about football and guns now that you're all here again.

[VoxExMachina]

So where is Kvk, Chazzy, Lucifer, Mjw, Shoup, Ctrainer, etc?

They weren't hiding under the same rock as everyone else?

Third line added as Kvk homage.

[EliKoehn]

So where is Kvk, Chazzy, Lucifer, Mjw, Shoup, Ctrainer, etc?

They weren't hiding under the same rock as everyone else?

Third line added as Kvk homage.

Did not realize you still posted on here.

Thanks for writing the stickies - good reads and I've benefited from them.

[Defiant1]

So where is Kvk, Chazzy, Lucifer, Mjw, Shoup, Ctrainer, etc?

They weren't hiding under the same rock as everyone else?

Third line added as Kvk homage.

Was going to post a photo of Jeff Spicoli being interviewed on the beach.

Can't just copy and paste though. Too lazy.