working higher eccentric = better hypertrophy

[S_F_H]

Should I work on a longer eccentric part when I workout, to create a better muscle gain/hypertrophy? I mean, on my reps, would it be better doing 2sec concentric, 4 sec eccentric than 2sec+ and 2sec- ?
thanks!

[LiftingIsLife]

yes

[Chi3f]

Works for me and others...but not everyone. Try it and see if it works for you.

[bigpump23]

yes as it will increase your TUL

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by S_F_H

Should I work on a longer eccentric part when I workout, to create a better muscle gain/hypertrophy? I mean, on my reps, would it be better doing 2sec concentric, 4 sec eccentric than 2sec+ and 2sec- ?
thanks!

I think most of the time it's best to use an explosive positive (except for a few isolation exercises) and control the time of the sets with longer negatives. Most experts believe the best results for hypertrophy are sets >30 secs. That means either a) longer negatives, b) more reps, or c) a negative "stretch" pause between reps.

[$AJ]

theres' no benefit to doing a slower positive. explosive positive, controlled negative.

[A & B]

No.

I would not do any reps slower than I had to. Doing them slower means you won't be able to push as much weight for as many reps. At least, that's what I've found from my own experience. I don't know of too may bodybuilders who do.

[JacksCleverWit]

Originally Posted by A & B

No.

I would not do any reps slower than I had to. Doing them slower means you won't be able to push as much weight for as many reps. At least, that's what I've found from my own experience. I don't know of too may bodybuilders who do.

Well of course you wouldn't be able to do as many reps with the same weight if you slowed down the eccentric portion of the motion. But in my opinion, lowering the weight so that you CAN have the controlled negative and still make your target rep range is more effective than using more weight and not focusing on the negative.

[Shotput15]

"lifting the weight incredibly slowly will build muscle much more effectively"...proven myth.

THEN AGAIN...if it works for you...do it. Gains are often received from the art of experimentation

[DejaBlue55]

Powerlifting or Bodybuilding perspective matters.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by Shotput15

"lifting the weight incredibly slowly will build muscle much more effectively"...proven myth.

I don't think anyone was talking about the "super slow" training style. I was under the impression we're talking about slower eccentrics to increase time under tension/load and stimulate hypertrophy?

Originally Posted by A & B

I would not do any reps slower than I had to. Doing them slower means you won't be able to push as much weight for as many reps. At least, that's what I've found from my own experience. I don't know of too may bodybuilders who do.

My understanding is for maximum hypertrophy the time your muscles are under tension is actually more important than performing a strict number of repetitions. Strength training on the other hand demands fast, short sets. That's why a lot of bodybuilders have had so much success with supersets and dropsets: they're keeping the muscles under load for a longer period of time, typically >30sec, and using short rest times to starve the muscles of maximum ATP/CP energy which forces them to find new ways to adapt.

I find explosive positives with a 2-3 sec. negative in the 8-12 rep range is enough to achieve this.

[W8isGR8]

Originally Posted by $AJ

theres' no benefit to doing a slower positive. explosive positive, controlled negative.

Another AJ classic, a definative answer without the references to back it up.

[S_F_H]

the fact is that when I'm going for controlled negative, i'm using less weight, therefore I'm able to explode on the positive, BUT what when u cant explode since u have to train to failure? of course that by going slowly down on the 5 or 6 reps, the next one ain't gonna be explosive (since 5 or 6 is close to my last rep)... is it still effective?

[W8isGR8]

It's not how fast the weight goes up, it's how fast you're trying to push the weight up, big difference. You can explosively push up a heavy weight and not have it go up very fast, it's a different feeling.

[S_F_H]

TRUE! thx for making me realizing it!

[A & B]

[QUOTE=_Dominik_]My understanding is for maximum hypertrophy the time your muscles are under tension is actually more important than performing a strict number of repetitions. Strength training on the other hand demands fast, short sets. That's why a lot of bodybuilders have had so much success with supersets and dropsets: they're keeping the muscles under load for a longer period of time, typically >30sec, and using short rest times to starve the muscles of maximum ATP/CP energy which forces them to find new ways to adapt.[QUOTE]

Supersets and dropsets have nothing to do with forcing longer reps.?

I personally don't know any or have seen too many people using longer than necessary reps on any sort of regular basis.

If we're talking about using this technique constantly for general training, I would say no, stupid idea.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by A & B

Supersets and dropsets have nothing to do with forcing longer reps.?

I personally don't know any or have seen too many people using longer than necessary reps on any sort of regular basis.

If we're talking about using this technique constantly for general training, I would say no, stupid idea.

My point with supersets/dropsets/etc. was they're forcing you to keep going for longer than "normal" and therefore increase the time under tension. I wasn't suggesting that it's the same as performing slower negatives for 6-12 reps. I was using it to illustrate something. I'm talking about time. Specifically sets >30 sec.

Have I seen many people doing it in the gym? No. Only professional bodybuilders in videos. But I don't base my training on what I see in the gym. It's not exactly a master class in there. Anyway, my take on increasing time under tension is simple. If what you're doing is working, keep doing it. If it's not and you want to try something different, give it a go. The only thing that annoys me is people putting something down when they've never tried it.

[$AJ]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

Another AJ classic, a definative answer without the references to back it up.

and another classic response of a person attacking me w/o proving me wrong

prove me wrong. there's no benefit to slowing downt he positive for muscle or strength building. the only need to slow down the negative for muscle buiding purposes is because that's where the most damage is occuring.

[W8isGR8]

If one were to belive that damage=growth, then that would work. If that was the case I could just hit myself in the legs with a bat and they would grow. You have to assume something. If we assume that TUT is what stimulates muscle growth better, then yes, slowing it down would be better. Recent studies have shown, however, that fast eccentric movements cause more stress on the muscle, so no, slowing the negative down would not help. You have to pick a side to stand on.

[A & B]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

My point with supersets/dropsets/etc. was they're forcing you to keep going for longer than "normal" and therefore increase the time under tension. I wasn't suggesting that it's the same as performing slower negatives for 6-12 reps. I was using it to illustrate something. I'm talking about time. Specifically sets >30 sec.

Have I seen many people doing it in the gym? No. Only professional bodybuilders in videos. But I don't base my training on what I see in the gym. It's not exactly a master class in there. Anyway, my take on increasing time under tension is simple. If what you're doing is working, keep doing it. If it's not and you want to try something different, give it a go. The only thing that annoys me is people putting something down when they've never tried it.

I haven't read any articles or books or interviews with pro bodybuilders who advocate using this technique on a regular basis.

But I agree, if it's working for you, go with it.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by A & B

I haven't read any articles or books or interviews with pro bodybuilders who advocate using this technique on a regular basis.

But I agree, if it's working for you, go with it.

Well, I didn't come up with it. I got it from one of Poliquin's books and haven't looked back. Do a little research into it and you'll see it's quite popular. Short sets straight up and down for # reps is more of a strength and speed training approach and doesn't translate as well to hypertrophy training. Yes, increasing rep time makes the exercise harder simply because it makes the set longer, and that's probably why you don't see as many people in the gym doing it since most will come up with any excuse to get out of more work. There's less cheating, more emphasis on form, and ultimately it stimulates the muscles in a way that maximizes hypertrophy.

Tempo & Tension Maximization For Advanced Bodybuilders
Time Under Tension In Your Training Program
Why Everyone Is Wrong About Reps
Change Your Rep Tempo For Max Gains

In the gym with Milos Sarcev

[$AJ]

Originally Posted by W8isGR8

If one were to belive that damage=growth, then that would work. If that was the case I could just hit myself in the legs with a bat and they would grow. You have to assume something. If we assume that TUT is what stimulates muscle growth better, then yes, slowing it down would be better. Recent studies have shown, however, that fast eccentric movements cause more stress on the muscle, so no, slowing the negative down would not help. You have to pick a side to stand on.

you know what type of cellular damage we're talking about

there's nothing to dispute about slow negatives - it's been time honored, proven again and again. It's one of the reaosns why programs like DC work so well.

i've never seen anything reputable claiming a faster negative produced greater effort han a slower one.

[Tete]

Originally Posted by $AJ

theres' no benefit to doing a slower positive. explosive positive, controlled negative.

I think gene and rob thoburn were discussing a slow positive and fast negative to activate more fibers in the avant forums (long time ago though)

[W8isGR8]

Originally Posted by $AJ

you know what type of cellular damage we're talking about

there's nothing to dispute about slow negatives - it's been time honored, proven again and again. It's one of the reaosns why programs like DC work so well.

i've never seen anything reputable claiming a faster negative produced greater effort han a slower one.

They print the study in Muscular Development all the time. A muscle that lengthens quickly under a load recieves more stress. However, it's very impractical(as well as dangerous) to attempt. I can look for it if you really care.

[MrSinister]

just push the damn weight up and down

[$AJ]

Originally Posted by Tete

I think gene and rob thoburn were discussing a slow positive and fast negative to activate more fibers in the avant forums (long time ago though)

interesting; still, it's probably like their debate about why HST isn't so great.

in either case, i prefer to stick to my opinion - explosive positive, slow negative - just like they'll stick w/ theirs.

[Early_Q]

Originally Posted by MrSinister

just push the damn weight up and down

damn straight!