|
Thread: RANT: R.I.P. Tyrbolift
-
05-10-2021, 03:52 PM #6301
-
05-10-2021, 06:10 PM #6302
-
05-10-2021, 06:22 PM #6303
-
05-10-2021, 06:35 PM #6304
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
-
-
05-10-2021, 06:43 PM #6305
-
05-10-2021, 06:51 PM #6306
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.
DR. 3time
Wisconsin Badgers, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Bucks
~Cobra Kai Crew~
-
05-10-2021, 08:31 PM #6307
-
05-11-2021, 02:10 AM #6308
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.Last edited by Defiant1; 05-11-2021 at 02:21 AM.
CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
-
05-11-2021, 02:15 AM #6309
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.CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
05-11-2021, 02:22 AM #6310
-
05-11-2021, 04:26 AM #6311
-
05-11-2021, 04:48 AM #6312
-
-
05-11-2021, 05:20 AM #6313
-
05-11-2021, 06:01 AM #6314
-
05-11-2021, 06:51 AM #6315
-
05-11-2021, 07:28 AM #6316
-
-
05-11-2021, 08:12 AM #6317
-
05-11-2021, 08:26 AM #6318
-
05-11-2021, 08:37 AM #6319
-
05-11-2021, 08:49 AM #6320
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.
I wish I was involved in gutting a team for the trade of Rodgers.DR. 3time
Wisconsin Badgers, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Bucks
~Cobra Kai Crew~
-
-
05-11-2021, 08:57 AM #6321
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:Last edited by Defiant1; 05-11-2021 at 09:12 AM.
CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
05-11-2021, 11:50 AM #6322
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.
Last edited by Orlando1234977; 05-11-2021 at 11:58 AM.
DR. 3time
Wisconsin Badgers, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Bucks
~Cobra Kai Crew~
-
05-11-2021, 02:05 PM #6323
-
05-11-2021, 03:30 PM #6324
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 shortI don't know either lol
-
-
05-11-2021, 03:36 PM #6325
-
05-11-2021, 09:12 PM #6326
-
05-12-2021, 08:20 AM #6327
-
05-12-2021, 08:44 AM #6328
-
-
05-12-2021, 11:05 AM #6329
-
05-12-2021, 11:36 AM #6330
Bookmarks