Load VS Time Under Tension 

I’m not sure. You definitely put the muscles under a whole lot of mechanical tension anyway. And especially if you’re training eccentric portions of the movement at a slow speed (like in the TuT) that also stresses muscles and tendons quite a lot

Load size increases more tension , more mechanical tension increases muscle

@@grinding553no not necessarily more load equals myofribrilar hyper trophy so the muscle gets stronger but not necessarily bigger tut increases muscle size

that's what she said

🤣

😅

Yessss

You are correct. And slow reps have been proven to be just as effective, if not more effective than faster reps, if controlled for TUL, and assuming the sets are taken to failure (and assuming the volume and frequency don’t exceed what you can recover from and adapt to).

Only if there is reliable data showing that normally-paced reps cause more injuries.

@@Tablespoonmischief type in “ proven way to build muscle faster” by athean x. You sir have no idea what your talking about I’ve read your rambling in another post here aswell that was also uninformed. Faster reps are lroven to promote more muscle

Not every set has to be tempo squats

Yeah TUT "works", but in practice it's probably the worst route to go down if you're serious about training (trying to progressively overload). It's fine for keeping it interesting for gym noobs or people scared of lifting heavy I guess.

Ken, FWIW, Superslow used 20 second rep's (10 second positives and 10 second negatives) which are much easier to watch on a clock or stopwatch. I trained myself that way for over 15 years and only occasionally lost track of my rep's due to being too wiped out recall what I just did.

@@paulthomas5901 sure you did buddy lol, did you attach a stopwatch to your bench press bar or the ceiling and just stare at it the whole set? Sounds very realistic and practical.

@@WhopperCheeseDota, I just picked up two cheapo analog clocks at Walmart and put them on opposite walls of the room at home (or the garage for a while) where I trained. I would get into position and watch the seconds hand on the clock and do my best to start a set at the top of the minute. If I had to lay down to bench press or some other exercise where I couldn't stare straight ahead at the clock and time every rep during the exercise I'd just pick my head up to see when to start and then check the time again when I was done and divide the time by 20 for my number of rep's if I lost count.

TUT is far more accurate in terms of tracking progress over time. Problem is that you’re listening to a video by a guy who doesn’t understand he concept at all.

Well, basically quality (30-40 sec under tension, fast positive, slow/controlled negative, good form, until failure) or just make 10 reps and done, doesn’t matter how.

@@gustavpropovski9932 I disagree. If you can manage the weight for a whole 40 seconds its too light for you, which means it wont activate those fast twitch fibres. Remember slow twitch doesnt really count in the size game. Id say somewhere in the region of 10-20. Watch any professional bodybuilder and you will see they dont train that way or do slow negatives. Also consider total time under tension for whole workout. You can get "relevant" fast twitch time under tension by doing many more sets but keeping them short-ish in in the 10-20 second range

dude dude what matters is to go failure. If i reach 40 sec with the exercise, I’ll increase the weight until i can’t reach 40 sec. tryna keep it between 30-40. But we are bodybuilders, we want to make gains. And getting stronger doesnt mean you getting bigger. Just like big muscles doesn’t mean huge strength. Controlling the weight for 30-40 sec, sometimes is harder than do 2-3 reps. And i don’t really want to get injured. When i was doing heavy deadlift 4-5 reps i could feel it bad. Or even squat. Even tho i warm up with 3-4 sets everytime before and building up after the weight till it gets heavy enough for that 4-5 reps. Basically 6-7 warm up sets. But i don’t count those as proper sets.

dude dude and those motivation videos are for motivation. Of course they will put a lot of plates on the bar, and struggle to do the exercise with bad form. Because the people will aah, that looks good and strong. And doesnt look boring. But in reality, if you see like greg douchette videos or joe linder or whoever they’ll explain and show you how to do it. And you can see they are controlling the movements and they are not doing it with heavy reps. And i can tell, even most of the bodybuilders got injured many times.

@@gustavpropovski9932 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XPEx8ftdiPQ.html&ab_channel=DexterJackson this is an example of what im talking about from 3:42 to 3:55 thats a hypertropy set right there 13 seconds time under tension. Dexter is one of the most durable bodybuilders. Sure everyone can get injured time to time but he has lasted the longest out of all of them

Bryce, the problem with faster rep's is that increasing speed means using momentum and merely throwing the weight, rather than properly loading down the muscle with slower, deliberate movement. The faster you go the less actual "tension" in the muscle. And unless we utilize a plan intending for failure to happen within a specific window of time (say 1 - 2 minutes) as the ultimate finishing point for a set then we don't know if we're even using a "meaningful load" (as described by Doug McGuff over 20 years ago). All this and more is why these studies are meaningless and why "Superslow" shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath. Superslow always required reaching failure within a given window of time while using rep's that were 10 seconds on the positive and 10 seconds on the negative. And the goal of Superslow was to produce far more than just muscular hypertrophy. It was a prescription for general exercise (as defined by Ken Hutchins).

@@paulthomas5901 for sure slow reps are awesome. I'm not trying to say slow reps don't work. And I guess when I said fast I meant just faster than super slow. Normal rep speed with tension through multiple reps is what I meant.

@@BParker55, now I think I understand what you're getting at. It sounds reminiscent of Power Factor Training, using partial rep's, keeping a particular window of time, maybe? Anyhow, the difficulty with the "time under tension" terminology in the way most people use it is that without a truly defined endpoint (where 100 effort equals failure) then we have no way to work backward to determine whether we ever loaded the muscles with proper "tension". It's just our percieved difficulty which is pretty loosey-goosey. And I'm probably doing a terrible job of articulating what I'm getting at. I guess I'm just coming at the terminology from this historical perspective, "Time Under Load" was a phrase used by Doug McGuff MD back in the late 90s within the context of Superslow research. The training client only experienced the proper amount of tension if it was a load that caused failure within a specified window of time while using the 10/10 rep speed. It appeared to be coopted by others later and turned into "T.U.T." which doesn't prescribe rep speed nor taking it to failure so "tension" became an arbitrary or meaningless extra word. Anyhow, I'm not being a RU-vid troll nor talking smack to you, just trying to clarify some of the terms and definitions where this stuff came from because the waters have become pretty muddy with personal trainers trying to invent novelty terms over the last 30 years since Superslow was first introduced. Circling back to your original question, have you found a particular time that produced a gnarly pump with just a regular rep speed instead of counting reps. Have you tried using a slightly lighter weight that allows you to just do higher rep's but still not going all the way to failure?

@@paulthomas5901 oh I definitely do this as a "drop set" after my working sets. Usually around 80% of my 6 rep max. If I had to put a time to it I'd say I do 20-30 seconds of my "tension reps" with a 5 second rest at lockout. I do that three times as a full set and then I do it again. So that process twice. It is complete and utter leg murder. The pump from this is pure insanity!

​@@BParker55, very interesting. I always found pumps to be kind of elusive from Superslow workouts but much more predictable with the higher volume and slightly faster rep's I've used in the last two years. The downside is that I don't think I get the same overall metabolic conditioning that I had been getting with Superslow. 🤷‍♂️

dude whatever you will do will work, if you havent trained in two yrs you will be able to gain muscle while loosing weight. Easiest way i think, is low daily training volume but high frequency..it works well when on lower calories for building muscle.

Vertical diet, eat 300 to 500 calories below maintenance cutting weight very slowly

@@tuckstar Vertical diet isn't necessary at all. Just get enough protein, eat below maintenance as you said and then do whatever diet one prefers.

@@CrappyBaraLugnt I never said it was necessary but its one of the optimal ways to lose fat and gain (or at least hold onto) lean mass ... which the guy asked about

Because it's bullshit...

Ryan Ford Time under tension is not a “style of training”. It is a way to measure volume. It is also a way to measure the amount of inroad over time.

@@Tablespoonmischief It's not an effective way to measure volume because it is difficult to determine what type of tension is being measured. Also, the tension curve through the range of motion is not linear. Simply supplying more 'time' under tension through most of the movement is ineffective and is not a helpful reference mark, and, in most cases, is inferior to absolute tension = i.e true signal for growth. If time under tension was the key training principle, then endurance athletes would have enormous levels of hypertrophy. ABSOLUTE VOLUME is easier to objectively measure (sets x reps). Have a look at renaissance periodization to get a better understanding of contemporary sports science.

Ryan Ford Sorry but you pretty much got all that wrong. If you haven’t read Ken Hutchins work, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re bringing up resistance curves, when that has nothing to do with time under tension. TUT is a better way to measure progress over time, when performing cadence controlled repetitions. You’re stuck in conventional bodybuilder traditions and are not able to think scientifically about what we’re trying to do with the exercise.

Ryan Ford Periodization is also not necessary in exercise. It was developed for athletes as a way to peek for a competitive, skill based sport. And it has not place in general exercise philosophy. What the body needs is recovery, not constantly switching things up all the time.

I disagree, the body needs recovery

I have always wondered this too. I pretty much do both. For example, on back day I do 3-4 sets of lat pulldowns @ 255 for like 6-8 reps, then 3-4 heavy sets of cable rowing for around the same weight/rep. After that, I pyramid up for about 4 more sets of each exercise and by the end I'm looking at 100-120 lb. for each of the 2. Nothing but reasonable gains for awhile now. That said that is a lot but I already operate on 2 workouts per week. Partially cause I have a tight nerve and also only 2 days per week will keep you consistent

I agree ☝️. It goes together just like peanut butter and jelly or spaghetti 🍝 and meatballs!

Facts!

That or the muscle's not even doing the work. Most of the people I see training calves do raises like it's a race without appreciating that they're really just bouncing off their achilles tendon

While I agree in sentiment, try doing feeder work and see if you don’t experience not only a sick pump but some intense mind-muscle connection.

That is NOT time under tension. What you’re describing is what you would call “continuous muscular loading” where the slow order motor units are not allowed to recover, this recruiting the higher order units (Hennemans size principle of motor unit recruitment). Time under tension is simply the TIME you spend loading the muscles. It’s a measurement. That’s all. It is typically only utilized when performing cadence controlled, single sets to failure.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

biolayne You’ve proven your ignorance with this video, where you don’t understand “time under tension” is not a “style of training”. It is the proper measurement of volume. Volume has nothing to do with sets and reps. That is the case in weightlifting and powerlifting, where practicing the “skill” of a competitive lifting and “displaying” strength is the objective. In weightlifting and powerlifting the line between skill acquisition and strength training is indeed blurry. In resistance exercise, the amount of weight you are lifting is the measurement, not the goal, as in a competitive lift.

biolayne If exercise volume was really the most important factor, as some people claim, you would see a significant difference in strength and size gains between groups performing single and multiple sets. However, this is not the case. The majority of research shows it makes little difference whether you perform one set or many. It does, however, show that your intensity of effort (how hard you are working relative to your ability) makes a difference. If you do not train with a high intensity of effort no amount of exercise will stimulate significant improvements in muscular strength and size. If you do train with a high intensity of effort the amount of exercise you perform must be limited to avoid overtraining. The higher your intensity of effort the less work you can perform, the less you need to perform. For a while I was stagnated in my progress. I did try a higher volume approach (following Brad Schoenfelds recommendations) for about 4 months and saw little to no change. In fact, I was getting weaker. I am now on a cycle along the lines of what Mike Mentzer suggested, which calls for rotating the body in thirds once a week. I will perform two cycles of that, and then I return to a workout in which I split the body in half, working half the muscles with three exercises in one workout and the other half with three exercises the next. So, I’ll do a three-way split for two cycles, followed by one cycle of the two half body workouts, and then return to the three-way split routine again. I have not witnessed any decompensation as a result of spreading the workouts for each body part out to once every 21 days. If anything, every muscle group has grown bigger, stronger, and fuller. At the end of one work out, when I see with my performance was, I project with the wait will be the next time that particular work out comes up in my cycle. Since I’ve been doing this rotation, whenever that next workout comes up, I plug-in that weight that I projected from my last workout, and every time-without fail-it’s too light.

WOW! RU-vid videos! The pinnacle of scientific evidence 🤣🤣🤣🤣

biolayne I took those down because I figured you wouldn’t watch them anyway. I used to really respect your work, but your arrogance really is something else. A scientist is supposed to follow the evidence. Not blindly follow traditions. There’s been no study that has shown doing higher volume programs is superior to single set training. Even Brad Schoenfelds study only showed a 3% improvement on the single set group (and this was with subjects likely performing crappy sets with poor form). Here’s the video - Why Multiple Sets are Stupid and Why People Perform Them! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WlPZy9O2yNA.html