Eric pulls through as always with another gem. Awesome video man, and not only did I learn more about TUT, but I also learned to never become an astronaut or leave earth as it will result in a loss of gains
This is the most educating/interesting series on RU-vid I have watched! Used the the Campos study on a recent assignment for my gym instruction module at uni! Good shit!
To this day this is still my favorite series on youtube. Greatly appreciate your time & effort here Eric, and I anxiously await your return to more free time. Good luck with your doctorate!
i thought i knew so much over the years....following 3dmj the past past has really been eye opening....great stuff Eric and i've ironically been thinking alot about tut lately...this video helped out alot
Okay, so I understand the whole tempo thing. My q is that then if slowing the weight down is bad does that as well mean that pause reps are bad as well? Say on squat or bench, take the load on, drop into the hole while staying tight and pausing for 3 seconds then exploding back up!
Depends on your reason/goal for pause exercises. It would seem pause work is mainly for efficiency of lift not necessarily hypertrophy. At least what I've seen people use pause exercises for.
This is amazing! I've been following Alberto Nunez on Instagram and recently found this channel. This video has been the most informative video on lifting I've seen in a while (if ever!). Awesome content, keep it coming!
So would a Sheiko program produce similar growth potential in the muscles worked as a "bodybuilding style" program of similar volume and exercise selection?
The thing is, that's happend all the time. Sometimes we hear that Volume matter and we put so much weight that we don't do good form! And they don't stimulus the muscle only strength. That's why TUT is a way of correct that form. At least for me, I don't do a lot tut just maybe 1sec pause down and 2sec up. Like that you can feel the muscle as hell!
It doesn't make sense to equate total volume for a high-rep ranges with low rep/moderate rep ranges. If someone is doing a set of 20-30 reps on something like barbell shrugs with 225 lbs, it's very unlikely they will be able to perform 10-15 reps with 450 lbs, at least not without horrendous form breakdown. In certain cases where an exercise has a very low TUT per rep it would seem to be just as effective, if not more effective, to use a higher rep range
HI, Eric: When comparing total work (weight x reps x sets), do you have to keep the training time the same? (60 min. per workout for example). Where does total time fit in. I ask because if I just added more sets to the end of the workout would this be better than if I didn't?
When talking about not going too light. Would it be safe to assume you aren't talking about the ending volume of a drop set since your muscles are already fatigued and those reps, even at a lighter weight are producing muscle building results. And not just a waste of time or energy. Hopefully I said that right.
Please Eric, clarify if a mind muscle connection is important to maximize muscle hypertrophy? For example, is it beneficial, in regards of muscle hypertrophy, to lower the weight on the bar a noticeably amount and "just" focus on the MMC?
Eric, do you think that tempo is something that could just be manipulated towards the end of a workout to increase the lifter's overall volume? Say as you tire out and are able to use less weight towards the end of a workout, you might slow down the tempo to keep tension on the muscle? Should tempo differ between isolation exercises and compound movements?
I have a question about the physics equation they did to determine the amount of work done. Would the results not be wrong if all they did was measure how far they moved the bar? If all they looked at was the distance and load, then lowering the load for 20 seconds would be represented exactly the same as lowering the load for 2 seconds in the result of the equation. But in fact they require vastly different amounts of work from the muscles. Any clarifications or things I am overlooking?
In Schoenfeld's experiment he found that muscle growth was similar between athletes using a powerlifting-type training protocol and a bodybuilding-type training protocol when volume was equal. However, it is stated that "powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength." If there is a greater increase in strength among powerlifting-type athletes, wouldn't the ability to more quickly increase strength result in an increased amount of volume over the bodybuilding athletes, and in turn produce more muscle growth long term? Making powerlifting style training superior to bodybuilding for muscle growth? I would love a reply.
Eric - how about comparatively tiny time under tension? Basically swinging really heavy weights around? Basically load = very high , TUT = very low ; and assume volume is in the recommended range. Great approach? :)
8 лет назад
Hey John, that's a similar scenario to the study that Eric was talking about in this video which compared 2 reps vs 10 reps. Both saw similar muscle hypertrophy. (The 2 reps should still be done with good form of course, otherwise you'll probably lose stimulus from the muscle being worked)
The thing is, that's happend all the time. Sometimes we hear that Volume matter and we put so much weight that we don't do good form! And they don't stimulus the muscle only strength. That's why TUT is a way of correct that form. At least for me, I don't do a lot tut just maybe 1sec pause down and 2sec up. Like that you can feel the muscle as hell!
Cyclists overall doing a large amount of work but they don't have any muscular development.So it's not the volume that mater. Muscle overload overall is important in muscle growth .
That's one of the many important issues they have to address for manned deep space exploration. They have to create an efficient technology to facilitate astronauts to resist train in zero gravity. People would literally wither away, losing bone density and muscle, without being able to "train."
+team3dmj So a question i have regarding tempo & time under tension. A tempo of 3010 or 4010 where the eccentric was emphasized was recommended by certain coaches as superior for growth due to the increased eccentric muscle damage from a slower lowering phase and that eccentric damage was linked to hypertrophy. Would you say this is incorrect and largely irrelevant next to focusing instead on overall load and volume of work?
I've actually heard the opposite and that faster eccentrics are better for hypertrophy. I believe it was from Layne Norton. I'll go check and make sure it wasn't concentric he was saying.
Yeah Layne's log on time under tension addresses fast and slow eccentrics. Apparently faster eccentrics produced more muscle hypertrophy because more total volume was able to be achieved when the participants weren't going as slow. And this is the study he was citing when saying all this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158146
This really debunks what Scooby tends to say. 2 seconds up, 2 seconds down. I wonder if he has seen this video. It's a lot more fun to burst upward with a heavy weight on your back, anyway.
Yes, it does. There´s plenty of evidence supporting that already (by the addition of sarcomeres in series). And from the Jacob Wilson's lab is comming a new study supporting a novel way of training involving muscle stretch, obviously this is accomplished by a full ROM. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, my english is not so good.
you can't measure intensity, so studies on this are pointless.. TUT =/= MMC. If their MMC was higher during each rep they are going to make more gains in that muscle. There is no way to tell how much MMC each group was using in any of these studies. Feel free to debate this.
But Ian Mcarthy trains with extremely slow reps and we all know, he knows everything... even though he looks like he doesn't even lift, but all that matters is knowledge right??
