TUT quote from Mike Boyle's "Designing Strength Training Programs"

[Tapeworm]

On page 33 he says:

"Interestingly enough, Charles Poliquin another Canadian Strength coach recommends 30-70 seconds of time under tension for hypertrophy so the concept of tempo follows closely into the concept of time under tension."

and in the next paragraph:

"The interesting thing about this is that most hypertrophy workouts don't include enough time under tension to truly stimulate hypertrophy.  For hypertrophy, sets need to be at least 30 seconds so a ten rep set would be done at a 2-0-1 tempo at the bare minimum to produce significant hypertrophy."


This contradicts the school that says moving big weights is the best road to growth.  Any views on this?

[pumpster]

This contradicts the school that says moving big weights is the best road to growth.  Any views on this?

The best thing is to overlap several factors that help growth. You can keep both weight and TUT high by avoiding lockout and thereby keeping tension on the muscle longer. You can use things like rest-pause reps to extend the set, or cheats or negatives to name just a few ways to extend sets without sacrificing weight.

The super-slow method will sacrifice weight used, but is only one of many ways to train. Personally i don't like it, it's not necessary rather it's just another approach. IMO it's both harder to improve with this slow method, and it's gruelling.

Poliquin is only repeating what's already known. We went to the same school in the 80s; never saw him train even once at the only university gym. No development, then suddenly gained 30-40 lb. in a short time in the late 80s. At one point they wanted to redesign the gym and took my advices over his, which he didn't appreciate. He also spent some of their budget on very questionable exercise machines when serious BB and lifting equipment would've been far better.

[Tapeworm]

I'm not looking to go super slow on a low rep range, like 6-2-4 or something in the 4-6 range.  I've been doing Star's 5x5 for a couple months, but am frankly disappointed with my progress.  In Star's defense, I haven't been eating like a power lifer since I don't want to look like one, which has surely limited advancement.  I've seen some gains in strength, but the growth hasn't been what I hoped for.

I like the intensity techniques you mentioned and have used them before (ok, not so much the not locking out but the others), but since I'm going to start up a new program I'd prefer to leave them until later to squeeze a little more out of the program if it grows stale, and hopefully a new program will spur on some growth without them in the beginning.

Sounds like you prefer the lower ranges pumpster.  Do you think the 10-12 rep range is overrated for growth?

[buffbong]

any reg range can build size. 10-12 isnt overated just that i wouldnt do it exclusivly unless u are handling some solid poundages with it.

[pumpster]

Sounds like you prefer the lower ranges pumpster.  Do you think the 10-12 rep range is overrated for growth?

6-12, whatever's the preference. I think the advantage with a little closer to the higher number within that is lower injury risk and for some, a better mind-muscle connection but to each his own, within that range.

any reg range can build size. 10-12 isnt overated just that i wouldnt do it exclusivly unless u are handling some solid poundages with it.

Exactly, if it's within that moderate6-12 rep range the main thing is to see a progression in weight, reps or other intensity techniques over time. Some would even say up to 15 reps, Coleman for example likes 10-15.

[Bluto]

for hypertrophy i would be more concerned with no of sets rather than reps and tut

[Tapeworm]

Cool.  Thanks guys.  I confess I've been off the weights for about 5 days while my new judo bruises heal, but I'm getting back to it this week hell or high water!

[pumpster]

for hypertrophy i would be more concerned with no of sets rather than reps and tut

Makes no sense to me, especially with no logic to back it up. They're all intertwined. Someone who does excessive volume without ever straining on any particular set would be prone to bias favoring numbers of sets.

[Bluto]

Makes no sense to me, especially with no logic to back it up. They're all intertwined. Someone who does excessive volume without ever straining on any particular set would be prone to bias favoring numbers of sets.

if it doesnt make sense to you then it make sense.

[pumpster]

if it doesnt make sense to you then it make sense.

nonsensical x 2