Does "Time Under Tension" Matter?

[DocJ]

I've always thought that it does...probably more than many of us will admit. Here's something interesting I came across:
-------------------------------------------------

J Appl Physiol. 2006 Apr;100(4):1150-7. Epub 2005 Dec 8
Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men.Tanimoto M, Ishii N.
Department of Life Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan. cc37724@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

We investigated the acute and long-term effects of low-intensity resistance exercise (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength. This type of exercise was expected to enhance the intramuscular hypoxic environment that might be a factor for muscular hypertrophy. Twenty-four healthy young men without experience of regular exercise training were assigned into three groups (n = 8 for each) and performed the following resistance exercise regimens: low-intensity [ approximately 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)] with slow movement and tonic force generation (3 s for eccentric and concentric actions, 1-s pause, and no relaxing phase; LST); high-intensity ( approximately 80% 1RM) with normal speed (1 s for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 s for relaxing; HN); low-intensity with normal speed (same intensity as for LST and same speed as for HN; LN). In LST and HN, the mean repetition maximum was 8RM. In LN, both intensity and amount of work were matched with those for LST. Each exercise session consisting of three sets was performed three times a week for 12 wk. In LST and HN, exercise training caused significant (P < 0.05) increases in cross-sectional area determined with MRI and isometric strength (maximal voluntary contraction) of the knee extensors, whereas no significant changes were seen in LN. Electromyographic and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses showed that one bout of LST causes sustained muscular activity and the largest muscle deoxygenation among the three types of exercise. The results suggest that intramuscular oxygen environment is important for exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy.

PMID: 16339347 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[silver_shadow]

well, so what does that prove then?

that TUT works as well as high intensity (intensity measured as a % of 1RM) training for a noob. also low intensity training with a normal tempo won't do anything. is that a revelation? i think not. TUT works fine for a noob. but i would like to see a study done on more advanced lifters and i can safely say that they'd find that TUT makes at best very little difference on even intermediates.

now wasn't it coleman who said something about wanting to be a bodybuilder but not wanting to lift heavy weights?

 

[DocJ]

What it shows IMO, is that simply focusing on progressively higher poundages will eventually stall progress in everyone except the truely genetic freaks (like Coleman). You need to have TUT focusing on fiber recruitment as part of your training routine; slow motion sets, drop sets, static holds, etc.

 

[silver_shadow]

those are noobs, almost anything works with noobs. i'm sorry but progressive loading is the way to build muscle not super slow sets with pink dumbbells.

 

[silver_shadow]

if you want fiber recruitment you could do backoff sets of 8-10 reps, as well as speed training... WSB style

 

[DocJ]

those are noobs, almost anything works with noobs. i'm sorry but progressive loading is the way to build muscle not super slow sets with pink dumbbells.

If that's true than the logical conclusion would be that BB would need to get exponentially stronger the longer they trained, this obviously doesn't happen so what's accounting for their progress after many years of training? 5 years from now if Jay Cutler's thighs are 3" larger I guarantee you that his poundages haven't gone up much if at all.

Your point about newbies training is well taken though. There are other studies done with experienced trainees that show similar results. The only reason why I posted this one was because it's the most recent.

 

[ManOfMuscle]

If that's true than the logical conclusion would be that BB would need to get exponentially stronger the longer they trained, this obviously doesn't happen so what's accounting for their progress after many years of training? 5 years from now if Jay Cutler's thighs are 3" larger I guarantee you that his poundages haven't gone up much if at all.

Your point about newbies training is well taken though. There are other studies done with experienced trainees that show similar results. The only reason why I posted this one was because it's the most recent.

I would say bodybuilders continue to get bigger based on their genetic ability to continue increasing volume in accordance with gear use. Those guys can train for hours. Plus many of them are extremely strong i.e. Ronnie, Johnny Jackson, etc.

 

[ManOfMuscle]

progressive loading is the way to build muscle not super slow sets with pink dumbbells.

This is true however high rep sets factor into progressive loading just as strength does. You have to be able to do more reps of a given weight or more weight in the given reps, either way you get bigger.

 

[silver_shadow]

This is true however high rep sets factor into progressive loading just as strength does. You have to be able to do more reps of a given weight or more weight in the given reps, either way you get bigger.

absolutely bro, no doubt about that. low reps -> increase poundage, switch to high reps -> increase poundage, repeat is the most effective for us natty (mostly) lifters with average genetics.

 

[silver_shadow]

doc, as LTID mentioned, guys like cutler and coleman not only have superior genetics, they also train a lot and are very strong + tons of AAS, slin, GH etc. they need that last one to raise the bar (3" on cutler's thighs in 5 yrs like you mention).

 

[jcp2]

I do get the privledge to train in the same gym with pro bodybuilders. Since i have yet to see anyone do anything but a somewhat typical bodybuilding workout, i am going to have to assume as you get to a point you probably need that kind of volume to make gains, along with the kind of food, and that kind of drugs. I don't think the get stronger, get bigger thing work forever. But it should work for quite some time, as long as food is thier. I can think of at least one bodybuilder that i talked to last night, who basically told me in the offseason, he knows he is getting bigger as he starts getting stronger, and we talked about how it is so simple yet all the kids in the gym are to busy reading people saying otherwise. One thing i have noticed on the net, people either play one side of the fence or the other when it comes to strength/size, where the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. And most people don't have an original thought in thier head.

 

[Swellin]

What it shows IMO, is that simply focusing on progressively higher poundages will eventually stall progress in everyone except the truely genetic freaks (like Coleman). You need to have TUT focusing on fiber recruitment as part of your training routine; slow motion sets, drop sets, static holds, etc.

I think you nailed it right there DocJ.

I honestly believe there's more to it, but you got it figured.

Just my opinion, but I see TUT as a 5% thing for the new trainee (like someone mentioned about newbs). I see it as more important for the intermediate trainee. I see it as being very important for the advanced trainee. I think that TUT leaves that 5% realm real quickas the progress of the trainee slows and more things become important.

I forgot...the "5%" thing comes from a thread by IronAddict. It has to do with so many people focussing on the "last 5%" of bodybuilding/powerlifting, and not paying attention to the meat and potatos of the whole thing.

Let's see if I can get him in this thread to see what he thinks about it.

 

[iron addict]

I just have my trainees lift fast on the positive and lower at a natural pace on the negative. I have played with TUT with pretty large sample lots of trainees and have come to the conclusion that if you need more TUT, do more sets.

IA

 

[ManOfMuscle]

I just have my trainees lift fast on the positive and lower at a natural pace on the negative. I have played with TUT with pretty large sample lots of trainees and have come to the conclusion that if you need more TUT, do more sets.

IA

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[inked1]

good find DocJ

 

[silver_shadow]

Couldn't have said it better.

yep... also add 20 rep squats to that

 

[DocJ]

I just have my trainees lift fast on the positive and lower at a natural pace on the negative. I have played with TUT with pretty large sample lots of trainees and have come to the conclusion that if you need more TUT, do more sets.

IA

So you aren't in favor of using set-extension techniques like drop sets, etc?