So the bottom line is, getting to the finish line (failure) is the most important factor. How you get there (sprinting, jogging, walking) isn't as important. Great video.
My takeaway from this is slowing your reps (generally) applies greater mechanical tension, which in turn allows training to failure to occur sooner in a set (less repitions needed.) I particularly see this information useful when it comes to maximizing gains from body weight exercises like pushups. Since pushups becomes easy to do many repitions at a medium to fast speed, there's a point where the number of pushups required to achieve muscle hypertrophy is no longer optimal. Slowing down the reps is a great way to increase mechanical tension and trigger hypertrophy to a workout where it would have otherwise been too easy at a faster repition speed. This principle could also be applied to other workouts where you are trying to achieve progressive overload via mechanical tension when lighter weights are all that you have avaiable. Some food for thought!
The "slo-mo" principle, as well as peak contraction, and continuous tension and iso-tension and a whole host of other terms Joe Weider loved to use started showing up in the late 1940's and 1950's.....WHY?.....Because as the late, great, Robert Kennedy of Muscle Mag and Author of several books stated..."Because there was an iron shortage after WW2, weight sets were prohibitively expensive, most trainee's had either 110- llbs, 160 llbs or if you were really lucky 210 llbs. ( that was for your 1 barbell and 2 dumb bells) Commercial Gyms had not really caught on yet, and even Mr.America competitor did a lot of training at home or at the Y.M.C.A or some similar place.".. So muscle magazine's had to figure out ways to keep muscle's growing and trainee's not bored with the weights they did have......Very similar to what you did with pushups. This even influenced how guys would train with weight selection, as you had those old lousy collars that required wrenches and you did not want to be changing weights constantly......Hence things like 8 sets of 8 and 10 sets of 10 with the same weight. Same exercise. It worked!!!...and it was just a hell of a lot easier to set up in a bedroom, attic or garage.Make sense? They did it all out of necessity, the odd thing is, if you look at the pictures of those guys, and realise that they were not on nearly as much gear (if at all) and had no where near the supplements. What they did and how they trained seemed to do something to their physiques. And yes, that includes "Time under tension", slow reps, fast reps, peak contraction and anything else they could come up with. Thanks for listening. Good luck with your training.
0:00 Introduction 0:55 Evidence Supporting Time Under Tension 4:39 Research on Time Under Tension With Failure Training 8:17 Super Slow Rep Speeds Are Inferior for Muscle Growth? 9:30 Why Slow Reps and Fast Reps Are Likely Similarly Effective For Hypertrophy 13:26 Supporting Evidence From Rep Range Research 14:17 Minimal Time Under Threshold? 15:20 Conclusion Thank you for watching, I hope the video was useful and informative :)
Slowing down movements makes it easier and faster to reach failure, so in the end it's better. Also it forces to use proper form and avoid momentum, which makes reaching failure even easier and faster.
However you can reach failure quicker with a lighter load when performed slow. So you are working with safer weights and less wear. I do 2/2 or 2/4. Works weell
Great video, but I have to disaggree here at 10:07. There is a study that has shown that the eccentric movement is more important to muscle growth than the concentric. Also physiologically it makes sense to me, because in the eccentric MGF (Mechano Growth Factor) gets released into the system. Plus I am certain that many lifters would get a better mind-muscle connection when starting to use a 1 second concentric and 2-3 seconds eccentric rhythm instead of just letting the weight fall in the eccentric as many tend to do. That the mind-muscle connection does actually have an effect to muscle growth has already been proven.
I have been using machines that are connected with a bar. I push the weight up and let go with one hand on the eccentric and just resist it. The weight is probably around 20 to 30lbs over what I could do with a one arm press. My growth has be fantastic! I am doing this with the curl machine, the leg press, the leg extension and the leg curl. Up with both down with one. I am growing faster than I ever have before and I am in my 50's.
It escapes me how the researchers didn't take this into account when designing the studies. Also, I'm not sure that we need time under tension studies when we already have studies comparing different rep ranges. A longer time under tension is essentially equivalent to a higher rep range at the same tempo.
I think one thing you missed is slowing down reps allows alot of people(me included) to do the exercise more effectively. For example when i slow down my deadlifts or back squats i can target the correct muscles much more effectively than when i do it faster. Furthermore when i do those exercises faster i find i eventually slowly injure myself. I start getting a tight lower back or neck etc. Slowing down the rep allows you to do it more safely. In the long run this leads to less injuries and hence more growth.
Most of what I learn from meta-analyses of these studies is: 1. It’s very difficult to devise a study to test for hypertrophy results. 2. Most researchers don’t try very hard. The lurking variables in these studies don’t even lurk. They step out into the light and shout at you with a bullhorn.
Yes it is, and that's why like with all studies you have to have contextual knowledge and critical thinking skills to come even close to a conclusion, and even then it likely is not a definitive conclusion but something that gives you a direction. That's science in a nutshell, it's never perfect and you always have room to improve on knowledge.
Bro I've literally never seen a channel more underrated than this one. Maybe you should start branching out into general fitness and wellness as well to get some traction man. This content NEEDS to be out there
Thank you for your kind word :) Ultimately, I enjoy making videos related to strength and hypertrophy research. I don't think I'd be motivated to make general fitness & wellness videos. My main focus is currently on making high-quality and useful content for whatever my current audience size may be. I still feel I have good room for improvement. We'll see how the channels doing in a few years :)
Love the video. I think this answers my question on your newest video pretty well 👍 I think the slow eccentric after a cheat rep just helps me reach failure near the end of a set rather than ending on a failed concentric
That's quite interesting. It would be cool to see research in the future having individuals perform reps to failure, and then continue with cheat reps (or assisted concentric reps) that involve a controlled eccentric.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I do this in the gym when I have a friend with me, I will fail the chest press for example, he would then help me lift up the weight and let go so I can control it on the way down as slowly as possible. I can manage another 3-4 eccentric reps before I reach negative failure. I believe this is the Dorian Yates style of training.
I just watched videos of Ronnie Coleman doing front squats, curls, shoulder presses completing 8-12 reps in a total time of less than 15 seconds. 10 reps at 500 in the front squat in 14 seconds. Similar for Arnold on bench presses, cable rows, T-bar rows. Same for Jay Cutler, Tom Platz. No slow eccentrics, low TUT. Even Yates only averaged 3-4 seconds per rep and his top sets were often in the 4-6 range.
I have been doing overload on the eccentric. I push up the bar on a machine, and at the top I take one hand off and just resist it on the way down, then push it back up and then let go with the opposite hand. I am growing faster than I ever have before. The weight is probably 20 to 30lbs more than I could press with one arm. On the curl machine I curl up with 2 hands and then at the top I let go with one hand just resist it on the way down. Same thing...growing fast. I do it with the leg press also, and the leg curl machine and the leg extension. I remember Lou Ferrigno saying that he would load the bar up with a 1000lbs and just resist it coming down. There is something going on here...and it is growing
It's doesn't matter how you fatigue the muscle, just that your do it, Lifting heavier weight forces more tension on the muscle but it will also fuck your joint and connective tissue in the process You might be big but you'll be crippled, alot of people don't realise this Your muscle is more flexible than joints and tendons so Lifting heavier weights for less time under tension means you throwing the weight up and catching the full load on the way down which won't effect how your muscle reacts to the tension but will place alot more sudden load plus the extra force of momentum on your ligaments, tendons and joints which will fuck you up When someone tears a muscle its because the point where the muscle attaches to bone, aka tendon ruptures from too much weight not from the muscle tearing in the belly of the muscle It's usually at the fully stretched position with the tendon bearing the brunt of it Time under tension training mitigates this by forcing better form with less weight and more direct muscle work
To your last point! The benefit of varying speeds of reps is spot on. During your first initial set, the strongest muscles win. As you fatigue, other minor muscles are deployed to help with sheer BALANCE. (ie: don't drop the dumbbells!) Varying your reps is and should be a completely natural way to work out. EXAMPLE: I've seen really built fellas who have a very hard time doing chin-ups and lunges, simply because they don't practice varying routines, speeds or balance exercises.
That’s not because they’re not varying their routines and such. It’s because they’re quite literally carrying more mass than you. You can’t expect a 250 lb man to be able to do as many chin ups and lunges as someone who’s 180 lb the same reason you can’t expect someone who’s 180 lb to be moving the same weight as a 250 lb man.
fantastic work as usual - I've begun experimenting with more sets to failure - doesn't seem to fatigue me like crazy but I am doing high frequency training so not as many set spread-out throughout the week
Thank you, and that sound's quite interesting! Based on my preliminary readings, I think the body may have a decent capacity to adapt and handle training to failure. But, I think there still remains questions as to whether it is as sustainable long-term verus leaving reps in reserve. It would be interesting to see if you can continue making good progress over many months with multiple failure training sets. Soon, I plan to dig into this area of research much more and create videos on it :)
Good to see vids like this backed by actual studies and not just “experts” talking on a podcast. However, a new study out by the Scandinavian Journal of Science and Sports, article titled, “Effect of daily 3-s maximum voluntary isometric, concentric, or eccentric contraction on elbow flexor strength”, challenges everything in this video.
Hey, thanks for the kind words. I'm not too sure how the study you mentioned conflicts with anything in this video? I've only read the abstract, but it seems that neither the 3s iso contraction, nor concentric or eccentric groups saw increases in muscle thickness (an measure of hypertrophy). I'm not seeing how this conflicts? Maybe I'm missing something, let me know :)
I do one week normal rep range 8-12 with 2 secs up and 2 secs down, the following week I do 15+ reps using less weights and 2 secs up and 4 secs down. It's interesting because I can feel burn in muscles I never felt before doing 2 secs up and 2 secs down. For example when doing chest press with slow reps, I feel serious burn in my out shoulders.
True, biologically, it makes sense cause the burn is from the byproduct of hydrogen ions produced during anaerobic respiration lactic acid fermentation of the muscle fibers, longer time down means its in a contracted state for longer and hence a longer period of being contracted, sadly, the burn dosent equate to direct growth😢, I wish it's simply and one criteria is superior to another......but I guess it's just ot so simple.....
Exactly, there are parts of the rep during a chest press where it’s difficult to maintain a quality chest connection and delts will take a little more of the load, therefore TUT isn’t a great theory to use on some pressing movements such as a chest press. Let’s compare that to a cable fly which is an isolated movement and chest will be under tension 100 percent of the time, TUT can be used more efficiently in this case, however I do believe training in close proximity to failure and mind muscle connection should be the main focus and not to focus on counting down numbers on eccentrics etc
@@cricketclips5019 Yes after much research it seems that tut isn’t all that important, and it leaves me more fatigued. I actually thought the more sore I got the more effective the workout but that’s also proven to be untrue! I train as close to failure and to full failure during the last set, and work on increasing the weight or rep each every session/other session.
So I have been holding up at the top instead of just resting at the bottom. It really works. Even while curling I hold one dumbbell up in the fully contracted position while curling the other one. And on machines at the top I let go with one hand and just resist with the extra weight. I do this on the leg press, leg curls, leg extensions. over head press, arm curl machine, arm extension machine. The weight is also around 20 to 30lbs more than I could do with one arm. Growth has been faster than ever before. Overloading the eccentric really does work.
You only stimulate growth by training to momentary muscular failure. Period. The groups in the studies who didn’t train to failure did NOT stimulate growth.
He is not showing rests between sets which makes his studies invalid. Most studies for TUT have a rest between sets of 3 minutes which allow using heavier weights. Also most studies use a 4-2-4 second rep, 4 seconds , 2 second hold, and 4 seconds for a set of 50-60 seconds of 5-6 reps. This is what I do with 60%-70% of the weights I can use for 2 second reps. I am 79 and I train 6 days a week, upper body 2 1/2 hours lower body 2 hours. I am hoping to start boxing lessons in about 6 months.
Well muscle breakdown occurs during large amounts of stress, whether that’s from the amount of the weight or slowness of the tempo, they both stimulate repair and hypertrophy. So it makes sense that adding heaps of tension increases hypertrophy
That is a lot to take in all at once......... Just a few thoughts. You mentioned "trained to failure?"......What does that exactly mean? How do we measure that? "The only way we would know?"...We don't know. The entire study does not define what it meant by "failure." Because someone who is an untrained novice on an 8 week study happened to say they had enough? Different people's threshold's for what failure is differs greatly from person to person. Even within that person, it can vary greatly from day to day....(High energy days vs low energy vs not sufficiently recovered.) I ask that because most seasoned lifters that had to take 3 sets of squats (not including warm-ups) to total, utter, complete failure in the 8-10 rep range,, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday would be wiped out and seriously compromised by the time the Friday workout came. At least how I, and many others define failure. We haven't even got to things like forced reps, pre-exhaust, rep pausing and the grand daddy of them all NEGATIVE reps. THAT is truly training to failure. Example for chest would be pre-exhausting the pec's with flies until no further upward motion, THEN assisted by a training partner for forced reps, followed IMMEDIATELY by weighted Chest Dips, Then the weights subtracted, then forced reps until the trainee could no longer raise themselves....THEN have the partner raise you up to the top of the Dip and slowly lower yourself until you could no longer control the descent........THEN....and ONLY THEN can one claim they hit Total, Complete "Muscular failure". Of course different exercises lend themselves better to different techniques.....Sqauts done super slow almost become more of a balance issue, and for deadlifts, downright dangerous for the lower back. While leg extensions and ham curls allow for set extension "intensity" training to true failure techniques like forced reps, negatives, peak contraction ect ect ect. In conclusion, until we actually define what "training to failure" actually is and take into account certain exercise's like Squats differ radically from Leg extensions and Ham curls, using these findings on these select studies as "the clinching proof" is dubious at best,.... Especially since many of the studies mentioned used "average untrained men" as the barometer of what "training to failure" was supposed to mean.
I have been training on machines more and at the top of the movement I let go with one hand and just resist the descent. It is around 20 to 30lbs more than I could possibly do with one hand. I have been doing this for the past month or so with the leg press, leg extension, leg curls, arm curl machine, though I will say with arm curls go easy as you don't want to tear your biceps:) I am growing faster than I ever have and I am only working out 2 to 3 times a week. This is really an intense way of working out. So time under tension is way up and the eccentric is way overloaded.
One thing that will make you happy and see result regardless of high or low reps is consistency, work out for 3 to 5 years and you will be happy with the way your body look, just work out and thats it
There is one research from Asis-Pereyra, regarding biceps, which shows some advantage of slower eccentric tempo. Effect size was greater for 4s eccentric group. It may happen for several reasons. Failure wasnt defined well. And even if all subjects trained to muscular failure (we dont clearly know it) there could be some more hypertrophy for slower conditions (mainly type I) due to hypoxia which is caused by prolonging eccentric duration. Anyway the study from Morton et al. shows the best that we shouldnt really care about tempo. What means is proximity to failure. PS You do an amazing job. Keep it going! Cheers!
It seem to be the outlier. There is other research showing slower eccentric durations do not enhance growth. Also, if slower eccentrics did enhance growth, the research shown in this video should also find that slower repetitions overall cause more growth, but this isn't the case.
@@HouseofHypertrophy ofc, and there are also new studies, including the one you mentioned by Lacerda et al., which show no difference between slower and faster conditions. I think they are Shibata et al. and Kojic et. al
@@HouseofHypertrophy I have been using machines so I can push up with both hands then let go at the top and only lower with one arm, then press back up with both and repeat for opposite arm. Around 20 to 30bls over what I could press with one arm. I do this on the curl machine the leg press the leg extension and leg curl machine. On the over head press I press up and hold at the top while I press with each arm independently for more TUT. Growth has been phenomenal.
Honestly i think it's more complicated than this. I believe that on the concentric you actually do use a fair bit of fast twitch muscle fibers, and as you approach failure you begin recruiting more and more while with slow twitch muscle fibers you use a higher pecentage of them relative to the fast twitch during the eccentric, and it seems that from expirence of many in the fitness industry training beyond failure on certain exercies is key (via lengehtned partials), and i think they're really just triyng to fatigue the slow twitch muscle fibers as much as possible, because yeah most muscles seem to be predominantly slow twitch so the more tension the better.
These are the most helpful vid's what a great idea you developed! Are there studies for types of training for various body types and what is the most productive? Sets, Reps, Rest Days, Frequency, Etc for Mesomorphs, Endomorphs and Ectomorphs
Quick question: Do you think during studies like these that all test subjects should eat the same macros and consume around the same nutrition? I just wonder if the subjects maxed out their protein intake would it yield greater muscle growth or if their current diet played a role in muscle growth at all
All of the studies here have subjects maintain their typical diet (unfortunately, they usually do not aim to have subjects consume the same relative amount of macronutrients). I think it would be much better if they did, but I can imagine it would be difficult to enforce and track. Ultimately, I think diet can play a role in research relating to training variables. However, in cases where the research is consistent (as is the research shown in this video), I personally don't worry about it too much :)
Thanks for the video. I only wish you didn't focus on hypertrophy so much. Real strength has nothing to do with size, and size can not only limit flexibility, but also increase weight, which is detrimental. The ideal is fast, nimble, and strong... not huge, slow and weak.
Would you still get a good amount of gains doing one slow-ish (not super slow) set to failure, with an increased time under tension? Of course you’d get a greater amount of gains & Hypertrophy doing 3-4 regular speed sets, but just how drastic would the gains gap between the 2 methods be? Huge?
Fascinating. But did these studies factor diet, nutrition or genetics? Moreover, these studies don’t look at actual form. By this I mean actually making the muscles drive the weight along a natural plane if movement. To do this the weight has to be light and the time longer but this is much much more than increasing time. Time just becomes a measure of how long it takes to perform each rep, not a deliberate slowing down of movement. The crucial distinction here is that trying to move a load creates an emphasis on increasing weight load and moving the load. This means that form will always be compromised. Trying to use the weight as as an extension of the bone means that you train your muscles to move as they would without a weight. This promotes greater and more accelerated muscle growth and targets isolated muscles much better.
wouldn't the high time under tension group have it harder to determine failure because they would be more focused on the constraints under which they have to perform the set rather than their muscles be the limiting factor? To elaborate untrained individual who were the common sample size in these studies would have accumulated more CNS fatigue throughout the set and therefore not reach actual muscular failure. This could indicate that trained individuals would be able to perform the sets under the constraints more effectively and determine failure at a higher accuracy than untrained individuals. Another query i had was that are there any studies to show the impact of a slow (2-4 second) eccentric and as-fast-as-possible concentric on muscle growth?
Basically it's safer and can be trained closer to failure with lighter weight done with high intensity (slower reps in this case) While training to failure in general will trigger growth, its easier and safer to do so with moderate to light weight as heavy weights will tax the nervous system and muscle More before reaching failure and is not as safe to do so Basically making the lighter weight feel heavier with intensity techniques allows you to train closer to failure because your body can safely do so without your CNS limiting your lift to protect itself from injury
I think we need to consider one important factor is safety. As slower you do the rep as more control as less risk of injury. It's became curtail with the age. Take all the factors into consideration slow and control reps far grater or safer than quick one. What do you think?
This is an excellent point that you make. If we consider the effects on joints, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, spine, etc., which rep range and percentage of 1 rep max will be safest over a lifetime?
Doing slow reps has no functional purpose. Being able to move the most amount of weight has real life implications. If all you care about is muscle growth then have at it.
This tells me that slow reps are better quality reps, allow you to use less weight, promote better form and are safer. Mixed with myo reps, this can be pretty effective in making every rep count and eliminating junk reps.
Common sense , when you don't lock out and rest on compound movements squat , bench , shoulder press it's way harder the muscle fatigues way quicker that should tell you it's better . Think about it why rest at the top of compound movements ? Also apply what I said with accentuating the negative and you will get great results of course without drugs .
I've come to the conclusion that time under tension videos are nothing but a merry-go-round of contradictions, which serve to confuse you more than you were prior to watching the video.
I guess these studies show the success of a Brazilian bodybuilder Fernando Sardinha wich have created the "ponto zero evolution". He uses time under tension and isometric on the eccentrics JUST to reach the failure with less charge, avoiding injuries. Time under tension is not the goal, but a way to reach failure with less injuries...
I'm also waiting for a video about isometric exercises. We know that the spinal erector muscle can become hypertrophied by contracting isometrically with deadlift. Is it the same for other muscles and what is the importance of isometric contraction in hypertrophy?
Lift explosively, lower slow and controlled its simple.dont lift slow lift as hard as you can each rep. Dont forget to breath! 4-5 second lower is optimal, dr andrew hubberman has talked extensively about this.
What if I were to do a heavy set for neural adaptations, but don't go to failure to avoid injury. And then I do one with A lighter load to go to or near failure? Is there any counterarguments for training like that?
I wish they’d do studies to measure time under tension in the way it’s practically used in the gym, with only slow eccentric movements, not slow concentric movements as well
Yeah I don't see the point of conducting a study with the reps, sets, and weight held constant but only varying TUT. If effort isn't the same then what's the point!
Thanks for the great vids. I like to put some more explosive exercises in my workout to warm up and do high weights really slow to maintain a flawless form.
Thank you for you kind words! :) it's difficult to fully reference the all of studies due to the youtube character limit. (I also need to reference the background music and type out the timestamps). That's why I add pop-ups on the video with the full name and lead author of the study. However, in videos like this (in which 15 or fewer studies are involved), I should be able to link to the pubmed abstracts of each study. Will this be okay?
I find that I can't really go to failure when I lift heavy, eg with bench press I still have a bit of energy in my tank left, but I don't have enough energy to do an extra rep am I the only one that feels this.. also it puts more stress on my shoulders than my chest..
Well with pure empirical evidence I can say what these studies found out lol The main thing about slow reps for me is that you can load less weight in certain exercises and still get the same results as going as heavy as possible. I have a bad shoulder and chest exercises became a lot more comfortable with slow reps with a little less weight. However, I can't see a way to do a slow rep on a heavy ass squat 😂
Acute measures such as these do not always equate to long-term outcomes (i.e. greater protein synthesis responses do not always mean greater increase in muscle growth measures in the long-term). See this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933567/ Therefore, studies that use long-term muscle growth measures (like thickness, cross-sectional area, or volume) are overall probably more reliable and valid than acute studies that measure certain variables.
To me, one of his points seems silly. He states that the study doesn’t necessarily prove that the slower set group achieved more muscle growth than the faster set group because they can't say whether the result causation was due to them working closer to failure which makes no sense because if moving slower on a set, facilitates, encourages, promotes working, closer to failure than the conclusion should be that there’s more growth in the slow slower moving set.
Look at data going all the way back to armies training static 90 degree bent knees stands for 1-2min and you will find something cool. Spoiler. All studies I've read show that static holds create the biggest muscles for a given time training compared to all other speeds... With the downside of getting slow, stiffer and not as strong as normal speed lifters..
I decided to delete it. I still create infographics, if you'd like, you can sign up by email to receive them in your inbox over at houseofhypertrophy.com :)
volume is not the amount of sets u do in a given workout..if u increase the weight it also means volume... intensity the key once u know how to train to failure u need less volume to grow.. its more volume more gains ..
Haha, yeah, that could work. Though, light load training tends to be more painful than higher load training, but both can be similarly effective for gainz :)
GOD Loved you enough too send His Son JESUS for you and if you will believe in Him and at baptized in THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT and turn from your sins you will be
These studies are downright idiotic in their design. We took untrained individuals...lost me there. Hiw about after all other variables are maxed out you see what can allow an individual to go further.
yes time under tension is important...but there is super high tension ,medium tension,low tension and everything in between... Its up to the trainer to create the time under tension that works best for them...
Firstly, the studies you mention early on are deeply flawed, as measuring the eccentric and concentric portions without the pause at the top or bottom of the exercise, or the tension in each of the latter, is useless as a study of TUT. Better when going to failure, but TUT proponents do not necessarily prescribe failure each set, which is another kettle of fish. The length of the set is the key factor, not the length of the repetition. Secondly, the later mentioned studies had subjects going well beyond 70 seconds in a set, and not achieving improved results. However, proponents of TUT training do NOT maintain that more TUT is better, or they'd be curling 1kg for an hour per arm, but rather that there is an OPTIMAL RANGE of TUT of 40-60 seconds. So those studies and your video do not address the theory at all properly in order to be able to claim to have disproven it.
I'm not sure you paid careful attention to the video. See 6:05, TUT per set was 25-38 seconds for one of the groups, yet they experienced similar hypertrophy to the other group who were more so within that 40-60s TUT range. Moreover, if you check out the "can reps below 5 build muscle optimally?" video, there are data demonstrating sets of 3 can produce similar growth to higher rep sets. Sets of 3 would be very little TUT per set.
When I train for hypertrophy, I do sets of 45 seconds. Just finished such a session. As I said, and you rightly ignored, if you want to argue, the number of repetitions is of little concern, which bins the first few of those largely unscientific studies. TUT is just that. It's not RUT. My previous first point stands. As for the study you focused on, in the group that represented the TUT proponent side of the debate, they only hit the optimal point of 45 seconds in one of the three sets. Also, just three sets? Of course they didn't see much difference. It's another poorly done study. And my second point about the studies that went well beyond the optimal point also stands unopposed. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to my comment?
The research generally demonstrates loads between 30%1RM to 80%1RM produce similar hypertrophy, when reps are executed at least 3 or fewer repetitions from failure. The TUT you achieve with an 80% 1RM load may be approximately around 25 seconds when using a 1:1:1 tempo (con:ecc:iso) (as mentioned in the video @ 11:37), which is well below the 45-60 second mark. The TUT you achieve with a 30%1RM load, when using a 1:1:1 tempo may be around 54 seconds (again as mentioned in the video). Here's the thing, growth between these two protocols would be the same, numerous studies now show this (9 as far as I'm aware): 1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/ 2) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899398/ 3) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28532248/ 4) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29189407/ 5) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/ 6) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28611677/ 7) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31895290/ 8) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30646835/ 9) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31306302/ So, there goes the notion 40-60s is optimal. Again, if you watched the video, perhaps you would have picked this up. As also described in the video, mechanistically, there's nothing special about a TUT of 40-60s. In this study you call "poor", 3-4 sets were performed per session. How's that poor? 3-4 per session for an exercise is perfectly fine, and as shown by the ACTUAL results of the study, respectable hypertrophy occured. Also 2-3 sets per sesion, not 1 of them, were within the 40-60s time range. Look closer dude. Finally, as mentioned in the prior comment, sets of 3 reps have been shown to produce similar growth to sets of 8-12 (this study for instance: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24714538/). As noted by the author (Brad Schoenfeld, a highly respected resistance training researcher) , the TUT achieved by performing 3s per set was 9 SECONDS (mentioned in this post: instagram.com/p/BwrbrcYlSWt/). Please don't tell me you think sets of 8-12 are suboptimal, making this study useless? Anyway, this will be my final response. I accept feedback and critiques well thought out, but you've failed to watch the video carefully (in which much point against your comments can be located). It's a waste of time for me just to reiterate what's been said in the video. If you feel a TUT of 40-60s is still magically optimal for hypertrophy, despite the points made, I guess we'll just disagree. I wish you well nonetheless, hope you had a great workout :)
So, you ignore the criticism of the methodology in my post, because it is sound. The study you chose to defend, as you deem it the best, while mispronouncing the name in its title, and the actual word 'analysis', required 3-4 sets 2-3 times per week, so basic requirement of six sets of leg extensions per week in an isolation exercise. Now, you can find endless unscientific studies to back pretty much whatever you want to claim is the case, but I'd consider so few sets suboptimal. If I were running that study, I'd have asked for more like 16-20 sets per week, would have specified time over repetitions and tempo, and required the plates not touch at the bottom. It's not difficult, is it?
As for your suggestion that 3 reps and 12 reps get the same result, supposedly when hitting failure again, sure, whatever. I didn't suggest any number of repetitions were optimal, which you don't seem to get. The length of the set is what should be being discussed. You could do 3 sets and hit 45 seconds and fail if you wanted. Or 25. Personally, I don't count reps when I train for hypertrophy. I use an interval timer, and select the weight so am struggling when it hits 45 seconds. I also train in the ranges you mentioned, counting them out, and train for power, strength, explosiveness or endurance, adjusting as required... but for hypertrophy, no reps counted, just the timer and picking the right weight and tempo is all I need, focusing on the MMC, and get the best results like that.
So the bottom line is, getting to the finish line (failure) is the most important factor. How you get there (sprinting, jogging, walking) isn't as important. Great video.
This is some next level content bro, remember me when ur at a milli.
Haha, thank you bro! I appreciate your support :)
why
@@terminator_playz5167noob
My takeaway from this is slowing your reps (generally) applies greater mechanical tension, which in turn allows training to failure to occur sooner in a set (less repitions needed.)
I particularly see this information useful when it comes to maximizing gains from body weight exercises like pushups. Since pushups becomes easy to do many repitions at a medium to fast speed, there's a point where the number of pushups required to achieve muscle hypertrophy is no longer optimal. Slowing down the reps is a great way to increase mechanical tension and trigger hypertrophy to a workout where it would have otherwise been too easy at a faster repition speed.
This principle could also be applied to other workouts where you are trying to achieve progressive overload via mechanical tension when lighter weights are all that you have avaiable. Some food for thought!
Yeah, I'm trying to milked the push ups as much as I can, after I can do 25 reps normal push ups, I will progress to slow push ups with pauses.
The "slo-mo" principle, as well as peak contraction, and continuous tension and iso-tension and a whole host of other terms Joe Weider loved to use started showing up in the late 1940's and 1950's.....WHY?.....Because as the late, great, Robert Kennedy of Muscle Mag and Author of several books stated..."Because there was an iron shortage after WW2, weight sets were prohibitively expensive, most trainee's had either 110- llbs, 160 llbs or if you were really lucky 210 llbs. ( that was for your 1 barbell and 2 dumb bells) Commercial Gyms had not really caught on yet, and even Mr.America competitor did a lot of training at home or at the Y.M.C.A or some similar place."..
So muscle magazine's had to figure out ways to keep muscle's growing and trainee's not bored with the weights they did have......Very similar to what you did with pushups.
This even influenced how guys would train with weight selection, as you had those old lousy collars that required wrenches and you did not want to be changing weights constantly......Hence things like 8 sets of 8 and 10 sets of 10 with the same weight. Same exercise. It worked!!!...and it was just a hell of a lot easier to set up in a bedroom, attic or garage.Make sense?
They did it all out of necessity, the odd thing is, if you look at the pictures of those guys, and realise that they were not on nearly as much gear (if at all) and had no where near the supplements. What they did and how they trained seemed to do something to their physiques. And yes, that includes "Time under tension", slow reps, fast reps, peak contraction and anything else they could come up with.
Thanks for listening. Good luck with your training.
0:00 Introduction
0:55 Evidence Supporting Time Under Tension
4:39 Research on Time Under Tension With Failure Training
8:17 Super Slow Rep Speeds Are Inferior for Muscle Growth?
9:30 Why Slow Reps and Fast Reps Are Likely Similarly Effective For Hypertrophy
13:26 Supporting Evidence From Rep Range Research
14:17 Minimal Time Under Threshold?
15:20 Conclusion
Thank you for watching, I hope the video was useful and informative :)
Slowing down movements makes it easier and faster to reach failure, so in the end it's better. Also it forces to use proper form and avoid momentum, which makes reaching failure even easier and faster.
However you can reach failure quicker with a lighter load when performed slow. So you are working with safer weights and less wear. I do 2/2 or 2/4. Works weell
Great video, but I have to disaggree here at 10:07. There is a study that has shown that the eccentric movement is more important to muscle growth than the concentric. Also physiologically it makes sense to me, because in the eccentric MGF (Mechano Growth Factor) gets released into the system. Plus I am certain that many lifters would get a better mind-muscle connection when starting to use a 1 second concentric and 2-3 seconds eccentric rhythm instead of just letting the weight fall in the eccentric as many tend to do. That the mind-muscle connection does actually have an effect to muscle growth has already been proven.
I have been using machines that are connected with a bar. I push the weight up and let go with one hand on the eccentric and just resist it. The weight is probably around 20 to 30lbs over what I could do with a one arm press. My growth has be fantastic! I am doing this with the curl machine, the leg press, the leg extension and the leg curl. Up with both down with one. I am growing faster than I ever have before and I am in my 50's.
Right on as Jones taught accentuate the negative .
It escapes me how the researchers didn't take this into account when designing the studies.
Also, I'm not sure that we need time under tension studies when we already have studies comparing different rep ranges. A longer time under tension is essentially equivalent to a higher rep range at the same tempo.
Agreed!
I think one thing you missed is slowing down reps allows alot of people(me included) to do the exercise more effectively. For example when i slow down my deadlifts or back squats i can target the correct muscles much more effectively than when i do it faster.
Furthermore when i do those exercises faster i find i eventually slowly injure myself. I start getting a tight lower back or neck etc. Slowing down the rep allows you to do it more safely. In the long run this leads to less injuries and hence more growth.
Most of what I learn from meta-analyses of these studies is:
1. It’s very difficult to devise a study to test for hypertrophy results.
2. Most researchers don’t try very hard.
The lurking variables in these studies don’t even lurk. They step out into the light and shout at you with a bullhorn.
Yes it is, and that's why like with all studies you have to have contextual knowledge and critical thinking skills to come even close to a conclusion, and even then it likely is not a definitive conclusion but something that gives you a direction. That's science in a nutshell, it's never perfect and you always have room to improve on knowledge.
Bro I've literally never seen a channel more underrated than this one. Maybe you should start branching out into general fitness and wellness as well to get some traction man. This content NEEDS to be out there
Thank you for your kind word :)
Ultimately, I enjoy making videos related to strength and hypertrophy research. I don't think I'd be motivated to make general fitness & wellness videos. My main focus is currently on making high-quality and useful content for whatever my current audience size may be. I still feel I have good room for improvement. We'll see how the channels doing in a few years :)
I was just thinking about this yesterday, thank you for the good content!
No problem! I hoped the video helped :)
Love the video. I think this answers my question on your newest video pretty well 👍 I think the slow eccentric after a cheat rep just helps me reach failure near the end of a set rather than ending on a failed concentric
That's quite interesting. It would be cool to see research in the future having individuals perform reps to failure, and then continue with cheat reps (or assisted concentric reps) that involve a controlled eccentric.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I do this in the gym when I have a friend with me, I will fail the chest press for example, he would then help me lift up the weight and let go so I can control it on the way down as slowly as possible. I can manage another 3-4 eccentric reps before I reach negative failure. I believe this is the Dorian Yates style of training.
I just watched videos of Ronnie Coleman doing front squats, curls, shoulder presses completing 8-12 reps in a total time of less than 15 seconds. 10 reps at 500 in the front squat in 14 seconds. Similar for Arnold on bench presses, cable rows, T-bar rows. Same for Jay Cutler, Tom Platz. No slow eccentrics, low TUT. Even Yates only averaged 3-4 seconds per rep and his top sets were often in the 4-6 range.
You are correct.
PED’s, that’s the magic
@@royalewithcheese25J typical jealousy reply
I have been doing overload on the eccentric. I push up the bar on a machine, and at the top I take one hand off and just resist it on the way down, then push it back up and then let go with the opposite hand. I am growing faster than I ever have before. The weight is probably 20 to 30lbs more than I could press with one arm. On the curl machine I curl up with 2 hands and then at the top I let go with one hand just resist it on the way down. Same thing...growing fast. I do it with the leg press also, and the leg curl machine and the leg extension. I remember Lou Ferrigno saying that he would load the bar up with a 1000lbs and just resist it coming down. There is something going on here...and it is growing
It's doesn't matter how you fatigue the muscle, just that your do it,
Lifting heavier weight forces more tension on the muscle but it will also fuck your joint and connective tissue in the process
You might be big but you'll be crippled, alot of people don't realise this
Your muscle is more flexible than joints and tendons so Lifting heavier weights for less time under tension means you throwing the weight up and catching the full load on the way down which won't effect how your muscle reacts to the tension but will place alot more sudden load plus the extra force of momentum on your ligaments, tendons and joints which will fuck you up
When someone tears a muscle its because the point where the muscle attaches to bone, aka tendon ruptures from too much weight not from the muscle tearing in the belly of the muscle
It's usually at the fully stretched position with the tendon bearing the brunt of it
Time under tension training mitigates this by forcing better form with less weight and more direct muscle work
I don't understand why this chanel haven't more subscriber
To your last point! The benefit of varying speeds of reps is spot on. During your first initial set, the strongest muscles win. As you fatigue, other minor muscles are deployed to help with sheer BALANCE. (ie: don't drop the dumbbells!) Varying your reps is and should be a completely natural way to work out. EXAMPLE: I've seen really built fellas who have a very hard time doing chin-ups and lunges, simply because they don't practice varying routines, speeds or balance exercises.
That’s not because they’re not varying their routines and such. It’s because they’re quite literally carrying more mass than you. You can’t expect a 250 lb man to be able to do as many chin ups and lunges as someone who’s 180 lb the same reason you can’t expect someone who’s 180 lb to be moving the same weight as a 250 lb man.
Always nice to analyze the science over the stuff we hear anecdotally
Agreed :)
fantastic work as usual - I've begun experimenting with more sets to failure - doesn't seem to fatigue me like crazy but I am doing high frequency training so not as many set spread-out throughout the week
Thank you, and that sound's quite interesting!
Based on my preliminary readings, I think the body may have a decent capacity to adapt and handle training to failure. But, I think there still remains questions as to whether it is as sustainable long-term verus leaving reps in reserve. It would be interesting to see if you can continue making good progress over many months with multiple failure training sets.
Soon, I plan to dig into this area of research much more and create videos on it :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy you are the man
Ah yes finally a channel for intellectuals( for real)
As we get closer to failure our speed naturally decreases, so or time on tension is greater.
Yep! But the point here with the video is that durations don't seem to matter (a wide range of set durations can elicit similar hypertrophy)
Good to see vids like this backed by actual studies and not just “experts” talking on a podcast. However, a new study out by the Scandinavian Journal of Science and Sports, article titled, “Effect of daily 3-s maximum voluntary isometric, concentric, or eccentric contraction on elbow flexor strength”, challenges everything in this video.
Hey, thanks for the kind words. I'm not too sure how the study you mentioned conflicts with anything in this video? I've only read the abstract, but it seems that neither the 3s iso contraction, nor concentric or eccentric groups saw increases in muscle thickness (an measure of hypertrophy). I'm not seeing how this conflicts? Maybe I'm missing something, let me know :)
I do one week normal rep range 8-12 with 2 secs up and 2 secs down, the following week I do 15+ reps using less weights and 2 secs up and 4 secs down. It's interesting because I can feel burn in muscles I never felt before doing 2 secs up and 2 secs down. For example when doing chest press with slow reps, I feel serious burn in my out shoulders.
True, biologically, it makes sense cause the burn is from the byproduct of hydrogen ions produced during anaerobic respiration lactic acid fermentation of the muscle fibers, longer time down means its in a contracted state for longer and hence a longer period of being contracted, sadly, the burn dosent equate to direct growth😢, I wish it's simply and one criteria is superior to another......but I guess it's just ot so simple.....
Exactly, there are parts of the rep during a chest press where it’s difficult to maintain a quality chest connection and delts will take a little more of the load, therefore TUT isn’t a great theory to use on some pressing movements such as a chest press. Let’s compare that to a cable fly which is an isolated movement and chest will be under tension 100 percent of the time, TUT can be used more efficiently in this case, however I do believe training in close proximity to failure and mind muscle connection should be the main focus and not to focus on counting down numbers on eccentrics etc
@@cricketclips5019 Well said and interesting points, thank you
@@cricketclips5019 Yes after much research it seems that tut isn’t all that important, and it leaves me more fatigued. I actually thought the more sore I got the more effective the workout but that’s also proven to be untrue! I train as close to failure and to full failure during the last set, and work on increasing the weight or rep each every session/other session.
This channel seems so professional bro u hella underrated hope u make it
That's very kind of you, thank you :)
Failure in the muscle is what matters, that's it. Reps, sets dont matter.
So I have been holding up at the top instead of just resting at the bottom. It really works. Even while curling I hold one dumbbell up in the fully contracted position while curling the other one. And on machines at the top I let go with one hand and just resist with the extra weight. I do this on the leg press, leg curls, leg extensions. over head press, arm curl machine, arm extension machine. The weight is also around 20 to 30lbs more than I could do with one arm. Growth has been faster than ever before. Overloading the eccentric really does work.
You only stimulate growth by training to momentary muscular failure. Period. The groups in the studies who didn’t train to failure did NOT stimulate growth.
He is not showing rests between sets which makes his studies invalid. Most studies for TUT have a rest between sets of 3 minutes which allow using heavier weights. Also most studies use a 4-2-4 second rep, 4 seconds , 2 second hold, and 4 seconds for a set of 50-60 seconds of 5-6 reps. This is what I do with 60%-70% of the weights I can use for 2 second reps. I am 79 and I train 6 days a week, upper body 2 1/2 hours lower body 2 hours. I am hoping to start boxing lessons in about 6 months.
Well muscle breakdown occurs during large amounts of stress, whether that’s from the amount of the weight or slowness of the tempo, they both stimulate repair and hypertrophy. So it makes sense that adding heaps of tension increases hypertrophy
That is a lot to take in all at once.........
Just a few thoughts. You mentioned "trained to failure?"......What does that exactly mean? How do we measure that?
"The only way we would know?"...We don't know. The entire study does not define what it meant by "failure."
Because someone who is an untrained novice on an 8 week study happened to say they had enough?
Different people's threshold's for what failure is differs greatly from person to person. Even within that person, it can vary greatly from day to day....(High energy days vs low energy vs not sufficiently recovered.)
I ask that because most seasoned lifters that had to take 3 sets of squats (not including warm-ups) to total, utter, complete failure in the 8-10 rep range,, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday would be wiped out and seriously compromised by the time the Friday workout came. At least how I, and many others define failure.
We haven't even got to things like forced reps, pre-exhaust, rep pausing and the grand daddy of them all NEGATIVE reps.
THAT is truly training to failure.
Example for chest would be pre-exhausting the pec's with flies until no further upward motion, THEN assisted by a training partner for forced reps, followed IMMEDIATELY by weighted Chest Dips, Then the weights subtracted, then forced reps until the trainee could no longer raise themselves....THEN have the partner raise you up to the top of the Dip and slowly lower yourself until you could no longer control the descent........THEN....and ONLY THEN can one claim they hit Total, Complete "Muscular failure".
Of course different exercises lend themselves better to different techniques.....Sqauts done super slow almost become more of a balance issue, and for deadlifts, downright dangerous for the lower back. While leg extensions and ham curls allow for set extension "intensity" training to true failure techniques like forced reps, negatives, peak contraction ect ect ect.
In conclusion, until we actually define what "training to failure" actually is and take into account certain exercise's like Squats differ radically from Leg extensions and Ham curls, using these findings on these select studies as "the clinching proof" is dubious at best,....
Especially since many of the studies mentioned used "average untrained men" as the barometer of what "training to failure" was supposed to mean.
I have been training on machines more and at the top of the movement I let go with one hand and just resist the descent. It is around 20 to 30lbs more than I could possibly do with one hand. I have been doing this for the past month or so with the leg press, leg extension, leg curls, arm curl machine, though I will say with arm curls go easy as you don't want to tear your biceps:) I am growing faster than I ever have and I am only working out 2 to 3 times a week. This is really an intense way of working out. So time under tension is way up and the eccentric is way overloaded.
One thing that will make you happy and see result regardless of high or low reps is consistency, work out for 3 to 5 years and you will be happy with the way your body look, just work out and thats it
There is one research from Asis-Pereyra, regarding biceps, which shows some advantage of slower eccentric tempo. Effect size was greater for 4s eccentric group. It may happen for several reasons. Failure wasnt defined well. And even if all subjects trained to muscular failure (we dont clearly know it) there could be some more hypertrophy for slower conditions (mainly type I) due to hypoxia which is caused by prolonging eccentric duration. Anyway the study from Morton et al. shows the best that we shouldnt really care about tempo. What means is proximity to failure.
PS You do an amazing job. Keep it going! Cheers!
Thank you! I plan on making a video on slowing the eccentric duration soon, where I will discuss that study and others :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy waiting for the video. In short - what's your opinion od that study by Asis-Pereira?
It seem to be the outlier. There is other research showing slower eccentric durations do not enhance growth. Also, if slower eccentrics did enhance growth, the research shown in this video should also find that slower repetitions overall cause more growth, but this isn't the case.
@@HouseofHypertrophy ofc, and there are also new studies, including the one you mentioned by Lacerda et al., which show no difference between slower and faster conditions. I think they are Shibata et al. and Kojic et. al
@@HouseofHypertrophy I have been using machines so I can push up with both hands then let go at the top and only lower with one arm, then press back up with both and repeat for opposite arm. Around 20 to 30bls over what I could press with one arm. I do this on the curl machine the leg press the leg extension and leg curl machine. On the over head press I press up and hold at the top while I press with each arm independently for more TUT. Growth has been phenomenal.
Honestly i think it's more complicated than this. I believe that on the concentric you actually do use a fair bit of fast twitch muscle fibers, and as you approach failure you begin recruiting more and more while with slow twitch muscle fibers you use a higher pecentage of them relative to the fast twitch during the eccentric, and it seems that from expirence of many in the fitness industry training beyond failure on certain exercies is key (via lengehtned partials), and i think they're really just triyng to fatigue the slow twitch muscle fibers as much as possible, because yeah most muscles seem to be predominantly slow twitch so the more tension the better.
These are the most helpful vid's what a great idea you developed! Are there studies for types of training for various body types and what is the most productive? Sets, Reps, Rest Days, Frequency, Etc for Mesomorphs, Endomorphs and Ectomorphs
Quick question: Do you think during studies like these that all test subjects should eat the same macros and consume around the same nutrition? I just wonder if the subjects maxed out their protein intake would it yield greater muscle growth or if their current diet played a role in muscle growth at all
All of the studies here have subjects maintain their typical diet (unfortunately, they usually do not aim to have subjects consume the same relative amount of macronutrients). I think it would be much better if they did, but I can imagine it would be difficult to enforce and track. Ultimately, I think diet can play a role in research relating to training variables. However, in cases where the research is consistent (as is the research shown in this video), I personally don't worry about it too much :)
i always do my reps slow,,, but it takes me 2 weeks to complete 1 full body workout,,,
Thanks for the video. I only wish you didn't focus on hypertrophy so much. Real strength has nothing to do with size, and size can not only limit flexibility, but also increase weight, which is detrimental. The ideal is fast, nimble, and strong... not huge, slow and weak.
Keep going bro .. quality content
Thank you, I'll do my best!
Would you still get a good amount of gains doing one slow-ish (not super slow) set to failure, with an increased time under tension? Of course you’d get a greater amount of gains & Hypertrophy doing 3-4 regular speed sets, but just how drastic would the gains gap between the 2 methods be? Huge?
Fascinating. But did these studies factor diet, nutrition or genetics?
Moreover, these studies don’t look at actual form. By this I mean actually making the muscles drive the weight along a natural plane if movement.
To do this the weight has to be light and the time longer but this is much much more than increasing time.
Time just becomes a measure of how long it takes to perform each rep, not a deliberate slowing down of movement.
The crucial distinction here is that trying to move a load creates an emphasis on increasing weight load and moving the load. This means that form will always be compromised.
Trying to use the weight as as an extension of the bone means that you train your muscles to move as they would without a weight.
This promotes greater and more accelerated muscle growth and targets isolated muscles much better.
wouldn't the high time under tension group have it harder to determine failure because they would be more focused on the constraints under which they have to perform the set rather than their muscles be the limiting factor? To elaborate untrained individual who were the common sample size in these studies would have accumulated more CNS fatigue throughout the set and therefore not reach actual muscular failure. This could indicate that trained individuals would be able to perform the sets under the constraints more effectively and determine failure at a higher accuracy than untrained individuals.
Another query i had was that are there any studies to show the impact of a slow (2-4 second) eccentric and as-fast-as-possible concentric on muscle growth?
Basically it's safer and can be trained closer to failure with lighter weight done with high intensity (slower reps in this case)
While training to failure in general will trigger growth, its easier and safer to do so with moderate to light weight as heavy weights will tax the nervous system and muscle More before reaching failure and is not as safe to do so
Basically making the lighter weight feel heavier with intensity techniques allows you to train closer to failure because your body can safely do so without your CNS limiting your lift to protect itself from injury
I think we need to consider one important factor is safety. As slower you do the rep as more control as less risk of injury. It's became curtail with the age. Take all the factors into consideration slow and control reps far grater or safer than quick one. What do you think?
This is an excellent point that you make. If we consider the effects on joints, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, spine, etc., which rep range and percentage of 1 rep max will be safest over a lifetime?
Can I do slow reps to failure on 1 single set to get the same hypertrophy as 3 sets with fast reps? That's what I REALLY wanna find out.
Doing slow reps has no functional purpose. Being able to move the most amount of weight has real life implications. If all you care about is muscle growth then have at it.
This tells me that slow reps are better quality reps, allow you to use less weight, promote better form and are safer. Mixed with myo reps, this can be pretty effective in making every rep count and eliminating junk reps.
For some reason I trust him so much more because he had a British accent
at 10:27 it says mechanial instead of mechanical.. oops
My mistake, sorry!
Common sense , when you don't lock out and rest on compound movements squat , bench , shoulder press it's way harder the muscle fatigues way quicker that should tell you it's better . Think about it why rest at the top of compound movements ? Also apply what I said with accentuating the negative and you will get great results of course without drugs .
Great content bro! How do you make the animations? Is it through After effects?
Thank you! I make the images on adobe illustrator, but the video is put together (including the animations) with VSDC editor.
I've come to the conclusion that time under tension videos are nothing but a merry-go-round of contradictions, which serve to confuse you more than you were prior to watching the video.
I guess these studies show the success of a Brazilian bodybuilder Fernando Sardinha wich have created the "ponto zero evolution". He uses time under tension and isometric on the eccentrics JUST to reach the failure with less charge, avoiding injuries. Time under tension is not the goal, but a way to reach failure with less injuries...
I'm also waiting for a video about isometric exercises. We know that the spinal erector muscle can become hypertrophied by contracting isometrically with deadlift. Is it the same for other muscles and what is the importance of isometric contraction in hypertrophy?
You can relate slow speed to the time it takes to reach failure aka quicker
5 minutes in, my takeaway is that time under tension can be achieved by more time per repetition, or more repetitions.
Buying stock in HOH while I can. I Love this content
Haha, I appreciate that! thank you :)
What about recovery times? Shouldnt that be included?
Lift explosively, lower slow and controlled its simple.dont lift slow lift as hard as you can each rep. Dont forget to breath! 4-5 second lower is optimal, dr andrew hubberman has talked extensively about this.
Yeah, I go by failure, failure, failure and that is just old school lifting...
What if I were to do a heavy set for neural adaptations, but don't go to failure to avoid injury. And then I do one with A lighter load to go to or near failure?
Is there any counterarguments for training like that?
I wish they’d do studies to measure time under tension in the way it’s practically used in the gym, with only slow eccentric movements, not slow concentric movements as well
The video I'll release on Monday will involve a discussion on the current research looking at this :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy oh damn that’s awesome thanks!
Yeah I don't see the point of conducting a study with the reps, sets, and weight held constant but only varying TUT. If effort isn't the same then what's the point!
Great Video! and well, after Trying a lot of things my “broscience head“ came to the Same assumption - Propably Variation is the best
Thank you :)
Thanks for the great vids. I like to put some more explosive exercises in my workout to warm up and do high weights really slow to maintain a flawless form.
Awesome stuff, thank you :)
Really love your content 👏 you cover the research so well! Thank you
Would appreciate a bibliography in the description if possible in future videos.
Thank you for you kind words! :)
it's difficult to fully reference the all of studies due to the youtube character limit. (I also need to reference the background music and type out the timestamps). That's why I add pop-ups on the video with the full name and lead author of the study.
However, in videos like this (in which 15 or fewer studies are involved), I should be able to link to the pubmed abstracts of each study. Will this be okay?
@@HouseofHypertrophy yeah I'd really appreciate the pubmed links, probably better than a reference list tbh.
Cheers man
No worries, I've added them
Whether you lift light or heavy, slow or fast your muscles are under tension… so tut literally is how you build and maintain muscle mass.
Sure, but the idea that longer TUT = more gains, or that there's a one optimal time under tension duration is not support by the evidence :)
I find that I can't really go to failure when I lift heavy, eg with bench press I still have a bit of energy in my tank left, but I don't have enough energy to do an extra rep am I the only one that feels this.. also it puts more stress on my shoulders than my chest..
Well with pure empirical evidence I can say what these studies found out lol
The main thing about slow reps for me is that you can load less weight in certain exercises and still get the same results as going as heavy as possible. I have a bad shoulder and chest exercises became a lot more comfortable with slow reps with a little less weight. However, I can't see a way to do a slow rep on a heavy ass squat 😂
I do time under tension to help more so with strength than growth
Awesome information thanks house of hypertrophy
Thank YOU for checking the video out my friend!
What about comparing which group had greater protein synthesis 24-48 hours after workout?
Acute measures such as these do not always equate to long-term outcomes (i.e. greater protein synthesis responses do not always mean greater increase in muscle growth measures in the long-term). See this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933567/
Therefore, studies that use long-term muscle growth measures (like thickness, cross-sectional area, or volume) are overall probably more reliable and valid than acute studies that measure certain variables.
Do a video about amrap
Like
Push ups sets x 60 sec work to failure slow tempo
To me, one of his points seems silly. He states that the study doesn’t necessarily prove that the slower set group achieved more muscle growth than the faster set group because they can't say whether the result causation was due to them
working closer to failure which makes no sense because if moving slower on a set, facilitates, encourages, promotes working, closer to failure than the conclusion should be that there’s more growth in the slow slower moving set.
Look at data going all the way back to armies training static 90 degree bent knees stands for 1-2min and you will find something cool. Spoiler. All studies I've read show that static holds create the biggest muscles for a given time training compared to all other speeds... With the downside of getting slow, stiffer and not as strong as normal speed lifters..
Interesting, I'd be awesome if you could send me a couple of links to the studies you've read :)
Why is your channel no longer on Twitter?
I decided to delete it. I still create infographics, if you'd like, you can sign up by email to receive them in your inbox over at houseofhypertrophy.com :)
it should be based on RPE not reps
But why not get do the slow reps? It’d take you longer to get to failure if you did the fast ones!
underrated video
Thank you :)
Underrated channel*
Lower reps due to time under tension = lower volume, so there’s a trade off.
volume is not the amount of sets u do in a given workout..if u increase the weight it also means volume...
intensity the key once u know how to train to failure u need less volume to grow..
its more volume more gains ..
do it slow enough then even a 10 pound weight can feel like 100
House is too swole to control
Nice
Replace "time under tension" with "time under pain".
Haha, yeah, that could work. Though, light load training tends to be more painful than higher load training, but both can be similarly effective for gainz :)
excellence
Thank you!
Question is who is doing the research as a lot of it is biased
🔥🔥🔥
Thank you!
Plus you take nothing about how slow tears your microfibers more
GOD Loved you enough too send His Son JESUS for you and if you will believe in Him and at baptized in THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT and turn from your sins you will be
These studies are downright idiotic in their design. We took untrained individuals...lost me there. Hiw about after all other variables are maxed out you see what can allow an individual to go further.
yes time under tension is important...but there is super high tension ,medium tension,low tension and everything in between... Its up to the trainer to create the time under tension that works best for them...
💪
Thank you my friend, as always haha :)
Firstly, the studies you mention early on are deeply flawed, as measuring the eccentric and concentric portions without the pause at the top or bottom of the exercise, or the tension in each of the latter, is useless as a study of TUT. Better when going to failure, but TUT proponents do not necessarily prescribe failure each set, which is another kettle of fish. The length of the set is the key factor, not the length of the repetition.
Secondly, the later mentioned studies had subjects going well beyond 70 seconds in a set, and not achieving improved results. However, proponents of TUT training do NOT maintain that more TUT is better, or they'd be curling 1kg for an hour per arm, but rather that there is an OPTIMAL RANGE of TUT of 40-60 seconds. So those studies and your video do not address the theory at all properly in order to be able to claim to have disproven it.
I'm not sure you paid careful attention to the video. See 6:05, TUT per set was 25-38 seconds for one of the groups, yet they experienced similar hypertrophy to the other group who were more so within that 40-60s TUT range.
Moreover, if you check out the "can reps below 5 build muscle optimally?" video, there are data demonstrating sets of 3 can produce similar growth to higher rep sets. Sets of 3 would be very little TUT per set.
When I train for hypertrophy, I do sets of 45 seconds. Just finished such a session. As I said, and you rightly ignored, if you want to argue, the number of repetitions is of little concern, which bins the first few of those largely unscientific studies. TUT is just that. It's not RUT. My previous first point stands.
As for the study you focused on, in the group that represented the TUT proponent side of the debate, they only hit the optimal point of 45 seconds in one of the three sets. Also, just three sets? Of course they didn't see much difference. It's another poorly done study.
And my second point about the studies that went well beyond the optimal point also stands unopposed. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to my comment?
The research generally demonstrates loads between 30%1RM to 80%1RM produce similar hypertrophy, when reps are executed at least 3 or fewer repetitions from failure. The TUT you achieve with an 80% 1RM load may be approximately around 25 seconds when using a 1:1:1 tempo (con:ecc:iso) (as mentioned in the video @ 11:37), which is well below the 45-60 second mark. The TUT you achieve with a 30%1RM load, when using a 1:1:1 tempo may be around 54 seconds (again as mentioned in the video).
Here's the thing, growth between these two protocols would be the same, numerous studies now show this (9 as far as I'm aware):
1) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/
2) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899398/
3) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28532248/
4) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29189407/
5) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/
6) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28611677/
7) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31895290/
8) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30646835/
9) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31306302/
So, there goes the notion 40-60s is optimal. Again, if you watched the video, perhaps you would have picked this up.
As also described in the video, mechanistically, there's nothing special about a TUT of 40-60s.
In this study you call "poor", 3-4 sets were performed per session. How's that poor? 3-4 per session for an exercise is perfectly fine, and as shown by the ACTUAL results of the study, respectable hypertrophy occured. Also 2-3 sets per sesion, not 1 of them, were within the 40-60s time range. Look closer dude.
Finally, as mentioned in the prior comment, sets of 3 reps have been shown to produce similar growth to sets of 8-12 (this study for instance: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24714538/). As noted by the author (Brad Schoenfeld, a highly respected resistance training researcher) , the TUT achieved by performing 3s per set was 9 SECONDS (mentioned in this post: instagram.com/p/BwrbrcYlSWt/). Please don't tell me you think sets of 8-12 are suboptimal, making this study useless?
Anyway, this will be my final response. I accept feedback and critiques well thought out, but you've failed to watch the video carefully (in which much point against your comments can be located). It's a waste of time for me just to reiterate what's been said in the video. If you feel a TUT of 40-60s is still magically optimal for hypertrophy, despite the points made, I guess we'll just disagree.
I wish you well nonetheless, hope you had a great workout :)
So, you ignore the criticism of the methodology in my post, because it is sound. The study you chose to defend, as you deem it the best, while mispronouncing the name in its title, and the actual word 'analysis', required 3-4 sets 2-3 times per week, so basic requirement of six sets of leg extensions per week in an isolation exercise. Now, you can find endless unscientific studies to back pretty much whatever you want to claim is the case, but I'd consider so few sets suboptimal. If I were running that study, I'd have asked for more like 16-20 sets per week, would have specified time over repetitions and tempo, and required the plates not touch at the bottom. It's not difficult, is it?
As for your suggestion that 3 reps and 12 reps get the same result, supposedly when hitting failure again, sure, whatever. I didn't suggest any number of repetitions were optimal, which you don't seem to get. The length of the set is what should be being discussed. You could do 3 sets and hit 45 seconds and fail if you wanted. Or 25.
Personally, I don't count reps when I train for hypertrophy. I use an interval timer, and select the weight so am struggling when it hits 45 seconds. I also train in the ranges you mentioned, counting them out, and train for power, strength, explosiveness or endurance, adjusting as required... but for hypertrophy, no reps counted, just the timer and picking the right weight and tempo is all I need, focusing on the MMC, and get the best results like that.
You said a whole lot of nothing