Now that Ford is here, let's talk about TUT

[IronFist]

Ok so some people have been preaching TUT to me on another board. Basically TUT stands for "time under tension," and the theory is that the time you spend under the weight is more important than sets and reps.

For example, take your 10RM and do 5 reps with it. Easy, right? Now take that same weight and do 5 reps but take 5 seconds to go up and 5 seconds to go down for each rep. Can you still get 10 reps with it? No? You only got 8? Well then how do you know that's not your 8RM instead of your 10RM.

So I'm not entirely sure, but it's my understanding that the following would all be roughly equivalent in terms of effect on the body.

For any given weight:
5 reps @ 8 seconds per rep = 40 seconds TUT
8 reps @ 5 seconds per rep = 40 seconds TUT
10 reps @ 4 seconds per rep = 40 seconds TUT

Now, at extreme limits of fast and slow reps this doesn't hold true anymore because then you have to factor in momentum and inertia, so I'm staying away from extremes at the moment.

At any rate, tho, if this is true (and it does make sense, at least from what I think I understand), it would cause pretty significant changes to what and how I think about lifting.

So, supposedly different goals of lifting have different target TUTs, but I have to run to a meeting right now so I'll be back here to post more later.

Ford, are you familiar with this at all? Toby? Anyone else?

It seems like the ever-effective PTP done the way most people do it would have you at a TUT of maybe 20 seconds per set?

Discuss.

[Ford Prefect]

Not sure I understand what the question is here. TUT is definately a more accurate way in some cases to measure exertion than sets and reps. It really depends on goals on what your target TUT should be or tempo (time it take to perform a rep - can be further broken down into eccentric-pause-concentric stages).

In the end, it's just a way to measure your exertion. Most people find counting reps easier than counting seconds. That would be distracting when fully exerting yourself anyway. It is what you make it.

[IronFist]

Yeah, I was typing and realized it was almost time for my meeting so I had to go.

The people talking about TUT wouldn't give me a clear answer of what it's all about, tho. I wanted confirmation that those scenarios I gave above were, indeed, the same as far as your muscles are concerned (the 3 different 40 second TUT scenarios).

So if TUT is the deciding factor, then things like reps don't matter too much. PTP should not be "2 sets of 5," but it should be "2 sets of x TUT" where x is the optimal TUT for strength development.

I guess I'm asking if it's worth the effort to pay attention to TUT. What are the optimal TUTs for different goals (strength vs. hypertrophy) and do they vary based on muscle type? And anything else you feel is relevent.

[Samurai Jack]

So you finally come around to Static Contraction Training! And, after you convinced me to give it up to boot!

Basically the SCT guys took the concept of TUT and developed a lifting system that brings the theory to it's logical conclusion. As you've pointed out, according to the theory reps don't really matter when it comes to building muscle, instead it's the TUT that's the deciding factor.

Now the SCT guys noticed that a trainee can only lift X amount of weight in a full range of motion, but could statically hold three or more times that weight for brief periods. So basically, they got people to hold an extremly heavy weight and run a stop-watch to figure out how long you could hold the weight before muscle failure. When I quit the training, I was supporting two thousand pounds on a one-legged leg press for about thirty seconds.

SCT took the TUT theory to the extreme. Unfortunately, it dosen't translate into full-range strength to the extent that the developers want you to believe. For example my static bench press topped out at 680 pounds, but my full range bench went from 240 to 190 in about four months.

Knowing what I know now, I think SCT would be great used in conjunction with full range powerlifting training, since it could desensitize the Golgi tendon receptors that can limit your progress. Psychologically, it could also build alot of confidence, for example, how nervous are you going to be attempting a heavy PR when you've trained yourself to support three times that weight statically?

SCT has it's place IMO, but it's results are less than spectacular when used as the sole method of weight training.

Anyhow, that's the extent of my experience with a lifting system based on TUT theory.

[Ford Prefect]

I'll hit this up tomorrow. The whole SCT thing is actually one of the more common problems with some people trying to interprate how TUT can be used. That's why I feel tempo is a better indicator since people can't cheat and just hold a static contraction in biomechanically-easy position...

[fa_jing]

Bar speed matters too, and acceleration. Maybe not a good idea to leave these out.

[Toby]

Mmm, Samurai Jack, SCT is just holding one position, right? So it's not the same as the sort of TUT that Iron's talking about. Taking his theory to the extreme, you'd do one rep, with 40s TUT. But in doing so, you'd go through the whole ROM associated with that exercise. Unracking a weight and just holding it there isn't the same - as Ford said there are gunna be certain structural positions that make it easier to hold a static load. An easy e.g. - arms locked out in benchpress is gunna be a hell of a lot easier than arms at 90 degrees.

Iron, I dunno. But like fa_jing says, acceleration is a good thing. I like to try to throw those heavy lifts through the roof. Dunno that I'd like to ignore that and try controlled lifting.

[Ka]

Accelaration is extremely "functional"for most sports training.
More speed is almost always better.

As I alluded to just a moment ago, acceleration is a fatigue management strategy– it allows you to do more work in less time, which is the definition of power. At any given load, more speed means more tension on the muscle, which means a superior training effect. Accelerated lifting also has much better transfer to athletics and almost everything you do in life. It's also more fun. And less dangerous. And it takes less time. I really have a hard time finding the down-side of this approach.

From T-mag
I think static lock offs are best applied to BW exercises such as Gynastic exercises, top lock out of Chins,Lsits etc
A little different from the SCT stated here but thats my translation that works well with OLifting.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
SFor example my static bench press topped out at 680 pounds, but my full range bench went from 240 to 190 in about four months.

That's exactly what I don't want.

I'm going to wait until Ford writes his reply before I comment on anything else, tho, because Ford will probably say what I would say, except he will say it better.

As for acceleration, I've heard that studies have shown that too slow of a movement actually lets the muscle kind of refresh itself (I can't think of the proper term) during the lift. And if you go too fast you're just using inertia and not muscle (not that that's necessarily a bad thing in a powerlifting competition or whatever, though).

[Toby]

Originally posted by IronFist
And if you go too fast you're just using inertia and not muscle (not that that's necessarily a bad thing in a powerlifting competition or whatever, though).

You won't be using inertia on heavy lifts. You won't be getting the bar moving fast enough to use inertia. Maybe on light lifts.

[Ford Prefect]

Alright. I've been struggling with how to word this since it can become rather complex. I'm completely staying away from static contraction training. That is a whole other animal with it's own seperate pro's and con's. We're just going to assume that TUT is referring to the entire range of motion of a lift.

Unfortunately, this doesn't remove much complexity from the subject because TUT is so inspecific. This is where tempo comes into play. For example a 1-0-5-0 tempo for the bench (1 second yeilding - 0 sec pause - 5 second concenttric - o sec pause) will be harder to do than a 5-0-1-0 tempo bench with the same weight since you have more strength in the eccentric portion of the lift than the concentric. Your muscles would not ffatigue as quickly and you'd most likely be able to more 5-0-1-0... The thing is that the TUT is excatly identical per rep, yet even using the same weight you'll get 2 different total TUT's for the same exercise (as well as 2 different rep counts).

That's the problem with TUT. It's far too arbitrary to paint a valid picture of exertion. Not only is it impractical to count seconds rather than reps, but it also won't tell you much.

Now TUT proponents will say if you do 135 lbs bench for 15 reps on two different days, then it's possible those weren't equal efforts. You could have used bar bounce, acceleration, etc, and the TUT would reflect this and show which was more taxing. They are 100% right. I just think it's impractical to use it as a measure. What I think is more practical is just not lieing to yourself and using a steady tempo for all your lifts. For example, the bench can be 3-1-1-0 tempo for the most part. Always try to inutitively stick to it. Sure you might be able to eek out an extra rep or 2 by speeding up the tempo and bouncing with a 1-0-1-0 tempo, but why bother? Why lie to yourself and "cheat" to produce results? You'll develop more consistently if you don't...

Now tempo is also completely dependent on goals. Since your body adapts to specific stimuli, different ways of moving the bar will effect it well... differently. For explosive strength, you want to get the most the out of a the stretch refelx and bar speed so tempo will basically be non-existant in either 1-0-x-0 or x-0-x-0 (x obviously meaning as fast as possible). If hypertrophy is your thing, then the eccentric part of the lift and increasing TUT are important. A more controlled 5-1-3-1 may be best. I'd say the best bet is finding what tempo suits your goals best, and sticking to it no matter what your ego says. With tempo in mind, counting sets, reps, and rest is a much more effective way of charting progress than TUT.

IMO. Let me know if I missed something. I was typing this kind of fast.

[Oso]

so, can this stuff be taken over to body weight exercises?

as in, using the slower tempo with pushups and hindus etc. ?

[Ford Prefect]

Depends on your goals, Oso. It won't be as effective since there is not variable resistance. It's fixed. However increasing the difficulty of the move will require more muscle tension and that's what gets results. Your muscles don't know the difference between weights or your body, all they know is how hard they have to contract and for how long. Tension and TUT.

If you look at gymnastics moves or even breakdancing moves, you'll find a lot of different things that can really nail the trunk and upperbody with a large amount of tension. The legs are harder to hit with just body weight. One-legged squats can only take you so far. Sprinting can be a very high intesnity exercise and especially sprinting up hill.

[Oso]

Here's my thought.

I've got a moderately overweight and definitely slack bodied 11 year old student. Waaaaay too much video game time for this kid.

but, he digs the fu but seriosly needs to be getting stronger. Right now he can't even do a full push up on his toes, he collapses on the way down. I was thinking that I could probably get him to 1/2 down or even 1/4 down and have him hold it for a set time then a rest then do it again.

watcha think?

another thought: wouldn't static stance training be a type of TUT?

[norther practitioner]

Maybe to an extreme....