Topic for April 2011: TUT vs. progressive strength/overload

[Ken Skip Hill]

I have been getting some questions lately about this and was driving the other day and found my mind wondering. Usually I am thinking about sex or money but this time my brain was fixed on training for some reason.

I just got to thinking as to whether there was anything to the TUT concept for growth vs. adding and progressing with strength and overloading the muscle for growth. By overload I just mean continuing to push heavier and heavier weight for growth.

What got me thinking about it is the fact that my reps over the years have been much slower than most guys around me and so have the weights, I suppose, as well. Still, I put up my biggest and heaviest weights around 2002/2003 and yet have grown soooo much more since then that I struggle to put the two together. Clearly, they both produce growth (TUT vs. progressive overload), however, I wonder how well TUT holds up against progressive overload. I say it does work and it works well but .... not sure if it is "better" than progressive overload so I thought I would bring it here for debate.

I have more to say on this but in typical fashion, I am short on time. I will come back later tonight or tomorrow night after getting a few responses from the others and build on the debate.

Skip

[pastorpump]

I'll drop my 2 cents in first I guess. I think both are great and should be used in a holistic type of system. The same way I believe someone should pick movements that work at angles or "Positions of flexion" so should one incorporate ideas that in the long run help us reach our goal as far as stimulating new growth. Some movements lend themselves better to be used as an overload movement while others are better controlled in a TUT situation. I live by progressive overload-more in the increasing of reps for the most part before weight at this stage of life-but include different schemes like isometrics, TUT, and whatever else I feel like throwing in during whatever "phase" I'm in.

[dusty hanshaw]

I have been getting some questions lately about this and was driving the other day and found my mind wondering. Usually I am thinking about sex or money but this time my brain was fixed on training for some reason.

Skip

Seems like a dumb thing to waste time on when driving. Time would have been much better spent on thinking about sex or money like usual...Sorry, totally forgot the question. I will read the question again tonight and come back to answer.

[mountaindog1]

Pastorpump - I would have to agree with you. I would also add that I think the best answer is not an A vs B, but rather both. When I employ time under tension, I still ask my people to beat their best with this style...the best growth occurs when you get the best of both worlds. So simple example..I have someone squat 405 for a set of 6 with a 3 second descent, and then the next week I ask them to do the same thing with 10 lbs more.

JM

[homonunculus]

Ken (and Dusty)

I think I know why you started thinking about training, rather than sex or money. You see, money can buy sex or at least lead to sex b/c it is a symbol of power. Power = work / time, so this could easily lead though thoughts about workload or time under tension, if you weren't able to stay focused on the real root of important thoughts: sex and money...

--------

A note on semantics.

Progressive overload really means just that : Overload in some aspect of the training stimulus, be it force (load), duration (time under tension), volume (sets x reps x load) or what have you...

I always kind of wondered why the term TUT was used, when the time aspect means diddley alone without some indication of intensity (%1RM, etc.). I can increase my TUT simply by lowering the weight I use, but that means squat (pardon the pun) for the training stimulus. As in John's example, spend more time under the a given load and now we're talking about a progressive overload, which can be conceptualized as time, or reps or even captured in a volume (load x sets x *reps*).

So, Ken (and everyone) is the real root of this a matter of whether it's more important for gains to increase reps / time / volume or to increase the weight you are using?....

-S

[Ken Skip Hill]

Ken (and Dusty)

I think I know why you started thinking about training, rather than sex or money. You see, money can buy sex or at least lead to sex b/c it is a symbol of power. Power = work / time, so this could easily lead though thoughts about workload or time under tension, if you weren't able to stay focused on the real root of important thoughts: sex and money...

I'm sorry, I was thinking about sex. What'd you say?

Skip

[Ken Skip Hill]

A note on semantics.

Progressive overload really means just that : Overload in some aspect of the training stimulus, be it force (load), duration (time under tension), volume (sets x reps x load) or what have you...

I always kind of wondered why the term TUT was used, when the time aspect means diddley alone without some indication of intensity (%1RM, etc.). I can increase my TUT simply by lowering the weight I use, but that means squat (pardon the pun) for the training stimulus. As in John's example, spend more time under the a given load and now we're talking about a progressive overload, which can be conceptualized as time, or reps or even captured in a volume (load x sets x *reps*).

So, Ken (and everyone) is the real root of this a matter of whether it's more important for gains to increase reps / time / volume or to increase the weight you are using?....

-S

I agree with you, Scott, but I still have to come up with things to discuss/debate for the members. lol

What I tend to agree with is that WEIGHT progression isn't the end all when it comes to growth. Example for TUT: If you can do 10 reps with 315 on the bench to failure and the next week you slow down the reps with 315 but only get 7 reps but the reps are slower to the point that the 7 reps puts the muscle under tension longer (TUT), is that the same in that will it produce the same stimulus as the first set of 315 for 10? I say yes.

Otherwise, speed of repetition wins vs. form and control and not only does that not make sense logically, it doesn't back up my experience or that of many, many clients over the years.

I still think it comes down to growth is showing the muscle something it hasn't seen before. Even if you do 100 rep sets of squats the legs will grow as it is a different stimulus that the body has to adapt to.

Skip