TUT studies

DieTrying

Board Supporter
Hey do any of you guys have any studies discussing TUT? I'm working on a project in school and I'm looking for some info displaying why TUT correlates to a greater increase in hypertrophy. I basically have to prove my point that to get bigger you don't need to be super-explosive.
 
time under tension in my opinion has had too much emphasis put on it- in other words I think it is bullshit.
 
jeep69 said:
time under tension in my opinion has had too much emphasis put on it- in other words I think it is bullshit.
Click to expand...
from my personal experience it is ANYTHING but bullshit .. i've found that it makes a huge difference in muscle growth although i have no studies just my anecdotal evidence
 
glenihan said:
from my personal experience it is ANYTHING but bullshit .. i've found that it makes a huge difference in muscle growth although i have no studies just my anecdotal evidence
Click to expand...
AGREED!
 
jeep69 said:
time under tension in my opinion has had too much emphasis put on it- in other words I think it is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Who can argue with that?



:rolleyes:



Lets just throw out all Exercise and Physiology texts while were at it.
 
What would be the ideal TUT for each set? If I'm using reps in the 4-6 range and stopping 1-2 reps shy of failure? Any opinions??
 
lifted said:
What would be the ideal TUT for each set? If I'm using reps in the 4-6 range and stopping 1-2 reps shy of failure? Any opinions??
Click to expand...
45 seconds up and 2 1/2 minutes down :icon_lol:
 
I've gotta back up Glenihan here and say that I never experienced the size and strength increases I've had while going with a standard set/rep scheme. I used a 4x4, 1-0-3 tempo to give my muscles around 60 seconds under tension. After I've looked into this a little more, it seems the only reasoning behind the number of sets and reps is how long you keep your muscles under tension as most people spend barely a second per complete rep. TUT has definite merit!
 
I know Bobo's plan is TUT and god my muscles, especially back and legs feel so sore the next day. I think my chest and arms adjust fast to whatever workout im doing, but those big parts really take a beating on slow TUT.
 
glenihan said:
from my personal experience it is ANYTHING but bullshit .. i've found that it makes a huge difference in muscle growth although i have no studies just my anecdotal evidence
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
MOOOOHAHAHAHAH! ;)
 
Posh Bobo's program is for a bunch of pansies.:run:

I was only sore for a week and a half after the first leg day.Invalid Link Removed
 
I think your arguing your point from the wrong angle:

TUT is more important to glycogen pathways than to ATP/CP pathways, (basically the 12-15 and 15-18 rep ranges). Other energy pathways produce growth and strength increases differently and TUT is less of an issue.

Check out Lyle's board and Bryan Haycock's board for more on this:

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Actually just read any Exercise and Physiology text. At least there you won't have things taken out of context.
 
Bobo said:
Actually just read any Exercise and Physiology text. At least there you won't have things taken out of context.
Click to expand...

Actually you'd be surprised how little most texts go into pure hypertrophy. The majority of the 3-4 books I have are driven towards performance for athletes.
 
Most entry level books won't have much but the advanced texts have a very good amount.

Even in the entry level ones I had to buy had a decent amount. I guess it depends on what your class requires you to read.
 
Bobo said:
Most entry level books won't have much but the advanced texts have a very good amount.

Even in the entry level ones I had to buy had a decent amount. I guess it depends on what your class requires you to read.
Click to expand...
Bobo,

Have a list of good texts that you'd recommend?

Nutrition ones always welcomed as well ;)
 
I will have to dig them out. They are still in storage from when I moved.
 
houseman said:
Bobo,

Have a list of good texts that you'd recommend?

Nutrition ones always welcomed as well ;)
Click to expand...

If you're really interested in the college texts/NSCA stuff, visit humankinetics.com. Human Kinetics basically publishes most of the superior books about exercise and performance (IMO).

A nutrition book I like a lot is Sport&Exercise Nutrition by McArdle, Katch, Katch. If you want what my friends and I refer to as "the Bible", buy NSCA's Essentials of Strength and Conditioning.
 
DieTrying said:
If you're really interested in the college texts/NSCA stuff, visit humankinetics.com. Human Kinetics basically publishes most of the superior books about exercise and performance (IMO).

A nutrition book I like a lot is Sport&Exercise Nutrition by McArdle, Katch, Katch. If you want what my friends and I refer to as "the Bible", buy NSCA's Essentials of Strength and Conditioning.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Thank you bro.

Appreciated!
 
They have some decent texts. I get emails from them all the time.
 
No. good/wonderful/great/excellent means good/wonderful/great/excellent :D

Some of their stuff is really good and some is not. So I averaged it :D
 
what about this:
Nutrient Timing: The Future of Sports Nutrition
byJohn Ivy, Robert Portman

The reviews say that the authors advocate the use of sugar post w/o.
 
Most Ivy studies do but the majority are done on endurance athletes. Tipton's original studies used sugar as well but once compared with other sources there was no difference in protein sytnthesis rates.

Nobody ever stated high GI won't work. I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
 
Bobo said:
Most Ivy studies do but the majority are done on endurance athletes. Tipton's original studies used sugar as well but once compared with other sources there was no difference in protein sytnthesis rates.

Nobody ever stated high GI won't work. I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
Click to expand...

Agreed here.

Been using low GI P/WO for about two years now. I'll NEVER go back to glucose. I honestly feel recovery is much more improved.
 
But everyone says you are wrong. Low GI doesn't work. Its all placebo :D
 
Bobo said:
But everyone says you are wrong. Low GI doesn't work. Its all placebo :D
Click to expand...
Know something?

I could give a **** if it were. lol

I KNOW with Low GI the chance for adipose storage is relatively mimimal
 
You're wrong. You just are :D

It simply can't be true.

:lol:
 
lol, I remember trying to tell people how much better low gi is post workout and how the insulin spike everyone goes after post-wo using simple sugars is so small that it doesn't affect anything. low gi for life!! :)
 
houseman said:
Back to BB and Elite with you.

Your kind is not welcomed here ;)
Click to expand...


Damn. Anyone want o buy a board?



:lol:
 
Bobo said:
Most Ivy studies do but the majority are done on endurance athletes. Tipton's original studies used sugar as well but once compared with other sources there was no difference in protein sytnthesis rates.

Nobody ever stated high GI won't work. I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
Click to expand...
I think i was misunderstood, i just wanted to know if the book was any good. I didn't want to argue with the masterdebater. :D
 
dsl said:
I think i was misunderstood, i just wanted to know if the book was any good. I didn't want to argue with the masterdebater. :D
Click to expand...

Anything by IVY is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top