Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A more appropriate term would be "time under load," which reflects the
actual time spent in a given set irrespective of the weight lifted. It's an
important distinction when considering the ramifications of the concept
since there are wide variances in both mechanical and metabolic factors
with different set durations. That said, we'll stick with the term TUT given its
widely accepted use.
Although this would seem to provide evidence that the longer TUT was more
anabolic, it should be noted that the volume of training was substantially
greater for the hypertrophic protocol. Given the compelling evidence of a
dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy (4), it remains
questionable whether the heightened anabolic signaling was due to a longer
TUT or simply the greater amount of total work performed.
Bodybuilder
Show Me the Studies!
Fortunately, we can look to longitudinal training studies that actually
measure muscle hypertrophy for answers. It just so happens that my lab
carried out a study that sheds light on this very topic. We recruited 17
resistance-trained men and randomized them to perform either a
bodybuilding-type (3 sets of 10 reps) or powerlifting-type (7 sets of 3 reps)
routine. The per-set TUT for the bodybuilding-type routine was about 30-40
seconds while that of the powerlifting routine was around 9-12 seconds.
Training was carried out 3 days a week for 8 weeks.
The results? Both groups saw almost identical increases in muscle growth! A
key point here is that we equated volume-load between groups and
therefore total TUT for each exercise was roughly equal across conditions.
A recent study by Mangine et al (5) provides further evidence that TUT is not
the be-all end-all of hypertrophy training. The researchers randomized well-
trained male subjects to perform a routine consisting of either 4 sets of 10-
12 reps or 4 sets of 3-5 reps. The higher rep protocol had more than double
the TUT compared to the lower rep protocol. After 8 weeks, similar increases
in muscle growth of the arms and legs were again seen across conditions.
The interesting aspect of this study was that those in the higher rep group
performed a greater volume of training than those lifting for lower reps.
Although speculative, it simply may be that the threshold for volume was
reached in the lower rep group to maximize the hypertrophic response, and
that the additional volume performed in the higher rep group was ultimately
unnecessary.
Regardless, the findings of the two studies provide strong evidence that it's
overly simplistic to view hypertrophy training from a TUT standpoint, at least
in the context of an optimal duration of a set. Rather, it's more appropriate
to consider the total TUT performed for a given muscle group in a given
workout. Substantial muscle growth can be achieved with heavy sets lasting
several seconds or lighter sets lasting a minute or more as long as you
accumulate sufficient volume and continually challenge the working
muscles.
So, the use of light loads for long TUTs would seem necessary to fully
develop the indefatiguable slow twitch muscle fibers. Emerging research out
of Russia shows that this indeed is the case, with light-load protocols
involving high TUTs (50% 1RM) showing more type 1 fiber growth and
heavier-loads with lower TUTs (80% 1RM) displaying greater hypertrophy of
type II fibers (7, 8, 10).
You can use a daily or weekly undulating periodization scheme that has
regimented light-load days.
You can use a block periodization scheme with a specific cycle devoted to
higher TUT work.
You can combine strategies into a single workout, with compound exercises
such as squats, presses, and rows devoted to lower TUTs and single-joint
accessory movements focused on higher TUTs.
The options are many and your decision should really come down to
individual goals and preferences.