T Nation

Fast Lifting and MU Recruitment?

I recently made some changes in my training based on some of CT and CW’s articles. Basically im more focused on recruiting and fatiguing my largest MU’s. Also, ive started to use partial lifts in the power rack to hit some lagging muscles.

Here are my questions though:

  1. In “lift fast get big”, CW states to use around a 25RM and lift as fast as possible until the rep speed slows.

If I were to do this with almost any exercise, it would involve me leaving the ground.

So I imagine its better to use the fastest speed possible in good form without leaving the ground?

If you do this, you obviously wont be recruiting maximal MU’s on the first few reps, because you wont be moving at max speed, but after a few reps you’ll be slightly fatigued and then your new max speed wont make you leave the ground.

  1. Going along with the first question, how does momentum and acceleration play into all of this?

In movements with vary long ROM like squat or pullups, there is a high amount of acceleration that takes place. When performing heavier weights at a slower pace, the tension is shifted from one group of muscles to another. (For example the bottom of a bench is more pecs and shoulders, while the top is primarily triceps)

If you’re using a lighter weight at higher speeds, doesn’t the tension drop significantly. Not to mention that some form of deceleration must take place. (Im not sure but im thinking the deceleration would either come from the antagonist muscles, or a decrease in recruitment of the target muscles?)

So the conclusion ive come to with this one; especially for longer limbed individuals in large ROM exercises, is that only sufficient tension is produced at the transition between eccentric/concentric movement.


This brings in what CT mentions about partial movement and rack work. For example in the bench press or pushup with lighter weight high speed, the triceps wont be recieving adequate stimulation. But by adding some rack work at the top end, they can be “isolated” better.

What do you guys think about all of this?

[quote]dankid wrote:
I recently made some changes in my training based on some of CT and CW’s articles. Basically im more focused on recruiting and fatiguing my largest MU’s. Also, ive started to use partial lifts in the power rack to hit some lagging muscles.

Here are my questions though:

  1. In “lift fast get big”, CW states to use around a 25RM and lift as fast as possible until the rep speed slows.

If I were to do this with almost any exercise, it would involve me leaving the ground.

So I imagine its better to use the fastest speed possible in good form without leaving the ground?

If you do this, you obviously wont be recruiting maximal MU’s on the first few reps, because you wont be moving at max speed, but after a few reps you’ll be slightly fatigued and then your new max speed wont make you leave the ground.

  1. Going along with the first question, how does momentum and acceleration play into all of this?

In movements with vary long ROM like squat or pullups, there is a high amount of acceleration that takes place. When performing heavier weights at a slower pace, the tension is shifted from one group of muscles to another. (For example the bottom of a bench is more pecs and shoulders, while the top is primarily triceps)

If you’re using a lighter weight at higher speeds, doesn’t the tension drop significantly. Not to mention that some form of deceleration must take place. (Im not sure but im thinking the deceleration would either come from the antagonist muscles, or a decrease in recruitment of the target muscles?)

So the conclusion ive come to with this one; especially for longer limbed individuals in large ROM exercises, is that only sufficient tension is produced at the transition between eccentric/concentric movement.


This brings in what CT mentions about partial movement and rack work. For example in the bench press or pushup with lighter weight high speed, the triceps wont be recieving adequate stimulation. But by adding some rack work at the top end, they can be “isolated” better.

What do you guys think about all of this?

[/quote]

you’ll find that…the biggest strongest guys in the gym, never follow anything close to that CW crap and also don’t spend all their time worrying about momentum and acceleration of the weight while they lift, that’s all i have to say about that.

And partials have been used for a long time to gain strength in key weak areas of lifts, e.g. powerlifters finding that their sticking point is the last half of the bench press will throw in more floor presses and rack lockouts. So yeah, partials are a solid training tool. But they are a TOOL, don’t have all your workout based around this idea.

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
dankid wrote:
I recently made some changes in my training based on some of CT and CW’s articles. Basically im more focused on recruiting and fatiguing my largest MU’s. Also, ive started to use partial lifts in the power rack to hit some lagging muscles.

Here are my questions though:

  1. In “lift fast get big”, CW states to use around a 25RM and lift as fast as possible until the rep speed slows.

If I were to do this with almost any exercise, it would involve me leaving the ground.

So I imagine its better to use the fastest speed possible in good form without leaving the ground?

If you do this, you obviously wont be recruiting maximal MU’s on the first few reps, because you wont be moving at max speed, but after a few reps you’ll be slightly fatigued and then your new max speed wont make you leave the ground.

  1. Going along with the first question, how does momentum and acceleration play into all of this?

In movements with vary long ROM like squat or pullups, there is a high amount of acceleration that takes place. When performing heavier weights at a slower pace, the tension is shifted from one group of muscles to another. (For example the bottom of a bench is more pecs and shoulders, while the top is primarily triceps)

If you’re using a lighter weight at higher speeds, doesn’t the tension drop significantly. Not to mention that some form of deceleration must take place. (Im not sure but im thinking the deceleration would either come from the antagonist muscles, or a decrease in recruitment of the target muscles?)

So the conclusion ive come to with this one; especially for longer limbed individuals in large ROM exercises, is that only sufficient tension is produced at the transition between eccentric/concentric movement.


This brings in what CT mentions about partial movement and rack work. For example in the bench press or pushup with lighter weight high speed, the triceps wont be recieving adequate stimulation. But by adding some rack work at the top end, they can be “isolated” better.

What do you guys think about all of this?

you’ll find that…the biggest strongest guys in the gym, never follow anything close to that CW crap and also don’t spend all their time worrying about momentum and acceleration of the weight while they lift, that’s all i have to say about that.

And partials have been used for a long time to gain strength in key weak areas of lifts, e.g. powerlifters finding that their sticking point is the last half of the bench press will throw in more floor presses and rack lockouts.

So yeah, partials are a solid training tool. But they are a TOOL, don’t have all your workout based around this idea.
[/quote]

I lot of very smart and experienced lifters accelerate the load as fast as possible. There is also tons of research to support that. However, the idea of using 25rm will not work to well for BBing or strength, only power.

You have to be careful to not apply CW’s stuff to all training goals. And yes, I know he applies it to all, but IMO, that is not correct. Most of his stuff is a mix of power lifting and BBing, which reduces the effectiveness of both.

I remember Dorian Yates describing how he would lift the weights in an explosive style, and then slowly, fight the weights on the negative portion of the movement.

S

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I remember Dorian Yates describing how he would lift the weights in an explosive style, and then slowly, fight the weights on the negative portion of the movement.

S
[/quote]

errr this isnt common sense to everyone? lol.

lift the weight as fucking hard and fast as you can, it doesnt matter how fast it moves, it matters how fast youre trying to move it i.e, effort.

you want to control the negative because it increases strength and its just another variable for promoting size and neural improvement.

explosive lifting is the most effective way to promote neural improvement. itll improve your reflexes and speed 10 fold. obviously youll make muscular gains as well. but really wasnt this stuff covered in lifting 101?

I find some of the common views very conflicting in the areas of tempo, and TUT, and this is why im trying to figure out more about it.

I know that feeling a muscle work, pump, and lactic acid are not great predictors of how effective a workout is, but they definately can lead to some insight.

I myself have found that if I want to do a longer set in the 40-60 second range, using lighter weight and lifting explosively is very challenging and i definately feel the target muscles working.

Now im not saying that you should lift explosive all the time, but it certainly has its advantages, EVEN FOR SIZE.

What ive also been doing in these longer sets, is use a weight that is probably around a 20-25+ RM. Lift near as fast as possible from the beginning and as fatigue starts to accumulate, I slow down the negative, and keep the concentric as fast as possible. So far this seems to work great.

As for slow negatives, I see almost no reason to deliberately do a slow negative, unless you are using “negatives” with supramaximal weights, or low rep sets and heavy weights. There just isn’t enough overload lowering 80% of your 1RM slowly. Sure you can contract fully and pull the weight down with your antagonistic muscles, but why do this when you can simply use more weight or lift more explosive.

Other than that, one thing ive been wondering is the difference between the two types of hypertrophy. I dont know too much about this but as far as I know there is hypertrophy from increases in protein (fibers) and increases in fluids (glycogen and water). Too maximize growth you should aim for both types of hypertrophy, and the muscle fiber hypertrophy would be better targeted with heavier weights and slow negatives, while higher reps done explosively will cause the other type of hypertrophy. I could be way off on this one, so please correct me if im wrong.

So really my conclusion from all of this is too lift as fast as possible, but when your lifting near maximal, or supramaximal, slow down the eccentric.

While negatives seem to get a bad rap on this site, there is a lot or research that suggests that it is effective for hypertrophy, even at submaximal loads. Negatives selectively use less motor units but more fast-twitch (IIa) fibers than concentric lifts.

So IMO, if there is any generalize-able message here it is that you should always do slow eccentric movements no matter how light the load. If you don’t believe this try doing a fast concentric and eccentric set and then with the same load try doing fast concentric and slow eccentric and see which set you could do more reps. You will be able to do more reps if you don’t emphasize the negatives, which means the muscle is not getting hit as hard.

So fast concentric and slow eccentric ensures that you are hitting the fast twitch on all parts of the lift.

Lifting quickly does not result in hypertrophy!

Anyone who says so is talking out of his/her/collective ass hole.

Hypertrophy is a result of muscle damage/volume. The need to produce greater forces or workloads are what cause the muscle to grow not the velocity of contraction.

If this held a monocrom of truth then sprinters would not need to lift weights to get bigger/faster because the velocity of crontraction would be so great that they would be fucking hyoooge! already.

This is evidently not the case.

Working at your 25RM for ANY exercise is not going to do shit. period.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
While negatives seem to get a bad rap on this site, there is a lot or research that suggests that it is effective for hypertrophy, even at submaximal loads. Negatives selectively use less motor units but more fast-twitch (IIa) fibers than concentric lifts.

So IMO, if there is any generalize-able message here it is that you should always do slow eccentric movements no matter how light the load. If you don’t believe this try doing a fast concentric and eccentric set and then with the same load try doing fast concentric and slow eccentric and see which set you could do more reps. You will be able to do more reps if you don’t emphasize the negatives, which means the muscle is not getting hit as hard.

So fast concentric and slow eccentric ensures that you are hitting the fast twitch on all parts of the lift.
[/quote]

Pretty much.

They’ve shown slow eccentrics don’t result in more hypertrophy than a “normal” pace.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If you don’t believe this try doing a fast concentric and eccentric set and then with the same load try doing fast concentric and slow eccentric and see which set you could do more reps. You will be able to do more reps if you don’t emphasize the negatives, which means the muscle is not getting hit as hard.

[/quote]

This is absolutely not correct. Your muscles dont know reps. Its the TUT that makes a difference. If you lift an equal load, but one set do explosive and one set slow eccentrics (both with equal TUT) the explosive will ALWAYS be harder.

How hard a set is does not necessarily determine how effective it is though.

I think the main point is to always try to produce maximal force on every rep. If you are doing this, then you are recruiting the most MU’s possible and exposing your muscles to the highest tension possible.

On traditional exercises, maximal force can be reached with loads greater than 65-75%. This maximal force is only going to be reached with a fast concentric. Sure you can lower the weight slowly but it is going to result in less force, less tension, and less MU recruitment. The less time you spend lowering the weight in a set, the more time you can spend raising the weight.

This is why I think its important to not only think about TUT, but the time spent in concentric, and the time spend in eccentric tension. From my experience, the higher the %1rm you are using the more time you should spend in eccentric, and less time in concentric motion. This is pretty obvious to most people, because it makes no sense to lift a light weight slowly, and if you try to lift near maximal weights with a fast eccentric, your likely to hurt yourself. But my reasoning goes further than this. You are stronger in the eccentric portion of a lift, so with heavier weights, the more time you spend in eccentric motion the longer the set will be before failure is reached. With 90% of 1rm you might be luckly to get 3-5 reps. If done explosively, you might get 5 reps, but the TUT might be 5 seconds or even less. If you use a slow eccentric of 3 seconds or so, you might get fewer reps, maybe only 3, but your TUT may be 10-15 seconds.

Or, if you look at supramaximal loads. With negative only training, your able to get a TUT of maybe 5-15 seconds in a set with greater than 100% of 1rm. But if you try to do concentric motion you reach failure instantly and get a TUT of 0 seconds.

Like all aspects of exercise, I think you are better off spending your time doing both methods, rather than just one method. Training with a higher %1rm and using slower negatives is the optimal method for myofibral hypertrophy. Training with lighter weights, explosively, and longer TUT’s is optimal for sarcoplasmic hyertrophy.

Im not saying that this is the only way, or that its even something new, but it does work. And to me, it seems much more effecient to train this way than traditional tempo recomendations.

[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
Lifting quickly does not result in hypertrophy!

Anyone who says so is talking out of his/her/collective ass hole.

Hypertrophy is a result of muscle damage/volume. The need to produce greater forces or workloads are what cause the muscle to grow not the velocity of contraction.

If this held a monocrom of truth then sprinters would not need to lift weights to get bigger/faster because the velocity of crontraction would be so great that they would be fucking hyoooge! already.

This is evidently not the case.

Working at your 25RM for ANY exercise is not going to do shit. period. [/quote]

True. It’s about intent to lift fast not the actual speed of the bar. You can try and lift your 3rm fast but it isn’t going to go fast. But as long as you try and lift it fast that is all that matters.

[quote]dankid wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If you don’t believe this try doing a fast concentric and eccentric set and then with the same load try doing fast concentric and slow eccentric and see which set you could do more reps. You will be able to do more reps if you don’t emphasize the negatives, which means the muscle is not getting hit as hard.

This is absolutely not correct. Your muscles dont know reps. Its the TUT that makes a difference. If you lift an equal load, but one set do explosive and one set slow eccentrics (both with equal TUT) the explosive will ALWAYS be harder.

How hard a set is does not necessarily determine how effective it is though.

I think the main point is to always try to produce maximal force on every rep. If you are doing this, then you are recruiting the most MU’s possible and exposing your muscles to the highest tension possible.

On traditional exercises, maximal force can be reached with loads greater than 65-75%. This maximal force is only going to be reached with a fast concentric. Sure you can lower the weight slowly but it is going to result in less force, less tension, and less MU recruitment. The less time you spend lowering the weight in a set, the more time you can spend raising the weight.

This is why I think its important to not only think about TUT, but the time spent in concentric, and the time spend in eccentric tension. From my experience, the higher the %1rm you are using the more time you should spend in eccentric, and less time in concentric motion. This is pretty obvious to most people, because it makes no sense to lift a light weight slowly, and if you try to lift near maximal weights with a fast eccentric, your likely to hurt yourself. But my reasoning goes further than this. You are stronger in the eccentric portion of a lift, so with heavier weights, the more time you spend in eccentric motion the longer the set will be before failure is reached. With 90% of 1rm you might be luckly to get 3-5 reps. If done explosively, you might get 5 reps, but the TUT might be 5 seconds or even less. If you use a slow eccentric of 3 seconds or so, you might get fewer reps, maybe only 3, but your TUT may be 10-15 seconds.

Or, if you look at supramaximal loads. With negative only training, your able to get a TUT of maybe 5-15 seconds in a set with greater than 100% of 1rm. But if you try to do concentric motion you reach failure instantly and get a TUT of 0 seconds.

Like all aspects of exercise, I think you are better off spending your time doing both methods, rather than just one method. Training with a higher %1rm and using slower negatives is the optimal method for myofibral hypertrophy. Training with lighter weights, explosively, and longer TUT’s is optimal for sarcoplasmic hyertrophy.

Im not saying that this is the only way, or that its even something new, but it does work. And to me, it seems much more effecient to train this way than traditional tempo recomendations.

[/quote]

I think I agree with most of what you stated except for the fact the eccentric TUT is not the same as concentric TUT.

Eccentrics specifically target the fast twitch type IIa fibers (the ones that have the most growth potential). Concentric do not target fast twitch automatically. One way to get the fast twitch involved is to do very long sets (a lot of reps) so the slow twitch get burned out and the fast twitch kick in at the end. Problem with this is that the TUT for the fast twitch is very short because they only come in after the slow twitch are fatigued.

Now if you use a heavy load the fast twitch come in right from the beginning because of the force required cannot be handled by the slow twitch. If you lift fast the fast twitch come in right away as well due to the force required. So for concentric contractions to target the fast twitch you have two options: very heavy loads or increasing the force production by explosive lifts.

So since eccentric automatically target the fast twitch, it makes the most sense to always do slow eccentrics to increase the fast twitch TUT.

[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
Lifting quickly does not result in hypertrophy!

Anyone who says so is talking out of his/her/collective ass hole.

Hypertrophy is a result of muscle damage/volume. The need to produce greater forces or workloads are what cause the muscle to grow not the velocity of contraction.

If this held a monocrom of truth then sprinters would not need to lift weights to get bigger/faster because the velocity of crontraction would be so great that they would be fucking hyoooge! already.

This is evidently not the case.

Working at your 25RM for ANY exercise is not going to do shit. period. [/quote]

If you read the article you’d know that the goal of the 25RM was to boost speed strength. More speed strength carries over to heavier lifts. So when you lift heavy, you can recruit more MUs. And if you perform enough volume (damage), you’ll get hypertrophy.

My philosophy in general (meaning what I would do on a regular basis but can be changed for special training phases) is to have a controlled eccentric phase during my lifts and to simply think about completing the concentric phase. So basically, when I do bench, I lower the weight in a controlled fashion and push it with the necessary speed/acceleration it takes me to get the bar up. Sometimes the weight is simply too heavy to be super fast so it may take me 2 seconds and other times, I’ll be able to literally throw the weight up.

Raise the weight. CW more likely chose an arbitrary number when he said 25, not a carefully studied 400 people survey. 25 is an endurance number, if you been doing alot of endurance your 25 rep max will be greater than someone who has been concentrating on power, the opposite is also true. If you’ve been concentrating on strength your 25 rep max will be significantly lower. This will cause you to have more power then you should. The simple answer is to raise the weight.

As far as lifting speed your right Dan on some aspects but your still giving too little significance to total weight. There comes a point where regardless of how fast you go, how long tut or how many reps the weight is just too light. This is where the foundation of you and the others debates are actually saying the same thing but on opposite sides of a bell curve.

You also get a little positive if your explosive squat or pushup puts you in the air. When you land the force is equal to probably much more than you can load the bar so theres a little plus, but I seriously doubt it amounts to anything.

How often are you doing this super light workout. If your really about size, I don’t see this as a technique to be used outside of an occasional boost, or extremely short plyo-like phase.

[quote]dankid wrote:
I recently made some changes in my training based on some of CT and CW’s articles. Basically im more focused on recruiting and fatiguing my largest MU’s. Also, ive started to use partial lifts in the power rack to hit some lagging muscles.

Here are my questions though:

  1. In “lift fast get big”, CW states to use around a 25RM and lift as fast as possible until the rep speed slows.

If I were to do this with almost any exercise, it would involve me leaving the ground.

So I imagine its better to use the fastest speed possible in good form without leaving the ground?

If you do this, you obviously wont be recruiting maximal MU’s on the first few reps, because you wont be moving at max speed, but after a few reps you’ll be slightly fatigued and then your new max speed wont make you leave the ground.

  1. Going along with the first question, how does momentum and acceleration play into all of this?

In movements with vary long ROM like squat or pullups, there is a high amount of acceleration that takes place. When performing heavier weights at a slower pace, the tension is shifted from one group of muscles to another. (For example the bottom of a bench is more pecs and shoulders, while the top is primarily triceps)

If you’re using a lighter weight at higher speeds, doesn’t the tension drop significantly. Not to mention that some form of deceleration must take place. (Im not sure but im thinking the deceleration would either come from the antagonist muscles, or a decrease in recruitment of the target muscles?)

So the conclusion ive come to with this one; especially for longer limbed individuals in large ROM exercises, is that only sufficient tension is produced at the transition between eccentric/concentric movement.


This brings in what CT mentions about partial movement and rack work. For example in the bench press or pushup with lighter weight high speed, the triceps wont be recieving adequate stimulation. But by adding some rack work at the top end, they can be “isolated” better.

What do you guys think about all of this?

[/quote]

Dan, Every question you’ll ever have about lifting fast for getting bigger and stronger muscles has been answered in my new book, Huge in a Hurry. It’ll be available very soon.

This is an old, long-ass post of mine to a guy asking about whether the speed of descent for squats mattered or not. just read it:

"If I were to give specific advice to the OP, I would tell him that speed of the eccentric and concentric phases of a lift all depend on the the lift and the person.

For instance, I would advise to lift with an explosive (as fast as you possibly can) concentric phase on most lifts - save a few. For example, on pullups/chinups I do not think that an explosive concentric is appropriate. You still want to go fast, but as fast as you can while feeling the latismuss dorsi working. I would say a good tempo would be fast, but not explosive. However, if we are talking about pushing movements such as squatting, military pressing, and bench pressing, explosive is the way to go!

Since we have the concentric phase of the lift covered, lets talk about the eccentric. There are two schools of thought regarding this. The main argument is Using the Stretch Reflex vs. Not Using the Stretch Reflex. An example of using the stretch reflex can be seen with Military Press.

Lets say Bob is Military Pressing. He explodes on the concentric phase, and on the eccentric, he drops the bar down to his chin fairly quickly and ‘bounces’ a little bit at the bottom. HE IS NOT BOUNCING THE BAR OFF OF HIS CHEST OR ANY PART OF THE BODY. He is merely taking advantage of stored elastic energy at the bottom of the lift. it difficult to understand without actually doing it, but chances are you are doing it yourself. Just remember that you aren’t physically bouncing the bar off of your body, but you are using elastic energy at the bottom of the lift to help propel the bar up.

Obviously, after getting used to this technique you will be able to use more weight because you don’t have to control the eccentric phase of the lift, and you get that little ‘bounce’ which helps with the concentric. If you weren’t using the stretch reflex, you control the bar in the eccentric, maybe 2-3 seconds, pause for a split second at the bottom to eliminate momentum, and then drive the bar back up explosively. This requires more recruitment of motor units because you have to stabilize the bar and you have to generate the entire concentric portion of the lift by yourself.

So, Using the Stretch Reflex recruits less motor units but lets you use more weight. Not using the Stretch reflex recruits more motor units but limits the weight you use. You have to decide which style you want to use.

For athletes, performance-based lifters, etc. using the Stretch Reflex is a given because the reflex is dynamic and therefore conducive to whatever sport you play. However you also want to focus on hypertrophy as an athlete so you have a base/aid to increasing strength.

You can either do this by solely using the Stretch reflex and relying on the periodization of weight to stimulate your muscles, or you can alternate between using and not using the stretch reflex to get a blend of hypertrophy and strength."

facepalm

Thanks CW, i’ll definately check out your book when its available.

I appreciate all the comments everyone, but I still disagree with the fact that lighter weights will not build muscle.

The key ingredient for muscular growth that is dependant on load, is intramuscular tension(IMT). IMT is a direct result of force. Also, greater forces are the result of greater MU recruitement. Now I know when using a weight around 20-30rm your not going to be able to produce max force on the first few reps, I already stated this. If you did produce max force with this weight, you’d likely have to release the weight into the air. But after a few reps, max force can be produced without this problem.

This means that some of the fast twitch fibers that were recruited from the beginning of the set have fatigued, and other fibers take over. As the set goes on, your max force decreases as more and more MU’s fatigue.

I do agree that with this set, your max force or maximum IMT is never as high as it would be with a heavier weight. So there is a drawback to this method. But as CW mentioned this method does work speed strength. And as I mentioned this method is not being used alone.

Some other direct advantages of this method are that the force required at the transition between ecentric and concentric movement is much higher than with heavier weights and a slow eccentric. This is likely why its a good method for speed strength.

This is another reason why this method is not to be used alone. Much of the force produced using these lighter weights with faster movements is the result of elasticity. This results in the musculature involved in the transition from eccentric to concentric being responsible for most of work in the set. For example in a set of bench press, the chest and shoulders are going to almost all of the work, while the triceps will do nearly nothing, because the inertia involved. (This could be looked at as an advantage or a disadvantage) I think this is a great method for longer limbed lifters, because now they are not limited by sticking points or poor leverages. But like I said they will have to do something else to work those neglected muscles, or sticking points.

Which brings me to the next portion of training. Heavy partials, and full range eccentric training. In the bench press that I mentioned above, the lower portion of the movement is getting a lot of work, but the top of the movement is recieving nothing. The solution? Rack work. The top 1/2-1/3 of the movement in a power rack will make sure that your increasing the strength of any neglected muscles. Then you can also do “traditional” strength training using the full ROM, which will still be limited by your sticking points, but will be much less of a problem. Your sticking points will be stronger, and your accelerative capabilities of your strong points will be greater, so sticking points wont be as much of a problem. Lastly, i’d include some negative only training, or assisted eccentrics to work with supramaximal weights.

Here’s a sample of one of my workouts that focuses more on TUT than reps:

  1. Pullup- BW+25 5-8 reps (I dont count TUT on sets shorter than 15 seconds)
    REST 60 seconds
    Repeat 2 times
  2. Lat pulldown ?RM 20 seconds
    REST 40 seconds
    Repeat 2 times
  3. Reverse flies ?RM 40 seconds
    REST 40 seconds
    Repeat 2 times

Everything is performed in sequence. So after your third set of pullups, you rest 60 seconds, and go right into lat pulldowns. Also, I put ?RM for exercises 2 and 3, because I dont know what my 1RM is and it really doesnt matter. You choose a weight and basically do as many reps as you can in the time period. It doesnt matter if the weight is a little too light, because you’ll just lift faster to produce more force. The weight is too light though if you are accelerating the weight to the point where inertia is removing tension from your muscles. The only other thing that I think is really important, is that you’ll notice, as you fatigue, your eccentric/concentric ratio increases. So basically your getting less reps in the same time, but the total TUT is the same. Your still producing max force on almost all the concentric movements, but your spending more time controlling the weight in the eccentric which is easier than lifting the weight.

I know it doesn’t go along with everything thats been suggested for hypertrophy, but ive already noticed its working pretty well for me. So if you want to try something different, give it a try.

And again, thanks for your comments and criticisms.