Any comments about Christian Thibaudeau’s article relative to Dr. Darden’s 30-10-30, etc. protocols?
Got a link to the article?
See Christian Thibaudeau’s Coaching Lab & Plans.
I think Thibs theories are what’s been the norm in thinking all along. The TUT way is newer, being pushed by a certain core group of “trainers”. I think the truth, the best way, lies in the middle of both theories. Everybody reacts their own way to different stimuli. TUT/ superslow, whatever you want to call it, works well for me for about 2 weeks. Then the weights go down, and progress stops, if it doesn’t slide backwards.
Here it is. I have started my comments there, as it is the source of this discussion (this time).
Thanks Pettersson, I’ve read your comments. Seems the article is thorough. A question: what do you mean “I am living proof the method (long TUT?) apparently works”? Hypertrophy? Strength? Both?
For what it’s worth, I am not saying that slow eccentrics do not work. They are literally 33% of the training volume I use with athletes. I also use stato-dynamic reps (pauses/holds during reps) and loaded stretching.
My point is that the time you spend under load during a set isn’t, by itself a variable that trigger growth. And “what” you do during a set matters more than the duration of a set.
The elements required for a set to stimulate growth is a) recruit as many fibers as possible and b) impose a high level of tension on those fibers.
From a practical standpoint this means reaching a point where the concentric/lifting phase becomes slow even though you are pushing as hard as possible.
From a hypertrophy standpoint, it doesn’t matter what you do to get there, as long as you get there and that you do reps or work when you reach that state.
Yeah, this can be done with a load/method that requires 40, 60, 90 seconds to get the muscle tired enough (peripheral fatigue) to get to the proper physiological state to get money reps/work in, but it can also be done in much shorter times.
I asked him about that when he posted on my forum. Mostly, if he did any other training methods/styles of training at all (which I think he does from previous posts) in which case it is pretty hard to know which method contributes to progress.
Great to have you here also @Christian_Thibaudeau! Please see my too long response in your forum - as a response to this interesting discussion.
I should probably mention I accentuate the negatives - a lot!
For what it’s worth, just for fun, I yesterday presented my values in a muscle calculator. It “showed” I had reached 90% of my natural gains. My latest training combination may get me further, though I realize my journey forward will be slower in terms of gains. That said, my powerlifting attempts are showing steady strength gains (alongside TUT training) - now moving weights I last touched 25 years ago. Resisting age…
yep, spot on
All we have to do is look at all the variations in rep speeds, that all ended up leading to extreme hypertrophy, slow reps, fast reps, etc etc. then find the common denominator… it’s not rep speed…
It’s like debating which will cut a tree down, a saw or an axe, both can reach the goal, but which one an individual ‘can use’ better, might work better, ‘for that person’. But either can end up with the same result, one isn’t superior than the other in general.