Stupid Questions Thread

[plaguewielder]

How is, in the context of being the main cause of hypertrophy, mechanical tension defined/measured?

Itensity x ROM x duration

Thank you. Why isn't tempo work then more common? If you can swap intensity for time?

"Mechanical Tension is the main driver of hypertrophy" makes sense since that's the work the muscle produces, and you can measure it. It is a better metric than tonnage, because it considers intensity (RPE) and the distance the bar traveled (ROM, joint angle change).

Think about rep count. 10 vs. 3 reps, same RPE/ROM. Same with tempo work. But you have to keep the training goal in mind. Tension roughly estimates the effectiveness of a given set in terms of hypertrophy. If you want to build muscle, any set @8 will do, but longer/more sets with longer ROM ( in short: volume) will net more stimulus. Yet sets of 25 aren't great for strength increases, doubles @8 don't allow for much volume, and half reps for 8 aren't any productive unless you really push the weight.

I understand the second paragraph (at least intuitively). But how do you quantify tension of a set of say 8 reps that lasts 20sec and where bar moves 1m per rep? It's easy to see this set will provide more tension than the one where 5 reps would be made.
If tension can't be exactly measured is it even possible to disprove it as being the main cause of hypertrophy? When one way of training produces more growth you can always say it is because it produced more tension. But this is backward way of defining it (tension). I hope it's clear what I mean?

[Testiclaw]

One of my go-to "resets" for training is just 50/20 for trap bar deadlifts and bench press.

Pick a weight, go by feel, when you get all 50 reps within 20 minutes, add weight. I'd do two session of benching and two sessions of trap bar a week, followed by lat fluff.

After a few weeks or months I'd move onto more "reasonable" programming.

Sometimes simplicity and no real rigidity is nice. Density work is fucking amazing for that.

I haven't got a trap bar, but it's been on my wishlist for a while and this makes me want one even more. I love this idea. Might try it for bench.

There are a few setups that work really well with the 50/20 thingy;

Strict press & high-bar squat

Clean + push press + high-bar squat

Deadlift & bench

Deadlift & floor press

Snatch-grip deadlift & incline bench

Follow each session up with whatever areas aren't hit as much during the main movements, so quads if you pull and press, posterior if you squat and press, etc.

Work into the weights a bit conservatively, so you'll get your 50 reps in 14-15'ish minutes at first and have a few sessions before you miss the 20 minute cutoff.

[mettkeks]

I understand the second paragraph (at least intuitively). But how do you quantify tension of a set of say 8 reps that lasts 20sec and where bar moves 1m per rep? It's easy to see this set will provide more tension than the one where 5 reps would be made.
If tension can't be exactly measured is it even possible to disprove it as being the main cause of hypertrophy? When one way of training produces more growth you can always say it is because it produced more tension. But this is backward way of defining it (tension). I hope it's clear what I mean?

No worries, I get it. The way I understand it "Tension" is work (force x distance) taking intensity into account.

Lets say 5x5 at 80% squats causes the same or comparable hypertrophy as 5x8 at 72% (according to both, "nr. of hard sets" and "effective rep" concepts). Yeah, you can figure that out with an RPE table. What if you want to do Leg Press instead. If you go ATG on the HB squat and the leg press will only let you hit 50% of your typical ROM for the quads, will the hypertrophy be equal if you do 5x8 at 72%? RPE and Volume/tonnage, even those too combined would indicate yes, but Tension (think work) would clearly show the advantage for the squat.

[Paul]

How is, in the context of being the main cause of hypertrophy, mechanical tension defined/measured?

Itensity x ROM x duration

Would running a training cycle of pure density work be stupid? No prescribed sets/reps, just timed amrap/emom stuff.

What's the goal? Strength, yes stupid. Hypertrophy? Not stupid. Work capacity/endurance? Great.

Cutting, for which I've seen several sources recommend hypertrophy-style, high-ish volume training.
Density blocks are self-autoregulating, so I could get maximum volume without crashing... in theory.

Work capacity would be a nice bonus... not sure how well a caloric deficit allows for increasing work capacity though.

[Savs]

How is, in the context of being the main cause of hypertrophy, mechanical tension defined/measured?

Itensity x ROM x duration

Thank you. Why isn't tempo work then more common? If you can swap intensity for time?

"Mechanical Tension is the main driver of hypertrophy" makes sense since that's the work the muscle produces, and you can measure it. It is a better metric than tonnage, because it considers intensity (RPE) and the distance the bar traveled (ROM, joint angle change).

Think about rep count. 10 vs. 3 reps, same RPE/ROM. Same with tempo work. But you have to keep the training goal in mind. Tension roughly estimates the effectiveness of a given set in terms of hypertrophy. If you want to build muscle, any set @8 will do, but longer/more sets with longer ROM ( in short: volume) will net more stimulus. Yet sets of 25 aren't great for strength increases, doubles @8 don't allow for much volume, and half reps for 8 aren't any productive unless you really push the weight.

I understand the second paragraph (at least intuitively). But how do you quantify tension of a set of say 8 reps that lasts 20sec and where bar moves 1m per rep? It's easy to see this set will provide more tension than the one where 5 reps would be made.
If tension can't be exactly measured is it even possible to disprove it as being the main cause of hypertrophy? When one way of training produces more growth you can always say it is because it produced more tension. But this is backward way of defining it (tension). I hope it's clear what I mean?

I don’t know the answer to what drives hypertrophy. I wish I knew/know all the answers right down to the molecular level. But the truth is I don’t wish it enough to spend a significant amount of time to study it on my own.

I agree with a lot of what mettkeks wrote, but I have some minor quibbles. First, in engineering and physics, tension is a force. For a cable supporting a weight hanging straight down at mechanical equilibrium, the tension in the cable is equal to the weight (which is a force) hanging at the end of the cable (assuming the cable is massless ). So, I think most people would say that the tension in a muscle is the force is applies to the attachment point.

The tension in a muscle depends on (assuming mechanical equilibrium — statics, no acceleration) the weight positioned at some point on the limb, limb lengths (distance from weight to joint), muscle attachment point(s), and in some cases the angle the limb makes with the vertical.

Also, the work done by the muscle isn’t just mechanical work (weight multiplied by vertical displacement). In physics-speak, the system isn’t conservative, it’s not path independent. There is also ‘chemical’ work producing heat. For example, holding a weight in place (isometric contraction) produces no mechanical work, but it requires energy.

So, what does it all mean? I certainly don’t know. For example, I don’t know how the terms are weighted (how much each matters compared to the others) in: intensity x ROM x duration, where here I think intensity is tension which is a function of other variables mentioned above (as is ROM).

I honestly don’t know what’s going on with the biological ‘motors’, and on a more-quantitative and scientific level what a trainee should do to make them produce more tension in the future for a given number of reps. Number of reps per set, number of sets, number of reps left in the tank, ROM, time to do a rep, rest times, ... ??? Judging from the lack of definitive answers (and again, I’m not an expert, so I don’t know the consensus at the current level of understanding), I guess the knowledge we have now is based on decades of trial and error.

ETA: mettkeks, I just saw your latest post. I think it’s wrong to say tension equals mechanical work.

[plaguewielder]

Thank you everyone for informative responses. I will need some time to go over them properly. Good stuff!

[mettkeks]

ETA: mettkeks, I just saw your latest post. I think it’s wrong to say tension equals mechanical work.

Excuse my wording, I'm trying to elaborate a topic that I was casually exposed to in a language I mostly taught myself.

Pathetic excuses aside, I didn't mean to imply it's the same thing. But then again, it is used to describe mechanical work in the context of hypertrophy training.

Cutting, for which I've seen several sources recommend hypertrophy-style, high-ish volume training.
Density blocks are self-autoregulating, so I could get maximum volume without crashing... in theory.

Work capacity would be a nice bonus... not sure how well a caloric deficit allows for increasing work capacity though.

Should be fine. My strength plummets in the first week of a cut, but as soon as I start to push it comes back mostly. I don't know about work capacity gains, but I mostly keep it in the first place.

[damufunman]

I don’t know the answer to what drives hypertrophy. I wish I knew/know all the answers right down to the molecular level. But the truth is I don’t wish it enough to spend a significant amount of time to study it on my own.

I agree with a lot of what mettkeks wrote, but I have some minor quibbles. First, in engineering and physics, tension is a force. For a cable supporting a weight hanging straight down at mechanical equilibrium, the tension in the cable is equal to the weight (which is a force) hanging at the end of the cable (assuming the cable is massless ). So, I think most people would say that the tension in a muscle is the force is applies to the attachment point.

I think this analogy is not entirely accurate due to motor unit recruitment voodoo. Sure you have full load throughout the tendon on the loaded muscle (I think why tendon rehab/remodelling requires heavy loads: to increase the load on the tendon up to near what the muscle can generate, ie higher MU recruitment, @Hanley?), but too light and some (many?) high threshold MUs aren't contracting and don't see that tension.

The tension in a muscle depends on (assuming mechanical equilibrium — statics, no acceleration) the weight positioned at some point on the limb, limb lengths (distance from weight to joint), muscle attachment point(s), and in some cases the angle the limb makes with the vertical.

Also, the work done by the muscle isn’t just mechanical work (weight multiplied by vertical displacement). In physics-speak, the system isn’t conservative, it’s not path independent. There is also ‘chemical’ work producing heat. For example, holding a weight in place (isometric contraction) produces no mechanical work, but it requires energy.

So, what does it all mean? I certainly don’t know. For example, I don’t know how the terms are weighted (how much each matters compared to the others) in: intensity x ROM x duration, where here I think intensity is tension which is a function of other variables mentioned above (as is ROM).

I honestly don’t know what’s going on with the biological ‘motors’, and on a more-quantitative and scientific level what a trainee should do to make them produce more tension in the future for a given number of reps. Number of reps per set, number of sets, number of reps left in the tank, ROM, time to do a rep, rest times, ... ??? Judging from the lack of definitive answers (and again, I’m not an expert, so I don’t know the consensus at the current level of understanding), I guess the knowledge we have now is based on decades of trial and error.

ETA: mettkeks, I just saw your latest post. I think it’s wrong to say tension equals mechanical work.

Mechanical work is likely a good proxy for tension. Time under tension is where pauses/tempo might come in, but generally pauses and tempo require lighter loads, so mechanical work is then decreased. I think at this point the chemical work might become an important factor.

[Hanley]

Hanley?

Bro, tendon remodeling is so over my head.

But I'm not gonna let that stop me: yeah, I'd do slow, heavy eccentrics to remodel my tendons.

[Savs]

damufunman, that’s a good point about different motor units firing. However, tension is still force. (Yeah, let’s not get into the weeds with surface tension.)

Every fiber of my being resists your second point, even though I think I understand your argument and I’m like, yeah... maybe... sometimes. But.. there is absolutely no way I can substitute force for work. No can do. I am literally all tensed (ha) up just thinking about it.

I was thinking more like a bro and that (sweet smell of easy) muscle isolation. I was answering plaguewelder’s question about the definition of tension in the context of hypertrophy (and am not sure what he was asking, exactly, and don’t know how the exercise science / S&C people / lifting bros in general define it). I think if I take the time I can think of cases (not talking just about the powerlifts here) where I change the leverage (maybe by changing my limb(s) angle(s)) and get the same work with different tension on a specific muscle (especially for multi-joint movements, single joint will require more ROM). Uggh. Getting in the weeds now... I think (because I don’t want to sit here and think about it too long) with different movements you can also change how the tension changes at various points along the ROM. As for time under tension, the extreme case is an isometric contraction with no work done. That will also make the muscle “stronger” and bigger with no mechanical work, right? I’m remembering that documentary about the guy who was bending steel. He just pushed and pushed and pulled and pulled on the damn things without moving ‘em most of the time. He got stronger by doing that.

So, I don’t know. I just really don’t like mixing up units. I need my dimensional analysis. Without it I am adrift in a big deep dark ocean with no Arby’s in sight.

[mettkeks]

@plaguewielder Relevant: https://revivestronger.com/chasing-dama ... uce-gains/

[KarlM]

I’ve spent a good portion of my career studying biological motors. Unfortunately not the myosins, and consequently have only a cursory understanding the field (and an outdated one at that).

With that said I’d like to highlight the difficulties Savs brought up in terms of actually trying to quantify the total work done during various types of muscle contractions. Sure, we can do a fine job calculating mechanical work with clever line integrals. Relating how much chemical work is done to power that mechanical work is rather messy and difficult and I don’t even know if there are any good models on it. Not my field.

For example, one issue that comes to mind is the fact that when ADP is bound to the active site of the myosin enzyme (after ATP has been hydrolyzed to ADP and inorganic phosphate) the affinity of the myosin head for actin is increased markedly. This phenomenon is why corpses go rigid (so called rigor mortis) - ATP isn’t being regenerated but all the myosin enzymes are still active immediately after death and fairly quickly go through the available ATP stores, which results in lots of ADP, which strongly attaches the myosin heads to the actin, which leads to stiff muscles. So immediately this implies that fast vs slow contractions may have significantly different energetic efficiencies, i.e. the amount of chemical energy (ATP) that is required to produce an amount of mechanical work is likely a significant function of the contraction type. I don’t know if this is true, it’s just a complication that immediately springs to mind. So when we say mechanical tension in the muscle leads to hypertrophy we probably need to specify several additional features of that tension if we want to try to relate it to some quantity of hypertrophy stimulus (Which I have no idea how to do; does hypertrophy stimulus have energy units? Force units? Beats me.). In cases like these I prefer to listen to bros. If a jacked bro tells me mind muscle connection, for example, that’s what I do. Etc.

[Hiphopapotamus]

Just add five pounds, snowflakes.

[Wilhelm]

Just add five pounds, snowflakes.

The volume of five pounds of snowflakes can vary greatly.

[Paul]

When going to 4×/week bench frequency, what's the best way to fit in that 4th session? Add a "slot" to an existing day? Bench 2 or 3 days in a row?

I'd like to add a bench variation (3ct pause, tempo, or reverse grip) to the HVLF setup, but would comp bench be prefered for slot 4 as well?

I've been benching every second day when possible, alternating 6@65% and 4@72.5% days with sets of 2@85% every 4-5 sessions.

[Wilhelm]

When going to 4×/week bench frequency, what's the best way to fit in that 4th session? Add a "slot" to an existing day? Bench 2 or 3 days in a row?

I'd like to add a bench variation (3ct pause, tempo, or reverse grip) to the HVLF setup, but would comp bench be prefered for slot 4 as well?

I've been benching every second day when possible, alternating 6@65% and 4@72.5% days with sets of 2@85% every 4-5 sessions.

When i was doing 4X week benching, i added a second H day on the first of what were the back to back off days of my usual 3 day MM schedule.

So lower % and no other lifts that day, full day off, then regular H day with the same bench sets + volume squats, day off, P day (with heavy DL), day off, S day, repeat.

I can't say it did my 1RM any good , but recovery was fine.

[Savs]

Sure, we can do a fine job calculating mechanical work with clever line integrals.

Yup, and another problem is after we raise and lower the weight we’ll have done no mechanical work since the work we do is negative on the way down. Oops.

[plaguewielder]

Sure, we can do a fine job calculating mechanical work with clever line integrals.

Yup, and another problem is after we raise and lower the weight we’ll have done no mechanical work since the work we do is negative on the way down. Oops.

But we have to do it infinitesimally slowly so that the work done is max.

[convergentsum]

Sure, we can do a fine job calculating mechanical work with clever line integrals.

Yup, and another problem is after we raise and lower the weight we’ll have done no mechanical work since the work we do is negative on the way down. Oops.

Muscles are not reversible, in fact muscles consume energy just walking out a lift or controlling an eccentric. The best we can do is with mechanical work is modify the line integral to max(0, f) . ds and use it is a minimum on the work done.
But don't bother, in terms of hypertrophy stimulus, is RPE a more reliable measurement than any mechanical work calculation? I hope so - rip would be delighted!

[Paul]

When going to 4×/week bench frequency, what's the best way to fit in that 4th session? Add a "slot" to an existing day? Bench 2 or 3 days in a row?

I'd like to add a bench variation (3ct pause, tempo, or reverse grip) to the HVLF setup, but would comp bench be prefered for slot 4 as well?

I've been benching every second day when possible, alternating 6@65% and 4@72.5% days with sets of 2@85% every 4-5 sessions.

When i was doing 4X week benching, i added a second H day on the first of what were the back to back off days of my usual 3 day MM schedule.

So lower % and no other lifts that day, full day off, then regular H day with the same bench sets + volume squats, day off, P day (with heavy DL), day off, S day, repeat.

I can't say it did my 1RM any good , but recovery was fine.

That gives me some options then. Thanks! I guess I've been a little brainwashed by stuff like Mike Israetels frequency/recovery recommendations.