Originally posted by neo

And yes, I have tried just about every method known to man including everything from HIT, to GVT, to POWERLIFTING, to 8 x 8, to Max-OT, to everything that King, Simmons, Poliquin, Staley, Telle, Inclendon, etc, has put out.

And I never said my method was SUPERIOR to all others (man you guys are tiresome)!...I mentioned twice already that there are many good training methods out there and not just one all-encompassing theory on how to train. If anything it is POWERMAN that is insiuating that, not me! Is POWERMANS, CHRIS'S, PAUL'S, OR PIETRO'S training the only effective methods? No, but they are probably effective though. That is why you must incorporate the best of all sound methods into your own program.

Reading through this, I realize that I didn't exactly address what I meant, and I feel I should do so.

He was seeing me as arguing a method v. a method, as if I were saying "HIT" v. "Max-OT"

That's not at ALL what I was doing. My whole point was that yes, there is an over-arching theory that describes growth-- cumulative muscular work. All of the individual methods he listed all work because they fulfill that requisite of total work done by the muscle. They derive from it.

By work, I don't mean the simple W = F*d formula of physics-- I'm referring to the internal work done by the muscle: fundamentally, ATP expenditure.

The reason I snapped on TUT so hard is because time is only one half of the equation. Muscular work is determined Rate of Work * Duration of Work. TUT theory, as he was representing it, only accounts of the duration. It totally disregards the rate (which is directly proportional to the muscular tension, and thereby the external load), and as such its is *very* incorrect to blanketly state that 40-60 seconds of TUT is "optimal" for growth.

He actually pointed out that very fallacy when he stated that he used lower and higher TUT's and still got results.

Back to the point at hand, though-- the cumulative muscular work required to cause growth can be achieved in a lot of ways.

A simple example:

Person A does 8 sets of 3. Person B does 4 sets of 6. Person C does 2 sets of 15. All three are working fairly close to capacity, and all of these protocols have in some way or another been shown to cause growth.

Person A has done 24 total lifts, lets say 90% intensity. B has 24 lifts, say 80%. C has 30, say 65%.

Person A has achieved a relative workload of 21.6 (24 * 0.9). B has 19.2. C has 19.5.

As you can see, there's a wide difference in the number of sets (7, 4, 2), and the reps (3, 6, 15), but the relative workloads are all very similar.

Thus explaining the ability to cause growth.

Now as with all my mathematical treatments, this is very simplified and probably has a few errors in it....Additionally, there are other factors to consider, such as eccentric action, level of fatigue, and so forth, but the basic concept holds. If you achieve enough muscular work, you'll cause growth.