When duration matters: rethinking resistance training load through time under tension

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-0037.2025v27e107589

Keywords:

Resistance Training, Muscle Contraction, Exercise Therapy

Abstract

The traditional volume × intensity model in resistance training, defined as sets × repetitions × load, fails to account for the duration of muscular effort. This oversight neglects the importance of Time Under Tension (TUT)—the total time a muscle is actively contracting during exercise—which significantly influences hypertrophic, metabolic, and neuromuscular adaptations. Recent studies have demonstrated that manipulating repetition tempo alters muscle activation patterns, regional hypertrophy, and fatigue accumulation, regardless of total load. For instance, prolonged eccentric tempos increase muscle damage and protein synthesis, while faster concentric actions may enhance power. Furthermore, TUT provides a practical strategy for delivering sufficient mechanical tension using lower loads, making it particularly valuable for older adults, clinical populations, and athletes during deloading phases. Despite natural tempo deviations under fatigue—especially in later repetitions—approximately 70% of repetitions are typically performed with the intended cadence, supporting the viability of TUT-based programming. This viewpoint advocates for the inclusion of TUT in load quantification models and proposes a revised equation that integrates duration: Volume = sets × reps × load × time per rep. Incorporating TUT may improve the precision of training prescriptions, enhance individualization, and provide a more complete understanding of internal training load and adaptation.

References

Steele J, Fisher J, Giessing J, Gentil P. Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(3):368-74.

Toigo M, Boutellier U. New fundamental resistance exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;97(6):643-63.

Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2909-18.

Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thome R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.

Hunter GR, McCarthy JP, Bamman MM. Effects of resistance training on older adults. Sports Med. 2004;34(5):329-48.

Tran QT, Docherty D. Dynamic training volume: a construct of both time under tension and volume load. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;5(4):707-13.

Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Peterson M. Differential effects of heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. J Sports Sci Med. 2016;15(4):715-22.

Wilk M, Zajac A, Tufano JJ. The influence of movement tempo during resistance training on muscular strength and hypertrophy responses: a review. Sports Med. 2021;51(9):1629-50.

Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Atherton PJ, Baker JM, Moore DR, et al. Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men. PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e12033.

Liguori G, Feito Y, Fountaine C, Roy B. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2020.

Bezerra E, Orssatto L, Moura B, Willardson J, Simão R, Moro A. Mixed session periodization as a new approach for strength, power, functional performance, and body composition enhancement in aging adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(10):2795-806.

Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Counts BR, et al. Frequency: the overlooked resistance training variable for inducing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med. 2017;47(5):799-805.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-09