A New and Unique Training Method is Here
- Thread starter Sub7
- Start date
Aaron? Haha..
Today was my first day of my 3rd cycle, and since it was the first day of 15's, I figured this would be a good day to try ACIT since the weights were lower. I can say with confidence that it dynamically changed my WO, how I felt, and the extra work I put in. I tried it for SLDL's, Chins, and Dips.
Today was my first day of my 3rd cycle, and since it was the first day of 15's, I figured this would be a good day to try ACIT since the weights were lower. I can say with confidence that it dynamically changed my WO, how I felt, and the extra work I put in. I tried it for SLDL's, Chins, and Dips.
FOr those of us who have injuries, including arthritis, HST and ACIT together might be the best way to train with the least amout of joint stress - does anyone agree?
My knee is shot, but doing ACIT last night, I felt my quads with my current 15 rep scheme in a lighter weight!
My knee is shot, but doing ACIT last night, I felt my quads with my current 15 rep scheme in a lighter weight!
NWlifter
Active Member
That's an intelligent application of a training form such as this. To be able to make progress without pain.
Intensity of effort: It's really a drag that HIT gurus and psuedo science got a hold of this term first. It's actually a real variable and relates to supraspinal output. Thus, recruitment, rate coding, TTI, ect.
So many so called experts mixed the term in with bogus info. and the proverbial baby goes out with the bath water.
In reality, yes, 12 RMs with equal ATP turnover and recruitment, are just as stimulating as 6 RMs.
(Check references Rennie points to in Control of Muscle Mass)
Intensity of effort: It's really a drag that HIT gurus and psuedo science got a hold of this term first. It's actually a real variable and relates to supraspinal output. Thus, recruitment, rate coding, TTI, ect.
So many so called experts mixed the term in with bogus info. and the proverbial baby goes out with the bath water.
In reality, yes, 12 RMs with equal ATP turnover and recruitment, are just as stimulating as 6 RMs.
(Check references Rennie points to in Control of Muscle Mass)
I am most glad to see people trying this method. Thank you very much for the intelligent discussion gentlemen...
In the meantime, here is a little update for you about my own training: In order to see where my own training stands I decided to do one or two exclusive non-ACIT session for each of the muscle groups. When I tried to lift the old weight for chest presses (I use a machine for this) I got the exact same number of reps with 240 lbs as I had during my last non-ACIT session, but I am sure I would have gotten 1 or more likely 2 more reps if I had not messed up. After having trained ACIT style for over 3 months (longer for some muscles and shorter for others), I simply ended up squeezing the muscle too much even though I did not intend to do so. Also I stopped several inches short of lock-up on top, making the exercise harder. Before ACIT, I used to almost go to lock-out on top and during the last few reps I would momentarily lock out and take a very short rest. Next week, I will try again and am fairly confident that i will get out more reps than I used to before ACIT. So to make a long story short, it looks like my strength did go up as a result of ACIT. This will also help me test another hypothesis: does a slight ACIT deconditioning help to reignite gains when one switched back to ACIT?
As much as I am against the idea of deconditioning as it is applied in most contexts, I think it can be a useful thing when the deconditioning period for one pathway is used productively to "conditon" for another pathway. IOW, to me it looks like both ACIT and heavy conventional sets activate growth and they do so through slightly different pathways. After having exhausted short-term gains with one method, one can switch to another to milk benefits from the other pathway and then switch back again to the original method. In that sense, ACIT does not have to be the primary lifting style of the individual and can be used temporarily while taking a break from other methods. Hence, having two methods to switch back and forth with can make any deconditioning period from one method highly productive. Instead of "deconditioning" yourself from heavier weihts by simply lifting light, why not ACIT for a few weeks before you eturn to heavy weights?
Here is another observation:When I do one set of chest presses ACIT style, I am pretty weak in the chest and can decline press 185 for only 7 reps. This time, after one set of regular chest presses on the same machine, I was able to decline press 190 for 9 reps. So ACIT is definitely working the muscle differently. However, believe it or not, I feel less tired after an ACIT set despite the fact that my muscles are more exhausted...
Will keep letting you know
Hunkar
In the meantime, here is a little update for you about my own training: In order to see where my own training stands I decided to do one or two exclusive non-ACIT session for each of the muscle groups. When I tried to lift the old weight for chest presses (I use a machine for this) I got the exact same number of reps with 240 lbs as I had during my last non-ACIT session, but I am sure I would have gotten 1 or more likely 2 more reps if I had not messed up. After having trained ACIT style for over 3 months (longer for some muscles and shorter for others), I simply ended up squeezing the muscle too much even though I did not intend to do so. Also I stopped several inches short of lock-up on top, making the exercise harder. Before ACIT, I used to almost go to lock-out on top and during the last few reps I would momentarily lock out and take a very short rest. Next week, I will try again and am fairly confident that i will get out more reps than I used to before ACIT. So to make a long story short, it looks like my strength did go up as a result of ACIT. This will also help me test another hypothesis: does a slight ACIT deconditioning help to reignite gains when one switched back to ACIT?
As much as I am against the idea of deconditioning as it is applied in most contexts, I think it can be a useful thing when the deconditioning period for one pathway is used productively to "conditon" for another pathway. IOW, to me it looks like both ACIT and heavy conventional sets activate growth and they do so through slightly different pathways. After having exhausted short-term gains with one method, one can switch to another to milk benefits from the other pathway and then switch back again to the original method. In that sense, ACIT does not have to be the primary lifting style of the individual and can be used temporarily while taking a break from other methods. Hence, having two methods to switch back and forth with can make any deconditioning period from one method highly productive. Instead of "deconditioning" yourself from heavier weihts by simply lifting light, why not ACIT for a few weeks before you eturn to heavy weights?
Here is another observation:When I do one set of chest presses ACIT style, I am pretty weak in the chest and can decline press 185 for only 7 reps. This time, after one set of regular chest presses on the same machine, I was able to decline press 190 for 9 reps. So ACIT is definitely working the muscle differently. However, believe it or not, I feel less tired after an ACIT set despite the fact that my muscles are more exhausted...
Will keep letting you know
Hunkar
But if Sub7 just wants to be bigger.....then the end result is the same yeh?[b said:Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Jan. 06 2006,3:16)]Always remember there is little evidence that there is continual and progressive gains in muscle mass from occlusion based training (or any decent stuff showing muscle gains at all..glycogen gains are another thing )
I am not sure how you have concluded that this method increases glycogen storage in the muscle...[b said:
Also, I am not sure if I understand this one:
"Always remember there is little evidence that there is continual and progressive gains in muscle mass from occlusion based training (or any decent stuff showing muscle gains at all)."
So do you mean that there is little evidence that any decent stuff showing muscle gains at all will work continually? If so, I guess the implication of this conclusion would be to switch back and forth between methods, which is one suggestion I tried to bring up just a few posts ago...
Hunkar
NWlifter
Active Member
[b said:
The strength gains some of the studies show, in combination with CSA and protein synthesis, at least to me, leave no doubt about 'real gains'. If that don't mean real... how do we know anything we ever gain is real??
[b said:
And from what I've read, even maximizing glycogen you'd be hard pressed to measure external CSA changes.
Muscle protein.[b said:
Glycogen and water changes within the tissue drop quickly after stopping training, which is why the 2 week Japanese research shows a drop in CSA on the off day. Did they lose muscle tissue? as they are no longer significantly larger than the non occlusion group
You can when using a good technique. 90% increases in glycogen are pretty significant. As above, why does the CSA decrease the day you stop training? muscle protein?[b said:
Rats can be a very useful model. But to show a small improvement in muscle protein, from a permenant occlusion to a muscle ( and only one of the muscles in the area showed increases) as an example of what is happening to humans performing short term occlusion work is an utter stab in the dark.[b said:Quote[/b] (Dood @ Jan. 07 2006,5:20)]What Aaron is pointing out is that there is no conclusive evidence that the size increase from occlusion is due to permanent changes in contractile tissue as opposed to temporary swelling from glycogen storage, except in one rat study, and Aaron doesn't like rats