Hypertrophy not caused more by ECC than CON

H

Heavy Duty dude

New Member
I found this on Dan's site:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
A few studies have reported greater muscle hypertrophy with eccentric exercise over concentric exercise (26, 27).  Hortobágyi et al. (27) compared 12 weeks of maximal isokinetic eccentric quadriceps exercise with maximal concentric exercise.  In the eccentric group, type II fiber area increased 10.3 times more than the concentric group (27).  Higbie et al. (26) compared 10 weeks of unilateral concentric or eccentric knee-extension training on an isokinetic device.  Quadriceps CSA increased more in the eccentric group (6.6%) than in the concentric group (5.0%) (26).
    Not all studies have reported greater increases in muscle size with eccentric training.  Smith and Rutherford (46) compared 20 weeks of eccentric training in one leg versus concentric training in the other leg.  The eccentric leg exercised with weights that were 35% higher than that used for the concentric leg (46).  Significant increases in muscle CSA occurred for both modalities of training (46).
</div>

(http://hypertrophy-research.com/articles/Cell_Volume.doc - interesting read by the way)

How come eccentric training doesn't produce significantly more hypertrophy than concentric training since microtrauma are done primarily during the eccentric phase?
rock.gif
 
<div>
(Heavy Duty dude @ Apr. 06 2007,11:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I found this on Dan's site:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
A few studies have reported greater muscle hypertrophy with eccentric exercise over concentric exercise (26, 27).  Hortobágyi et al. (27) compared 12 weeks of maximal isokinetic eccentric quadriceps exercise with maximal concentric exercise.  In the eccentric group, type II fiber area increased 10.3 times more than the concentric group (27).  Higbie et al. (26) compared 10 weeks of unilateral concentric or eccentric knee-extension training on an isokinetic device.  Quadriceps CSA increased more in the eccentric group (6.6%) than in the concentric group (5.0%) (26).
    Not all studies have reported greater increases in muscle size with eccentric training.  Smith and Rutherford (46) compared 20 weeks of eccentric training in one leg versus concentric training in the other leg.  The eccentric leg exercised with weights that were 35% higher than that used for the concentric leg (46).  Significant increases in muscle CSA occurred for both modalities of training (46).
</div>

(http://hypertrophy-research.com/articles/Cell_Volume.doc - interesting read by the way)

[/B]How come eccentric training doesn't produce significantly more hypertrophy than concentric training since microtrauma are done primarily during the eccentric phase?  
rock.gif
</div>
because microtrauma is only a small mechanism by which growth is obtained.
 
<div>
(Heavy Duty dude @ Apr. 06 2007,10:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How come eccentric training doesn't produce significantly more hypertrophy than concentric training since microtrauma are done primarily during the eccentric phase?
rock.gif
</div>
I'm going to take a shot at this, but I'm not a big muscle biology guy like Dan, so maybe he or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong.

My recollection is that some studies have come along that indicate that it may not be the actual trauma that is one of the growth signals. I'm thinking that it is more just the tension on the muscle fibers. The tension on the fibers depends on the muscle fiber firing. When it's firing it has all the tension it can have.

What about load? Well, more load means more fibers firing from the very first rep.

There are other factors involved in the signaling as well as tension, I'm not trying to imply that it's the only one.

I'm not sure if that bit about trauma versus tension on the fibers is established or just speculation, though. Anyone know if that's really correct?
 
I'm sorry but according to HST it is NOT a small mechanism. It is the primary stimulus of hypertrophy. That's why you decondition, you increase the load etc.. to make microtrauma.
 
it cant be microtrauma alone,reason is ive trained for years piling weights on the bar,training to failure almost to the point i cant move,did i grow fast?not really,just steadily over the years.

but when i found hst i stopped training to absolute failure and also lowered the weights to accomadate progressive load,which means less overall microtrauma,did i stop growing?no.

so other mechanisms play a bigger role in hypertrophy than microtrauma.

i believe it is a combination of time under tension,microtrauma and fibre recrutment
 
<div>
(Heavy Duty dude @ Apr. 06 2007,10:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm sorry but according to HST it is NOT a small mechanism. It is the primary stimulus of hypertrophy. That's why you decondition, you increase the load etc.. to make microtrauma.</div>
From the &quot;What is HST link&quot; on the main HST site:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
1) Mechanical Load
Mechanical Load is necessary to induce muscle hypertrophy. This mechanism involves but isn't limited to, MAPk/ERK, satellite cells, growth factors, calcium, and number of other fairly understood factors.
</div>
HST doesn't just discuss microtrauma. I can't really explain how those factors relate to microtrauma--it may not be as tied to that as was once thought.

It is true that microtrauma is discussed as the primary reason for using an SD. The SD is the main controversial point of HST, and I don't think we'll resolve that question here (see a bunch of other threads for that). I think this quote is also applicable:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
As the research continues to explore the facets of load induced muscle hypertrophy, HST will apply the new knowledge and become even more effective. For today, HST represents the state of the art and science of hypertrophy.
</div>

While HST is a proven system that applies the best knowledge about muscle hypertrophy, the science is not yet perfect. Some of the pieces are known, but the theory that puts them all together to explain how (some) people can be successful doing a lot of different types of programs is not fully there.
 
With normal reps you get the concentric and eccentric portions anyway. Btw, it looks like fast as possible concentric is the way to go with around a 2 second eccentric, none of that super slow stuff.
 
To tell you the truth I was a bit surprised when I read that. I don't know maybe someone like Dan has an explanation.

Have a look at that.. - from Dan's site.
http://www.ridgely.ws/publications/model-motor-unit.pdf

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Clearly, performing negatives can lead to muscular
growth more quickly than concentric or isometric
repetitions. Of course, the model described above is
purely fiction; you’re not guaranteed to increase your
muscle growth by 43% just by doing negatives. The
primary advantage to doing negatives, however, is that not
only do your muscles experience greater tension during the
eccentric portion of a lift, but also you can generally lower
more weight under control than you can lift. Thus, doing
negatives is one way you can expose your muscles to
greater levels of tension than experienced during
concentric lifts.&quot;
</div>

AFAIK, this guy ASSUMES here, he doesn't use real direct studies as references.
 
I am not Dan, just his sidekick!
biggrin.gif

Dan believes in doing normal reps mostly as that way you can guarantee you are getting whatever stimulus exists for both the concentric and eccentric portions of the lift.
We know both con and ecc lifting is effective, so why not just do both? Using m-time (a brief rest between each rep) will allow you to do many reps with heavy loads, and is a better alternative to negatives imo.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 06 2007,18:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We know both con and ecc lifting is effective, so why not just do both?  Using m-time (a brief rest between each rep) will allow you to do many reps with heavy loads, and is a better alternative to negatives imo.</div>
But you can still go heavier doing negative only work as you can increment past your 1RM (not that I think it's a smart thing to do at all, but you can do it). I tried it with a vertical bench machine where you could assist the concentric with your legs. Wow! Some feeling of strain or what! Wouldn't want to do it much, but right at the end of a cycle I was able to induce a whole load of DOMS in my pecs like I hadn't trained them in a while.

Generally, Max-Stim is a brilliant alternative to negs as it can be applied to exercises where negs are difficult to do without loads of helpers.

From the FAQs (This is what Blade said a while ago): <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In order of importance:
1) Satellite cells must be activated, differentiated, and fuse with existing fibers, donating their nuclei.
2) Mechanical stress must be transmitted to the sarcolemma (mechanotransduction) and contractile protein structures within the sarcomeres. This will trigger focal adhesion kinases (FAK) that in turn initiate the downstream signaling events leading to an increase the contractile and cytoskeletal protein expression/synthesis.
3) pH and oxidative stress must be acutely increased within the muscle fiber.

Focusing just on the workout, this pretty much sums it up. If #1 doesn’t happen, you will not grow…ever. If number two doesn’t happen, you will grow a little, but you will soon reach the limits of the sarcoplasmic/nuclear ratio and growth will stop. If #3 doesn’t happen, you will still grow quite significantly, but the rate of growth might be enhanced or facilitated if #3 is achieved.

#1 is achieved when a certain level of microtrauma is experienced by the fibers. This is brought about by load, eccentric contractions, and to a much lesser extent, hypoxia (A.K.A. #3) When load, eccentric contractions and #3 occur, each fiber will produce and release muscle specific-IGF-1 (sometimes called mechano-growth factor) The IGF-1 in turn seeps out of leaky sarcolemmas and acts on nescient satellite cells to initiate #1. Microtrauma is rapidly reduced from workout to workout (Repeated bout effect) thereby limiting the effectiveness of any given load to induce further hypertrophy.

#2 is achieved by loading a muscle that is actively contracting.

#3 is achieved by contracting a muscle (doing reps) until you create an oxygen deficit and subsequent hypoxic byproducts (e.g. lactate and oxygen radicals).
</div>
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 06 2007,13:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am not Dan, just his sidekick!
biggrin.gif

Dan believes in doing normal reps mostly as that way you can guarantee you are getting whatever stimulus exists for both the concentric and eccentric portions of the lift.
We know both con and ecc lifting is effective, so why not just do both?  Using m-time (a brief rest between each rep) will allow you to do many reps with heavy loads, and is a better alternative to negatives imo.</div>
Sure we do both the concentric and eccentric phase, so one can indeed argue that it's useless to know which one causes what.

What troubles me however is that if microtrauma are not the stimulus of hypertrophy, what's the point of deconditionning etc.. if it's caused by something else may be deconditionning is useless.

Let's say for instance that hypertrophy is caused by inflammation, or by say muscle swelling, deconditionning may be useless.


This being said, in the FAQ thread talking about speed Bryan says..

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
During negatives you should lower the weight in about 2-3 seconds. This may seem too quick to most traditionalists. Research has shown that if you go too slow during negatives you don't get the same growth stimulus. it begins to resemble the effect of isometrics if you go too slow. This is one reason why the old principle of &quot;time under tension&quot; isn't so simple as just time. The action of the muscle while under load is very important when trying to produce a specific effect.
</div>

If the duration of the ECC phase influences the amount of growth, it suggests that there is really something going on that depends on the speed. Maybe it's the microtrauma maybe it's something else.
 
<div>
(Heavy Duty dude @ Apr. 06 2007,19:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What troubles me however is that if microtrauma are not the stimulus of hypertrophy, what's the point of deconditionning etc.. if it's caused by something else may be deconditionning is useless.


This being said, in the FAQ thread talking about speed Bryan says..

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
During negatives you should lower the weight in about 2-3 seconds. This may seem too quick to most traditionalists. Research has shown that if you go too slow during negatives you don't get the same growth stimulus. it begins to resemble the effect of isometrics if you go too slow. This is one reason why the old principle of &quot;time under tension&quot; isn't so simple as just time. The action of the muscle while under load is very important when trying to produce a specific effect.
</div>

If the duration of the ECC phase influences the amount of growth, it suggests that there is really something going on that depends on the speed. Maybe it's the microtrauma maybe it's something else.</div>
i personally find deconditioning allows my joints and muscles to fully recover after a heavy bout in the 5's,as if i didnt rest i could end up over training.

as stated above it has not been nailed down as to exactly what causes muscle hypertrophy but we seem to be on the right track.a combination of factors must be at work,where muscle growth is concerned.
 
<div>
(Heavy Duty dude @ Apr. 06 2007,19:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What troubles me however is that if microtrauma are not the stimulus of hypertrophy, what's the point of deconditionning etc.. if it's caused by something else may be deconditionning is useless.</div>
HDD,

I think why some get confused is that the classical definition of RBE (repeat bout effect) is based on damage, so when someone mentions RBE this automatically inferes that damage is a pre-requisite of hypertrophy. Which is why I was glad when Bryan started using the phrase or term &quot;anabolic potential&quot; as this really is more accurate when looking at resistance training.

So WTF is anabolic potenital? It's the muscle tissues potential to respond with anabolic signalling, this includes many fractions of the hypertrophy chain, molecular, hormonal, metabolic and mechanical. What we know from some recent studies by Coffey et al, Titpton et al, among others, is that this potenital is reduced greater in trained vs. untrained subjects. But this has little to do directly with damage IMHO.

One study done several years ago (Int J Sports Med. 2000 Feb;21(2):107-12.), which often gets overlooked when speaking of the relationship between damage and hypertrophy was very enlightening to me as the hypertrophy seen was virtually the same between either contraction mode yet the damage markers for eccentrics was very high. Indicating to me that damage is not necessary to induce hypertrophy. It along with more research leads me to believe that even though both (damage and hypertrophy) share many of the same signalling chains, they can be and are seperate events.

So once again it's not that deconditioning is useless or it only affects RBE--->Damage. It may also relate to the molecular signalling as well and it's responsivness to loading.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 07 2007,08:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One study done several years ago (Int J Sports Med. 2000 Feb;21(2):107-12.), which often gets overlooked when speaking of the relationship between damage and hypertrophy was very enlightening to me as the hypertrophy seen was virtually the same between either contraction mode yet the damage markers for eccentrics was very high. Indicating to me that damage is not necessary to induce hypertrophy. It along with more research leads me to believe that even though both (damage and hypertrophy) share many of the same signalling chains, they can be and are seperate events.

So once again it's not that deconditioning is useless or it only affects RBE--->Damage. It may also relate to the molecular signalling as well and it's responsivness to loading.</div>
Great post, Dan. I knew that I had read something indicating that it wasn't necessarily the damage that induced hypertrophy (probably on your site), but couldn't remember what/when/where.

Makes me think of the folks who think DOMs is necessary for hypertrophy. For some, especially those who don't train with high frequency, DOMs may be the result from a good workout. Good workouts produce gains. That does not, however, mean that DOMs produces gains.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, one of my favorite sayings.
 
Thanks Dan for your answer.

In this study (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&amp;cpsidt=15067457), they found that:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
ECC (180° s[-1]) training resulted in greater hypertrophy than CON (180° s[-1]) training and CON (30° s[-1]) training (P&lt;0.01). ECC (30° s[-1]) training resulted in greater hypertrophy than CON (180° s[-1]) training (P&lt;0.05), but not CON (30° s[-1]) training. ECC (180° s[-1]) training resulted in the greatest increases in strength (P&lt;0.01). We conclude that ECC fast training is the most effective for muscle hypertrophy and strength gain.
</div>

It looks like the optimal is fast ECC - like 1 sec - and slow CON - like 5 sec-.

p&lt;0.01, it's impossible that it's caused by chance, is it?

It's also surprising that fast ECC are the most effective for strength.

Also, according to this article: http://sk.commercial.lifefitness.com/content....raining

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Greater muscle hypertrophy

It is well accepted that the stimulus for muscle growth is microtrauma to the muscle following exercise. The process of lengthening during a contraction increases the amount of microtrauma experienced by the muscle. In turn, this stimulates the muscle to rebuild and add and increase muscle fiber size in order to handle the load. While concentric training can induce some microtrauma, over the same period of time, eccentric training is more effective for promoting muscle growth.

Numerous studies have reported that eccentric training is superior to concentric training for inducing muscle hypertrophy. Farthing JP and Chilibeck PD (2003), Higbie (1996) and LaStayo et.al. (2003)

</div>



Also.. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/5/2173

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Quadriceps cross-sectional area measured by magnetic resonance imaging (sum of 7 slices) increased more in ETG (6.6%) than in CTG (5.0%) (P &lt; 0.05). We conclude that Ecc is more effective than Con isokinetic training for developing strength in Ecc isokinetic muscle actions and that Con is more effective than Ecc isokinetic training for developing strength in Con isokinetic muscle actions. Gains in strength consequent to Con and Ecc training are highly dependent on the muscle action used for training and testing. Muscle hypertrophy and neural adaptations contribute to strength increases consequent to both Con and Ecc training.
</div>

Same conclusion, ECC are superior, but not by much (ETG (6.6%), CTG (5.0%)).


In this article from Thibaudeau (http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=05-033-training), there's also mention that:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
• Hilliard-Robertson and coworkers concluded that: &quot;A resistance training protocol which includes eccentric as well as concentric exercise, particularly when the eccentric is emphasized, appears to result in greater strength gains than concentric exercise alone.&quot;

• An early study by Komi and Buskirk (1972) recorded greater strength increases after an eccentric training regimen than after a concentric-only regimen.

• One recent study (LaStayo et al. 2003) even found accentuated eccentric training to cause 19% more muscle growth than traditional strength training over eleven weeks!

</div>


In conclusion, ECC really seem to be superior both for hypertrophy and strength.

Also, I guess that it's possible that the CON phase produces microtrauma for a subject that is not much trained, but that over time, as the RBE develops, the CON phase becomes ineffective at damaging the muscle.

And since hypertrophy is very non-linear with the amount of microtrauma - much more microtrauma doesn't necessarily lead to much more hypertrophy -, I guess it's possible that concentrics can &quot;saturate&quot; the hypertrophy response in someone who is not much conditionned. Hence the results that some studies don't show much difference.

I have not found studies where concentrics produced more hypertrophy than eccentrics.
 
I think its not 100% clear on how to to do the reps.

If we look att the eccentric part
As fast as possible -&gt; maximum load (and that is at the end of the movement, when you decelerate the dropping weight to zero), but shorter TUT
Controlled Concentric -&gt; (a lot) more TUT, less load (but constant, and a bit away from your maximum work potential)


Basically the same thing for the concentric phase.
As fast as possible -&gt; maximum load, shorter TUT
Controlled Concentric -&gt; more TUT, less load

There seem to be pros and cons to both.
 
Most of those are on untrained subjects.

Brandenburg et al looked at accenuated eccentrics via DAER and found no gains either way in resistance trained subjects.

There is alot of work on eccentrics out there unfortunately when comparing them to concentrics there is a lot of variability in the results. Some of the reasons could be because they rarely match torque or torque time integral. So in the case of the studies by Sheppard, Paddon-Jones, Chilbeck where they show faster eccentric are superior one of the issues could be that the longer torque times of the slower contractions caused an overt damaging affect and hence caused less of a hypertrophic stimulus. The fast concentrics (because of the load) simply didn't provide as a high of a torque and hence wasn't stimulating enough.

A couple of interesting studies looking at how when matching torque/time, the hypertrophy can be larger with concentrics is a couple studies by Mayhew et al,  (Muscular adaptation to concentric and eccentric exercise at equal power levels. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 868-73. and Rafeei T. The effects of training at equal power levels using concentric and eccentric contractions on skeletal muscle fiber
and whole muscle hypertrophy, muscle force and muscle activation in human subjects [dissertation]. Richmond (VA): Virginia Commonwealth University, 1999). In both of these studies that concentric contractions produced larger hypertrophy than eccentrics. It could be that as I said earlier damage and hypertrophy, even though enact similar system are distinct and different and damage itself may impair or impede the hyptrophic stimulus because repair becomes priority rather than hypertrophy.

Especially when looking at high volumes of high force eccentrics it seems rather conclusive that too much isn't a good thing. Which is why I am sure Bryan uses Eccentrics sparingly. In a study by Refsnes et al, a set up very similar to what Bryan recommends was used.

The subjects started with 130% 1rm in the eccentric pahse and advance to 230% 1RM but what is more interesteing is the amount of TTI that was used. The movement spped was about 80-90 degree a second and they used very little volume (from 2 sets of 2 reps in the intitial to 5 sets of 4 reps) the total time under max tension was only around 14-20 secs total per bout. Even though they did not report on damage markers this low amount of total time would be likely to produce far less damage than other studies that used 90 or so maximal eccentric contractions, so again I believe it's the absolute load and the time that this absolute load is place on the tissue versus how much damage is accumulated.
 
It seems that the duration of the concentric and eccentric contraction are of primary importance for producing hypertrophy. There's a significant difference of results between doing the movement slowly or quickly, of the same order of magnitude as what a difference of load would probably produce.

For example, in the Chilbeck study, a TUT 6 times shorter in the eccentric phase ( 30 deg/s vs 180 deg/s ) produced more hypertrophy.. amazing..

A guess would be that it's simply due to how mechanotransduction works. What's the most effective way to damage a muscle may simply be fast eccentric and slow concentrics.

Also fast eccentrics may stimulate more fast twitch fibers in proportion and slow concentrics more slow twitch fibers in proportion. That may cause the highest tension on these 2 different pools of fibers.

Maybe fast ecc optimize the making of microtrauma in the fast twitch and slow concentrics optimize the making of microtrauma in the slow twitch.


A parallel may be done with what happens with the tendons. Fast eccentrics stress the tendons more than slow eccentrics. It's more than a question of TUT and it's a problem of mechanotransduction in that case also.
 
Another study that sheds more light on this: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01027.2004v1.pdf

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
ABSTRACT: Study I – The effect of fast (3.66 rad/s, 1 FAST) or slow (0.35 rad/s, SLOW)
2 isokinetic high-resistance muscle lengthening contractions on muscle fiber and whole muscle
3 cross-sectional area (CSA) of the elbow flexors was investigated in young men. Twelve subjects
4 (23.8±2.4yr, mean±SD) performed maximal resistive lengthening isokinetic exercise with both
5 arms for 8wk (3d/wk), during which they trained one arm at a FAST velocity while the
6 contralateral arm performed an equivalent number of contractions at a SLOW velocity. Before
7 (PRE) and after (POST) the training, percutaneous muscle biopsies were taken from the mid
8 belly of the biceps brachii and analyzed for fiber type and CSA. Type I muscle fiber size
9 increased PRE to POST (P&lt;0.05) in both FAST and SLOW arms. Type IIa and IIx muscle fiber
10 CSA increased in both arms, but the increases were greater in the FAST versus the SLOW
11 trained arm (P&lt;0.05). Elbow flexor CSA increased in FAST and SLOW arms, with the increase
12 in the FAST arm showing a trend towards being greater (P=0.06). Maximum torque generating
13 capacity also increased to a greater degree (P&lt;0.05) in the FAST arm, regardless of testing
14 velocity. Study II – In a separate study, we attempted to provide some explanation of the greater
15 hypertrophy observed in study I by examining an indicator of protein remodeling (Z-line
16 streaming), which we hypothesized would be greater in the FAST condition. Nine men
17 (21.7±2.4yr) performed an acute bout (N=30, 3 sets x 10 repetitions/set) of maximal lengthening
18 contractions at FAST and SLOW velocities used in the training study. Biopsies revealed that
19 FAST lengthening contractions resulted in more (185±17%; P&lt;0.01) Z-band streaming/mm2
20 muscle, versus the SLOW arm. In conclusion, training using FAST (3.66 rad/s) lengthening
21 contractions leads to greater hypertrophy and strength gains than SLOW (0.35 rad/s) lengthening
22 contractions. The greater hypertrophy seen in the FAST trained arm (study I) may be related to a
23 greater amount of protein remodelling (Z-band streaming; study II).
</div>


There's 10 times less TUT, but still more hypertrophy, especially in the type 2 fibers. There's also much more z-band disruption, like 3 times more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top