A New and Unique Training Method is Here

Discussion in 'General Training' started by Sub7, Dec 19, 2005.

  1. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    From the human research that showed massive increases in muscle glycogen?
    Most occlusion based research is very short term, in complete noobs. Two week research projects do not really show what is happening.
    THat is if utilizing ACIT is actually occluding the muscle, or occluding the muscle enough to achieve the 'potential' endpoint.
     
  2. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Yes one study did show that CSA drop, but, I'm sure if only one study showed a CSA gain we'd assume err on the researchers... why not on this too?

    The main thing is, there is zero research showing whole muscle tension matters, only the effects of tension. Any study that assumed whole muscle tension mattered, didn't look at, or analyze recruitment levels, ATP turnover rates, fiber activity, etc.

    It makes sense and fits the hypertrophic model for this type of training to work.
     
  3. Dood

    Dood New Member

    I saw you mention this before but I didn't see the same thing.
    Are you referencing the study "Skeletal muscle size and circulating IGF-1 are increased after two weeks of twice daily “KAATSU” resistance training"?
    Because as I see it on the 6th day of the study, the Kaatsu group was 7% above baseline, the non Kaatsu was at 2% above. After the day off the Kaatsu group was at 6% and the non Kaatsu was still around 2%. So even though the Kaatsu group dropped 1% they were still significantly higher than non Kaatsu.
     
  4. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    I found this, 3.5% is a bit more than I thought for glycogen. Still not huge but not too bad. But the ceiling is reached pretty rapidly from what I remember. Also, I've never read anything about strength increases from glycogen. I suppose a bit of leverage from the water? Of course, extra hydration of muscle cells is supposed to also stimulate MPS...

     
  5. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Good catch Dood, I just assumed they'd lost more and didn't bother to look, good job
     
  6. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    [​IMG]4-->
    Notice on figure 1. Where it points to Sunday
    the lack of a # or * implies no statistically significant difference.
     
  7. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    [​IMG]4-->
    Becuase most of the other research doesnt provide 1) the same information 2) using the same methodology so its hard to see the same picture out of other research.
    THe group does have a case report of an extremely low number of subjects, but they do not provide the information in the same way.
    How do you get the effects of tension without tension?
     
  8. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    How, ?

    Occlusion is one way, but my main point is whole muscle tension is not the variable, it's 'per fiber tension' and 'fiber activity' that counts.

    Some studies compare a 5RM to a 10RM, but they don't equalize recruitment and ATP turnover to elimate those and leave whole muscle tension as the only difference. So the results are skewed. The study Rennie points to is a more accurate way to look at it. Also, the TTI studies, ect.

    We can try to discount much of this, but every study out there that has the subjects hit high levels of fiber activity, whether it be occlusion, heavy weights, light weights with short interset rp's, etc. all show size and strength. I find it darned near impossible to beleive that every one using less than 80% is getting non contractile CSA gains.

    One thing that convinces me, is actually training with lighter weights and higher fatigue levels myself. I've tried superslow stuff, Gironda stuff, etc. I always keep the routine (exercises, ROM, frequency, etc) the same but just change the load. I'm not a beginner but do receive size and strength.
     
  9. Sub7

    Sub7 New Member

    I will not be able to participate in the endless discussion about whether occlusion studies did or did not show trre sarcomere growth because I have neither the analytical knowledge nor the details about each of these studies to reach a definitive conclusion. However, please keep in mind that the researchers are not gods and they almost never investigate the best possible way to train. Just because they have used 20% of 1RM in some studies does not mean that we have to limit ourselves to the same load. Some people in the forums have actually tried to tie a band around their arms while training and if I am not mistaken, they found that they could use much more than 20% 1RM even when occluded. This thread is not intending to prove the value of occlusion, but is actually about ACIT, which is only related but not identical to occlusion.

    As I am continuing to work with ACIT, I am finding that in some exercises I can lift as much as 80% while doing ACIT as I was able to lift in a conventional manner. As you will recall, in the beginning I had to reduce the load by 30% or more. This is of course natural as one will get better at a "handicapped" method of training with time and be able to reduce the impact of the handicap as time goes by. If you tried to bench press while simultaneously pushing up a heavy platform with your feet, you would have to reduce the weight on the bench a great deal at first. With time however, the amount by which you would have to reduce the weight would decline. The exact same will likely happen with ACIT and you will probably be able to lift a load that still qualifies as heavy after some time.

    So if we are talking about a reduction of possibly as little as 20% in tension why split hairs about glycogen vs fibril growth in some occlusion studies where they used feather weights? No one is recommending feather weights here. Instead of all this talking, people should just pick up a weight, try the system and then share with us what they observed so we can refine the system.

    Hunkar
     
  10. Dood

    Dood New Member

    I'm not going to pretend to know how to interpret a study better than you since I'm a layman, but I took it that there was no measurment done on Sunday, and on Monday, Kaatsu was at 6% above baseline, non Kaatsu was at 2%. How is that not signifcant?
    Also, at post testing the Kaatsu group was at 8% and non Kaatsu was at 1%. I could not find what the time period was between the last workout and post testing
     
  11. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    So you have created a scientific based program on research you have no analytical knowledge or the actual research itself?

    You understand that even if there is an apparent difference in CSA that the lack of a statistical significance indicates a much increased probability that the difference is just chance? THere is a major reason they use statistics in research.

    And its a huge assumption that it will achieve different effects when using different loadings.
     
  12. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Sub- I myself see no doubt of it's effectiveness.
    The study Dan found "Effects of low-intensity..." by Michiya Tanimoto,..ect is almost ACIT to a "T".

    Also, the following shows fatigue leads to high fiber activity and in every case was equal to, or superior to less 'fiber active' type training, reguardless of the load.

    Check all these out....

     
  13. Dood

    Dood New Member

    While I'm all for real world testing, I understand how many, (including myself), wish to understand the science behind something before they undertake it. You came up with this system, (which I think is quite interesting), and you used occlusion science to back it up. When that science is called into question it also calls your system into question.
    My interpretation of the science leads me to believe that IF ACIT creates constant occlusion THEN it has the potential to create hypertrophy with less weight. If you have to use as much or almost as much weight as you would in regular training, then what is the benefit of ACIT? Occlusion stops blood flow, and using ACIT is the same as occlusion using 70% RM which is the same occlusion as using an external cuff. You can't create more occlusion.
     
  14. Dood

    Dood New Member

    Agree, but of course they were untrained individuals, which is always the fly in the ointment so to speak.
     
  15. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    True...

    But, so many studies use untrained that I think we can kinda compare those studies. And it is hard for untrained to add csa, so if untrained added, that 'might' mean it's pretty effective?

    All I know, is I'm using low RM stuff right now, so soon I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt if low Rm/high fatigue works in trained people ;)
     
  16. Sub7

    Sub7 New Member

    Gentlemen,
    Let us not get lost here. Please everyone take a step back and see the sunset in this beautiful forest instead of measuring the height and width of every tree around. In Japan, Kaatsu is advertised as a way of getting the elderly stronger and presents its ability to use very low weights during this process as a virtue. Nowhere in the ACIT web site did I claim that one would be able to grow with as little weight using ACIT as was utilized in Kaatsu studies. Therefore, ACIT is similar but not identical to Kaatsu. I think we all agree on that. Yes, I indeed presented Kaatsu as encouraging evidence that occlusion has beneficial effects, but even if we can prove that Kaatsu definitely and certainly works, this does not constitute proof that ACIT works equally well. They are derivations of each other but do require their seperate proofs and as of now, ACIT remains a thoroughly discussed hypothesis based on a great deal of interesting evidence. It is not yet a theory....
    Coming to your question: What good is ACIT if you still have to lift heavy? Well, I would look at it the other way and ask "Isn't it great if you can occlude the muscles and still utilize a heavy load at the same time? Would you not get a lot of the hypertropic benefits of both pathways? I personally want to get stonger and bigger and don't care if I am using a 20% 1RM or 99% 1Rm in the process as long as it is safe and effective.
    Little discalimer here: Some may look at what i posted above and say "aaaha, now you're backtracking. so you do think that the load matters and you now do agree that the heavier the weight on the bar, the better... what happened brota?"
    My answer to that would be: I completely agree with Ron that the weight on the bar is a means to an end (and the studies posted above very strongly suggest so, wouldn't yo say???). If you use light weights (let's say for argument's sake <70% 1RM) you have to do something additional to elicit growth, i.e. you have to work harder to reach that end. This something can be very short rest periods -like 5X5- occlusion, ACIT.... You have to do something to force maximal rate coding and recruitment, which if you simply lifted the weight in a conventional manner would not occur with that light load. Now, the lighter the weight, the more radical of a solution you need to find to ensure max rate coding/recruitment. Maybe one day someone will come up with a drug that will give us max rate coding/recruitment with a 10% 1RM weight. But obviously the intervention and inventiveness that one needs to use is less if a higher weight is used. Example:
    20% 1 RM ==> one must a hard core occlusion with a cuff, pretty dramatic measure
    50% 1 RM ==> one can use 5X5s, less radical more realistic
    ~60% 1 RM (for arguments sake) ==> one can use ACIT, again less radical pretty doable, probably safer than do-it-yourself occlusion.
    If one masters ACIT and can use ACIT with an even higher weight (say 70% 1RM) even better, because ACIT then has a smaller gap to fill since max rate coding and recruitment would almost be occuring on its own with that kind of weight ,plus you get a lot of metabolic work on top.
    .....................................................................................
    BTW Captain RON: Thank you very much Sir for taking the time to post all of those studies. This is now a very good thread for future reference whenever people discuss metabolic work vs tension. I don't think all those studies were in one place in any other thread until now. As always, Grazie Millie Con Tutto Il Cuore....

    Hunkar
     
  17. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Whether it is promoted for anything is besides the point. I can advertise anything for any purpose I feel like, it does not mean there is any evidence for it working in those roles.

    Which is what we are discussing.

    Occlusion may be the most magical thing in the known universe, but the evidence base is minimal, but increasing.
     
  18. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Hard for untrained to add CSA?
     
  19. Dood

    Dood New Member

    But that's just it, they are the same pathways.
    The whole point of occlusion is to recreate the same environment in the muscle which occurs during high tension work: tetany and hypoxic environment. My understanding of ACIT is that it attempts to keep the muscle occluded without an external cuff. Since heavy weight already achieves this, (as long as lockout is avoided), what is the point of using ACIT with heavy weight?
    Same situation with external occlusion, why use external occlusion with 80%RM when 80%RM already creates occlusion and it's effects?
    The way I see it, the benefit of external occlusion or ACIT is that it allows you to use lighter weights under full tetany, which allows more reps to be done in a set, less CNS fatigue, more frequent training, and less chance of injury or strain.
     
  20. Sub7

    Sub7 New Member

    Oh, there is much much more than that going on during an ACIT set. If all ACIT did was accomplish the exact same thing that a heavier set does by using less weight, it would only be useful for people who have fragile joints or an injury, and this thread would not have even started.

    Regular set with 8 RM weight to failure: The muscles are occluded only for 60-70% of the set. During relatively easy positions on the ROM and while lowering the weight -at least during the first few reps- there is insufficient effort to achieve occlusive effects. The PH level does not drop as radically, plus ATP gets regenrated while the level of effort declines during those easier points on the ROM and eccentrics.

    A Set of ACIT: Our aim is to occlude the muscles from the first until the last second of the set with no break in between. This is why we are avoiding those easier points and squeezing the crap out of the muscle all the time. A very different experience, with a constant occlusion effect, lower PH in and around the fibers and great inhibition of ATP regeneration during the set. All those factors combine to produce an unusual effect. Just as importantly, contracting the exercised muscle requires you to also contract the antagonist as explained on the ACIT site, which also makes the eccentric portion of the exercise harder than a conventional set. This factor alone makes ACIT a totally different animal. It becomes almost like doing the concentrics with a regular weight but switching to a much heavier weight during eccentrics.

    Here is a concrete example for you with numbers. When I do a set of leg presses ACIT style (to failure) and rest for 4 minutes, I can then get 10 reps on the calf raise with 540 lbs. Today, just for the heck of it, I did a regaular set of leg presses -not ACIT- and was wiped out by the time I had reached positive failure. After waiting for 4 minutes, however, I got out 12 reps with 540 lbs on calf raises. So one set of ACIT training for legs produces a greater level of exhaustion in my calves, which is totally consistent with my earlier epxerience in the other muscle groups as well as the idea around which ACIT revolves: The inroading is happening much much faster and is deeper. But the great thing is that while this is occuring without your body as a whole is less tired and less burnt-out.

    To make a long story short: a lot is happening other than simply reaching tetany earlier...
     

Share This Page