A New and Unique Training Method is Here

Have you noticed a lot of muscle growth since you have been training in this fashion, Sub? I understand the greater inroad and greater exhaustion and different feeling that you are talking about, but occlusion studies have shown mad growth in just a couple of weeks ... Are YOU getting bigger?

I'm probably the worst example of training a particular fashion because I like the way it feels to me and then realizing eventually that it wasn't accomplishing anything. SuperSlow comes to mind ... I got great pumps and a very deep burn right in the muscle and never in the joints or connective tissue. I worked my butt off and felt great! I also never grew.

My understanding is that ACIT is your attempt to come close to occlusion without tying off various bodyparts, and I commend you for a great idea. The whole attraction of the occlusion studies (for me anyway) is that they showed amazing quick gains in size. Is that happening to you? Is that your goal?

I appreciate you freely sharing all of your research. Thanks!
 
Leegee,

Here is a copy and paste from my post to answer a similar question posed at the Weight Room Forums. Thank you verymuch for the kind words....

"I have been experimenting with it for close to a year, and actually tied myself up in the beginning. Those who are up for a good laugh can read about it in some of the forums (SINCE MAKING THIS ORIGINAL POST I ACTUALLY EXPLAINED THE HISTORY OF ACIT IN THIS AND OTHER THREADS FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED). Believe it or not, I have been trying to occlude blood flow with various methods for over 3 years now. Very short and quick partials were the first method that I used...

As ACIT came to life bit by bit I "rolled it out" to several bodyparts. Arms were pretty hard to get used to for example, and it took a good amount of "relearning" in the barbell curl to be able to occlude the blood. Between September and November I put on around 5 lbs. Since then, my weight has more or less stayed constant. A few notes here, I am obsessed with leanness and my goal is to put on muscle only if I can do so with minimal fat gain. I am trying to stay at under 7% bodyfat (hence Sub7) and therefore I must often limit the amount of basically all macro nutrients, most of the time. So with or without ACIT I am sure I could have been bigger if I was willing to tolerate more fat.... Secondly, I will readily admit that I was slightly dehydrated in the disgusting New York summer and possibly 1 or 2 pounds of the weight that I put on -although it appears to be very dry and feels like muscle- may be water. Even the pros who do 20 shows in their careers cannot really quantify how much water they are holding, so I do not want to misrepresent anything here by claiming "5 pounds of pure muscle".

Another disclaimer here: Since November I have not gained any weight because I am working legs once every other week or so (sometimes even less) and focusing on upper body; this is where I need more mass. I can't quite tell but I may have lost 0.5 lbs from the legs and put that amount on my chest/shoulder area during the last month. Not stellar progress but OK for a natural who is still experimenting. When I started to focus on upper body, I got carried away at first and needed some experimenting with the right frequency, so I did have some unproductive weeks there.

All in all, I am very satisfied with the gains. If I had to sum up the benefits of ACIT I would say that it allows me to achieve the same kind of Fast Twitch MU recruitment and rate coding at a significantly lower levels of CNS burnout. It may also be activating additional and new growth pathways due to increased intramusclular acidity but to me the real "visible" benefit is how fresh I feel after the workout.

As I keep repeating, you fail in a set because your muscles refuse to contract, not because you were unable to muster the Herculan effort and might to inch the weight up just a little bit more. You remeber Arnold's quote "when my muscles said no, I said yes" (what a great way to burn out for a natural athlete). Well with ACIT, when your muscles say no, that's it you go home and you can rest assured that you did your homework..."
 
<div>
(--Aaron_F @ Jan. 06 2006,7:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Hard for untrained to add CSA?
</div>

Most untrained experience neural gains with minimal CSA, at least that's what research has shown for the last 50 years.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As I keep repeating, you fail in a set because your muscles refuse to contract, not because you were unable to muster the Herculan effort and might to inch the weight up just a little bit more.
Click to expand...

True, and you don't need to fail with ACIT as it is a rep customization technique and not a routine or program.

I appreciate the fact that you guys question ACIT. You're not trying to say it is going to help a lot, but every bit of help counts when your growth starts to stall out.

-Colby
 
Yes, any method can work if applied right, and sometimes certain methods work better in certain circumstances, for people who want to use a lower RM, and still receive benefits, ACTI will most definately work as long as all other criteria are met. As will HST, DC, Gironda, etc etc.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ Jan. 08 2006,6:58)]Most untrained experience neural gains with minimal CSA, at least that's what research has shown for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
Not because CSA is not changing, but measurement techniques were not sensitive enough.
 
<div>
(--Aaron_F @ Jan. 07 2006,10:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Not because CSA is not changing, but measurement techniques were not sensitive enough.</div>
How do we know this if they can't measure?
 
because we understand statistical power and standard deviation for the techniques they utilized?  wide SD and low power = no ability to measure anything until it gets a big difference.

if we have a technique that can only provide a statisically sig difference at 10x, and each weight training event only provides an increase in 1x then its going to take a number of sessions before it becomes apparent. You can see this happening from the old thought that hypertrophy doesnt happen instantly, which it is known that it does. You can see the same trend in mRNA changes in trained muscle, it genearlly takes 2-3 days for a real difference to show up (unless you have bigger subject #'s)

Statistical Power is my current pet peeve
 
Ah ok, I'll buy that :)
Also, apparantly reality is different than what the research says, after only two weeks of 'fatigue' training, I've lost a ton of strength. I tested tonight inc. bench down 10 lbs and 3 reps!! Overhead press down even more.
You won't see me sticking up for fatigue stuff anymore, no matter what the science says, I sure didn't get any fibril growth. Or, even maintain what I had!!!

This is concerning very light weight cumulative fatigue stuff, not ACIT training which uses higher RM&quot;s and a more aggressive progression scheme.
 
As I had remarked earlier, I am conducting a mini-experiment by switching to a more conventional lifting technique from ACIT for 2 weeks. I am in the middle of this 2-week period and some observations are very clear to me:
Taking sets to failure while doing ACIT is much much easier and gentler on the body. I have exceptionally poor recovery ability and burn out very quickly from frequent training -even if stopped shy of failure. I was able to take all sets to positive failure with ACIT and train with the highest frequency that I had ever used in my life (each muscle once every 4-5 days) with no signs of a burnout for months. To me this is really an incredible observation. This gentler and more tolerable nature of ACIT became apparent once again last week when I was already showing signs of wear out from just one week of regular lifting.
Another thing that I observed was that ACIT and conventional heavy lifting appear to have vastly different effects on the endocrinological systems of the body. My very wild and unscientific speculation would be that both are great for the Testosterone/Cortisol ratio (T/C) because ACIT keeps the C increase under control while conventional lifting gives more of a T boost but at the expense of increased C. The day after a heavy leg workout, I feel tired, wasted but I also feel a T boost (again, this is not substantiated by blood tests but is my subjective evaluation). This is all good and fine but the wear-out accumulates and would very soon make it impossible to carry on such heavy training. After an ACIT day, I do not feel that same kind of T boost (perhaps still there but smaller in magnitude?) but neither am I tired and wasted.
In the end, what appears optimal to me is to cycle between the two methods. I believe ACIT and good old heavy lifting contribute to growth through two slightly different pathways (naturally a number of factors such as rate coding, recruitment, hormonal response to training, metabolic work and the chemical balance in and around the muscle contribute to growth. ACIT and conventional heavy sets overlap in many of these respects (namely both can cause max rate coding and recruitment) but also show -IMO- marked differences in some areas). After having milked the most possible growth from one pathway, why not switch to another for a while to &quot;decondition&quot; your body to the original pathway as HST would say. ACIT would give you a chance to do this deconditioning in a very productive manner. IOW, if you wanted your muscles to forget how heavy weights feel, do not just life lighter weights for a while. Lift those lighter weights ACIT style and grow some more during the deconditioning period. That is one idea anyways...
As always, best regards to all for their intelligent contributions.
Hunkar
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (NWlifter @ Jan. 09 2006,4:49)]Ah ok, I'll buy that :)
Also, apparantly reality is different than what the research says, after only two weeks of 'fatigue' training, I've lost a ton of strength. I tested tonight inc. bench down 10 lbs and 3 reps!! Overhead press down even more.
You won't see me sticking up for fatigue stuff anymore, no matter what the science says, I sure didn't get any fibril growth. Or, even maintain what I had!!!
This is concerning very light weight cumulative fatigue stuff, not ACIT training which uses higher RM&quot;s and a more aggressive progression scheme.
Click to expand...
Perform both style of training within the same cycle or set it up in a series of progressive cycles, sorta concurrent versus conjugate setup. Probably concurrent is the simplest to setup.
 
<div>
(--Aaron_F @ Jan. 10 2006,6:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Perform both style of training within the same cycle or set it up in a series of progressive cycles, sorta concurrent versus conjugate setup. Probably concurrent is the simplest to setup.</div>
Not sure what you mean here?
 
Do strength and fatiguing work within the same session, ie sets of 5 with drops sets afterwards (sorta like HST :D )

or

Do a block (days/weeks) of strength training, followed by a block of fatiguing training..


Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises.

Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K.

Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

Acute and long-term effects of resistance-training regimens with varied combinations of high- and low-intensity exercises were studied. Acute changes in the serum growth hormone (GH) concentration were initially measured after 3 types of regimens for knee extension exercise: a medium intensity (approximately 10 repetition maximum [RM]) short interset rest period (30 s) with progressively decreasing load (&quot;hypertrophy type&quot;); 5 sets of a high-intensity (90% of 1RM) and low-repetition exercise (&quot;strength type&quot;); and a single set of low-intensity and high-repetition exercise added immediately after the strength-type regimen (&quot;combi-type&quot;). Postexercise increases in serum GH concentration showed a significant regimen dependence: hypertrophy-type &gt; combi-type &gt; strength-type (p &lt; 0.05, n = 8). Next, the long-term effects of periodized training protocols with the above regimens on muscular function were investigated. Male subjects (n = 16) were assigned to either hypertrophy/combi (HC) or hypertrophy/ strength (HS) groups and performed leg press and extension exercises twice a week for 10 weeks. During the first 6 weeks, both groups used the hypertrophy-type regimen to gain muscular size. During the subsequent 4 weeks, HC and HS groups performed combi-type and strength-type regimens, respectively. Muscular strength, endurance, and cross sectional area (CSA) were examined after 2, 6, and 10 weeks. After the initial 6 weeks, no significant difference was seen in the percentage changes of all variables between the groups. After the subsequent 4 weeks, however, 1RM of leg press, maximal isokinetic strength, and muscular endurance of leg extension showed significantly (p &lt; 0.05) larger increases in the HC group than in the HS group. In addition, increases in CSA after this period also tended to be larger in the HC group than in the HS group (p = 0.08). The results suggest that a combination of high- and low-intensity regimens is effective for optimizing the strength adaptation of muscle in a periodized training program.
 
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. I always liked doing both in one, top set + drop sets or rest pauses or back downs, etc. So dats a cool way to train in my book.
 
If anyone reads Russian and has access I'd love to know details

Ross Fiziol Zh Im I M Sechenova. 2007 Jan;93(1):27-38.

[Physiological effects of using the low intensity strength training without
relaxation in single-joint and multi-joint movements]

[Article in Russian]

[No authors listed]

The effects of classical strength training (CT) and low intensity strength
training without relaxation (TwR) upon size, strength and fatigability of leg
muscles in men were compared. A 8-10-week strength training led to an increase
of size and maximal voluntary contraction of trained muscles. After the CT, the
increment of strength was higher; on the other hand, strength increments related
to total work performed increased after the TwR noticeably higher than after the
CT. Two training programs influenced the size of total muscle and of muscle
fibers (MF) differently: the volume of m. quadriceps femoris increased more
after the CT than after the TwR. The CT induced a significant increase of cross
sectional area (CSA) of fast MF, and the TwR induced an increase of CSA of slow
MF. Resistance to fatigue after the TwR was higher than after the. The effects
of TwR were more pronounced in single-joint movements training than in
multi-joint movement.
 
Hello guys,

This page was not displaying properly, so I had to edit some posts here. All I removed was the excessive quoting. It turns out, having nested quotes [a quote within a quote within a quote] causes problems in rendering the tables properly.

It's a pain, which shouldn't even be a limitation, but let's just try to work around it. Let's avoid nested quoting in the future so pages won't look like crap.

I have no idea why some of Aaron's posts are blank. But at least this page of the thread is readable again. I will try to see if the blank posts can be restored.

Thanks and regards.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron: You can see this happening from the old thought that hypertrophy doesn't happen instantly, which it is known that it does. </div>

In what way, I wonder? I've just never seen this debate or it's resolution. Does 'instantly' mean right now, or this week?
 
So to sum this up.

Drop the weight 30-40% of rep max, on all exercises.  Perform one set per exercise, focus on constant tension on the positive and negative of the lift.  Remove just enough ROM to keep the muscles affected, under constant tension, Perform this single set until I can no longer perform the movement with good form.  move to the next exercise.



Do I progressively add lbs each workout?


Lets say I wanted to mix this with my current HST routine, would it be acceptable to simply take 30-40% of my 15/10/5 rep max, progressively add lbs per mesocycle, perform the same sets as I am now aka one for 15's, two for 10's and three for 5's.  

or

Just take the simple approach.  Take 30-40% of my current rep max on all lifts, perform each rep as described, do one set per exercise,   Add a little weight each workout and do this indefinitely?




As I read this, I could help but wonder if this is why gymnasts that use the rings, I believe they are called, have such muscular upper bodies, as they must keep all their muscles under constant tension, yet really the load never progresses and seems body weight allows for impressive muscular development.  Just wondering.  
biggrin.gif





And I thought HST seemed too good to be true.  
biggrin.gif





An after thought and dont hate me for asking but wouldnt it be just as effective to take the same weight and perform a single isometric movement (at a point in which the most muscle fibers are recruited)? I kinda get this ideology from seeing wrestlers and arm wrestlers for that matter, people whos training involves constant tension and little and in some cases, no weight training, yet, a wrestler will be developed all over and an arm wrestler, in most cases, will have arms most people would love to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top