Search results

wow what a great comeback. Who would have ever thought a person with all the awnsers would come back with the same old bodybuilding hardhead bollocks.. oh wait...

Thanks for that lesson on how not to perform an experiment. Now control for all other variables that will influence blood measures of hormones. Then try and associate any of these blood measures with growth. Good luck Kramer etal have been trying to do this for years and have shown 2 things...

how about providing some evidence for very specific claims about hormones

DKM, when you dont eat you get a larger increase in gh than with training. Im going to never eat again, gonna be huge.

Not because CSA is not changing, but measurement techniques were not sensitive enough.

No, taking drugs is what a large proportion of bodybuilders do, and definately what professional bodybuilders do.

somewhere around 263mg/kg/hr EAA

Hard for untrained to add CSA?

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...

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...

Form a program that allows continual progressive overloading, that focusses on working weakpoints and has a set goal. ADjust it to work with your lifestyle (work, school etc) and provide adequate calories from food (adequate means not dieting, but bulking continually would work better) Then...

6 grams was enough to stimulate protien synthesis, (3 is as well), however it is not enough to maximally stimulate protein synthsis... but, whey is approximately 50-52% Essential amino acids

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...

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

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...

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.

Muscle protein. 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...

strength gains that directly linked with CSA gains. Glycogen increasing CSA will impact on strength.

You cant get bigger indefinately with glycogen.

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 )