ACIT -the revolutionary training method- is finally here

[Sub7]

Dear Fellow Posters,

The Web Site for Accelerated Inroad Training or simply ACIT is now ready for your review. As the co-developer of the technique, I believe that this is a truly revolutionary method of resistance training and definitely worth taking a look at. As the name implies, ACIT is a means of achieving a tremendous degree of inroading and intensity in an incredibly short period of time and will therefore give the trainee a chance to work very hard with much less risk of overtraining.

please check it out at www.acit-training.com

As you will notice, the site is entirely non-commercial. We offer absolutely nothing for sale, are not hoping to generate revenue via advertising or cross-linking and are only trying to foster intelligent discussion as well as help develop a means that will bring us all a step closer to the greater muscle mass we are looking for.

I would like to thank you for your time in advance and am looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Best regards,

 

[Grunt76]

well, I just read the entire website, which isn't super-huge. It's a very good read. It has some very interesting points.

I wonder how this compares with injectable l-carnosine...

 

[Sub7]

ttt

 

[doggzj]

Some interesting reading for sure. There is no forum over there, so I'll leave my question here.

With 250 the set starts relatively easy, but becomes surprisingly more difficult as the blood is trapped and lactic acid builds up. By the 8th rep it still feels like I could do another 6 or 7 repetitions, but then in a matter of seconds things start to shut down. It is a feeling like nothing else I have ever experienced and must be felt to be appreciated. By the 9th rep I am wondering what the hell happened that made the exercise so difficult all of a sudden and by the 10th rep I am screaming because the weight feels like a thousand pounds.

This is very interesting for me. When I work out, this is standard par for the course. I have never used ACIT, but I have this ""problem"" in many of the excercises that I do. And then...

I then jump up and drop the weight to do a few more reps. When I first tried this, I was under the mistaken impression that I only needed to drop the weight by around the same 25% or so as I used to with a set of regular leg presses (from 430 to 310-320). So I simply reduced the weight to 180 lbs. When I got under the machine, I was able to get only one rep. During the next leg workout, I reduced the weight to 120 but was able to do 2 reps this time. Just guess how much weight I settled on after much experimentation. I am now dropping the weight from 250 to 45 lbs. Yes, that’s not a misprint; I must go from 250 lbs to 45 lbs

This is exactly how my workouts go (althought not to THAT extreme). I definately don't stress my muscles as you say for ACIT, although it is possible I am without thinking about it.

Pretty wierd read for me :wtf: :wtf:

 

[Sub7]

doggzj,

Can you please clarify what you mean? Do you mean that your strength always drops like a rock, and whenever you wish to go beyond failure by extending a set with drops or forced reps you find yourself having very little strenght left? Does that happen in all exercises? If not which ones.

And, while it may not sound very relevant, can you give some stats? I am wondering if you are predominantly FT fiber type of a guy who puts on muscle easily 9hence a lot of explosive strenght over the short run, but easily exhausted thereafter -i.e. sprinter type?). Finally, have you always been very strong for your size?

Thanks a lot for the input...

 

[CDB]

I'd recommend you guys go to the HST boards, there's a good discussion thread there, posted recently, about this technique. I'd get you the link but I can't access the site right now, I believe it's down. Basics of the discussion:

It would be impossible to achieve the occlusion achieved in the lab studies in a gym or at home. The method would only slightly help with metabolic stress and rate coding. The key fundamentals for building muscle are still load and time under tension. Lastly there's a lot of equating failure with a hypertrophy on the ACIT site, and that's simply not the case. Going to failure can be very detrimental for gaining size. It puts too much stress on your CNS, limits the frequency with which you can workout, and can limit the TUT applied to each muscle in a given workout. For example 2 sets of 5 not taken to failure is better than a set of 8 taken to failure, all else being equal, because TUT is longer in the former.

 

[Sub7]

there's a lot of equating failure with a hypertrophy on the ACIT site, and that's simply not the case. Going to failure can be very detrimental for gaining size. It puts too much stress on your CNS, limits the frequency with which you can workout, and can limit the TUT applied to each muscle in a given workout. For example 2 sets of 5 not taken to failure is better than a set of 8 taken to failure, all else being equal, because TUT is longer in the former.

I think there is a very very important difference between the kind of failure one reaches when performing a set the usual way and the kind of failure that one gets with ACIT. With ACIT, the muscle just shuts down. The sensation is being described as "being unable to keep moving the muscle even though you still know you got more strength". So when you fail with ACIT, it is not as deep and damaging because you fail earlier and in a much more different manner. Try it for yourself and see the difference (though a few workouts may be neccesary to get the feel for it and start doing it the right way).

Now upon reading this one might ask: "If all ACIT does is to make you fail earlier, why not just terminate the set 2-3 reps shy of failure and get the same effect?"
That would not at all be the same as ACIT forces failure in a dramatically different chemical milieu, namely in a highly acidic, very low ATP environment (among other things).

Finally, yes it is impossible to achieve the exact same degree of occlusion as one would with a cuff around the arm, but one would get very close because studies clearly show that somewhere above 60-70% of maximal force exertion, the muscle is simply occluded. Here is a quote from one of Ron's article's on the topic:

"Besides external pressure,(as with a cuff) internal muscle pressure can, and does occlude blood flow. With standard anisometric contractions variations in tension throughout the range of motion cause these effects to be intermittent. However, with isometric contractions, tension is maintained and non-variable, allowing a longer time period of impeded blood flow. Studies have tested various muscles with isometric contractions to find a minimum tension level where blood flow is occluded. Here are is some of the data,

Biceps, quadriceps and calves fell between 50 and 64% MVC (1)
Triceps 25%, biceps 50%, and back extensors 40% MVC (2)"


1) Sadamoto T, Bonde-Petersen F, Suzuki Y. 1983
2)F. Bonde-Petersen, A. L. Mørk1 and E. Nielsen 1974Occlusion: What's blood got to do with it?

 

[doggzj]

doggzj,

Can you please clarify what you mean? Do you mean that your strength always drops like a rock, and whenever you wish to go beyond failure by extending a set with drops or forced reps you find yourself having very little strenght left? Does that happen in all exercises? If not which ones.

And, while it may not sound very relevant, can you give some stats? I am wondering if you are predominantly FT fiber type of a guy who puts on muscle easily 9hence a lot of explosive strenght over the short run, but easily exhausted thereafter -i.e. sprinter type?). Finally, have you always been very strong for your size?

Thanks a lot for the input...

I don't do drop sets simply because I have to drop the weight extremely far. This is pretty much across the board, but is more prevelant in the easier movements. Currently I have to take very long rests (3-5min) inbetween sets to even attempt 2nd sets without dropping weight, and still often don't achieve the same ammount of reps.

Back in highschool my lifting partners would always comment on this. It would seem that on rep 5 I'd still be going strong, but rep 6 would go up extremely hard, and I'd need assistance on the 7th. I always caught a lot of crap because "I gave up to easily".

Stats wise I can't say I'm very impressive. This has a lot to due with my lack of consistancey and effort, then anything. I just recently came back to workingout out after 2+ years of barely doing anything, so I can barely move any weight right now :run:

But maybe this will help you. In early highschool I was a running back. I definately had a lot of speed (which I have lost a bit of). I never had any type of long distance endurance. In practice I'd be the one getting chewed out because "one of the fast guys doing the run the slowest". I'm not sure if that is related to FT ST fibers more then it is to my lack of conditioning.

And finally, I wouldn't say "overly strong" Back when I was 14-16 and we started weighttraining for football, and my first real time in the gym, might be my best data. At this point I was one of the stronger, but definately not the strongest, member of my peers. Out of my class of 26 (yea small school), I was the 3rd strongest (the top 2 were freaks).

This is really the best I can answer your questions I'm afraid. I was (and still am) a very good golfer, but I'm not sure that's relevent either. See if you can make anything from this mess of information.

 

[Sub7]

Wooov,

Man you have an interesting muscle make-up for sure. However, it is amazing how similar my legs are to your overall muscle structure in terms of how they generally function. Let me explain:

Legs are my strongest part and grow the most easily. No I cannot squat huge loads of weight, in fact I have not done squats for years because I came pretty close to hurting my back with them some time ago and have always gotten such good results from leg presses that I personally don't see the point in doing squats (I know, this has halved my bodybuilding credibility and just qualified me as a sissy). However, even more interesting than these is the fact that

a) I get a very very easy pump on my legs. I need to run for just 30 yards at a good pace -not even outright sprinting- and they are pumped as hell

b) My legs have the most terrible endurance you can ever imagine.

Something special is going on with my legs that cannot simply be explained by "they have more FTs" or other simple stuff like that. I have actually been in correspondence with Professor Tim Noakes, who as you may know, is one of the most famous scientists about endurance. He speculated that my legs may be sending more intense signals to the "central governor" (one of his very well thought-out models) for some as yet unknown reason.

So when all is said and done, what I think is going on with my legs and your whole body is that: When they contract, they do so very powerfully. What does "powerful" mean in this context? They reach maximal fiber utilization right away? They reach tetany very quickly? They trap the blood very effectively thus choking themselves out? Their lactate treshold is very low and they switch to anearobic pathways too soon? .... Probably a number of these things happening at once. I have especially high confidence in my speculation that they may somehow be trapping the blood around them very effectively and choking themselves out.

Now you may ask? If your legs are contracting so powerfully why are you not the strongest in your peer group? This may have a lot to do with tendon attachment points. The more advantageous the tendon insertion point from a leverage point, the more strength you have, but the longer your reaction time and the less explosive you are. However, if the tendon attaches lower, you cannot produce as much strength as you otherwise could but are very explosive. (and please no one respond to this by typing the lame F = M*A formula, I am talking about something entirely different here) I think this is part of the reason I am not super strong in my legs because I am very explosive with them. I just think that the tendon attachments in my lower body favor speed over strenght. I assume the same is true for you also -and not jus legs but overall in most muscles, based on what you have told us.

Let us come to the $46,000 question (why 46? because this is how much a Corvette goes for these days -give or take). Since your legs are already trapping the blood with regular contractions, is there any sense in accentuating this effect with ACIT? There very well may be. In my case, ACIT produced the best -by far the best- results in my legs. I do not have to squeeze like a maniac on the way down and still I get a huge pump as well as a very very very deep inroading (sionce legs are already inclined to choke themselves out, all I have to do is to make process a bit faster). Why don't you try ACIT for your legs on the leg press just as an experiment and let us know what it felt like? Just give it a few workouts to sink in. As far as not being able to do a drop set, don't worry. As I pointed out in the web site, I am having to drop the weight so far with the drops after an ACIT set that it is meaningless at this point. So I don't really do a drop set. However, the increased acidity is doing something to my legs and making them grow for sure...

Also, if you don't mind PM'ing me your personal information, I would like to keep it at hand, just so I can show another example like myself to Prof Noakes, and who knows he may have some suggestions there....

Thanks a lot for the info and keep us informed....

Sub7

I don't do drop sets simply because I have to drop the weight extremely far. This is pretty much across the board, but is more prevelant in the easier movements. Currently I have to take very long rests (3-5min) inbetween sets to even attempt 2nd sets without dropping weight, and still often don't achieve the same ammount of reps.

Back in highschool my lifting partners would always comment on this. It would seem that on rep 5 I'd still be going strong, but rep 6 would go up extremely hard, and I'd need assistance on the 7th. I always caught a lot of crap because "I gave up to easily".

Stats wise I can't say I'm very impressive. This has a lot to due with my lack of consistancey and effort, then anything. I just recently came back to workingout out after 2+ years of barely doing anything, so I can barely move any weight right now :run:

But maybe this will help you. In early highschool I was a running back. I definately had a lot of speed (which I have lost a bit of). I never had any type of long distance endurance. In practice I'd be the one getting chewed out because "one of the fast guys doing the run the slowest". I'm not sure if that is related to FT ST fibers more then it is to my lack of conditioning.

And finally, I wouldn't say "overly strong" Back when I was 14-16 and we started weighttraining for football, and my first real time in the gym, might be my best data. At this point I was one of the stronger, but definately not the strongest, member of my peers. Out of my class of 26 (yea small school), I was the 3rd strongest (the top 2 were freaks).

This is really the best I can answer your questions I'm afraid. I was (and still am) a very good golfer, but I'm not sure that's relevent either. See if you can make anything from this mess of information.

 

[doggzj]

No PM function for us newbies! :hammer: I sent you and email.


I'll look into ACIT in January. Next week I have xmas, Birthday, and New Years, so I desided that was a great week to take off.

I'm quite interested how I'll feel two days after the workout. I typically suffer pretty severe DOMS, and I am interested how ACIT and increased inroading might affect this. I'll post something next month after I've tried it.

 

[Sub7]

Thanks doggzj,

Oh yeah, I forgot, I have a web site now and can be contacted directly through "my site"... who needs stinky PMs anyway when you are important enough to have your very own web page...

I would suggest taking the sets to only positive failure with ACIT and not beyond, then let's see how much DOMS and general fatigue you will experience...

Happy holidays and a great new year...

 

[Gdawg]

Sub7,

My legs seem to be quite similar to yours. Even just walking some of the hills on my college campus and stairs give me pumps in my legs. Also, back in highschool I was always a little bit stronger on lower body lifts than most my size, yet a little weaker on upper body lifts in comparison. I was also very quick for my size and BF% and had a very good vertical leap. I've always been puzzled why this was so, so this is all very interesting to me.

 

[Grassroots082]

Made for a great read Sub7. Still need to read it a few more times, but I already incorporate quite a bit of the philosophies of ACIT in my routine as is now.

 

[Sub7]

Thank you very much Gentlemen, this really is a nice and clean board where I should have started to hang out a long time ago. Those who experiment with ACIT, please let us know about the results....

Sub7

 

[Sub7]

A study where the approach was very similar to ACIT....

Tanimoto M, Ishii N.

Department of Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

We investigated the acute and long-term effects of low-intensity resistance exercise (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength. This type of exercise was expected to enhance the intramuscular hypoxic environment that might be a factor for muscular hypertrophy. Twenty-four healthy young males without experience of regular exercise training were assigned into three groups (n = 8 for each) and performed the following resistance exercise regimens: low-intensity [~50% of one repetition maximum (1RM)] with slow movement and tonic force generation (3 s for eccentric and concentric actions, 1-s pause, and no relaxing phase; LST); high-intensity (~80% 1RM) with normal speed (1 s for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 s for relaxing; HN); low-intensity with normal speed (same intensity as for LST and same speed as for HN; LN). In LST and HN, the mean repetition maximum was 8RM. In LN, both intensity and amount of work were matched with those for LST. Each exercise session consisting of three sets was performed three times a week for 12 weeks. In LST and HN, exercise training caused significant (P < 0.05) increases in cross-sectional area determined with MRI and isometric strength (MVC) of the knee extensors, whereas no significant changes were seen in LN. Electromyographic and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses showed that one bout of LST causes sustained muscular activity and the largest muscle deoxygenation among the three types of exercise. The results suggest that intramuscular oxygen environment is important for exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy.

 

[CDB]

A study where the approach was very similar to ACIT....

Tanimoto M, Ishii N.

Department of Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

But what does this show other than oxidative stress is one of the factors that promotes growth? I think the point most people would argue is that whatever short term benefit you get from pseudo occlusion doing reps a certain way, over the long term you're still stuck with having to lift heavier and heavier regardless of how you do the reps if you want to grow.

Now I know you're discussing this over at the HST boards and on Dan's HR boards too. I like those discussions, but in the end I don't see anything new. Now, if you could show what Haycock seemed to want to do originally with HST, that you can completely cut the connection between muscle growth and the load lifted so that a person can lift lite and still grow over time, you've got my attention and my knees will thank you too. But in the end lifting a heavier weight over time still seems to be the main factor influencing muscle growth, and it seems that it will overshadow anything that might even give a short term benefit to growth at the expense of more proven strength training principles.

One thing I did see mentioned on the HST boards that I don't think you answered: I believe it was Mikeynov who suggested an interpretation of your method would suggect fiber recruitment was the deciding factor in hypertrophy and that tension was the means to that end which occlusion 'nullified' to an extent. I don't think you addressed this statement though, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. As far as occlusion goes Ron seems to have said that occlusion results with lighter weights were basically equal to non occlusion results with 80%1rm. So unless occlusion confered some serious benefit to some other factor in training, like CNS recovery etc, what's the point? Tension might be a means to an end and not the end itself, but it also may be the most efficient means to that end. I guess what I'm getting at is if the results are basically the same either way what benefit in other areas would occlusion confer, and why bother using it when an effective means to achieve the same end exists already? For example, I would assume even in occlusion training the weight has to be upped eventually to get growth. What effect does constant occlusion training have on strength gains? I realize the initial weight lifted in an occlusion method would be lighter than nonocclusion, but what's the rate of weight increase beyond that when it's done consistently? Is it beneficial to strength gains with its own context or detrimental?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't doubt what you've said about occlusion, though I haven't read much of those studies myself. I'm just saying I don't think you've found anything demonstrably better than current training methods, just an interesting variation.

 

[Grunt76]

I find that the CNS issue is complex and it is true that this method might fatigue the CNS every bit as much, or heck even more than a more common training approach.

But I do find that the minimal glycogen depletion is fairly different from what usually happens in a training session and this can't help but being a boon to the dieting athlete. What do you think, CDB?

 

[Sub7]

Well CDB,
I don't think there is any activity in the world where you can continue to get better without increasing the difficulty of the challenge that you subject yourself to. Even if you were using ACIT exclusively, you would of course be trying to lift heavier weights to continue to grow; we have never even hinted otherwise... But as you have said, if for any given rate of development, the weights that you would need to use with ACIT are lower than what you would need to use with conventional lifting techniques, would your knees not be better off? How would they not be?

"Now, if you could show what Haycock seemed to want to do originally with HST, that you can completely cut the connection between muscle growth and the load lifted so that a person can lift lite and still grow over time, you've got my attention"

But why must we COMPLETELY cut the connection between growth and load to get your attention? If you set the bar so high, I am afraid no one may ever get your attention. If we can suggest -not using big words here such as "invent"- a way to lift a lighter load and still get as much growth as you wuold with 30-40% heavier weights, that is worthy of some attention, no?

I am not going to tell you that this stuff is proven to work or that it has produced champions, but I do think that it is fairly different from anything else that is out there. Yes, people have been talking about "constant tension" for a while, but as we have elaborated on, there is a lot more to ACIT than Weider's constant-tension. So far, every single person who tried ACIT either had to reduce the load to be able to get the same number of reps, or got stuck at a signifiacntly lower rep count if they tried to use the same load as before. This definitely does not occur with constant tension. So it is fairly clear that something else is going on inside the muscle with ACIT and we can discuss that something else. I and Ron have speculated about it but we want to hear alternative opinions...

Finally, about CNS fatigue:
Well everyone who tried ACIT is using terminology such as "you just kind of shut down..." or "failure just occurs". It is very clear based on the feedback that one does not feel as burnt-out after a set of ACIT. Why don't you try it for yourself for just a set and see? Then you can share your views and tell us what you think is happening. Maybe you will think that there is MORE and not less CNS fatigue. The directions for putting ACIT into practice are very clearly outlined in the site... Below I am pasting a portion from my response on PowerAndBulk forum. The paragraph below may sound harsh but I was just trying to emphasize the importance of trying things out instead of endlessly posting about them on the Internet. The post is not aimed at you specifically, but due to time constraints I am doing some copy/pasting here...

"I just wonder how difficult it can be to simply take a barbell and try the method. What in the world is there to lose by doing a set of barbell curls or leg presses as described in the site? Do people seriously think that their muscles will atrophy because they trained wrongly for 1 set? Do they fear injury when we very clearly say to lift in a controlled manner and advise to use less weight than you normally would? I just wonder how someone is not willing to take 5 minutes to try a new method and see for himself when he has the time to post hundreds of messages on each of the half-dozen boards he visits regularly. If people are not willing to experiment even this much, why are they on these message boards and what can they realistically expect to get out of all this posting and reading anyway? "

 

[CDB]

But why must we COMPLETELY cut the connection between growth and load to get your attention? If you set the bar so high, I am afraid no one may ever get your attention. If we can suggest -not using big words here such as "invent"- a way to lift a lighter load and still get as much growth as you wuold with 30-40% heavier weights, that is worthy of some attention, no?

I was being a bit hyperbolic. I've been following this here, on the HST and HR boards and I actually do think you're on to something here. That article Ron posted clarified a lot of what you guys are saying for me.

Finally, about CNS fatigue:
Well everyone who tried ACIT is using terminology such as "you just kind of shut down..." or "failure just occurs". It is very clear based on the feedback that one does not feel as burnt-out after a set of ACIT.

This I think is the strongest point of the idea right now. If it really is CNS sparing to some degree it might be possible to up the frequency of training in programs like Max OT and DC., or just up frequency in general for people who take longer to recover.

Why don't you try it for yourself for just a set and see?

Way ahead of your bro. I've already added it to the lifting program I'm going to doing after I finish my current HST cycle. I do have one question, what's the typical drop in weight most people experience to keep the same rep count? Right now I've got it set up for a drop of 1/3 under what I've been using on each respective lift.

 

[CDB]

I find that the CNS issue is complex and it is true that this method might fatigue the CNS every bit as much, or heck even more than a more common training approach.

But I do find that the minimal glycogen depletion is fairly different from what usually happens in a training session and this can't help but being a boon to the dieting athlete. What do you think, CDB?

I think I'm trying this in a few weeks to see how it goes. Minimal glycogen use would seem to confirm what Ron said in his article/posts on the subject, that this type of training seems to maximize ATP turnover.

Also might seem to offer real world evidence of early recruitment of type II A and B fibers from the get go, as that would kind of explain why strength gives out so suddenly. Might be talking out of my ass, but by occluding the muscles as much as possible it would seem you're starving type I fibers of that which they need the most, oxygen to burn fat which is their main fuel source, and inhibitting their ability to help in the lift. So the burden falls even more on the type IIs, but the oxidative capacity for II Bs is pretty low as is their endurance. Capillary density is much lower in both. Seems like it's possible Sub and Ron may have found a real world method of placing as much load as possible on the type II fibers.

Glycogen retention I don't recall reading about on this subject, but as I said I've been getting my info mostly from the discussions on the topic, the studies I've just gotten links to yesterday. If it does cause minimal glycogen use I'd like to know why. I don't think it would be the restricted blood flow unless, if that's stopping the removal of wate products like lactic acid, perhaps it puts a kind of negative feedback damper on glycolysis.

 

[Sub7]

Thank you very much for the kind words Sir. I think this particular quote of yours hits the nail on its ugly head:

"but the oxidative capacity for II Bs is pretty low as is their endurance. Capillary density is much lower in both. Seems like it's possible Sub and Ron may have found a real world method of placing as much load as possible on the type II fibers."

I believe in an ACIT-style set where you are able to lift the weight 10 times and all of a sudden start losing all of your strength by rep 8 (even though by rep 6 all was going well and you thought you could have done 14 or 15 total reps) is precisely this factro at work. Once the slower fibers (thinking of this as a continuum as opposed to simply fast and vs fibers) have been exhausted, their supplies sufficiently cut off, and it is time for the big boys (FT fibers) to do the lifting, fatigue occurs at an astoundingly quick rate...

As far as less glycogen depletion: Well you simply are doing less work. The muscles have a fewer number of contractions before they give up and on top of this, the weight is lower. So it would almost inevitably occur that you are going to use less fuel. Yes you will use less fat also, but I think this is the least bit of your problems in a bodybuilding type of workout.

By how much should one reduce the weight? I think that depends on a number of factors. If you had been lifting more in "power" style, taking a few seconds between each rep and using some body momentum to get the weights up (and I don't think there is neccesarily anything wrong with this if your goal is to prepare for a weightlifting competition for example) than you may have to reduce the weights a lot. If you had always been the "smooth and clean" lifter, trying to not lock out on top or minimizing the time when you did, then you will have to reduce the weight less. I think the 25-30% range is a good starting point for average reduction. May be more or less for the exercise/individual...

ONE POINT OF CAUTION: Squeezing the muscles hard and effectively occluding them without a cuff is a skill that is perfected over the course of a few training sessions (at least, if not more). As you become more effective in squeezing the muscles on the way down, you may get fewer and fewer reps each week. Please do not interpret this as getting weaker. I do not expect this effect to be huge, but pls be prepared for this possibility during the first few weeks...

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and kind comments once again.

Hunkar

Also might seem to offer real world evidence of early recruitment of type II A and B fibers from the get go, as that would kind of explain why strength gives out so suddenly. Might be talking out of my ass, but by occluding the muscles as much as possible it would seem you're starving type I fibers of that which they need the most, oxygen to burn fat which is their main fuel source, and inhibitting their ability to help in the lift. So the burden falls even more on the type IIs, but the oxidative capacity for II Bs is pretty low as is their endurance. Capillary density is much lower in both. Seems like it's possible Sub and Ron may have found a real world method of placing as much load as possible on the type II fibers.

Glycogen retention I don't recall reading about on this subject, but as I said I've been getting my info mostly from the discussions on the topic, the studies I've just gotten links to yesterday. If it does cause minimal glycogen use I'd like to know why. I don't think it would be the restricted blood flow unless, if that's stopping the removal of wate products like lactic acid, perhaps it puts a kind of negative feedback damper on glycolysis.

 

[CDB]

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and kind comments once again.

Thanks to you guys. The thread here and the ones on the other forums have been real damn good. Lots of info, lots of good debate, especially at Dan's site.

One more question, I'm going to post it at the HST boards too, what would you recommend as a frequency for this type of workout? Standard, whatever can be handled, or should it be set up around the remodeling process that's supposed to result? That's one of the reasons I was questioning Dan's definition of remodeling over at HST. If you train around myotraum you've got once every 36 - 48 hours. The remodeling affect you're going for in ACIT seems to hit later, it's not acute, and last longer. So, any specific recommendations?

 

[Sub7]

You know the last thing that I wouldlike to see is someone not progressing with a good program because of their over-enthusiasm. So as far as frequency goes, I will repeat what I have said in other boards:
Put all the thoery about MPS peaking in 24 hours and returning to baseline in 48 hrs or remodeling taking X days and maximal power potential returning to baseline in Y days aside. You as an individual know how much training you can tolerate given your personal situation. In the beginning at least, just use the same kind of frequency and do as many ACIT sets as you wuold do normal sets taken to failure. Each ACIT set should be taken to failure, but at least in the begining, not beyond positive failure... Once you are absolutely sure that ACIT is gentler on recovery systems you can up frequency or do more sets (though I think you will find that you need less not more with ACIT)...

Yes we are saying that ACIT is easier on the recovery resources but why not make this a proper experiment by playing around with few variables while keeping the rest constant? Also, at first, it is a new mental challenge. You can always jack up the frequency later

BTW, there is a pretty good discussion going on at HST about ACIT. It is under "general training".

Hunkar

Thanks to you guys. The thread here and the ones on the other forums have been real damn good. Lots of info, lots of good debate, especially at Dan's site.

One more question, I'm going to post it at the HST boards too, what would you recommend as a frequency for this type of workout? Standard, whatever can be handled, or should it be set up around the remodeling process that's supposed to result? That's one of the reasons I was questioning Dan's definition of remodeling over at HST. If you train around myotraum you've got once every 36 - 48 hours. The remodeling affect you're going for in ACIT seems to hit later, it's not acute, and last longer. So, any specific recommendations?

 

[CDB]

Will do, it was my basic plan to stick with 2-3 times a week. Just wondered if there was a similar "stay ahead of the recovery curve" approach that a lot of HST users adhere to. If the basics still apply then obviously the more the merrier, within tolerance limits.