Bfr פחות משקל יותר תוצאות - דיון

[reemar]

Tip: Grow Your Quads by 12 Percent in 2 Weeks

מחקר שנערך מצא את התוצאות
Bfr לפי מחקרים עובד אך השאלה היא האם הורדת המשקלים אפשרה יותר התאוששות ובכך תרמה ל היפרתרופיה בכל מקרה לכו תשיגו bfr
אם אין לכם אז גם לשים מעל הקוואדס את הדבר הזה שמלבישים על הברכיים knee wraps לשים מעל הקוואדס גם יעשה את העבודה

Go get some gains
מי שאומר שזה חרטא צריך להביא מקור או שהוא יקבל באן כי יש מחקרים לכך שזה עובד

 

[OA]

Tip: Grow Your Quads by 12 Percent in 2 Weeks

מחקר שנערך מצא את התוצאות
Bfr לפי מחקרים עובד אך השאלה היא האם הורדת המשקלים אפשרה יותר התאוששות ובכך תרמה ל היפרתרופיה בכל מקרה לכו תשיגו bfr
אם אין לכם אז גם לשים מעל הקוואדס את הדבר הזה שמלבישים על הברכיים knee wraps לשים מעל הקוואדס גם יעשה את העבודה

Go get some gains
מי שאומר שזה חרטא צריך להביא מקור או שהוא יקבל באן כי יש מחקרים לכך שזה עובד

המחקרים מראים קשר (אומנם לא חזק),
הבעיה היא אחרת עם BFR והיא שלא נחקר הלחץ שצריך להיות עם זה, ולכמה זמן?

מלבד זו תגיע ירידה בביצועים עקב החסימה, האם יתרון הBFR יפצה על זה ועוד ישיג על זה אלפא? לא בטוח בכלל.

התאמנתי עם זה תקופה קרוב לחצי שנה, קשוח מאוד ולא ממליץ למי שלא אוהב לסבול.

מה גם שלא ראיתי מזה יותר מידי שינוי.

 

[reemar]

מלבד זו תגיע ירידה בביצועים עקב החסימה

ירידה בביצועים אולי בעת ביצוע התרגיל אבל בלי השימוש בו אין שום סיבה שיהיה ירידה בביצועים ואפילו עלייה בביצועים עקב היפרתרופיה ויותר דם בשריר המטרה
אם יש ירידה כזאת או אחרת בביצועים אני משער שניתן לקשר אותה לצורך של השריר להתאושש כדי לגדול כי הbfr מפעיל אותו בצורה שהוא לא רגיל אליה על ידי לכידת דם ומנגנון הפעולה שלו
אם יש לך אסמכתא לדבריך אשמח למקור

נכון זה קשוח אבל זה הווי אומר להוריד משקלים ולהתרכז בלהרגיש את השריר יותר מאשר לנסות להזיז כמה שיותר משקל

לגבי הלחץ שצריך להיות עם זה, זה דווקא נושא שכן נחקר במידת מה...

לגבי שינוי שראית לא ראית... אין הנחתום מעיד על עיסתו בקשר 'להרגשה' לכן עשו על זה מחקרים עם קבוצות ביקורת וכל השיט

מעבר לכך בוקר טוב חבר

אני אישית השתמשתי בשביל תרגילים מבודדים לאחר עבודה ראשית כמו דרירי תאומים ויד קדמית ואחורית ואהבתי את האפקט של זה, אם כי לא מתאים לכל אחד
נגיד בתאומים אחרי שימוש בזה במתכונת שלי אתה מרגיש עד וש אתה מוריד את הbfr כאילו אתה דורך על לבה רותחת שבעיני זאת הרגשה מעולה

 

[elchonon]

מי שאומר שזה חרטא צריך להביא מקור או שהוא יקבל באן כי יש מחקרים לכך שזה עובד

אני לא יגיד שזה חרטא, כי אין לי מקור, אבל אני כן יגיד שזה מחקר טפשי שלא מוכיח דבר.

לתת לקבוצה 1 לעשות רק פרונט סקוואט כבד בלי הרבה נפח, ולקבוצה 2 לתת הרבה יותר נפח ואפילו להגיע לכשל תוך כדי BFR, זאת דרך דבילית לנהל מחקר.

תן להם בדיוק אותו תוכנית ואז נדבר.
באותה קלות תן להם נעליים אחרות ותראה הבדל בין לובשי הנעליים השונות ברגע שכל התוכנית שונה.

 

[Dark Soul Omega]

זה נשמע מצויין וגם הגיוני מבחינה של סטרס מטבולי..
אבל זה קצת מביך להתאמן עם חוסם עורקים במכון.
אולי שווה ניסיון!

 

[StrongEnough]

לא קראתי את הכל, אבל מצד אחד כתוב שהם עשו כמות נפח דומה, ואז בהמשך כשניסתי לחשב זה נראה שקבוצת ה BFR עשו 20-30% יותר נפח. אז זה דיי בעייתי להגיד שדווקא ה BFR הוא הגורם לעלייה במסת שריר כשיש הרבה יותר תיעוד שמראה שכמות נפח וסטים ברמת קושי מתאימה זה תורם מרכזי להיפרטרופיה.

 

[Whale]

זה חרטא על פי המאמר בmass שהוא עשה לו copy paste למאמר הזה.

Cherry picking של ראיות בסך הכל. מחקר מאוד חלש עם המון בעיות בתכנון שלו

למשל, לא הייתה השוואה בכמות הסטים, או בקרבה לכשל( bfr עבדו לכשל או קרוב, שאלו שבלי לקחו משקלים סבירים 60-85%) ל1-6 חזרות לפי 2 - יותר סטים.

מה אפשר להפיק מזה? לא הרבה


I was surprised by the amount of hypertrophy observed in such a short period of time in the blood flow restriction group. The fiber type-specific findings may seem a bit esoteric, but whole-muscle CSA of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis increased by 7-8% as well. Muscle CSAs barely changed in the traditional group, so it seems that the growth is almost entirely attributable to the two weeks of blood flow restriction training. And honestly, I’m having a hard time coming up with a clear explanation for this result. Low-load training with blood flow restriction doesn’t seem to be any better for hypertrophy than heavier training without blood flow restriction (5), so one would assume that subbing out heavier front squat training for low-load training with blood flow restriction wouldn’t lead to any additional growth.

The two most likely explanations seem to be a) training to failure or b) novelty. The details of the traditional, heavier training weren’t provided (beyond a very rudimentary description), but it doesn’t seem that the traditional group trained to failure. Some research indicates that training to failure may be better than non-failure training for hypertrophy (6), while other studies find no significant differences (7, 8), so I’m not sold on failure as the differentiating factor. I’m even less sold on novelty as the differentiating factor; people constantly posit “novelty” as a reason for hypertrophy in response to a non-traditional training stimulus, but I’m not aware of any research actually indicating that novelty makes much of a difference. If it did, you’d expect low-load training (i.e. 30+ reps per set with <50% of 1RM) to produce substantially greater hypertrophy than heavier, “normal” training (since most people don’t do that many reps with that light of a load during “normal” training), but that’s largely not what you see in the research (9, 10). However, the population may make a difference. In a sample of well-trained powerlifters, low-load training with blood-flow restriction may have been such a large departure from their normal training (presumably quite heavy, and not to failure) that there was some sort of novelty effect (exploiting an untapped avenue of adaptation), whereas the typical gym-goers used as subjects in most studies may still train light enough and close enough to failure that low-load training with blood flow restriction isn’t novel enough to have a big additive effect. I don’t personally find that to be an intellectually satisfying explanation, but it’s the best I can come up with.

The results of this study are even more surprising when stacked up against prior research. A study by Yamanaka et al (11) looked at the effects of adding low-load squat and bench press training, with or without blood flow restriction, to the offseason strength training program of Division I football players. That study found larger strength gains in the group using blood flow restriction, but the only major hypertrophy difference was in chest girth (which you wouldn’t expect to be affected by blood flow restriction applied to the arms); changes in thigh girth were similar between groups, changes in right arm girth were similar between groups, and changes in left arm girth were significantly different, but the mean difference was tiny (0.7cm). A study by Luebbers et al (12) used a similar design and had similar findings: no differences in hypertrophy, but larger strength gains in the squat for the group using blood flow restriction. Finally, a Masters Thesis by O’halloran (13) compared heavy training (>70% of 1RM) to a program consisting of about two-thirds heavy training and one-third low-load training with blood flow restriction. It found no significant differences in strength gains or hypertrophy. So, to this point, prior research suggested that adding low-load blood flow restriction training to normal, heavier training may enhance strength gains but not promote additional hypertrophy. The results of the present study run the opposite direction – no strength benefits, but a sizeable hypertrophy benefit.

I can see three possible explanations for the difference. The present study used well-trained powerlifters, while prior research had used football players (Yamanaka and Luebbers) or just generally trained subjects (O’halloran). As previously mentioned, if there is a “novelty effect,” it may only apply to populations, such as powerlifters, who typically carry out ultra-specialized training. Furthermore, the present study assessed hypertrophy via direct measures (fiber CSA, muscle CSA, and muscle thickness), while two of the prior studies (Yamanaka and Luebbers) just assessed limb circumferences. The study by O’halloran measured limb circumferences and muscle CSAs and demonstrates how those two methods of assessment can arrive at different conclusions: muscle CSAs in both groups decreased non-significantly (by about 7mm^2), while thigh circumferences increased significantly (by about 1.5cm). So, it’s possible that the Luebbers and Yamanaka studies would have found hypertrophy differences if they directly assessed hypertrophy.

The third possible explanation deals with the training protocol itself. When I first skimmed the abstract of this study, I thought the intervention seemed somewhat bizarre. During a 6.5-week training program, low-load front squats with blood flow restriction were only performed for two nonconsecutive weeks. However, the authors’ rationale was based on prior work (14), which suggested that the positive impact of low-load blood flow restriction training on hypertrophy and satellite cell proliferation reached a plateau after eight days. The authors thought that two nonconsecutive weeks of low-load training with blood flow restriction would allow for two small growth spurts, whereas the benefits of continuous low-load training with blood flow restriction may plateau after the first week. In other words, one week of low-load training with blood flow restriction may be just as good as multiple consecutive weeks, but multiple nonconsecutive weeks may offer an additional benefit, by allowing a wash-out period to re-sensitize the lifters to the stimulus. That’s certainly an interesting idea that I’d love to see explored in future research.

Moving on to the strength findings, the authors note that some of the athletes weren’t well-familiarized with front squats, which may have muddied the water. They state that the members of the traditional group (which performed 16 heavy front squat sessions, versus just 6 heavy sessions in the group doing low-load blood flow restriction training) seemed to improve their technique and core strength more. In spite of this, mean strength gains in the front squat were similar between groups (~4% for the traditional group versus ~3% for the blood flow restriction group). It would have been nice if they also tested back squat 1RM to see how well both groups’ training transferred to the athletes’ competition lift.

Most of the other findings were either unsurprising (EMG) or not incredibly useful for MASS readers (markers of ribosome biogenesis). However, it’s worth speculating about why this study found clear preferential type I fiber-specific hypertrophy, while prior research did not. The authors speculate that using a bilateral compound exercise involving a large amount of muscle mass induced a lot of central fatigue, hindering recruitment of type II fibers. While that’s certainly possible, prior research using compound lower-body exercises hasn’t found fiber-type specific hypertrophy (9). It’s also possible that the powerlifters in this study had accrued type II fiber-specific hypertrophy over years of heavy, non-failure training, leading to “catch-up growth” of type I fibers when exposed to a metabolically stressful stimulus. However, I find that unlikely, as these lifters’ type I fibers weren’t disproportionately small, compared to their type II fibers (they were 10-15% smaller, which is pretty typical). Lars Samnøy, one of the Norwegian powerlifting coaches, also informed us that many of these lifters regularly did accessory lifts in moderate rep ranges, so it’s unlikely that they were completely neglecting their type I fibers during their normal training. Finally, it’s possible that the increased capillarization allowed for type I fiber growth in the blood flow restriction group. Capillary density has been found to be predictive of hypertrophy in elderly subjects (15), so it’s possible that insufficient capillarization places a cap on type I fiber size, and thus increased capillarization allows for type I fiber hypertrophy. I feel like this explanation would raise more questions than answers (What’s the mechanism? Why didn’t capillarization of type II fibers increase as well?), but we can’t rule it out as a possibility.

In terms of application, if the hypertrophy responses in this study were due to the fact that the blood-flow restriction training took place on non-consecutive weeks, it may be best to use blood flow restriction training either every other week, or every third week. You could use a compound exercise (as this study did) or use blood flow restriction on accessory lifts. A wider wrap doesn’t require as much pressure to occlude blood flow (which is beneficial for both comfort and safety), so use knee wraps instead of exercise bands, and aim for a pressure of tight-but-not-painful. If you get an insane pump, you wrapped to the appropriate pressure. If your limbs start turning purple and you don’t get an insane pump, you wrapped too tight and you’re cutting off too much arterial blood flow. Use a weight between 20-40% of 1RM, knock out 3-4 sets with 15-45 seconds between sets, and enjoy the burn.

I really enjoyed this study because it gave me a lot to stew on. Were the hypertrophy differences due to novelty? Were they the result of training to failure? Why did the results of this study differ from those of previous low-load blood flow restriction studies in athletes? Why did this study find very clear type I-specific fiber hypertrophy when other studies failed to? Those are questions for future research to expand on, but I’ll be mulling over this study for quite some time.


קטע מהמאמר המקורי של MASS