http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22105051?dopt=Abstract

)OCCLUSION TRAINING INCREASES MUSCULAR STRENGTH IN DIVISION IA FOOTBALL PLAYERS.
Yamanaka T, Farley RS, Caputo JL.
Source

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of four weeks of low-intensity resistance training with blood-flow occlusion on upper and lower body muscular hypertrophy and muscular strength in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division IA football players. There were 32 subjects (average age 19.2 years ± 1.8 years) who were randomized to an occlusion group or control group. Athletes performed four sets of bench press and squat in the following manner with or without occlusion: 30 repetitions of 20% predetermined one repetition maximum (1RM), followed by three sets of 20 repetitions at 20% 1RM. Each set was separated by 45 seconds. Training duration was three times per week, following the completion of regular off-season strength training. Data collected included health history, resting blood pressure, pre- and post- training bench press and squat 1RM, upper and lower chest girths, upper and lower arm girths, thigh girth, height, and body mass. The increases in bench press and squat 1RM (7.0% and 8.0%, respectively), upper and lower chest girths (3% and 3%, respectively) and left upper arm girth were significantly greater in the experiment group (P < 0.05). Occlusion training could provide additional benefits to traditional strength training to improve muscular hypertrophy and muscular strength in collegiate athletes.

PMID: 22105051 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

I constantly see the same trick. It is clear that occlusion training has benefits over high rep set not taken to failure, but where are the studies comparing occlusion to normal high reps to failure?

FullDeplex - 28 November 2011 03:10 PM

I constantly see the same trick. It is clear that occlusion training has benefits over high rep set not taken to failure, but where are the studies comparing occlusion to normal high reps to failure?

High reps to failure not worth it.
Occlusion fatigues slow twitch fibers quickly because lack of O2, therefor fast twitch fibers recruits earlier in set. Without occlusion slow twitch fibers gets an oxigane on rests between reps and not fatigued or got fatigued much slowly

then what about higher load to failure? And I don’t see why going to failure without occlusion wouldn’t work.. sure it would take a long time and it is kind of inconvenient, but if you want to look at the effects of occlusion and not just going to failure it pretty much has to be done.

I could think on couple of reasons why high reps to failure with occlusion works better then just regular high reps sets
1) fast twitch fibers recruits earlier and got much longer load time
2) metabolic accumulation

but does it work better? has it been tested? (with proper regular high rep sets, IE, to failure)

Fast twitch will get recruited earlier but you will also fail quicker with occlusion, so will the load time for the fast twitch fibers be longer?

I wonder if we can associate the study-http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php?URL=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2011.221200/abstract in this discussion. In this case a low load to failure was used but with a training protocol of slower cadence and multiple sets may simulate a occlusive environment. In a way, I view this training as a form of constant contraction but with movement, perhaps “active” isometrics.

We also have the study, http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2011/05001/The_Influence_Training_Load_and_Volume_on_Anabolic.167.aspx where higher and lower(higher number of reps) loads to failure produced similar results.

near60lifter - 28 November 2011 09:42 PM

I wonder if we can associate the study-http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php?URL=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2011.221200/abstract in this discussion. In this case a low load to failure was used but with a training protocol of slower cadence and multiple sets may simulate a occlusive environment. In a way, I view this training as a form of constant contraction but with movement, perhaps “active” isometrics.

We also have the study, http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2011/05001/The_Influence_Training_Load_and_Volume_on_Anabolic.167.aspx where higher and lower(higher number of reps) loads to failure produced similar results.

About the first one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2011.221200/abstract
Do you know how they ‘work-matched’ the control group with the SLOW group? Did the control group go to failure with the same weight (30%) as the SLOW group? We maybe could associate it a bit if they did.

I believe that study was work-matched.

near60lifter - 28 November 2011 11:23 PM

I believe that study was work-matched.

Yes, I know, but how?

I actually e-mailed Phillips this very question. His response was-No Fred, not to failure – it was a work-matched control group. If we had worked them to failure they would’ve done more work, which would’ve confounded the interpretation.

studies without occlusion:
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training
regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones

high reps group got much worse results then low/intermediate group

also I remember about some study checking MPS after exercise and found that get a higher response in 65-75% from 1RM, can’t remember the title

edit:
the second is:
Kumar V, Selby A, Rankin D, Patel R, Atherton P, Hildebrandt W, Williams J, Smith K, Seynnes O, Hiscock N, Rennie MJ. Age-related differences in the dose-response of muscle protein synthesis to resistance exercise in young and old men

near60lifter - 28 November 2011 11:49 PM

I actually e-mailed Phillips this very question. His response was-No Fred, not to failure – it was a work-matched control group. If we had worked them to failure they would’ve done more work, which would’ve confounded the interpretation.

I feel that in this case the interpretation is still confounded. It is not clear if the result were because of increased TUT, increased fibre exhaustion or even increased occlusion.

One of his theory is that load (and probably total work) does not matter as much for hypertrophy as effort and TUT do. So why can’t he just increase the load like they did in the second study posted? Or include occlusion at the same load as the slow group and high rep group, so that TUT changes? (TUT would change when occlusion is aplied, right?) Or involve a group that just holds the weight for one very long rep (at the end of a set maybe)?

I am sure he has his well-thought-out reasons (I need to read the full text for this) and I know it is very difficult to separate fibre exhaustion and TUT, but this study is just too open for interpretation. If someone can find a way to separate the two it’s Phillips. I really hope it is even possible, else TUT becomes an empty concept.

PS: How about doing multible sets with very little rest in between in which the load stays unchanged for all sets for one group (low total TUT, but with fibre exhaustion) and in the other group the load is adjusted to increase TUT (by reps or slow movement)? Again, though, load will not be the same. Damn it….this is hard….

To give some credit to Dr Phillip, they worded their results pretty carefully” these results suggest that the time the muscle is under tension during exercise may be important in optimizing muscle growth”

It is a hard one to study, isn’t it!

Some of our questions may be answered with the study that is presently under review and is to published later.