in eric cressy’s recent article he mentioned that muscle hypoxia is a stimulus for growth. i recall hearing this before but really dont understand this at all. can anyone shed some light on this please?
[quote]biggyboy wrote:
in eric cressy’s recent article he mentioned that muscle hypoxia is a stimulus for growth. i recall hearing this before but really dont understand this at all. can anyone shed some light on this please?[/quote]
Building muscle is ANAEROBIC. That means it is done without the presence of oxygen which is why lactic acid builds up. I wouldn’t ever use the word “hypoxia” to describe this situation because it pulls the wrong mental image even though “technically” it is correct.
Just to add (though I haven’t read his article), science is still not completely sure what is at the base of the stimulus for muscle growth. We know for a fact that heavy weight and lots of calories seems to build muscle mass…but it doesn’t explain studies that show SEDENTARY PEOPLE who gain weight also gain muscle. It doesn’t explain some steroid studies showing increases muscle growth in the legs with no added resistance training. In other words, we don’t have it all figured out yet…NO ONE DOES.
Therefore, to make a statement that “hypoxia is a stimulus for growth” is a little over the top. It is one of the things involved in many instances where muscle growth is the subsequent event, but to say it is THE stimulus is a little much.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
biggyboy wrote:
in eric cressy’s recent article he mentioned that muscle hypoxia is a stimulus for growth. i recall hearing this before but really dont understand this at all. can anyone shed some light on this please?
Building muscle is ANAEROBIC. That means it is done without the presence of oxygen which is why lactic acid builds up. I wouldn’t ever use the word “hypoxia” to describe this situation because it pulls the wrong mental image even though “technically” it is correct. [/quote]
I was going to start holding my breath.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
biggyboy wrote:
in eric cressy’s recent article he mentioned that muscle hypoxia is a stimulus for growth. i recall hearing this before but really dont understand this at all. can anyone shed some light on this please?
Building muscle is ANAEROBIC. That means it is done without the presence of oxygen which is why lactic acid builds up. I wouldn’t ever use the word “hypoxia” to describe this situation because it pulls the wrong mental image even though “technically” it is correct.
I was going to start holding my breath.[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(Doesn’t work, by the way. Not that I’ve tried it or anything!)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I was going to start holding my breath.[/quote]
You know, that might actually help improve anaerobic endurance. Maybe something to do with your body having less oxygen, so it might make the switch from anerobic to aerobic (which obviously is not a distinct switch, but a transition over time) a little later.
I dunno, any validity there?
When I was an undergrad, I came across a study where the protocol was to constrict the blood vessels with an elastic band a la junkie just after a 10 reps bout of exercising. Leg extension if I remember correctly. The diminished blood flow post-exercise did induce a form of hypoxia, and the results were that after the experiment, those in the hypoxia group had a greater hypertrophy than those exercising normally.
See Zap, the trick is to cause local hypoxia, but that particular protocol might arouse a few suspicion in the gym
[quote]Zen warrior wrote:
When I was an undergrad, I came across a study where the protocol was to constrict the blood vessels with an elastic band a la junkie just after a 10 reps bout of exercising. Leg extension if I remember correctly. The diminished blood flow post-exercise did induce a form of hypoxia, and the results were that after the experiment, those in the hypoxia group had a greater hypertrophy than those exercising normally.
See Zap, the trick is to cause local hypoxia, but that particular protocol might arouse a few suspicion in the gym[/quote]
I’ve seen similier studies, and the results seemed rather significant. Though risk vs. reward seemed to be an issue
I have only heard about this in swimming, where instead of taking one breath per stroke, you take several strokes per breath. This brings up your heart rate pretty damn fast.
I was going to do some neck training and this looks like the key. Thanks for the post
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, to make a statement that “hypoxia is a stimulus for growth” is a little over the top. It is one of the things involved in many instances where muscle growth is the subsequent event, but to say it is THE stimulus is a little much. [/quote]
That’s not what he said. Here’s what he said:
“You can hypertrophy a muscle from any sort of heavy loading and hypoxia”
I don’t see anything to argue about here Prof X. He didn’t say those were the only things you could do to create hypertrophy, he just said those two things can hypertrophy a muscle.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Therefore, to make a statement that “hypoxia is a stimulus for growth” is a little over the top. It is one of the things involved in many instances where muscle growth is the subsequent event, but to say it is THE stimulus is a little much.
That’s not what he said. Here’s what he said:
“You can hypertrophy a muscle from any sort of heavy loading and hypoxia”
I don’t see anything to argue about here Prof X. He didn’t say those were the only things you could do to create hypertrophy, he just said those two things can hypertrophy a muscle.[/quote]
Dude, I wrote in my response that I had not read his article and that I was basing my response on what the OP wrote. That means, what are YOU arguing about?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Therefore, to make a statement that “hypoxia is a stimulus for growth” is a little over the top. It is one of the things involved in many instances where muscle growth is the subsequent event, but to say it is THE stimulus is a little much.
That’s not what he said. Here’s what he said:
“You can hypertrophy a muscle from any sort of heavy loading and hypoxia”
I don’t see anything to argue about here Prof X. He didn’t say those were the only things you could do to create hypertrophy, he just said those two things can hypertrophy a muscle.
Dude, I wrote in my response that I had not read his article and that I was basing my response on what the OP wrote. That means, what are YOU arguing about? [/quote]
My inability to read 
I got swole off of autoerotic asphyxiation.
I don’t know anything about using hypoxic methods to induce more hypertrophy, but I have read about holding one’s breath while exercising being used to bring up endurance in sprinters.
The basic protocol was to run as fast as you can, as far as you can, on one breath and stop when you need to breath. This was supposed to help with endurance in the 200/400 meter events. I haven’t tried it yet, but it seems like a good idea to me.
RJ
[quote]RJ24 wrote:
I don’t know anything about using hypoxic methods to induce more hypertrophy, but I have read about holding one’s breath while exercising being used to bring up endurance in sprinters.
The basic protocol was to run as fast as you can, as far as you can, on one breath and stop when you need to breath. This was supposed to help with endurance in the 200/400 meter events. I haven’t tried it yet, but it seems like a good idea to me.
RJ[/quote]
That’s along the lines of what I was thinking…
I could see hypertrophy being benefited; more stress on the energetical elements. Of course, we all know that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy doesn’t exist…