Odd static training exercise?

[Simos]

I recently tried doing a static in a different way (must be a name for this but I don't know it): start with empty lung, hold as much as you can (or want), then take a bit of air in, hold again, take some more air in, hold again and basically keep going like this until your lungs are full and then hold for as long as you can. There is no exhaling at any point during the whole exercise.

When I did this, I noticed that I can hold for longer than normal static in this way - it certainly feels a lot easier. I can't get my head around why it would be easier than a normal static - couple of reasons I could think of:

1. Body conserves more oxygen as it spends more time in lower oxygen conc mode (by starting empty etc)

2. Mentally easier as you can sip a bit of air in when the hold gets tough

3. Body is more relaxed as there is less air in the lungs for most of the hold

It feels that I am missing something more important though. Any ideas? Is comparing hold times between a static and the above exercise like comparing apples and oranges?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[efattah]

This is called IHT (interval hypoxic training) from a name I coined in 2002 when I started doing that exercise. With an oximeter you can hold your oxygen saturation at a fixed level (say 72%) and train prolonged hypoxia, instead of hypoxia only at the end. Then you can repeat it again.

When you do an IHT-style static, you can hold your breath much longer, generally about 30-60 seconds longer than for a regular static. Mostly because you get a conservation response earlier, and have more comfortable, small lungs.

This exercise is excellent to train contractions, since you can get contractions the whole time, but they are not too bad since you pack 3 times every 10 seconds, which makes them not get too bad.

Packing a few times every 10 seconds is the best way to control the intake of air.

 

[efattah]

There is another reason why you can hold for longer. You get more air. In a normal static the lung volume shrinks during the static. With an IHT-style hold, you are allowed to keep filling up despite the shrinkage, meaning your total lung air volume is more.

 

[Simos]

Thanks a lot Eric!!! Your info confirms what I thought an you are right it is an excellent way to train hypoxia and contractions. I normally don't get contractions until late in my holds but this way I can get them as soon as 45s-1min into he hold. I did notice that contractions were milder, I could also control them by taking a bit of air in when they get stronger.

Interesting point about taking more air in, I hadn't considered/know that.

Shame though that it doesn't equate a static, I thought I had magically increased my static time by 1 min overnight
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Simos]

Also interestingly while I was doing it I did think that having an oxymeter would have been great for the reason you mentioned - will try to get my hands on one soon.

Do you think this exercise is similar to say doing 1 min empty hold, then one breath and 1 min empty hold and so on? He level of oxygen wouldn't be as constant but if I had an oxymeter I think I could adjust the hold time and amount of air accordingly to keep it roughly constant. The advantage of this over the previous exercise being that I could just keep it going for longer as opposed to until lungs are full. What do you think?

I supposed I could just do ihT and start again all over
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[trux]

I am not so sure about the bigger volume in this way. It is true that you consume some O2, and do not compensate all with CO2. First of all, the volume is not equal to the volume of O2 consumed (the bigger part does get replaced by CO2), so the volume loss is certainly a low sinlge-digit number in percent of the lung volume. But more importantly, when doing such series of breath-holds, with strong diving response, the lung volume decreases due to the blood-shift. Well with packing you'll probably manage to push some of the blood away from the pulmonary vessels, but still I suspect the effect will most likely negate the effect of volume loss due to the O2 consumption.

That told, I do not have any empiric data at hand to support the claim, but in any case, I think the difference in the total air intake in comparison to a normal breath-hold won't be too big. And I'd tell that in some cases it may be even smaller. For example at those with small lungs, but strong vasonstriction, or at those who do not pack, or pack inefficiently.

 

[Simos]

Hmmm - I don't pack and do probably have small lung volume

It did feel like I could take in more air when I was doing the exercise but for another reason: taking smaller 'sips' of air instead of one big breath at the beginning gives the opportunity to relax he chest, diaphragm etc more and direct the air into the various areas sequentially eg fill the lower part of the lungs first, then start filling the chest etc

I think being able to 'regulate' the O2 levels and keep them at a relatively constant low level throughout the hold is probably the main contributor to the longer hold.

I might try to start with completely empty lungs by unpacking next time and see if I can make the hold is even longer... (I had started with passive exhale)
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[wjohnson100]

the lung volume decreases because you put O2 into the blood from the lungs but the CO2 coming back from the body is much more soluble than O2 so builds up some and does not all end up in the lungs.

 

[trux]

Yes, we know that, but the point of my comment was that this loss of volume will be likely insignificant or perhaps inexistant due to the continuing vasoconstriction induced blood shift. In other words, the loss of gas volume due to O2 consumption may be smaller than the inner lung volume reduction by the bloodshift at such continuous breath-hold.

 

[wjohnson100]

Yea, the blood shift has some effect too. Not sure how to measure the effect of both factors. I expect the blood shift to have a much smaller effect on static apnea though. Also, if the blood shift was the major effect, you wouldn't feel a lower pressure on your chest wall during a static.

 

[trux]

I think you did not read the beginning of the thread. The topic discussed here is a "filling" breath-hold, where you begin with empty lungs, and then repeat several hold without exhaling, just inhaling a small amount each time. The DR is much quicker and much stronger than at a single long BH. The loss of O2 during a long breath-hold can make a diffrence of volume in the region of 500ml, while strong vasoconstriction induced blood-shift can easily make much more difference. The loss of volume due to O2 consumption simply won't make much place for bigger inhales. From experience I know that it is rather the oppsite case - I usally have problems to fill properly at the end if such filling apneas, or in case of other serial apneas with short recovery. Besides the blood shift, it can be also the contracted muscles that contribute to it.

 

[Simos]

I don't claim to know how the two effects measure against each other (loss of volume effect vs vasoconstriction effect) but it does feel to me that the reason you can hold for longer is not so much that more air is inhaled in total than the fact that somehow the hold is easier. Vasoconstriction is one of the effects for sure but also, I find this way of holding a lot more relaxing than filling up with air since the beginning of the hold.

Whatever the case might be it's an excellent and quite pleasant exercise for those like me who are a bit lazy and don't have much time

 

[Kars]

It sounds like an excellent exercise:

- It takes a short time to do.
- It has a long 'learning period' - meaning the time one has in state to find improvements.
- It is relatively comfortable.

Question: How are the CO2 levels in lungs and blood during the exercise?

I suspect that it's also easier because the CO2 stays also at around the same level.

Great thread, thanks Eric for the term Interval Hypoxic Training! How would you say this IHT strong and weak parts relate to Table B training?


Thanks!

Kars

 

[mattbigblue]

Herbert calls it Crazy Table.
You can do a series of 4-5 in a row, with 3-4 min rest, hyperventilation (to got lower o2 level)
I remember once I went down to 51% spo2 on my oximeter in the end of the hold, however I know it's not so reliable - just an aprox. image. Usually I go down to around 59%. Once again I know that value in the core is probably much higher, but anyway, it's a good exercise.

Comparing times, my best static time is 7:32 (wet), and best time in this exercise is 7:26 (dry).

p.s. it's been a year since I havn't done it

 

[efattah]

Trux,

I know the lung shrinkage is significant because I tested it in the following way:

I did a 6'05" static in the pool, with a significant weight belt. I was buoyant, floating at the surface. By the end of the static, I was on the bottom of the pool. I had lost so much buoyancy due to a reduction in air volume that the same weight belt was now taking me to the bottom of the pool....

If you consider that during pure O2 statics, the lung volume will fall by as much as half as the starting volume...

My experiment was on regular air, of course, but during O2 statics I feel an even much greater shrinkage.

 

[wjohnson100]

Pretty cool test, Eric. Hey did you get to use Ron Smith's Dol-Fin monofin? I heard you got one. What do you think?

Regards,

Walt

 

[trux]

Yes, Eric, it is a well known fact that the air volume shrinks due to the consumption of oxygen, where only part of it is replaced by CO2. I do not dispute that. I am telling that the lost air volume is to a great extent replaced by the blood rushing to lungs due to DR. The blood won't influence the buyancy (meaning you will indeed lose buyancy during the normal breathold), but it won't let you inhale significantly more (if at all) during the re-filling breathhold we discussed above.

 

[efattah]

Well, when I do max dry statics, I packed pretty full, so full that I cannot hold the air in my lungs. Instead, I leave my cheeks fully, painfully inflated. I have perhaps 400ml of air there. It usually takes 5 minutes of apnea before I am able to 'stuff' these 400ml of air into my lungs, due to shrinkage. Then, during the next 2-3 minutes, the air volume shrinks to a much more comfortable level. I think I could pack perhaps 500ml-600ml at the end of a long static if needed.

 

[efattah]

Pretty cool test, Eric. Hey did you get to use Ron Smith's Dol-Fin monofin? I heard you got one. What do you think?

Regards,

Walt

Yes, I have the DOL-Fin Orca. At Vertical Blue I did a 77.9m dive with it on the last day of the competition (check results). The dive was joke easy. I would have gone much deeper with it but I only began to learn the technique near the end of the competition. I have been using it a lot lately, I would say I like it more and more, but it takes a very long time to 'unlearn' traditional monofin technique. Each time I get in the water I have 'forgotten' the technique and it takes half an hour to get it back again. If I were severely narked at 100m+, I doubt I would be able to perform the correct technique, so I need many months of practice to master it.

 

[buddha]

Well, when I do max dry statics, I packed pretty full, so full that I cannot hold the air in my lungs. Instead, I leave my cheeks fully, painfully inflated. I have perhaps 400ml of air there. It usually takes 5 minutes of apnea before I am able to 'stuff' these 400ml of air into my lungs, due to shrinkage. Then, during the next 2-3 minutes, the air volume shrinks to a much more comfortable level. I think I could pack perhaps 500ml-600ml at the end of a long static if needed.

do you use a different approach during a maximum wet static?