15-04-2016, 09:46 PM
The second paper I’m sending, also the mouse model, goes to the issue of adipocyte recruitment as well. But here, the authors are interested in non-use of legs and the accumulation of fat on the lower body (wheel chair victims, older sedentary folks that sit tend to sit their backsides 
. The author's work uses static positive pull pressure force rather than vacuum, negative pressure, static forces. But it is the same absolute force, and creates identical results, as Khouri et al have argued often.
The paper takes a scientific look at 4 different degrees of pressures (whether it be negative or positive static tension pulls its the degree of static pull you want to focus upon); these are 3%, 6%, 9 % and 12%). The human equivalent of the static pressure envisioned is weight on your gluts while you are spending most of the day sitting: light, heavy heavier and heavier still. For Brava users, I translate this into light static suction at -15 mmHg, medium suction at -20 mmHg, more at -24-26 mmHg more still at 29-33 mmHg.
And if you see the graphs of the tissue cultures, you will note that 12% pull facilitates MUCH greater cell division and recruitment of lipid than does 9%, than does 6 % and then MUCH more than 3%. When they lump the first three in a single group to compare with the 3% static distractive forces, it is highly significant. NB: the cell division number in across the different pulls and the cell size across the differing pulls.
PLEASE DO REMEMBER, this paper is within the frame work of NON-Destructive Pulls (<12% pull). Above this, and the static pull is considered that too great a pull; the tissue will NOT have success in recruiting collagen because the tissue gets so thin that it tears before collagen fibers have a chance to form a scaffold.
So when we compare the paper of my last post and this paper AND the Schlenz/Kaider work, we might summarize as follows:
we have four variables that are key to Brava use:
1. the weeks of use [ more weeks, more volume of breast tissue ]
2. the hours of use [more hours, more volume of breast tissue]
3. the relative tension applied within a range of 15 mm HG, 20 mm Hg, 25 mm Hg, 29 mm Hg and 33-35% mmHg, represents 3 %, 6 %, 9 %, and 12 %, respectively.
4. the final one is the cycles (as suggested in paper 1). Cycles keeps the slight edema and inflammation working to engender collagen and other growth factor effects.
I guess all may be considered relevant when considering Brava use.
Any insights or comments are welcomed.
. The author's work uses static positive pull pressure force rather than vacuum, negative pressure, static forces. But it is the same absolute force, and creates identical results, as Khouri et al have argued often.The paper takes a scientific look at 4 different degrees of pressures (whether it be negative or positive static tension pulls its the degree of static pull you want to focus upon); these are 3%, 6%, 9 % and 12%). The human equivalent of the static pressure envisioned is weight on your gluts while you are spending most of the day sitting: light, heavy heavier and heavier still. For Brava users, I translate this into light static suction at -15 mmHg, medium suction at -20 mmHg, more at -24-26 mmHg more still at 29-33 mmHg.
And if you see the graphs of the tissue cultures, you will note that 12% pull facilitates MUCH greater cell division and recruitment of lipid than does 9%, than does 6 % and then MUCH more than 3%. When they lump the first three in a single group to compare with the 3% static distractive forces, it is highly significant. NB: the cell division number in across the different pulls and the cell size across the differing pulls.
PLEASE DO REMEMBER, this paper is within the frame work of NON-Destructive Pulls (<12% pull). Above this, and the static pull is considered that too great a pull; the tissue will NOT have success in recruiting collagen because the tissue gets so thin that it tears before collagen fibers have a chance to form a scaffold.
So when we compare the paper of my last post and this paper AND the Schlenz/Kaider work, we might summarize as follows:
we have four variables that are key to Brava use:
1. the weeks of use [ more weeks, more volume of breast tissue ]
2. the hours of use [more hours, more volume of breast tissue]
3. the relative tension applied within a range of 15 mm HG, 20 mm Hg, 25 mm Hg, 29 mm Hg and 33-35% mmHg, represents 3 %, 6 %, 9 %, and 12 %, respectively.
4. the final one is the cycles (as suggested in paper 1). Cycles keeps the slight edema and inflammation working to engender collagen and other growth factor effects.
I guess all may be considered relevant when considering Brava use.
Any insights or comments are welcomed.