The Fall of The Greatest Theory of Muscle Growth

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by hardknock View Post
    With all due respect to the originator, the article was garbage and I agree with you that the whole concept of "testosterone does not enhance muscle hypertrophy" is total and utter trash.
    What that is saying is that by spiking test levels (whether natural or synthetic) you cannot assist your body in developing a more hypertrophied muscle; this is utterly ridiculous and is toeing on bush-league tactics to get some hair-brained theory over with the public.

    Also, I always figured the "theory" was that you cannot obtain an overall sizable body without squats and dead-lifts which is very much true. I have never seen a person who only did hamstring curls, bicep curls, leg extensions, and tri-cep presses that was stage ready.
    Can one get into "shape" doing that with a little jogging? Sure!
    Can one start looking as if they workout by doing that? Lower a little fat and look like they visit the gym? Sure!
    However, you will not gain your max in size nor strength, that is written in stone.
    Hm, I have - on multiple occasions. Including myself very recently, with another unfortunate tear to my left calf precluding me from doing compound, multi-joint exercises. So, not written in stone whatsoever.

    And I will give you a hero cookie if you can tell me why local autocrine growth factors in respectively worked muscles can be activated without systemic increases in endocrine hormones - i.e., why the study is valid on a physiological basis.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    autocrine growth factors
    WOW.. Nature never seizes to amaze me. I didn't even know any mechanisms like that existed. That's awesome!

    Can't say with 100% but that could very well be the mechanism of growth in the study for the bicep only group without a systemic rise in hormones.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemilk View Post
    WOW.. Nature never seizes to amaze me. I didn't even know any mechanisms like that existed. That's awesome!

    Can't say with 100% but that could very well be the mechanism of growth in the study for the bicep only group without a systemic rise in hormones.
    Who knows. But yes, skeletal muscle is able to differentiate, repair and regenerate based on intrinsic genetic programming - and this "carrying out" of this programming is largely dependent on a set of autocrine growth factors known as MR/GFs (myogenic regulatory/growth factors) such as MYoD and myogenin.

    While systemic hormone release has been shown to interact with these factors readily - including systemic IGFs - they are by and large locally regulated and activated. Or in other words, the expression of MRFs in the bicep, in this case, may or may not have been affected by a systemic increase in LH/T/IGF stimulated by resistance training in the legs.

  4. There is a lot of hate going on in here.
  5. Pinky355
    Pinky355's Avatar

    Alright so Joe bloggs biceps get as big as Percy the power lifters biceps just by doing curls. But can he lift 500lbs off the deck?
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Pinky355 View Post
    Alright so Joe bloggs biceps get as big as Percy the power lifters biceps just by doing curls. But can he lift 500lbs off the deck?
    I definitely understand what you are driving at, but I hesitate to say that was the purpose of the article or is the purpose of the discussion here. It was simply suggesting that systemic increases of endocrine hormones in response to multi-jointed resistance training do not play as a large a role in whole-body, skeletal muscle hypertrophy as we once thought they did.

    Or in other words, if he so chooses this as his goal, Joe Bloggs biceps can get big without squats.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Hm, I have - on multiple occasions. Including myself very recently, with another unfortunate tear to my left calf precluding me from doing compound, multi-joint exercises. So, not written in stone whatsoever.

    And I will give you a hero cookie if you can tell me why local autocrine growth factors in respectively worked muscles can be activated without systemic increases in endocrine hormones - i.e., why the study is valid on a physiological basis.
    To the last portion of your statement: I do not think that you read my following statement, no way that you could have. Because, due to my misreading of the poster anoopbal, I responded incorrectly. I then agreed with what he stated AFTER understanding his position.

    But the first part of your statement: You are saying that you have witnessed, many times, a bodybuilder perform at his/her top level, by not squatting or dead lifting? Also, you have seen power lifters gain maximum strength and size by not dead lifting nor squatting ...

    Now I am talking "NOT" as in never before in their existence. I am not saying "not" as in say several months or 2-3 years.
    ---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---

  8. Quote Originally Posted by hardknock View Post
    To the last portion of your statement: I do not think that you read my following statement, no way that you could have. Because, due to my misreading of the poster anoopbal, I responded incorrectly. I then agreed with what he stated AFTER understanding his position.

    But the first part of your statement: You are saying that you have witnessed, many times, a bodybuilder perform at his/her top level, by not squatting or dead lifting? Also, you have seen power lifters gain maximum strength and size by not dead lifting nor squatting ...

    Now I am talking "NOT" as in never before in their existence. I am not saying "not" as in say several months or 2-3 years.
    Where did I say power-lifter, though?

    figured the "theory" was that you cannot obtain an overall sizable body without squats and dead-lifts which is very much true. I have never seen a person who only did hamstring curls, bicep curls, leg extensions, and tri-cep presses that was stage ready.
    I claimed that I had seem people obtain an overall sizable body without squats and DLs. I gained nearly 12lbs of lean mass on more than one occasion on separate tears to my left calf; alternatively, there was a member on here and former moderator named "JBlaze," who never utilized squats and/or DLs and was hovering around 220 @ 8% with 18" arms at certain points of his lifting career.

    With that being said, you ought to pick a line of argument and follow it through. Melding "peak performance" with respect to strength with "obtaining an overall sizable" body are not one in the same - they are different arguments. We also need to qualify what constitutes "top level" and so on.

    You dismissed the idea of obtaining an "overall sizable" body without those multi-jointed exercises, and I disagreed.

  9. I was asking you a question when I stated power lifter. I was not claiming you stated it. I was asking in your opinion, so to speak.

    J also did leg presses I do think, unless I am thinking of someone else? Asking of your educated opinion, do you think Jb could have gained more size or more symmetry, contributing to a better overall body, had he performed squats and dead lifts?

    I have never competed and have been at 215-230 @ 16 per bf without touching a squat rack though once I did, I then got myself around 202 @ 9 per bf which was a hell of a lot more impressive, for me, than 230/16

    I have also did both and was totally out of shape and had heart issues abroad, so I'm not saying they are the ends to all means.

    As far as the argument goes, I responded to the article dismissing the fact that squats and dead lifts contribute to your overall mass, they do. I'm not sure why someone would try and prove that they don't.

    The rest was in response to the guy that, I thought, was saying that testosterone did not contribute to muscle gain.

    Anything else that someone may think I am responding to is a dead issue.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by hardknock View Post
    As far as the argument goes, I responded to the article dismissing the fact that squats and dead lifts contribute to your overall mass, they do. I'm not sure why someone would try and prove that they don't.
    This study is being lost in translation, me thinks. The article, as the title suggests, deals with "ostensibly anabolic hormones" induced by resistance training - i.e., systemic LH, GH, Testosterone and IGF. In turn, it is pointing out that local growth factors are as, if not more, important to local muscle growth. Nothing more or less.

    It is not saying that DLs/squats etc., cannot and do not contribute to size in the muscles they respectively work. The point of the article is this: if common adages that "squatting big gets you big" and so on are true, than they are true due to exercise-induced hormone release - again, a common adage - and this ought to be verifiable. According to the study, it was not.

    Now, the reason why the bicep was picked was because it is not directly involved in the exercise which induced the hormone release; but by the rubric of the "squat big, get big" adage, it ought to have increased in mass and strength as a result of these "ostensibly anabolic hormones." According to the study, it did not.

    This does not mean that squats are useless, or that testosterone is not anabolic, or anything silly thing - it is merely hypothesizing that the very transient and minimal increases in systemic endocrine hormones in response to resistance-training are not sufficient to cause growth in any other muscle than the muscle being worked.

    Nah' mean?

  11. I see that I should have made it clear that when I changed my opinion on the LAST PAGE that I was changing my direction of my statements.

    I have already agreed to what your direction is even before you first posted in the thread. I did that when anapool's post forced me to re-read the article. I then agreed with him and dismissed my opposition to the article. I am not saying i agree with it nor disagreeing, but I realized that my argument was not even parallel with the article to begin with.

    I only quoted you or responded to specifics in your earlier post. I was asking for you educated opinion but I think you may have taken it as if i was attacking your point.

    Had I more characters on my Treo, we probably would have figured this out 10 post ago.

    Text forums do justice for nothing ever.
    ---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Estrogren and muscle growth
    By Dahollow in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 03:40 PM
  2. best supplements for muscle growth
    By bbphato in forum Supplements
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 02:55 PM
  3. How to balnce muscle growth
    By TeaEhRoar in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 08:03 PM
  4. DNP and Muscle Growth
    By noctorum in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-24-2005, 11:03 AM
  5. Duchaine's theory of post-mediated growth
    By Beelzebub in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-21-2005, 01:18 PM
Log in
Log in