The Fall of The Greatest Theory of Muscle Growth
- 06-03-2010, 01:04 AM
Multi joint exercises work.
Shizz's quote is right. We who workout with multi joint exercises experience the benefits they provide.
We are here arguing about multi-joint exercises yet lets not forget that the article said NOTHING about multi-joint exercises being useless... it simply said the hormone spike they provide does not cause muscle hypertrophy or strength increase.
So before all of us give up on squats and deads.. let's remember this article had nothing to do with squats and deads. It only had to do with the hormone spikes that these exercises give us.
Great points have been made for & against the article.
It's just so damn hard to believe that exercise induced spike in hormones is useless for bodybuilding....
- 06-03-2010, 03:24 AM
06-03-2010, 09:53 AM
I have more but it is time for work.
06-03-2010, 10:42 AM
1. Testoterone definitely increases muscle. But those are injections at supra physiological levels which changes the resting levels. Workout induced test spikes are minuscule and only last for 15-30 minutes and do not change the resting levels
06-03-2010, 01:59 PM
06-05-2010, 12:17 PM
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.
06-05-2010, 02:08 PM
06-05-2010, 02:18 PM
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.
06-05-2010, 09:38 PM
06-06-2010, 06:43 AM
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?
06-06-2010, 10:50 AM
Or in other words, if he so chooses this as his goal, Joe Bloggs biceps can get big without squats.
06-06-2010, 01:18 PM
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---
06-06-2010, 01:44 PM
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.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.
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.
06-06-2010, 04:22 PM
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.
06-06-2010, 05:45 PM
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.
06-06-2010, 10:29 PM
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
- By Dahollow in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 05-13-2011, 02:40 PM
- By bbphato in forum SupplementsReplies: 38Last Post: 06-12-2009, 01:55 PM
- By TeaEhRoar in forum Training ForumReplies: 5Last Post: 04-22-2009, 07:03 PM
- By noctorum in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 08-24-2005, 10:03 AM
- By Beelzebub in forum AnabolicsReplies: 22Last Post: 07-21-2005, 12:18 PM