The Fall of The Greatest Theory of Muscle Growth

[ItsHectic]

Very interesting read, I am sure the squats and milk crowd are gonna be spitting out their milk as they read this.

The Fall of The Greatest Theory of Muscle Growth | Exercise Biology
Article quoted a few posts down.

 

[gamer2be08]

That is real interesting.. Wont spit out my milk though haha... I know people that dont squat and are huge.

 

[Killerkanadia]

Someone quote the article for me please, for some reason it won't open

 

[gamer2be08]

The Fall of The Greatest Theory of Muscle Growth
Beginner | May 09 2010
The recent study was the final nail in the coffin for one of the greatest theories of muscle growth-the hormone theory - proposed by the prominent researcher William J Kramer.

What is the hormone theory of muscle growth?
Growth & Development: Hormones like testosterone, growth hormone, & IGF-1 are important for growth & development.

Injection of hormones: Injection of hormone,s especially testosterone has shown increase strength and muscle mass while suppression of testosterone has shown to decrease in muscle mass & strength.

Acute Increase after exercise: These same hormones are elevated acutely after resistance training. The magnitude of increase depends on rest times between sets, the weight used and so on.

For example, the large rises in these hormones are observed after high intensity exercises with short rest periods using big muscle groups (multi-joint exercises).

Based on the above hormone hypothesis , it is assumed that

1. Exercise induced muscle growth is primarily due to an acute increase in these hormones.
2. Hence workouts should mainly use multi joint exercises with short rest periods to raise the hormone levels.
3. Small exercising muscle groups (e.g., biceps), which are incapable of causing large increases in anabolic hormones when used in isolation, should be trained concurrently with large exercising muscle masses like squats or leg press that can elevate testosterone and GH.

The fall of the hormone hypothesis
Local factors in muscle growth: The recent discovery of local factors like MGF,muscle IGF-1 showed that it is local factors that are mainly responsible for muscle growth and not systemic hormones.

The discovery of these local factors, which are found inside the muscle, showed why muscle growth is specific to the exercised muscle. If systemic hormone were indeed responsible, you would have seen an increase in muscle growth in the non-exercised muscle too.

No effect of GH administration: Injection of high doses growth hormone to raise resting levels resulted in little increase in muscle growth or strength.

So the benefits of these tiny spikes in GH after exercise which do not even change the resting levels are questionable.

Unilateral exercises: Increase in muscle growth has been observed with unilateral exercises like biceps curl without any increases in systemic hormones.

For example, unilateral exercise like biceps curl and leg extensions which do not cause a spike in systemic hormones have shown to increase muscle growth and strength.

No Increase in protein synthesis: There was no significant increase in protein synthesis due to an acute increase in systemic hormones after the workout.

BUT the question can these spikes in systemic hormones play a small role if not a major role in muscle growth which might have been overlooked in the above studies . All the above were indirect studies until the recent study.

What was the study design?
Twelve healthy untrained young men trained their biceps independently for 15 wk on separate days.
In one training condition, participants performed isolated biceps curl exercise designed to maintain basal hormone levels.
In the other training condition, participants performed identical biceps curls followed immediately by a high volume of leg resistance exercise to elicit a large increase in these hormones .
If the hormone hypothesis were true, the biceps curl plus leg pres group should see greater muscle growth & strength, right.

What were the results of the study
Unfortunately, at the end of 15 weeks there was no significant difference between groups in strength, muscle cross sectional area, & Type 1 or Type 2 fiber area.

Simply put, the increase in testosterone, growth hormone or IGF-1after your workout do not help in muscle growth/strength.This study was the final nail in the coffin and clearly drops the curtain on one of the best known theories of muscle growth .

Practical Applications
Don’t perform multi-joint exercise like deadlifts, squats, 20 resp squats or leg press for the sake of increasing hormones.
Don’t keep rest times short or perform high intensity workouts for the purpose of raising hormone levels.
If your trainer says the program works by increasing hormones, send this article to him
Reference 1

Tweet & Share It:

 

[chocolatemilk]

I never work with the article itself in debating issues but its sources..

This was it's source..

Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors

Daniel W.D. West1, Nicholas A. Burd1, Jason E. Tang1, Daniel R. Moore1, Aaron W. Staples2, Andrew M. Holwerda1, Steven K. Baker1, and Stuart M. Phillips1*
1 McMaster University
2 Exercise Metabolism Research Group
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].

The aim of our study was to determine whether resistance exercise-induced elevations in endogenous hormones enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy with training. Twelve healthy young men (21.8 ± 1.2 y, BMI = 23.1 ± 0.6 kg.m-2) independently trained their elbow flexors for 15 weeks on separate days and under different hormonal milieu. In one training condition, participants performed isolated arm curl exercise designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (low hormone, LH); in the other training condition, participants performed identical arm exercise to the LH condition followed immediately by a high volume of leg resistance exercise to elicit a large increase in endogenous hormones (High Hormone, HH). There was no elevation in serum growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) or testosterone after the LH protocol, but significant (P < 0.001) elevations in these hormones immediately and 15 and 30 min after the HH protocol. The hormone responses elicited by each respective exercise protocol late in the training period were similar to the response elicited early in the training period indicating that a divergent post-exercise hormone response was maintained over the training period. Muscle cross-sectional area increased by 12% in LH and 10% in HH (P < 0.001) with no difference between conditions (condition x training interaction, P = 0.25). Similarly, type I (P < 0.01) and type II (P < 0.001) muscle fiber CSA increased with training with no effect of hormone elevation in the HH condition. Strength increased in both arms but the increase was not different between the LH and HH conditions. We conclude that exposure of loaded muscle to acute exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to the site for the full article in PDF too long to post in here. That is just the abstract^^

Do any minds see any flaws with this research?

 

[bigdave]

i think the study was too short especially for the small increases of test and gh that happen naturally . we know exercise illicits those effects of increasing test and gh sytemically. so the study is basically saying that test and gh dont effect specific muscles systemically, which make no sense for me cuz we know taking test or gh systemically increases all muscles not just those injected (however igf-1 seems to make certain bodyparts bigger). and seriously they tested the biceps for muscle growth in 16 weeks, however much an arm could have grown would mostly be dependant on genetics and not wether someone did "high volume" leg exercises, esp considering the time period of growing is so short. juss my 2 cents

 

[ItsHectic]

I think the study has some weight, I wish they used more subjects for a longer time, 6 months would of been nice. But they have been doing studies on GH exogenously in physiological doses lately and it only improved sprint ability albeit significantly and not mass so there are other studies supporting this one.
Its not saying squats are useless for bodybuilding apart from leg mass, they are still great for BF% but what really needs to be done is either a longer study or a study with superphysiological doses of GH.
Keep in mind I dont think it was just an arm circumference measurement they did so according to the theory this should of elicited a different outcome.

 

[Nitrox]

I think that the key take away from the article is that there are multiple factors in muscle growth and that optimizing one at the exclusion of the other is unlikely to yield any advantage. For example all the people that worry about carbs blunting GH production and limiting gains...

 

[sethroberts]

I think that the key take away from the article is that there are multiple factors in muscle growth and that optimizing one at the exclusion of the other is unlikely to yield any advantage. For example all the people that worry about carbs blunting GH production and limiting gains...

This ^

I think people get too caught up in broscience and make up all kinds of crazy rules and complications that ultimately limit their progress.

 

[BoundToSteel]

Kinda hard to raise your t levels when you've already got so much on board I think it was a decent study, but doesn't really change anything. I think most of us will agree compound exercises, short rest periods and higher intensity will yeild better results. But the article had some great info. And I have heard some people say that doing compound exercises will generate higher t levels. MYTHBUSTED! Lol

 

[chocolatemilk]

Kinda hard to raise your t levels when you've already got so much on board I think it was a decent study, but doesn't really change anything. I think most of us will agree compound exercises, short rest periods and higher intensity will yeild better results. But the article had some great info. And I have heard some people say that doing compound exercises will generate higher t levels. MYTHBUSTED! Lol

Boundto you read it wrong brotha. There was a big increase in endogenous hormones for the group doing bicep curls + leg workouts. Increase in GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Mythproved!

The point was that this increase in hormones should yield bigger bicep gains to the group also doing squats. However, there was the same gains made in the bicep by both groups. This showed that squatting (or ultimately raising hormone levels) was not necessary to make bicep gains like some people say "if you don't squat, you won't get big."

Here is the ultimate conclusion of the study:

"exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men."

The elevation of hormones like GH, IGF-1, and testesterone does not enhance muscle hypertrophy nor strength? Wtf? This just doesn't click. Am I missing something? Why do we use steroids then to induce muscle hypertrophy and increase strength when this study says the increase in hormones won't do s***.

Something is just not clicking here, I mean people us exogenous hormones like steroids to get big fast, yet raising our endogenous hormones doesn't get us bigger faster? What's the point of using steroids if the increase in hormones doesn't lead to better gains--which we know it does! And this study shows it doesn't! WTF IS HAPPENING, MY HEADS GONNA BLOW.. AHHHHH

 

[ItsHectic]

Something is just not clicking here, I mean people us exogenous hormones like steroids to get big fast, yet raising our endogenous hormones doesn't get us bigger faster? What's the point of using steroids if the increase in hormones doesn't lead to better gains--which we know it does! And this study shows it doesn't! WTF IS HAPPENING, MY HEADS GONNA BLOW.. AHHHHH

Your muscles have GH and T receptors, quads are a big muscle hence the significant rise in GH and T from them, but the body is doing so in order to reach homoeostasis because the muscle is soaking it up, so whatever rise of hormones is happening is just getting used up by the legs. Either that or the study wasnt long enough.

 

[Nitrox]

Your muscles have GH and T receptors, quads are a big muscle hence the significant rise in GH and T from them, but the body is doing so in order to reach homoeostasis because the muscle is soaking it up, so whatever rise of hormones is happening is just getting used up by the legs. Either that or the study wasnt long enough.

Not to mention that taking aas can result in T levels 2-3x normal levels whereas exercise induced T increases are a fraction of that. Apples to oranges.

 

[chocolatemilk]

So the natural increase of endogenous hormones is so minuscule it doesn't cause any muscle hypertrophy or strength increase? That still doesn't make sense. If hormones in high numbers build muscle, then hormones in small numbers should build muscle at a smaller rate. The hormones job doesn't change depending on their numbers.

How did the group with higher hormone levels receive the the same gains in their bicep as the group with lower hormone levels?

Hectic are you saying.. The group that did both bicep curls and squats ended up having more endogenous hormones. However, overall hormone levels were raised and the hormones were distributed to the biceps AND legs. This means that the group who was working out only biceps, received the same amount of hormones in their bicep as the group working out bicep and squats which had an "overall" increase in hormones. So the legs hogged up all the hormones and gave the group doing bicep and squats the same amount of hormones in the bicep as the group doing only biceps?

 

[votum]

Can't get the article form my computer, but does the study show how much weight was used and how many reps and sets were done with the curls and squats?

I've only been working hard for 2 months, and I am doing a full body workout with almost no isolation. Squats deads and bench are my main lifts every other day. I don't know about the horomones making your muscles grow on their own, but I sure do know from experience that doing squats or dead lifts will cause most muscles in your body to grow...My back and shoulders are starting to outpace my chest and arms right now, but my chest and arms are still growing a decent amount...

Does anyone really do big compound lifts solely for the purpouse of increasing hormone levels anyway? I mean I squat and dead because they are so effective, not because it will make my biceps bigger

 

[BoundToSteel]

Boundto you read it wrong brotha. There was a big increase in endogenous hormones for the group doing bicep curls + leg workouts. Increase in GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Mythproved!

The point was that this increase in hormones should yield bigger bicep gains to the group also doing squats. However, there was the same gains made in the bicep by both groups. This showed that squatting (or ultimately raising hormone levels) was not necessary to make bicep gains like some people say "if you don't squat, you won't get big."

Here is the ultimate conclusion of the study:

"exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men."

The elevation of hormones like GH, IGF-1, and testesterone does not enhance muscle hypertrophy nor strength? Wtf? This just doesn't click. Am I missing something? Why do we use steroids then to induce muscle hypertrophy and increase strength when this study says the increase in hormones won't do s***.

Something is just not clicking here, I mean people us exogenous hormones like steroids to get big fast, yet raising our endogenous hormones doesn't get us bigger faster? What's the point of using steroids if the increase in hormones doesn't lead to better gains--which we know it does! And this study shows it doesn't! WTF IS HAPPENING, MY HEADS GONNA BLOW.. AHHHHH

Oh I must have skimmed through it and read it wrong... Ooops!

 

[VolcomX311]

As a general rule, a single antithesis to a common or even an uncommon rule doesn't rule out the legitimacy of the rule. There are multiple studies that conflict back & forth. Generally speaking, what makes a theory stand, are years of re-administration of the same theory until one outcome outweighs the other by a significant margin.

I'm not making an opinion on this particular test, just stating a general rule when referencing studies. Short of the common laws of physics, most theories have a tested antithesis, particularly in the human body, where personal genetics of participants aren't a measurable or controllable variable.... yet (not to mention eating, sleeping, experience, stress related cortisol levels, people who lie on their intakes...etc.)

 

[Nitrox]

As a general rule, a single antithesis to a common or even an uncommon rule doesn't rule out the legitimacy of the rule. There are multiple studies that conflict back & forth. Generally speaking, what makes a theory stand, are years of re-administration of the same theory until one outcome outweighs the other by a significant margin.

I'm not making an opinion on this particular test, just stating a general rule when referencing studies. Short of the common laws of physics, most theories have a tested antithesis, particularly in the human body, where personal genetics of participants aren't a measurable or controllable variable.... yet (not to mention eating, sleeping, experience, stress related cortisol levels, people who lie on their intakes...etc.)

Amen

 

[shizz702]

I don't really get what this study proves, or is trying to prove.

But the bottom line is heavy squats, and heavy deadlifts work! And to say don't perform them for the sake or increasing hormones is redundant, who does anything with the purpose of specifically increasing hormones anyway?

This field has become so bombarded with futile bs it boggles the mind! It has become over analyzed and overcomplicated beyond repair.

It all boils down to simply putting together a routine that works for the individual, and adding progressive poundages while lifting in good form, and satisfying the eating and sleeping requirements.

 

[hardknock]

Boundto you read it wrong brotha. There was a big increase in endogenous hormones for the group doing bicep curls + leg workouts. Increase in GH, IGF-1, and testosterone. Mythproved!

The point was that this increase in hormones should yield bigger bicep gains to the group also doing squats. However, there was the same gains made in the bicep by both groups. This showed that squatting (or ultimately raising hormone levels) was not necessary to make bicep gains like some people say "if you don't squat, you won't get big."

Here is the ultimate conclusion of the study:

"exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men."

The elevation of hormones like GH, IGF-1, and testesterone does not enhance muscle hypertrophy nor strength? Wtf? This just doesn't click. Am I missing something? Why do we use steroids then to induce muscle hypertrophy and increase strength when this study says the increase in hormones won't do s***.

Something is just not clicking here, I mean people us exogenous hormones like steroids to get big fast, yet raising our endogenous hormones doesn't get us bigger faster? What's the point of using steroids if the increase in hormones doesn't lead to better gains--which we know it does! And this study shows it doesn't! WTF IS HAPPENING, MY HEADS GONNA BLOW.. AHHHHH

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.

 

[hardknock]

Your muscles have GH and T receptors, quads are a big muscle hence the significant rise in GH and T from them, but the body is doing so in order to reach homoeostasis because the muscle is soaking it up, so whatever rise of hormones is happening is just getting used up by the legs. Either that or the study wasnt long enough.

This article was nearly hogwash, end of story.

 

[hardknock]

So the natural increase of endogenous hormones is so minuscule it doesn't cause any muscle hypertrophy or strength increase? That still doesn't make sense. If hormones in high numbers build muscle, then hormones in small numbers should build muscle at a smaller rate. The hormones job doesn't change depending on their numbers.

How did the group with higher hormone levels receive the the same gains in their bicep as the group with lower hormone levels?

Hectic are you saying.. The group that did both bicep curls and squats ended up having more endogenous hormones. However, overall hormone levels were raised and the hormones were distributed to the biceps AND legs. This means that the group who was working out only biceps, received the same amount of hormones in their bicep as the group working out bicep and squats which had an "overall" increase in hormones. So the legs hogged up all the hormones and gave the group doing bicep and squats the same amount of hormones in the bicep as the group doing only biceps?

Your thinking is correct in challenging the legitimacy of this article.

Ok, I will start a person out on leg presses, dead lifts and squats with say 100lbs, and have them do 20lb db curls then have another group abstain from leg presses, squats or dead-lifts and have them then perform 20-50lb db curls. This sounds like something which these "scientist" may have done.

 

[anoopbal]

Thanks for linking the article and starting a discussion.

I will address some of the good questions:

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

2. The study had a 2 day gap between training days. This is enough for preventing any systemic effect overlap on the non exercised arm since the acute spikes do not last for more than 30 minutes.

3. This is the third study from the group, apart from others studies, which questions this hypothesis. And they all came out against it. So there is multiple lines of evidence to debunk this myth I think.

4. Multi joint exercises might be working due to to other reasons. So don't throw out multi-joint exercises because the study says hormone increases does nothing.

Anoop

 

[shizz702]

This article and thread reminds me of a quote that went something like: "A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with a theory."

 

[shizz702]

Lol and now that I think about it, these were supposedly untrained men, therefore their leg press weights were probably paltry.

Have them train for a while and get strong on it and start leg pressing 700+ lbs (or better yet squatting or deadlifting 400+ lbs) and we'll see if there's an increase in hypertrophy or not compared to just curling.

 

[chocolatemilk]

4. Multi joint exercises might be working due to to other reasons. So don't throw out multi-joint exercises because the study says hormone increases does nothing.

Anoop

This is true.

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....

 

[votum]

This is true.

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....

Maybe the horomone spike is useless, and its the MAGIC increase from doing multi-joints that really works.

Deadlifts have worked wonders for my back these past few weeks...I mean my back is outpacing the rest of my body so fast..

 

[hardknock]

Thanks for linking the article and starting a discussion.

I will address some of the good questions:

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

2. The study had a 2 day gap between training days. This is enough for preventing any systemic effect overlap on the non exercised arm since the acute spikes do not last for more than 30 minutes.

3. This is the third study from the group, apart from others studies, which questions this hypothesis. And they all came out against it. So there is multiple lines of evidence to debunk this myth I think.

4. Multi joint exercises might be working due to to other reasons. So don't throw out multi-joint exercises because the study says hormone increases does nothing.

Anoop

Not so sure how that number 1 works by your logic. If that were the case then 18 year olds wouldn't or couldn't develop muscle mass quicker than 40 yr olds, more so, 42 yr olds should be able to produce muscle mass at the same rate as a 15-21 yr old.

I have more but it is time for work.

 

[marco wolf]

Not so sure how that number 1 works by your logic. If that were the case then 18 year olds wouldn't or couldn't develop muscle mass quicker than 40 yr olds, more so, 42 yr olds should be able to produce muscle mass at the same rate as a 15-21 yr old.

I have more but it is time for work.

Just clarifying what anoopbal stated, as it pertains to your statements above, hardknock. What you're talking about are "resting" levels. Resting levels of test definitely have an affect on muscle mass.

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

 

[hardknock]

Just clarifying what anoopbal stated, as it pertains to your statements above, hardknock. What you're talking about are "resting" levels. Resting levels of test definitely have an affect on muscle mass.

I understood him but I didn't have time to ask my question for clarification to make sure we were talking about the same matter (was going to my job). After I re-read his statement, I agree with what he said.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[chocolatemilk]

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.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[funkd0c]

There is a lot of hate going on in here.

 

[Pinky355]

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?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[hardknock]

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.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[hardknock]

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.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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?

 

[hardknock]

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.