That is real interesting.. Wont spit out my milk though haha... I know people that dont squat and are huge.
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.
That is real interesting.. Wont spit out my milk though haha... I know people that dont squat and are huge.
Someone quote the article for me please, for some reason it won't open
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 .
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
Tweet & Share It:
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@example.com.
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?
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
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.
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...
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
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
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?
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 o.O
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.)
NSCA - CSCS
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.
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.
So if a majority of our research studies are financed by large corporations, then where does that leave us? Do not take research findings as "gospel".