opinions on frequency of training chest
- 07-28-2010, 10:54 AM
Excellent point UGHQtempus.
That data could be scewed just to justify your argument... However, im sure that studies within Sports Med journal are refereed and peer reviewed and would most likely eliminate many of those variables.
I searched but i couldnt find the full textSuffer now.. and live like a champion later.
- 07-28-2010, 03:13 PM
I don't doubt its peer reviewed but those are more methodology checks. Since there isn't an issue of placebo effect or normal supplement questions, the methodology is harder is discuss. _Most_ fitness/exercise research has this same problem. They aren't following people 24/7. Then don't know about your extra gym sessions, you extra cardio, the weekend volleyball tourney or whatever.
I just skimmed this whole thing and it looks like its just a meta-study comparing 11 (or so) other exercise protocols (from 9 studies) with respect to their T and GH changes.
So, again, if one study is looking at the elderly, one at young women, one at young untrained men and a few on various aged training lifters.... yeah. One more reason that I dislike meta analysis.
Most of the scientists looking into this are trying to understand the body by poking at it with a stick and seeing what happens. But there are too many variables that change when you change the subject groups and its very hard to extend causality. Even within a group things change. Lifting at 70% of 1RM when you max bench at 135 is very different that 70% when your 1RM is 800. Just look at how the westside method has changed their %s overtime to accommodate that little change - they dropped from 65-70% to 40%.
- 07-28-2010, 05:35 PM
All good points, but these are just common examples of good research, like minimizing extraneous variables, making sure your conclusions apply to the sample population, making groups randomized and so on. I can write a few more.Any grad student will be well aware of these, let alone researchers.
Kramer is on the big researchers in the exercise field. They know a little bit about research and how to write a review I would like to think.
Also according to Sackett who came up with evidence based medicine, Meta-analysis and reviews make up the top of the EBM pyramid and there is a good reason why docs first look at a meta-analysis and reviews when they practice an evidence based approach.
And evidence based approach means you look at the "best available evidence". You will never find ANY research in ANY field for your specific population based on your narrow set of criteria. That's even true for cancer research - the most funded field in the world.
07-28-2010, 09:31 PM
i agree with tempus on the matter of variable 1 RM for different individuals. Maybe the untrained subject isnt lifting enough total weight to produce a rise in GH levels, thus affecting the conclusive evidence in the study.
These exercise science experiments should narrow the subject selection criteria to a point where it is pertinent to the study. They should use exclusion criteria such as if an individual is deficient of T or GH, they cant participate.
Im no statistics expert, but im familiar with scientific studies, especially exercise related topics (hence my program of study). I skimmed the text as well, and it is indeed a compilation of various studies' conclusions... which doesnt reveal to me the control groups' information and demographics. The GH section cited a study that used 10 untrained women- not relavant to my interests here.
I still honor anoopbal's tenacity and persistance by posting this material. (We are in the same predicament in another thread... except the subject is my specialty )
Suffer now.. and live like a champion later.
08-03-2010, 07:10 AM
That's pretty much common in research.These exercise science experiments should narrow the subject selection criteria to a point where it is pertinent to the study. They should use exclusion criteria such as if an individual is deficient of T or GH, they cant participate.
A review is classified as Type 1 evidence because it is a collection of RCT's and other studies which is the highest for the research evdince classifications.Im no statistics expert, but im familiar with scientific studies, especially exercise related topics (hence my program of study). I skimmed the text as well, and it is indeed a compilation of various studies' conclusions... which doesnt reveal to me the control groups' information and demographics. The GH section cited a study that used 10 untrained women- not relavant to my interests here.
And there is lot more studies on GH than what you just found when you skimmed
Thanks.I still honor anoopbal's tenacity and persistance by posting this material. (We are in the same predicament in another thread... except the subject is my specialty )
08-03-2010, 06:53 PM
I read nearly every study out there on the hormonal response to resistance training when doing my thesis. Here is a very general summary of what is known at this time:
1) Nearly all form of heavy resistance training (10 rep max or less) will elicit an increase in testosterone concentrations. For GH concentrations ~10 reps with short rest periods seems to optimize the response. Any actual increase in the output of these hormones is highly questionable. Most of the increase can be explained by plasma volume shifts. The tissues get exposed to a higher concentration of hormones nonetheless.
2) The increase hormone concentrations are short-lived and are almost always back to baseline within a hour of training.
3) The acute hormone response to resistance exercise in men is similar no matter the age or training status of the subjects even if the actual hormone values are different. In other words, even though older subjects have a lower baseline hormone level the magnitude of increase is similar to younger subjects. Many of the Hakkinen studies actually used very well trained national level olympic weightlifters.
4) Almost every study shows that resistance training doesn't increase baseline chronic levels of testosterone or GH.
5) It is still very, very, very debatable whether these acute increases in hormone concentrations with exercise actually make any significant difference in the adaptive response to training.
6) Obviously no study can control every possible variable, but all the avaiable information suggests that the acute response to resistance exercise is very similar in men across a variety of ages and training status.
08-04-2010, 09:38 PM
08-04-2010, 09:41 PM
I did my work on the effects of carbohydrate ingestion after resistance exercise and examined the insulin, glucose, and testosterone responses after exercise and at rest.
08-07-2010, 07:27 PM
I think one clue about how big of a difference the exercise induced increase in hgh/etc makes, is that guys injecting HGH at many times their natural production capability generally say it takes about 6 months to see a big change. You'll be making a tiny fraction of that difference. Will it add up? Probably. Is it a huge difference? Not at all.
03-09-2011, 01:08 AM
03-15-2011, 05:07 PM
03-16-2011, 07:45 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By tryingharder in forum Training ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 06-24-2008, 05:51 PM
- By bolt10 in forum Training ForumReplies: 3Last Post: 02-22-2008, 12:15 AM
- By Landmonster in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 7Last Post: 06-01-2006, 07:12 PM
- By o-dub in forum Training ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 05-20-2005, 11:07 AM
- By iron addict in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 9Last Post: 09-25-2003, 06:25 PM