Stop fearing cortisol

[ZiR RED]

Seriously. Stop. Training induced cortisol is a good thing.

Take a look, cortisol was associated with changes in type II fiber CSA and LBM.

It may actually be the link between why people gain muscle signficantly faster when they are on hormones and training vs. just on hormones.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Jul;112(7):2693-702. Epub 2011 Nov 22.

[h=1]Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training.[/h]West DW, Phillips SM.
[h=3]Source[/h]Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.

[h=3]Abstract[/h]The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between acute exercise-induced hormone responses and adaptations to high intensity resistance training in a large cohort (n = 56) of young men. Acute post-exercise serum growth hormone (GH), free testosterone (fT), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and cortisol responses were determined following an acute intense leg resistance exercise routine at the midpoint of a 12-week resistance exercise training study. Acute hormonal responses were correlated with gains in lean body mass (LBM), muscle fibre cross-sectional area (CSA) and leg press strength. There were no significant correlations between the exercise-induced elevations (area under the curve-AUC) of GH, fT and IGF-1 and gains in LBM or leg press strength. Significant correlations were found for cortisol, usually assumed to be a hormone indicative of catabolic drive, AUC with change in LBM (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) and type II fibre CSA (r = 0.35, P < 0.01) as well as GH AUC and gain in fibre area (type I: r = 0.36, P = 0.006; type II: r = 0.28, P = 0.04, but not lean mass). No correlations with strength were observed. We report that the acute exercise-induced systemic hormonal responses of cortisol and GH are weakly correlated with resistance training-induced changes in fibre CSA and LBM (cortisol only), but not with changes in strength.

Can we start to put a rest to the "you can't workout more than 1 hour because of cortisol" myth?

 

[napalm]

Lol, good find Jason...

 

[Jiigzz]

I agree with this, but just one question; i love LISS cardio, have done for years, running the dogs etc. should cortisol be controlled in this situation? This is what I tend to do, not to the point of limiting (need some for substrate catabolism) but to ensure not too much is floating in my blood stream when I dont want it.

Typically, my runs last ~1hr (10km/ 6.2 miles). Curious on your opinion.

 

[ZiR RED]

Well, consuming a carbohydrate/protein mixture an hour before you run and then eating afterwards will negate just about any effect cortisol would have on breaking down muscle tissue.
Also, if you are lifting that will also positively alter the T:C and GH:C levels.

I wouldn't concern yourself with it very much. The pace you are setting at your height/body weight does not sound very intense, and the duration is not excessive. Just eat and you'll be fine.

 

[Rodja]

Another gym from Wendler:

 

[ZiR RED]

For some reason student's down here aren't used to their professors swearing, or including videos with swears. I made the mistake of including a series of Wendler video's discussing how to squat and deadlift prior to the first strength and conditioning lab. It was amusing to see their faces

 

[Rodja]

For some reason student's down here aren't used to their professors swearing, or including videos with swears. I made the mistake of including a series of Wendler video's discussing how to squat and deadlift prior to the first strength and conditioning lab. It was amusing to see their faces

You can always tell when people haven't participated in sports above middle school.

 

[Torobestia]

Ok, I have some questions.The paper put the individuals into 3 groups that differed by their nutrition. They all followed the same exercise program. In the article, it states Cortisol was positively correlated with change in whole-body LBM (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) whereas GH, free testosterone and IGF-1 were not (Fig. 1). The data they give supports this. However, one thing that we see is that including cortisol control supplements in PCT after cycles seems to spare gains. As far as I know this is more anectodal, but it seems to happen so often that I would feel dishonest in trying to chalk that up as voodoo. I think there's something there. So cortisol in that environment (low T) is detrimental. The second concern is that lean mass gains were associated with raised cortisol but not IGF1, free test, or GH. I don't know too much about the hormonal responses to various training methods, but one could assume that the increased cortisol would be due to increased strain in the gym - that is, those who put forth more effort in their training spiked their cortisol, and so cortisol would be an indicator of effort and therefor not be causal for the gains they made. This paper does nothing to counter this argument, right?

 

[Torobestia]

Anabolic Minds is acting up again and not letting me space out paragraphs =\

 

[ZiR RED]

Ok, I have some questions.The paper put the individuals into 3 groups that differed by their nutrition. They all followed the same exercise program. In the article, it states Cortisol was positively correlated with change in whole-body LBM (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) whereas GH, free testosterone and IGF-1 were not (Fig. 1). The data they give supports this. However, one thing that we see is that including cortisol control supplements in PCT after cycles seems to spare gains. As far as I know this is more anectodal, but it seems to happen so often that I would feel dishonest in trying to chalk that up as voodoo. I think there's something there. So cortisol in that environment (low T) is detrimental. The second concern is that lean mass gains were associated with raised cortisol but not IGF1, free test, or GH. I don't know too much about the hormonal responses to various training methods, but one could assume that the increased cortisol would be due to increased strain in the gym - that is, those who put forth more effort in their training spiked their cortisol, and so cortisol would be an indicator of effort and therefor not be causal for the gains they made. This paper does nothing to counter this argument, right?

I was actually talking about this early today. When someone is on cycle they are gaining muscle rapidly, which the body actually sees as a threat. Remember, the organism strives to maintain homeostasis. I think as a consquence, or in defense of the threat to homoestasis, the counter is to increase muscle catabolism. This is why cortisol is elevated after a cycle, and probably one of the major reasons why most people do not keep 100% of their gains.

Br

 

[Jiigzz]

Its what I thought. I would never drop the run, but I wasnt sure if my T:C ratios and GH:C ratios would be affected. I tend to run once per day and lift 4-5days per week. Good to know my gains wont be affected, coz noone wants that

 

[Movin_weight]

Good post ZIR, I completely agree the whole cortisol misconception is so rampant on the boards. However, to throw a wrench into this discussion, what do you think about cortisol control with stimulant use? I tend to use alot of stimulant compounds throughout the day for work and research/studying etc... I also have noticed that when my stimulant usage increases, that even while cutting I tend to hold fat in the traditional stress areas such as the lower back and abdominal areas. I attribute this to the constant systemic increase in cortisol, which of course can have a negative impact on a variety of metabolic processes in the body. Any intelligent input is welcomed and encouraged.

 

[ZiR RED]

Good post ZIR, I completely agree the whole cortisol misconception is so rampant on the boards. However, to throw a wrench into this discussion, what do you think about cortisol control with stimulant use? I tend to use alot of stimulant compounds throughout the day for work and research/studying etc... I also have noticed that when my stimulant usage increases, that even while cutting I tend to hold fat in the traditional stress areas such as the lower back and abdominal areas. I attribute this to the constant systemic increase in cortisol, which of course can have a negative impact on a variety of metabolic processes in the body. Any intelligent input is welcomed and encouraged.

That's an interesting thought. I am a big coffee drinker myself, and under a lot of stress and pressure as a first year faculty, so you're speaking my language.

From what I understand, stress induced cortisol increases the storage of fat viscerally.

This is a good review of factors that regulate SAT vs. VAT:
http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/21/6/697.full.pdf

Now, I am not sure if it is the increased cortisol production, or the increased activity of 11HSD1, which basically recycles cortisol from cortisone and amplifies its action in the liver and adipose tissue, that contributes to the increase in stress induced fat deposits. If the latter, then looking into 11HSD1 inhibitors may be more useful and effective than trying to inhibit Cort secretion.

Here's a good read on 11HSD1
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/54/5/1364.full

Br

 

[Rodja]

My postulation is that environments like that are closer to the chronically elevated cortisol scenario than the spikes that come as a result of training. Again, pure speculation, but I would also assume that it would slightly lower test levels as a result of the slightly elevated cortisol levels.

Would there potentially be any T3/TSH implications from this as well since there is a relationship between all of them?