Guest viewing is limited

opinions on frequency of training chest

gidemon

Banned
I was just wanting to know everyones opinin on how often gets trained or needs to be trained for optimal results while avoiding atrophy issues.i know alot of people train chest once a week and some twice a week and so on.im about to start a new split to focus on shoulders seperately for instance and im wondering can chest growth still be made by only being hit one time a week?
 
absolutely.. depending on your recovery time, once a week may be all you need. I personally train chest 2x a week
 
Once a week for mass,

Twice a week for power lifting

Light and explosive followed 3 days later by heavy and low rep
 
edwitt said:
Once a week for mass,

Twice a week for power lifting
Click to expand...

Twice a week is for mass too, I cant see why powerlifting would have more frequency when its more intense than BBing.
Typically the lower the reps the higher the intensity the more CNS strain and the more time you need for strength and joints to recover.
 
ItsHectic said:
Twice a week is for mass too, I cant see why powerlifting would have more frequency when its more intense than BBing.
Typically the lower the reps the higher the intensity the more CNS strain and the more time you need for strength and joints to recover.
Click to expand...

x2

powerlifting would have less frequency than a bodybuilding routine for a given individual
 
If you find your sweet spot you can train twice per week. Just make sure you have some days intbetween. It's all about total volume. For example, I get better results doing 6-7 total reps twice per week than I would if I just did 12 total reps on one day.
 
Once a week.. At least have 5 days in-between chest lift. IMO, my chest has responded nicely in the size and strength dpt..
 
I do chest twice a week.

Once on Monday, and again on Thursday.

I do sets of ten for both days not counting some variation.
I've seen great size and strength gains from this.
 
Lets just say doing chest twice a week gives better results than once a week.

Wouldnt this make your chest grow faster than your back and legs, and even make your shoulders day harder to perform?
 
The more times you train a muscle weekly the more you'll be growing it. A lifter training chest once a week will be growing his chest 52 times a year, a lifter training chest twice a week will be growing his chest 104 times a year.
 
Sweekaters said:
The more times you train a muscle weekly the more you'll be growing it. A lifter training chest once a week will be growing his chest 52 times a year, a lifter training chest twice a week will be growing his chest 104 times a year.
Click to expand...

that depends bro..

if a person is able to recover in 2 or 3 days then yes, twice a week would benefit them more but if that same person needs 4 or 5 days to recover and is still training with the 2 days a week freqency, theyre gonna be overtraining and it will only be counterproductive= small and weak pecs
 
bezoe said:
that depends bro..

if a person is able to recover in 2 or 3 days then yes, twice a week would benefit them more but if that same person needs 4 or 5 days to recover and is still training with the 2 days a week freqency, theyre gonna be overtraining and it will only be counterproductive= small and weak pecs
Click to expand...

Obviously it's limited by your recovery, that's why any program that has you training 2x a weeks usually has you doing very low volume. High frequency low volume is the basis of DC training and a lot of other BB routines. Trying to train high volume 2x a week and you will definitely be killing yourself.
 
i personally train once a week per body part. chest/back/legs/off/shoulders/arms/off usually in that order so that by the time i get to arm day my bi's and tri's are fresh again. and my shoulders are fresh after 2 days of rest from the chest and back earlier in the week.

this is just what works for me though, and i have seen great improvements in the way my chest has developed

truth be told i used to work my chest 3 times a week cause i had no idea what i was doing (when i was 17)
 
Sweekaters said:
Obviously it's limited by your recovery, that's why any program that has you training 2x a weeks usually has you doing very low volume. High frequency low volume is the basis of DC training and a lot of other BB routines. Trying to train high volume 2x a week and you will definitely be killing yourself.
Click to expand...

i guess it depends on what you consider "low" and "high" volume.. i wonder what the marginal difference is between tearing your fibers down maximally and let them rebuild once a week and tearing them down minimally and let them rebuild twice a week.. interesting argument. Can you post some of the rationale behind this concept?

nevertheless, i train chest 2x a week at what i consider moderate to high volume both days.. i try to fry my pecs each session with about 8 sets to failure, but then again, my recovery time is impeccable- like 2.5 days :bigok:
 
bezoe said:
i guess it depends on what you consider "low" and "high" volume.. i wonder what the marginal difference is between tearing your fibers down maximally and let them rebuild once a week and tearing them down minimally and let them rebuild twice a week.. interesting argument. Can you post some of the rationale behind this concept?

nevertheless, i train chest 2x a week at what i consider moderate to high volume both days.. i try to fry my pecs each session with about 8 sets to failure, but then again, my recovery time is impeccable- like 2.5 days :bigok:
Click to expand...

Really you should be aiming to fatigue your muscles maximally even if you are training 2x a week. The idea that a muscle needs a full week to recover is absurd in my opinion, only bodybuilders on anabolics can make it work well. The rationale behind low volume is to save your central nervous system from overtraining, not your muscle. Muscle can be rebuilt quickly, so the higher the frequency your body allows you to train with, the more often you will be forcing the muscle to grow.
 
Its a matter of intensity and seeing what is failing at failure. Or even if you are going to failure.

I can train chest 3x/week and still get growth as long as its relatively high reps (10-12 range) and not to failure - stopping a rep or two early. Even with the rest between sets fairly low, I can hit this through the week without overtraining.

Conversely, if I do something really intense - maybe a 5x5 or 8x8 followed by 3-4 sets of eccentric focused training or forced negative, then I can't training chest for 5-7 days. I'm just too busted up and I can't handle the poundage.

There is also something to be said about watching you total systemic load for the week. Doing a heavy chest workout and then a 8x8 of deads the next day and a 20x20 of squats later in the week won't leave much for recovery.

Sleep and eating is a bigger factor. If you are getting 8-10+ hrs a night then training 2x a week might work. Under 6 - probably not. Everyone varies but that seems to be how its working for me. Diet wise - as long as I'm on non-processed whole foods, my recovery time seems much better. It essentially shaves one day of recovery off my heavy workouts.
 
bezoe said:
i guess it depends on what you consider "low" and "high" volume.. i wonder what the marginal difference is between tearing your fibers down maximally and let them rebuild once a week and tearing them down minimally and let them rebuild twice a week.. interesting argument. Can you post some of the rationale behind this concept?

nevertheless, i train chest 2x a week at what i consider moderate to high volume both days.. i try to fry my pecs each session with about 8 sets to failure, but then again, my recovery time is impeccable- like 2.5 days :bigok:
Click to expand...

8 sets to failure would be low/moderate volume in my book. I consider high volume to be 20-30 sets (per bodypart) in a workout.

As for the growth question - there are more components to muscle growth than fiber breakdown and satellite cell repair. High volume work helps with capillary expansion and growth so you get a non-traumatic form of growth on that coupled with some fiber damage (but significantly less than a higher intensity workout.)

Look at something like Eric Broser's P/RR/S program - you train different growth factors each week.
 
Sweekaters said:
Really you should be aiming to fatigue your muscles maximally even if you are training 2x a week. The idea that a muscle needs a full week to recover is absurd in my opinion, only bodybuilders on anabolics can make it work well. The rationale behind low volume is to save your central nervous system from overtraining, not your muscle. Muscle can be rebuilt quickly, so the higher the frequency your body allows you to train with, the more often you will be forcing the muscle to grow.
Click to expand...

why would bodybuilders on anabolics train less than they normally would and need a full week to recover? that statement seems ass backwards to me

you contradicted yourself saying to fatigue your muscles maximally but then in your last post stated that low volume is the way to go. Im not exactly sure what low volume is considered to be (weight/reps/sets), but how in the world are you gonna adequately recruit enough muscle fibers to induce growth?


Sweekaters said:
so the higher the frequency your body allows you to train with, the more often you will be forcing the muscle to grow.
Click to expand...

IMO, youre doing your body a diservice by training with less intensity/volume in order to train more frequently
 
UGHQTempus said:
Its a matter of intensity and seeing what is failing at failure. Or even if you are going to failure.

I can train chest 3x/week and still get growth as long as its relatively high reps (10-12 range) and not to failure - stopping a rep or two early. Even with the rest between sets fairly low, I can hit this through the week without overtraining.

Conversely, if I do something really intense - maybe a 5x5 or 8x8 followed by 3-4 sets of eccentric focused training or forced negative, then I can't training chest for 5-7 days. I'm just too busted up and I can't handle the poundage.

There is also something to be said about watching you total systemic load for the week. Doing a heavy chest workout and then a 8x8 of deads the next day and a 20x20 of squats later in the week won't leave much for recovery.

Sleep and eating is a bigger factor. If you are getting 8-10+ hrs a night then training 2x a week might work. Under 6 - probably not. Everyone varies but that seems to be how its working for me. Diet wise - as long as I'm on non-processed whole foods, my recovery time seems much better. It essentially shaves one day of recovery off my heavy workouts.
Click to expand...

then youre not achieving progressive overload/wolfs principle... i cant imagine your lifts going up at all this way

and yes i understand the CNS and systemic recovery which is why you have to listen to your body and identify any signs of nervous system fatigue like appetite and chronic lethargy
 
UGHQTempus said:
8 sets to failure would be low/moderate volume in my book. I consider high volume to be 20-30 sets (per bodypart) in a workout.

As for the growth question - there are more components to muscle growth than fiber breakdown and satellite cell repair. High volume work helps with capillary expansion and growth so you get a non-traumatic form of growth on that coupled with some fiber damage (but significantly less than a higher intensity workout.)

Look at something like Eric Broser's P/RR/S program - you train different growth factors each week.
Click to expand...

20-30 sets per muscle group is ridiculous, but if youre not going to failure then i expect you can pull this off

im aware of hypertrophy of a muscle belly by stretching the perimysium or fascia surrounding the muscle as a secondary form of growth... i integrate a couple of high rep sets in my workout- doing 12-15 reps after 6 or so HEAVY sets. I do this twice a week.

Ill check out that program thanks
 
bezoe said:
20-30 sets per muscle group is ridiculous, but if youre not going to failure then i expect you can pull this off

im aware of hypertrophy of a muscle belly by stretching the perimysium or fascia surrounding the muscle as a secondary form of growth... i integrate a couple of high rep sets in my workout- doing 12-15 reps after 6 or so HEAVY sets. I do this twice a week.

Ill check out that program thanks
Click to expand...


Most of the programs I've seen touted run 20+ sets per body part. Many of the people I see in the gym attempt to do the same.

For some reason this seems to be the standard chest day in my area:
Flat BB bench - 3-5 working sets
Incline BB bench - 3-5 working sets
Decline BB bench - 3-5 working sets
Flat DB bench - 3-5 working sets
Pec deck - 2-3 working sets
Cable crossovers - 2-3 working sets
Pullovers - 2 sets


Usually those are pyramided up. I have a hard time telling the working set when I'm glancing at people but thats just because they get so much partner help.

And the really special guys run the whole set of gear - all 3 benches, 5 hammer strengths and then a smith workout or two. And then some pec deck and cable work. And, no aren't growing and they aren't too big to start with.

I'm just saying that 20+ sets per body part is what most people consider the floor for a high volume workout.
 
UGHQTempus said:
And the really special guys run the whole set of gear - all 3 benches, 5 hammer strengths and then a smith workout or two. And then some pec deck and cable work. And, no aren't growing and they aren't too big to start with.
Click to expand...

yea i hear you on this.. thats far more than is needed

sorry i thought you said YOU ran 20-30 sets per body part
 
bezoe said:
why would bodybuilders on anabolics train less than they normally would and need a full week to recover? that statement seems ass backwards to me

you contradicted yourself saying to fatigue your muscles maximally but then in your last post stated that low volume is the way to go. Im not exactly sure what low volume is considered to be (weight/reps/sets), but how in the world are you gonna adequately recruit enough muscle fibers to induce growth?

IMO, youre doing your body a diservice by training with less intensity/volume in order to train more frequently
Click to expand...

It is ass backwards. I'm saying that they get away with it because of the large amount of drugs they take, I'm not saying it's optimal.
To train the muscles maximally with low volume, you need to increase the intensity. The number one thing you should be trying to do if you want to add mass is to get stronger, low volume / high intensity / high frequency is one of the best ways to do this. Here's an exrx article about low volume training that has a lot of good information:
htt p://ww w.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html
Basically it says that more than one set yields greater strength gain, but only a marginal amount, and that greater gains can be made by training just one or two sets more frequently.
 
Well what is said by certain coaches and what has been shown by science, is that anabolics just potentiate the anabolic effect, it doesnt increase recovery time hence doesnt have much to do with frequency.

The proposed reason typical training atm is: beginners 3x week, intermediate 2x week and advanced 1x week, is that your muscles adapt to more weight but not your CNS, as your weight increases the more strain there is on the CNS which it doesnt learn to deal with as well, so a beginner benching 20kg 3x10 is going to be able to do that again 2 days later where as an advanced lifter on roids is not going to be able to bench to failure and then do it again 2 days later.
I am not saying this is fact but just saying its some peoples reasoning, Bryan Hay**** about the 1st paragraph and Dorian Yates on frequency.

And just to clarify something, intensity means how close to failure or beyond failure you train, it has no direct relation to load or sets or reps.
 
ItsHectic said:
Well what is said by certain coaches and what has been shown by science, is that anabolics just potentiate the anabolic effect, it doesnt increase recovery time hence doesnt have much to do with frequency.

The proposed reason typical training atm is: beginners 3x week, intermediate 2x week and advanced 1x week, is that your muscles adapt to more weight but not your CNS, as your weight increases the more strain there is on the CNS which it doesnt learn to deal with as well, so a beginner benching 20kg 3x10 is going to be able to do that again 2 days later where as an advanced lifter on roids is not going to be able to bench to failure and then do it again 2 days later.
I am not saying this is fact but just saying its some peoples reasoning, Bryan Hay**** about the 1st paragraph and Dorian Yates on frequency.

And just to clarify something, intensity means how close to failure or beyond failure you train, it has no direct relation to load or sets or reps.
Click to expand...

in my post i meant by training with less intensity or volume you'd be limiting your gains. It inadvertantly sounded like i meant volume and intensity were synonymous, which im aware theyre not.

i saw the same video with dorian telling those guys in the gym about recovery and how an advance lifter needs more time becasue hes using more weight and stressing the cns more..

i know that AAS stimulate the central nervous system but im not sure how much they allow it to recuperate. Im gonna do some more research on this but in the meantime ill listen to my body and take a day or two off if needed
 
There needs to be a lot more research, in fact 2 things which science is clueless about is muscle protein synthesis past 72hours, and I think the cause of delayed muscle onset soreness.

I recently had ****ty gains on HST so I am back on a 2day split, until more is known, I think rather than considering CNS recovery as something to work around(HST training) for muscle growth it needs to be viewed as the primary limiting factor perhaps.

In the meantime I consider optimal frequency as high as possible that you can get away with while still being able to train to failure but not beyond failure or short of it.
 
yea ive heard two theories about DOMS, both from what i thought were credibile sources (and may be, just with different clinical findings): 1. microtrauma/tears of the sarcomere and 2. lactic acid build up

i agree, i think a person should train at a pace where they can make a net strength/size gain over a lengthy period, say 6-8 weeks. If it doesnt happen, they should consider altering a number of factors like intensity, frequency, volume, rest/sleep, diet and adjust accordingly..

to the OP, youll just have to use trial and error bro. If youre not getting stronger or bigger (gains will come more slower the more advanced you are because youre farther away from homeostasis and closer to your genetic limit), then somethin in your plan needs to be tweaked

its taken me 2+ years to find out what works and im still not sure if its the most optimal
 
1. Protein synthesis in trained usually return back to basal levels with 36 hours, maybe even less.
2. There is a limit to protein synthesis no matter how many sets or weight you use.

So the greater frequency with moderate intensity seems to be better.

You can change exercises the second day to relive some peripheral fatigue or do lighter weights for the same exercise.
 
anoopbal said:
1. Protein synthesis in trained usually return back to basal levels with 36 hours, maybe even less.
2. There is a limit to protein synthesis no matter how many sets or weight you use.

So the greater frequency with moderate intensity seems to be better. You can change exercises the second day to relive some peripheral fatigue or do lighter weights for the same exercise.
Click to expand...

high intensity workouts, ie, heavy lifts initiate a release of growth hormone. You should lift heavy at least part time
 
GH responds best with moderate load ( 10RM) and short rest periods (<1min).This is related to the glycolytic connection of GH. Occlusion training with very light weights shows very high GH response. Anyway, injections of GH hasn't done much for muscle growth, at least in studies.
 
anoopbal said:
GH responds best with moderate load ( 10RM) and short rest periods (<1min).This is related to the glycolytic connection of GH. Occlusion training with very light weights shows very high GH response. Anyway, injections of GH hasn't done much for muscle growth, at least in studies.
Click to expand...

Can you post a study showing how GH release is best with moderate weight?

How is occlusion training relevant? im surely not wrapping a tourniquate on my arms while lifting lol

And your'e telling me HGH injections arent effective for growth? hahaha

I think i did a quick google search and found the exact article with no scientific evidence you got all this info from
 
Sweekaters said:
It is ass backwards. I'm saying that they get away with it because of the large amount of drugs they take, I'm not saying it's optimal.
To train the muscles maximally with low volume, you need to increase the intensity. The number one thing you should be trying to do if you want to add mass is to get stronger, low volume / high intensity / high frequency is one of the best ways to do this. Here's an exrx article about low volume training that has a lot of good information:
htt p://ww w.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html
Basically it says that more than one set yields greater strength gain, but only a marginal amount, and that greater gains can be made by training just one or two sets more frequently.
Click to expand...

reps for posting the link

Btw im gonna give DC a try.. actually started tonight. Did chest, tris, back, forearms, shoulders. Its pretty tough lol... gonna see how it feels and test the theory for myself.
 
bezoe said:
Can you post a study showing how GH release is best with moderate weight?

How is occlusion training relevant? im surely not wrapping a tourniquate on my arms while lifting lol

And your'e telling me HGH injections arent effective for growth? hahaha

I think i did a quick google search and found the exact article with no scientific evidence you got all this info from
Click to expand...

This from a review: I can post more.

Moderate- to high-intensity, high-volume programmes using short rest periods have shown the greatest acute GH response compared with conventional strength or power training using high loads low
repetitions and long rest intervals in men.[29,30]

Hakkinen and Pakarinen[33] reported that 20 sets of 1RM in the squat only produced a slight increase GH, whereas a substantial increase in GH was observed following ten sets of ten repetitions with 70% . Hoffman et al.[101] compared a low-intensity, higher volume protocol (15 repetitions squat with 60% of 1RM) to a high-intensity, low- volume protocol (four repetitions of the squat 90% of 1RM) and reported a significantly higher GH response with the higher-volume protocol.

I mentioned occlusion to say that GH response is highly influenced by the metabolic properties of the muscle. Occlusion uses very light weights ( 20-40%) 1Rm but still shows very high GH release.

I said studies which shown injections of GH have shown no increase in muscle growth like testosterone has shown. It is mostly fat loss and increase in connective tissue.

Which is that article you saw in google?
 
the article was regarding occlusion training and mentioned something about how GH has recently been shown ineffective... but it gave no sources. No, you got me.The excerpts you put up i have never seen.

good info. I think were misinterpreting the word moderate. 10 reps to failure i consider heavy.
 
anoopbal said:
This from a review: I can post more.

Moderate- to high-intensity, high-volume programmes using short rest periods have shown the greatest acute GH response compared with conventional strength or power training using high loads low
repetitions and long rest intervals in men.[29,30]

Hakkinen and Pakarinen[33] reported that 20 sets of 1RM in the squat only produced a slight increase GH, whereas a substantial increase in GH was observed following ten sets of ten repetitions with 70% . Hoffman et al.[101] compared a low-intensity, higher volume protocol (15 repetitions squat with 60% of 1RM) to a high-intensity, low- volume protocol (four repetitions of the squat 90% of 1RM) and reported a significantly higher GH response with the higher-volume protocol.

I mentioned occlusion to say that GH response is highly influenced by the metabolic properties of the muscle. Occlusion uses very light weights ( 20-40%) 1Rm but still shows very high GH release.

I said studies which shown injections of GH have shown no increase in muscle growth like testosterone has shown. It is mostly fat loss and increase in connective tissue.

Which is that article you saw in google?
Click to expand...


"Research" like this is so suspect that I hate even discussing it.

How large was the sample size? What was the average age? Average time training with resistance? Min and max time?

How was the 1RM calculated?

What does a 5x5 show? How about an 8x8? What about exercises besides squating? How does modulating the rest period influence things? What was the rep cadence? Did they pause/lock out at the top or bottom? How deep was the squat? How does changing those variables affect this? How many of these guys were on AAS? Other supps? When was the blood test taken?

Does frequency change things- do you get the same GH boost if you did the 10x10 every day for 30 days?

How does adding eccentric focus reps change things? Forced negatives? Training to failure? Preexhaust?

What was the warm up like? What % bodyweight was their 1RM (ie. how "trained" were these guys?)

This isn't ****ing research. This is a random snap shot of some dudes lifting and getting a blood test.

As far as I'm concerned this could be 5 70 yr out guys squating 10 lbs for a 10x10 or 100 24 yr olds doing 700lbs for 10x10.

This data is a ****ing joke. Post the full source and give data on the sample group or STFU.
 
All good questions. Here is the review:

Hormonal Responses and Adaptations to Resistance Exercise and Training
William J. Kraemer1,2 and Nicholas A. Ratamess3
Sports Med 2005; 35 (4): 339-361
 
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 text
 
Full text:

Invalid Link Removed

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%.

Details matter.
 
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.
 
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 :deal:)
 
bezoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heavy is relative. There is no minimum recorded weights to be lifted for GH release.

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.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much common in research.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

And there is lot more studies on GH than what you just found when you skimmed

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 :deal:)
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
bezoe said:
reps for posting the link

Btw im gonna give DC a try.. actually started tonight. Did chest, tris, back, forearms, shoulders. Its pretty tough lol... gonna see how it feels and test the theory for myself.
Click to expand...
i just did a 6 week blast for my first time dc training and made some great strength gains..i did have a problem with my biceps not getting enough time for recovery..weds bicep workout was never fully recovered for fridays back width and thickness were biceps basically get hit again doing back...so i learned my minimum and optimal recovery time required for my biceps...my bench,shoulder presses and squats shot up impressively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top