Squats, Hormones and Muscle Growth

[BendtheBar]

Triangle Buff Men envy? - Bodybuilding.com Forums

Regarding the study...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-2825

I am very skeptical about this study. We have no idea what the parameters were. Did these guys eat on a bulk diet? Probably no. Did they eat a massive meal post-workout? Probably no. Did they live for progression? Probably no. How many sets did they do for legs? Was it 4 sets of 8 reps, heaviest weight possible? Probably no.

I respect Lyle at Body Recomp, but he was quick to connect the dots on a study that most likely didn't mirror real life training and diet scenarios. This is really exposing his bias more then it is showing me convincing data.

Whatever way you slice it, the study revealed that there was more "free and total testosterone and IGF-1 with the peak occurring approximately 15 minutes after the leg work." I like that. Imagine the difference if they were trained by athletes and not scientists.

The squat impacts the entire body. My biceps strain because of heavy squatting. So, is the growth of my biceps from extra hormones or from the impact of the squat being taxing, full body? Who cares. It's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

I'll take the "testosterone in hand", thank you very much.

This also brings the debate back to...who's more right, the scientist or the man with real life, working experience of 20+ years?

Most of the classic lifters did full body work, and it stimulated the full body. They did far less direct work on smaller muscle groups then modern naturals, yet had impressive size. Heavy compounds lifts are good, regardless of the scientific angle.

"Is it hormones that cause the growth, or is it the full body stimulation that caused the growth?" I don't need a study to tell that my hormones are far more jacked after squats then wrist curls. Sheesh. Does this hormonal spike impact long term muscle growth? It sure can't hurt.

The primary issue I have with most lifting studies is that they aren't done with real-world training and diet. But nearly every routine/study uses "untrained" individuals. These people have piss poor form, and piss poor training guidance. Now if Dave Tate was training them, then I would take the data more seriously.

I knew that my hormones were elevated from squats. I didn't need a study to tell me that. Does that directly lead to more bicep muscle? Hmm, maybe it would if the study was done over 2 years, with a constant focus on progression of heavy weight, and a healthy, above maintenance caloric intake.

When I hear that squats DO cause a hormonal spike, I think:

A) That there MUST be a reason why the body spikes test, GH and IGF-1 after exercises like squats. The body doesn't do this for fun...or to be spontaneous, or wacky and crazy. It HAS a purpose.

B) This PURPOSE leads to more muscle and or strength. This purpose is a reaction to a training stress. The body is responding to an attack. It WILL be better suited to handle that attack the next time around.

Does this make sense? I hope so. Because the body sure isn't reacting hormonally for fun in an effort to confuse the scientists.

[Grim83]

i liked the answer BTB, we were on the same wavelength i think, and you can blame me for them throwing that crap out

my problem here is that it was unclear as to how they performed their tests (granted i didn't read the my comments section), all it said was that they had 12 participants perform 2 protocols on different days, and the study lasted 15weeks. While i would like to assume they split the group and then compared there was nothing stating this, so at best i have to assume that the study was null and void. Also one thing i would have loved to see instead was that they compared the effects of the arm only group to a fullbody (Only compounds) group, why well because the full body group would have been hitting the arm muscles with a heavier resistance granted the arms would no longer be prime movers.

[BendtheBar]

I saw your response. Good post. Most times these studies don't resemble any form of training that you or I do. It's like telling a cow to walk on two legs, and then declaring that the cow has poor balance.

[Grim83]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I saw your response. Good post. Most times these studies don't resemble any form of training that you or I do. It's like telling a cow to walk on two legs, and then declaring that the cow has poor balance.

exactly, this is why i rarely listen to the scientific findings, the way i see it i didn't need it 20ibs ago and i dont need it now

[BendtheBar]

The best way to deal with studies is to look at the all in a pile and try to search for common indicators. I know Casey's done this.

If you look at only one study, you have really no idea what's behind it.

[glwanabe]

This study does not prove anything to me, except that squats do increase hormorne production, as stated in the article.

As BTB said, there is no mention of progression scheme or of diet. It reads almost as if the they drew there own conclusions, and then conducted the experiment in such a fashion to prove their point. Without progression whats the point?

Quite frankly I shake my head at this type of science. At my age, according to most authoritys, I should be taking it easy and not pushing my intensity up. Maybe they would like to explain, how I'm able to keep upping my intensity using "old methods" that are supposedly out of date.

They refuse to believe when the history, and proof is right there in front of them. I guess all those guys from the 1940's and 50's are all just genetic freaks. I'll give you Grimek, Park, and Eder. However there are plenty of others who were by modern definitions, hardgainers. Those guys would be struggling just as hardgainers do today using the modern split system. The wholebody system worked for them, and is advocated today by many leading natural strength, and BB experts.

Wholebody training along with it's benefits is a complex method of training. It's far more complex in it's application than most people realize. It cannot just be jumped into. It is a total systemic approach that requires proper conditioning for it to work correctly.

I'll keep doing my squats 3x week, along with my wholebody workout. Which by the way, I only work arms for 2x6, 3x in two weeks. I measured my arms today.

Bicep 15.5"

Compared to Sept. 15th 15.25"

The majority of my work is all heavy compound moves.

Keep your data, I'll keep my results. Oh yea, I measured my thighs as well

From, 23.25" to 24.75" today. Like I said keep your data.


I know this topic isn't really about wholebody, I just kinda went off on a tangent there. Carry on.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

The best way to deal with studies is to look at the all in a pile and try to search for common indicators. I know Casey's done this.

If you look at only one study, you have really no idea what's behind it.

Funny BTB. I thought this study was a pile.

[big valsalva]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Keep your data, I'll keep my results.

Amen, brutha! Damn the "science," I want some proof, and you've certainly provided that...

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Oh yea, I measured my thighs as well

From, 23.25" to 24.75" today.

Wow! Very impressive, indeed.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by big valsalva

Amen, brutha! Damn the "science," I want some proof, and you've certainly provided that...



Wow! Very impressive, indeed.

I missed that. Great job home slice.

[glwanabe]

Thanks. The measurement that I didn't take at the beginning was my knee.
I'd be interested in seeing how much that has changed as well. I'll need to get that number and start tracking it. My neck is up to 16" from 15.5". Luckily, I don't wear a tie to often with my dress shirts.