Why does compound and leg weight lifting increase testosterone ?

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Certainly administration of additional exogenous growth hormone to non-deficient persons does not increase muscular hypertrophy but to say that growth hormone in general is not anabolic or has no, or little, input to muscular hypertrophy is misleading - it certainly has an indirect role (second quote):

Quote

In states of GH deficiency, reduced muscle mass and strength are characteristic findings which can be reversed successfully by the supplementation of GH. In contrast, the currently available data suggest that GH administration alone or in combination with strength exercise has little, if any, effect on muscle volume, strength and fibre composition in non-GH-deficient healthy young individuals.

Effects of Growth Hormone on Skeletal Muscle

Quote

Growth Hormone
Growth hormone (GH) is a peptide hormone that stimulates IGF in skeletal muscle, promoting satellite cell activation, proliferation and differentiation (9). However, the observed hypertrophic effects from the additional administration of GH, investigated in GH-treated groups doing resistance exercise, may be less credited with contractile protein increase and more attributable to fluid retention and accumulation of connective tissue (9).

Skeletal muscle hypertrophy

So yes, seeking to have more growth hormone than what is physiologically normal is unnecessary but likewise doing anything that blunts its secretion believing it has no input into hypertrophy would be a mistake:

Quote

<snip>
As its name suggests, growth hormone has largely been associated with the function of growth. For centuries scientists believed that puberty was a cut-off point, with human growth hormone (hGH) playing no part in growth or any other function after that. Recent evidence suggests, however, that human growth hormone (hGH) is involved in many physiological processes throughout life, including the turnover of muscle, bone and collagen, the regulation of fat metabolism and the maintenance of a healthier body composition in later life.
<snip>
A relatively recent discovery is the existence of growth hormone deficiency in adults (GHDA), which has shed further light on the function of this busy little hormone. People with GHDA have a relatively low muscle mass and high body fat, creating a tendency to obesity, an increased risk of heart disease and a greatly reduced exercsie capacity.
<snip>
Diet, exercise and sleep patterns all play a role in human growth hormone (hGH) secretion. Since the largest human growth hormone (hGH) surge in a normal day tends to occur around one hour after the onset of night-time sleep, it is vital for athletes to get plenty of it. If the quality of sleep is inadequate there will be a reduction in the volume of human growth hormone (hGH) secreted, with negative consequences for health and fitness.
<snip>
As far as diet is concerned, athletes are normally advised to ensure it is high in carbohydrate, which generally involves consuming foods with a higher glycaemic index (ie more sugary) immediately after exercise and the more starchy varieties of carbohydrates at most other times. As far as fluid intake is concerned, the standard advice is to drink carbohydrate-electrolyte (sports) drinks before, during and after exercise.

High-carb diets may be appropriate in many situations but, since hyperglycaemia (elevated blood carbohydrate) tends to switch off human growth hormone (hGH) secretion, this strategy may not be appropriate where optimal adaptation is the priority. Fat taken before exercise has also been found to reduce human growth hormone (hGH) secretion (2).

In full: Human Growth Hormone | hGH

[ATZ]

You've basically posted what I was trying to say but in a more succinct way Nu. People associate GH with muscle growth as they hear of assisted bodybuilders administering it, as you've shown in your quote it won't influence muscle accumulation to a great degree over the AAS they're already on. Obviously trying not to blunt natural secretion is sensible however.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

[ATZ]

Taken from:Casein Hydrolysate and Anabolic Hormones and Growth - Research Review | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

West et. al. Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors. J Appl Physiol. 2009 Nov 12.

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. Key words: testosterone, growth hormone, IGF-1, anabolism.

My Comments: For several decades now, there has been intense focus on the acute hormonal response to training. This started back in the 80’s where researchers, interested in growth did a rather cursory examination of elite powerlifters and bodybuilders, made some assumptions about muscle size, made some even bigger assumptions about how they trained, and then proceeded to reach some staggeringly poor conclusions.

Basically, what they observed was that bodybuilders were bigger than powerlifters, which is debatable in the first place. They also observed that powerlifters typically used low reps and long rest periods and bodybuilders (remember: this was the Arnold era) trained with high reps and short rest periods. Thus they concluded that high reps and short rest stimulated muscle growth and went looking for reasons why this was the case. I’d note that this is not really how you’re supposed to do science: you don’t reach your conclusion and go find reasons why it’s right. You test hypotheses and draw your conclusions from that. But I digress.

And the main focus for a while was potential differences in hormonal response to training, primarily focusing on testosterone and growth hormone (GH). The basic study design that was followed was to compare the acute hormonal response to either 3 sets of 5 repetitions with a long rest interval (3 minutes) to sets of 10 with a 1 minute rest interval. Repeatedly, studies showed that the first type of training boosted testosterone and the second GH. Entire training schemes have grown out of this but there was a problem: nobody ever bothered to see if these acute (usually less than 10-15 minute) bumps in hormones actually did anything.

Nevermind that this makes little sense anyhow for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that women have higher GH levels than men and get a bigger GH response to training, yet they don’t grow better. If anything, with the known impact of testosterone on muscle growth, if there was to be any benefit to this, you’d expect the lower rep/heavy work to be superior. Yet the researchers were arguing that it wasn’t. There was a logic missing in the argument (not the least of which being the assumption that powerlifters had smaller muscles than bodybuilders) that seemed to get skipped over.

In addition to the science, there is a long held belief, echoed in various places (including the comments section of another contentious article I wrote titled Squats vs. Leg Press for Big Legs) that certain movements, notably squats and deadlifts, will have full-body growth stimulating properties, generally mediated through the hormonal response.

It’s not uncommon to see people recommending things like “If you want big arms, squat/train legs.” for example. Essentially, heavy leg work is touted as being the key to overall growth. Nevermind that the same people who make this argument will often complain about “All those guys in the gym with huge upper bodies and no legs” without realizing that the two ideas contradict one another (that is, if leg training is required for growth, how can guys get huge upper bodies without training legs). But I digress again.

In any case, this study examined the issue directly with a somewhat confusing study design: twelve healthy young men trained their biceps on different days of the week under different training conditions. In what they called the low-hormone condition, the biceps were trained all by themselves; no other exercise was done. In the other called the high-hormone condition, the biceps were trained and then a large-volume of leg training was done to elevate the supposedly anabolic hormones.

Does that make sense, all subjects trained both arms, but on different days and under different conditions. And the training was far enough apart that the hormonal response from the leg training wouldn’t have impacted the low-hormone training session. This training was followed for 15 weeks and subjects consumed protein both before and after the training (so there was nutritional support).

Hormone levels were measured and while there was no significant change in hormones in the low-hormone situation, in the high-hormone situation, there were increases in lactate, growth hormone, free and total testosterone and IGF-1 with the peak occurring approximately 15 minutes after the leg work.

And, if the hormonal response to heavy leg training actually has any impact, what you’d expect to see is that one arm, the one trained along with the leg training, would grow better.

Did it happen? Guess.

Both maximal strength and muscle cross sectional area increased identically in both arms to the tune of a 20% vs. 19% increase in strength for low- vs. high-hormones and an increase in skeletal muscle cross sectional area of 12% vs. 10% in low- vs. high-hormones. These differences were not statistically significant. Quoting the researchers:

Despite vast differences in hormone availability in the immediate post- exercise period, we found no differences in the increases in strength or hypertrophy in muscle exercised under low or high hormone conditions after 15 weeks of resistance training. These findings are in agreement with our hypothesis and previous work showing that exercise-induced hormone elevations do not stimulate myofibrillar protein synthesis (36) and are not necessary for hypertrophy (37). Thus, our data ((36) and present observations), when viewed collectively, lead us to conclude that local mechanisms are of far greater relevance in regulating muscle protein accretion occurring with resistance training, and that acute changes in hormones, such as GH, IGF-1, and testosterone, do not predict or in any way reflect a capacity for hypertrophy.

I don’t think it gets any clearer than that and I’d note that another recent study titled “Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men.” by the same group found the exact same thing.

Summing Up: Leg training has no magic impact on overall growth, most of which is determined locally (through mechanisms of tension and fatigue mediated by changes in local muscular metabolism). If you want big arms, train arms. If you want big legs, train legs.

And if folks are wondering why empirically ‘folks who train legs hard’ seem to get big compared to those who don’t, I’d offer the following explanation: folks willing to toil on heavy leg work work hard. Folks too lazy to train legs hard often don’t. And it’s the overall intensity of the training that is causing the difference, not the presence or absence of squats per se. Which is why guys who only hammer pecs and guns get big pecs and guns even if they couldn’t find the squat rack in the gym: the small acute hormonal responses to training are simply irrelevant to overall growth.

[Nicholars]

I dont agree, maybe that study came to those conclusions but tbh its blatantly not true..

Do say 6 sets of bicep curls and nothing else or do 6 sets of bicep curls then 3 sets of heavy squats.... You will then be really horny for about 3 days after and blatantly grow more muscle on your arms!

I spent about a year when I started without doing those lifts and as soon as i started them I started growing like 2x as fast!

You could do bicep curls all day and not really acheive much or you could add in some weighted pull up, squats deadlifts, rows etc and blatantly gain more muscle!

What you are effectively saying is that all the pro bodybuilders could be just as big doing basic isolation exercises and not bother with with compund lifts which is blatantly not true!

Maybe some people with better genetics than me can just do chest and biceps and grow loads but those big lifts DEFINATELY make a difference for me!

[ATZ]

You miss the fact most bodybuilders are drugged up to the eyeballs on anabolics, so any point you may heave regarding their training is moot. You see plenty of retarded isolation bodypart split routines plastered all over Flex magazine etc.

And as for your example - you probably weren't using enough volume full stop. It wasn't necesarily the fact you added compounds that caused the growth per say, just the added volume. Read the article again. Also I see plenty examples of the chest and bicep boys who grow just fine using silly volume on exercise to isolate those muscle groups.

[Nicholars]

Hmm tbh I completely disagree with everything you say there....

I knew you would say "yes but bodybuilders use steroids" erm well I said they DO squats etc.... Anyway yes ok thats true steroid users dont really count ... because they could do like 1 rep and still grow lol but its the same for everyone....

Also I used to do MORE volume and have done a LOT better since doing LESS volume but more intense exercises.... You can argue it all you want but im sure 90% of people will agree that doing squats and compoutd lifts etc clearly makes you grow faster....

I dont agree with a lot of the things you say tbh lol... Your basically recommending again something which is well known not to be true eg. lets all go and do loads bicep curls and our biceps will grow who needs pull ups and compund lifts.... and lets also all just eat one huge meal a day lol.

So from your advice I have read on here recently here would be your example training routine lol...

Go to gym (dont bother eating anything before hand)

Do HIGH volume arm work loads of tricep kickbacks and bicep curls.... skip the compund lifts...

Just eat one or two massive meals...

Yes I am sure that will work a treat lol.

yeh but the chest and bicep boys are usually genetically lucky.... for most people compound lifts will help a lot.... thus the fact that they are the main exercises in the majority of decent exercise programs! eg. not mens health or something lol.

Do an experiment then......compeltely skip all the big lifts that get hour heart pumping... go and just do things like bicep curls and pullovers... and take before and after photos lol.

[ATZ]

I don't know what planet you're coming from with those recommendations above but I've never recommended any of them! I think your reading comprehension needs some work as you're misinterpriting everything.

Where have I said train fasted? Please go pull the quotes from my posts. I'll always recommend training in the post prandial state - be that after a wholefood meal or a shake. However there are plenty of sources that suggest fasted training wouldn't be negative at all as long as you hit macro and calorie targets afterwards.

The article I posted above does not say skip the compounds. Nor am I recommending that. What it's saying is growth is dependant on the stress a particular muscle group is put under, squatting is not going to do an awful lot for arm growth. Like I said go re read the above and think about it before coming back to me citing I recommend anyone pass on the squats.

As for meal frequency. The evidence is there all over the Internet for you to see. Eating 6 meals or 2 meals per day of the same macro content will have EXACTLY the same effect on body composition. I know I've been there and done it. Check out the author of the blog www.leangains.com if you think meal frequency means jack, he looks really skinny I'm sure you'll agree...

[Nicholars]

Yeh alright sorry I was over exagerating slightly about the meals thing... I agree like 6-8 meals is a bit ott but personally I wouldn't have less than 3 or 4.

But I dont agree with what you say about the hormonal response....

When I started I used to put MORE strain on my biceps by doing loads of bicep curls until they were compeltely exhausted....

Then I started doing LESS direct isolation work eg. weighted pull ups followed by 4 sets of bicep isolation, the way I judge it is not on studies but on how it has worked for me personally... maybe other peoples hormone levels etc are different but personally when I do the big compound lifts combined with less isolation I grow a lot more. My favourite saying atm is "stimulate dont annihilate"...

Basically if you got 2 groups of people....

1 went to the gym every 3 days and did 12 sets of bicep work.

1 went to the gym every 3 days and did 5x5 squats followed by 5 sets bicep work.

I would be willing to bet money that the squats group would gain more muscle on theyre biceps.

And weighted pullups would work even better!