T Nation

Hormonal Output from Exercise?

So, I guess its a fact that we, the bodybuilding community on this forum, have laid to rest some of the myths, falsehoods, and hocus pocus out there.

We - especially CC, Scott M, and P-X - have went over some solid training principles that work and let people know that some pros are actually smart and that traditional bodybuilding methods work and that bodybuilders are not weak.

What does everyone think about this one?
High reps with short rest periods increase GH output; low reps with long rest periods increase T output.

This is the sort of phenomenon that geeks like Drs. Kramer and Fleck churn out studies on. Why? I don’t know, considering that I think it does not lend to building mass.

Let’s say Joe Blow has a total T value of 700 ng/dL. Is low rep lifting going to increase this significantly? I do not think so. Even if it did increase it, I believe it is so short lived that it doesn’t amount to much. Same goes for GH. I believe a high rep, low rest workout is going to burn fat from increasing your heart rate during and after the workout and from doing a lot of mechanical work in a session.

What say you?

I think the person wasting time worrying about Gh output from exercise is the very guy who won’t ever gain enough size for it to matter.

There are better areas for people to focus their attention…like their food intake and how hard they are actually pushing their own limits daily.

You have people more worried about hormone release and only training 3 times a week than the ones who actually pay attention to the fact that very few bodybuilders got very big from doing the same.

It doesn’t really have anything to do with GH output but I read in Muscle and Fitness’s December 2007 issue that low reps sucked for mass building. Apparently, performing less than 6 reps increases myostatin, which is a protein that hinders muscle gains.

Don’t know if I really buy into that but here’s the exact quote anyway.

(page 162, december 2007)

“WORST REP RANGE TO USE FOR MASS-BUILDING
Low reps (six or less)
Scientists at Baylor University (Waco, Texas) found that when male subjects performed a leg workout using sets of six reps, they experienced a significant increase in active myostatin compared to when they trained with lighter weight and reps of around 18 per set. Since myostatin is a protein that limits muscle growth, be sure to keep heavy, low-rep training balanced with plenty of higher-rep training when size is your goal.”

Yeah, there definitely has been a lot of programs as of late saying all you need is 3 times per week. However, I do like that SOME of the respective authors say that such routines are ideal for people who are, in fact, too busy to be a bodybuilders. That’s fine in my book. If you are someone working 70 to 80 hrs per week, you won’t be a bodybuilder anyway, in my opinion. So, its good for people like CEOs, surgeons, and perhaps some salespersons with a lot domestic travel to at least exercise when they can. Better than nothing.

But its incorrect to say you can be a BBer without a lot of training. I don’t know of a successful one that trains with weights 4 times per week. Most do 4 to 5 days per week.

What sparked the thought of the GH release is Waterbury’s new article.

mmmm, an interesting thread indeed.

I frequently over the years have done the 5x5 workout, with spectacular results, both size& strength.

I was wondering, if somebody could clear up if it’s more of a ‘strength training’ program, or bodybuilding one, since you train on a whole body 3 day split & as you noted Bricknyce, a bodybuilder, traditionally, trains 4-5 days a week.

Generally,i think people should be more worried about their diet, in terms of growth & overall muscle development, than getting the right set/rep range. Yes, the set/rep range is important, but with a poor diet, your not goin to go anywhere FAST eh

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Yeah, there definitely has been a lot of programs as of late saying all you need is 3 times per week. However, I do like that SOME of the respective authors say that such routines are ideal for people who are, in fact, too busy to be a bodybuilders. That’s fine in my book. If you are someone working 70 to 80 hrs per week, you won’t be a bodybuilder anyway, in my opinion. So, its good for people like CEOs, surgeons, and perhaps some salespersons with a lot domestic travel to at least exercise when they can. Better than nothing.

But its incorrect to say you can be a BBer without a lot of training. I don’t know of a successful one that trains with weights 4 times per week. Most do 4 to 5 days per week.

What sparked the thought of the GH release is Waterbury’s new article. [/quote]

I don’t know too many surgeons who work 70+ hours per week but I have known a few who are more developed than most on this forum. They apparently found time for more than just 3 sessions a week.

I do get what you are saying, however. What bothers me is when they use “bodybuilding” in their articles which does nothing but confuse new lifters.

If you want a chance in hell of actually looking like a bodybuilder or anything close to it, 3 times a week isn’t going to do it.

The only thing worse is when they use their 3 times week schedule to convince themselves that they actually train harder than all of those people training more often.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

What say you? [/quote]

I believe at least for the GH release issue it was found that those type of workouts raise natural production less than 1/2 of 1 IU of GH that bodybuilders use. Considering 2 IUs is typical for an HRT type situation… not exactly worth it and it’s not going to put on any big time muscle or burn bodyfat because of GH production. Burn a lot of calories? Yes probably… but beyond that it’s not magic.

Hormone levels rise and fall all day long, I don’t really care about a spike I get from doing dead lifts at 10AM if it’s back to baseline 4 hours later.

Right, that’s what I was saying. Its so temporary that I do not think it would do anything.

Yeah, I happened to lump some MDs in that crazy work schedule. However, I do know of some lawyers and financial services hot shots that work insane and erratic hours (well, used to, Wall Street has crumbled a bit). A lot of the med students I have spoken to in my hospital state that they don’t want to become surgeons because they want a more predictable lifestyle with less erratic work hours.

TheOlympian,
I am not a bodybuilding expert in the strict sense of the word. However, I would say I am an expert compared to the general population since I know a lot more than most and have done a ton of research by speaking to people AND reading. Both are important, more so the actual observing and speaking to people who do what is good.

A 5 x 5 whole body program - what Bill Starr’s Only the Strong Survive program is - is a strength training program in my opinion. I say this for one reason and one reason only …

No successful bodybuilders do that sort of routine!

They may have done a basic TBT routine like that in the beginning stage but that sort of routine has not produced any successful bodybuilders.

Diet is very imporant for adequate functioning, whether you are a PLer, an OLer, or a BBer or just a gym rat who wants to be healthy. But I strongly disagree when people think that changing your body composition is just a matter of dieting. I think its safe to say that nearly all of the population won’t look like a bodybuilder unless they train like one. Some still don’t understand this. They think they can follow any weight training routine, keep their diet in check, and look like a bodybuilder. I don’t think that is the case.

So, I disagree, and think people should worry about how they are training (ie: sets and reps, split) in order to get where they want to be.

What bodybuilders follow a 5 x 5 or a 10 x 3 set and rep scheme? Almost none. Probably none. I think this says something. Most work up to 1 or 2 limit sets of 6 to 8 or 8 - 12 reps. Some have gone higher with the reps for quads (>15).

Unless someone had the greatest, most balanced leverages in the world, he has to include isolation exercises to look like a BBer, in MY view. Even the most physically gifted men are using isolation exercises to round out their physique.

I would say one could have a “nice” body from weight lifting in general and overall activity. But to stand out as a jacked person, you need to train like a BBer.

Many powerlifters who had to drop down weight classes did so by dieting down AND switching to a bodybuilding routine temporarily. Its far easier to lean out with more muscle on you. 5 x 5 routines will produce muscle but not as much as an all out BB routine. Its actually halfway for both goals I believe; a little bit of strength, a little bit of size. But if that’s what you like, then that’s fine. Everyone has different tastes and goals.

Well, Bricknyce, that’s quite an answer you juz gave! haha! You touched on some good points!

At this point, i want to say that i don’t want to derail the thread. I’ll be the first person, to say that I’m unsure exactly how strong & big I became as a direct result of the program, since other things come into play, such as diet, rest, supplementation & general life.

I read around these here parts, not sure where, that if you aim for 2 goals, your likely to hit netiher ON target haha!

On another thread I use to post on, somebody made a post about how it honestly doesn’t matter if my GH or T is raised as a result of a workout, what really matters is what happend throughout the week. If I could paint a different picture, it’s not so much te hours that count, but more the days & weeks…if you get my drift ?

[quote]Kataklysm wrote:
It doesn’t really have anything to do with GH output but I read in Muscle and Fitness’s December 2007 issue that low reps sucked for mass building. Apparently, performing less than 6 reps increases myostatin, which is a protein that hinders muscle gains.

Don’t know if I really buy into that but here’s the exact quote anyway.

(page 162, december 2007)

“WORST REP RANGE TO USE FOR MASS-BUILDING
Low reps (six or less)
Scientists at Baylor University (Waco, Texas) found that when male subjects performed a leg workout using sets of six reps, they experienced a significant increase in active myostatin compared to when they trained with lighter weight and reps of around 18 per set. Since myostatin is a protein that limits muscle growth, be sure to keep heavy, low-rep training balanced with plenty of higher-rep training when size is your goal.”[/quote]

strange i thought the amount of myostatin (or myostatin receptors) in your body is determined prenatally. Not sure exactly about the science but the gist i got is that most of that shit is determined before birth

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
So, I guess its a fact that we, the bodybuilding community on this forum, have laid to rest some of the myths, falsehoods, and hocus pocus out there.

We - especially CC, Scott M, and P-X - have went over some solid training principles that work and let people know that some pros are actually smart and that traditional bodybuilding methods work and that bodybuilders are not weak.

What does everyone think about this one?
High reps with short rest periods increase GH output; low reps with long rest periods increase T output.

This is the sort of phenomenon that geeks like Drs. Kramer and Fleck churn out studies on. Why? I don’t know, considering that I think it does not lend to building mass.

Let’s say Joe Blow has a total T value of 700 ng/dL. Is low rep lifting going to increase this significantly? I do not think so. Even if it did increase it, I believe it is so short lived that it doesn’t amount to much. Same goes for GH. I believe a high rep, low rest workout is going to burn fat from increasing your heart rate during and after the workout and from doing a lot of mechanical work in a session.

What say you? [/quote]

This is the type of information, coming from a formerly completely lost newbie, that irritates me when I read it. It is just another example of over-analyzation to me.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Right, that’s what I was saying. Its so temporary that I do not think it would do anything.

Yeah, I happened to lump some MDs in that crazy work schedule. However, I do know of some lawyers and financial services hot shots that work insane and erratic hours (well, used to, Wall Street has crumbled a bit). A lot of the med students I have spoken to in my hospital state that they don’t want to become surgeons because they want a more predictable lifestyle with less erratic work hours.

TheOlympian,
I am not a bodybuilding expert in the strict sense of the word. However, I would say I am an expert compared to the general population since I know a lot more than most and have done a ton of research by speaking to people AND reading. Both are important, more so the actual observing and speaking to people who do what is good.

A 5 x 5 whole body program - what Bill Starr’s Only the Strong Survive program is - is a strength training program in my opinion. I say this for one reason and one reason only …

No successful bodybuilders do that sort of routine!

They may have done a basic TBT routine like that in the beginning stage but that sort of routine has not produced any successful bodybuilders.

Diet is very imporant for adequate functioning, whether you are a PLer, an OLer, or a BBer or just a gym rat who wants to be healthy. But I strongly disagree when people think that changing your body composition is just a matter of dieting. I think its safe to say that nearly all of the population won’t look like a bodybuilder unless they train like one. Some still don’t understand this. They think they can follow any weight training routine, keep their diet in check, and look like a bodybuilder. I don’t think that is the case.

So, I disagree, and think people should worry about how they are training (ie: sets and reps, split) in order to get where they want to be.

What bodybuilders follow a 5 x 5 or a 10 x 3 set and rep scheme? Almost none. Probably none. I think this says something. Most work up to 1 or 2 limit sets of 6 to 8 or 8 - 12 reps. Some have gone higher with the reps for quads (>15).

Unless someone had the greatest, most balanced leverages in the world, he has to include isolation exercises to look like a BBer, in MY view. Even the most physically gifted men are using isolation exercises to round out their physique.

I would say one could have a “nice” body from weight lifting in general and overall activity. But to stand out as a jacked person, you need to train like a BBer.

Many powerlifters who had to drop down weight classes did so by dieting down AND switching to a bodybuilding routine temporarily. Its far easier to lean out with more muscle on you. 5 x 5 routines will produce muscle but not as much as an all out BB routine. Its actually halfway for both goals I believe; a little bit of strength, a little bit of size. But if that’s what you like, then that’s fine. Everyone has different tastes and goals. [/quote]

a)You make some very good points.True, most bodybuilders we see today train in the 8-12 rep range.But that is because they have a very strong strength base to work from.The 8-12 rep range produces good results for them because they are able to rep big weight.

Lets take the average beginner who can rep 135 for 10 reps on the benchpress.Do you think this guy will get dramatically bigger by doing 4 sets with this weight?The answer is no, this person will gain some muscle but will hit a plateau very quickly.Now lets take this person, and incorporate some low rep, powerlifter type of training in his plan.

He manages, over 3 years, to get a 350 benchpress for a one rep max. If this person then decides to switch to a bodybuilder 8-12 rep range, he will get a lot bigger very fast because he is able to rep heavier weight.

b) I dont agree, however that the 5x5 is only for strength.5x5 produces both strength and size. 25 reps of heavy weight will give excellent size gains.

c)I think you can incorporate both types of rep ranges in your workout.For example, for you can do 5x5 for back squats, and 3x10-12 for front squats, and high reps for isolation exercises.

[quote]steel_12 wrote:

Lets take the average beginner who can rep 135 for 10 reps on the benchpress.Do you think this guy will get dramatically bigger by doing 4 sets with this weight?The answer is no, this person will gain some muscle but will hit a plateau very quickly.Now lets take this person, and incorporate some low rep, powerlifter type of training in his plan.
[/quote]

If some beginner could rep 135lbs for 10 reps on his last set, that would NOT be their last set max weight. If I can get my last set for 10 reps or more, it is time to increase the damn weight. I have trained like that from the beginning so when people claim this is somehow impossible or wrong, I can only laugh. Why would someone use the exact same weight for every set? What the fuck happened to pyramiding up in weight like most big lifters have done for several decades?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What the fuck happened to pyramiding up in weight like most big lifters have done for several decades?[/quote]

hmmm…i believe some thought a new trend was needed, the thing about trends, they get a lot of followers, followers=money and a fan base.