Another training style question

[wilson6]

Over the years, I've seen a number of training protocols used by competitors. I've always believed in heavy weights (with proper form) taken to momentary failure with some rest between sets for adequate recovery. To me, the bottom line is mechanical overload, more overload, more growth. Moreover, you can't recruit type II muscle fibers without heavy weights and explosive movements and it is the type II fibers that give us size.

The other style of training involves moving from exercise to exercise for a bodypart (sort of a giant set) with little rest. Obviously one has to use less weight so the overload is less than if one trained heavier with longer rest breaks between sets. This seems more like cardio with weights than weight training. I can't see how this would build size because it really doesn't hit type II fibers. For light days, this style of training seems fine, but not year around or if one wants to increase mass. There are some that say this helps them get "defined", but "defined" is a matter of fat reduction and is dependent on diet and some traditional cardio. Its always been my opinion that the weight training is for building mass and shape and the diet and cardio is for definition.

Opinions anyone?

W6

 

[supergirl]

Great question!!! Kudos on your first post. Ok... imo, plyometrics (explosive movements) can be relatively cardio type workouts and like you said with the type II or fast twitch, that is where your size and power come from, which are activated with plyometrics... i personally have seen results in my hamstrings just from doing plyometrics and there is no weight lifting involved. I could not get my hams bigger and my quads overpowered my hams, then i started sprinting, doing other various fast twitch activating excercises and now i have some good hams. So it is not only working with heavy weights that get you some size and strength. I believe that is also the idea with the big muscle exercises, ie a psuedo military workout... pull-ups, push-ups etc, gets you stronger and leaner at the same time. And honestly, let me tell you, after a hardcore workout like that, i am more fatigued than normal weight training because i am using every muscle in my body.
Secondly, the idea of incorporating more muscles at once will release more GH and that in turn burns more fat. However, if your main concern was to bulk up, i wouldn't suggest a plyometric type workout but rather stick to the low reps heavy weight with ~3 min rests or so.
Diet is a key component to everything... whether it be bulking or cutting, but your "style" of training is super important as well. The two must work synergistically.... it is all about diet and training and just finding out what works best for you...

SG

 

[wilson6]

clarification on GH and exercise

GH release is intensity, not volume dependent, check out some of Bill Kraemer's studies; and GH release during exercise can also be blunted if a carb drink is consuming during exercise. Personally I don't think that GH release during exercise has anything to do with fat burning per se, it's primarily part of a stress response along with the increase in cortisol. It is the intensity of the workout that drives post-exercise oxygen consumption and since one burns mostly fat at rest, an increase in O2 consumption for 8-12 hours following intense exercise results in more fat oxidized. This is perhaps one reason why sprinters are so ripped, yet distance runners are generally softer (intensity vs volume). Sure working more muscles may make you feel tired systemically, but did you really work the muscle to momentary failure and recruit all the motor units including type IIs? Problem with jumping from exercise to exercise is that factors such as systemic fatigue (being out of breath and not able to concentrate) and localized buildup of metabolites (i.e., lactate) preclude one from fully working a muscle group to failure to stimulate maximal growth.

W6

 

[supergirl]

well if you have all the answers W6, why ya looking for opinions... like i said, "in my opinion" which was what you asked for, didn't realize you were looking for citations, i like full body exercises and it gets me ripped like a sprinter because of it... BUT as i said, it is not for growth but rather for ripping, some strength and size, and overall conditioning. And it is my trainer who is an olympic trainer which feels that the release of GH is a precursor to fat burning and the more muscles activated and of course it is high intensity, the more fat is burned... just his olympic opinion. But who knows, it is all about trial and error and finding, like i said, what truly works for you.

SG

 

[MS]

Yeah, welcome W6. Good stuff from both of you. Don't get too huffy with W6, Supergirl. I suspect he is more of a scientific sort of person than someone who runs on anectodal evidence. And scientifically I gotta agree with W6 that the GH resonse to training is higher with intensity rather than volume, and that normal GH response to high intensity exercize is possibly not at all relevant to fat loss per se. I'm not dissing you or your olympic trainer by any means because I think anectodal evidence is important too. And of course "results" in terms of medals etc... will always be the measure of a man. Just giving my point of view.

I don't know the answer to the original question. I have made good muscle gains by following a "matrix" style of training which is, in my books, higher volume with short rests. But there was also lot's of half reps and negatives in the program and I'm not sure how these exercizes affect type II fibers at less than maximal loads. Hopefully one of the physiology gurus will help on this one. There's no question that Matrix techniques helped me get past sticking points that were limiting my maximal load training. And Maximal load training is still the weights method that packs the most muscle on me. But heck that's all just anectodal stuff too.

 

[supergirl]

Just a little blurb i found in jama... thought i would do some research myself... seems as though in some way, gh will induce fat loss, to what effect and how i don't know, but my trainer obviously had some basis for that belief... Plus guys i know that do GH cycles not only put on some nice mass, but become very nicely ripped... Eh, who really knows anyway; i guess that is why there are still ongoing debates on the effects of gear and hormones in the body and everyone has their own theory, which is based on individual experience and response...


{It wasn't until the work of Dr. B. Bengtsson and Dr. Daniel Rudman that the value of Growth Hormone in adults was recognized. Dr. Bengtsson replaced Growth Hormone in pituitary deficient patients and achieved excellent results. In a 1990 New England Journal of Medicine article, Dr. Rudman reported on his pioneering experiments with the use of human Growth Hormone (hGH) in elderly veterans. He discovered that their body fat decreased and lean muscle mass, strength, skin thickness, and bone density increased. In 1999, the National Institute on Aging completed another landmark study that was designed to either refute or substantiate the results of Dr. Rudman and also to extend his study by measuring other parameters. This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial in both men and women with a large number of patients. This study involved not only Growth Hormone but gonadal (sex) steroids. This study not only confirmed the benefits of Growth Hormone that Dr. Rudman had asserted, but also demonstrated that the addition of gonadal steroids improved the effectiveness of Growth Hormone for both men and women. Although the NIA study showed that Growth Hormone alone did not increase muscle strength, it did substantially increase lean muscle and aerobic capacity. }


SG

 

[MS]

Yes supergirl, no one is questioning the value of GH supplementation in people with a deficiency. And there is plenty of evidence that Supraphysiological doses of GH can enhance fat loss. I won't speak for W6, but I was referring to a lack of evidence that the 'normal' GH response to exercise has appreciable physiological significance other than as a stress response.

For instance, this very recent research indicates that the FUNCTIONAL GH released (as opposed to the total GH) is not very specatacular....

"Immunoassays for growth hormone (GH) may yield variable concentrations for the same sample due to the molecular heterogeneity of growth hormone and epitope specificity of their antibodies. Strasburger et al. developed an "immunofunctional" assay that only detects those GH molecules possessing intact sites 1 and 2, which are necessary for inducing receptor dimerization and subsequent signal transduction. This study compared the immunoreactive (IR) vs immunofunctional (IF) GH concentrations before and after acute resistance exercise (i.e. six sets of 10 repetition maximum squats separated by 2 min rest periods) in 8 men and 6 women. IF concentrations were determined by an ELISA(DSL)and IR GH by a monoclonal IRMA(Nichols). Both men (M) and women (W) demonstrated similar increases for IR (M: 1.47 vs 25.0 ng/ml; W: 4.0 vs 25.4 ng/ml) and IF (M: 0.55 vs 11.66 ng/ml; W: 1.94 vs 10.41 ng/ml) GH following exercise. Post-exercise IF GH was significantly less than IR GH for both M and W. The ratio of IR/IF after exercise was approximately 2 and similar for both M and W. In summary, dynamic exercise elicited a similar rise in M and W for immunofunctionally active GH molecules, but the magnitude is lower than when detected with another conventional assay."

And also from 2001....

"Doping with growth hormone (GH) has become an increasing problem in sports during the last 10 years. GH has a reputation of being fairly effective among GH users, although the effectiveness is not undisputed, and the few controlled studies that have been performed with supraphysiological GH doses to athletes have shown no significant positive effects of GH in the aspect of a doping agent."

And.....

"We concluded that GH has a reduced role, as a stimulating factor, in the serum acute IGFBP-3 increase after exercise."

In terms of the types of exercise required to elicit this response, I don't think that's very clear cut. For instance...

"The hormonal responses of nine male, strength athletes to strength exercise were examined. The athletes performed one moderate- and one high-intensity strength exercise workout. In the high-intensity workout, the load was 100% of each subject's three-repetition maximum (3-RM) for squats and front squats, and 100% of each subject's six-repetition maximum (6-RM) for leg extensions. In the moderate-intensity workout, the load was 70% of the high-intensity protocol. Rest periods between sets were 4-6 min for both workouts. Blood samples were taken before, 30 min into, and every 15 min for the 1st h after exercise, and then 3, 7, 11, 22 and 33 h after exercise, thus allowing examination of both the acute and prolonged hormonal responses. Blood samples were analyzed for testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), cortisol, adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH), growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, creatine kinase, total protein, glucose and lactate. The acute responses of testosterone and cortisol were greater during the high-intensity protocol as compared to the moderate-intensity protocol. The cortisol response was associated with an increase in ACTH concentration. LH and FSH showed no response to either protocol. Acute GH responses were not different between protocols. There were great inter-individual differences in acute GH responses to both protocols. There were no significant differences between protocols with regard to prolonged responses for any hormone. In both trials, IGF-1 concentrations were significantly lower at 0800 hours the morning after exercise as compared to concentrations found at 0800 hours the morning before exercise. The mechanisms responsible for reducing IGF-1 concentration in these trials are unclear, and it is not known if this reduction observed 22 hours after exercise is of physiological significance."

and......

"PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the long-term training adaptations associated with low-volume circuit-type versus periodized high-volume resistance training programs in women. METHODS: 34 healthy, untrained women were randomly placed into one of the following groups: low-volume, single-set circuit (SSC; N = 12); periodized high-volume multiple-set (MS; N = 12); or nonexercising control (CON) group (N = 10). The SSC group performed one set of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure 3 d x wk(-1). The MS group performed two to four sets of 3-15 repetitions with periodized volume and intensity 4 d x wk(-1). Muscular strength, power, speed, endurance, anthropometry, and resting hormonal concentrations were determined pretraining (T1), after 12 wk (T2), and after 24 wk of training (T3). RESULTS: 1-RM bench press and leg press, and upper and lower body local muscular endurance increased significantly (P < or = 0.05) at T2 for both groups, but only MS showed a significant increase at T3. Muscular power and speed increased significantly at T2 and T3 only for MS. Increases in testosterone were observed for both groups at T2 but only MS showed a significant increase at T3. Cortisol decreased from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3 in MS. Insulin-like growth factor-1 increased significantly at T3 for SSC and at T2 and T3 for MS. No changes were observed for growth hormone in any of the training groups. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in muscular performance may be attained with either a low-volume single-set program or a high-volume, periodized multiple-set program during the first 12 wk of training in untrained women. However, dramatically different training adaptations are associated with specific domains of training program design which contrast in speed of movement, exercise choices and use of variation (periodization) in the intensity and volume of exercise"

And so on. So olympic opinion aside, there is no clear scientific evidence that NATURAL GH release in response to different types of exercise is gonna make a huge difference to your fat loss efforts.

 

[edgecrusher]

I must say this discussion is most interesting. This topic is quite interesting to me, due to the fact that i am a big Charles Poliquin fan. One of the books that Mr. Poliquin puts out is entitled "German Body Comp Training," or "Manly Weightloss." Both books are essentially the same, in there goal which is bodyfat loss without aerobics.

Poliquin feels that the weightloss incurred from his program is due to the heightened growth hormone release, due to the workout. However, let me say this workout is quite intense and brutal, but in my opinion the results are worth it.

The basic premise of the book is upper body lower body supersets, with timed lifting intervals. This intern taps into many motor units, which Poliquin feels will tap into type II fibers.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I do not know exactly why this training style worked so well for me. Was it because of my increased gh output, or because my workouts were so intense that I essentially performed weighted cardiovascular workouts. To be truly honest I can not say.

What I can say is the results where rather impressive. My bodyfat decreased, by a marked amount. My bench press went up approximately 20 pounds, my front squat went up 50 pounds, and my Vo2 max increased.

Is this a good way to train year round? Not a chance, your nervous system would be overstressed, and your legs would be greatly over worked. But is there any system that is acceptable for year round training?

 

[wilson6]

GH stuff

SG:

What's the ref for the NIA study supporting Rudman's work? I need to see this (JAMA?).

Don't have all the answers and I wasn't taking a shot at you but I think the GH thing, particularly what is produced endogenously from exercise is overrated with regard to its effect on body composition. Now, having said that, there is some literature support for exogenous GH as a fat burner, but not for increasing muscle mass. I know its big in the Olympics because it still can't be tested for. But the pro BBs I've talked to don't seem to think GH by itself does much of anything. I think the key is probably a combo of GH and androgen (and the androgen effect might vary depending on which one is used) as androgens can affect the intramuscular IGF-I system including binding proteins that inhibit or enhance the anabolic properties of IGF-I in skeletal muscle.

Most of the lit to date however doesn't show GH (by itself) to be anabolic in either young healthy or older adults, with or without weight training, nor does injecting GH increase IGF-I within the muscle which is where it needs to be increased to have any effect, also assuming that IGF binding protein-4 decreases, and that is an effect of testosterone and possible other anabolic steroids. So, it makes sense that combining the two would have a positive effect; something that hasn't been studied until recently.

The whole GH/IGF area was one that I studied in-depth, so when someone generalizes (Olympic trainer or not), it gets my blood pressure up a little. Sorry.

I'll bet the whole body training has more to do with increasing metabolic rate post-exercise (Q10 effect, increased epinephrine, etc.) leading to fat loss far more than any changes in GH, particularly if it is high-intensity, short rest break (rep/set sprint style training). In fact, the answer to a big and ripped physique probably rests somewhere in-between (i.e., combining both exercise styles over a given training period or session) in conjunction with a good diet and less traditional aerobics.


W6

 

[supergirl]

W6... all is cool with me
I need to search again for rudmans stuff, i called a friend and was given a site, so i gotta look again if i can find it.
Also here is another question for my "new" gh guru lol
what does lactic acid have to due with fat-burning and is it caused by gh. Because another comment i got from another trainer, a power lifting one, not the olympic one, is that training large body parts in the pseudo cardio workout, releases a lot of lactic acid that in turn burns fat. Do you believe there is a correlation?

Also, why is it then, when bb's cycle GH, they put on really nice lean mass and get more ripped? So i am assuming there definitely is some sort of fat burning, but is it strictly from the training or is gh actually involved?

This was a cool post W6... you are really making everyone think and i have learned a lot, so thanks.

SG