One vs Multiple Set Training

[Guest guest]

Apologies for that mistake by me, Dr Siff. However I wasn't trying to imply

that one

would exclude Power, Force, RFD from the training equation.

But these components have often been overlooked in studies such as the

Westcott et al and the Sanborn study. Also they are overlooked in the

general population's weight training programmes such as those prescribed by

the ACSM etc. As I stated:

'For example, when anybody starts a new training programme the first thing

they are informed about are the exercises to be performed and then sets to be

performed and then the reps. The last thing you are told about is the

acceleration (force / power / RFD) of the movement of the exercises.'

As you stated:

<.... hypertrophy and strength development depends critically on the

magnitude of force in muscles. RFD and power developments are highly reliant

on neural excitation...>

Therefore, the basic weight training programmes should specifically state

more information about power, RFD and force. For example, the RFD should be

particularly important for not only athletes but elderly and disabled

individuals etc.

And also more information concerning the optimum number of sets with regard

to power, RFD, force and strength and other numerous factors.

Am I 'barking up the wrong tree', so to speak?

Any views would be greatly appreciated,

Carruthers

.....City?

[Guest guest]

Dahms wrote:

>Its dismissive and naive to say there are speculations that play

some role, but that's about it.

I'm not talking about relatively large, chronic supraphysiological

doses of anabolic hormones. I'm talking about relatively small,

physiological transient increases in anabolic hormones (GH,

testosterone, IGF-1) that have been shown to occur following

exercise. To date, no one has been able to show that such transient

release of endogenous hormones as a result of exercise are related to

muscle adaptation. If you have any studies that argue otherwise,

please post them, as I would be interested in looking at them. Some

of the reasons why some believe that such small transient increases

may not be crucial are the following:

1.While absolute changes are greater in males than females, " relative

changes in strength and muscle hypertrophy consequent to weight

training are similar in men and women " (Cureton, 1988). Similar

findings have been reported by some other studies. Thus, despite

relatively large differences in some anabolic hormones (i.e.

testosterone)between males and females, relative changes in strength

and muscle hypertrophy appear to be similar.

2.Some studies I have come across report, " no significant

correlations were observed between testosterone, androstenedione, or

sex hormone-binding globulin and pretrainingand delta values of

strength or lean body weight. " (Westerlin, et al, 1987).

3.Compensatory or work-induced hypertrophy can be induced in

hypophysectomized or diabetic animals (Goldberg, 1975; Farrell,

1999). A number of other studies report similar findings. Goldberg

writes, " Unlike normal developmental growth, work-induced hypertrophy

can be induced in hypophysectomized or diabetic animals. This process

thus appears independent of GH and insulin as well as testosterone

and thyroid hormones " .

4. Durak (1990) and others have showed that patients with type I

diabetes can significantly increase strength. A number of other

studies done on animals suggests that many of the anabolic hormones

likely play a permissive role and that other factors are more crucial

in determining muscle adaptation.

5. Unlike supraphysiologic testosterone, relatively large

supraphysiological GH supplementation has been shown in a number of

studies to have no additional effect on skeletal muscle protein

synthesis over training alone. (Rooyackers, 1997; Yarasheski, year?).

Some other points raised by others on this list that raise doubts of

the importance of comparing hormonal responses of various resistance

exercise protocols can be found in previous posts. Here are some hi-

lites:

1. One problem, though, with the extrapolation of the above studies

to training is that many of the above studies examined chronic

infusion of gH. This is nothing like the short pulse of gH that

occurs after training. Whether thisshort pulse of gH ultimately

affects muscle IGF-I expression remains to be demonstrated.

2.I have some general statements to make regarding GH and

hypertrophy. The first is that women have significantly greater GH

levels than men, yet donot experience hypertrophy to the same extent

as men do. Secondly, the time course of protein synthesis in skeletal

muscle does not appear to be related to serum levels of hormones

after a resistance-training bout (this argues against studies that

cite hormonal changes during and post-exercise as an explanation for

hypertrophy). Thirdly, serum levels of hormone areperipheral measures

and may not accurately reflect what is happeninginside joint

compartments or cells of specific tissues.

3. It's surprising to me that, with all of the literature by Kraemer

on post-exercise hormonal responses, no one has bothered to

investigate whether there is any validity to the idea of inducing a

maximum gH response to induce maximum hypertrophy.

4. Several review papers basically indicate that exogenous GH (plus

resistance training) does not make people significantly bigger or

stronger than people strength trainingwithout taking GH. It is

misleading to focus on one hormone (ie GH or testosterone) when

multiple endocrine, autocrine, paracrine, etc factors are altered via

exercise.

See posts: " Volume, gH and hypertrophy " for more on this topic.

Todd wrote:

>Increases in Testosterone, Growth Hormone, decreases in cortisol,

and manipulation of insulin response lead to increases in strength

and lean body mass.

Evidence? I have never come acoss a study that demonstrates that

transient increases in such hormones are important for muscle growth.

>Also, from an empirical standpoint, if the anabolic profile is not

important, then what is the difference betwen men and women in

respect to performance except for bone structure? Again, I may be

misunderstanding your assertion here.

There is a difference between hormonal importance for normal

developmental growth versus work-induced hypertrophy. Do you think

that subjects who show the greatest hormonal secretion as a result of

using a particular exercise protocol will also show the greatest

adaptative response (i.e. more strength, hypertrophy)? To date, there

is little evidence (that I'm aware of) of this. In fact, some studies

argue against this (see above).

>Pick any number of reps you want and I'll gaurantee you will see

some type of difference in the results be it in strength,

hypertrophy, body composition, endurance, etc.

I've posted some studies and reviews previously that show no

difference.

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Todd wrote:

>However, in that strand of thought do you mean the

hormonal profile immediately following an exercise session or the

hormonal profile over " x " amount of time following a certain protocol

(e.g., high intensity vs. high volume; compound free weight movements

versus isolatory machine movements, etc.)?

Both.

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada