Leg Training + Hormones

ok so we all know that legs are great to work because the effect traning them has on the whole body from the reactions from the test and gh. my question is does the gh and test produced and released have to do with the style of leg training i,e strength vs hypertrophy?

my reason for this has to do with that lately ive noticed i can jump pretty fuckin high, like 10x higher than i could before i started training my legs hard. and all ive done for my legs is squats/leg presses and RDLs/leg curls. none of that plyometric shit. i can easily dunk on an NBA rim and im 6’0 feet even. so yea i was just wondering if i started to train my legs with heavier weight/low reps to get my jump even better if it would negate some of the gh and test benefits.

p.s. “functional” training can suck my dick. id love to be the only guy in the NBA that looks like an NFL player dunking on scrams.

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
p.s. “functional” training can suck my dick. id love to be the only guy in the NBA that looks like an NFL player dunking on scrams. [/quote]

that would be great. It would be like Lawrence Taylor slam dunking over Kobe Bryant.

RE: your original question. I have no idea. My guess is that it doesn’t matter. Cumulative fatigue regardless of the stimulus is still present. Makes sense to me.

The heavier the better.

Heavy weights are better for GH output.

i read something the other day that said the rep range of 1-5 causes the most testosterone output.

If you don’t do them they can only help

[quote]
my question is does the gh and test produced and released have to do with the style of leg training i,e strength vs hypertrophy?[/quote]

I have research to back up what I say, here:

"This aim of this study was to examine the free hormone (in saliva) responses to squat workouts performed by recreationally weight-trained males, using either a power (8 sets of 6 reps, 45% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 3-minute rest periods, ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 reps, 75% 1RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), or maximal strength scheme (6 sets of 4 reps, 88% 1RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent).

To determine the relative importance of the different training variables, these schemes were equated by workout duration with the power and strength schemes also equated by load volume. Salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) both increased following the hypertrophy scheme (P < 0.05), with little to no hormonal change across the power and maximal strength schemes (P > 0.05). [u]In general, the postexercise T and C responses to the hypertrophy scheme exceeded the other two schemes (P < 0.05).

The greater volume of load lifted in the hypertrophy protocol over the same workout duration may explain the endocrine differences observed.[/u] The similar T and C responses to the power and maximal strength schemes (of equal volume) support such a view and suggest that differences in load intensity, rest periods, and technique are secondary to volume.

Because the acute hormonal responses to resistance exercise contribute to protein metabolism, then load volume may be the most important workout variable activating the endocrine system and stimulating muscle growth. "

J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Jan;22(1):250-255. The Salivary Testosterone and Cortisol Response to Three Loading Schemes

Bottom line: Volume / Hypertrophy Training is positively, and highly correlated to increased testosterone.

NOT low volume, high intensity training.

Sure, this is obvious to everyone in the real world that doesn’t spend all their working hours reading the “brilliance” of Chad Waterbury and his counterparts in the Celebrity Coach World here on T-Nation’s inner-jerk-circle of loser authors whose sole source of sustenance in the industry is giving each other freakin website testimonials.

Listen, everyone in their right minds should know by now that high volume / moderate intensity work is the best for hormonal response. High intensity, low volume is the best for strength / neural training. A combination of both in planned, periodized routines cycles is the way to program for optimal results. No big secret here people.

Just to clarify, I never suggested low volume.

[quote]cormac wrote:

Sure, this is obvious to everyone in the real world that doesn’t spend all their working hours reading the “brilliance” of Chad Waterbury and his counterparts in the Celebrity Coach World here on T-Nation’s inner-jerk-circle of loser authors whose sole source of sustenance in the industry is giving each other freakin website testimonials.

Listen, everyone in their right minds should know by now that high volume / moderate intensity work is the best for hormonal response. High intensity, low volume is the best for strength / neural training. A combination of both in planned, periodized routines cycles is the way to program for optimal results. No big secret here people.[/quote]

I would not call 10 sets of 10 reps @ 75% 1RM, moderate intesity. That’s pretty brutal. Usually people can only do 2-3 sets at that % of their max with only 2 min between sets before performace degrades dramatically. GVT (10x10) usually uses much lower % 1RM. Maybe that was a typo or their only test subject was Tom Platz. I mean someone that can squat 400 pounds is not going to do 10x10 with 300 pounds that’s crazy.

Also it’s funny, that the maximal strength scheme did not produce the T and C responses the volume protocol did. Yet it’s very similar to what Chad has recommended in the past (high sets/lowish reps/high speed).

Now that being said. I doubt that study was really meaningful. Maybe the main differences where the lower rest period between the sets? That was a big variable between the 3 protocols. Didn’t Gironda use to do very high sets with a low weight, but with 30 sec rest between them.

Anyways, I suspect that the high volume protocol suggested would produce so much C as to offset the increase in T. I rarely see bodybuilders do 10x10 and when they do it’s only for a limited period of time and with a much lower weight.

wow i dont think i could do 1 set of 10 with 75% max, im not even sure about 1 set of 4 with 88%. Did they just grab some bench/curl kids out of a frat house and see what they could do?