How does lower body work effect upper body growth?
Over the years, I've read articles that claim that you need to squat or deadlift heavy to get good growth in the upper body. Something about the larger muscle mass in the lower body generating more hormones for fueling growth. True?
I see other articles where it says to tone the lower body work to maintanence levels to give yourself plenty of focus on growth for the upper body.
The first part is true. You were right about the hormonal reason. Utilizing the larger muscle groups, especially simultaneously, leads to greater production of anabolic hormones. I also remember reading one study where the participants only did lower body compound exercises yet their upper body lifts still went up a bit. I've seen a few related studies on this but it's too late in the evening to bother looking them up. lol
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
In agreement w/Frank, the whole GH thing is overblown. Upper body benefits from lower body work & vice-versa due to the cross-neural loop between them. This same principle not only applies to upper/lower but also left/right. If your right arm is recovering from an injury, and you keep training your left arm, the right will recover faster due to the neurological feedback between the two sides. The brain is like a magician in this sense.
Would it be accurate to picture all this as follows. Regularly challenging your body keeps growth hormone production optimized. Resting periods of up to two weeks from time to time are also part of the picture (per NROL). And another benefit of these GH from exercise is cognitive function. (per many articles in NYT and other publications)
A deadlift is going to help your upper body development anyway due to the fact you have to hold onto the bar and maintain isometric contractions of the back.
Not being able to squat or deadlift hasn't prevented those who are disabled and unable to walk developing strong and sizable upper bodies.
A deadlift is going to help your upper body development anyway due to the fact you have to hold onto the bar and maintain isometric contractions of the back.
Not being able to squat or deadlift hasn't prevented those who are disabled and unable to walk developing strong and sizable upper bodies.
True. I don't see why it would. I think doing lower body work can help the upper body but from everything I've seen not that much. It's one of those questions that's pointless under most circumstances. Kinda like the "If you could only choose one exercise" scenarios people like to get into.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
Im not so sure anyone has growth hormone figured out.
Ive read stuff saying consuming carbohydrates after a workout stops most/any of gh release. I know alan has mentioned seeing studies showing GH doing weird stuff when waking up in the middle of the night
Most anabolic effects of GH are not from gh itself but from what it converts too (MGF and IGF), so it may be useful to look into how these are used in the body more so then growth hormone.. Im not really to sure if GH is the only thing that creates these 2 things, or if there is other factors (my moneys on this, but who knows).
In short, who knows, but odds are its not as important as some people seem to think.
Im not so sure anyone has growth hormone figured out.
Ive read stuff saying consuming carbohydrates after a workout stops most/any of gh release. I know alan has mentioned seeing studies showing GH doing weird stuff when waking up in the middle of the night
Most anabolic effects of GH are not from gh itself but from what it converts too (MGF and IGF), so it may be useful to look into how these are used in the body more so then growth hormone.. Im not really to sure if GH is the only thing that creates these 2 things, or if there is other factors (my moneys on this, but who knows).
In short, who knows, but odds are its not as important as some people seem to think.
Just curious, why are you limiting the discussion of anabolic hormones to GH?
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
Opps, sorry if I came accross that way, I was just trying to say GH may not be as anabolic as people think and the first few posts mentioned it. Its surely not the only hormone released.
It is however the hormone most people talk about and relate to 'intense' workouts.
Thanks everyone. Say I feel like my chest is underdeveloped compared to my lower body. I'd like to concentrate on that for a while.
Do you put your lower body on maintanence then, to maximize what you do to grow your upper body?
I can see two basic counter-arguments that make some sense. However, personally, I wouldn't put my lower body on maintenance. I would still seek to improve my lower body but I would give more emphasis to my chest - training it first in a workout, albeit still with compound movements and/or training it with more volume or more frequency.
My rationale goes like this. The hormonal and neural responses to lower body training, at the very least, will not hurt you. Imo, they will help a bit but wont be the deal breaker by any means. I think you can emphasize your chest for maximum results without having to put the training of the rest of your on stand-by. I don't think you can focus on improving your chest to such an extent that other parts of the body must necessarily be put on maintenance. But I wouldn't try to focus on improving them as much as the chest. Basically I think, for various reasons, there is a "cap" on the rate at which a particular area can improve. To a certain degree, other areas will not limit this. That's my opinion.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
Ive read stuff saying consuming carbohydrates after a workout stops most/any of gh release. I know alan has mentioned seeing studies showing GH
You mean that since I'm an old guy who has to go pee in the middle of the might -- as well as waking three or four times because the dog is rustling around too much -- maybe I messing up my GH?
excerpt from The Practical Scientist 2 Hale
paper looked at Human Muscle protein synthesis after physcial activity and feeding by Miller
Another important distinction regarding specificity is that opposed to the systematic response of feeding on all skeletal muscle, physical activity only stimulates a response in the stimulated muscle; hence, the response is a local rather than a systematic one (my comment: sure you have heard squatting will make your arms, back and everything else big. Big problem where is the mechancial stimuli for that particular bodypart?)
my comment: sure you have heard squatting will make your arms, back and everything else big. Big problem where is the mechancial stimuli for that particular bodypart?
I agree with this. I guess the question is does the squatting promote an anabolic environment, that allows all the other stuff to grow? Or, are they independent of each other?
My uneducated comment.
They say squats makes you grow overall, also in your upper body. I think if you did only squats, your upper body wouldnt grow much, but i think if you compare doing squats AND upper body to only doing upper body, the squats and upper body would get more mass on their upper body.
Squats releases hormones that makes you grow in the entire body, but if you dont work your upper body, there is no stimuls, the body doesnt see the need to put on mass there. But once you do upper body stuff, there is stimuls and the extra hormones from the squatting will come in handy.
You're not off base. It's the reverse of the chicken leg syndrome we see at the gym all the time. Obviously it's possible to build the upper body without similar gains in the lower body, so the reverse is true as well. You still have to provide some local stimulus to get growth relative to the other areas receiving local stimulus.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
Thanks everyone. Say I feel like my chest is underdeveloped compared to my lower body. I'd like to concentrate on that for a while.
Do you put your lower body on maintanence then, to maximize what you do to grow your upper body?
I think you've found one of those rare times when a chest specialization program actually makes sense. Whether or not to put your lower body on maintenance is totally up to you. It depends on how much chest work your shoulders can handle throughout the week. Remember too (and I wish I could find some quote or article that discussed this, but I couldn't ) that scapular anterior tilt (winging) will make the chest appear smaller and a bit caved in. Improper positioning of the scapulae can also make it difficult to contract the pectorals strongly and limits the load in an effort to protect the shoulders. Be sure to keep shoulder mobility work a part of the warm-up for any chest specialization program you create.
Quote:
I guess the question is does the squatting promote an anabolic environment, that allows all the other stuff to grow? Or, are they independent of each other?
You would, of course, still be doing some basic leg work, so I don't know that it matters if we can really give you a satisfactory answer to this question or not. You've certainly built a sufficient base of lower body strength, so go for it.
Remember too (and I wish I could find some quote or article that discussed this, but I couldn't ) that scapular anterior tilt (winging) will make the chest appear smaller and a bit caved in. Improper positioning of the scapulae can also make it difficult to contract the pectorals strongly and limits the load in an effort to protect the shoulders. Be sure to keep shoulder mobility work a part of the warm-up for any chest specialization program you create.
That's an excellent point! Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa~
You've certainly built a sufficient base of lower body strength, so go for it.
Another important distinction regarding specificity is that opposed to the systematic response of feeding on all skeletal muscle, physical activity only stimulates a response in the stimulated muscle; hence, the response is a local rather than a systematic one (my comment: sure you have heard squatting will make your arms, back and everything else big. Big problem where is the mechancial stimuli for that particular bodypart?)
I think that would be true if the trainee weren't doing any work to stimulate the chest at all or perhaps was never in a state of recovery while the legs were worked. However, since work is being done to stimulate the chest I don't believe this to be true, especially if the workouts are full-body. I also don't think a muscle only benefits from hormone levels right after it's stimulated. Surely it's not unreasonable to assume a muscle can enjoy the benefits of a more anabolic hormonal environment the day after it is trained if that muscle is still recovering.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
How does lower body work effect upper body growth?
Linear Mode
