Thread: training legs affect your upper body?

yes...

is HIIT enough training for the legs?

No. Squats, deadlifts, calf raises. HIIT isn't resistance training. It's cardio.

Originally posted by o-dub
ive heard that training your legs also helps your upper body make gaines. is this true?

You've probably already noticed that the esteemed LAM likes to conserve his words. You have to understand, he's operating on an extremely limited vocabulary and can't afford to waste them.

Anyway, LAM already gave you the SHORT answer to your question, I'll explain WHY. When you perform resistance training like weight lifting (not cardio) it triggers your body to excrete Human Growth Hormone (HGH). HGH will soak into your muscles, ALL your muscles and help you make great gains. An old bodybuilding maxim is that the big lifts will make you big. What that means is, the more weight you move the more HGH will be secreted. So, if you want to get big all over you need to concentrate on the big lifts; squats, deadlifts, pressing movements and rowing movements.

Sprints can still add some decent size on their own.

if size is your goal focus on lifting

o-dub Don´t forget about proper form or you will brake in half.

Originally posted by Monolith
Sprints can still add some decent size on their own.

When done properly, sprints are anerobic, not aerobic. Look at the different body compositions between world class sprinters and world class marathon runners.

Hum -
Don't you think those world class sprinters lift?

Originally posted by Monolith
Sprints can still add some decent size on their own.

true

Originally posted by CourtQueen
Hum -
Don't you think those world class sprinters lift?

If they're smart they do but it's not necessary.
If you look at Eric Heiden you'll see he built quite a physique through cycling and speed skating. He's knows how to lift weights but has never really lifted seriously and weights were never part of his competition prep.

Ah yes, those speed skaters definitely have some mass on those legs. Truly incredible.

But I would think it a poor choice for the average joe to rely on sprints alone to put any gain on their legs. It would take a serious training routine with them to get a noticeable dfference it seems.

are leg extensions and leg curls enough for the legs? (i dont have a squat rack) and if i train legs hard then i cant do HIIT 3 times a week becuz my legs will be too sore?

Originally posted by o-dub
are leg extensions and leg curls enough for the legs? (i dont have a squat rack)

No, absolutely not. If you don't have access to a rack you can use dumbbells. The bottom line is, for COMPLETE leg developement you need to do squats.

Originally posted by o-dub and if i train legs hard then i cant do HIIT 3 times a week becuz my legs will be too sore?

You have to establish your own priorities. Do you want a GOOD leg workout or do you want to be able to do HIIT 3 times a week? Sorry, I can't decide that one for you.

Originally posted by o-dub
are leg extensions and leg curls enough for the legs? (i dont have a squat rack) and if i train legs hard then i cant do HIIT 3 times a week becuz my legs will be too sore?

weight training takes priority over cardio. the benefits of resistance training are far superior to that of cardio, even HIIT...

Originally posted by o-dub
are leg extensions and leg curls enough for the legs? (i dont have a squat rack) and if i train legs hard then i cant do HIIT 3 times a week becuz my legs will be too sore?

I used to think they were when I first started lifting. However, once I started doing research I realized that these are not the leg movements that should be focused on. I began doing squats, lunges, deadlifts (Although I do these on back day), and straight legged deadlifts. My whole entire body shot up in terms of strength in mass quite quickly for a short period. My legs really grew. I can actually see some quad definition when I flex now. In addition, my waist size has increased an inch or two. I can't fit in some of my pants any more!

Originally posted by ALBOB
When done properly, sprints are anerobic, not aerobic.

I never thought of that. This does make sense.

sprints are anerobic, not aerobic.

This is very true. Even mile runners hardly take a breath for the first 200 meters, which is about the longest sprint distance unless you're a genetic marvel and can run 400m in the 40s.

I think you really need a track to do sprints correctly. I find it almost impossible on treadmills for a variety of reasons.

But squats and the "core" lifts impart mass gains like nothing else.

thanx everyone for your help. i was doing HIIT becuz i was trying to get ripped, but i think i will do squats instead. it sounds like it is far more beneficial. thanx guys.

Last comment:

I've heard many people say that if you were to only do one resistance exercise, squats would be by far the number one overall mass builder, with deadlifts in second.

Watch the Ronnie Coleman video-->it's all about the "big lifts," compound movements, maximum CNS stress.

Originally posted by brodus I've heard many people say that if you were to only do one resistance exercise, squats would be by far the number one overall mass builder, with deadlifts in second.

That's been a somewhat accepted statement for many years but you'd have a hard time proving that deads are, in fact, in second place. Between squats and deads they're both terrific for packing mass onto your entire body.

Yeah, both rock.

I'm thinking of doing a German Volume training mass builder during a two-week M1T cycle that consists only of 10 sets of 10 squats on one day, 10 sets of 10 Deads on a second day, and do this twice per week, with no cardio and serious eating.