Working out legs - does it make your body stronger?

DOMS · 09-06-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigsahm21

I've heard that this is true because when you lift, a certain gland releases some kind of muscle building/repairing hormone, the amount of which is realesed depending on the volume of exercise done...so lifting with your legs releases more of this hormone.

A lot of positive (and some negative) hormonal reactions occur when you work out, but the key one (right now anyway) is HGH (Human Growth Hormone).

TJ Cline · 09-06-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

yea, it is defenitly true. this might help to explain the study i was reffering to early about their arm growth in the guys that only squatted.

But, i still wonder if lower body training will increase upper body strength. I mean, like i said, it sounds good on paper, but.....is it really capable of happening?

I think like CP said it builds the core up so your entire body is stronger. Just the support it gives will help military pressing in a huge way and also bench to a lesser degree, but I doubt it helps much with isolation strength like preacher curls and seated cable laterals ect.

**P-funk** · 09-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

I think like CP said it builds the core up so your entire body is stronger. Just the support it gives will help military pressing in a huge way and also bench to a lesser degree, but I doubt it helps much with isolation strength like preacher curls and seated cable laterals ect.

yea, i defenitly don't disagree with that. In my first post I also said that it was more demanding because the weight is supported by your upper back.

What I am getting at is, I would like to see a study that take, say 20 male weight lifters, and tests their 3RM bench press. Then, they go on a program of only lower body training (squatting and deadlifting) for 4 weeks and then they re-test their 3RM.

KataKlysm954 · 09-06-2006, 02:24 PM

also every one who looked at this post replied. guess it was a good ? to ask ppl

DaMayor · 09-06-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

yea, i defenitly don't disagree with that. In my first post I also said that it was more demanding because the weight is supported by your upper back.

What I am getting at is, I would like to see a study that take, say 20 male weight lifters, and tests their 3RM bench press. Then, they go on a program of only lower body training (squatting and deadlifting) for 4 weeks and then they re-test their 3RM.

Wouldn't the results be skewed due to the fact that they weren't training upper body at all? I mean, surely they would lose some strength in their upper body during the four weeks they were training lower body, no?

DaMayor · 09-06-2006, 02:32 PM

Okay, hows about this? These subjects train light, whatever (50% of their max. capacity) as long as it is consistant for a period of x-weeks, after a certain period of time they then double their lower body training for a four week period while maintaining the same volume with their upper body work. Would that be a more workable scenario?

KataKlysm954 · 09-06-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

Okay, hows about this? These subjects train light, whatever (50% of their max. capacity) as long as it is consistant for a period of x-weeks, after a certain period of time they then double their lower body training for a four week period while maintaining the same volume with their upper body work. Would that be a more workable scenario?

that sounds like that would work well

PWGriffin · 09-06-2006, 02:43 PM

If they did a study with people who hadn't lifted weights before....tested their 3RM bench press....then started the squat program. Also, the test would need a large number of participants IMO. ...then the results wouldn't be skewed IMO. But good point on the fact that if they are trained athletes then no amount of lower body work would help them maintain upper body strength in the absence of all upper body training.

Quote:

Wouldn't the results be skewed due to the fact that they weren't training upper body at all? I mean, surely they would lose some strength in their upper body during the four weeks they were training lower body, no

DaMayor · 09-06-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KataKlysm954

that sounds like that would work well

Yeah, but I think that would only create the starting point for the study.
What I should have said was that there should also be another (control?)group doing the 50% max. capacity for the same period. After both groups have concluded the x-weeks of training (one continuing the whole body @ 50%, and the other increasing lower body training for the same period) then both groups should be allowed to increase their workout volume more torwards their "normal" capacity.....review results...bouya!

Disclaimer: DaMayor is not a personal trainer. DaMayor is not an Impersonal trainer. DaMayor is not a statistician, a scientist,physiologist, kinestologist, or a good speeler.

DaMayor · 09-06-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

If they did a study with people who hadn't lifted weights before....tested their 3RM bench press....then started the squat program. Also, the test would need a large number of participants IMO. ...then the results wouldn't be skewed IMO. But good point on the fact that if they are trained athletes then no amount of lower body work would help them maintain upper body strength in the absence of all upper body training.

True. But they would all at least have to be in comparable condition, age, etc., wouldn't you think?

KataKlysm954 · 09-06-2006, 02:49 PM

lol like a science experiment.

PWGriffin · 09-06-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

True. But they would all at least have to be in comparable condition, age, etc., wouldn't you think?

That was the main reason behind me saying I think the study should have a large number of participants....or perhaps different studies should be done on different groups of people.

By using a very large number of participants of all types and backgrounds (except they can't be lifting weights right now) then the average result would be the rule. Provided the results showed a distinct pattern among all types.

**P-funk** · 09-06-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

Wouldn't the results be skewed due to the fact that they weren't training upper body at all? I mean, surely they would lose some strength in their upper body during the four weeks they were training lower body, no?

That is the whole point....To see if lower body training improved upper body performance. by them training their upper body, they test would be skewed because they were training their upper body. Ofcourse it would get stronger.

If, our hypothesis is correct (lower body strength training improves upper body performance), then they would be able to gain some strength in their 3RM bench press OR maintain their 3RM bench press over the 4 week testing period, showing validity in the study by proving that detraining was prevented.

Witchblade · 09-06-2006, 04:19 PM

I'm gonna agree with cowpimp mainly on this one. I think the only really notable improvement would be the core strength which could assist on other exercises. Usually, with these kind of problems, theory says A while logic (and/or common sense) would be unsure; in practice, A is in fact true, but in such a minor way that it is almost nihil.

Therefore I'd say: Yes, it does improve upper body strength, but in a very, very minor way. It would improve core strength a lot though.

DaMayor · 09-06-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witchblade

I'm gonna agree with cowpimp mainly on this one. I think the only really notable improvement would be the core strength which could assist on other exercises. Usually, with these kind of problems, theory says A while logic (and/or common sense) would be unsure; in practice, A is in fact true, but in such a minor way that it is almost nihil.

Therefore I'd say: Yes, it does improve upper body strength, but in a very, very minor way. It would improve core strength a lot though.

I initially thought the same thing. But core strength effects both upper and lower body strength. The focus here, as I saw it, was the effects of lower body strength only on upper body strength.

Either way, until a study can be found (based on my specifications above

) we'll never know.

P, put one together bro! PW can monitor the subjects and Trouble can write,edit and publish it......and yes, Jodi can hand out copies at the truck stop...er, trailer park.

PWGriffin · 09-06-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMayor

P, put one together bro! PW can monitor the subjects and Trouble can write,edit and publish it......and yes, Jodi can hand out copies at the truck stop...er, trailer park.

The jodi comment wins the thread.

**CowPimp** · 09-06-2006, 08:58 PM

I wanted to add, that empirically training my lower body in conjunction with my upper body definitely seemed to produce better results than training my upper body alone, or merely doing lower body isolation stuff. When I started squatting and deadlifting my upper body lifts went up like mad, but I wasn't only working my lower body at the time.

danchubbz · 09-07-2006, 05:23 AM

well if u do exercises likes deads and squats in particular in your lower body workout then obviously there gonna increase your upper body isn't it!!!!

mike456 · 09-07-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danchubbz

well if u do exercises likes deads and squats in particular in your lower body workout then obviously there gonna increase your upper body isn't it!!!!

true, deads also work, erectors, core and these muscles are used in rows, and squats also work the erectors core, but your missing the point.

They should just do leg extensions, and leg curls, and then see if there upper body strength increases, they have to use exercises that dont involve muscles that are used in upper body exercises, but even than stronger legs means a stronger bench, so I dont think they should use bb Bench Press to test it, but a machine chest press, because I doubt a machne chest press uses your core, legs, or erectors

Pedigree · 09-07-2006, 11:33 AM

Heavy squats not only build physical strength, but also neural strength.
Stronger CNS = stronger body.

BigDyl · 09-08-2006, 10:40 PM

09-06-2006, 04:19 PM	#44
Witchblade Succinct Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Holland Posts: 4,443 Photos: 2	I'm gonna agree with cowpimp mainly on this one. I think the only really notable improvement would be the core strength which could assist on other exercises. Usually, with these kind of problems, theory says A while logic (and/or common sense) would be unsure; in practice, A is in fact true, but in such a minor way that it is almost nihil. Therefore I'd say: Yes, it does improve upper body strength, but in a very, very minor way. It would improve core strength a lot though.
	My Linkdump [LSFW] IM Official FAQ [WORK IN PROGRESS]

09-06-2006, 08:58 PM	#47
CowPimp Fueled by Testosterone Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 15,428	I wanted to add, that empirically training my lower body in conjunction with my upper body definitely seemed to produce better results than training my upper body alone, or merely doing lower body isolation stuff. When I started squatting and deadlifting my upper body lifts went up like mad, but I wasn't only working my lower body at the time.
	The only time it's bad to feel the burn is when you're peeing... CowPimp Picks Up Heavy Shit MySpace YouTube Videos

09-07-2006, 05:23 AM	#48
danchubbz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 287	well if u do exercises likes deads and squats in particular in your lower body workout then obviously there gonna increase your upper body isn't it!!!!
danchubbz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 287

09-07-2006, 11:33 AM	#50
Pedigree Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 449	Heavy squats not only build physical strength, but also neural strength. Stronger CNS = stronger body.
Pedigree Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 449

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-06-2006, 02:24 PM	#34
KataKlysm954 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Fort lauderdale, Florida Posts: 203	also every one who looked at this post replied. guess it was a good ? to ask ppl

09-06-2006, 02:32 PM	#36
DaMayor On a Perpetual Bulk Elite Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ... Posts: 6,145	Okay, hows about this? These subjects train light, whatever (50% of their max. capacity) as long as it is consistant for a period of x-weeks, after a certain period of time they then double their lower body training for a four week period while maintaining the same volume with their upper body work. Would that be a more workable scenario?

09-06-2006, 02:49 PM	#41
KataKlysm954 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Fort lauderdale, Florida Posts: 203	lol like a science experiment.