Vuoi braccia grosse? Allena le gambe!

[gian90]

Mi piacerebbe continuare la discussione che sto facendo a pezzi con qualche utente del forum: riporto gli ultimi post:

Spike:
filippo, proviamo a chiarirla una volta per tutte questa cosa. Son convinto che se anche si dimostrasse definitivamente che lo squat aumenta la risposta degli ormoni anabolici la differenza con la pressa sarebbe trascurabile. Di certo son sicuro che con un curl non ci sarebbero paragoni. Quando poi si scrive che lo squat fa crescere anche le braccia ci si riferisce ai principianti ovvio, Chi fa già curl con 50kg cosa vuoi che gli faccia fare squat pesante?. Il vantaggio vero però è tutto un altro: sfondare certe soglie personali nei carichi in esercizi complessi (e per complessi non mi riferisco semplicemente a multiarticolari) come lo squat - che si parli di 100kg o 200 poi è una questione personale- obbliga il corpo a degli equilibri che si trasmettono in tutto il corpo. Se riesci a fare lo squat con il 90% del carico senza SP senza sculare minimamente ti ritrovi un core così forte che poi lo usi anche facendo curl e quello ti fa ipertrofizzare i bicipiti. Il contrario non succede anzi non succede nemmeno che il curl ti faccia migliorare più di tanto il core nonostante possa diventatare un elemento di debolezza
dell'esercizio scelto. Che poi ci sia una predisposizione all'upperbody o al lowerbody non cambia questo concetto, bisogna anche accettare che ognuno di noi è diverso i molte componenti della sua costituzione ma relativamente fra gli elementi che ci costituiscono (sistema nervoso e ormonale in primis) siamo tutti molto simili.
Tengo a precisare che ho eliminato in questo discorso componenti importantissime come la risposta del SN al carico singolo (impossibile caricare nel curl quanto nello stacco) e della produzione di lattato (nello squat il lattato prodotto è per forza di più anche se lo facciamo a buffer contro un curl alla morte, semplicemente perché si uasano più muscoli- e ricordo che il lattato non è un mero prodotto di scarto ma di transizione).

Gianlu...:
be gian, non pensi che x fare 200 di squat servano molti molti più muscoli anche di sopra? non bastano le gambe x far squat... altrimenti ti spezzi
mettiti sulle spalle 200kg o 250.. dimmi dove senti la fatica? ovunque. quindi cresci ovunqe. abbastanza scientifico no?!

Io:
Anche io pensavo questo ma mi sono un po' ricreduto. Dove sei più grosso? sicuramente in gambe e core ma nel resto non penso!
Voglio dire se uno vuole l'upper grosso è forviante dirgli "fai 200kg di squat e sarai grosso" perchè in questa frase deve essere anche precluso che si alleni forte anche nel resto del corpo. Ma se uno si sfonda di panca e stacchi dubito che i bicipiti gli crescano per magia
Quindi io gli avrei risposto:
arriva a 130kg di panca
o
arriva a fare serie lunghe di dip con +40kg
o
arriva ad usare i manubri da 40kg
ecc ecc

Gianlu...:
vabbè la panca per l'upper è il top però a livello globale lo squat vince sicuramente....
se per assurdo dovessi scegliere un solo esercizio per diventare globalmente più grosso, cioè per guadagnare proprio più massa magra possibile in generale, lo squat è il meglio sicuramente
ovvio la distribuzione sarà maggiormente su gambe e schiena, però entro certi termini metteresti muscoli ovunque. poi è sempre un discorso di specialzzazione. questo è più vero più uno è di basso livello. e maggiormente falso più uno è avanzato...

Io:
jan io però non credo molto a sta cosa. La risposta ipertrofica è locale e non sistemica, ci sono anche degli studi in merito. Se fai solo squat non possono crescerti petto, spalle e braccia.
Quindi alla faccia vostra se potessi fare un solo esercizio opterei per la panca !

Gianlu...:
ma il petto credi stia rilassato mentre fai squat?
cmq la spinta ormonale è globale non locale...
guarda chi fa WL, hanno i bicipiti nulli? non direi proprio. sono proporzionati col resto... eppure non fanno ne trazioni ne bicipiti...
in ogni caso la questione è matematica, ti parlo di maggiore massa in generale... lo squat vince se devi scegliere un esercizio, se mi rispondi: peferisco meno muscoli ma maggiormente distribuiti in petto e braccia allora ti do ragione
boh... sarà che io vorrei avre solo le gambe grosse e il resto normale per andare contro tedenza...

Io:
Io ho scritto che la risposta ipertrofica è locale! non la spinta anabolica
Su quest'ultima gli studi dicono che essa non sia in grado di influenzare il resto del corpo per quanto riguarda la crescita.
Per questo ad uno che vuole braccia grosse e gli viene consigliato di sfondarsi di squat mi sembra una risposta piuttosto forviante...
Per quanto riguarda i WL, quali devo guardare? quelli olimpici?
C'è sempre di mezzo la genetica alla fine...

Spike:
c'è sempre di mezzo la limitatezza degli studi dal punto di vista del tempo, inutile sparare sentenze su controlli fatti per 2 mesi, che la risposta ipertrofica sia locale è ovvio (date un occhio ai pattinatori). Quella di gianlu è una risposta limitata:
è ridicolo voglio le braccia grosse--->fai squat
ma è altrettanto ridicolo
voglio le braccia grosse--->fai curl
ora iccome stiamo semplificando, vediamo di individuare qual'è l'errore più comune che fa l'utente medio, se entri in questa logica vedrai che la risposta di gianlu è quella giusta

Io:
Ma infatti per bicipiti grossi io farei multiarticolare di trazione con presa supina + isolamento. Assodato che la risposta ipertrofica è locale e che un'esercizio non possa influenzare, grazie alle "spinte anaboliche" la crescita dei distretti non "coinvolti" fai squat per le braccia a me sembra una risposta non adatta; ma questo è solo il mio parere sia chiaro...

Anche perchè all'affermazione di jan sull'osservare i WL io potrei dirti di venire in palestra da me dove girano pettoni e braccioni senza nemmeno sapere cosa siano squat e stacchi, ad esempio. Purtroppo non si può generalizzare...

Questo lo studio che ho postato:
Phys Sportsmed. 2010 Oct;38(3):97-104.
Anabolic processes in human skeletal muscle: restoring the identities of growth hormone and testosterone.

West DW, Phillips SM.
Abstract

Testosterone supplementation acts via numerous mechanisms as a highly potent anabolic agent to skeletal muscle. Although growth hormone (GH) strongly affects collagen synthesis and lipolysis, as well as increasing lean body mass, it is not anabolic toward the contractile (ie, myofibrillar) muscle tissue in healthy individuals. However, there is a persistent belief (both in scientific literature and among recreational weightlifters) that exercise-induced release of GH and testosterone underpins muscular hypertrophy with resistance training. This is a premature assumption because although pharmacological GH supplementation can increase muscle strength or size in individuals with clinical GH deficiency, there is no evidence that transient exercise-induced changes in GH have the same effects in individuals with normal GH levels. Exercise paradigms are designed based on the assumption (not necessarily evidenced-based mechanisms) that GH and testosterone facilitate anabolic processes that lead to skeletal muscle protein accretion and hypertrophy. Our recent work disputes this assumption. Instead, our data indicate that exercise-induced hormonal elevations do not enhance intracellular markers of anabolic signaling or the acute postexercise elevation of myofibrillar protein synthesis. Furthermore, data from our training study demonstrate that exercise-induced increases in GH and testosterone availability are not necessary for and do not enhance strength and hypertrophy adaptations. Instead, our data lead us to conclude that local mechanisms that are intrinsic to the skeletal muscle tissue performing the resistive contractions (ie, weightlifting) are predominant in stimulating anabolism. The purpose of this article is 1) to provide a brief overview of the mechanisms of action of testosterone and GH; 2) to discuss the inability of physiological exercise-induced elevations in these hormones to have a measurable impact on skeletal muscle anabolism; and 3) to describe factors that we believe are more important for stimulating hypertrophy in human skeletal muscle. Clarifying both the role of hormones in regulating muscle mass as well as the underlying basis for adaptation of skeletal muscle to resistance exercise will hopefully enhance and support the prescription of resistance exercise as an integral component of a healthy lifestyle.


Ora, per proseguire la discussione volevo aggancirami all'ultimo post di spike per mettere un articolo di Lyle Mcd che cade proprio a pennello:

West et. al. Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors. J Appl Physiol. 2009 Nov 12.
The aim of our study was to determine whether resistance exercise-induced elevations in endogenous hormones enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy with training. Twelve healthy young men (21.8 +/- 1.2 y, BMI = 23.1 +/- 0.6 kg(.)m(-2)) independently trained their elbow flexors for 15 weeks on separate days and under different hormonal milieu. In one training condition, participants performed isolated arm curl exercise designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (low hormone, LH); in the other training condition, participants performed identical arm exercise to the LH condition followed immediately by a high volume of leg resistance exercise to elicit a large increase in endogenous hormones (High Hormone, HH). There was no elevation in serum growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) or testosterone after the LH protocol, but significant (P < 0.001) elevations in these hormones immediately and 15 and 30 min after the HH protocol. The hormone responses elicited by each respective exercise protocol late in the training period were similar to the response elicited early in the training period indicating that a divergent post-exercise hormone response was maintained over the training period. Muscle cross-sectional area increased by 12% in LH and 10% in HH (P < 0.001) with no difference between conditions (condition x training interaction, P = 0.25). Similarly, type I (P < 0.01) and type II (P < 0.001) muscle fiber CSA increased with training with no effect of hormone elevation in the HH condition. Strength increased in both arms but the increase was not different between the LH and HH conditions. We conclude that exposure of loaded muscle to acute exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men. Key words: testosterone, growth hormone, IGF-1, anabolism.
My Comments: For several decades now, there has been intense focus on the acute hormonal response to training. This started back in the 80’s where researchers, interested in growth did a rather cursory examination of elite powerlifters and bodybuilders, made some assumptions about muscle size, made some even bigger assumptions about how they trained, and then proceeded to reach some staggeringly poor conclusions.
Basically, what they observed was that bodybuilders were bigger than powerlifters, which is debatable in the first place. They also observed that powerlifters typically used low reps and long rest periods and bodybuilders (remember: this was the Arnold era) trained with high reps and short rest periods. Thus they concluded that high reps and short rest stimulated muscle growth and went looking for reasons why this was the case. I’d note that this is not really how you’re supposed to do science: you don’t reach your conclusion and go find reasons why it’s right. You test hypotheses and draw your conclusions from that. But I digress.
And the main focus for a while was potential differences in hormonal response to training, primarily focusing on testosterone and growth hormone (GH). The basic study design that was followed was to compare the acute hormonal response to either 3 sets of 5 repetitions with a long rest interval (3 minutes) to sets of 10 with a 1 minute rest interval. Repeatedly, studies showed that the first type of training boosted testosterone and the second GH. Entire training schemes have grown out of this but there was a problem: nobody ever bothered to see if these acute (usually less than 10-15 minute) bumps in hormones actually did anything.
Nevermind that this makes little sense anyhow for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that women have higher GH levels than men and get a bigger GH response to training, yet they don’t grow better. If anything, with the known impact of testosterone on muscle growth, if there was to be any benefit to this, you’d expect the lower rep/heavy work to be superior. Yet the researchers were arguing that it wasn’t. There was a logic missing in the argument (not the least of which being the assumption that powerlifters had smaller muscles than bodybuilders) that seemed to get skipped over.
In addition to the science, there is a long held belief, echoed in various places (including the comments section of another contentious article I wrote titled () that certain movements, notably squats and deadlifts, will have full-body growth stimulating properties, generally mediated through the hormonal response.
It’s not uncommon to see people recommending things like “If you want big arms, squat/train legs.” for example. Essentially, heavy leg work is touted as being the key to overall growth. Nevermind that the same people who make this argument will often complain about “All those guys in the gym with huge upper bodies and no legs” without realizing that the two ideas contradict one another (that is, if leg training is required for growth, how can guys get huge upper bodies without training legs). But I digress again.
In any case, this study examined the issue directly with a somewhat confusing study design: twelve healthy young men trained their biceps on different days of the week under different training conditions. In what they called the low-hormone condition, the biceps were trained all by themselves; no other exercise was done. In the other called the high-hormone condition, the biceps were trained and then a large-volume of leg training was done to elevate the supposedly anabolic hormones.
Does that make sense, all subjects trained both arms, but on different days and under different conditions. And the training was far enough apart that the hormonal response from the leg training wouldn’t have impacted the low-hormone training session. This training was followed for 15 weeks and subjects consumed protein both before and after the training (so there was nutritional support).
Hormone levels were measured and while there was no significant change in hormones in the low-hormone situation, in the high-hormone situation, there were increases in lactate, growth hormone, free and total testosterone and IGF-1 with the peak occurring approximately 15 minutes after the leg work.
And, if the hormonal response to heavy leg training actually has any impact, what you’d expect to see is that one arm, the one trained along with the leg training, would grow better.
Did it happen? Guess.
Both maximal strength and muscle cross sectional area increased identically in both arms to the tune of a 20% vs. 19% increase in strength for low- vs. high-hormones and an increase in skeletal muscle cross sectional area of 12% vs. 10% in low- vs. high-hormones. These differences were not statistically significant. Quoting the researchers:

Despite vast differences in hormone availability in the immediate post- exercise period, we found no differences in the increases in strength or hypertrophy in muscle exercised under low or high hormone conditions after 15 weeks of resistance training. These findings are in agreement with our hypothesis and previous work showing that exercise-induced hormone elevations do not stimulate myofibrillar protein synthesis (36) and are not necessary for hypertrophy (37). Thus, our data ((36) and present observations), when viewed collectively, lead us to conclude that local mechanisms are of far greater relevance in regulating muscle protein accretion occurring with resistance training, and that acute changes in hormones, such as GH, IGF-1, and testosterone, do not predict or in any way reflect a capacity for hypertrophy.

I don’t think it gets any clearer than that and I’d note that another recent study titled “Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men.” by the same group found the exact same thing.
Summing Up: Leg training has no magic impact on overall growth, most of which is determined locally (through mechanisms of tension and fatigue mediated by changes in local muscular metabolism). If you want big arms, train arms. If you want big legs, train legs.
And if folks are wondering why empirically ‘folks who train legs hard’ seem to get big compared to those who don’t, I’d offer the following explanation: folks willing to toil on heavy leg work work hard. Folks too lazy to train legs hard often don’t. And it’s the overall intensity of the training that is causing the difference, not the presence or absence of squats per se. Which is why guys who only hammer pecs and guns get big pecs and guns even if they couldn’t find the squat rack in the gym: the small acute hormonal responses to training are simply irrelevant to overall growth.


A me piacerebbe sentire anche altri utenti, Guru, Devil, Armando ecc...
E' una discussione interessante a mio parere, basta che non si concluda con la guerra delle fazioni