>Results: The T test showed that performing 6 and 12 sets resulted in increases of post exercise GH (p<0.01). Performing 6 sets of squats resulted in post exercise decrease (p<0.01) in IGF-1 and C. Performing 3 sets of squats resulted in immediate post exercise decrease of IGF-1 (p<0.01), which was not maintained 1h after exercise. There were no other significant differences in analysed variables, with the training volume of three sets of three repetitions, confirming previous data suggesting that low volume is the limiting factor in increased post-exercise secretion.
>Conclusion: This study demonstrated that in terms of endocrine response, the optimal volume of high intensity strength exercise is six sets. Therefore, intentionally high volume (12 sets) or low volume (3 sets) are not an effective stimuli for endocrine responses of trained individuals. The 6 sets of squats seems to drive hormonal responses of GH, C and IGF-1, which may play a significant role in stimulating muscle growth and tissue regeneration.
Study claims 6 sets, 3 reps, at 90% one rep max weight, is optimal for growth hormone output. Have we been squatting wrong this whole time bros?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>1 rep: snap city
>2 reps: no gains
>3 reps: massive gains
>4 reps: no gains
>5 reps: negative gains
I still want to do 4x8
>6x3 @ 90%
that's actually brutal
not a sustainable output for a longer period of time IMO, heavy triples especially on squats sap you like nothing else
I do 10x3's at 90%. My squat pr is only 2pl8 though
true 90% is a 4RM
You're fricking serious? I'm basically killing myself every leg day and it turns out I don't have to?
Not sure if trolling or not.
Don't think you are doing 90%, also these percentages and estimates mean less at novice stage.
Your mind is your biggest limiter, not your body.
Westside bros, we've won
I prefer sissy squats and front squats.
Thanks but I'll keep doing 5x5s and 1x5s
>a few hormones peaking for a moment which by itself doesn't change shit in exchange for running yourself into the ground
cool
yep this, I've had it fricking enough with LE STUDIES
>Jamie, pull up that article where they found benching on a bosu ball is no different than on an actual bench
Exercise "science" is a disgrace. The small sample size (how many individuals did they measure? 10? 20?) means that writing "p-value < 0.01" is more of a null hypothesis masturbation than anything, any statistical test has 0 discriminatory power. But these people do not know that because noone teaches them the math they are using and they have zero self awareness
I do 4x8s in squats I'll try this tomorrow on leg day but I also don't know my 1 rep max should I guesstimate? I do 245 4x8 and it's pretty taxing
i can hear hypertrophy academy yelling about transient hormone increases not correlating to hypertrophy as i read this. i tend to agree with him. you need more than a suggestion that something COULD happen, establish a causal link backed up with data
transient increases in hormone production mean absolute dick. There's a reason why the optimal test cycle is you shooting it into your ass like every fricking day instead of doing it weekly like some moronic doctors prescribe. You need the constant signaling for anything meaningful to occur, since you're talking about grams of muscle being added per day.
self reply it's house of hypertrophy got it wrong. he covers all the the study meta analyses.
>there is simply no other exercise
thats where he is wrong