BodyRecomposition Support Forums

BodyRecomposition Support Forums (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//index.php)
-   Articles on the Main Site (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Comparing Strength Muscle Mass Increases in Young Women (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//showthread.php?t=32036)

lylemcdonald 06-23-2016 09:58 AM

Comparing Strength Muscle Mass Increases in Young Women
 
Main Site

Cytochrome 07-13-2016 12:17 PM

For this to really have much meaning, don't they need to try compounds with the upper body and simpler exercises with the lower? Not that I don't believe the results; you just need to rule out the possibility that legs just don't grow as much/fast as upper, period.

lylemcdonald 07-13-2016 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cytochrome (Post 293536)
For this to really have much meaning, don't they need to try compounds with the upper body and simpler exercises with the lower? Not that I don't believe the results; you just need to rule out the possibility that legs just don't grow as much/fast as upper, period.

They talked about this in the discussion and I think I did too, along with addressing other issues with the study that they also addressed.

Read it again.

Cytochrome 07-15-2016 08:54 AM

True, and was mentioned that upper body is arguably less trained to begin with. It always just seems much easier to blow up your upper body than to get bigger legs for women. Even in serious lifters who aren't shirking the real leg work, their legs seem "normal" and then their arms are just...hyooge. It's so easy to look top-heavy, even without implants.

Then again, it could just be contrasting, ahem, cultural norms where you're supposed to have 8-inch arms. It's also possible little bit of muscle makes a big difference up top but is less noticeable on the bottom. :/

Still, seems to be a theme.

lylemcdonald 07-15-2016 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cytochrome (Post 293536)
For this to really have much meaning, don't they need to try compounds with the upper body and simpler exercises with the lower? Not that I don't believe the results; you just need to rule out the possibility that legs just don't grow as much/fast as upper, period.

The researchers state that
"

One limitation to the present study was the use of other exercises that trained the same musculature as the bench press, leg press and arm curl. These additional exercises were used in a study of the effects of whole- versus split-body weight training routines"

And

"Iíd mention that, even due to activities of daily living, the lower body usually gets some work (walking, climbing stairs) while the upper body frequently does not. Itís possible that some of the difference in growth is related to this. We know that untrained muscles grow more effectively than trained muscles so perhaps the relatively less trained nature of the upper body is responsible for the faster growth. Since this study and the one linked above did have some simple leg movements that didnít cause growth, I see this as a possibility."

So it was addressed, PERIOD.

Cytochrome 07-15-2016 09:25 AM

Quote:

"Iíd mention that, even due to activities of daily living, the lower body usually gets some work (walking, climbing stairs) while the upper body frequently does not. Itís possible that some of the difference in growth is related to this. We know that untrained muscles grow more effectively than trained muscles so perhaps the relatively less trained nature of the upper body is responsible for the faster growth. Since this study and the one linked above did have some simple leg movements that didnít cause growth, I see this as a possibility."

So it was addressed, PERIOD.
Yeah I just mentioned that and was agreeing. :/


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.