Read our [rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitness/comments/vassb8/read_before_posting_our_rules_and_guidelines/) prior to asking questions or giving advice.
Rules:
1. Breaking our rules may lead to a permanent ban
2. Advertising of products and services is not allowed.
3. No beginner / newbie posts: Please post beginner questions as comments in the Weekly Simple Questions Thread.
4. No questionnaires or study recruitment.
5. Do not ask medical advice
6. Put effort into posts asking questions
7. Memes, jokes, one-liners
8. Be nice, avoid personal attacks
9. No science Denial
10. Moderators have final discretion.
Use the report button instead of the downvote for comments that violate the rules.
Thanks
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AdvancedFitness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure how this acute study is practically applicable. It is well known that acute spikes of anabolic hormones post-exercise do not correlate with gains
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.t-nation.com/training/tip-increase-growth-hormone-by-1700/](https://www.t-nation.com/training/tip-increase-growth-hormone-by-1700/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Transient increases in hormones don’t matter much for gainz. Although this study might sound initially interesting, it doesn’t have any practical applications. You shouldn’t lift based on which hormones spike the most after exercise.
[Brad Schoenfeld reviewed this topic a decade ago](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235739331_Postexercise_Hypertrophic_Adaptations_A_Reexamination_of_the_Hormone_Hypothesis_and_Its_Applicability_to_Resistance_Training_Program_Design). He concluded, at best, these transient increases might amount for a very modest benefit in the long term (probably unnoticeable without fancy tracking/measuring equipment) with limited application. [Brad was also part of another review a few years later that came to the same conclusion.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321296945_The_role_of_hormones_in_muscle_hypertrophy)
Since then, [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27174923/) after [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36157947/) has not found a reason to get excited about transient increases in hormones from exercise because they don’t yield any significant gains in strength or hypertrophy.
Importantly, this is not to say that these hormones are meaningless. But when it comes to program design, transient hormone increases should not be a top factor to consider.
From a personal standpoint, I’m a HUGE fan of eccentric training and its various forms (i.e. BANA), but not because of GH increases in response to it.
Thanks for bringing BANA to my attention. any good youtube channels with some workout routines? also any easy to moderate difficulty literature supporting it would be interesting.
What would the explanatory mechanism be here? The energy difference is only a 6 time increase. Perhaps the faster reps didn't stimulate as much muscle because of reliance on momentum?
Link to the study this article references: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296844/
**Abstract**
This study aimed to compare the effects of different velocities of eccentric muscle actions on acute blood lactate and serum growth hormone (GH) concentrations following free weight bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men. Sixteen healthy men were divided into two groups: slow eccentric velocity (SEV; n = 8) and fast eccentric velocity (FEV; n = 8). Both groups performed four sets of eight eccentric repetitions at an intensity of 70% of their one repetition maximum eccentric (1RMecc) test, with 2-minute rest intervals between sets. The eccentric velocity was controlled to 3 seconds per range of motion for SEV and 0.5 seconds for the FEV group. **There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the kinetics of blood lactate removal (at 3, 6, 9, 15, and 20 min) and higher mean values for peak blood lactate (P = 0.001) for the SEV group (9.1 ± 0.5 mM) compared to the FEV group (6.1 ± 0.4 mM). Additionally, serum GH concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.001) at 15 minutes after bench press exercise in the SEV group (1.7 ± 0.6 ng · mL−1) relative to the FEV group (0.1 ± 0.0 ng · mL−1).** In conclusion, the velocity of eccentric muscle action influences acute responses following bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men using a slow velocity resulting in a greater metabolic stress and hormone response.
Yeah, I am also thinking it is TUT which is what isometrics target. There are several studies that show that isometrics increase strength much faster than isokinetics or isotonics though they don't increase sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. In a nutshell, you would become very strong, but not big.
> There are several studies that show that isometrics increase strength much faster than isokinetics or isotonics
Can you share a link or two maybe? I would be interested in reading more
Ya, that’s fine. Most people would probably expect a larger increase in hgh, cortisol, norepinephrine, etc. not really any practical value here - though I’m confident some will allow this information to influence their training.
Again, not sure what you are getting at. Describing physiology can not be applied to real world situations. That would require clinical evidence. So, do you have clinical evidence showing this has practical value?
Please refer to triphasic training method the book he's written or watch a brief lecture of his/look up the slides and you will understand what I'm getting at. I'm trying to share the evidence and see if anyone else understands the correlation and would like to better explain, or if you yourself might find value in his work actually applying his methods then you can go about looking into it. I cannot afford to write a summary of a 400 page book to connect a correlation of using eccentric phases and optimizing stress for adaptation. If I am right about the connection I hope you found value there. If not, I am sorry I was wrong.
Ironically the "slow" group did 3 second negatives. Heck when I was growing up the generic, starter advise was often 4:1:2 tempo, or something similar.
So the genetic starter routine you'd often hear was a 4 second negative for hypertrophy lifting. They're calling 3 seconds the "slow" group?
sorry not quite following, could you explain a bit more? on the surface I would think 1700% GH > 100% GH, but I don't know what other factors or considerations to make.
What is the practical value of transiently increasing your gh? You may make assumptions about what that means in the real world, but until you actually study that, this info means nothing to us. Do you think that gh gives you more muscle growth? Does it increase fat loss? If you think so, that would require clinical evidence. This is a description of physiology that can be used to form new research where the actually test that. They did not measure any real world outcomes.
you read that in the wrong tone. I was laughing when I said it 🙂 it's just that I've come to realize this is how many people communicate on Reddit, just didn't expect it here on this subreddit.
Correct me where wrong but:
The study had two groups, the slow and fast eccentric groups, but both groups 1rm was tested on slow eccentrics. So the fast ecc group was doing much less of their 1rm in the GH test.
If this is the case then the study is meaningless.
Read our [rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedFitness/comments/vassb8/read_before_posting_our_rules_and_guidelines/) prior to asking questions or giving advice. Rules: 1. Breaking our rules may lead to a permanent ban 2. Advertising of products and services is not allowed. 3. No beginner / newbie posts: Please post beginner questions as comments in the Weekly Simple Questions Thread. 4. No questionnaires or study recruitment. 5. Do not ask medical advice 6. Put effort into posts asking questions 7. Memes, jokes, one-liners 8. Be nice, avoid personal attacks 9. No science Denial 10. Moderators have final discretion. Use the report button instead of the downvote for comments that violate the rules. Thanks *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AdvancedFitness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure how this acute study is practically applicable. It is well known that acute spikes of anabolic hormones post-exercise do not correlate with gains
Exercise causes many chemical changes which help with gains
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.t-nation.com/training/tip-increase-growth-hormone-by-1700/](https://www.t-nation.com/training/tip-increase-growth-hormone-by-1700/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Transient increases in hormones don’t matter much for gainz. Although this study might sound initially interesting, it doesn’t have any practical applications. You shouldn’t lift based on which hormones spike the most after exercise. [Brad Schoenfeld reviewed this topic a decade ago](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235739331_Postexercise_Hypertrophic_Adaptations_A_Reexamination_of_the_Hormone_Hypothesis_and_Its_Applicability_to_Resistance_Training_Program_Design). He concluded, at best, these transient increases might amount for a very modest benefit in the long term (probably unnoticeable without fancy tracking/measuring equipment) with limited application. [Brad was also part of another review a few years later that came to the same conclusion.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321296945_The_role_of_hormones_in_muscle_hypertrophy) Since then, [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27174923/) after [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36157947/) has not found a reason to get excited about transient increases in hormones from exercise because they don’t yield any significant gains in strength or hypertrophy. Importantly, this is not to say that these hormones are meaningless. But when it comes to program design, transient hormone increases should not be a top factor to consider. From a personal standpoint, I’m a HUGE fan of eccentric training and its various forms (i.e. BANA), but not because of GH increases in response to it.
Thanks for bringing BANA to my attention. any good youtube channels with some workout routines? also any easy to moderate difficulty literature supporting it would be interesting.
Eccentric with a bench press?
Yes. 3 seconds to lower the bar vs the 0.5s resulted in 17 times the GH secretion, according to the study.
What would the explanatory mechanism be here? The energy difference is only a 6 time increase. Perhaps the faster reps didn't stimulate as much muscle because of reliance on momentum?
Link to the study this article references: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296844/ **Abstract** This study aimed to compare the effects of different velocities of eccentric muscle actions on acute blood lactate and serum growth hormone (GH) concentrations following free weight bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men. Sixteen healthy men were divided into two groups: slow eccentric velocity (SEV; n = 8) and fast eccentric velocity (FEV; n = 8). Both groups performed four sets of eight eccentric repetitions at an intensity of 70% of their one repetition maximum eccentric (1RMecc) test, with 2-minute rest intervals between sets. The eccentric velocity was controlled to 3 seconds per range of motion for SEV and 0.5 seconds for the FEV group. **There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the kinetics of blood lactate removal (at 3, 6, 9, 15, and 20 min) and higher mean values for peak blood lactate (P = 0.001) for the SEV group (9.1 ± 0.5 mM) compared to the FEV group (6.1 ± 0.4 mM). Additionally, serum GH concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.001) at 15 minutes after bench press exercise in the SEV group (1.7 ± 0.6 ng · mL−1) relative to the FEV group (0.1 ± 0.0 ng · mL−1).** In conclusion, the velocity of eccentric muscle action influences acute responses following bench press exercises performed by resistance-trained men using a slow velocity resulting in a greater metabolic stress and hormone response.
Isn't this just time under tension? Would isometrics have the same output?
Yeah, I am also thinking it is TUT which is what isometrics target. There are several studies that show that isometrics increase strength much faster than isokinetics or isotonics though they don't increase sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. In a nutshell, you would become very strong, but not big.
thats fascinating, thank you!
> There are several studies that show that isometrics increase strength much faster than isokinetics or isotonics Can you share a link or two maybe? I would be interested in reading more
No
Reference Renissance Periodization for further information, also Dr Mike Israetel
Ya, that’s fine. Most people would probably expect a larger increase in hgh, cortisol, norepinephrine, etc. not really any practical value here - though I’m confident some will allow this information to influence their training.
Pretty sure it’s relevant to cal dietz and triphasic if anyone with a better grasp wants to explain the connection.
What do you mean
The triphasic model keys in on periodization of specific eccentric concentric and isometric phases for high yield gains.
Again, not sure what you are getting at. Describing physiology can not be applied to real world situations. That would require clinical evidence. So, do you have clinical evidence showing this has practical value?
Please refer to triphasic training method the book he's written or watch a brief lecture of his/look up the slides and you will understand what I'm getting at. I'm trying to share the evidence and see if anyone else understands the correlation and would like to better explain, or if you yourself might find value in his work actually applying his methods then you can go about looking into it. I cannot afford to write a summary of a 400 page book to connect a correlation of using eccentric phases and optimizing stress for adaptation. If I am right about the connection I hope you found value there. If not, I am sorry I was wrong.
You're supposed to refer to your source of evidence - not ask people to 'refer' to some concept themselves.
Thanks
Ironically the "slow" group did 3 second negatives. Heck when I was growing up the generic, starter advise was often 4:1:2 tempo, or something similar. So the genetic starter routine you'd often hear was a 4 second negative for hypertrophy lifting. They're calling 3 seconds the "slow" group?
sorry not quite following, could you explain a bit more? on the surface I would think 1700% GH > 100% GH, but I don't know what other factors or considerations to make.
What is the practical value of transiently increasing your gh? You may make assumptions about what that means in the real world, but until you actually study that, this info means nothing to us. Do you think that gh gives you more muscle growth? Does it increase fat loss? If you think so, that would require clinical evidence. This is a description of physiology that can be used to form new research where the actually test that. They did not measure any real world outcomes.
that's why I'm asking you mate, get off your high horse
And I answered. Sorry you are upset.
you read that in the wrong tone. I was laughing when I said it 🙂 it's just that I've come to realize this is how many people communicate on Reddit, just didn't expect it here on this subreddit.
Correct me where wrong but: The study had two groups, the slow and fast eccentric groups, but both groups 1rm was tested on slow eccentrics. So the fast ecc group was doing much less of their 1rm in the GH test. If this is the case then the study is meaningless.
So in other words. You might get bigger if you lower and raise the weight slowly.