# Working out legs - does it make your body stronger?



## KataKlysm954 (Sep 6, 2006)

i hear a lot of people saying that when you work out your legs the rest of your body becomes stronger and allows you to lift more weight in other exercises. is this a proven fact?


----------



## kenwood (Sep 6, 2006)

KataKlysm954 said:


> i hear a lot of people saying that when you work out your legs the rest of your body becomes stronger and allows you to lift more weight in other exercises. is this a proven fact?


yes.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2006)

kenwood said:


> yes.



he asked if it was a proven fact.

you said "yes"

please cite your study that proves this.



go back to school too.


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> he asked if it was a proven fact.
> 
> you said "yes"
> 
> ...



*Gives P high five*


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> he asked if it was a proven fact.
> 
> you said "yes"
> 
> ...





I agree with kenwood

 

I got nothin.  Your the one with all those cool studies and journals P!!  Where u at??


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

KataKlysm954 said:


> i hear a lot of people saying that when you work out your legs the rest of your body becomes stronger and allows you to lift more weight in other exercises. is this a proven fact?



I would say no....consider the question, or the phrasing of the question....or the logic behind the question.

Would working your upper body alone improve leg strength? I say no.

Pat?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> I agree with kenwood
> 
> 
> 
> I got nothin.  Your the one with all those cool studies and journals P!!  Where u at??



It may take awhile to find something (if there is something) on this topic.

I just did a quick search and got nothing, which means I need to (a) dig deeper or (b) there is nothing and this was never tested.


There was a study that had tested upper arm girth on a program that only trained lower body (squats) through a 6 or 8 week period (can't remember).  the idea was to show that training legs alone causes growth in the upper body.  the guys in the study all showed circumfrence improvements in their arms.


Whether it causes strength or not, I would have to look....I mean, on paper it sounds like a good idea though....big muscles group (glutes are biggest in the human body), neurologically stimulating, total body movement (weight in stabilized on the upper back), etc.....




ps- the only reason I have all the "cool" studies it because when I read things I like I print them out and save them in one of the many binders lying all over my floor for reference later (if I ever need to look something up or to state my points with people).  if you are in the industry I suggest you do the same.  it will save headaches later down the road and, by forcing yourself to read and find something like 2-3 abstracts a day (they are short), will help you gain a wealth of knowledge in a years time.


----------



## kenwood (Sep 6, 2006)

KataKlysm954 said:


> i hear a lot of people saying that when you work out your legs the rest of your body becomes stronger and allows you to lift more weight in other exercises. is this a proven fact?



don't try an make an excuse not to train legs.   ...its half your body. would you train one arm and not the other? would you train 1 pec anf not the other?  would you?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2006)

kenwood said:


> don't try an make an excuse not to train legs.   ...its half your body. would you train one arm and not the other? would you train 1 pec anf not the other?  would you?



cite your sources.


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> cite your sources.



Are you kidding? He can't even _*spell*_ 'sources'.

Duhhhh....KFC journal of physiology?


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

Oh, I forgot....

_*Get back to school, Kenboy!*_


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> It  (glutes are biggest in the human body), neurologically stimulating, total body movement (weight in stabilized on the upper back), etc.....
> .



I thought that the glutes were the strongest and the lats were the biggest?? 



> ps- the only reason I have all the "cool" studies it because when I read things I like I print them out and save them in one of the many binders lying all over my floor for reference later (if I ever need to look something up or to state my points with people).  if you are in the industry I suggest you do the same.  it will save headaches later down the road and, by forcing yourself to read and find something like 2-3 abstracts a day (they are short), will help you gain a wealth of knowledge in a years time



Thx for the advice, I started doing that with the stickies here and a couple articles on T-nation.  Some of the studies you post, I need more basic knowledge first, to really fully understand what's going on.  I get the jist of most because of basic english skills and context clues.  But I love reading stuff on the subject!  And I've learned so much already.  

I'm getting a binder and getting that going.  That's just a great idea.  

Where do you find some of those studies though?  Just googling something on line?  Or are there specific places you check periodically??


----------



## KataKlysm954 (Sep 6, 2006)

kenwood said:


> don't try an make an excuse not to train legs.   ...its half your body. would you train one arm and not the other? would you train 1 pec anf not the other?  would you?



hmm... excuses you think? Not exactly, I wasn't making excuses im just trying to find out information that I'm not sure about ATM. 

P.S. Learn how to spell high school drop out!


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

The kenny blasting is kinda getting old....the kid can't say anything without someone calling him a loser or dropout or something.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> Whether it causes strength or not, I would have to look....I mean, on paper it sounds like a good idea though....big muscles group (glutes are biggest in the human body), neurologically stimulating, total body movement (weight in stabilized on the upper back), etc...



I remember reading somewhere about Squats creating a rise in HGH levels.  Basically, the quads and hamstring are the biggest muscles in the body and when you work them, they great the largest release of HGH by virtue of being the biggest.

I can't find anything with a quick search at Google or at T-Nation.


----------



## mike456 (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> The kenny blasting is kinda getting old....the kid can't say anything without someone calling him a loser or dropout or something.



true story


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> The kenny blasting is kinda getting old....the kid can't say anything without someone calling him a loser or dropout or something.



People here have offered advice, positive input, etc. etc., but the guy consistantly opens himself up to criticism and sets himself up to be knocked down.....

What do you suggest? Encourage the kind of behavior that is so typical of his generation? I think not.


----------



## Gordo (Sep 6, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I remember reading somewhere about Squats creating a rise in HGH levels.  Basically, the quads and hamstring are the biggest muscles in the body and when you work them, they great the largest release of HGH by virtue of being the biggest.
> 
> I can't find anything with a quick search at Google or at T-Nation.



This is fairly well cited...but unfortunately a lot of the references are just abstracts unless you have a subscription....the work by Fleck and Kraemer seem to back up the thought that compounds are more effective than isolation, But there's a lot more compounds out there than just squats.



> Multi-joint exercises, such as squats, that utilise large muscle masses are more effective than isolation exercises of smaller muscle groups (6)....
> 6. Hakkinen, K. and A. Pakarinen. Acute hormonal responses to two different fatiguing heavy resistance protocols in male athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 74(2): 882-887, 1993



Wouldn't it be more to the effect that bigger muscles have the capacity to move more weight, so, _as long as you are moving bigger relative loads_, you are getting a bigger hormonal reponse.

If you are only squatting 5 lbs but curling 150lbs....you might actually get a bigger hormone reponse from the curl, all things being equal (kind of a silly example, but you get the idea).


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2006)

Gordo said:


> http://www.drsquat.com/articles/T.htmlIf you are only squatting 5 lbs but curling 150lbs....you might actually get a bigger hormone reponse from the curl, all things being equal (kind of a silly example, but you get the idea).



I was assuming that during the leg workout, that more than a minimal effort was being made.  That's to say, all things being equal.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2006)

I would think that the increases in core strength you gain from performing lower body exercises would have some good carryover to various upper body exercises, if nothing else.  Not to mention the exercises where the legs assist, like the bench press.


----------



## kenwood (Sep 6, 2006)

KataKlysm954 said:


> hmm... excuses you think? Not exactly, I wasn't making excuses im just trying to find out information that I'm not sure about ATM.
> 
> P.S. Learn how to spell high school drop out!



well i just figured you were making this thread to find a reason to train legs and if you didnt find a reason to, you just wouldnt train em.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> Where do you find some of those studies though?  Just googling something on line?  Or are there specific places you check periodically??



peer reviewed journals....

pubmed.com
medscape.com
nsca-lift.org (search through the research journals)


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> People here have offered advice, positive input, etc. etc., but the guy consistantly opens himself up to criticism and sets himself up to be knocked down.....
> 
> What do you suggest? Encourage the kind of behavior that is so typical of his generation? I think not.



You're not his father.  Get off his case.  I don't see you goin A-wall on every stupid kid on this site do I ??  Ok then hypocrite, STFU.  



> Are you kidding? He can't even spell 'sources'.
> 
> Duhhhh....KFC journal of physiology?





> Oh, I forgot....
> 
> Get back to school, Kenboy!



That's just in this thread, and he didn't really say anything that dumb.  You just think it's funny and it's not.  So what if he did say something dumb.  He's fuckin 16.  With the superior intellect your displaying at this juncture, I'm sure you never did anything stupid or rash at his age.


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> You're not his father.  Get off his case.  I don't see you goin A-wall on every stupid kid on this site do I ??  Ok then hypocrite, STFU.
> 
> That's just in this thread, and he didn't really say anything that dumb.  You just think it's funny and it's not.  So what if he did say something dumb.  He's fuckin 16.  With the superior intellect your displaying at this juncture, I'm sure you never did anything stupid or rash at his age.




I suggest that you choose your words carefully, and that you choose your battles even more carefully.  

As I said before, people here have offered advice with the _*best of intentions *_for this young man. Whether he listens or not is *his* choice. Whether he believes everything that is said is *his* choice. My money says that he has the ability to determine which comments are sincere and which are a poke in the ribs. 

Now, if you want to pick a trivial flame bout with someone, carry your ignorant ass back to the open chat area and sparr with the children.

But don't piss me off, little man.


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> I suggest that you choose your words carefully, and that you choose your battles even more carefully.
> 
> As I said before, people here have offered advice with the _*best of intentions *_for this young man. Whether he listens or not is *his* choice. Whether he believes everything that is said is *his* choice. My money says that he has the ability to determine which comments are sincere and which are a poke in the ribs.
> 
> ...




 

You're funny....If I continue are you going to threaten physical violence??


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> You're funny....If I continue are you going to threaten physical violence??


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I remember reading somewhere about Squats creating a rise in HGH levels.  Basically, the quads and hamstring are the biggest muscles in the body and when you work them, *they great the largest release of HGH by virtue of being the biggest.*
> 
> I can't find anything with a quick search at Google or at T-Nation.


I got in an argument about this here a long time ago and did some research to prove my point. Well I was wrong and it seems that *HGH is released* when doing squats and dead lifts. My anatomy and physiology Prof said it was BS but I found several medical and college sources that said it was true.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I got in an argument about this here a long time ago and did some research to prove my point. Well I was wrong and it seems that *HGH is released* when doing squats and dead lifts. My anatomy and physiology Prof said it was BS but I found several medical and college sources that said it was true.



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?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I got in an argument about this here a long time ago and did some research to prove my point. Well I was wrong and it seems that *HGH is released* when doing squats and dead lifts. My anatomy and physiology Prof said it was BS but I found several medical and college sources that said it was true.



I've run into the fact that the quads & hams release a large quantity of HGH in several online article, magazine articles, and serveral books.  The sad thing is that this information is usually given just to motivate the reader to *do squats*.


----------



## bigsahm21 (Sep 6, 2006)

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.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 6, 2006)

bigsahm21 said:


> 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).


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

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


----------



## DaMayor (Sep 6, 2006)

P-funk said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

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 (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

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.  



> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

KataKlysm954 said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

lol like a science experiment.


----------



## PWGriffin (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

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 (Sep 6, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

DaMayor said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2006)

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 (Sep 7, 2006)

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 (Sep 7, 2006)

danchubbz said:


> 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 (Sep 7, 2006)

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


----------



## BigDyl (Sep 8, 2006)




----------

