Arms Don't Grow Faster With Leg Training: Stuart M. Phillips Busts Ronnestad's "Hormonal Ghosts"

Image 1: Although Tom Platz had massive
arms, as well, there is little conclusive scientific
evidence that this was a result of leg training.

Usually I am offering you my thoughts and comments on the results of the studies I am presenting here at the SuppVersity. In this case however, I am going to rely on the insightful analysis of Stuart M. Phillips, head of the Department of Kinesiology, Exercise Metabolism Research Group at the McMaster University, who spotted some interesting inconsistencies in a recently published paper by Ronnestad et al. who had reported that (contrary to conclusive findings from dozens of study by Phillips and others) endogenous hormone release from leg training had a major impact on the anabolic response in the arm flexors (cf. news from March, 2nd / I plead guilty of not having seen these inconsistencies, though I must say in mitigation that back in March I only reported, not commented on studies).

As Phillips points out, Ronnestad's conclusion that training legs+arms results in bigger guns or, rather, that without training legs, your arms won't grow at all is funded in

selective reporting (considering only the site of the largest CSA), incomplete statistical analysis (not comparing the changes (in CSA between arms), and questionable MR practices (Phillips. 2011)

In his analysis of the Ronnestad study, Phillips shows conclusively that, according to Ronnestad's own figures (Phillips refers to figure 6 of the paper, in particular), the authors' statement that

only L + A [leg plus arm training—a high ‘anabolic’ hormonal exposure condition] achieved increase in the CSA at the part of the arm flexors with the largest cross-sectional area (p \ 0.001), while no changes occurred in A [arm only training—a low ‘anabolic’ hormonal exposure condition]. (Ronnestad. 2011)

is not sustainable, since "examination of Fig. 6 in their paper reveals that significant hypertrophy did occur at two sites (of 4 measured) in the A arm", i.e. the non-leg-trained arm. By means as simple as drawing a few vertical lines (cf. figure 1) Phillips is able to show that the hypertrophic response to the training stimulus was in fact identical in three out of the four measured cross sections.

Figure 1: Four horizontal lines are all it took Phillips to show that there must be something wrong with Ronnestad's data; after all, it is unlikely that section 8 of the biceps had atrophied in the course of the stud (illustration taken from Phillip's letter to the editor of the European Journal of Applied Physiology)

Phillips makes a point that, unless one assumes that - for whatever reasons - there has been a strictly localized atrophy in section 8 of the arm (cf. mismatch of pre-values in left and right graph of figure 1), the most likely explanation for the mismatch would be that "the pre- and post-training scans were not aligned at the same point along the arm". Smart-witted as Phillips is, he also observed that with the purportedly greater changes in muscle cross-sectional-area in the leg+arm condition it is strictly impossible for the muscle volume to be identical, unless "the authors believe that the A arm got longer". I would assume that you agree with me that even with eccentric muscle training this would be a rather surprising event. Consequently, this is another argument in favor of the obvious absence of measurable effects of an overall more anabolic milieu in the "arm + leg training"-condition on the hypertrophy response to strength training - or, in short, we still have no conclusive evidence that training legs before arms would make the latter grow faster.

Image 2: Make your biceps grow with the SuppVersity EMG series!

Now, if the hypertophy response was identical, it is even more surprising that the "leg+arm" group exhibited "through some inexplicable mechanism" (Phillips. 2011) an overall greater 1RM strength than the control group. Phillips, who does not refrain from pointing out that "this [was] a surprising observation that was not even alluded to in the paper", argues that this result stands in stark contrast to the "central fatigue" hypothesis Ronnestad et al. cite as an explanation for the "dampened" (Ronnestad. 2011) training loads in the "leg+arm" training group. Phillips, on the other hand, speculates that it could be a direct result of a "a superior neuromuscular adaptation" (Phillips. 2011, my emphasis), which would be the exact opposite of what Ronnestad et al. had in mind.

Even if one neglects the questionable measuring practice of Ronnestad et al., in the course of which the "scanned arm [was] stretched behind the head and centered in the middle of the machine" (Ronnestad. 2011), the absence of an "estimate of variability of the procedure they used in their lab" and the questionable reference to "similarities" to magneto resonance scans (note that Ronnestad et al. used CT scans ;-) carried out by Moss et al. (Moss. 1997), the Ronnestad study is a particularly good example for the way research hypotheses can interfere with the "objective results" of scientific studies by establishing a (often unconscious) bias towards "desired" results. Selective reporting, incomplete statistical analysis and ad-hoc explanations for differences to the findings of previous studies are the undesirable, yet completely human manifestations of this phenomenon, I want everyone of you to be aware of - even if this means that my own thoughts and conclusions, which are almost always produced under time-pressure, are about to get more critical comments in the future ;-)

Bigger Triceps in 8 Weeks of Reduced Oxygen Training - "Bigger" as in "Bigger Than With Regular 10-RM Training

Please, do me a favor and read the info in the red box. Hypoxia ≠ Kaatsu

Assuming that you've read the headline of this article first, you should already have realized what makes this study special: A realistic training regimen that's relevant for to the "average gym context". "10 reps to failure" - and that is actually pretty close to what the average trainee does on one of his / her "arm days" at the gym.

Against that background I can live with the minor downside that the subjects were 13 healthy men (mean age, 23 years; height 169 cm; body mass 60 kg) who were assigned to train either under normoxic or hypoxic training conditions were a little "too average" (=untrained) for my liking.

You can learn more about Hypoxia at the SuppVersity

EPO Effect of Low Oxygen

-11% Fat in Three Weeks!

Training & Living in Hyopoxia

Strength Up, Size Down W/ Kaatsu

Hypoxia vs. Occlusion

Blood Flow Restriction Update

As the well-read SuppVersity student you've become ever since you've been reading these articles, you will obviously know that using noobs as your subjects is something exercise scientists like to do, because they know that this helps them to avoid null-results, as they tend to occur in in studies with trained subjects, simply the study duration was too short and / or the training intensity too pathetic to measure significant changes in any of the outcome variables.

Just to make sure you don't over-read this: Hypoxia in this case means "low oxygen supply" - This is in contrast to blood flow restriction training of which I suspect that some of you may have (until now) thought was applied in this study.

As the data in Figure 1 goes to show you, neither (a) nor (b) nor both was the case in the study at hand. The Elbow extensions the subjects performed at a workload of a 10 RM with the non dominant arm to exhaustion three times with 1-minute intervals 3 days each week for 8 weeks, did after all elicit significant strength and size gains in both groups - regardless of whether they were performed while the subjects were inspiring normoxic air (FiO2=20. 9%; at sea level) or hypoxic gas (FiO2=12 .7%; corresponding to 4000 m above sea level):

Figure 1: Thickness of triceps brachii (a and b) in both arms before and after training in the normoxic (N) and hypoxic (H) groups; ** denotes significant difference (Kurobe. 2014)

The overall changes in size and strength are yet luckily not the only significant effect, the researchers from the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Japan observed in their study.

The inter-group differences, i.e. the significantly greater increase in muscle thickness the hypoxia group, was significant, as well. And while the latter cannot be said of the increase in strength, I am pretty sure that the additional size gains alone would be reason enough for some of you to take a bottle with reduced oxygen air (Fi=2=12.7%; meaning only 12.7% of the air in the container would be oxygen to the gym).

As I already pointed out in the red box, this post is not about blood flow restriction (aka Kaatsu) it's not about wearing a simple mask that hinders your breathing (see right), but it's about wearing a mask with exogenous air supply - low oxygen air, obviously.

Would bringing the low oxygen flask + a mask actually be worth it? This is obviously a valid question. It's yet also one I cannot answer once and for all. I personally would not consider the statistically grater gain of significant enough to go and buy the corresponding equipment.

In view of the non-existent effects on strength, it's also not exactly an option for regular performance oriented athletes.

For a bodybuilder, on the other hand, it may in fact be worth trying. After years of training, it's yet not realistic to see similar pronounced gains as a rookie, though - so don't be disappointed if the cycle you did last summer had more pronounced effects boys ;-)

References:

• Kurobe et al. "Effects of resistance training under hypoxic conditions on muscle hypertrophy and strength." Clin Physiol Funct Imaging(2014) doi: 10.1111/cpf.12147