[QUOTE=eKatherine;1193954]Here's what I recall about the study: they took older women and had them work out with little dumbbells for a couple of months. So it was marginal.[/QUOTE]
I think we should design a study that compares the "afterburn" of these ladies training for and learning to do squats with a large percentage of their bodyweight and compare it to another group doing this silly light dumbbell protocol. I am willing to bet the results would vary in a significant (statistically and otherwise) way.
Now who knows where we can get a couple hundred thousand dollars to fund the thing? :p
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1194182]Do you think it has the same hormonal effects as squatting a 150-lb sandbag? I sure wouldn't apply a study done with leg extensions to heavy lifting protocols just like I wouldn't necessarily assume the same applicability of a protocol based on dancing around with neoprene 5-lb dumbbells.[/QUOTE]
The short lasted testosterone spike you get from exercises such as squats and deads will not take you anywhere unfortunately, that's bro-science that has been debunked. Squatting will in general build more muscle than a leg extension but that doesen't mean that leg extension is useless as a strength builder - just ask Tom Platz and Mike Mentzer - oh I almost forgot, the last guy will not be able to answer anymore...
[QUOTE=Gorbag;1194207]The short lasted testosterone spike you get from exercises such as squats and deads will not take you anywhere unfortunately, that's bro-science that has been debunked. Squatting will in general build more muscle than a leg extension but that doesen't mean that leg extension is useless as a strength builder - just ask Tom Platz and Mike Mentzer - oh I almost forgot, the last guy will not be able to answer anymore...[/QUOTE]
I'm really not interested in having the debate with you again where you construct and hang strawman after strawman. Where did I ever say the word "testosterone" in any previous post? Go ahead and put me back on ignore if that will stop you from trolling me.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1194213]I'm really not interested in having the debate with you again where you construct and hang strawman after strawman. Where did I ever say the word "testosterone" in any previous post? [B]Go ahead and put me back on ignore if that will stop you from trolling me[/B].[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, no problems, adios to you then...
One more thing that I found helpful: There's a guy on the Starting Strength Forum named Jordan Feigenbaum. He's really a lot smarter about nutrition than most meathead types including Rippetoe himself. And he's a lot smarter about women and weight lifting than most people are, including the knuckleheads arguing stupid stuff here. I think he really understands that the same stuff that works for men doesn't work the same way for women.
Anyway, this is his forum.
And he did a reddit AMA recently that was pretty interesting.
[url=http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/1dtex5/jordan_feigenbaum_ama_on_starting_strength/]Jordan Feigenbaum: AMA on Starting Strength, Nutrition, Etc. : Fitness[/url]
If you scroll way down he has some useful stuff about how women's bodies work a little differently. Here's the quote:
[QUOTE]I'd keep doing the negatives, you'll get one very soon. Then do singles at the end of the workouts. Eventually you'll be busting out multiple reps. Females, due to both the acute and chronic effects of decreased testosterone as compared to men, do not get as robust a response from a set of 5 reps. Moreover, they cannot recruit the motor units in the same fashion a man can to perform a true 1 rep max. This allows women to do sets of 3 or 5 much closer to their "1 rep max" than a man can, because women cannot produce a true 1RM. Because woman can do this, they tend to respond better to higher intensity training, i.e. heavier weights (sets of 3's) with approximately the same volume as men (15 total reps) OR more volume (8 sets of 3 reps) at the same intensity they'd do for 3 sets of 5 reps. Inn talking to multiple other coaches, we've all had the same experience, i.e. women need more "something" to progress. Usually this results in training with heavier weights and lower reps, vs. just turning you into a volume junkie since your sex's CNS tends to respond better to increased loading vs. just increasing the volume.[/QUOTE]
I have found this to be true for me as well. I need more "something" to progress. It's not always clear what it is. More volume? Yeah, I think so because I have never felt like the strength "sticks" without more volume. Sets of 3? Yeah, that worked for a while but so has lots of volume at lower weights. I can do sets of 5 or 10 on what I could only do on sets of 3 before, but hell if I can automatically lift heavier even if I can do more reps. So maybe I need both more weight and more volume. More "something". I'm always looking for it.
Thanks I'll check out those links ASAP. It really is hard to find info in lifting and nutrition for women, or so I've found.