Training legs takes away from upper body

[Swole_2112]

I had a theory the other day and thought I'd post. The human body only has so much recuperative ability in a given period of time. So, if one wanted to develop the upper body more, for example, then that person should lighten up on leg training. By doing so, that individual is dedicating more of their body's recuperative ability to upper body. This theory would obviously apply to any muscle group or groups.

No one ever told me about such a concept before, so maybe I'm the last one here to learn it, or, maybe I'm the only one here who thinks this. What do y'all think?

 

[Protobuilder]

I think you're right, IF AND ONLY IF you establish that there's no metabolic link between heavy leg training and overall muscular growth. And many would argue the latter point--that heavy leg training stimulates release of anabolic hormones that contribute to overall growth.

But, in gen'l, you're probably right. Resources are limited. That's the point behind periodization -- you can't do everything at once, so you "specialize" in a quality or two for a period of time and then switch it up and "specialize" in something else for a little while, etc. You can best improve qualities by focusing on them rather than trying to do everything at once.

Your "theory" is used in "upper / lower" splits. You separate upper & lower body to harness your limited energy and focus it on one aspect of your physique at a time. Not saying this is optimal, but its your "theory" in action, I suppose.

 

[Swole_2112]

Thanks, Protobuilder. I needed the outside opinions. Now, with regard to the link between heavy leg training and muscular growth in general, I believe there is one. I believe that heavy leg training will result in the release of growth hormones and result in overall muscular development... to a point. I can't say for sure, but right now I'm waiting to see if the amount of growth one gets from periodization (as you refer to it) is greater than the amount of growth one gets from heavy leg training. Right now, it's to early to tell.

Thanks for the input. It helps.

 

[silver_shadow]

check this link, posted in the PL forum.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Isaac-Nesser.htm
read his training philosophy... it's something similar to what you seem to have in mind.
here's an EF thread about it in the PL forum
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451055

 

[Cynical Simian]

Overall volume of course affects ability to recover, but at the same time you don't want to underutilize the benefits of the heavy full-body exercises (squats and deads) that Protobuilder mentioned.

Also, you'd be giving up a decent amount of growth potential. Let's say you can add about a pound per week on a balanced program, quite a bit of which is in your legs. It's not as though if you drop everything else and only do curls you'll be adding that entire pound to your biceps each week. This is hyperbole, of course, but the basic idea applies even if you're doing more upper-body training than just biceps.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

That title is only true if you belive it to be... you can use it to your benefit either way depending on your goals.

One's body will recover at a faster rate if you continue to put it under stress more frequently... hence, alot of bodybuilders "shock treatments" to change routines up to stimulate growth.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

This is nothing new. Lower body training is the more intense half of any workout you could do. And no, there is no appreciable hormonal response from leg training. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

If you want to prioritize the upper body, just slash the lower body volume in half, keep the load the same, and use that extra recuperative ability for your upper body training. Nothing revolutionary, nothing spectacular.

 

[bignate73]

is this a beach muscles thread in disguise?

hehehe...



justification at last!!!

 

[Swole_2112]

check this link, posted in the PL forum.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Isaac-Nesser.htm
read his training philosophy... it's something similar to what you seem to have in mind.
here's an EF thread about it in the PL forum
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451055

I'm confused. Is he saying that he did full body workouts for 8-10 days straight, or, was it one muscle group for 8-10 days straight? And, if it is one muscle group for 8-10 days, then wouldn't that indicate that he's not working the other ones for that time?

 

[silver_shadow]

he didn't say full body w/o. i'd expect that he does a muscle group (something like pec/tri/delts as one group) for 8-10 days and then onto the next group. 2 things:
1) he might be bullshitting about not using AAS
2) he might be BSing about exactly how he works out given the BS in point 1.
i'm not supporting his type of w/o. i don't know enough about it. i just thought i'd present a different angle to the discussion.

 

[sidney61199]

Any excuse not to do legs is just that an excuse. I actually laugh (chuckle) at the gym when I see some big guy with two little tooth picks sticking out of there shorts. Every time I see one I think of them getting blown over in a strong gust of wind. If you want to look normal and have all around good fitness level/ability for gods sake do some leg exercises.

 

[duke of angels]

I have to say that article of the "strong man" radiates bull shit... I didn't see anything scientific about it at all. All I saw was a picture of a big guy and some numbers and a question and answer format with more BS and hype which is more then enough to convince the general public of ANYTHING.

As far as training one body part goes... not doing legs and doing upper body IMO is a bad idea. Switching things up is a GOOD idea, but neglecting your biggests muscle is a BAD idea. On top of this the body resists getting out of proportion because it is not mechanically efficient. For your upper body to be able to push and support pushing signficantly more then you lower body could push something does not make sense because the muscle will not be used to it's potential and therefore is just added weight making for a very inefficient system. (For expample your pushing a car... if your upper body was gigantic and you had twigs for legs your upper body would actually be making it HARDER to push the car. The body has evolved with the idea of all parts working together.) Contrary to popular opinion we are not pale hairless tree dwelling monkey-men. I can't even think of something we do in the real world which does not derive the greatest amount of power from the legs.

 

[gstacker]

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying there skipin out on legs jus talking bout a theory and how switching the intensity from top to bottom to make the other grow. I never realy thought of this but it makes sense I recently hurt my back so deads and sqauts are out for now and my bench is steadily climbing. I appreciate your theory.

 

[curgeo]

A couple of things:

You are right, your body does have limited recuperative abilities, but you can improve on your GPP or General Physical Preparedness. This means you can raise the amount of work your body can do. Have you ever compared the life of a farmer or a laborer to a person who works at a desk job? If you put the guy who works at the desk on the farm he would not be able to do what the farmer does.....not until he raises his body's capacity to do work. It's the same in bodybuilding or powerlifting. You just don't start by doing high volume when you begin training, you gradually work up to it. Basically I am telling you to raise your work capacity over time and you will be able to hit both upper and lower body just as hard.

Secondly, what are the largest muscles in the body? The hips/glutes/hamstrings/back and chest right? You are working the whole body when you train legs. The chest has to be statically contracted along with the lower and upper back when you squat. Your core has to be strong enough to carry the load. Your shoulder and upper back hold the bar. Your arms are tensed and your traps have to contract.

If I train my legs/chest/back and put 10lbs of muscle on, do you think it's only going to be added to those 3 areas? Of course not, it will be allocated around the whole body because your whole body is affected by the heavy training.

Third, your body will not allow itself to get too far out of proportion. If your upper body is already big and your legs/glute/hams are small, the upper body will actually not grow any further. That is why tank top bodybuilders without legs can't get their upper body to grow any more.

I am not telling you not to put extra time in on your upper body. What I am saying is doing neglect the lower half because that is where your real gains come from. I have seen many men with huge upper bodies and little legs, but I have never seen a man with huge legs and a delicate upper body. Yes I am sure you can find them, but they are few and far inbetween.

As far as recuperating, you can do extra small workouts in order to recup. You can also arrange your training so that you get extra rest after working legs. It should not effect your upper body if you allow the body rest and nutrition after you train legs.

 

[duke of angels]

I have seen many men with huge upper bodies and little legs, but I have never seen a man with huge legs and a delicate upper body. Yes I am sure you can find them, but they are few and far inbetween.

Great post. Just wanna comment on this. Look at a bicyclist who wants to have the smallest possible upper body (for weight reasons) and the strongest legs possible. Even so a big sprinter like Mario Cipollini is an all around big guy... his legs are nothing to laugh at but has a relatively small upper body. If they could get more out of proportion they would! Can't think of a single sport where an abnormally large upper body is optimal... not even pommel horse guys look too out of proportion. (these guys are just small all around as far I can tell...) I'm sure if the body allowed a gigantic upper body for gymnasts (and it produced better results) some would certainly have it!