Hm. I found kind of what I was looking for:
===============
The researchers measured the concentration of myostatin in the subjects' blood. Weight training reduced the concentration. And training using creatine reduces the concentration even further.
===========
So weight training *does* reduce myostatin, which could lead to more muscle gain, even without steriods. Obviously not the same in all people though.
My husband doesn't lift weights either: he is doing competitive swimming. His endurance and strength have gone way up, but not his muscle mass (at least, he's not "huge"). I think in his case, and maybe some others, working out actually makes the muscle smaller and denser, maybe because any "marbelled" fat goes away.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM, David Nyman <david@davidnyman.com > wrote:
Yeah, it's an accepted fact that pro bodybuilders routinely use anabolic drugs, and those who don't, in fact, compete in separate events reserved for "natural" competitors (who are often impressively muscular and ripped, but a lot smaller - i.e. more normal). I'm sure you're right that people who want to develop their muscles to the utmost must take care not to be protein-deficient, but I suspect this could typically be achieved with a lower intake than is imagined, unless their systems are being supercharged with anabolic supplementation. Like your husband, I don't train with heavy weights, and when I shed large amounts of fat I lost a lot round my waist (6 inches) but also a small amount (about 1/4 inch) round my arms, because there was sub-cutaneous fat there too, just much less of it. All-in-all, I ended up looking more "defined" - i.e. you can what muscle there is more effectively. My strength also improved considerably over the same period, because of the exercise overload (pushups, chinups etc + a lot of walking with light weights "heavyhands" style).
DavidO
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment