Post by joecoov on May 4, 2016 14:33:09 GMT -7
Joe,
I haven't heard the podcast, and don't know much about the topic. But I was curious about what was being suggested in the thread. My take-away was that increasing GH would benefit your training, presumably by facilitating increased muscle growth in the trained areas (finger strength, for example) vs. just training those areas without also doing squats/dead lifts, etc. That increased strength would increase climbing performance, which is different than saying that the increase in GH directly increases climbing performance.
It seems you are concerned that people might think that increasing GH would lead to an increase in climbing performance. Is that correct, or are you saying that increasing GH won't have any effect on climbing training either?
Just an FYI, if he did say this, I hope he didn't imply an increase in growth hormone results in improved athletic performance. Pretty much only bodybuilders take growth hormone as an ergogenic because it typically promotes hypertrophy, but shows no increase in performance (1). In addition the way elicit the body into a large GH response is to lift like a bodybuilder (2), the opposite of what a climber would want.
Now that is not to say that there are not other hormones that are released in response to low rep dead lifts that likely can cause muscle, strength, neurological, and bone adaptations that may help with climbing performance.
-Joe
I am saying that those lifts likely help, but it is likely due to other hormones and/or adaptations besides growth hormone. The fingers cannot hypertrophy because they have no muscle (though you could argue forearms and or the palm) and I am suggesting it is likely due to other hormones and/or adaptations besides growth hormone. At least that is my takeaway from the research I have read.
-Joe