Hormonal Response to Exercise, Revisited: A Consequence, not a Determinant of Your Mood, Effort & Performance

Hormonal Response to Exercise, Revisited: A Consequence, not a Determinant of Your Mood, Effort & Performance

build muscle DHT female GH growth hormone HIIT hormones performance resistance training testosterone women women strength

Studies in men suggest no effect of the hormonal response on training outcome - What about women? A news study provides insights that may be relevant for both female and male gymrats.

It has been a few years that I last wrote about the "hormonal ghost". Back in the day, Stuart M. Phillips published an excellent paper that debunked the myth of a mechanistic link of post-exercise increases in testosterone, growth hormone, IGF-1 and co., on the one hand, and exercise-induced strength and size gains, on the other hand. And for those for whom Phillip's review of the literature was not convincing enough, Daniel WD West's 2012, which showed none of the expected associations between exercise-induced hormone profiles (first and foremost higher post-workout testosterone levels) and the rate or significance of muscle strength and size gains in a large cohort of young men after weight training, should have been evidence enough to stop believing in "hormonal ghosts", but alas... you will probably know that "training for testosterone increases" is still en vogue.

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

That's stupid stubbornness, nothing else, right? Well, even though I don't believe in ghosts, I have to admit that a closer look at West's data will have you reject the hypothesis that the post-workout testosterone response would augment size gains, it does yet also show other hormonal changes do correlate with the changes in the study's subjects' lean mass (Figure 1, left) as well as type I (middle) and type II fiber size increases (Figure 1, middle & right).

Figure 1: Sign. associations between PWO hormone levels and lean mass, as well as fiber size increases (West. 2012).

As you can see in Figure 1, this was the case for the cortisol response and the lean mass gains and the growth hormone (GH) response and the increases in type I ('endurance') and type II ('strength') fiber size. Even though I don't believe that more than 1% of the gymrats world-wide who still believe that maximizing the post-workout "anabolic response" would help them to maximize their gains even know about these results, you could argue that these correlations fuel their beliefs - even if that's paradoxical, because - in bro-scientific terms - you'd have to maximize the catabolic response, i.e. the increase in cortisol (which could by the way simply be a measure of training intensity) in order to maximize the overall gains in muscle size, but alas...

Figure 2: Changes in anabolic and catabolic hormones in response to AM and PM HIIT and RT training (Toon. 2015).

In a series of experiments Rebecca Toone conducted for her thesis, she re-addressed the issue of the acute hormonal effects on performance with female study participants (yes, a long-term study was not part of her thesis, but I promise, the results are still noteworthy).

Higher sprint cadence (RPM) during HIIT, higher increase in DHT in the female study participants (Toon. 2015).

DHT another acute phase reactant? Even though the overall results of the study suggest that increased pre- vs. post workout changes in DHT as Toone observed the with higher RPM-numbers during HIIT sprints are not the reason, but rather the consequences of training at higher intensities, it is worth mentioning that this is the first study to observe the existence of an association between DHT and HIIT performance in women and that the results are in line with the results of previous research suggesting that DHT, not its precursor, testosterone, has a direct influence on skeletal muscle force production in vitro. 

After some preliminary testing, Toone began with another of the infamous "AM vs. PM" workout studies in which she unsurprisingly confirmed that...

"[...] it could be beneficial to perform resistance training in the afternoon preceded by interval exercise in the morning in order to stimulate a hormonal milieu that may be more conducive to stimulating muscle protein turnover" (Toon. 2015). 

If you scrutinize the data in Figure 2, you can see that this hypothesis is warranted, because of the differential response of the anabolic hormones, testosterone and IGF-1, and the stress / catabolic hormones, cortisol and prolactin, she observed in her young female subjects. Against that background it is quite interesting that Toone's last and most important experiment, in which she investigating the potential acute effects of hormones on performance, failed to demonstrate a direct correlation between changes in testosterone or other "anabolic" hormones and her subjects' performance.

"The trial consisted of a 20 min effort at a target power of 80% of the average power obtained during the maximal 20 min TT, followed by a 5 min break, before completion of a bout of repeated sprint interval cycle exercise consisting of 10 x 30 s sprinting, with 90 s recovery. The session was self-paced with real-time numerical feedback provided on elapsed time, cadence and power. Participants were given verbal encouragement at specific time-points throughout the trial. The same protocol was repeated for the second main trial one week later. Participants were permitted to drink water ad libitum throughout the trials. Trials were completed in a group setting as a group of six and a group of eight. A trial timeline schematic is displayed [in Figure 3]" (Toon. 2015).

Instead, the results of the previously described exercise test point towards affective variables, i.e. mood and effort, as the factors that mediate any link between hormonal changes and performance markers during an acute bout of high intensity cycling.

Figure 3: Design of the last and most important experiment of the study (Toone. 2015).

And guess what, the effort Toone's subjects invested into their workouts was not just a predictor of their performance, it was also positively associated with the percent change in testosterone concentration from post-sprint 4 to post-exercise (r = 0.449; P < 0.01).

Note: We are till talking about associations and correlations. That one of these, e.g. the one between the effort we put into our workouts and the preformance and hormonal response exists because of a causal link is thus in view of the results of the study at hand logical, but still hypothetical. As I am about to point out in the bottom line, future studies will have to investigate that - even though I have to admit that it will be difficult to develop an effective design for these studies.

In conjunction with the subjects' affect, which was inversely correlated with the rate of perceived exertion, which in turn showed positive correlations with cortisol, the results highlight a previously overlooked role of effort and affect when it comes to both, exercise performance and its effect on certain hormones.

Figure 4: The hormonal response is rather the consequence than the trigger of acute performance.

Or as Toone has it in her interpretation of these somewhat surprising results: The acute short-term effects of hormone concentrations on performance may be more related to mood and behaviour" than the actual type / time of exercise in the context of her study.

What does that mean? Practically speaking this would confirm what I have said about the initially cited West study in several previous SuppVersity articles. In said study, cortisol probably has no mechanistic effect on muscle size. Rather than that, the increase in cortisol could serve as a measure of how much effort the subjects put into their workouts; and this, in turn, determined their muscle gains (more effort = bigger growth stimulus = greater gains).

The meager and transient increase in testosterone after your workouts has none of the muscle building and fat shedding effects of exogenous testosterone. The latter however, can turn back the time and an aging pouch into a true best-ager | learn more.

In the study at hand, the situation appears to be similar. Mood and effort determine performance and hormonal response of the female study participants. Accordingly, there may be associations between exercise performance and certain hormones, but those are of corollary, not causative nature. In the absence of an additional experiment that would investigate the correlations and associations between mood, effort, RPE, hormones and the exercise-induced adaptation in the long run, we can still only speculate that making the workouts more fun and stimulating maximal effort would promote both, the adaptive response and the hormonal response and thus confirm that mood and effort are in fact the most relevant determinants of the outcome of your workouts | Comment!

References:

• Phillips, Stuart M. "Strength and hypertrophy with resistance training: chasing a hormonal ghost." European journal of applied physiology 112.5 (2012): 1981-1983.
• Toone, Rebecca. Assessing the Hormone Response to High Intensity Exercise and Identifying Associations with Performance. Diss. University of Bath, 2015.
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

Training "On Cycle", Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Menstrual Cycle

Training "On Cycle", Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Menstrual Cycle

build muscle build strength female health menstrual cycle periodization training plan training programming woman women women strength workout programming workout routines

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to be at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know from the (very different things) I've heard from (ex-)girl friends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.

Learn more about the (often ;-) small but significant difference at the SuppVersity

1g PRO per 2g CHO + Circuit T. for Women?

Is the Optimal Exercise Order Sex-Specific?

1-3mg Melatonin Shed Fat W/Out Diet & Exercise

Not Bulky! Lifting Will Make Toned & Strong.

How to Really Train Like a Woman

Sex-Differences in Fat Oxidation - Reviewed

According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.

What about women on oral contraception? The scientists recruited 32 young women on oral contraceptives and 27 women who didn't use oral contraceptives and a re-analysis of the data in Figure 1 didn't show significant inter-group differences between the two groups. In other words, the data in Figure 1 and thus the main findings are relevant for "all" resistance training young women, irrespective of whether they're taking contraceptives, or not. The only difference is that you go by the contraceptive (CC), instead of the estrous cycle and place the high frequency training period in the first, not the last two weeks of the CC cycle.

"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

for 4-months and switching to a periodized 2-week high- vs. 2-week low-frequency training, where they would perform the same 48 workouts in either

• high-frequency first cycles, i.e. 5 workouts per week in the first two weeks, 1 workout per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle, or
• high-frequency last cycles, i.e. 1 workout per week in the first two weeks, 4 workouts per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle,

would have beneficial effects on their progress only if they increase the frequency during the early phase of the cycle. 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

Ok, if you compare the periodization group to the control group which kept the regular "three workouts per week"-frequency (see Figure 2, green bars) was maintained, the "advantages" of periodizing "correctly" are not as pronounced as they are in comparison to doing it the "wrong" way. Even though, only the hamstrings appear to benefit to a large extent from periodization, though, benefits exist.

What's even more important, though, is the simple, but really important revelation (or for the few of you who have read about this before e.g. in Reis et al. (1995) "confirmation") that a woman's menstrual and similarly her contraceptive cycle must be aligned to her training schedule. Obviously, the implications will have to be further explored in future studies. Studies, of which I hope, that they will be using smarter periodization schemes which acknowledge that training only once a week is simply not enough... ;-)

SuppVersity Classic: Train Like a Woman: Common Misconceptions About Training & Eating for A Cover-Model Physique - An Interview With Sports Nutritionist & Strength Coach Orit Tsaitli | learn more

Bottom line: Before I try to put things into perspective, I should mention that the participants of the study who were recruited at local gyms, were not jut healthy, non-smokers and had regular menses, they were also experienced trainees. All of them had been doing leg presses and leg-curls for several months - in fact, on average for 3.5 years. Against that background, even non-statistical significant inter-group differences as they were observed between the periodization (5 per week, 1 per week) and the control group (3 per week) may be practically relevant, because they may help experienced trainees to break through plateaus.

With that being said, I personally think of this study as one study in a series of studies that will hopefully elucidate how women can adapt their training regimen to the repetitive changes in the hormonal milieu of their bodies.

If we are honest with ourselves, the fact that Wikström-Frisén's results come as a surprise to most of us is only further evidence of how wantonly exercise scientists and trainers, alike, have hitherto neglected the peculiarities of the female physiology and endocrinology | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).