The salivary testosterone and cortisol response to three loading schemes

Health and Food Group, Hort Research, Auckland, New Zealand.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 01/2008; 22(1):250-5. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f5f91
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This aim of this study was to examine the free hormone (in saliva) responses to squat workouts performed by recreationally weight-trained males, using either a power (8 sets of 6 reps, 45% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 3-minute rest periods, ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 reps, 75% 1RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), or maximal strength scheme (6 sets of 4 reps, 88% 1RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent). To determine the relative importance of the different training variables, these schemes were equated by workout duration with the power and strength schemes also equated by load volume. Salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) both increased following the hypertrophy scheme (P < 0.05), with little to no hormonal change across the power and maximal strength schemes (P > 0.05). In general, the postexercise T and C responses to the hypertrophy scheme exceeded the other two schemes (P < 0.05). The greater volume of load lifted in the hypertrophy protocol over the same workout duration may explain the endocrine differences observed. The similar T and C responses to the power and maximal strength schemes (of equal volume) support such a view and suggest that differences in load intensity, rest periods, and technique are secondary to volume. Because the acute hormonal responses to resistance exercise contribute to protein metabolism, then load volume may be the most important workout variable activating the endocrine system and stimulating muscle growth.

Download full-text


Available from: Justin W L Keogh, Jul 10, 2015
  • Source
    • "In sport, salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) are widely used as biomarkers to assess the effects of exercise, training and competition [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Saliva collection enables the repeated sampling of hormones over short time-frames where blood collection is undesirable, lacking in compliance, or difficult in these situations, whilst also being non-invasive and stress-free [9] [10], which will enhance adoption and compliance in athletic populations [11]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) concentrations were monitored across a sports competition. Data were compared using two enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) methods and two sample preparations to determine their influence on hormone concentrations. DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of male athletes (n = 19) provided a saliva sample the morning before and one day after (24 hours post) an international rugby union match. Following an extraction procedure, the samples were analysed for T and C concentrations using a commercial kit (CM(E)) and an in-house method (IH(E)). Raw samples (no extraction procedure) were also tested using the commercial kit (CM(R)). RESULTS: There were no significant changes in T and C levels from pre to post competition with each EIA method and sample preparation, but significant differences in T (IH(E) > CM(E) > CM(R)) and C (CM(R) > IH(E) and CM(E)) concentrations were seen when both samples were pooled. Bland-Altman analyses confirmed the presence of fixed and proportional bias. Strong and significant correlations were demonstrated between the IH(E) and CM(E) measures of salivary T (r = 0.93-0.97) and C (r = 0.95-0.97). The T and C values from the raw and extracted samples were also strongly correlated (r = 0.93-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of salivary T and C concentrations across an international sports event was influenced by different EIA methods and sample preparations, but all measures were strongly correlated with some bias. Both T and C were unresponsive to the sports event, but within the group results large individual variation was seen.
    Clinical biochemistry 11/2012; 46(4-5). DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.11.019 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our sample had resistance training-induced gains in strength, LBM and muscle fibre CSA that represented a substantial range and that were normally distributed and therefore less prone to correlative bias due to outlying data points. Acute changes in ostensibly anabolic hormones are frequently measured after resistance exercise with the assumption that they promote skeletal muscle anabolism (Ahtiainen et al. 2003b; Crewther et al. 2008; Gotshalk et al. 1997; Hakkinen and Pakarinen 1993; Kraemer et al. 1995, 2006; Migiano et al. 2009; Ronnestad et al. 2011). Because the biological roles of exercise-induced hormone changes are presently altogether uncertain, making concomitant measures of muscle (Spiering et al. 2009) or other tissues will provide insight into how the complex dynamic post-exercise hormonal milieu, which is a product of simultaneous secretion and clearance processes, might affect adaptation to exercise. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between acute exercise-induced hormone responses and adaptations to high intensity resistance training in a large cohort (n = 56) of young men. Acute post-exercise serum growth hormone (GH), free testosterone (fT), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and cortisol responses were determined following an acute intense leg resistance exercise routine at the midpoint of a 12-week resistance exercise training study. Acute hormonal responses were correlated with gains in lean body mass (LBM), muscle fibre cross-sectional area (CSA) and leg press strength. There were no significant correlations between the exercise-induced elevations (area under the curve—AUC) of GH, fT and IGF-1 and gains in LBM or leg press strength. Significant correlations were found for cortisol, usually assumed to be a hormone indicative of catabolic drive, AUC with change in LBM (r = 0.29, P < 0.05) and type II fibre CSA (r = 0.35, P < 0.01) as well as GH AUC and gain in fibre area (type I: r = 0.36, P = 0.006; type II: r = 0.28, P = 0.04, but not lean mass). No correlations with strength were observed. We report that the acute exercise-induced systemic hormonal responses of cortisol and GH are weakly correlated with resistance training-induced changes in fibre CSA and LBM (cortisol only), but not with changes in strength. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2246-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    Arbeitsphysiologie 11/2011; 112(7):2693-702. DOI:10.1007/s00421-011-2246-z · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Hypertrophy schemes and other resistance exercise protocols are known to produce acute increases in other hormones , without supplementation, including the catabolic hormone cortisol [85]. The antagonistic effects of catabolic hormones and anabolic hormones, such as testosterone, promote muscle growth and protein metabolism during rest in between workouts [86] [87] [88] [89]. These processes are accomplished through the inhibitory actions of cortisol in the synthesis of contractile muscle proteins [90], as opposed to testosterone, which has the opposite effect [91] [92], resulting in increased muscle mass [93] [94]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The estimated prevalence of obesity in the USA is 72.5 million adults with costs attributed to obesity more than 147 billion dollars per year. Though caloric restriction has been used extensively in weight control studies, short-term success has been difficult to achieve, with long-term success of weight control being even more elusive. Therefore, novel approaches are needed to control the rates of obesity that are occurring globally. The purpose of this paper is to provide a synopsis of how exercise, sleep, psychological stress, and meal frequency and composition affect levels of ghrelin, cortisol, insulin GLP-1, and leptin and weight control. We will provide information regarding how hormones respond to various lifestyle factors which may affect appetite control, hunger, satiety, and weight control.
    Journal of nutrition and metabolism 07/2011; 2011(2090-0724):237932. DOI:10.1155/2011/237932
Show more