Hormonal response to full body training

[wk105]

For the intermediate trainee, does training the bench/press after the squat/deadlift produce a hormonal response that is more beneficial to getting big and strong than the slightly heavier weights (maybe 5%?) that training them first on separate days would permit?

For example, I'm currently doing this split:

Wed.
Power Clean 5/3/1
Squat 5/3/1
Bench 5/3/1
Weighted Chins 3x5

Sat.
Power Clean 5/3/1
Deadlift 5/3/1
Press 5/3/1
Chins 3xMAX

But I could train with heavier weights for the bench and press if I did this one:

Mon.
Bench 5/3/1
Weighted Chins 3x5

Wed.
Power Clean 5/3/1
Squat 5/3/1

Fri.
Press 5/3/1
Chins 3xMAX

Mon.
Power Clean 5/3/1
Deadlift 5/3/1

I know this isn't about nutrition, but I thought you'd know about it anyway.

PS. After watching your video on getting the squat up, I'm going to increase my squatting frequency by adding squats after deadlifts: squat 65%x5, 75%x5, 85%x5.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

For the intermediate trainee, does training the bench/press after the squat/deadlift produce a hormonal response that is more beneficial to getting big and strong than the slightly heavier weights (maybe 5%?) that training them first on separate days would permit?

There's reason to believe that yes, doing lower body training before upper body stuff potentiates upper body strength/size increase above that from just an upper body only session. On the other hand, I could argue that the higher volume the session (all other things being equal) the more stimulus for growth and strength has been given and thus, it's really about total body volume/loading/intensity and not the training of the legs before upper body, per se'.

[wk105]

Thanks. I'll try out both for 12 weeks and see which gives better results.

[silachoo]

I would argue that's not a viable test to see which gives better results. However probably your only choice.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I would argue that's not a viable test to see which gives better results. However probably your only choice.

It's a viable test, just not a valid one.

[wk105]

What would be?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

What would be?

Clone yourself 1000 times. Raise the little Wills the exact same way (diet/training/sport/psychological stressors) until they've gone through late puberty. Then have 250 people serve as your control group, as these little "Wills" won't train at all. Use 375 people in group 1, who will not train lower body first, then use 375 in the other group who will train lower body first. Make sure to correct for overall volume, training time, and intensity (% of 1RM)

[silachoo]

Clone yourself 1000 times. Raise the little Wills the exact same way (diet/training/sport/psychological stressors) until they've gone through late puberty. Then have 250 people serve as your control group, as these little "Wills" won't train at all. Use 375 people in group 1, who will not train lower body first, then use 375 in the other group who will train lower body first. Make sure to correct for overall volume, training time, and intensity (% of 1RM)

haha. Yeah about right. The reason psychology studies are so difficult. we need more twins!

[silachoo]

I wasn't trying to be difficult I was just saying it may not tell you what works better for you because lets say you get great results for 6 weeks then switch and get less great results, it could simply be that progress is slowing down for you and would have done so even if the methodologies had been done vice versa.

[Barry Charles]

Clone yourself 1000 times. Raise the little Wills the exact same way (diet/training/sport/psychological stressors) until they've gone through late puberty. Then have 250 people serve as your control group, as these little "Wills" won't train at all. Use 375 people in group 1, who will not train lower body first, then use 375 in the other group who will train lower body first. Make sure to correct for overall volume, training time, and intensity (% of 1RM)

shouldn't we go for double blind?