Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

TAYLOR JANE M.; THOMPSON, HEATHER S.; CLARKSON, PRISCILLA M.; MILES, MARY P.; DE SOUZA, MARY JANE
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: May 2000
Original Article: PDF Only
Free

ABSTRACTThe serum growth hormone (GH) response of 6 non-weight-trained (NWT) and 6 weight-trained (WT) eumenorrehic, ovulatory women performing a heavy resistance exercise protocol (HREP) in the early follicular phase was examined. The HREP consisted of 7 different exercises and utilized a moderate resistance (10 repetition maximum) with short rest periods (1 minute). GH was evaluated preexercise, immediately postexercise, and 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. A significant difference was observed between groups (n = 6) for GH at preexercise, immediately, and 5 minutes postexercise (p < 0.05). The integrated area under the curve (AUC) for GH revealed no significant difference between groups (n = 6). However, after removing 2 subjects who were outliers (n = 5), significant differences in both the GH response over time (p < 0.01) and AUC GH (p < 0.01) were observed between groups. The most notable findings were that WT women demonstrated lower preexercise GH concentrations than their NWT counterparts with all subjects (n = 6; WT 2.47 ± 1.27 μg · L−1; NWT 4.99 ± 1.23 μg · L−1, p < 0.01) and with the removal of outliers (n = 5; WT 1.21 ± 0.21 μg · L−1; NWT 4.08 ± 1.0 μg · L−1p < 0.01). Additionally, the HREP elicited a greater overall GH response in the WT group (n = 5; WT 179.6 ± 59.5 μg · L−1; NWT-15.1 ± 16.7 μg · L−1) as reflected by the integrated AUC (p < 0.01). The lower preexercise GH concentrations and greater overall GH response of the WT group suggest that, in women, GH response to resistance exercise varies with training status.

The serum growth hormone (GH) response of 6 non-weight-trained (NWT) and 6 weight-trained (WT) eumenorrehic, ovulatory women performing a heavy resistance exercise protocol (HREP) in the early follicular phase was examined. The HREP consisted of 7 different exercises and utilized a moderate resistance (10 repetition maximum) with short rest periods (1 minute). GH was evaluated preexercise, immediately postexercise, and 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. A significant difference was observed between groups (n = 6) for GH at preexercise, immediately, and 5 minutes postexercise (p < 0.05). The integrated area under the curve (AUC) for GH revealed no significant difference between groups (n = 6). However, after removing 2 subjects who were outliers (n = 5), significant differences in both the GH response over time (p < 0.01) and AUC GH (p < 0.01) were observed between groups. The most notable findings were that WT women demonstrated lower preexercise GH concentrations than their NWT counterparts with all subjects (n = 6; WT 2.47 ± 1.27 μg · L−1; NWT 4.99 ± 1.23 μg · L−1, p < 0.01) and with the removal of outliers (n = 5; WT 1.21 ± 0.21 μg · L−1; NWT 4.08 ± 1.0 μg · L−1p < 0.01). Additionally, the HREP elicited a greater overall GH response in the WT group (n = 5; WT 179.6 ± 59.5 μg · L−1; NWT-15.1 ± 16.7 μg · L−1) as reflected by the integrated AUC (p < 0.01). The lower preexercise GH concentrations and greater overall GH response of the WT group suggest that, in women, GH response to resistance exercise varies with training status.

© 2000 National Strength and Conditioning Association