# Not training lower body for a bigger upper body



## Serc. (Mar 9, 2014)

Haha, dont get me wrong guys this is not a troll post.

I just heard some guys talking about this today at the gym. They said that your bodys testosterone can only handle a certain amount of muscle and by not training ur legs you can grow much more muscles in ur upper body than you could have grown when you were training your lower body.

I know its probably bro science or an excause to not train legs.

Me personally, i do absolutely not believe in this and even if its true i would still train my legs cuz you look bloody awkward when you got a huge upper body with some stickman legs.

But what do you guys think about this? Is there any amount of truth to it?


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Hahahhahaha, you don't believe for one minute but thought you would take the time to ask on the forum if there was any truth in it. I bet you had stopped training legs ever since you heard it just in case, hahahhaha. Pmsl.


----------



## Brook877 (May 16, 2012)

No, the optimum amount of leg training for natties is an hour of 5-a-side once a week.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

I just train the left side of my body for maximum left side gains


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

It's not complete nonsense.

If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Horse s**t.


----------



## Snake (Sep 30, 2014)

Ahh so this is why people in wheelchairs have such big arms?


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Just sounds like an excuse to not train legs. They don't want to train legs because it is hard work, if it was easy do you think they would say the same thing?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's not complete nonsense.
> 
> If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.


PMSL :lol:


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

I know quite a few guys who bench weights comparable to top tier powerlifters but cant squat or deadlift to save their lives, Its as if all their strength is concentrated in their upper bodies, so I dunno maybe there is something to it.


----------



## bjaminny (Jan 3, 2015)

Loads of them at the gym I go to. They look ridiculous! It's really common though. No disrespect to younger guys but the guys I see with skinnier legs (don't train them) and bigger upper bodies are younger lads. I put it down to their desire to wear skinny jeans because that's the fashion but hey, I know f*** all about fashion.

You have to train legs. Best feeling ever from punishing legs in the gym.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> PMSL :lol:


Put your brain in and read what I posted again if you think it was that funny.

There are plenty of guys who only train upper body around who grow pretty well.


----------



## Irondan (Nov 23, 2014)

Stopped training lower and upper body completely in the hope that all my gains would go to my cock.

It grew an inch in 6 months and I am proud to say I now have a 3" cock.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's not complete nonsense.
> 
> If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.





Ultrasonic said:


> Put your brain in and read what I posted again if you think it was that funny.
> 
> There are plenty of guys who only train upper body around who grow pretty well.


I did read it hence my response.

Just train arms to get those 26" guns.....fkn creased


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Regardless of if you train legs or not..... there is a genetic set point that your development will hit... be it upper/lower/arms/ whatever.... it makes absolutely no difference. Or did i misunderstand the question? Ive got a feeling im missing the point of this post...?


----------



## Yes (May 4, 2014)




----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

I eat spinach. My forearms are massive.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I did read it hence my response.
> 
> *Just train arms to get those 26" guns*.....fkn creased


Couldn't have put it better myself!


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

A friend of mine wanted to stop training legs 3 weeks out from a show, because he heard Cecil Croasdaille did this. Problem is guy had no legs to stop training lol.

There is no excuse (natty or assisted) to stop training legs unless your name is Ramy.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's not complete nonsense.
> 
> If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.


Totally agree... although it's clearly not an alpha thing to even consider lol

The difference would depend upon the resources your body has available to it (calories, protein, rest, training time etc). If any of these are limited then it stands to reason that only training certain muscle groups (regardless of what groups they choose) would enable more growth. Nothing to do with testosterone though as mentioned in the OP


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's not complete nonsense.
> 
> If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.


This. Nothing to do with testosterone. Just that recovery capability would be greater, therefor more frequency/volume could theoretically be applied to upper body.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Another way that might let people think about it more clearly than daring to be sacrilegious and consider not training legs lol would be to think about a powerlifter adapting his training to increase a certain lift.

Lets say this powerlifter wanted to bring up his deadlift as it was poor compared to squat and bench. He would probably choose to devote more training time to that lift by adding in another session, or maybe some more dl assistance work on his bench day. If this works for one lift then why wouldn't he do it to all his lifts (at the same time)? Probably because there wouldn't be enough rest time during the week.


----------



## Jandir (Oct 8, 2015)

there is some truth behind it if you do the maths.. although fek all to do with test levels. take the calorie expenditure required to train lower half + fuel the workouts + recover & grow from them... you're basically doing away with 1/2 you're calorie requirements. then add the staple gym rat diet as chicken, spuds & broccoli 6x a day, 90% of gym goers under-eat. apply it to 2 guys the same height, weight etc etc "the twins", but ones training upper only..the other is training both, ill guarantee the guy training upper only surpasses the guy training both, assuming diet remained the same for say a year or 2


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Jandir said:


> there is some truth behind it if you do the maths.. although fek all to do with test levels. take the calorie expenditure required to train lower half + fuel the workouts + recover & grow from them... you're basically doing away with 1/2 you're calorie requirements. then add the staple gym rat diet as chicken, spuds & broccoli 6x a day, 90% of gym goers under-eat. apply it to 2 guys the same height, weight etc etc "the twins", but ones training upper only..the other is training both, ill guarantee the guy training upper only surpasses the guy training both, assuming diet remained the same for say a year or 2


LOL

eat more.

Its all about your bodies hormonal response to the physical stresses you subject it too! The magic ingredient in this is the natural release of TESTOSTERONE + GH meaning if your a natty "YES" it will make a difference in the long term. For this reason doing the big compound exercises which are the ones that stimulate the system the most (squats for example) increasing testosterone release.

look at it this way. Even with just slightly raised test levels in an off and on manor( training days vs none training days) over a period of time as a natty, this will allow the body to grow more simply because these hormones are coursing through your blood stream opposed to not!

Doing curls alone is not going to give the same amount of growth to the bicep without doing the bigger more bang for your buck compound lifts.

I'm a strong advocate for doing the compound lifts as* your body is designed to work as one organism* not lost of separate parts just thrown together. You have a muscular skeletal SYSTEM. Training with compound exercises allows the body to grow in unison. If your legs are big your back will be big if your back is big your arms will be big everything is connected.

IMO isolation exercises are good to bring up any lagging body parts due to injury or incorrect form.


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> LOL
> 
> eat more.
> 
> ...


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

ausmaz said:


> ive hammered them for years
> 
> ive not done a single exercise for tris in about 6-7 years and tbh they are the only decently developed part of me!


Probably doing it wrong then, over training perhaps!

They will be getting hit during other compound exercises.... Which proves my earlier point.

My bis and tris are balanced. 18+"


----------



## Jandir (Oct 8, 2015)

Natty Steve'o said:


> LOL
> 
> eat more.
> 
> ...


I think far too many people read into this 'squats & deads release the most test & gh'... the increase in tiny & you're NEVER gonna notice an improvement in un-targeted muscle groups from squats, unless you're just starting out at 60kg wet through & you're body has to use every muscle in you're body to hold an empty bar on it. I know nattys who only squat & dead every other week because they cant recover in 1..how is that that any benefit to someone only interested in developing upper body? CNS is smashed from squats & deads that it takes THE WHOLE BODY more time to recover.

I train legs btw lol, just throwing up curve balls tbh. (all my points are for nattys^, im well aware PEDs play their part)


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Probably doing it wrong then, over training perhaps!
> 
> They will be getting hit during other compound exercises.... Which proves my earlier point.
> 
> My bis and tris are balanced. 18+"


mate that is more than likely!


----------



## Jandir (Oct 8, 2015)

& I've never EVER seen good arms on anyone who doesn't train them directly


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Jandir said:


> I think far too many people read into this 'squats & deads release the most test & gh'... the increase in tiny & you're NEVER gonna notice an improvement in un-targeted muscle groups from squats, unless you're just starting out at 60kg wet through & you're body has to use every muscle in you're body to hold an empty bar on it. I know nattys who only squat & dead every other week because they cant recover in 1..how is that that any benefit to someone only interested in developing upper body? CNS is smashed from squats & deads that it takes THE WHOLE BODY more time to recover.
> 
> I train legs btw lol, just throwing up curve balls tbh. (all my points are for nattys^, im well aware PEDs play their part)


Rubbish...IMO

I do a upper lower split, I am moving some, lets say good weights for a natty (or even someone who is assisted for that matter)...Lower = legs, abs arms 2x per week... upper= chest, back, shoulders, again two times per week. If I need an extra days rest I take it, which is few and far between. I train 4 days in one week!

Over long periods of resistant training with heavy compound movements, doing this with consistently will make the male hormone levels naturally increase/elevate, even if only slightly. Over time your muscle mass will increase in size. Its the nature of the beast. If you believe doing this will not give any positive benefits then you are selling yourself short.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Natty Steve'o said:


> LOL
> 
> eat more.
> 
> ...


I think you have to consider not everyone wants to be a bodybuilder. Guys like the OP is talking about clearly don't... they just want to fill a t-shirt. So if they don't want to train legs they probably don't want to be preping meals and learning about nutrition.

As for the body working as an organism... it does this regardless of if/how you train.

Peoples goals are different. Who is to say what is correct


----------



## Omen669 (Jun 11, 2015)

Good justification to not train legs. Sounds like someone a man who wears skinny jeans would say. I say man loosely.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Over long periods of resistant training with heavy compound movements, doing this with consistently will make the male hormone levels naturally increase/elevate, even if only slightly.


Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? I've only seen data to support very short term elevations in testosterone immediately post-exercise, not a chronic increase in testosterone levels. And if they do exist we then come onto whether very small increases would make any tangible difference whatsoever.

We've discussed the whole subject of whether testosterone release from e.g. squating helps your arms grow before of course. The evidence is still that it doesn't, even when both exercises are performed in the same workout. On the other hand, additional upper body training volume that can be adequately recovered from unequivocally WILL increase upper body hypertrophy. So as I originally said, if someone genuinely only wants to make their upper body to grow they would be best served by not wasting time and effort on lower body training.

To be clear, I would never encourage anyone not to train legs, for a whole host of reasons. I'm merely responding to the OP.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Yes, in the long term you will get a better overall growth response training the entire body.

Resistance exercise (multi-joint exercises), has been shown to dramatically affect acute hormonal responses in the body after training. These responses play a huge role not only in immediate tissue remodeling and growth, but as well as to long term strength, power, and hypertrophy gains.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Yes, in the long term you will get a better overall growth response training the entire body.
> 
> Resistance exercise (multi-joint exercises), has been shown to dramatically affect acute hormonal responses in the body after training. These responses play a huge role not only in immediate tissue remodeling and growth, but as well as to long term strength, power, and hypertrophy gains.


So you are now NOT saying that testosterone levels become chronically elevated?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> So you are now NOT saying that testosterone levels become chronically elevated?


No, I never did! Read back.... I said slightly over the long term it will give more in terms of gains than not having these boosts over the same term.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> No, I never did! Read back.... I said slightly over the long term it will give more in terms of gains than not having these boosts over the same term.


You did, in the following which I very specifically quoted above. But if you didn't mean this, fair enough.



> Over long periods of resistant training with heavy compound movements, *doing this with consistently will make the male hormone levels naturally increase/elevate,* even if only slightly.


To go back to the wider point, yes training transiently affects hormone levels, and this may very well play a role in the adaptations of the trained muscles. But what we're talking about here is leg training and upper body development.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> You did, in the following which I very specifically quoted above. But if you didn't mean this, fair enough.
> 
> To go back to the wider point, yes training transiently affects hormone levels, and this may very well play a role in the adaptations of the trained muscles. But what we're talking about here is leg training and upper body development.


I know what its about mate.

I still believe adding squats will have more of an overall effect on upper as well as obviously lower development in the long term, It might not be a huge impact however when natty you need to take every little bit of help/advantage you can get.


----------



## iamyou (Oct 29, 2012)

I believe it's true and works for everything. I bet my arms would grow faster if I only trained arms and nothing else. Something worth considering if a body part is seriously behind.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I still believe adding squats will have more of an overall effect on upper as well as obviously lower development in the long term, It might not be a huge impact however when natty you need to take every little bit of help/advantage you can get.


I'm natty too remember  . If that's your opinion then fair enough. But you have to bear in mind that what needs to be compared here is a possible small crossover benefit like you describe vs the benefit of extra upper body training.


----------



## iamyou (Oct 29, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? I've only seen data to support very short term elevations in testosterone immediately post-exercise, not a chronic increase in testosterone levels. And if they do exist we then come onto whether very small increases would make any tangible difference whatsoever.
> 
> We've discussed the whole subject of whether testosterone release from e.g. squating helps your arms grow before of course. The evidence is still that it doesn't, even when both exercises are performed in the same workout. On the other hand, additional upper body training volume that can be adequately recovered from unequivocally WILL increase upper body hypertrophy. So as I originally said, if someone genuinely only wants to make their upper body to grow they would be best served by not wasting time and effort on lower body training.
> 
> To be clear, I would never encourage anyone not to train legs, for a whole host of reasons. I'm merely responding to the OP.


Are those small boosts in test bigger than what you can get from test boosters such as DAA? I've heard DAA can increase test around 20%. That's a consistent rise not a boost. Yet I haven't heard of anyone noticing any significant (or any) gains from taking it.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

iamyou said:


> Are those small boosts in test bigger than what you can get from test boosters such as DAA? I've heard DAA can increase test around 20%. That's a consistent rise not a boost. Yet I haven't heard of anyone noticing any significant (or any) gains from taking it.


Not sure off the top of my head, or about DAA. Want to watch a bit of TV and get to bed now but I'll have look over the weekend.


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

DAA is absolute rubbish, there's a study on 3 groups, one group takes a placebo, the second takes 3g, and the final group takes 6g a day. As the dose goes higher, testosterone gets lower.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25844073


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm natty too remember  . If that's your opinion then fair enough. But you have to bear in mind that what needs to be compared here is a possible small crossover benefit like you describe vs the benefit of extra upper body training.


I could not train my upper anymore in one week otherwise it would be detrimental to my recovery and growth. (If you keep picking a scab it will not heal!) When training legs on the second day I get another boost of elevated hormones when my upper is recovering/healing/growing which can only be beneficial.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve said:


> I could not train my upper anymore in one week otherwise it would be detrimental to my recovery and growth. (If you keep picking a scab it will not heal!) When training legs on the second day I get another boost of elevated hormones when my upper is recovering/healing/growing which can only be beneficial.


If you didn't train your lower body your would be able to recover from upper body training better.


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

Serc. said:


> Haha, dont get me wrong guys this is not a troll post.
> 
> I just heard some guys talking about this today at the gym. They said that your bodys testosterone can only handle a certain amount of muscle and by not training ur legs you can grow much more muscles in ur upper body than you could have grown when you were training your lower body.
> 
> ...


Dis you brah?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Serc. said:


> Haha, dont get me wrong guys this is not a troll post.
> 
> I just heard some guys talking about this today at the gym. They said that your bodys testosterone can only handle a certain amount of muscle and by not training ur legs you can grow much more muscles in ur upper body than you could have grown when you were training your lower body.
> 
> ...


LOL. No, there's no truth to it. Testosterone doesn't get 'sucked up' by the muscles you train and there isn't a limited amount to be shared out between muscles. Hormones like testosterone circulate through the bloodstream and act upon all muscles, trained or untrained equally according to the plasma concentration of that hormone - if there is hardly any test circulating then all muscles will get very little and if there is a lot all muscles will get a lot, irrelevant of whether than muscle is trained or not

The difference is that firstly a regularly trained muscle will have more androgen receptors, because regular training increases androgen receptor density, so those muscles will be more responsive to the effect of circulating testosterone, and secondly that a recently trained muscle will also be more responsive to the effect of testosterone binding to the receptor site for a short while pwo due to exercise induced changes inside the cells themselves.

In no way does one muscle ever rob another muscle of testosterone or any of the other three main anabolic hormones (IGF, Insulin and GH) just because of it being trained.

In regards to something else said in this thread about not training certain muscles to spare recovery for other muscles because otherwise their growth is hindered... if that is required then the problem either lies with the training split, the volume of training, the intensity of the training, and nutrition, and either one, or more likely several of those factors are not being properly balanced.

With adequate nutrition and a balanced split tailored to the individuals specif recovery ability it should always be possible to grow the whole body properly without excessive fatigue.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> In regards to something else said in this thread about not training certain muscles to spare recovery for other muscles because otherwise their growth is hindered... if that is required then the problem either lies with the training split, the volume of training, the intensity of the training, and nutrition, and either one, or more likely several of those factors are not being properly balanced.


So let's say someone only interested in their upper body growing, followed an upper body only push/pull split with four workouts per week. Would you not think they would be able to get better results than by following an upper/lower spliit with the same four training days? I would have thought the upper body only routine would allow them to prioritise the area they were interested in, enabling them to put greater effort/focus into this and therefore likely achieving better results. I'm not suggesting anyone actually do this, but it's the sort of thing I've had in mind for this hypothetical discussion.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ultrasonic said:


> So let's say someone only interested in their upper body growing, followed an upper body only push/pull split with four workouts per week. Would you not think they would be able to get better results than by following an upper/lower spliit with the same four training days? I would have thought the upper body only routine would allow them to prioritise the area they were interested in, enabling them to put greater effort/focus into this and therefore likely achieving better results. I'm not suggesting anyone actually do this, but it's the sort of thing I've had in mind for this hypothetical discussion.


I understand what you are saying, and basically this is about specialization.

There are plenty of specialization routines out there for different body parts, and most follow the sample principals - extra volume, training to failure, and using methods to push the muscle beyond concentric failure or to extend the work done before failure (drop sets, rest-pause, negatives, forced reps etc). While this is done the rest of the body just gets a standard workout.

The limitation with the above form of specialization though is what you are doing for the target body part is 'over-reaching' and you can only over-reach for a few weeks at a time, usually 2-4 weeks max, before localized over-training starts to occur and joints get sore and progression halts and even starts to go backward.

The interesting thing about how overreaching works however is that the extra rate of gain doesn't come during the actual over-reaching, it tends to come in the weeks following when you back off and bring training back down to normal. The purpose of the over reaching is to force changes in mitochondrial density and androgen receptor density and to upregulate enzymes within the cell like mTOR and cAMP, which then set a muscle up to grow better. The catch twenty two though is that the type of training that forces these improvements in ability to hypertrophy is also the intensity level that causes muscle catabolism, hence why you can only do it in short bursts. The adaptations are also only very short lived.

I can certainly see an argument for rotating specialization for different muscles in a cycle, but not for long periods - and still whilst specializing in one muscle or muscle group you should be able to cope with training the others even if minimally, especially since there would be little point specializing in legs for one month while not doing any upper, then switching to specializing with upper for a month and undoing all the work you did for legs by stopping training them to focus on the upper!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I understand what you are saying, and basically this is about specialization.
> 
> There are plenty of specialization routines out there for different body parts, and most follow the sample principals - extra volume, training to failure, and using methods to push the muscle beyond concentric failure or to extend the work done before failure (drop sets, rest-pause, negatives, forced reps etc). While this is done the rest of the body just gets a standard workout.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm completely with what you're saying about the need to periodise any form of overeaching. I had a number of other things in mind as well though, the second of which in particular I think you may disagree with from what you posted above but let's see:

1) An advantage in terms of prioritisation without increasing volume, in the same way that I'd train a muscle I wanted to prioritise at the start of a workout rather than the end.

2) I would have thought there could be some increase in volume possible without overeaching. I have always thought of getting volume/frequency right as getting the balance right in terms of recovery (and the associated ability of the individual to absorb the required nutrients). To my mind there must be some advantage from someone not having to recover from demanding leg training, which would then allow for an increase in volume elsewhere.

3) (This one in very minor) People often have difficulty programming the range of exercises they want for upper body work, and the possibility of having more time to train upper body by not training legs may help with this. That said I am a fan of focusing on major compound exercises, but there may still be an advantage here I think.


----------



## jaymz1975 (Sep 14, 2015)

And that's all I have to say on the matter! :cool2:


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Rubbish...IMO
> 
> I do a upper lower split, I am moving some, lets say good weights for a natty (or even someone who is assisted for that matter)...Lower = legs, abs arms 2x per week... upper= chest, back, shoulders, again two times per week. If I need an extra days rest I take it, which is few and far between. I train 4 days in one week!
> 
> Over long periods of resistant training with heavy compound movements, doing this with consistently will make the male hormone levels naturally increase/elevate, even if only slightly. Over time your muscle mass will increase in size. Its the nature of the beast. If you believe doing this will not give any positive benefits then you are selling yourself short.


who trains arms on lower body day?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Sphinkter said:


> who trains arms on lower body day?


He might have long arms..


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

FuqOutDaWhey said:


> He might have long arms..


haha fair point hadn't considered that!


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

I would stop worrying about test levels and would train smart.

Train legs, once you nearly recovered do a light leg training session and when you feel you're fully recovered hit legs hard.

Cardio post leg training seemed to improve my leg recovery.


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's not complete nonsense.
> 
> If I didn't care at all about my legs growing I would only train upper body. Since this would allow me to put more effort into upper body training (most notably increasing volume), and because all extra food/recovery capacity would only be being used by my upper body, I would expect my upper body to grow better.


but wouldn't your body only allow for so much disproportionate growth


----------



## DaveCW (Dec 9, 2013)

> Haha, dont get me wrong guys this is not a troll post.
> 
> I just heard some guys talking about this today at the gym. They said that your bodys testosterone can only handle a certain amount of muscle and by not training ur legs you can grow much more muscles in ur upper body than you could have grown when you were training your lower body.
> 
> ...


Quite the opposite.

Training lower body will actually benefit upper body development greatly.


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

DatGuy said:


> Brb training arms to increase calf size
> 
> Funny how nobody says training upper body will benefit your lower body in any way


think he's meaning squats n deadlifts rather than leg extensions n calf raises lol.


----------



## Lean&amp;Mean&amp;Clean (May 9, 2008)

> Haha, dont get me wrong guys this is not a troll post.
> 
> I just heard some guys talking about this today at the gym. They said that your bodys testosterone can only handle a certain amount of muscle and by not training ur legs you can grow much more muscles in ur upper body than you could have grown when you were training your lower body.
> 
> ...


so would you please post a pic of that huge upper body?


----------



## Lean&amp;Mean&amp;Clean (May 9, 2008)

so how many pics have we seen with guys with overpowering upper bodies?? in this thread there men with weak calves and on the first photo one of these who does not even look like he trains(I sometimes you can tell by looking at just 10% of body flesh if not less)

now how many are the photos or competitors with overpowering lower bodies?? deluded to the rest of their lives, even Kai Greene sorted out himself in the final years of his career somehow..


----------

