Dropping squats?

[Chthonian]

Is it alright for someone to focus on their upperbody if it's lagging in both strength and mass, or does one need to squat and deadlift to actually increase the size of their arms, chest, and lats?

I know the whole GH release is a fallacy, when it comes to heavy squatting, but some people still argue that squatting will help an individual to increase their overall mass through the systematic overload it causes on the body.

What say you all to this, hm?

If mass is the only concern, wouldn't pushing up the bench, military presses, dips, pullups, and rows drive upper body mass?

Finally, if one needed, say, 4000 calories to add mass at a steady rate while working out the whole body (let's say, using squats and good mornings for legs), wouldn't they need less overall calories to add mass if they stopped training legs, since they'd be using less calories to work the biggest part of the body?

 

[Chthonian]

Bidybump

 

[imported_daxie]

I wouldn't drop squats...

You can focus on your upper body without sacrificing on your lower body... Just get the intensity a tad lower, or maybe focus on some isolation exercises as leg curls and leg extensions. Those are less fatigueing and can add some nice definition to the legs, without exhausting your body for the upper workout.

As to the effect of going heavy to the upper body. I can't believe (unless somebody knows a study who tries to prove otherwise) that the effect of the heavy leg workout is greater than the effect of the increased upper body intensity.

 

[OneMoreRep]

i wouldn't drop squats... just keep at HST.

If you drop squatting all together you may LOOSE some strength IMO.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Chthonian @ July 07 2005,8:24)]Is it alright for someone to focus on their upperbody if it's lagging in both strength and mass?

Does one need to squat and deadlift to actually increase the size of their arms, chest, and lats?

Some people still argue that squatting will help an individual to increase their overall mass through the systematic overload it causes on the body.

If mass is the only concern, wouldn't pushing up the bench, military presses, dips, pullups, and rows drive upper body mass?

Finally, if one needed, say, 4000 calories to add mass at a steady rate while working out the whole body (let's say, using squats and good mornings for legs), wouldn't they need less overall calories to add mass if they stopped training legs, since they'd be using less calories to work the biggest part of the body?

Yes

No

Postural Muscles Yes, the rest I doubt it.

Yes

Comes down to calories burnt, if leaving out legs decreases calories burnt (which it probably would) then you can consume less.

 

[Chthonian]

Can you clear up what you mean by "postural muscles", dkm? How would squats help with that through systematic overload?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Well it wouldn't systemically help, obviously I didn't read his questions thouroughly enough (good catch ). But it would overload the postural muscle simply by being forced to keep your body upright with the load on your shoulders.

Postural muscles= abs, obliques, erectors, glutes, hips and all those other muscles that allow us to stand upright.

 

[BoSox]

p.s. Isolation movements don't add "shape."

 

[Jester]

I haven't done deads in my HST since about Feb, and have never done squats. I just stick with leg press or leg extn&leg curls. Haven't had any trouble putting on mass (upper or lower) and in the best shape I've been since starting HST 6months ago.