Fat loss training for middle-aged women

[miaou]

Strength training, while something you should do while losing weight, is not a good way to exercise for weight loss. Get me right, you need to do strength training before attempting weight loss (because muscles swallow calories) and whilst losing weight (so as to not lose muscle) but to lose weight you really want to do cardio and low-intensity exercising such as walking.

A fat loss program without any cardio? For weight loss cardio is the only way to go, get the fat bitch on a treadmill :icon_lol:

One of the reasons your mom's not losing anymore weight is because her strength training program is not suitable at all for fat loss. You gotta get that woman's heart rate up. The routine she is following now is much more geared toward pure strength gains and is not helping her cause at all with optimal calorie burn. She should be doing a lot of circuit work, complexes, etc with very little rest. Basically, you need to completely overhaul her program. Start with decreasing the resistance and rest while increasing the volume and and go from there.

No.

 

[THeels934]

No.

??? Please explain.

 

[miaou]

??? Please explain.

Ok:

Strength training, while something you should do while losing weight, is not a good way to exercise for weight loss. Get me right, you need to do strength training before attempting weight loss (because muscles swallow calories) and whilst losing weight (so as to not lose muscle) but to lose weight you really want to do cardio and low-intensity exercising such as walking.

A fat loss program without any cardio? For weight loss cardio is the only way to go, get the fat bitch on a treadmill :icon_lol:

One of the reasons your mom's not losing anymore weight is because her strength training program is not suitable at all for fat loss. You gotta get that woman's heart rate up. The routine she is following now is much more geared toward pure strength gains and is not helping her cause at all with optimal calorie burn. She should be doing a lot of circuit work, complexes, etc with very little rest. Basically, you need to completely overhaul her program. Start with decreasing the resistance and rest while increasing the volume and and go from there.

That is not true. Weight loss depends on one thing and one thing only: being in a caloric deficit. What kind of training you will be doing (and even whether you are training at all) is not the reason why you lose, or you don't lose, weight.

Training can obviously affect your caloric expenditure, but what it comes down to is not the type of training, it is the relation of calories in vs. calories out.

That covers the "weight loss" part. Now lets go to the "fat loss" part.

It is true that steady state low-intensity cardio will utilize fat as an energy source, thus speeding up the fat oxidization during exercise. It is also true that it will trigger an overall catabolic response, thus a break down of skeletal muscle along with fat. This is counterproductive for fat loss, because less muscle translates to a lower resting caloric expenditure, but it can be attenuated to some degree with proper peri-workout nutrition planning. Of course, an overall fat loss requires an overall caloric deficit.

On the other hand, being on an overall caloric deficit while doing strength training means your body will retain as much muscle as possible. The rate of weight loss will be the same, as long as the caloric deficit is also the same (so, if anything, the fat loss rate is likely to be higher in comparison to cardio training). The rate of weight loss will also be the same (given an equal caloric deficit) if you are doing complexes or body-building style training (high reps, short breaks) as you suggested. So there is no real reason why complexes or cardio would be better, as long as the caloric deficit is the same.

As far as the last sentence in your post, it is blatantly false. Increasing your overall volume results in more architectural damage on the muscle tissue, which is harder to recover from. On the other hand, when in caloric deficit, the body's recovery capacity is impaired. That is the reason why it is advisable to lower your volume when in a weight loss phase.


To conclude, while I would advise a person who looks to lose fat, to combine strength training with a moderate amount of low-intensity cardio, it is entirely false that a person needs to do cardio in order to lose weight/fat.

The reason I would include cardio is not because it is necessary for weight loss. The reason is because it is advisable for cardiovascular health reasons (and even more so in middle aged women), and that it would slightly increase their caloric expenditure without any significant systemic stress, so that would mean they would be able to eat a bit more and still stay within the targeted caloric deficit. If they could only do one or the other I would have them do strength training only, instead of cardio only.

 

[spinach]

Thanks miaou, that's pretty interesting.

This is a very interesting discussion and I have to thank everyone for the responses so far, you've given me lots of ideas for sure. As I said before, she won't go in for the whole timed rest intervals and circuits and super-setting and whatnot. And she's never gonna count calories, I've already tried most of this stuff.

But what does sound good to me, is the idea of adding a bit more cardio and maybe some simple barbell complexes. Combine that with some experimenting in the diet department and she might get some quicker results. But I think I was wrong earlier about the 2000 calories, she's probably not getting quite that much. Somewhere in the 1500-2000 range I figure, depending on the day.

Just from looking around and listening to other people's stories (not on here, just friends and stuff) it seems like this demographic generally has a lot of trouble losing weight and keeping it off. I know most of my friend's moms are at least the same weight if not heavier than my mom.

 

[THeels934]

Ok:







That is not true. Weight loss depends on one thing and one thing only: being in a caloric deficit. What kind of training you will be doing (and even whether you are training at all) is not the reason why you lose, or you don't lose, weight.

Training can obviously affect your caloric expenditure, but what it comes down to is not the type of training, it is the relation of calories in vs. calories out.


That covers the "weight loss" part. Now lets go to the "fat loss" part.

It is true that steady state low-intensity cardio will utilize fat as an energy source, thus speeding up the fat oxidization during exercise. It is also true that it will trigger an overall catabolic response, thus a break down of skeletal muscle along with fat. This is counterproductive for fat loss, because less muscle translates to a lower resting caloric expenditure, but it can be attenuated to some degree with proper peri-workout nutrition planning. Of course, an overall fat loss requires an overall caloric deficit.

On the other hand, being on an overall caloric deficit while doing strength training means your body will retain as much muscle as possible. The rate of weight loss will be the same, as long as the caloric deficit is also the same (so, if anything, the fat loss rate is likely to be higher in comparison to cardio training). The rate of weight loss will also be the same (given an equal caloric deficit) if you are doing complexes or body-building style training (high reps, short breaks) as you suggested. So there is no real reason why complexes or cardio would be better, as long as the caloric deficit is the same.

As far as the last sentence in your post, it is blatantly false. Increasing your overall volume results in more architectural damage on the muscle tissue, which is harder to recover from. On the other hand, when in caloric deficit, the body's recovery capacity is impaired. That is the reason why it is advisable to lower your volume when in a weight loss phase.


To conclude, while I would advise a person who looks to lose fat, to combine strength training with a moderate amount of low-intensity cardio, it is entirely false that a person needs to do cardio in order to lose weight/fat.

The reason I would include cardio is not because it is necessary for weight loss. The reason is because it is advisable for cardiovascular health reasons (and even more so in middle aged women), and that it would slightly increase their caloric expenditure without any significant systemic stress, so that would mean they would be able to eat a bit more and still stay within the targeted caloric deficit. If they could only do one or the other I would have them do strength training only, instead of cardio only.

So the basis of your argument for weight loss/fat loss is the necessity of a calorie deficit..calories in, calories out. I think everyone would agree with that and I'm certainly not disputing it. However, you then state that the type of training you do doesn't affect your calorie expenditure. How can you say that? What type of training will expend more calories? A slow moving weight training routine with a long rest periods and a few sets here and there, or a higher intensity and more metabolic type regiment consisting of strength circuits and some complexes? Clearly the latter will lead to a much greater calorie burn, thus increasing the overall calorie deficit.

Then you address "weight loss" vs. "fat loss". You state that low-intensity steady state cardio will burn fat, but also lead to catabolic response in which muscle is also broken down for energy, which will ultimately lead to a slowing of resting metabolism. Again, all true statements. Not sure why you included it in your address to me because I did not mention steady state cardio one time and happen to think it is inefficient and mind-numbingly boring. However, I did suggest that his mom perform higher intensity strength circuits and complexes as part of her strength routine. By doing these types of training you are increasing your calorie deficit while still building/maintaining lean muscle.

Lastly, you address my claim of volume increase. You state that increasing the volume of her workouts would be a bad idea because it would lead to more damage to the muscle tissue. That claim is rather shortsighted as the energy requirements to repair the tissue would prolong and increase post-workout RMR thus creating an even bigger calorie deficit. Would too much increase be detrimental? Most likely, but I never specified the amount of increase and also if you look at her current program the volume is low already so a moderate increase should not lead to any overtraining.

Overall, I agree with you that her diet is the most important aspect for her fat loss and also that strength training is way more benefical than steady state cardio. But due to the lack of any weight/fat loss recently is clear that she's not following her diet strictly enough and her current strength program is not working well for her. Outside of sticking to the diet, I believe she should switch things up to a much more metabolic focused strength routine that will help her achieve a greater calorie deficit while continuing to build some lean mass.

 

[Tosa]

The issue with complexes or intervals (or anything of that nature) for fat loss is that, while it's true it's more intense, and therefore you are burning calories at a greater rate while you're doing it, the intensity limits the amount of volume that can be done (and thus calories burned), and it's harder to recover from. On the other hand steady state cardio can be done for greater volumes (more calories burned) and is easier to recover from. Furthermore, the catabolic effects of steady state cardio are overstated.

 

[dexbot]

Adding some cardio and bb complexes will be good for the sake of fun/variety. Training motivation is made of fun for most people so I think it's good to mix things up a little.

 

[miaou]

So the basis of your argument for weight loss/fat loss is the necessity of a calorie deficit..calories in, calories out. I think everyone would agree with that and I'm certainly not disputing it. However, you then state that the type of training you do doesn't affect your calorie expenditure. How can you say that? What type of training will expend more calories? A slow moving weight training routine with a long rest periods and a few sets here and there, or a higher intensity and more metabolic type regiment consisting of strength circuits and some complexes? Clearly the latter will lead to a much greater calorie burn, thus increasing the overall calorie deficit.

Lol! This is what I said in my last post:

Training can obviously affect your caloric expenditure, but what it comes down to is not the type of training, it is the relation of calories in vs. calories out.
[...]
I would include cardio [...] it would slightly increase their caloric expenditure without any significant systemic stress.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said ...but that's not it!

Then you address "weight loss" vs. "fat loss". You state that low-intensity steady state cardio will burn fat, but also lead to catabolic response in which muscle is also broken down for energy, which will ultimately lead to a slowing of resting metabolism. Again, all true statements. Not sure why you included it in your address to me because I did not mention steady state cardio one time and happen to think it is inefficient and mind-numbingly boring.

You asked me to explain my previous answer (which was a simple "No"), or did you not? That answer happened to be directed towards three statements (one of which was yours). I explained it. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

However, I did suggest that his mom perform higher intensity strength circuits and complexes as part of her strength routine. By doing these types of training you are increasing your calorie deficit while still building/maintaining lean muscle.

No you didn't. You specifically said: she is "not losing anymore weight is because her strength training program is not suitable at all for fat loss." That statement is completely and demonstrably wrong, and I explained why. If you had said: "she is not losing weight because she is not in a caloric deficit; a way to create that deficit is burn more calories; a way to burn more calories is complexes", then I would not have disagreed with you, but that is not what you said in your first post.

Lastly, you address my claim of volume increase. You state that increasing the volume of her workouts would be a bad idea because it would lead to more damage to the muscle tissue. That claim is rather shortsighted as the energy requirements to repair the tissue would prolong and increase post-workout RMR thus creating an even bigger calorie deficit. Would too much increase be detrimental? Most likely, but I never specified the amount of increase and also if you look at her current program the volume is low already so a moderate increase should not lead to any overtraining.

Overtraining would also lead to more damage to the muscle tissue, which would prolong/increase post-workout RMR, why not overtrain her then? Her current program is SS with some cardio, and she is a middle aged woman. That is not too low volume by most accounts. You said her program is not suitable at all for fat loss and suggested she needs to increase the volume. I said when you are losing weight, you shouldn't increase the training volume (given that you are already training properly), you should decrease the "food volume" (I also said some low-intensity cardio won't be that stressful, I agree on this with Tosa's post above). This puts less stress on you body in general, and less stress on your immune system in particular. This is not my personal opinion, this is common knowledge; if you don't understand/agree with this, then we'll just have to disagree.

 

[VoodooPlata]

My statement was merely that strength training is not a good way to lose weight. It carries more risk of injury than low-intensity cardio, something that should be considered when being in a caloric deficit, along with other factors that others have mentioned above. I did not state that weightlifting is a worthless way of training for weight loss - when i say "not good" i mean "sub-optimal" which is pretty close to the definition of those words. I think.

Only being in a caloric deficit and not doing any training would be a worthless way to lose weight.

 

[taninecz]

The issue with complexes or intervals (or anything of that nature) for fat loss is that, while it's true it's more intense, and therefore you are burning calories at a greater rate while you're doing it, the intensity limits the amount of volume that can be done (and thus calories burned), and it's harder to recover from. On the other hand steady state cardio can be done for greater volumes (more calories burned) and is easier to recover from. Furthermore, the catabolic effects of steady state cardio are overstated.

this intrigues me for several reasons.

the last time i checked into one of these threads in any detail, the takeaway seemed to be that interval training was easier to recover from and resulted in less catabolism by essentially "upping" metabolization of fat over the long term (several hours post interval training); essentially tricking the body into using resources while resting. this was (in my recollection) stated as preferable to steady state cardio for people wishing to lose fat and maintain muscle mass. it was also touted as a way to move past the sometimes difficult process of simply burning more calories than one consumes in a given day (obviously, this caloric deficit is proven legitimate). so my question is, has interval training been debunked in this regard? women in my family deal with a similar issue to ts, and ive definitely been curious about applying interval training into their routines. it would seem that keeping some muscle mass in individuals with this particular hormone profile would be crucial to any kind of fat loss.

 

[Tosa]

this intrigues me for several reasons.

the last time i checked into one of these threads in any detail, the takeaway seemed to be that interval training was easier to recover from and resulted in less catabolism by essentially "upping" metabolization of fat over the long term (several hours post interval training); essentially tricking the body into using resources while resting. this was (in my recollection) stated as preferable to steady state cardio for people wishing to lose fat and maintain muscle mass. it was also touted as a way to move past the sometimes difficult process of simply burning more calories than one consumes in a given day (obviously, this caloric deficit is proven legitimate). so my question is, has interval training been debunked in this regard? women in my family deal with a similar issue to ts, and ive definitely been curious about applying interval training into their routines. it would seem that keeping some muscle mass in individuals with this particular hormone profile would be crucial to any kind of fat loss.

This was discussed at some length here: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f49/teh-pub-1163191/index773.html, although I'm not sure if that will link you to the right page if you have your settings at a different number of posts per page than I do.

There actually isn't a lot of solid studies on intervals and weight/fat loss. The reasoning in favor of intervals is that they cause a greater amount of "Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption" (EPOC) than steady state exercise, which means more calories burned after the fact. But isn't a consensus on whether EPOC is a significant factor in calories burned. Furthermore the level of EPOC is linked to the amount of time exercising, and it's much easier to increase the amount of time spend on steady state cardio than intervals.

Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for maintaining muscle mass, this is more of an issue of having a reasonable strength training routine in place (along with proper diet). The catabolic/muscle wasting effects of aerobic exercise are overstated, especially if the training is done in moderationg for either GPP or weight loss, and to not to excess (like mimicking a marathoners training).

Steady state exercise is easier to recover from (assuming you're used to the particular exercise) since you going to use less muscle fibers with a higher recruitment threshold (which take longer to recover) and instead rely mostly on muscle fibers with a lower recruitment threshold (which take less time to recover). Also steady state cardio limits the use of the anaerobic systems, which don't recover as easily as the aerobic system. That said, these are generalities (E.g. 8 sprints with the prowler probably would be easier to recover from running 5 miles at a 5 minute/mile pace (but it wouldn't burn nearly as many calories), but burning as many calories through intervals as a person might with hiking or biking at a moderate intensity for half an hour would be more stressful).

 

[taninecz]

thanks for the links tosa.

as far as HIIT/EPOC/Intervals vis a vis middle aged women, im wondering if there is research about the "hormone balancing" stage of recovery. it would seem a lot of the research debated on this forum deals with primarily younger folks, mostly male. i have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from older women complaining about disparities in the efficacy of exercise and fat loss, and it would seem ts's post continues to confirm this demographic's difficulty in losing adipose tissue.

i would imagine this disparity would be of major concern to a lot of people on here who work with middle aged women professionally, in addition to the health care community/anyone who pays taxes for medicare.

 

[millasur]

thanks for the links tosa.

as far as HIIT/EPOC/Intervals vis a vis middle aged women, im wondering if there is research about the "hormone balancing" stage of recovery. it would seem a lot of the research debated on this forum deals with primarily younger folks, mostly male. i have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from older women complaining about disparities in the efficacy of exercise and fat loss, and it would seem ts's post continues to confirm this demographic's difficulty in losing adipose tissue.

Not sure there's any value in listening to these women with their anecdotal evidence - it's the people/persons doing it wrong, the system works for everyone else and always has.

 

[Miiiiiiighty]

This was discussed at some length here: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f49/teh-pub-1163191/index773.html, although I'm not sure if that will link you to the right page if you have your settings at a different number of posts per page than I do.

There actually isn't a lot of solid studies on intervals and weight/fat loss. The reasoning in favor of intervals is that they cause a greater amount of "Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption" (EPOC) than steady state exercise, which means more calories burned after the fact. But isn't a consensus on whether EPOC is a significant factor in calories burned. Furthermore the level of EPOC is linked to the amount of time exercising, and it's much easier to increase the amount of time spend on steady state cardio than intervals.

Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for maintaining muscle mass, this is more of an issue of having a reasonable strength training routine in place (along with proper diet). The catabolic/muscle wasting effects of aerobic exercise are overstated, especially if the training is done in moderationg for either GPP or weight loss, and to not to excess (like mimicking a marathoners training).

Steady state exercise is easier to recover from (assuming you're used to the particular exercise) since you going to use less muscle fibers with a higher recruitment threshold (which take longer to recover) and instead rely mostly on muscle fibers with a lower recruitment threshold (which take less time to recover). Also steady state cardio limits the use of the anaerobic systems, which don't recover as easily as the aerobic system. That said, these are generalities (E.g. 8 sprints with the prowler probably would be easier to recover from running 5 miles at a 5 minute/mile pace (but it wouldn't burn nearly as many calories), but burning as many calories through intervals as a person might with hiking or biking at a moderate intensity for half an hour would be more stressful).

Interesting .

Though what about this :

It is widely recognized that LSD allows you to use more fat as a primary source of energy ( fat metoblizing being linked to aerobic exercize ) , but that HIIT burns more calories in the same amount of time ( hence the interest of doing HIIT for obvious time constraint as everybody doesn't have 1hour to spend doing slow jogging everyday ) , but one of the supposed health benefits of HIIT , which allows this consumption of more calories in the post work out hours is supposed to be its impact on the elevation of the hormones production ( testo and GH ...) , which obviously is also supposed to help to prevent catabolism for obvious reasons .
Is this still theory still of actuality ???

I am asking this question because I used to do some classic endurance running at a slow pace , while still following work outs , and dieting and had great results ( I also acknowledge your point about catabolism/LSD correlation being way overstated , as long as you eat healthy )

I was recently thinking about throwing in some HIIT instead , 4 times per week , like 30 min hill sprints session or something like , because I was intrigued to see if I get those hormonal benefits , so do you think about all this ..?

 

[Tosa]

The effects of intervals (or weight lifting for that matter) on testosterone and GH are exaggerated. Yes, they do cause an increase, but it's not especially large or long term, returning to normal within ~30 minutes. For that matter, the increase in testosterone and GH are connected to the average intensity and time of the exercise, so you can get a similar increase with steady state exercise as well, especially if it's higher intensity. So if there are any benefits from a slight, short term elevation in tosterone, it's not dependant on exercise type.

SpringerLink -
SpringerLink -

That said, I wouldn't discourage anyone who wants to do intervals from doing so. It's good to do conditioning for the anaerobic systems as well, and they're fun and/or a gut check. (Personally I like a mix of steady state and intervals). I just don't like the misunderstandings that create the perception that steady state is bad, and intervals are always the answer.

 

[miaou]

The effects of intervals (or weight lifting for that matter) on testosterone and GH are exaggerated. Yes, they do cause an increase, but it's not especially large or long term, returning to normal within ~30 minutes. For that matter, the increase in testosterone and GH are connected to the average intensity and time of the exercise, so you can get a similar increase with steady state exercise as well, especially if it's higher intensity. So if there are any benefits from a slight, short term elevation in tosterone, it's not dependant on exercise type.

SpringerLink -
SpringerLink -

That said, I wouldn't discourage anyone who wants to do intervals from doing so. It's good to do conditioning for the anaerobic systems as well, and they're fun and/or a gut check. (Personally I like a mix of steady state and intervals). I just don't like the misunderstandings that create the perception that steady state is bad, and intervals are always the answer.

I am not posting to criticize your opinion here. I agree with your advice in your posts in this thread; the point I made earlier was not that one should not do steady state or intervals, it was that this is not the reason why they are not losing weight (which should be pretty obvious to begin with).

Anyway, my comment here is that the elevation of testosterone and HGH in HIIT, which returns to normal levels within ~30 minutes, is not unlike that in strength training. I mean, heavy compound exercises still only induce elevations for that small amount of time. Furthermore, strength training doesn't induce elevations of resting HGH at all, and it is not clear whether it induces elevations in resting testosterone (but I would guess that the effects might be somewhat similar to HIIT).

That is not to say that their impact on the hormonic environment is insignificant. It is theorized that the most important changes for both those hormones might be on the receptor level (via up-regulation/down-regulation and changes is receptor sensitivity).


I will repeat that in the process of weight loss, diet management should be the first consideration. Keeping the same caloric intake and adding extra training is not the optimal choice (assuming you had a proper training program to begin with), especially if that is high intensity training.

 

[Tosa]

Anyway, my comment here is that the elevation of testosterone and HGH in HIIT, which returns to normal levels within ~30 minutes, is not unlike that in strength training. I mean, heavy compound exercises still only induce elevations for that small amount of time. Furthermore, strength training doesn't induce elevations of resting HGH at all, and it is not clear whether it induces elevations in resting testosterone (but I would guess that the effects might be somewhat similar to HIIT).

We are in agreement here.

That is not to say that their impact on the hormonic environment is insignificant. It is theorized that the most important changes for both those hormones might be on the receptor level (via up-regulation/down-regulation and changes is receptor sensitivity).

Certainly a reasonable theory. But I wouldn't assume one way or another about whether the theory is true or signifcant.

I will repeat that in the process of weight loss, diet management should be the first consideration. Keeping the same caloric intake and adding extra training is not the optimal choice (assuming you had a proper training program to begin with), especially if that is high intensity training.

For the most part I agree, assuming a proper training program means one with a balance of both strength and conditioning work. In this case Increasing the volume of exercise can be helpful because it means diet doesn't have to be modified as much. However if relatively intense strength and conditioning work is already being done in decent volumes then it isn't reasonable to add more intense exercise. However low intensity exercise can be added, for example, walking the dog signifcantly farther than usual, an easy swim or bike ride etc. Not only does this mean that diet doesn't have to be modified to the same degree, but I think it's good for psychological reasons, I.e. instead of just eating less calories, actively doing something towards losing fat.

 

[miaou]

Certainly a reasonable theory. But I wouldn't assume one way or another about whether the theory is true or signifcant.

Many sports scientists do assume one way. This is taken from Strength and Power in Sports, this part is written by Kraemer & Ratamess (Kraemer also co-authored Science and Practice of Strength Training):

Perhaps more significant for long-term endocrine adaptations to resistance training is the number of androgen receptors (e.g. via up-regulation or down-regulation) potentially interacting with the biologically active free testosterone. [...] Resistance training has been shown to up-regulate androgen receptors in rats (Inoue et al. 1993). [...] Bamman et al. (2001) compared concentric and eccentric loading (8 sets of squats) and reported that androgen receptor mRNA increased 63% following the eccentric loading and 102% following the concentric loading without concomitant increases in serum testosterone concentrations. These results indicate a positive adaptation at the cellular level without significant changes in circulating hormones. It appears that muscle contractility and/or mechanical damage has a potent effect in regulating androgen receptor number, thereby increasing the likelihood of hormonal interaction and subsequent protein synthesis.

 

[Tosa]

Many sports scientists do assume one way. This is taken from Strength and Power in Sports, this part is written by Kraemer & Ratamess (Kraemer also co-authored Science and Practice of Strength Training):

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Is there any information on what the implications of this with respect to training might be?

 

[Indivdude]

Perhaps more significant for long-term endocrine adaptations to resistance training is the number of androgen receptors (e.g. via up-regulation or down-regulation) potentially interacting with the biologically active free testosterone. [...] Resistance training has been shown to up-regulate androgen receptors in rats (Inoue et al. 1993). [...] Bamman et al. (2001) compared concentric and eccentric loading (8 sets of squats) and reported that androgen receptor mRNA increased 63% following the eccentric loading and 102% following the concentric loading without concomitant increases in serum testosterone concentrations. These results indicate a positive adaptation at the cellular level without significant changes in circulating hormones. It appears that muscle contractility and/or mechanical damage has a potent effect in regulating androgen receptor number, thereby increasing the likelihood of hormonal interaction and subsequent protein synthesis.

I just want to know how they got a rat to squat.