HORMONAL RESPONSES TO RESISTANCE EXERCISE
IN LONG-TERM TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
MIDDLE-AGED MEN
EDUARDO LUSA CADORE,1 FRANCISCO LUIZ RODRIGUES LHULLIER,2 MICHEL ARIAS BRENTANO,1
EDUARDO MARCZWSKI DA SILVA,1 MELISSA BUENO AMBROSINI,1 RAFAEL SPINELLI,1
RODRIGO FERRARI SILVA,1 AND LUIZ FERNANDO MARTINS KRUEL1
1
Exercise Research Laboratory, Physical Education School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil;
2
Department of Clinical Analysis, Catholic Pontific University, Porto Alegre, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Cadore, EL, Lhullier, FLR, Brentano, MA, Silva, EM, Ambrosini,
MB, Spinelli, R, Silva, RF, and Kruel, LFM. Hormonal responses
to resistance exercise in long-term trained and untrained
middle-aged men. J Strength Cond Res 22(5): 16171624,
2008This cross-sectional study compared hormonal re-
sponses to resistance exercise between trained and untrained
men to investigate the adaptations of the endocrine system to
long-term strength training in middle-aged men. Twenty-one
middle-aged men were recruited for this study and matched into
a strength-trained group (SG) (n = 10) and an untrained group
(UG) (n = 11). In the SG, the individuals had practiced strength
training for hypertrophy for at least 3 years. Upper- and lower-
body muscle strength was measured with a 1 repetition
maximum (1RM) test. Blood samples were collected at rest and
after multiple sets of a superset strength training protocol
(SSTP), with an intensity of 75% of 1RM values. With these
blood samples, the levels of total testosterone (TT), free
testosterone (FT), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), cortisol,
and sex hormonebinding globulin (SHBG) were determined.
In addition, the TT-to-cortisol ratio and TT-to-SHBG ratio were
calculated. There was no difference at rest between groups in
hormonal values for TT, FT, DHEA, cortisol, the TT-to-SHBG
ratio, and the TT-to-cortisol ratio. There were increases after
SSTP in the levels of TT, FT, DHEA, and cortisol and the TT-to-
SHBG ratio in the UG, but only FT increased in the SG. The SG
demonstrated lower values in the TT-to-SHBG ratio after the
training session. These results suggest the presence of altera-
tions in anabolic and catabolic hormonal responses to resis-
tance exercise in long-term trained middle-aged men, with the
Address correspondence to Eduardo Lusa Cadore, edcadore@yahoo.
com.br.
22(5)/16171624
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
trained subjects demonstrating lower responsiveness in the
hormone values. Long-term trained men seem to require a
higher volume of training, at least similar to their daily workout,
to stimulate greater hormone responses.
KEY WORDS strength training, testosterone, cortisol, superset,
endocrine adaptations
INTRODUCTION
S
trength training causes several acute physiological
responses and chronic adaptations that are very
important for increasing muscular strength and
hypertrophy. Some anabolic hormones, such as
testosterone, have a critical role in the responses and
adaptations to training (37). In fact, high-intensity and
high-volume strength exercise is a powerful stimulus for an
acute increase in the concentration of testosterone immedi-
ately after exercise (2,3,14,32). This response pattern has been
associated with the increase in the synthesis of proteins
during the rest period after the training session due to its
influence on the increase in androgenic receptors in the
muscle cell (5,29,50).
Some variables linked to the training session, such as
intensity and volume (14,47), resting time (35), and involved
muscle mass (20), influence the hormonal response to
resistance exercise. In addition, studies have demonstrated
that the level of training interferes in this response pattern
(2,31,32), while others indicate there is no difference between
trained and untrained individuals (1). At the same time, in
relation to the pituitaryadrenocortical axis, some findings
suggest that the increases of cortisol after resistance exercise
may be lower in trained individuals (32), but no studies have
investigated the influence of training on the dehydroepian-
drosterone (DHEA) responses to this type of exercise.
Although the concentrations of total testosterone (TT) and
free testosterone (FT) are seen to increase immediately after
a strength training session (1,9,20,22,33), there is some
controversy regarding alterations in their concentrations at
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1617
Hormone Responses to Resistance Exercise

rest after a period of training. Studies have evaluated young
individuals and have demonstrated an increase in testoster-
one levels at rest after strength training (1,13,32,41,48).
Nevertheless, other studies, including investigations involv-
ing middle-aged and elderly individuals, have found no
differences in circulatory testosterone levels at rest after
a period of training (3,19,20,27,46). Indeed, studies have
investigated endocrine responses and adaptations to strength
training (1,3,27,32) and comparisons of these responses
between strength athletes and nonathletes (2). However, the
literature contains very little information about possible
endocrine adaptations to training in recreationally long-term
strength-trained men. In a study by Ahtiainen et al. (1), no
differences were observed between strength-trained athletes
and untrained men in acute hormonal response to strength
training. However, other studies have demonstrated a higher
acute hormonal response to resistance exercise in strength-
trained athletes compared to untrained subjects (2) and in
subjects after a strength training period (32). Thus, in-
formation about the effects of strength training on acute
hormonal response to exercise remains inconsistent. More-
over, no study has investigated the effects of many years of
strength training on hormonal responses to resistance
exercise in middle-aged men.
In the search for information on the possible role of the
endocrine system in the adaptations to strength training in men,
this study aims to investigate hormone concentrations at rest
and induced by a training session for hypertrophy in middle-
aged long-term trained and untrained men of the same age. Due
to the higher testosterone values at rest (1,13,32,41) and induced
by resistance exercise (2,32) observed in strength-trained
subjects in other studies, the hypothesis was that the values
of the measured anabolic parameters will be higher in long-
term strength-trained individuals than in untrained individuals.
obtained to determine hormonal concentrations and sex
hormonebinding globulin (SHBG).
Subjects
Twenty-one healthy, strength-trained and untrained middle-
aged men (mean age, 40.6 6 4 years) volunteered to
participate in this study. Subjects were matched according
to training status into 2 different groups: a strength-trained
group (SG) (n = 10) and an untrained group (UG) (n = 11).
All subjects were carefully informed about the potential risks
and discomforts of the project and signed a written consent
form before their participation in the study. This investigation
was approved by the Ethics Committee of Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul. Table 1 shows the subjects physical
characteristics and maximal strength. There were no
significant differences between the groups in age, body mass,
or height. The SG had significantly higher values in
percentage of lean body mass and lower values in percentage
of fat mass (p , 0.05). Indeed, the SG had significantly higher
values in all strength variables (p , 0.01).
The training history and characteristics of the SG are
presented in Table 2. For the SG, individuals were recruited
who had practiced noncompetitive resistance training for
hypertrophy for at least 3 years (mean, 11.77 6 7.4 years)
with no interruptions longer than 20 days and for at least
2 years before the study. Indeed, the SG subjects could back
squat at least 130% of their body mass (BM) (1 repetition
maximum [1RM] squat/BM = 1.86 6 0.5) and could bench
press at least 100% of their body mass (1RM bench
press/BM = 1.15 6 0.15) (5). Although the SG did not
possess exactly the same volume of training, all trained with
2 to 4 training split (i.e., 2 or 3 muscle groups per day) and
with the objective of hypertrophy. In the UG, subjects were
sedentary for at least 2 years before the study. Criteria for
exclusion were a history of renal, hepatic, cardiovascular,

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the TABLE 1. Physical characteristics and muscle strength.
Problem Strength-trained Untrained
The individuals visited the test group (n = 10) group (n = 11)
center on 2 days. First, the indi-
viduals were interviewed regard- Age (y) 40.5 6 4.3 40.8 6 3.8
Height (cm) 175.1 6 3.9 172.5 6 7.7
ing their medical history and
Body mass (kg) 80.4 6 8.6 79.1 6 10.02
physical activity. Their anthro- Fat mass (%) 17.6 6 4.7 26.5 6 3.9
pomorphic characteristics were Lean mass (%) 82.3 6 4.7 73.4 6 3.8
measured, and maximum dy- Absolute UBS (kg) 182.4 6 31.3 115.5 6 21.7
namic strength tests were per- Absolute LBS (kg) 546.2 6 140.5 321.9 6 48.6
Relative UBS 2.26 6 0.28 1.45 6 0.2
formed in 4 exercises. Twenty
Relative LBS 6.78 6 1.46 4.1 6 0.66
days later, the subjects were Absolute total load 24,331.6 6 5867 13,954.5 6 2012
required to perform a resistance
exercise session (i.e., a superset Values are mean 6 SD.
UBS = upper body strength; LBS = lower body strength.
strength training protocol * Significant (p , 0.01) difference between groups.
[SSTP]). Before (i.e., at rest)
and after SSTP, blood was
the TM

1618 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


TABLE 2. Training characteristics of the strength-
trained group (n = 10).
Variable Mean 6 SD Range
Training period (y) 11.77 6 7 425
Sessions per week 5 6 0.7 46
Sets per muscle group 11.1 6 2 616
Volume versus intensity
(repetition maximum) 612
Resting time (s) 60120
pituitary, or metabolic disease; use of anabolic steroids or any
other medication that could affect the musculoskeletal or
endocrine metabolism; smoking; adherence to a reduced-
calorie or low-fat diet, ketogenic diet, or over-the-counter
ergogenic aids within the past 2 months, which could affect
hormonal levels (49).
Body Composition
Body mass and height were measured with an Asimed analog
scale (resolution of 0.1 kg) and stadiometer (resolution of
1 mm), respectively. Body composition was assessed by using
the skinfold technique. A 7-site skinfold equation was used to
estimate body density (28), and percentage of body fat was
subsequently calculated with the Siri equation (21). Skinfold
thickness was measured from the chest, midaxillary area,
subscapular area, suprailiac abdomen, triceps, and thigh.
Strength Testing
Maximal strength was assessed by using the 1RM test in the
following free-weight exercises: bench press, supported
barbell row, squat, and 45 leg press. Upper-body strength
was considered the sum of the load lifted in the bench press
and supported barbell row, and lower-body strength was
considered the sum of the load lifted in the squat and leg press.
Muscle strength relative to body mass was calculated, too.
Before the tests, subjects were familiarized with all proce-
dures. They warmed up for 5 minutes on a cycle ergometer,
stretched all major muscle groups, and performed movements
specific to the exercise tests. Each subjects maximal load was
determined in a maximum of 5 trials. After each trial, the load
was adjusted in accordance with coefficients specific to the
number of repetitions realized (39). A 4-minute rest was
allowed between trials, and the performance time for each
contraction (i.e., concentric and eccentric) was 2 seconds,
controlled by an electronic metronome.
Superset Strength Training Protocol
To assess the acute hormonal response to strength training,
a session of training similar to that normally used for
achieving muscular hypertrophy was organized. The session
consisted of the performance of exercises with free weights to
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
large muscle groups. A protocol was used with 2 supersets,
each consisting of 2 exercises, and each superset was repeated
4 times to total 16 sets. Before the performance of the
exercises, the individuals performed a general warm-up on an
ergometric cycle and a specific warm-up for each exercise.
After these warm-ups, the first superset was the agonist
antagonist type composed of the bench press and supported
barbell row. The intensity of the exercises in the first superset
was 75% of the 1RM, and subjects executed 8 repetitions in
each set. The range of movement of both the bench press and
the barbell row was from full extension to 90 of the elbow. In
the second superset, squats and the leg press were performed
at intensities of 75% and 65% of 1RM, with the execution of
8 and 15 repetitions, respectively. The range of movement of
both the squats and the leg press were from full extension to
90 of the knee. The rest between each 2 sets ranged from
90 seconds in the first superset (i.e., bench press and barbell
row) to 2 minutes in the second superset (i.e., squats and leg
press). The rest between the supersets was 3 minutes. The
exercises, volume, and intensity of the SSTP protocol were
chosen due to the influence of the use of large muscle groups
and of the hypertrophic nature of the training in stimulating
anabolic and catabolic hormones (47).
Blood Collection and Analysis
Blood was obtained between 8 and 9 AM, after 2 days with no
training session. The time of blood collection was chosen due
to its use in many studies conducted with these procedures
for the control of the circadian hormonal range (1,19,27).
Subjects sat in a slightly reclined position for 15 minutes
before 10 mL of blood were drawn from an antecubital vein.
After the collection, subjects performed the SSTP and, after
10 minutes, had another 10 mL of blood drawn with a similar
technique.
After collection, the blood was maintained in ambient tem-
perature for 45 minutes and then centrifuged for 10 minutes
at 2,000 rpm, and serum was removed and frozen at 20 C for
later analysis. With this blood sample, the resting and SSTP-
induced concentrations of TT, FT, DHEA, and cortisol were
determined in duplicate by using radioimmunoassay kits
(ICN Biomedicals, Irvine, Calif.). In addition, the SHBG
concentration was determined by using a chemiluminescence
kit (Diagnostic Products Corp., Hawthorne, Calif.). From
these values, it was possible to calculate both the TT-to-
cortisol ratio and the TT-to-SHBG ratio (i.e., free androgen
index [FAI]) (15). To eliminate the interassay variance, all
samples were analyzed within the same assay batch, and all
intra-assay variances were #6.3%. Antibody sensitivities were
0.02 ng
mL1 for TT, 0.02 ng
dL1 for FT, 0.09 ng
mL1 for
DHEA, 0.05 mg
dL1 for cortisol, and 0.5 mmol
mL1 for SHBG.
Statistical Analyses
The data are shown with mean and SD. The ShapiroWilk
test was used for normality, and the Levene test was used for
homogeneity. An analysis of covariance was used to adjust
pretesting values to compare data among groups. Data
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1619
Hormone Responses to Resistance Exercise

analysis was performed with a repeated-measures analysis of

variance for the comparison of the variables before and after
exercise and a one-way analysis of variance for the compari-
son between groups. Also, the Pearson product moment
correlation test was used to verify the associations between
the variables analyzed. All the tests were carried out with the
SPSS statistical program, version 11.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago,
Ill.). The level of statistical significance was set at p # 0.05.

RESULTS
Resting Hormonal Concentrations
Figures 17 show resting hormonal concentrations. There
was no difference between groups in the resting concen-
trations of TT, FT, DHEA, cortisol, or SHBG or in the
TT-to-cortisol ratio. Although there was no difference in the
TT-to-SHBG ratio between the groups at rest, the UG
tended to be greater in this variable (p = 0.053). There was
a significant correlation between squat strength and resting
DHEA in the UG (r = 0.55; p = 0.04). Indeed, in the SG, there
were significant correlations between bench press strength
and the resting TT-to-SHBG ratio (r = 0.71; P = 0.02) and
squat strength and the resting DHEA concentration (r =
0.65; p = 0.04).
Hormonal Response to Superset Strength Training Protocol
Figures 17 show the acute hormonal responses to SSTP. In
the SG, there was a significant increase (p , 0.05) in response
to exercise only in the serum FT level; however, postexercise
changes were not observed in the concentrations of TT,
DHEA, cortisol or SHBG or in the TT-to-cortisol ratio or
TT-to-SHBG ratio. In the UG, there was a significant
increase in response to SSTP in the serum levels of TT, FT,
DHEA, and cortisol and in the TT-to-SHBG ratio (p , 0.05).
There were no changes in the concentration of SHBG or the
TT-to-cortisol ratio. There was no difference between groups
Figure 2. Free testosterone concentrations (mean 6 SD) (ng
dL1) at
rest and induced by a superset strength training protocol (SSTP). SG =
strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group (n = 11).
*Significantly (p , 0.05) different from resting.
after SSTP in the serum level of TT, FT, DHEA, or cortisol
or in the TT-to-cortisol ratio. The UG had significantly
higher values than the SG in the TT-to-SHBG ratio after
SSTP (p , 0.05). The SG tended to have a higher SHBG
concentration than the UG (i.e., 35.3 6 17.2 ng
mL1versus
24.3 6 11.9 ng
mL1; p = 0.07). There was a significant
correlation between squat strength and SSTP-induced
DHEA concentration in the UG (r = 0.73; p = 0.04).
In addition, in the SG, there were significant correlations
between bench press strength and SSTP-induced DHEA
concentration (r = 0.70; p = 0.02) and TT-to-SHBG ratio
(r = 0.76; p = 0.016) and between SSTP-induced DHEA
concentration and leg press strength (r = 0.78; p = 0.013) and
squat strength (r = 0.82; p = 0.007).

Figure 3. Total testosterone-to-sex hormonebinding globulin ratio

Figure 1. Total testosterone concentrations (mean 6 SD) (ng
mL1) at (mean 6 SD) at rest and after a superset strength training protocol
rest and induced by a superset strength training protocol (SSTP). SG = (SSTP). SG = strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group
strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group (n = 11). (n = 11). *Significantly (p , 0.05) different from resting. Significantly
*Significantly (p , 0.05) different from resting. different (p , 0.05) between groups.

the TM

1620 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


Figure 4. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) concentrations (mean 6 SD)
(ng
mL1) at rest and induced by a superset strength training protocol
(SSTP). SG = strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group
(n = 11). *Significantly (p , 0.05) different from resting.
DISCUSSION
The main findings of this study are that only the UG showed
an increase in TT, DHEA, and cortisol levels and in the TT-
to-SHBG ratio. Moreover, the UG demonstrated a higher
TT-to-SHBG ratio than the SG after SSTP. In trained
subjects, only the FT concentration increased in response to
resistance exercise. For hormone concentrations at rest, no
differences between groups were found in the TT, FT,
DHEA, or cortisol levels or in the TT-to-cortisol and TT-to-
SHBG ratios.
It was hypothesized that in the current study, long-term
strength-trained middle-aged individuals would have higher
concentrations of testosterone than untrained individuals
would have, which was not found to be the case. Although
studies evaluating young individuals have shown increases in
concentrations of testosterone at rest after a period of training
Figure 5. Cortisol concentrations (mean 6 SD) (ng
dL1) at rest and
induced by a superset strength training protocol (SSTP). SG = strength-
trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group (n = 11). *Significantly (p ,
0.05) different from resting.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 6. Total testosterone-to-cortisol ratio values (mean 6 SD) at rest
and induced by a superset strength training protocol (SSTP). SG =
strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group (n = 11). There
were no significant differences.
(1,13,33,41,48), the current findings support the longitudinal
results of Hakkinen and Pakarinen (16), Nicklas et al. (43),
Hakkinen et al. (18), and Izquierdo et al. (27), who showed
that there was no chronic adaptation to strength training in
the levels of TT or FT at rest in middle-aged individuals.
In fact, changes in resting anabolic hormone levels during
resistance training have been inconsistent and appear to
reflect the transitory state of the behavior of these hormones
and can be related to increases in the volume and intensity of
training (37). Ahtiainen et al. (1) suggested that there may be
a relationship between volume and intensity of training and
the basal concentration of anabolic hormones. The same
authors suggested that higher testosterone levels at rest are
a determinant factor in the development of strength only in
high-performance strength athletes. If this is the case,
Figure 7. Sex hormonebinding globulin (SHBG) values (mean 6 SD)
(ng
mL1) at rest and induced by a superset strength training protocol
(SSTP). SG = strength-trained group (n = 10); UG = untrained group
(n = 11). There were no significant differences.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1621
Hormone Responses to Resistance Exercise
although the individuals in the SG had a long experience
with training for muscular hypertrophy, they may not have
trained at the volume and intensity characteristic of athletes,
that is, sufficiently enough to produce hormonal modifica-
tions at rest. However, due to the lack of different hormonal
concentrations between the groups in the current study,
other physiological factors may be more directly involved in
the adaptations seen with strength training. These factors
may be the greater number and sensitivity of the androgenic
receptors in muscle cells (6,29,50).
In the current study, the endocrine system responded in
different ways to SSTP in the groups evaluated, with the
trained subjects demonstrating no increases in the total
testosterone, DHEA, or cortisol levels or in the TT-to-SHBG
ratio. Although there is a consensus that resistance exercise is
a powerful stimulant for the increase in testosterone levels
(1,3,16,17,22,30,33,34), there are some discrepancies in the
influence of the level of training in this respect, with some
studies showing a greater response in trained individuals (2) or
after a period of training (32), a greater response in individuals
with a longer time in strength training (31), similar responses
in trained and untrained individuals (1), and lower responses
to the same stimulus after a training period (3). Furthermore,
other studies have shown no significant acute increase in TT
levels after exercise (43,47). It is likely that the discrepancies
among all these studies are due to different strength exercise
protocols or the ages or training experience of the subjects (37).
Surprisingly, even with a higher absolute total load than
untrained subjects (Table 1), the SG had an increased level of
FT only, whereas the UG had increased levels of both FTand
TT, demonstrating greater responsiveness of testosterone for
the same training session. In addition, the UG demonstrated
a higher TT-to-SHBG ratio than the SG after SSTP. A
possible explanation may be the workout volume performed
by the subjects. The trained individuals in the current study
trained, on average, 11 sets per muscle group and 2 or 3
muscle groups per day; in the SSTP test, the subjects
performed 16 sets. Thus, to achieve a greater testosterone
response to resistance exercise, it may be necessary to
perform, at least, the same stimulus that the SG subjects used
to train in their daily workout. Although there may be no
clear explanation for these results, a question that arises is
whether the individuals in the SG might have had an
adaptation to the long-term training in their endocrine
system, which leads them to have an increase only in the FT
level after the training session. Free testosterone is a hormone
that possesses effective bioactivity at a muscular level. Total
testosterone includes the testosterone linked to the SHBG,
has a greater molecular weight, and therefore is incapable of
traversing the capillary endothelium and integrating with
regulatory elements in the nucleus (32).
Another possible explanation for the different hormone
responses between trained and untrained men may be the
number of androgenic receptors in the trained individuals.
Many studies have demonstrated that strength training
the TM
1622 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
increases the number and sensitivity of androgenic receptors
in muscle cells (6,25,26,29,50), and this process can be an
important mechanism in adaptation to strength training (1).
Thus, it is possible to speculate that the lack of a higher
concentration of testosterone in the SG might have been due
to a greater testosterone receptor interaction after the
workout. In fact, Willoughby and Taylor (50) demonstrated
a positive correlation between testosterone in an acute
response and an increased number of cellular androgenic
receptors (r = 0.89; p , 0.05). However, that hypothesis
must be carefully researched and remains speculative.
On the other hand, it has been shown that the increase in
testosterone induced by exercise may occur due to the
production of lactate influencing the gonadal release (40),
vasodilatory mechanisms in the testicles (42), and an increase
in the sympathetic activity during exercise (10). Thus, it can
be suggested that the different testosterone responses
between groups could be due to adaptations in these
mechanisms resulting from strength training. Some studies
have demonstrated that after physical training, the production
of lactate for the same relative intensity is lower (11,32,44).
Other studies have demonstrated that the increase in
sympathetic activity induced by exercise may be attenuated
after physical training (24). Thus, although the SG performed
a higher absolute workout, the relative intensity was the same
in both groups, and the SSTP load could represent a stronger
metabolic stressor (37,40) in the UG, probably inducing
greater stimulation not only to catabolic hormones, as
observed in the current study, but also to testosterone.
The increased TT-to-SHBG ratio found only in the UG
and the higher values of this variable in the UG after exercise
probably occurred due to the increase in the level of TT in this
group. Additionally, the SG tended to have a higher
concentration of SHBG than the UG (i.e., 35.3 ng
mL1
versus 24.2 ng
mL1; p = 0.07).
Regarding the pituitaryadrenocortical axis, many studies
have shown an increase in the concentrations of DHEA and
cortisol in response to the stress of training (1,30,45,47),
which, in the current study, occurred only in the UG. It is
possible that in the UG there was a higher metabolic stress in
response to high-volume strength exercise, which caused
these responses. Kraemer et al. (32) demonstrated, in
younger and older subjects, lower cortisol responses to
resistance exercise after 10 weeks of training. Indeed, these
authors demonstrated that this adaptation is independent of
adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), probably due to
a down-regulation in ACTH receptors. Although no differ-
ences were found in the TT-to-cortisol ratio, the levels of
cortisol may impair the acute anabolic effect after the training
session. Cortisol is a catabolic hormone, primarily involved in
the degradation of proteins in the skeletal muscles and
known to have an inhibitory effect on gonadal secretion (7,8).
The current results reinforce the notion that a training
session with a large volume can lead to a greater stimulus for
the release of catabolic hormones for untrained individuals

(47) and possibly impair the synthesis of proteins stimulated
after the strength training session.
In the current study, there was a significant correlation
between the levels of DHEA, before and after SSTP, and
strength variables. The DHEA originating from the adrenal
pathways is a precursor of testosterone that by itself in young
men has no significant anabolic effect (4). Although there
may not be a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings
indicate a possible significance in the level of DHEA at rest
and in the magnitude of the increase in this hormone after
SSTP with the production of strength in middle-aged men.
To conclude, the middle-aged men in this study, whether
long-term recreationally strength-trained or untrained, had
different hormonal responses to a training session similar to
those used to achieve muscular hypertrophy, with the trained
subjects demonstrating lower responsiveness in the levels of
testosterone, DHEA, and cortisol and in the TT-to-SHBG
ratio. This difference could be a consequence of higher
metabolic stress in response to a training session in untrained
subjects. However, other mechanisms on a muscle cellular
level, such as a higher androgen receptor interaction in the
SG, could be responsible for the results. The lack of difference
between the concentrations of testosterone at rest between
the groups suggests that the recreational strength training was
not capable of increasing these levels in the population
studied.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study are important because they offer
insights into the hormonal responses of recreationally
strength-trained subjects with no experimentally controlled
training and could be applied to many subjects who train in
gyms. Indeed, the current study indicates that the hormonal
responses to strength training are different between these
subjects and untrained subjects. Thus, a high volume for
untrained individuals can lead to a greater stimulus for the
release of catabolic hormones, and this possibility must be
considered when planning strength training in untrained
subjects. On the other hand, a higher volume of training may
be necessary to elicit the same stimulus and produce a greater
testosterone response to resistance exercise in long-term
trained subjects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We especially thank Mr. Hugo Perez and the graduate
students of Dr. Francisco Lhullier for their support of this
project and Ana Paula Fayh and Marcus Tartaruga for their
help in the data collections. We also gratefully acknowledge
all the subjects who participated in this research and made
this project possible.
REFERENCES
1. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kramer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K.
Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength develop-
ment during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men.
Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 555563, 2003.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
2. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Kramer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K. Acute
hormonal responses to heavy resistance exercise in strength athletes
versus nonathletes. Can J Appl Physiol 229: 52743, 2004.
3. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kramer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K.
Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance
training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal
adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 19:572582, 2005.
4. Aizawa, K, Akimoto, T, Inoue, H, Kimura, F, Joo, M, Murai, F, and
Mesaki, N. Resting serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate level
increases after 8 week resistance training among young females. Eur
J Appl Physiol 90: 575580, 2003.
5. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: the effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8:
235242, 1994.
6. Bamman, MM, Ship, JR, Jiang, J, Gower, BA, Hunter, GR,
Goodman, A, McLafferty, CL Jr, and Urban, RJ. Mechanical load
increases muscle IGF-I and androgen receptor mRNA concentra-
tion in humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 280: 383390, 2001.
7. Brownlee, KK, Moore, AW, and Hackney, AC. Relationship between
circulating cortisol and testosterone: influence of physical exercise.
J Sports Sci Med 4: 7683, 2005.
8. Cumming, DC, Quigley, ME, and Yen, SS. Acute suppression of
circulating testosterone levels by cortisol in men. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 57: 671673, 1983.
9. Durand, JR, Castracane, VD, Hollander, DB, Trynieck, JL, Bamman,
MM, ONeal, S, Hebert, EP, and Kraemer, RR. Hormonal responses
from concentric and eccentric muscle contractions. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 937943, 2003.
10. Fahrner, CL and Hackney, AC. Effects of endurance exercise on free
testosterone concentration and binding affinity of sex hormone
binding globulin (SHBG). Int J Sports Med 19: 1215, 1998.
11. Gorostiaga, EM, Izquierdo, M, Iturralde, P, Ruesta, M, and Ibanez, J.
Effects of heavy resistance training on maximal and explosive force
production, endurance and serum hormones in adolescent handball
players. Eur J Appl Physiol 80: 485493, 1999.
12. Hakkinen, K, Kraemer, WJ, Pakarinen, A, Triplett-McBride, T,
McBride, JM, Hakkinen, A, Alen, M, McGuigan, MR, Bronks, R, and
Newton, RJ. Effects of heavy resistance/power training on maximal
strength, muscle morphology, and hormonal responses patterns in
6075 year-old men and women. Can J Appl Physiol 27: 213231,
2002.
13. Hakkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kauhanen, H, and Komi, PV.
Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength
training in two years. J Appl Physiol 65: 24062412, 1988.
14. Hakkinen, K and Pakarinen, A. Acute hormonal responses to two
different fatiguing heavy-resistance protocols in male athletes. J Appl
Physiol 74: 882887, 1993b.
15. Hakkinen, K and Pakarinen, A. Muscle strength and serum
testosterone, cortisol and SHBG concentrations in middle-aged and
elderly men and women. Acta Physiol Scand 148: 199207, 1993.
16. Hakkinen, K and Pakarinen, A. Serum hormones and strength
development during strength training in middle-aged and elderly
males and females. Acta Physiol Scand 150: 211219, 1994.
17. Hakkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Newton, RU, and Kraemer, WJ. Acute
hormonal responses to heavy resistance lower and upper extremity
exercise in young versus old men. Eur J Appl Physiol 77: 312319,
1998.
18. Hakkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Kramer, WJ, and Newton, RU. Basal
concentrations and acute responses of serum hormones and strength
development during heavy resistance training in middle-aged and
elderly men and women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55: 95105,
2000.
19. Hakkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, A, Valkeinen, H,
and Alen, M. Selective muscle hypertrophy, changes in EMG and
force, and serum hormones during strength training in older women.
J Appl Physiol 91: 569580, 2001.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1623
Hormone Responses to Resistance Exercise
20. Hansen, S, Kvorning, T, Kjar, M, and Sjogaard, G. The effect of
short-term strength training on human skeletal muscle: the
importance of physiologically elevated hormone levels. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 11: 347354, 2001.
21. Heyward, VH and Stolarczyc, LM. Avaliacxao da Composicxao Corporal
Aplicada. Sao Paulo: Manole, 2001. pp. 99105.
22. Hoffman, JR, Im, J, Rundell, KW, Kang, J, Nioka, S, Speiring, BA,
Kim, R, and Chance, B. Effects of muscle oxygenation during
resistance exercise on anabolic hormone response. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 19291934, 2003.
23. Hu, Y, Asano, K, Mizuno, K, Usuki, S, and Kawakura, Y. Serum
testosterone responses to continuous and intermittent exercise
training in male rats. Int J Sports Med 20: 1216, 1999.
24. Izdebska E, Cybulska, I, Izdebskir, J, Makowiecka-Ciesla, M, and
Trzebski, A. Effects of moderate physical training on blood pressure
variability and hemodynamic pattern in mildly hypertensive
subjects. J Physiol Pharmacol 55: 71324, 2004.
25. Inoue, K, Yamasaki, T, Fushiki, T, Kano, T, Moritani, T, Itoh, K, and
Sugimoto, E. Rapid increase in the number of androgen receptors
following electrical stimulation of the rat muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol
66: 134140, 1993.
26. Inoue, K, Yamasaki, T, Fushiki, T, Okada, Y, and Sugimoto, E.
Androgen receptor antagonist suppresses exercise-induced
hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol 69: 8891, 1994.
27. Izquierdo, M, Hakkinen, K, Ibanez, J, Garrues, M, Anton A, Zuniga,
A, Larrion, JL, and Gorostiaga, EM. Effects of strength training on
muscle power and serum hormones in middle-aged and older men.
J Appl Physiol 90: 14971507, 2001.
28. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497504, 1978.
29. Kadi, F, Bonnrud, P, Eriksson, A, and Thornell, LE. The expression
of androgen receptors in human neck and limb muscles: effects of
training and self-administration of androgenic steroids. Histochem
Cell Biol 113: 2529, 2000.
30. Kraemer, WJ, Fleck, SJ, Dziados, JE, Harman, EA, Marchitelli, LJ,
Gordon, SE, Mello, R, Frykman, PN, Koziris, LP, and Triplett, NT.
Changes in hormonal concentrations after different heavy-
resistance exercise protocols in women. J Appl Physiol 75:
594504, 1993.
31. Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Warren, BJ, Stone, MH, SJ, Fleck, SJ, Kearney,
JT, Conroy, BP, Maresh, CM, Weseman, CA, Triplett, NT, and
Gordon, SE. Acute hormonal responses in elite junior weightlifters.
Int J Sports Med 13: 103109, 1992.
32. Kraemer, WJ, Hakkinen, K, Newton, RU, Nindl, BC, Volek, JS,
McCormick, M, Gotshalk, LA, Gordon, SE, Fleck, SJ, Campbell,
WW, Putukian, M, and Evans, WJ. Effects of resistance training on
hormonal response patterns in younger vs. older men. J Appl Physiol
87: 982992, 1999.
33. Kraemer, WJ, Hollander, DB, Reeves, GV, Franc xois, M, Ramadan,
ZG, Meeker, B, Tryniecki, JL, Hebert, EP, and Castracani, VD.
Similar hormonal responses to concentric and eccentric muscle
actions using relative loading. Eur J Appl Physiol 21: 17, 2005.
34. Kraemer, WJ, Loebel, CC, Volek, JS, Ratamess, NA, Newton, RU,
Wickham, RB, Gotshalk, LA, Duncan, ND, Mazzetti, SA, Gomez,
AL, Rubin, MR, Nindl, BC, and Hakkinen, K. The effect of heavy
resistance exercise on the circadian rhythm of salivary testosterone
in men. Eur J Appl Physiol 84: 1318, 2001.
35. Kraemer, WJ, Marchielli, LJ, Gordon, SE, Harman, E, Dziados, JE,
Mello, R, Frykman, P, McCurry, D, and Fleck, SJ. Hormonal and
the TM
1624 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols.
J Appl Physiol 69: 144250, 1990.
36. Kraemer, WJ, Patton, JF, Gordon, SE, Harman, EA, Deschenes, MR,
Reynolds, K, Newton, RU, Triplett, NT, and Dziados, JE.
Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on
hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol 78: 976
989, 1995.
37. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Hormonal responses and
adaptations to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339
361, 2005.
38. Kraemer, WJ, Staron, RS, Hagerman, FC, Hikida, RS, Fry, AC,
Gordon, SE, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Marx, JO, Newton,
RU, and Hakkinen, K. The effects of short-term resistance training
on endocrine function in men women. Eur J Appl Physiol 78: 6976,
1998.
39. Lombardi, VP. Beginning Weight Training: The Safe and Effective Way.
Dubuque, Brown & Benchmark, 1989.
40. Lu, S, Lau, C, Tung, Y, Huang, S, Chen, Y, Shih, H, Tsai, S, Lu, C,
Wang, S, Chen, J, Chien, EJ, Chien, C, and Wang, P. Lactate and the
effects of exercise on testosterone secretion: evidence for the
involvement of cAMP-mediated mechanism. Med Sci Sports Exerc
29: 10481054, 1997.
41. Marx, JO, Ratamess, NA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Dohi,
K, Bush, J, Gomez, AL, Mazzetti, AS, Fleck, SJ, Hakkinen, K,
Newton, RU, and Kraemer, WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-
volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc
33: 635643, 2001.
42. Meskaitis, VJ, Harman, FS, Volek, JS, Nindl, BC, Kraemer, WJ,
Weinstok, D, and Deaver, DR. Effects of exercise on testosterone and
nitric oxide production in the rats testis [abstract]. J Androl Suppl:
31, 1997.
43. Nicklas, BJ, Ryan, AS, Treuth, MM, Harman, SM, Blackman, MR,
Hurley, BF, and Rogers, MA. Testosterone, growth hormone and
IGF-I responses to acute and chronic resistive exercise in men aged
5570 years. Int J Sports Med 16: 405450, 1995.
44. Putman, CT, Jones, NL, and Heigenhauser, GJ. Effects of short-term
training on plasma acid-base balance during incremental exercise in
man. J Physiol 15: 585603, 2003.
45. Raastad, T, Glomsheler, T, Bjoro, T, and Hallen, J. Recovery of
skeletal muscle contractility and hormonal responses to strength
exercise alter two weeks of high-volume strength training. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 13: 159168, 2003.
46. Ryan, AS, Treuch, MS, Rubin, MA, Miller, JP, Nicklas, BJ, Landis,
DM, Pratley, RE, Libanati, CR, Gundeberg, CM, and Hurley, BF.
Effects of strength training on bone mineral density: hormonal
and bone turnover relationships. J Appl Physiol 77: 16781684,
1994.
47. Smilios, I, Pilianidis, T, Karamouzis, M, and Tokmakidis, S. Hormonal
responses after various resistance exercise protocols. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 644654, 2003.
48. Staron, RS, Karapondo, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Gordon, SE,
Falkel, JE, Hagerman, FC, and Hikida, RS. Skeletal muscle
adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men
and women. J Appl Physiol 76: 12471255, 1994.
49. Volek, JS. Influence of nutrition on responses to resistance training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 689696, 2004.
50. Willoughby, DS and Taylor, L. Effects of sequential bouts of
resistance exercise on androgen receptor expression. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 36: 14991506, 2004.