Full-body Resistance Training Research Articles

Strategies for Increasing Physical Activity and Healthy Lifestyles for the Individual With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Strategies for Increasing Physical Activity and Healthy Lifestyles for the Individual With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Effects of acute carbohydrate ingestion on anaerobic exercise performance.

BackgroundCarbohydrate (CHO) supplementation during endurance exercises has been shown to increase performance, but there is limited research with CHO supplementation during strength and conditioning exercises. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of various levels of CHO ingestion during acute testing sessions requiring participants to complete a strength and conditioning program designed for collegiate athletes.MethodsParticipants (n = 7) performed a series of exercises while ingesting an amino-acid electrolyte control (CON) or CON plus varying levels of CHO. The CHO beverages delivered a 2:1 (glucose: fructose) ratio at rates of 15 g/h, 30 g/h, and 60 g/h. The exercise protocol consisted of a series of short sprints, full body resistance training exercises, jumping, and shuttle running. Performance measurements were taken for sprint times, repetitions until failure [bench press, bent over row, biceps curl, overhead triceps extension], summation of total repetitions for all repetitions until failure, repetitions in a set time for two-foot line jumps, and 137-m shuttle times.ResultsA significant main effect (p < 0.05) was found in relation to CHO dose during the bench press final set repetitions to failure. Pairwise comparison with Bonferroni’s correction identified that there was significant difference (p = 0.0024) between the dosage of 15 g/h and CON during bench press. Inferential statistics identified overall RT performance with a dosage of 15 g/h compared to 60 g/h and CON was 99.2 % (very likely) and 96.7 % (very likely) to have a beneficial effect.ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest acute ingestion of CHO does not result in decrements in performance and may provide a beneficial effect to strength and conditioning performance. Strength and conditioning coaches may recommend their athletes ingest CHO during training sessions in order to maximize muscular adaptations.

Effect of Regular Resistance Training on Motivation, Self-Perceived Health, and Quality of Life in Previously Inactive Overweight Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Objectives. The aim was to investigate the effects of three different types of resistance training implementation. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Methods. Inactive, overweight women (n = 143), mean BMI 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m2, mean age 39.9 ± 10.5 years, were randomized to one of the following groups: A (BodyPump group training), B (individual follow-up by a personal trainer), C (nonsupervised exercise), or D (controls). The intervention included 12 weeks of 45–60 minutes' full-body resistance training three sessions per week. The outcomes in this paper are all secondary outcome measures: exercise motivation, self-perceived health, and quality of life. Results. Adherence averaged 26.1 ± 10.3 of 36 prescribed sessions. After the intervention period, all three training groups (A–C) had better scores on exercise motivation (A = 43.9 ± 19.8, B = 47.6 ± 15.4, C = 48.4 ± 17.8) compared to the control group (D) (26.5 ± 18.2) (p < 0.001). Groups B and C scored better on self-perceived health (B = 1.9 ± 0.8, C = 2.3 ± 0.8), compared to group D (3.0 ± 0.6) (p < 0.001). For quality of life measurement, there was no statistically significant difference between either intervention groups or the control. Conclusions. Resistance training contributed to higher scores in important variables related to exercise motivation and self-perceived health. Low adherence showed that it was difficult to motivate previously inactive, overweight women to participate in regular strength training.

Discussion of "The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention"--Pre-exhaustion exercise and neuromuscular adaptations: an inefficient method?

Dear Editor, we appreciated reading the article by Fisher et al. (2014), entitled “The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention”, published in the November 2014 issue of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (APNM). This article determined the effects of a 12-week pre-exhaustion training intervention on muscular strength and body composition, comparing chronic adaptations between 3 groups: a pre-exhaustion group, a group performing the same exercises in the same order with moderate rest intervals between exercises, and a group performing the same exercises in a different order. The results showed no significant difference betweengroup effects for strength in chest press (1.32, 1.67, and 1.25 effect size), leg press (1.15, 1.36, and 1.89 effect size), or pull-down (1.82, 1.49, and 1.54 effect size) exercises, or for lean body mass (0.41 ± 1.08; –0.34 ± 3.37; –0.40 ± 0.60 kg) changes in pre-exhaustion group without rest interval and pre-exhaustion group with 60 s of rest interval between exercises and control group, respectively. The conflicting results regarding the hypothesis of the preexhaustion method originally proposed by Jones (1970) and the results of Fisher et al. (2014) on muscle performance and body composition changes can be, at least in part, explained by the lack of a gold-standard and/or most appropriate methods to analyze important variables regarding muscle hypertrophy and training. For example, the authors mention the recommendations of the American College of Sport Medicine (ACSM) for trained individuals, a recommendation based on the totality of the research literature. However, these authors suggest that single set resistance training leading to failure is far more time-efficient to increase muscle strength, and even acknowledge that this can be an alternative recommendation to increase muscle strength. However, for trained subjects, it is important to note that resistance training volume can increase the magnitude of muscle strength improvements (Krieger 2010). Moreover, 2 acute studies of Gentil et al. (2007) and Augustsson et al. (2003) revealed that the pre-exhaustion method does not increase muscle electromyographic activity. However, Junior et al. (2010) found that when the pre-exhaustion method was performed not to failure, the magnitude of motor units’ recruitment was higher when a single-joint exercise preceded a multijoint exercise. It has also been shown that muscle strength can increase even without a significant increase in muscle electromyographic activity (evaluated as the root mean square of the electromyography (EMG) signals) (Watanabe et al. 2014). It has been proposed that muscle hypertrophy can be achieved by the pre-exhaustion method based on the hypothesis that a target muscle can be exhausted with an isolation exercise preceding a compound exercise without rest (Schoenfeld 2013). Thus, thismethodwould increase the time under tension andmetabolic stress, a method that has been widely and empirically used by bodybuilders (Schoenfeld 2013). The metabolic stress manifested by accumulation of metabolites, such as lactate and H+ ions, and acute muscle hypoxia associated with resistance training can mediate hypertrophic adaptations, such as cellular swelling and alterations in local myokines, including interleukin-6 (Schoenfeld 2013). In this sense, considering the possible higher metabolic stress induced by the pre-exhaustion method, it is surprising that no metabolic measures or any other valuable markers of hypertrophy were obtained in the study of Fisher et al. (2014). Moreover, to draw precise conclusions regarding muscle hypertrophy, magnetic resonance and ultrasound should be used, while this was not the case. In our opinion it is premature to assume that pre-exhaustion training offers no greater benefit than a traditional resistance training approach, at least formuscle hypertrophy and for strengthwhen more sets are incorporated. Although the authors mention the lack of dietetic control, this is clearly a study limitation. Also, the lack of modifications in body composition may also be the result of a very low-volume training, considering the trained background of the studied subjects. It has been widely shown that training-induced improvements will be reduced as training progresses (Rhea 2004). The study should also provide more details regarding the training background of participants as this can result in significant variations. Additionally, there is no mention of the presence of high responders versus low responders in each group. This may also help to explain the results. For example, Garcia et al. (2014) found that the allocation of the groups resulted in bias because more high responders were unintentionally located in the multiple-sets group as compared with a group submitted to a tri-set method. This may also confound data interpretation. Thus, the identification of responders and nonresponders to resistance training may help to avoid data misinter-

Reply to "Discussion of 'The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention'--Pre-exhaustion exercise and neuromuscular adaptations: an inefficient method?".

Reply to "Discussion of 'The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention'--Pre-exhaustion exercise and neuromuscular adaptations: an inefficient method?".

The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention.

Pre-exhaustion (PreEx) training is advocated on the principle that immediately preceding a compound exercise with an isolation exercise can target stronger muscles to pre-exhaust them to obtain greater adaptations in strength and size. However, research considering PreEx training method is limited. The present study looked to examine the effects of a PreEx training programme. Thirty-nine trained participants (male = 9, female = 30) completed 12 weeks of resistance training in 1 of 3 groups: a group that performed PreEx training (n = 14), a group that performed the same exercise order with a rest interval between exercises (n = 17), and a control group (n = 8) that performed the same exercises in a different order (compound exercises prior to isolation). No significant between-group effects were found for strength in chest press, leg press, or pull-down exercises, or for body composition changes. Magnitude of change was examined for outcomes also using effect size (ES). ESs for strength changes were considered large for each group for every exercise (ranging 1.15 to 1.62). In conclusion, PreEx training offers no greater benefit to performing the same exercises with rest between them compared with exercises performed in an order that prioritises compound movements.

One-set resistance training elevates energy expenditure for 72 h similar to three sets

To compare the effects of an acute one versus three-set full body resistance training (RT) bout in eight overweight (mean ± SD, BMI = 25.6 ± 1.5 kg m(-2)) young (21.0 ± 1.5 years) adults on resting energy expenditure (REE) measured on four consecutive mornings following each protocol. Participants performed a single one-set or three-set whole body (10 exercises, 10 repetition maximum) RT bout following the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines for RT. REE and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) by indirect calorimetry were measured at baseline and at 24, 48, and 72 h after the RT bout. Participants performed each protocol in randomized, counterbalanced order separated by 7 days. There was no difference between protocols for REE or RER. However, REE was significantly (p < 0.05) elevated (~5% or ~400 kJ day(-1)) in both the protocols at 24, 48, and 72 h post RT bout compared with baseline. There was a no change in RER in both the protocols at 72 h compared to baseline. A one-set RT bout following the ACSM guidelines for RT and requiring only ~15 min to complete was as effective as a three-set RT bout (~35 min to complete) in elevating REE for up to 72 h post RT in overweight college males, a group at high risk of developing obesity. The one-set RT protocol may provide an attractive alternative to either aerobic exercise or multiple-set RT programs for weight management in young adults, due to the minimal time commitment and the elevation in REE post RT bout.

Impact Of Dehydration To 3% Body Weight On A Full Body Resistance Training Protocol

While resistance training is a common training mode, the potential impact of dehydration is not well-understood. If dehydration impairs daily resistance training overload, then subsequent training-induced gains may be sub-optimal. PURPOSE: This study examined effects of dehydration (3% of bodyweight) on resistance training performance. METHODS: Ten males completed two trials: heat exposed (∼39° C hot water bath) with water replacement offsetting dehydration (HE) and heat exposure with 3% dehydration (DEHY). Using their 12 rep max resistance (12RM), participants performed three sets to failure of bench press (bench), lat pull down (lat), overhead press (press), barbell curl (curl), triceps press (tri), and leg press (leg). RESULTS: A paired t-test showed a significant difference for total reps (HE: 169.4 ± 29.1 vs. DEHY: 144.1 ± 26.6). ANOVAs showed significantly lower reps for DEHY vs. HE for bench, lat, press, curl, tri, and leg (DEHY average ∼1-2 reps lower per exercise). Pre-set RPE was significantly higher in DEHY vs. HE for bench, lat, press, curl, tri, and leg (DEHY ∼0.6 to 1.1 units higher on average). Pre-set heart rate (HR) was significantly higher for DEHY than HE for bench, lat, press, curl, tri, and leg (DEHY ∼6 -13 b·min-1 higher on average). Session RPE approached significance (DEHY: 8.6 ± 1.9, HE: 7.4 ± 2.3) (p = 0.06), with recovery HR significantly higher for DEHY (116 ± 15) vs. HE (105 ± 13). CONCLUSIONS: Dehydration (3%) significantly reduced repetitions performed during a whole body resistance training session. Furthermore, elevated pre-set HR and RPE with dehydration indicated attenuated recovery between sets. Recovery HR was also higher for DEHY than HE also suggesting dehydration impaired recovery. Current results suggest dehydration may inhibit maximum performance in routine strength training. Dehydration magnifies feelings of exertion (RPE) and may lead to sub-optimal overload, compromising training-induced gains.

Resting Energy Expenditure and Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness After Full-Body Resistance Training With an Eccentric Concentration

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of an acute bout of high-volume, full-body resistance training with an eccentric concentration on resting energy expenditure (REE) and indicators of delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Eight resistance trained (RT) and eight untrained (UT) participants (mean: age = 23.5 years; height = 180.76 cm; weight = 87.58 kg; body fat = 19.34%; lean mass = 68.71 kg) were measured on four consecutive mornings for REE and indicators of DOMS: creatine kinase (CK) and rating of perceived muscle soreness (RPMS). Delayed-onset muscle soreness was induced by performing eight exercises, eight sets, and six repetitions using a 1-second concentric and 3-second eccentric muscle action duration. A two-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed that REE was significantly (p < 0.05) elevated at 24, 48, and 72 hours post compared with baseline measures for both UT and RT groups. Ratings of perceived muscle soreness were significantly elevated within groups for UT and RT at 24 and 48 hours post and for UT only at 72 hours post compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Nonparametric analyses revealed that CK was significantly increased at 24 hours post for both UT and RT and at 48 and 72 hours post for UT only compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Resting energy expenditure and indicators of DOMS were higher in UT compared with RT on all measures, but no significant differences were determined. The main finding of this investigation is that full-body resistance training with an eccentric concentration significantly increased REE up to 72 hours postexercise in UT and RT participants.