Posts Tagged ‘research’

Training and Detraining Effects of the Resistance vs. Endurance Program on Body Composition, Body Size, and Physical Performance in Young Men
Lo MS, Lin LL, Yao WJ, Ma MC.
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Jul 8

This was an interesting look at the effects of two different training programs and the results after the participants stopped training.
There were three groups -  a control group (who did nothing), a resistance training group and an endurance training group that both trained three times per week for 24 weeks. The resistance training group performed a circuit of machine exercises - seated chest press, seated lat pull down, seated shoulder press, seated biceps curl, seated triceps extension, seated leg extension, lying leg curl, seated back extension, seated abdominal curl, and standing calf raise. (WHY? Why do researchers focus on this type of training so much? Are there any GOOD “in the field” practitioners still using single joint fixed axis machines?), and the endurance group performed running (30 mins at 70-85% of max heart rate).

After the training period, both groups improved aerobic fitness and lower body strength.
Upper body strength and lean mass increases were significantly greater in the resistance group than the endurance group.

This is the cool part – both groups were then instructed to stop training for the next 24 weeks (not entirely realistic mind you)
The strength and lean mass of the resistance training group were still greater than the start point after 24 weeks of detraining. The interpretation that we can use is that some of the gains from strength training stay with you a lot longer than endurance gains.

The authors concluded:

“Therefore, resistance training is a better choice than endurance training for young men to stay fit. It is thus plausible to hypothesize that resistance training is also more beneficial than endurance training for long lasting positive muscle adaptations (strength and lean body mass) in young men. Therefore, for coaches and personal trainers who are training young men to gain and maintain strength for specific sports, even after training has stopped or to lose weight, resistance training must be incorporated into their training programs.”

As usual – my question is what results would we see if we used a full body, free-weight program that more illustrates what clients are doing today? In other words a program that didn’t have people sitting or lying down for 9/10 exercises :)
What if we combined resistance training and endurance?
Periodized and progressed?
With a good nutrition program? Targeted Supplementation? Great coaching and social support?

Actually these aren’t really my questions. I know the answers. It’s what we do at Results Fitness. We get better results with our clients than almost any study shows (because we combine so many variables). Obviously if you don’t train at all for six months, you lose some of the gains, regardless of what you did to improve, but certain protocols appear to have longer lasting results than others based on this study.

Take home message: resistance training remains the undisputed king of all exercise. Even if you don’t do it at all for six months, , you still keep some of the benefits that regular resistance training gave you.

–
AC

Ok that’s the cheesiest blog title ever…. but here’s another study:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Apr;43(4):624-31
Exercise Intensity Influences NEAT in Overweight and Obese Adults.
Alahmadi M et al.

The researchers compared “non exercise activity thermogenesis” (basically all the calories we burn unrelated to exercise, sleeping or eating) in two groups following exercise: A medium intensity exercise group and a high intensity interval exercise group.

The moderate group walked at a constant pace of 6km per hour. The high intensity group walked at 6km/h at 10 degree inclines for 5 mins, followed by a recovery period of 5 mins at 5kmh and zero degrees. I’m not sure I would call that “High” intensity but it’s definitely higher than the other group. Both groups exercises for one hour.

Here’s the interesting thing – there was no difference in non-exercise activity for two days following the training. However on the third day afterwards, the high intensity exercise group had a 25% higher NEAT compared to the exercise day, and 30-33% higher than pre-exercise days. The medium intensity group showed no change.

So the higher intensity group actually moved more three days after training than the medium intensity group. For whatever reason, (the mechanism that regulates NEAT is unknown), the higher intensity program not only burned more calories during training, but actually had people move 25% more than they did outside of the exercise session on the training day and 33% more than usual a few days after.

My interpretation: we know that higher intensity exercise burns more calories during exercise. We also know that high intensity exercise burns more calories after exercise (through EPOC and anaerobic calorie burns). Now we know that for some reason it also increases non-exercise activity thermogenesis VERY significantly.

The researchers noted “A longer-term intervention is needed to determine the effect of accumulated exercise sessions over a week on NEAT.”

A lot of researchers/internet writers have speculated that higher intensity exercise would leave people too tired to move much afterwards, and perhaps result in them burning less calories overall as a result. This study (while not really “high intensity” in my opinion) actually showed the opposite – people moved more.

–
AC