Cargando…

A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training

Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giessing, J, Eichmann, B, Steele, J, Fisher, J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Institute of Sport in Warsaw 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601778
http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1201813
_version_ 1782449114452066304
author Giessing, J
Eichmann, B
Steele, J
Fisher, J
author_facet Giessing, J
Eichmann, B
Steele, J
Fisher, J
author_sort Giessing, J
collection PubMed
description Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n = 13; females, n = 17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n = 16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n = 14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4993139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Institute of Sport in Warsaw
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49931392016-09-07 A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training Giessing, J Eichmann, B Steele, J Fisher, J Biol Sport Original Paper Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n = 13; females, n = 17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n = 16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n = 14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome. Institute of Sport in Warsaw 2016-05-10 2016-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4993139/ /pubmed/27601778 http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1201813 Text en Copyright © Biology of Sport 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Giessing, J
Eichmann, B
Steele, J
Fisher, J
A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title_full A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title_fullStr A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title_short A comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
title_sort comparison of low volume 'high-intensity-training' and high volume traditional resistance training methods on muscular performance, body composition, and subjective assessments of training
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601778
http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1201813
work_keys_str_mv AT giessingj acomparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT eichmannb acomparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT steelej acomparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT fisherj acomparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT giessingj comparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT eichmannb comparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT steelej comparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining
AT fisherj comparisonoflowvolumehighintensitytrainingandhighvolumetraditionalresistancetrainingmethodsonmuscularperformancebodycompositionandsubjectiveassessmentsoftraining