Cargando…

A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training

Common estimates of external training intensity for resistance exercise do not incorporate inter-set recovery duration, and might not reflect the overall demands of training. This study aimed to assess novel metrics of exercise density (ED) during resistance exercise, and how these related to a phys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marston, Kieran J., Peiffer, Jeremiah J., Newton, Michael J., Scott, Brendan R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05953-2
_version_ 1783250766177239040
author Marston, Kieran J.
Peiffer, Jeremiah J.
Newton, Michael J.
Scott, Brendan R.
author_facet Marston, Kieran J.
Peiffer, Jeremiah J.
Newton, Michael J.
Scott, Brendan R.
author_sort Marston, Kieran J.
collection PubMed
description Common estimates of external training intensity for resistance exercise do not incorporate inter-set recovery duration, and might not reflect the overall demands of training. This study aimed to assess novel metrics of exercise density (ED) during resistance exercise, and how these related to a physiological marker of internal training intensity as well as traditional measures of external training intensity and volume. Thirteen males and seven females performed two bouts of resistance exercise focused on developing strength (5 sets of 5 repetitions with 5-repetition maximum; 180 s recovery) and hypertrophy (3 sets of 10 repetitions with 10-repetition maximum; 60 s recovery). Blood lactate concentration was measured to quantify internal training intensity. Specific metrics of external volume (mechanical work, volume load and total repetitions) and intensity (average weight lifted and ED) were calculated. Despite lower average weights and no difference in mechanical work or volume load, blood lactate was greater following hypertrophy compared with the strength condition. This finding was consistent with higher measures of ED in the hypertrophy compared with the strength condition. Greater ED during hypertrophy resistance exercise, along with the significant association with changes in blood lactate, indicates that ED metrics are reflective of the sessional intensity for resistance exercise.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5514046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55140462017-07-19 A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training Marston, Kieran J. Peiffer, Jeremiah J. Newton, Michael J. Scott, Brendan R. Sci Rep Article Common estimates of external training intensity for resistance exercise do not incorporate inter-set recovery duration, and might not reflect the overall demands of training. This study aimed to assess novel metrics of exercise density (ED) during resistance exercise, and how these related to a physiological marker of internal training intensity as well as traditional measures of external training intensity and volume. Thirteen males and seven females performed two bouts of resistance exercise focused on developing strength (5 sets of 5 repetitions with 5-repetition maximum; 180 s recovery) and hypertrophy (3 sets of 10 repetitions with 10-repetition maximum; 60 s recovery). Blood lactate concentration was measured to quantify internal training intensity. Specific metrics of external volume (mechanical work, volume load and total repetitions) and intensity (average weight lifted and ED) were calculated. Despite lower average weights and no difference in mechanical work or volume load, blood lactate was greater following hypertrophy compared with the strength condition. This finding was consistent with higher measures of ED in the hypertrophy compared with the strength condition. Greater ED during hypertrophy resistance exercise, along with the significant association with changes in blood lactate, indicates that ED metrics are reflective of the sessional intensity for resistance exercise. Nature Publishing Group UK 2017-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5514046/ /pubmed/28717150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05953-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Marston, Kieran J.
Peiffer, Jeremiah J.
Newton, Michael J.
Scott, Brendan R.
A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title_full A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title_fullStr A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title_short A comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
title_sort comparison of traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05953-2
work_keys_str_mv AT marstonkieranj acomparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT peifferjeremiahj acomparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT newtonmichaelj acomparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT scottbrendanr acomparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT marstonkieranj comparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT peifferjeremiahj comparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT newtonmichaelj comparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining
AT scottbrendanr comparisonoftraditionalandnovelmetricstoquantifyresistancetraining