Programming resistance training required for positive effects on body composition in community programmes
Beedie, C., Mann, S., Jimenez, A., Domone, S. and Wade, M. 2016. Programming resistance training required for positive effects on body composition in community programmes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 48 (5S), pp. 543-543.
|Authors||Beedie, C., Mann, S., Jimenez, A., Domone, S. and Wade, M.|
Purpose. Many sedentary adults possess not only a high body fat percentage (BFP), but also low lean body mass (LBM). The latter may predispose metabolic disease such as Type-2 Diabetes. The majority of public health messaging around physical activity centers on habitual (e.g., walking) or purposeful (e.g., jogging) aerobic activity. However, few positive effects on muscle mass result from such activities. Whilst resistance training (RT) is an obvious solution, its effectiveness in public health settings is not demonstrated. We report two community-based RT studies, Study 1 delivered to a sedentary population, Study 2 to overweight and pre-diabetic patients.METHODS: In Study 1 (48-weeks), participants (n=364) were allocated to either programed-exercise (PROG), un-programmed use of a community gym (FREE), or monthly physical activity counseling (PAC). A wait-list control (CONT) was employed. In Study 2 (12-weeks), overweight and pre-diabetic patients (n=141) were randomly assigned to 12 sessions of either supervised exercise (SUP), PAC, or the two combined (COMB). A wait list control was employed.RESULTS: In Study 1, ANOVA indicated significant differences between treatments. PROG performed significantly better than CONT on strength (p= .048) and LBM (p= .009). FREE performed significantly better than CONT on strength (p= .029). Paired-sample t-tests indicated that PROG improved significantly pre-post on strength (p= .001), LBM (p= .036) and BFP (p= .006), whilst improvements in strength only were observed in FREE (p= .01) and PAC (p= .014). In Study 2 ANOVA indicated no significant differences between treatments. However paired-sample t-tests indicated that SUP improved significantly pre-post on strength (p= .01) and BFP (p= .027), with a clear trend also in LBM (p= .074), whilst significantly improved strength only was observed in COMB (p= .026) and PAC (p= .016).CONCLUSIONS: In both studies, whilst statistically significant increases in strength were observed across all treatments, significant improvements in both strength and body composition were observed only in programmed and/or supervised conditions. Collectively data suggest that the programming and supervision of resistance training is beneficial in community settings when improvements in body composition are desired.
|Journal||Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise|
|Journal citation||48 (5S), pp. 543-543|
|Publisher||Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000486633.52665.4f|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||04 Oct 2016|
1views this month
0downloads this month