Manual Resistance Training: an applicable and cost-effective form - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Manual Resistance Training: an applicable and cost-effective form of training – Part 1.

by Sandor Dorgo, Ph.D., CSCS University of Texas at El Paso

Presentation Outline

 Problems with youth obesity and fitness  Importance of resistance training  Manual Resistance Training

Youth obesity and fitness

 Currently 30.4% of U.S. adolescents are

• verweight (7)

 Children have low levels of physical fitness;

 El Paso children with about 55% physical fitness

test passing rates (6)

 Schools are the most ideal settings for youth

health promotion programs (13,18)

 PE classes must be:

 enjoyable to all children  vigorous enough

Obese Children in PE

 Obese children have low strength to body-

weight ratio and low level of cardio fitness

 In PE class obese children:

 experience difficulty performing activities  fatigue rapidly

 PE often further discourages them from

engaging in physical activity (15)

Resistance training for youth

 Previously, youth resistance training was

considered ineffective and unsafe (10,11)

 Today, well-designed youth resistance

training is recognized as:

 safe  effective  beneficial method of conditioning

Resistance training for youth

 Recent research has emphasized the

importance of resistance training for youth fitness and injury prevention (8,9,10,14,15,16,18,19)

 Youth resistance training supported by:

 American Academy of Pediatrics (2)  American College of Sports Medicine (3)  National Strength and Conditioning Association

(10)

Benefits of youth resistance training

 Various physiological benefits

 muscle function, cardiovascular fitness, body

composition, bones, posture, insulin sensitivity, type 2 diabetes, blood lipid profiles, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure

 Improved performance, reduced injury risk  Better self-satisfaction and self-esteem  Enjoyment and enhanced positive attitude

towards exercising (8,9,10,13,15,16,18)

Resistance training for obesity

 Overweight children perform poorly and

fatigue quickly in aerobic type exercises

 Resistance training is enjoyable because:

 it is less aerobically taxing  overweight children can experience success (8,9)

 Absolute strength of overweight children is

usually greater than normal-weight peers (8)

 Through better performance in resistance

training overweight children can earn respect and enhance self-confidence (9)

Advantages of higher- intensity activities

 High-intensity training improves fitness better

than low-intensity exercise (14,15)

 Children with improved fitness can:

 sustain exercises longer  perform greater intensity exercises  expend more overall energy

 Great motivational effects

 large strength gains in short-term  immediate gratification and incentive for

becoming more active (5)

Resistance training in PE

 Traditional resistance training (weight

training) uses a variety of equipment

 free-weights  exercise machines  various accessories

 Weight training is expensive  Due to equipment and budget requirements,

• ften excluded from PE (17)

Manual Resistance Training

 MRT is an applicable alternative (17)  Requires minimal portable and inexpensive

equipment

 PVC pipes, straps, chains  step-boxes, chairs, tables, mats

 Resistance is provided by one or more

partners

 Resisting partner applies accommodating

resistance throughout full range of motion (1)

Manual Resistance Training

 Almost all weight training exercises can be

simulated with MRT exercises

 MRT requires minimal set-up  Provides high-intensity training in short time  Adjustable training stimuli components

 exercise selection and order, number of

exercises, sets, repetitions, rest intervals, and resistance

Illustration of MRT

 Video of identical WRT and MRT exercises  Observe equipment needs of the two

forms

Pilot Study #1 on MRT

 Pilot study conducted at UTEP  84 college students (46 male, 38 female)  Two groups:

 Weight Resistance Training  Manual Resistance Training

 Training program

 14 week training  3 sessions/week, 1 hour/session  Identical exercises, tri-set format, hypertrophy

zone (8-12RM)

Pilot Study #1 on MRT

 Pre- and post-test design  Measurements:

 1 RM bench press and squat  Bench press and squat muscle endurance  VO2max  Body composition

Results of Pilot Study #1

 Males and females in both WRT and MRT

groups showed significant increase in

 1 RM bench press and 1 RM squat  Bench press and squat muscle endurance

 MRT participants showed significant changes

that were comparable to WRT participants in muscular strength and endurance tests

 Females in MRT group showed significant

changes in body composition

Muscular Strength Results

Pre-training test Post-training test Test Gender Group N Mean ± (SD) Mean ± (SD) Change (α) 1RM BP (kg) Male WRT 18 93.2 ± 15.0 98.8 ± 14.3 5.95% <0.001 MRT 28 88.9 ± 24.2 93.1 ± 19.4 4.65% <0.001 Female WRT 13 31.4 ± 5.3 39.4 ± 5.1 25.5% 0.003 MRT 25 30.9 ± 6.6 35.9 ± 7.4 16.1% <0.001 1RM Squat (kg) Male WRT 18 104.5 ± 26.3 133.4 ± 21.8 27.7% <0.001 MRT 26 104.1 ± 29.7 125.5 ± 28.3 20.6% <0.001 Female WRT 13 48.7 ± 16.4 72.2 ± 11.0 48.4% <0.001 MRT 22 44.3 ± 16.2 63.8 ± 18.5 44.0% <0.001

Muscular Endurance

Pre-training test Post-training test Test Gender Group N Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Change (α) BP Reps Male WRT 18 13.1 ± 3.4 17.6 ± 3.3 34.3% <0.001 MRT 25 14.1 ± 2.4 17.2 ± 4.5 21.9% 0.002 Female WRT 13 13.9 ± 4.9 26.2 ± 6.9 88.4% <0.001 MRT 22 13.8 ± 6.0 23.2 ± 8.6 67.7% <0.001 Squat Reps Male WRT 18 17.7 ± 10.8 34.6 ± 15.9 94.9% <0.001 MRT 25 15.7 ± 6.1 28.3 ± 10.2 80.3% <0.001 Female WRT 13 16.3 ± 10.7 45.8 ± 18.3 180.6% <0.001 MRT 22 15.2 ± 12.2 37.1 ± 16.4 144.3% <0.001

Body Composition

Pre-training test Post-training test Test Gender Group N Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Change (α) Sign. Body Fat (%) Male WRT 17 21.5 ± 7.9 20.8 ± 7.2 0.66 0.376 MRT 28 20.7 ± 6.4 20.2 ± 6.4 0.54 0.216 Female WRT 11 29.8 ± 5.8 29.7 ± 6.5 0.16 0.848 MRT 23 29.7 ± 8.7 27.5 ± 8.5 2.25 <0.001

Pilot Study #2

 Purpose

 To document the physical and physiological changes in

adolescents through the application of WRT and MRT programs in physical education settings

 Methods

 Participants: 342 high school students in four groups

(WRT group, MRT group, MRT+cardio group, control PE)

 Pre-, midterm-, and post-test measurements:

 BMI calculations, skinfold measurements  Fitnessgramm: one mile run, push-ups, curl-ups, flexed arm

hang, trunk lift, modified pull-ups

 Training program

 18 weeks, 3 sessions/week, 1:20 hour/session  Identical exercises, tri-set format, hypertrophy zone

Results of Pilot Study #2

 The Control group showed  no significant change in BMI and

significant decrement in most measures

 The MRT group showed  significant increase in curl-up, trunk lift,

push-up, flexarm, and pull-up tests

 MRT-Cardio group showed  significant improvement in mile run, curl-

up, trunk lift, push-up, & pull-up tests

Results of Pilot Study #2

 MRT group was significantly better than

Control group in mile run, curl-up and push-up measures at midterm- and post- test

 MRT-Cardio group was significantly better

than Control group in mile run, curl-up and push-up measures at midterm- and post-test, and in trunk lift at midterm-test

 No groups showed significant

improvement in BMI or skinfold measures

Conclusion

 MRT is appropriate for application in school-

based physical education

 MRT enhanced PE appears to be effective in

improving adolescents’ muscular fitness as measured by the Fitnessgram.

 A combined MRT and cardiovascular training

program effectively improves all aspects of physical fitness, but appears to be ineffective in improving adolescents’ body composition in a short period of time.

Future Plans

 More research on MRT  Research on children and adolescents

References

1.

Adamovich, D. R., Seidman, S. R. (1987). Strength training using MARES (manual accommodating resistance exercises). NSCA Journal, 9(3), 57-59.

2.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Strength training by children and

• adolescents. Pediatrics. 107(6), 1740-1472.

3.

American College of Sports Medicine. (2000). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

4.

Andersen, R. E., Crespo, C., Bartlett, S., Cheskin, L., and Pratt, M. (1998). Relationship of Physical Activity and Television Watching with Body Weight and Levels of Fatness among Children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(12), 938-942.

5.

Bar-Or, O. (2003). The Juvenile Obesity Epidemic: Strike Back with Physical

• Activity. Sports Science Exchange, 16(2).

6.

Coleman, K. J., Heath, E. M., and Alcala, I. S. (2004). Overweight and aerobic fitness in children in the United States Mexico border region. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 15(4), 262-271.

7.

Crespo, C. J., and Arbesman, J. (2003). Obesity in the United States. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 31(11), 23-29.

8.

Faigenbaum, A. D. (2003). Youth resistance Training. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Research Digest, 4(3).

9.

Faigenbaum, A. D. (2002). Strength training for overweight teenagers. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24(5), 67-68.

10.

Faigenbaum, A. D., Kraemer, W. J., Cahill, B., Chandler, J., Dziados, J., Elfrink,

• L. D., Forman, E., Gaudiose M., Micheli L., Nitka M., Roberts, S. (1996). Youth

Resistance Training: Position Statement Paper and Literature Review. Strength and Conditioning, 18(6), 62–76.

References

1.

Falk, B., and Tenenbaum, G. (1996). The effectiveness of resistance training in children - A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 22(3), 176-186.

2.

Gidding, S. S., Leibel, R. L., Daniels, S., Rosenbaum, M., Van Horn, L., and Marx, G. R. (1995). Understanding Obesity in Youth. American Heart Association.

3.

Goran, M. I. (In-press). Effects of Resistance Training on Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes in Overweight Hispanic Boys.

4.

Goran, M. I., Reynolds, K. D., and Lindquist, C. (1999). Role of Physical Activity in the Prevention of Obesity in Children. International Journal of Obesity, 23,

• Suppl. 3, 18-33.

5.

Hunter, G. R., Bamman, M. M., and Hester, D. (2000). Obesity-prone children can benefit from high-intensity exercise. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 22(1), 51-54.

6.

LaFontaine, T. (2002). Preventing obesity and type 2 diabetes in youth. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24(6), 53-56.

7.

Munson, W., W., and Pettigrew, F. E. (1988). Cooperative strength training: a method for preadolescents. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 59(2), 61-66.

8.

Sothern, M. S., Loftin, J. M., Udall, J. N., Suskind, R. M., Ewing, T. L., Tang, S. C., and Blecker, U. (1999). Inclusion of resistance exercise in a multidisciplinary

• utpatient treatment program for preadolescent obese children. South. Med.

Journal, 92(6), 585-592.

9.

Watts, K., Beye, P., Siafarikas, A., Davis, E. A., Jones, T. W., O’Driscoll, G., and Green, D. J. (2004). Exercise Training Normalizes Vascular Dysfunction and Improves Central Adiposity in Obese Adolescents. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43(10), 1823-1827.

Questions?

 Contact info:

 Sandor Dorgo  E-mail: sdorgo@utep.edu  Phone: 914-747-7222