Loads and movement speed affect energy expenditure during circuit resistance exercise

Methods to Assess Energy Expenditure of Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Nutrition guidance for athletes must consider a range of variables to effectively support individuals in meeting energy and nutrient needs. Resistance exercise is a widely adopted training method in athlete preparation and rehabilitation and therefore is one such variable that will influence nutrition guidance. Given its prominence, the capacity to meaningfully quantify resistance exercise energy expenditure will assist practitioners and researchers in providing nutrition guidance. However, the significant contribution of anaerobic metabolism makes quantifying energy expenditure of resistance exercise challenging.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the methods used to assess resistance exercise energy expenditure.

METHODS

A literature search of Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Web of Science identified studies that included an assessment of resistance exercise energy expenditure. Quality appraisal of included studies was performed using the Rosendal Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 19,867 studies were identified, with 166 included after screening. Methods to assess energy expenditure included indirect calorimetry (n = 136), blood lactate analysis (n = 25), wearable monitors (n = 31) and metabolic equivalents (n = 4). Post-exercise energy expenditure was measured in 76 studies. The reported energy expenditure values varied widely between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect calorimetry is widely used to estimate energy expenditure. However, given its limitations in quantifying glycolytic contribution, indirect calorimetry during and immediately following exercise combined with measures of blood lactate are likely required to better quantify total energy expenditure. Due to the cumbersome equipment and technical expertise required, though, along with the physical restrictions the equipment places on participants performing particular resistance exercises, indirect calorimetry is likely impractical for use outside of the laboratory setting, where metabolic equivalents may be a more appropriate method.

Is an Energy Surplus Required to Maximize Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy Associated With Resistance Training

Resistance training is commonly prescribed to enhance strength/power qualities and is achieved via improved neuromuscular recruitment, fiber type transition, and/ or skeletal muscle hypertrophy. The rate and amount of muscle hypertrophy associated with resistance training is influenced by a wide array of variables including the training program, plus training experience, gender, genetic predisposition, and nutritional status of the individual. Various dietary interventions have been proposed to influence muscle hypertrophy, including manipulation of protein intake, specific supplement prescription, and creation of an energy surplus. While recent research has provided significant insight into optimization of dietary protein intake and application of evidence based supplements, the specific energy surplus required to facilitate muscle hypertrophy is unknown. However, there is clear evidence of an anabolic stimulus possible from an energy surplus, even independent of resistance training. Common textbook recommendations are often based solely on the assumed energy stored within the tissue being assimilated. Unfortunately, such guidance likely fails to account for other energetically expensive processes associated with muscle hypertrophy, the acute metabolic adjustments that occur in response to an energy surplus, or individual nuances like training experience and energy status of the individual. Given the ambiguous nature of these calculations, it is not surprising to see broad ranging guidance on energy needs. These estimates have never been validated in a resistance training population to confirm the "sweet spot" for an energy surplus that facilitates optimal rates of muscle gain relative to fat mass. This review not only addresses the influence of an energy surplus on resistance training outcomes, but also explores other pertinent issues, including "how much should energy intake be increased," "where should this extra energy come from," and "when should this extra energy be consumed." Several gaps in the literature are identified, with the hope this will stimulate further research interest in this area. Having a broader appreciation of these issues will assist practitioners in the establishment of dietary strategies that facilitate resistance training adaptations while also addressing other important nutrition related issues such as optimization of fuelling and recovery goals. Practical issues like the management of satiety when attempting to increase energy intake are also addressed.

Effects of linear periodization versus daily undulating periodization on neuromuscular performance and activities of daily living in an elderly population

BACKGROUND

Periodization is a systematic training calendar designed to provide variations in performance targeting, while maximizing results and reducing the potential for overtraining. When provided across multiple weeks, termed a mesocycle, it may also incorporate active recovery periods using specified drills designed to translate neuromuscular gains into targeted functional abilities. There are a number of models that can be used when applying periodization to resistance training (RT). Among the most common are the linear (LP) and daily fixed non-linear (NLP) models. It is currently unknown whether an optimal periodization strategy exists that will maximize benefits for older adults; therefore, we compared the impact of these two periodization models on neuromuscular and functional measures in a group of older persons living independently in the community.

METHODS

Thirty-six older adults, 58-80 years of age, were randomly assigned to either a LP (n = 16; 69.3 ± 4.6 y) or NLP (n = 14; 68.9 ± 6.7 y) group. The LP group performed 12 weeks of training comprised of separate 4-week strength and power training cycles, each followed by a 2-week recovery period incorporating translational exercises. The NLP group performed the strength, power, and translational training on three separate days during the week. Neuromuscular testing included seated chest press and leg press strength and power tests, while physical function testing included the gallon jug shelf test, laundry transfer test, floor stand-up, chair-to-stand test, and 8 foot timed up-and-go.

RESULTS

3 (time) × 2 (sex) × 2 (group) repeated measures ANOVA revealed both periodization strategies were equally effective at inducing neuromuscular and functional improvements and that men generally produced more strength and power than women.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LP and NLP can be used to improve strength, power, and functional performance in healthy untrained older adults when strength, power and functional training cycles are involved. Therefore, personal preference and variety should be considered when deciding which approach to use, provided high-speed power and translational recovery components are included.