Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption Energy Expenditure of Muscular Endurance and Strength: 1-Set of Bench Press to Muscular Fatigue

Environmental Science, Health and Policy, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine, USA.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 2.08). 04/2011; 25(4):903-8. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c6a128
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We use a new approach to the estimation of energy expenditure for resistance training involving nonsteady state measures of work (weight × displacement), exercise O2 uptake, blood lactate, and recovery O2 uptake; all lifts were performed to muscular failure. Our intent was to estimate and compare absolute and relative aerobic and anaerobic exercise energy expenditure and recovery energy expenditure. Single-set bench press lifts of ∼ 37, ∼ 46, and ∼ 56% (muscular endurance-type exercise) along with 70, 80, and 90% (strength-type exercise) of a 1 repetition maximum were performed. Collectively, the muscular endurance lifts resulted in larger total energy expenditure (60.2 ± 14.5 kJ) as compared with the strength lifts (43.2 ± 12.5 kJ) (p = 0.001). Overall work also was greater for muscular endurance (462 ± 131 J) as opposed to strength (253 ± 93 J) (p = 0.001); overall work and energy expenditure were related (r = 0.87, p = 0.001). Anaerobic exercise and recovery energy expenditure were significantly larger for all strength lifts as compared with aerobic exercise energy expenditure (p < 0.001). For the muscular endurance lifts, anaerobic energy expenditure was larger than recovery energy expenditure (p < 0.001) that in turn was larger than aerobic exercise energy expenditure (p < 0.001). We conclude that for a single set of resistance training to fatigue, the anaerobic and recovery energy expenditure contributions can be significantly larger than aerobic energy expenditure during the exercise. To our surprise, recovery energy expenditure was similar both within strength and muscular-endurance protocols and between protocols; moreover, recovery energy expenditure had little to no relationship with aerobic and anaerobic exercise energy expenditure or work.

Download full-text


Available from: Kelly Ahearn, Sep 29, 2015
1 Follower
223 Reads
  • Source
    • "Through investigations of both single and multiple sets of resistance training, we have found the energetic profile of intermittent exercise to be the opposite of steady state models (Scott, 2006; Scott et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2011a; Scott et al., 2011b; Scott, 2012a; Scott, 2012b). Accordingly, our research has made four primary distinctions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To date, steady state models represent the only acceptable methodology for the estimation of exercise energy costs. Conversely, comparisons made between continuous and intermittent exercise generally reveal major physiological discrepancies, leading to speculation as to why steady state energy expenditure models should be applied to intermittent exercise. Under intermittent conditions, skeletal muscle invokes varying aerobic and anaerobic metabolic responses, each with the potential to make significant contributions to overall energy costs. We hypothesize that if the aerobic-only energetic profile of steady state exercise can be used to estimate the energetics of non-steady state and intermittent exercise, then the converse also must be true. In fact, reasonable estimates of energy costs to work volumes or work rates can be demonstrated under steady state, non-steady state and intermittent conditions; the problem with the latter two is metabolic variability. Using resistance training as a model, estimates of both aerobic and anaerobic energy cost components, as opposed to one or the other, have reduced the overall energetic variability that appears inherent to brief, intense, intermittent exercise models.
    Journal of Human Kinetics 09/2013; 38(1):107-13. DOI:10.2478/hukin-2013-0050 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We retrospectively investigated data from two separate studies to estimate and compare aerobic and anaerobic exercise energy expenditure (EE) along with the aerobic recovery EE component for 1-set of resistance exercise. One study was completed using non-fatiguing lifts where the exercise was stopped before muscular failure. In another study muscular failure (fatigue) was the end point of all lifts. Work (weight lifted × upward vertical displacement) and all EE components were examined. Non-fatiguing lifts were carried out at 50% of a 1-RM for 7, 14 and 21 repetitions. Lifts to failure were carried out at ~37%, ~46%, ~56%, 70%, 80% and 90% of a 1-RM. Individual regression lines were created for fatigue and non-fatigue conditions for each male subject between work and all estimates of EE. The results of our analyses showed that the averaged slopes between fatigue and non-fatigue were proportional for: total EE/work (p = 0.87), anaerobic exercise EE/work, (p= 0.73) and recovery EE/work (p = 0.19). However, the Y-intercepts of the two studies were significantly greater for fatiguing as compared to non-fatiguing lifting for: total EE/work (p = 0.007), anaerobic exercise EE/work (p = 0.001) and recovery EE/work (p = 0.01), but not aerobic exercise EE/work (p = 0.17). For aerobic exercise EE/work, lifting to fatigue had a greater O2 uptake/work slope as compared to lifts that were not completed to fatigue (p = 0.04). We conclude that lifting a weight to muscular failure can entail significantly greater aerobic, anaerobic and recovery EE components as compared to non-fatiguing lifting.
    Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 02/2011; 14(1-1):1-10.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of resistance exercises and of typical strength training methods have been progressively used to control body mass and to promote fat mass loss. The difficulties involved in the energy cost calculation during strength training are associated with the large amount of exercises and their several variations. Mean values between ≈3 and 30 kcal·min(-1) are typically reported but our studies indicate that it may attain values as high as 40 kcal·min(-1) in exercises which involve a large body mass. Therefore, in our opinion, the next step in research must be the isolated study of each of the main resistance exercises. Since the literature is scarce and that we do consider that the majority of the studies present severe limitations, the aim of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the energy cost estimation methods and provide some insights that may help to improve knowledge on resistance exercise. It seems necessary to rely on the expired O2 measurements to quantify aerobic energy. However, it is warranted further attention on how this measure is performed during resistance exercises. In example, studies on the O2 on-kinetics at various conditions are warranted (i.e. as a function of intensity, duration and movement speed). As for anaerobic lactic energy, it is our opinion that both the accumulated oxygen deficit and the blood lactate energy equivalent deserve further studies; analyzing variations of each method as an attempt to establish which is more valid for resistance exercise. The quantification of alactic anaerobic energy should be complemented by accurate studies on the muscle mass involved in the different resistance exercises. From the above, it is concluded that knowledge on the energy cost in resistance exercises is in its early days and that much research is warranted before appropriate reference values may be proposed.
    Journal of Human Kinetics 09/2011; 29A:33-9. DOI:10.2478/v10078-011-0056-3 · 1.03 Impact Factor
Show more