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: 1.86). 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.

1 Follower
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prototype modeling of biological energy exchange invokes per minute measurements of oxygen uptake (l min-1), including exercise. While dedicated to steady rate power outputs, the oxygen uptake rate function model is now appropriated to intermittent exercise as well with resistance training serving as a primary example. Resistance training energy costs as described here are not properly portrayed by steady state oxygen uptake models - indeed, such application lacks validity. We instead suggest that the energy costs of brief, intense, intermittent exercise should be quantified in the context of a capacity estimate, where a bout of exercise and/or amount of work (J) completed is associated with a specific energy cost (kJoules). For resistance exercise, we propose linear models that measure work and energy bouts as an alternative to the steady state rate model.
  • Source
    [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; 38:107-13. DOI:10.2478/hukin-2013-0050 · 0.70 Impact Factor


Available from
May 22, 2014